Opinion can't be 'wrong'. If it could it would be fact.

But you're ignoring the point. I haven't seen anyone changing their position on matches for any reason at all, much less out of fear that Anand is unbeatable. In two tries, you've been unable to name them. Again, I submit that if you do know of such people, they were probably pulling your leg, and making fun of your devotion to Anand. But this is easy to settle. Who are you talking about?

When I say Anand looked weak (I didn't specifically say that I agreed with the general consensus, but in fact, I do) I mean that he was unable or unwilling to take the battle to his much weaker opponent. He played few weak moves, because he played few moves, period. The Carlsen-Karjakin game the other day is a perfect example of how a stronger player beats one who's not quite in his league, just by putting pressure on him and keeping it on. Anand was unable to do this, therefore he looked weak. And Mitzvah is a weaker player than Karjakin.

People said the same kind of thing about Petrosian after the Petrosian-Huebner match. (And he won that one outright, not on tiebreak). I'm as big a fan of Petrosian as any, but the criticism has got some merit. And Petrosian was actually less guilty than Anand, simply because the games of that match had more fight in them than Anand-Gelfand did.

You confuse me! Fact can't be wrong. Otherwise it would no longer be a fact. Only opinion can be wrong. How would you respond to that?

Say for example, X has helped lot of people so it is a fact that X has helping tendency. I don't know that for a fact but from talking to him I form an opinion that he is not a helping person. You don't know for a fact either but you talked to him and realize that he is a helping person. Both of us have different opinion about X. But your opinion is right and my opinion is wrong.

I don't exactly remember what was your stand but I know some people here too. But what I was telling is in general. There was a article in chessvibes written by an University professor using some mathematical model that tournaments are better than matches. As usual it evoked lot of positive response. As soon as I pointed out a flaw in that research and how input data was bad, the whole thing was put to rest.

See, again you judge differently on who is weaker and who is stronger. For you, rating is an indicator. Of course it is but it is not all that. Say for example, if a player was never ever beaten after crossed the 2600 mark, mostly draws and he is rated 2725, and another player loses some but wins a lot more and his rating is 2775. Even if you play perfect chess like Houdini, your tougher opponent is the 2725 guy and not the 2775 guy. Again, to compare Anand-Gelfand with Carlsen-Karjakin, you need to give Karjakin 6 months' preparation time to tie his loose ends against Carlsen. This must be the reason why Carlsen was made to duck the knock-out matches. Why would his backers be afraid, if his quality is high (stronger than Anand?!!!) that he would never lose? And choose a more random and game fixing prone tournament?

Okay, a statement of fact is one that is subject to proof or disproof. "The Dallas Cowboys had the best regular season won-loss record in the 1970's" is a factual statement (a true one). "John Adams was the first President" is a statement of fact, but a false one. But it is a statement of fact because it can be PROVEN one way or the other.

On the other hand, "The Dallas Cowboys were the best team of the 70's" is a statement of opinion worded that way. We can't prove or disprove it, only count up the number of people who agree with it. On the other hand, if I specify that "Best" means "Best regular season record", then the statement ceases to be opinion. Rondino used to opine that Charbonneau was the best player in the world. That can't be disproven as longas "best" has no specific meaning, even if no one agrees with it except Rondino (probably not even him, if he were serious).



Not necessarily, but I do think Anand is much stronger than Gelfand, and I don't think you disagree.



Anand had the same 6 months preparation, but he was still unable to take the battle to his opponent. If Gelfand was well enough prepared, it still might not have worked, but he was unable to make the effort.

Well, although the Dallas Cowboys had the most regular season wins in the 1970's, the truth of the matter is that the Pittsburgh Steelers were **THE best overall team of the 1970's**, because of the simple fact that the Steelers won **FOUR Super Bowl championships** in the 1970's!

The Steelers were the Super Bowl champions of the 1974, 1975, 1978, and 1979 NFL seasons!

**Plus, the Pittsburgh Steelers actually BEAT the Dallas Cowboys head-to-head in two of those four 1970's Super Bowl championships!!**


Chess Fan

Again, who? I don't know of anyone who has switched. You mentioned a professor who wrote a chessvibes article supporting tournaments, but it's not clear that he switched sides either. And if he did, you haven't shown that he did it because he thinks Anand is invincible in match play. I don't know of anyone who thinks that except you, so if someone told you that, I still fear that they were pulling your leg. They sure aren't saying it publicly.

I still think the same. Not only should the world championship be a match, but so should the US Championship. The US Championship, once an exciting event, has been incredibly dull for about the last 30 years. It turned into a snooze fest soon after Browne won his last one, actually.) They should scrap the tournament entirely, and pick a match challenger from the winner of the US Open.

Maybe I'll tell later.
Who would tell it in the open, even a kid wouldn't tell if he were to do something sneaky! Let me answer by asking a counter question, a question reported in chessbase article - Borislav Genius or Crook? If it can be proven, naturally he would fall under Cheat (guilty), not under Genius or Crook. If it can't be proven, only then he will go under one of Genius (innocent) or Crook (not guilty but not innocent either) when there is no admission of some honest mistake, in which case he will be just innocent. You seem to give a "not guity" verdict to the professor, that's fine, because I had not shown or could possibly show him with an agenda to write such article. But I think you have missed out the subdivision I pointed out under "not guilty" to further categorize such people when there no admission or acceptance of mistakes on issues where there is a lot at stake. I know you would like to have two divisions, innocent or guilty, and make that distinction possible by means laws but it is simply not possible in this world!

There is a chess cheating issue being discussed in chessvibes involving an italian mayor. I think the mayor himself has come and presented his side of the story. but interestingly there is no clear-cut denial from him. chessvibes link

Below is my comment on cheating from a sub-discussion.

"unfounded accusations and witch-hunting is something that is very dangerous" - Emil Sutovsky.

I think Sutovsky has poor understanding! Whatever he says is true only in some specific scenarios. That is, when the issue that prompted the accusation is not addressable humanly, or when there is a system already in place to address the issue that prompted the accusation. Short of that, not allowing someone to express his grievance is extremely dangerous!! For example, if someone spends too much of time in the toilet during chess games, others should have the right to accuse that someone of cheating if his games suggested so. What if that someone went into the toilet really cheated? It is unfair to the players suffered because of his cheating. If you don't want people to make such accusations, do whatever you have to to prevent that someone from possibly cheating from inside the toilet. Make it clear that no extended toilet breaks, no frequent trips away from board, no electronics inside toilet, or whatever that is necessary. I believe Sutovsky was on the forefront of bringing in the game-fix-prone tournament format for challengership. Did he also recommend and bring in sting operation to detect game-fixing? So you knowingly allow for room to cheat. In addition, you provide a cover saying no cheating accusations. How convenient! Give us a break!

Having said that, FIDE/ACP should first make attempt to stop big time cheating like game fixing, fixing up seconds just before/during an event, before they catch small fishes doing computer cheating.

According to Chessbase's story about the mayor, the charges were anything but unfounded.



Sounds similar to the Varshavsky case a few years back.