Your idea in the last pargraph is similar to mine- except in mine you are effectively playing the tiebreak at the same time as the match instead of afterwards. You could argue I was going to win in the next pair of games- would be like saying I won a later game.

At the time you lost the first game (you were the first one to lose) you lost the tiebreak even if you were going to win a later game.

Well, while I am certainly NOT an Anand "fan"; (I am "rooting" for Gelfand to win this match over Anand), I also DO want to say that I DO consider Anand to BE one of the TRUE top-level World Chess Champions IN the Steinitz line of World Chess Champions.


Chess Fan

Except for champion retains on a draw. That's been used before, so it could theoretically return, after Kirsan is gone.


Well, as I say, I could live even with the current one, so long as the tiebreak was played before the match rather than after. That would eliminate the problem of two players bypassing the main match and going straight for the tiebreak.


It seems reasonable enough. With draw odds, there's always one player who does not benefit from a draw. Under the current system, it's possible for both players to be happy with a draw (if they're content to skip the match and go to the tiebreak).


Again, that's only one player wanting a draw, not both players.



Actually, it was a simple description of all previous matches. Kramnik didn't create that, he simply described it.



Yes, of course. Before 2000, all "Best Of" matches had draw odds. The only matches that didn't have draw odds were ones with a win requirement. The last championship match before 2006 that didn't have draw odds was Karpov-Kasparov I.



There's every reason, and here's why. In none of those other sports you name do the players have the ability to agree to simply give themselves points without earning them.

And not all tiebreaks are accelerated. In basketball, hockey and others, they play a full extra quarter. In football, they play the same game as before, until someone scores again. Same with baseball. It's exactly the same game as before, but one inning at a time. They don't have a home run shootout or anything like that.



Not two, just one. If you're prepared to see the title change hands on a 5 minute game (maybe even a drawn 5 minute game), I don't see how you can be squeamish over the possibility that one player (not necessarily the winner) might get an extra White.

So, the World Championship match ends in a tie. 6-6. I think this match was deadlocked throughout with neither player being able to prove his dominance. Maybe it was one of the most 'boring' matches in the last 10 years in that sense.

I had expected Anand to have an easy time, instead Gelfand put up a very strong resistance, except for one or two games. Anand was a bit off form, may be even late to wake up and realise that this match would be one the toughest he faced in recent times, and not what was supposed to be an easy task.

Is it too late to introduce 16 game matches? I think that is ideal , we cannot complain about short match , 12 looks a bit short. Just when One of the players started to take the initiative, the match is over !. I also don't think much of the rapids/ tiebreaks, and i think Anand will not have any particular advantage there. ( past records do not mean a thing in crucial situations ). I have a feeling Anand will find Gelfand to be very strong in rapids as well. I think that Anand is still the better player, but like Kasparov said, he has to prove it over and over again, only this time it will be in rapids. Gelfand did acheive one thing - Anand is now out of the world top five for the first time since 1992 or 1994(if i recall from memory) , i think, which indicates a change of times !

btw, Is it possible to 'lift' this title to the 'World Senior Championships' ? given that only ONE of the games even crossed the 40 move.

For "boring", substitute "chessless". The meta-contest is quite exciting. Mitzvah is taking it down to the wire against a much stronger opponent. But the games themselves are short and fairly lifeless.


I had expected Anand to have an easy time, instead Gelfand put up a very strong resistance, except for one or two games. Anand was a bit off form,


Maybe so. I think 2010 was very tough for him, and maybe deep down he wanted an easy match this time. I think he faced the same problem that Smyslov and Tal faced in their return matches. They'd just beaten the World Champion in a match that left no room for doubt about the correctness of the outcome. Then to be asked to prove themselves again the very next year against the same guy must have just felt wrong. I think that deep down, each wanted to win that return match without expending too much energy on it, and weren't prepared for the determined opponent they faced. I think TwoSheds wasn't prepared either. Maybe if he survives this encounter, he'll be more of a Tiger next time.

It's too late to turn this into a 16 game match, and it wouldn't be fair to change it now anyway. But even if we do have a 16 game match next time, I think there will be a similar problem unless we a) use Sofia Rules, and b) play the tiebreaker before the main match.

In some ways this match reminds me of Kramnik-Leko: An off-form champion and a challenger who's perhaps not the strongest possible one, but very solid and well prepared. It's natural that such a pairing won't bring the most fighting chess. We did have pretty good matches like Kramnik-Topalov, Anand-Kramnik and Anand-Topalov under the same rules.

The difference with Kramnik-Leko was, of course, that the draw odds always put one player in a must-win situation. But I think draw odds are too much of an advantage for the champion, especially in relatively short matches. I'm not convinced of the other proposed solutions either. A tie-break at the beginning would seem rather anti-climactic, as you don't even know whether it will count for the final score. And any unlimited play-off (be it single games or pairs) is simply not practicable these days. So I think a rapid play-off is an acceptable, although not ideal, solution. 4 rapid games seem quite reasonable, not worse than, say, a tie-break in tennis, or extra time in soccer, hockey or basketball. I do think Armageddon games should be abolished, just let them play pairs of regular blitz until there's a winner. It may also be possible to have 2 additional rapid games if the match is still tied after the first 4 rapid games before going to blitz. If they can play classical games of up to 7 hours on one day they should also be able to play about 6 hours of rapid games. Or have a second day of play-offs with 4 more rapid games.

I also think having 16-game title matches would somewhat reduce the fear of losing as you have more chances to come back after a loss, and would also make it more difficult for the players to just try to reach a tie-break.

Combine two formats concurrently- best of 12 and first to win a game- the first format being dominant and the second one being the tiebreakb if it is tied 6-6. If it is all draws the player with the first black gets draw odds neutralising that disadvantage.

The similarity ends there, though. Kramnik really had a fire lit under him after he lost that second game, and pressed hard to equalize. He nearly succeeded a couple of times (particularly in the penultimate game, where he played a Benoni and Leko only survived by a miracle). Leko, on the other hand, went into a shell when he took the lead, and tried to draw his way to the end, even though nearly half the match remained. I'd been supporting him early on, but was quite disgusted with him by the end, the way he made no effort to win with White, and gave draws with Black whenever he could get them, even when he seemed to have a nearly winning position with Black in Game 12. You can sit on a big lead, but not on a minimum one.



Exactly right, and putting the tiebreaker before the main match would restore that situation without unfairly benefitting either player. I don't see it as anti-clactic. It might end up as a warm-up exhibition (what's wrong with that?), but in football, the fight for home field advantage is exciting even though people know the road team could win any game.

I disagree. The games were short, but neither lifeless, nor chessless. Almost every game had a novel concept being explored. That it got neutralized was thanks to the excellent chess, and strong thematic play, shown by the opponent.

These games shouldn't be equated with games, say from the Kramnik-Leko match, in which the games ended in seventeen moves, with all seventeen moves being from a game played only last week. Everybody knew what was going on, and everybody knew the outcome too in advance. Sometimes, those games contained the same moves played earlier between the same participants as well.

I do not agree that this has been a sterile match. It has been exciting. And contains a different dimension of struggle. Gelfand simply doesn't have an explicit weakness that could be targeted, which were the case with Kramnik and Topalov earlier. And he also has the experience of the previous world championship matches to draw upon, to know what sort of mental shape he needs to maintain. That, together with his decades of experience, and very classical understanding, has been the reason he's been able to deprive Anand of all chances. In some ways, it can be said that he has outclassed Anand.

The reason people are disappointed is that there weren't too many serious or even minor errors from either side, which could have led to more fun for the spectators. But that is not an argument against chess.

Gelfand took very pragmatic decisions. He evaded mines in most cases, which is partly from an acknowledgement of the tonnes of background computer analysis that he knew Anand's team must have already carried out. And his own preparation too held out well, and where he was surprised he wiggled his way out admirably. I think his choices and moves were very instructive. It's unfair on spectator's part to expect that he should have chosen paths which would have taken him downhill, merely to entertain spectators. He's here to compete, and that's what he did, quite successfully.

People had a very wrong notion that Gelfand was a minnow. He wasn't. I've seen all through Anand's career that he has had difficulty beating him. In fact, at one point even Kasparov had said about the Fide KOs that whoever beats Gelfand wins the title. He's a very tough customer, head-on.

Please see Aronian's tweets where he too has acknowledged that the last two games brought forth fresh ideas on the board, even though they resulted in short draws, and he was excited about them. And in all the games, the commentators brimmed with enthusiasm, though usually the denouement was often dissatisfactory.



He wasn't off form. He didn't miss much on the board. It's just that his chess thinking has now gone on a retro plane. He's choosing setups which are nonstandard and antiquated to avoid walking into the opponent's preparation. But the point is, if such systems have gone out of vogue, it's probably for good reason -- that they are refutable, and do not offer lasting or many opportunities.

I do not think he underestimated Gelfand. He probably overestimated him, and was therefore too cautious and nervous. But that was only in the first half. Second half saw full-blooded battles, even though the opponents manage to neutralize each other quickly.

Here's another idea: There's no reason the world champion should not participate in the FIDE Grand Prix - in fact, the GP would be more interesting with the champion. So why not give draw odds in a title match to the player who finished higher in the GP?

Or alternatively, upgrade the candidate tournament to a world tournament championship (with the match champion participating and the player finishing best among the others becoming his challenger) and give draw odds to the player who finished higher in that tournament.