Chess Candidates Forums
Chessgames.com Forum Roundup
With the 2026 Candidates Tournament just days away, the discussion boards have been buzzing. On Chessgames.com—one of the oldest and most passionate online chess communities—members have been dissecting everything from qualification controversies to dark‑horse predictions. Here’s a roundup of the key threads and opinions that have emerged.
User Teyss reignited the controversy around Hikaru Nakamura’s qualification, detailing how the American played 22 games in small opens (Louisiana, Iowa, Maritime, Dulles) against opponents averaging just 2090 Elo to reach the 40‑game threshold. “Each one can decide if it is the same type of gaming as for Ding in 2022 and Firouzja in 2024,” Teyss wrote, adding that Nakamura himself called these “Mickey Mouse” tournaments.
Fabelhaft offered a comparative defence: “Nakamura had a huge lead and if he had lost 20 games in a row at the end of the period that was counted he would still have taken the rating spot … The events were not arranged specifically for Nakamura … In his case I think it more was about not wanting to make any effort when it wasn’t required.” Meanwhile, Teyss pointed out that Arjun Erigaisi would have qualified if Nakamura hadn’t played those tournaments—a point that resonated with many.
Several posters lamented the absence of the rising Indian star. Teyss compiled Erigaisi’s impressive resume: 2801 peak rating, gold at the Budapest Olympiad, and a string of top‑three finishes. Yet his poor showings at Tata Steel Masters (13th in 2026) raised doubts. “Wijk aan Zee is arguably a step above the other tournaments and maybe even a step below the Candidates hence no regrets,” Teyss concluded. The discussion highlighted how close the qualification margins are and how one player’s tactical route can close the door on another.
Forum members offered a wide range of forecasts. Here are some of the most discussed:
offramp
Wei Yi +5, Pragg +4, Sindarov +3, Nakamura -2, Caruana -2
Atterdag
Favourites: Caruana, Wei Yi, Pragg (in that order). Nakamura unknown factor.
Sally Simpson
“I’ll tip Esipenko. He has a good dollop of experience and still the bravado of youth.”
Barmoiben
“I see Sindarov pulling a Gukesh and winning.”
keithbc and Sally Simpson debated the tournament vs. match format, with Simpson noting that “finance dictates the format” – matches were too long and expensive, so the compact double round‑robin is here to stay.
keithbc mourned the loss of the Candidates match cycle: “I used to love the candidates MATCHES. Full of tension from the word go. I so dislike this tournament when, at the finish, other players, not in contention, can sway the result in the favour of their countryman.”
MissScarlett and Troller pointed out that suspicions remain even with early pairings of compatriots, citing Nepomniachtchi–Alekseenko (2021) and Caruana–So (2018) as examples. However, Atterdag and Teyss defended the tournament format, arguing it reduces the randomness of knockouts and the influence of a single blunder.
Sally Simpson offered the pragmatic view: “Finance dictates the format. The match system … took too long and was a bit of a slog … This way it is cheaper to run, one venue, 18 days and it is all over. More importantly, the cash cow, the world final, comes round every two years.”
The conversation inevitably turned to past qualification controversies. Fabelhaft argued that Ding Liren’s 2022 arrangement—a specially organised round‑robin where all non‑Ding games were drawn—was far more egregious than Nakamura’s strategy. “The games looked suspicious, to say the least. And the players that were picked to participate obviously knew what the point of the event was.”
Alireza Firouzja’s 2024 scramble was considered less questionable: “First there were a couple of matches arranged that seemed fishy but they were never counted by FIDE, so the way Firouzja eventually qualified was just by scoring 100% in a ‘normal’ open where he won against among others Kamsky.”
Teyss concluded the thread with a sense of closure: “But enough of the past, we can look forward to enjoying the new Candidates.”
As the tournament approaches, the forum is split between those who see an open field and those who expect a Wei Yi or Sindarov upset. Sally Simpson warned about paranoia: “With the huge amounts of money in the kitty both during and after the events it is only natural for us paranoiac chess players to suspect the worse.” But the overall mood is one of anticipation. The double round‑robin, with its built‑in drama and daily leaderboard shifts, remains the format that most fans—despite nostalgia for matches—have come to embrace.
One thing is clear: when the first move is made on 29 March, the debates will fade, and the board will speak for itself.
Comments
Post a Comment