The match is one-third done and aren't you already wishing they were going to play a respectable 20-game match? Or maybe, as some have conjectured, they wouldn't be playing with guns blazing like this in a longer match. All hypothetical, so we won't worry about it. But 12 really is ridiculously short. The arguments in favor of these short matches are contradictory. Either it's "12 games is enough to show superiority" or "if nobody is clearly superior after 12, then they probably wouldn't be superior after 20 or 24, either." Both answers beg the question about what a world championship match is all about. Showing superiority is part of it, and it is definitely possible to do that over a dozen games. But the point is, what about the next dozen? Will your opening prep hold up? Will you get tired? Will nerves set in as you try to preserve your lead without taking too many risks? The ebb and flow of a long match is really what made them such a cauldron and so different from everything else.
Sure, you always get a few boring games, and yes, it's hard enough to find sponsorship for a short match like this one. But as with so many of Ilyumzhinov's sacrifices of quality for expedience, we have a self-fulfilling situation. If chessplayers, if the international chess federation, don't value the title, why would sponsors? Treat it like the crown jewel it should be and we could see major sponsors return to chess, world championship first. Of course that's not going to happen with the current wrecking crew in charge of FIDE, but that's for another thread.
I'm picking up a lot of static from fans worried about Elista-style shenanigans in Sofia if Topalov doesn't win game five. If Anand holds, he then comes back with two whites in a row and a one-point lead, after which -- so goes the "logic" -- it may be too late to do anything to derail him. I'm still very much hoping we won't see any off-the-board garbage at all. I was a little surprised there was no handshake at the conclusion of the draw in game 3 -- Topalov notified the arbiter and they left -- but that probably just pumped up Anand further after he earned the draw.
Praise has been universal for Anand's win in game four. Kasparov, in Oslo speaking at the Freedom Forum human rights conference, of course sneaked a peak at the game and was "very impressed" with Anand's play and said that it looked like Vishy had settled down. He proposed the Topalov's instincts for defense are all wrong, that bringing the queen back to e7 is the natural reaction. (I assume he means on move 22, although that move occurs in earlier variations too. Such as 20..Qe7.) Now the sac on h6 doesn't work because the black queen can recapture on f7. But both 23.Ne5 and the thematic 23.Rc4!? leave Black in serious trouble.
Kasparov has a column in the latest issue of New In Chess. Most of it pays homage to Smyslov, but he gets in a few paragraphs on this match. A few nuggets worth mining on an off day in Sofia: "If you compare Anand and Topalov's past year of results to those of Carlsen and Kramnik, you might wonder if the wrong players are facing off in Sofia." He doesn't put the boot in too hard, though: "Anand is generally the better player and if he plays with the same determination and inspiration he showed against Kramnik, he is the big favorite." But... "Topalov possesses unmatched fighting qualities and is always capable of coming from behind."
Hah! Snarky comment that, about wrong players facing off! I actually expect Topalov to win one more game at least, though I think he may also lose one.
I'm not an expert observer, but my suspicion about the problem of a WCCh of only 12 games is that it puts even more emphasis on the quality/luck of one's opening preparation: if one players opening prep happens to cause the other to stumble early in the match, there can be too few games to overcome the bad start.
The more the "analysis" of openings dominates results, the less the match and the game in general is about the "sport" of live games.
Does this make sense?
I dont really think that handshake ting was more of a slip because Topa was confused around how to draw with Sofia rules without having Sofia rules...
Which I think is more interesting anyhow: How did he come to think going to the arbiter was the right thing to do? Does he not understand the difference of unilaterally upholding the principle, and the real thing?
12 games is not enough for the highest title in chess. It should be 20, or at the very least, 16. Just like Kasparov vs. Kramnik in 2000.
We're getting very close to see what the novelty will be, coming from the dishonest, mafia-kind-of-guy, named Danailov.
If he does it again, and Topalov still loses the Match, Veselin will be laughted at from now on, and also forgotten and classified as a very sad chapter in chess history.
We'll see...
12 games are way too short - remember Fischer-Spassky? Spassky came back after the first maybe 10 games and exerted severe pressure on Fischer. Without those 24 games he could have resigned after the first 10 games what would have been a pity.
I also think the more games the better would be the quality of the games.
Carlsen can complain about not being there, but not Kramnik as he lost to Anand. Of course he can complain that Topa should nto be there, but hopefully we will see a good Candidates and WCC next.
Mig wrote:
"But as with so many of Ilyumzhinov's sacrifices of quality for expedience, we have a self-fulfilling situation. If chessplayers, if the international chess federation, don't value the title, why would sponsors?"
There is a popular misconception that there is no money in chess because FIDE has Ilyumzhinov, but it's the other way around: FIDE has Ilyumzhinov because there is no money in chess. Sad but true...
12 games is not ideal. Perhaps 24 games is the sweet spot.
The only problem is finding legitimate sponsorship for such an event...
how do people decide 24 is good and not 22 or 26, is there any basis apart from history. I think Ray Keene has said that in almost all WC a player leading after 16 games became or remained WC. So going by evidence and not just flight of imaginations I would say 16 is good. Of course money is the most important thing.
The worst part about game 3 was the press conference as seen on chessvibes. A reporter asked Topalov about why he didn't shake hands and was like "Oh, we did not?" and then when asked about why he asked the arbiter for a draw he again looked surprised of the question "it's the rules". Then Stefenova stupidly said "It's in the regulations, so..". No it's not. Funnily Anand, when asked about the handshake said "I don't know, maybe the arbiter has to shake hands."
Anand is number one because he is world champion. Ratings are super fun and all but the world champion is the best player in the world until defeated in a Championship match. Then whoever beat him is the best player in the world. That's why they play the games.
That does bring up a good point though, if you want ratings to count for more than bragging rights maybe we scrap the Candidates and the qualifying and require the Champion to defend every year or two against the number one rated player.
"how do people decide 24 is good and not 22 or 26, is there any basis apart from history."
Tradition is in fact a good reason. Why not?
There's a long interview with Danailov here: http://tinyurl.com/38ajf9w
He's gracious [sic] about game 4 and says that Anand brilliantly exploited Topalov's mistake - but says that Topalov usually only starts to play after a loss or two, so we should be in for some exciting chess.
He talks about the cooperation between him and Topalov - how the latter was terribly intelligent to take him as a manager when he was 15 (at a time when only Karpov and Kasparov had managers). That was the start of the fight against the Russian machine...
As an explanation of the truly mystifying fact that he's attacked by people involved with chess he gives:
"When you're at the top of your profession enemies just emerge out of nowhere - out of envy, out of business interests. At the top it's windy and cold. When you're up there you have many enemies but don't know why, though this strikes me as normal and I accept it. Most of these jealous people can't come to terms with the fact that two Bulgarians from a country of 8 million have managed to reach the top and dominate - Vesko is the best player in the world, and I'm the best manager. In Russia, for example, they've invested tens of millions in the game but we managed to beat them. Of course there are business interests - no-one's happy that we have such a strong position, so they try to remove us".
Apparently people in the past tried to set Topalov and Danailov against each other (and maybe to make them desert Bulgaria for another federation!?), but they're closer than family and understand each other "at a glance". [:)]
"Interviewer: People attribute quite aggressive qualities to you and even accuse you of being capable of coming up with something in order to turn the match with Anand in your favour.
D: You know what bubbles are like - they inflate and inflate... Some people have quite rich imaginations. Everything began in Elista, where the problem was the Russians did totally outrageous things, and weren't accustomed to anyone protesting against them. And when I accused them of using unfair means to win the match they couldn't forgive me and to this day continue to attack me for it. This war will never end. Let them talk."
Asked about the 3 million prize fund and the economic crisis Danailov says that the event's been incredibly successful, with 3 times more internet viewers than Bonn, and that the investment will pay off a 100-fold... After Borisov stepped in to guarantee it finding sponsors was very easy......
With the European Chess Federation he wants it to become more like UEFA and attract corporate sponsors. He's not sure it matters if chess is an Olympic sport (though it would be nice). Dope tests are a waste of money. Topalov recovered from game 4 by supporting the Italian catenaccio resisting the Catalan flair (actually he just mentioned Milan-Barcelona!).
On Ilyumzhinov/Karpov - "Ilyumzhinov is a good president who's done a lot for chess but Karpov is a great name". If Russia support both then it'll be close, if Karpov needs France to nominate him his chances are less.
A question (or at least answer) close to my heart: "Can the small audience in the Military Club be explained by the live coverage on the internet?". He says yes - as you have opinions, comments etc. on the internet - but then he also makes the point that the lack of headphone commentary has destroyed the audience in the hall... though he twists this into an attack on FIDE (and Anand's team). Headphones wouldn't work because of the signal-blocking equipment... and he mentions paranoia about the FBI and KGB. He continues:
"...I also suggested to Anand's team that we could play in the glass cube, which would totally isolate the players from noise and allow people to behave a little more freely, but they rejected all my proposals as they were innovations. They are conservative people and do not accept developments that are the future of chess."
Finally (except for some comments on Bulgaria and fame) he answers that Dufek has helped them out an exceptional amount and that there are only 2 or 3 people capable of doing what he can.
Anand's equanimity is remarkable during the press conference. We have Top's visible irritation in response to a fair question about his unsportsmanlike behaviour around the time control (reminiscent of the pained look on the faces of 1970s South American dictators when asked by international media about magically disappearing political opposition), along with his menacing closer "I don't know why you ask"; next we have Stefanova, Team Top's smarmy little pilot fish with a trailer-park makeover, jumping in with a brazen lie about imaginary match regulations while addressing Doggers like a child; and the other end of the table may as well be the other end of the world! Anand cracks a joke, grins and looks slightly pained for a brief moment, shifting in his chair with practised ease.
It's an impressive moment for the World Champion. Faced with the tinpot machinations of his opponent's stable of backyard heels, Anand becomes the Craig Ferguson of Madras, which can't be an easy thing. And it sure is adding excitement to the match.
"If you compare Anand and Topalov's past year of results to those of Carlsen and Kramnik, you might wonder if the wrong players are facing off in Sofia."
Funny how despite being convinced of match-play being the best format to decide world champions, he overemphasizes tournament play here. Unlike during Kasparov's reign where deserving candidates (Shirov, Anand) lost out to hand-picked ones, at least Anand and Topalov can claim that they are playing here because they actually beat Kramnik and Carlsen respectively OTB! (Topalov beat Kamsky who beat Carlsen).
Also, unlike the Kasparov era, both these guys will get another chance in the Candidates tournament (Topalov, Kramnik, Carlsen, Aronian, Gelfand, +two others) next year. And the OTB winner will earn the right to play Anand in 2012.
Mig, does OTB usually denote "Off the Board" or "Over the Board"? Your meaning is obvious from context, but the more I think about it it seems quite strange to have an acronym which applies to its antonym.
at least I meant over the board :)
This must be one "Outside The Board" thinking!
"...you might wonder if the wrong players are facing off in Sofia."
That part explains why Kasparov is so good at chess psychology, but not so good at political psychology.
It's not his fault either, we're all like that, chess players like objective truth, like to hear all sides of argument.
But politician's must be mindful to stay on message and to stay likable.
Palin would say, "Go, yeah go" Obama would say "yes we can". Kasparov is being too clever.
Well, a long match does have its merits, I am sure. But I don't quite see the point of pitting two tired people against one another, and seeing who breaks first. A match should be played on equal grounds and a 24 game match obviously favors the younger player, in my humble opinion. In their first championship match, Karpov was clearly the better player. But unfortunately, at the level of grandmaster chess maneuvering to a draw is easier to do than pressing for an advantage due to the abundance of theoretical lines, and like Kaspy then, the younger player would start pressing for advantage, even though he might not be the better player overall.
That's just my opinion, based on all the 1200 blitz rating experience I've got :)
Not that I like him, but calling him "the Topalov" is, shall we say, interesting
good point actually..the guys who today say "at least 16" would happily say "at least 12" if FIDE held a 8-game WC match (instead of 12). Its human nature. The more you get, the more you want. They seem to conveniently forget seraiwan's prague agreement and how difficult it was to get the world champion to even come out and put his title on the line. Now that they are getting a match every two years, they want more. The last long match (Kramnik-Kasparov) showed us the better player inside the first 12 games and kasparov had to plead that the last two scheduled games be canceled so he could just hide his head and go home..
Mig, nice intro. But when do u expect to be back full time. Did I miss the big news or we still waiting?
:) nice
this number 16 comes from the observation that till now whenever WCC match was played a player who was leading by game 16 won the championship. So its not coming out of blue but based on quite good evidence.
I am for 16 games every two years.
Oops:
Jueves, 29 de abril de 2010
Comunicado de prensa de la Federación Armenia de Ajedrez
Dear Chess Friends,
Connected with FIDE President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov's interview for the Sport-Express newspaper (April 28, 2010), GM Levon Aronian has asked to inform you that he has never agreed and won't ever agree to play the World Champion's qualifiers' matches in Baku.
Armenian Chess Federation
http://www.chessbase.com/espanola/newsdetail2.asp?id=8252
But Karpov couldn't convert even a 4-0 lead after 16 games of their 1984 match. So I feel 12 just a number. Shouldn't be too low (4/6/8) or too high (30/48/60). As for the numbers in between, I don't think there's enough evidence to suggest say, 16 is better than 12, or 14 is better than 20. From a modern day practical standpoint of sponsors, etc. 12 can be seen as just fine too. As for Mig's argument about whether or not opening prep will hold over a longer match, again players will just base their strategies accordingly. For a longer match they will have to prepare more, hibernate more. Which means that the world champion and the challenger will be seen is fewer tournaments before the match - not quite a good thing for chess.
"Funny how despite being convinced of match-play being the best format to decide world champions, he (Kasparov)overemphasizes tournament play here."
Completely agree with you.
Kasparov, doesnt seem to want to give credit - even when someone deserves credit.
I want to wait until 2012 and hope that a scenario happens that Anand beats Carlsen in the WCC 2012. That should make Kasparov's task of belittling the Chess Champion more difficult.
http://reports.chessdom.com/news-2010/mundell-topalov-dinner
If these two guys had played a 12-game match (and tie-breaks) - who would win (and what would be the final score?)
1)Anand (based on his form and preparation today)
2)Kasparov(at his peak)
Assume that both have 6 months to prepare for this match.
My vote would be for Anand - on tie breaks
I doubt it. Even in '95, when Anand had far from matured - both in terms of mental toughness as well as chess understanding - they were pretty close after 12 games (6-6 but for that horrible blunder in a drawn endgame game 11). So the Anand of today would've more likely won +1 or +2 in a 12-game match. However, in a longer match (24 or more), based on what we've seen in his matches against Karpov, Anand would've lost because of being physically inferior..
I meant based on what we've seen in Kasparov's matches against Karpov, he (Kasparov) would've won because of being in better shape physically..
Look Anand is great, but we saw Anand-Kasparov.
You can say Anand hadn't "matured" but that didn't stop Kasparov and his game clearly wasn't fully mature when he first went up against Karpov.
hmm...yeah..on second thoughts I take that back. Anand has been brilliant against Kramnik and Topalov, but can't say for sure that he'd beat a kasparov at his peak. Its unfair to even compare, we'll never know the answer..
Thanks the translation mishanp, it was interesting. He's right, everyone is just jealous..
yup
If Danailov is going to try any tricks, it might be through tampering with the doping tests for banned (performance enhancing) drugs. Sure, it's a long shot, but if Topalov gets in a deep hole, getting Anand disqualified might be the only hope of desperate men. Remember, Toiletgate didnt erupt until after Topalov was down 2 games.
!6 games seems too brief. A World Championship match should at least 20 games, and not more than 30 games. If a player has 6 or more wins (and the lead) by Game 20, he/she wins, and the match is over. If not, then they play an additional 4 games, where the winner will be the player who reaches at least 12.5 points, irrespective of the number of victories. If the match is still tied, then there can be a series of 2 game mini-matches, so that the match could end after 26, 28, or 30 games. if the match is still tied after Game 30, then the FIDE system of Rapid and Blitz Tiebreaks can be applied.
I think we are all way too quick to assume that Topalov and co. will do anything to win just because they are losing. Sure, Danailov comes off as a first class jerk at times (and oddly, is both T's manager and VP of the Bulgarian Chess Fed), but going back to Elista, the Topalov team was objecting to things that were a little out of the ordinary. Yes, they ran with it right into crazyland, but that doesn't mean they have no values.
(note: at the press conference for Game 4, Topalov dismissed the bad result as being part what happens when you play "Sofia Rules" - so maybe all we will get is low-level psychological jabs?)
You make a very good point and I believe Anand is showing how psychologically strong he is by so calmly dismissing the "tinpot machinations of his opponent's stable of backyard heels" - (beautiful phrase btw!)
Imagine.
Imagine if my favorite player was losing or had lost in the past. Then, I would have complained about the 12 game thing. But, the player I rooted for in the 12 games matches in 2000, 2006, and 2008 won. And it seems that is going to happen this year too.
Imagine if chess was a huge part of my life, e.g., if my livelihood depended on it, or if I spent every second of my free time on chess. Then, I would have complained about the 12 game thing. But, I don't depend on chess for my livelihood and I don't spend every second of my free time on chess.
Imagine if I preferred one random number (e.g., 20, 24, etc.) over another random number (e.g., 12). Then, I would have complained about the 12 game thing. But, I treat all numbers equally. Even imaginary ones.
Imagine if I believed that a match was a bad format for choosing a world champion. Then, I would have complained about the 12 game thing. But, I think that matches are a legitimate format for deciding the world champion.
I guess I don't have any reason to complain about the 12 game format. I know I'm not the only one.
I can see some controversy coming fomented by the Topalov camp. If he falls too far behind, they may try to void the match so that he can save face. Imagine Topalov being humiliated. He already looked very bad after game #4.
What is the plus score against Topalov that Anand needs to be #1 in live ratings?
Removed the OTB confusion. It should only mean over the board.
It should be obvious Garry is just giving Magnus and Kramnik props for good results in a backhanded way, not making a serious suggestion about who should be playing. It also highlights how long-delayed this match is.
Speaking of delays, any news on that final Grand Prix tournament? The last one was in friggin August. They've slapped the spooky "cnc" logo all over the FIDE websites, but that's about it.
Responding to pyada above, who said that every WCh match was won by the player leading after 16. No.
Steinitz-Chigorin, 92: tied after 16, Steinitz losing after 19. Leading after 22. Won in 23.
Alekhine-Euwe, 35: Euwe losing after 16, losing by two after 19. Leading after 25. Won in 30.
Botvinnik-Bronstein, 51: Botvinnik losing after 22. Drew in 24.
Petrosian-Spassky, 69: Even after 16, Spassky leading after 17. Won in 23.
Karpov-Korchnoi, 78: Even after 31, Karpov won in 32.
Karpov-Kasparov, 84: Karpov leading by 4 after 16 and then, well...
Kasparov-Karpov, 86: Kasparov leading after 16, even after 19, won in 24.
Kasparov-Karpov, 87: Even after 16, Karpov leading after 23, drawn in 24.
Anand-Kasparov 95 was the last match to see a 16th game, ending on the 18th game.
I do agree about the downside of the world champ and his challenger being out of circulation longer, and it blocking up the calendar. But it was every three years, not every two. Ilyumzhinov's idea that since the world championship is the only salable thing in chess have them constantly was blatantly ridiculous. It's like saying ice-cream tastes better than other food so eat only that for all your meals. Fun for a while, then you die a horrible sticky death. Every two years is doable, but you need a reliable cycle.
Sure, you always get a few boring games, and yes, it's hard enough to find sponsorship for a short match like this one. But as with so many of Ilyumzhinov's sacrifices of quality for expedience, we have a self-fulfilling situation. If chessplayers, if the international chess federation, don't value the title, why would sponsors? Treat it like the crown jewel it should be and we could see major sponsors return to chess, world championship first. Of course that's not going to happen with the current wrecking crew in charge of FIDE, but that's for another thread.
****
Yes, yes, and baseball should just keep its original format with keeping the National league and American league separate until the World Series -- no inter-league play and no wild cards.
Purity! Purity! Purity sells!
Sponsors roll in for purity!
Wait...American baseball started inter-league play, wildcards...and despite a steroid scandal to end all scandals (everyone cheats)...baseball is booming.
Basketball should go back to the original rules - no shot clock and pure zone defense.
Hockey needs to abandon its current scoring system and go back to purity!
Sponsors don't seem to care about purity. Sponsors care about size of audience.
Long matches to tease out tiny (possibly spurious) differences between players made sense 50 yrs ago. Not very much sense today.
Chess inches closer and closer to being solved -- not in absolute terms but in terms of 30-move prep and drawing at will. That's the "solution" of checkers -- you never have to lose if you don't want to. Once that day is reached, why play long matches? To see who forgets his prep? To see who has a physical breakdown?
In a real sense, there hasn't been a revolution in chess theory since the 1940s (i.e. modern interpretation of the King's Indian). The most important waves of chess thinking were the gambit period, then the classical period...the hypermodern ideas..and then the Soviet discoveries of the 30s and 40s.
After that -- although various sytems certainly had major overhauls and novelties...no new "thinking" about chess.
So longer matches determine exactly what? Who can run a computer better? Who can pay the larger prep team?
They don't tell you about the player's thinking...they tell you about the state of his health and the size of his team.
People knock the KO events...but that format recognized that chess is moving away from a trial and error discovery phase and into a period where the physical side dominates. Technique dominates. Prep dominates. And you can show that with fewer games and shorter controls.
And modern players have to be able to play -- at the high levels -- under extreme conditions and for long periods of time...and frequently.
Some complained that the KO was stressful or that players shouldn't have to play without preparing. That's BS. In a modern game where technique matters and overall prep matters and physical conditioning matters and being "on" matters...that's exactly what a KO format emphasizes.
As much as I want Topalov to win...what the 4 games have shown is bad prep (for his side in defending those Catalans), bad nerves and bad defense. All of the games could just as easily have been played in a FIDE KO.
With Karpov president, world championship matches will be 48 games minimum. If he can do it, so can these young whippersnappers.
Wow. Chesspride, you amaze me. I had thought your devotion to the FIDE knockout WC was a product of devotion to FIDE, but you really are devoted to that format to decide the WC. What does such a big KO tournament offer in terms of deciding "the best" that a big-time RR tournament does not?
In tennis and golf, there is no "world champion." Instead, there are just rankings, some big tournaments, and lists of top money winners. Wouldn't having a chess WC decided via tournament just descend similarly into a state of no WC?
It already happened with the FIDE KOs. Not many people think that winning a tournament--no matter how strong--is sufficiently prestigious to warrant the WC title.
GK: "If you compare Anand and Topalov's past year of results to those of Carlsen and Kramnik, you might wonder if the wrong players are facing off in Sofia."
It seems to me, this comment smacks of either a natural instinct to be insulting or suspect principles. As someone pointed out, GKis the one who has held up match-play over tournament play, esp. regarding WCC. In addition, Kramnik is the one who denied him a WCC match, about which he complained quite bitterly, and it in fact was one of the reasons that drove him to retirement in chess. Yet, Kramnik who lost his title is suddenly more qualified to sit at the table than even Anand? Is GK going senile? Carlson reaching the #1 spot, and that too by crossing 2800 at this young age is certainly incredible, but he has to nevertheless emerge as a challenger by a due process, no? For a person who is arguably the greatest chess player, this was a needless jab. MIG's defense of GK is par for the course. Every time you make a tasteless statement, come back and claim that people have no sense of humor and can't see the joke. GK made a crass statement, at least as reported by MIG.
@...With Karpov president, world championship matches will be..
I had a look at Karpov's website, he writes :
"I can reform this organization by putting intellectual modernization and a cleansing of corruption at the forefront. This I will do in full agreement with the tasks placed before our nation by Russian President Dmitri Medvedev.
Anatoly Karpov
Moscow, April 22, 2010"
imprssive guy, just as comrade Dimitri said
This much is clear - Kaspy will never stop to take cheapshots at Anand, never. When Anand won the WCC through tournament it was "Oh it's a tournament, he can't play matches." Then when he won through matches, it was "Oh, he should do it in a tournament." Nonsense. Have the graciousness to give someone credit when it is due.
As for someone who said that Kaspy retired becasue Kramnik did not give him a rematch that is not so. Kaspy knew it is easier to beat the two then immature, inexperienced challengers in Anand and Leko than go through a candidates cycle.
Kaspy would never have made through the candidates cycle to challenge again, so he resigned.
Kramnik's win over Kaspy in the WCC is proof that Kaspy could only win through home prep and since Kramnik was a second to Kaspy during Kaspy's tussle with Anand he knew of all of Kaspy's preparations and there was nothing new Kaspy could offer and lost whereas Kramnik knew what new thing to bring.
As for the insulting remark of Kaspy that maybe wrong players are facing off, he knows that Carlsen has to have a shot at the WCC soon before Carlsen plays more and uses up all the tricks that Kaspy has taught him and others will have sorted Carlsen out. The more Carlsen plays the less chances he has of springing surprises.
It is common knowledge that the white skin (Kaspy) has never thought the brown skin (Anand) worthy of anything, never.
Too much has been made of Kaspy being the greatest and all, he achieved his aura from the so-called romance of taking on the establishment (Karpov) as an underdog. In Kaspy's case the myth of his abilities has overtaken the reality of his one dimensional abilities. And the legend has grown.
Kaspy feeling threatened by the legacy that Anand may leave behind after(if) he wins this match? And Mig as usual suckin upto him :)
Why am I not surprised?
A string of half arsed excuses now start croppin up to devalue Anand's match successes. Before the Bonn match, well he wasn't a great match player .. Yea (duh!)
Then he goes about disecting Kramnik, laying his guts out to dry. And yea ok its all opening prep, no big deal.
Now it looks like Toppy is on the menu and even before the match is over shitbags are flying- 12 matches too short, all home prep, wrong players fighting for WCH. Wow, much respect Kaspy -
Jus one thing tho - when Anand won the WCH, he dint go lock it up somewhere and setup a bogus organization saying I wont play anyone FIDE nominates. As talented as Kasparov was, his success at holding onto the crown(longevity) has as much to with hiding in the attic,.. Get this Kaspy - Yes you BEAT Anand in '95, venue switch last minute et al. But why dint u find the guts to go up against him in another match? He was after all the most eligible challenger throughout the 90's and 00's
He cut up Kramnik into little pieces - the same Kramnik that beat your arse and put you into retirement. And now he is probably gonna beat the other giant of the same generation. And the best you can do is run him down - grace, nice. And you want to lead Russia. Thanks but my vote will be for Putin anyday.
As for Carlsen, his time will(may) come too. And your mitigation to hold on to your'legacy' is to coach him 6 months? Yea do all you can, lesse the prodigy get past Kramnik. And if he does Anand will still be waiting for him.
Mig, its spelt 'Self Esteem'.. n like brick top says - pull ur tongue outta his arsehole.
With due respect to your inclination on longer side, I would qo for a shorter match, given the paucity of sponsors, so I stick to 16 games. But, yes, I liked your idea of curtailing the match one player wins sixth game. I know that in practice it is very difficult to achieve as Karpov-Kasparov showed in 1984. But on the other hand Fischer had achieved this twice, albeit in Candidates matches against Larsen and Taimanov, in six straight games, so it is not altogether impossible. Therefore World Championship Matches should include this 'sudden-death' clause that the match would be terminated once a player scores six wins. I also hold some different views on the Tie-breaks which I will state shortly.
I agree that Spassky did get the time to bounce back in a 24 game WCh. Now if we stretch the argument further had there been 48 games would Spassky have won?
The dynamics of a 24 game vs a 12 game or even a 36 / 48 game championship is different. If Usain Bolt does not win a 3000m race it does not mean he ain't good enough. High time the number of games got standardized - based on tradition, sponsorship or logic. That will help us focus on the game and the players and not peripherals.
Clearly the definitive solution is an ongoing match, with a game played every other day, indefinitely. At any point in time, the leader over the last 24 games would be considered reigning world champion. As exhaustion sets in, replacement players, selected by rating, would "tag" in. As an added benefit of this scheme, it would provide Carlen's quickest route to a shot at the title, thus securing Western sponsorship.
Thanks mishanp - I will only comment on the end of the interview:
"glass cube, which would totally isolate the players from noise"
From various sources, it seems that the glass cubes weren't as sound-proof or noise-isolated as claimed by the organizers. Last year in Bilbao, one of the players (Karjakin?) mentioned that he could hear the live commentary inside the cube ... .
And what would prevent the Sofia organizers from providing live commentary in a separate room? This happened at the Anand-Kramnik match, this is standard procedure at Corus.
I have created a small utility to calculate the probability that the better player wins in an N game match:
http://utilitymill.com/utility/ChessMatch
In a 12 game match with a 55% chance of draw and with the better player being objectively 30 Elo points stronger (hard to believe that anyone would have a larger advantage than this), it would play out like this:
Match won: 59.2%
Match lost: 25.3%
Match drawn: 15.5%
If the number of games were raised to 20, this would happen:
Match won: 66.4%
Match lost: 22.8%
Match drawn: 10.8%
Only a slight improvement, IMHO.
24 games:
Match won: 68.7%
Match lost: 21.4%
Match drawn: 9.9%
Hello,
imho 2 year WC , 12 Games 6-6 then 1 game (classical time control) challanger with white got to win but can chose first move out of (c4-e5, d4-Nf6, d4-d5, d4-c6, e4-e5, e4-e6, e4-c5) two hours bevor game starts
My HO:
WC Match - once in 2 years , 16 Games, if 8-8 then 1 game (classical time control) challanger with white got to win. Period.
No thematic opening would be enforced for this Tie-breaking game.However, A ban on the Petroff can be considered.
I love big matches like this, with all the prestige and excitement involved. However it takes the current champ partly out of the tournament circuit, trapping him in the twilight zone of match preparations/exhaustion.
I think a bi-annual super tournament with the top 8 FIDE Elo players is a good alternative. Actually they can adopt the system of the Candidates matches to be played end of this year. With 4 games each match in 1st round and the semifinal round. Then 6 (or 8) games in the finale. The winner is the World Champion!
Not at all surprised it came from Kaspy - he may be one of the all time great chess players, but he is also a certifiable a-hole.
Sometimes Kasparov can be an ass and MIG can be a bigger ass by claiming "he didn'put the boot in too hard.."...
So amazing to see the haters emerge at one sentence from Kasparov. Suddenly the children come out with the name-calling. He hates Anand! Hates matches (!) Devalues his title! Crimes against humanity! All based on one sentence that, since I know why he wrote it and you don't, you are willfully misrepresenting. Maybe you should actually read what he said, and has said many times about Anand. He respects him very much and there's no shortage of proof, no matter what you make up.
You should read his NIC column after the Bonn match if you dare to bring facts into the conversation. A few clips.
"It look a little longer than I expected, but Vishy Anand is now most definitely in charge.
My congratulations to Vishy on his impressive victory in Bonn. It was well-deserved in every respect. He has found an effective method to quiet the critics and remove the doubts: just keep winning."
"So even though I will always defend the match tradition, Anand’s win in 2007 certainly felt like unification."
"Match play has proven superior on every level. A worthy champion and a qualified challenger make for great chess and a gripping drama."
"I have never had anything but the highest regard for Kramnik’s chess abilities and his perfectly played match against me in 2000. As happens to so many in every field, success can become an obstacle to future success. My string of triumphs leading up to the London match led me to believe I was invincible – until Kramnik proved me wrong. Now it is his turn, his opportunity, to reexamine his chess and absorb the lessons Anand taught him in Bonn."
"As for Vishy, it will not be easy for the new generation of stars to take his crown. The Tiger of Madras may be an old cat in today’s chess world, but he is still learning new tricks. It’s that willingness to keep learning, and not the tricks themselves, that is the defining characteristic of a successful champion."
Really, saguni? Nice. I worked on the article with him and was trying to explain why he put it like that. I guess I should just stick with the amazing mind-reading powers of the people here instead. From an explanatory sentence I'm a horrible terrible ass-kisser. For the first time I'm glad Garry retired from chess. The trolling level in the comments skyrockets every time he's mentioned.
Thank you David!
Finally someone brings logic into the mix.
MIG, your defense of GK's crass statement is lame, and unconvincing. You yourself say, GK "was trying to explain why he put it like that." So clearly he felt his statement NEEDED an explanation, and you say he TRIED to give one. Do you mean his explanation was unconvincing? In any case, having received an explanation, whatever that is, you did NOT add it to your quote, which could have been easily with a few choice, qualifying words. You just mentioned his statement, and left your readers to their own devices to try and understand it. Your readers are then free to understand it in any way it appears to them. Why then accuse them of "mind-reading"?
Since GK apparently realized the statement in print might be mistaken -- you say he TRIED to EXPLAIN it to you -- the failure is YOURS as a reporter. Would you consider the possibility that you goofed up as a reporter? Why not own up to it? Instead of calling those who wrote on GK's statement, "haters" and "children"?
Hasn't your goofy statements earned the ire of your readers many times in the past, and you had to hurry back in and say "I was joking, folks, sorry it didn't work".
I remember, years ago when you used to report on Linares etc., I was attracted to your writing style and wit. So I am an admirer of your columns. However, later on I noticed quite often you also showed insensitivity. I have seen many a reader sending in a protest note. Perhaps you have too high an opinion of your own sense of humor, and can't see when you cross the line to being crass, may be you can step back and learn a lesson or two from this episode.
"So amazing to see the haters emerge at one sentence from Kasparov."
Mig, I don't know why you find that amazing.
If Kasparov wanted to be "loved" by everyone, then he could have behaved differently. Then, if haters came out of the woodwork, it would have been amazing.
But, Kasparov made the first move. He wants to be controversial and he doesn't care what people think of him. And I'm not just talking about his latest statement. He has a history of making provocative statements OTB (which I always like) and off-the-board (which I sometimes like :-). Well, haters come with that territory. What would have been amazing is if there weren't any haters.
Wow. Chesspride, you amaze me. I had thought your devotion to the FIDE knockout WC was a product of devotion to FIDE, but you really are devoted to that format to decide the WC. What does such a big KO tournament offer in terms of deciding "the best" that a big-time RR tournament does not?
In tennis and golf, there is no "world champion." Instead, there are just rankings, some big tournaments, and lists of top money winners. Wouldn't having a chess WC decided via tournament just descend similarly into a state of no WC?
It already happened with the FIDE KOs. Not many people think that winning a tournament--no matter how strong--is sufficiently prestigious to warrant the WC title.
****
I am not enamored by the KO format per se, but you have to understand the context.
In the mid-90s in the middle of the PCA breakaway, the money for the historical candidates matches/finals match was vanishing.
And..computers were impacting chess like never before. The prospect that chess could be effectively solved (in the way that checkers is solved -- i.e. ways of playing where you never have to risk a loss exist) loomed on the horizon.
Chess (historically) was played as a trial and error contest -- to find the best way of playing in various positions as well as to determine who were the strongest players. That scientific aspect was dwindling as computers got stronger and stronger. So what is left -- the sporting aspect.
That is what I see when I see chess in the Olympics movement or the KO -- the emphasis on technique and overall readiness to play (vs. slow matches and preparation).
I see a future chess that can survive as a sport when the game is effectively solved (i.e. never have to play an unclear line/can draw at will).
Ilyumzhinov's money and the KO format allowed FIDE to survive the PCA breakaway -- never forget that.
The KO is a poor way to select a champion...but an excellent way to select a challenger (as there are a dozen or so players who could lay claim to being reasonable challengers).
The problem is that FIDE and the players stripped away the finals match. Direct title transfer via a seeded champion.
Why?
Because the players universally hated Karpov and thought that having the champion seeded to the finals was a bad idea. This was greedy on their part and ultimately self-defeating. How wrong they were!
Khalifman as champion is an underdog (but no more so than Schlecter or Bronstein or Korchnoi or Tchigorin or Janowsky or...any other failed challenger). But if Khalifman played Karpov in the finals and won, his stature goes up 10fold (i.e. Euwe).
And you have fewer underdog champions...and fewer title transfers...and a more stable line.
Instead, mob rule (i.e. player choice) ruined the system.
For all the blather about KO quality...the games in the current match could be from a KO.
And if you have lengthy cycles that artificially crown a champion and keep his challengers away for 2 or 3 years...all you do is keep people away from the title match. How is that different than what happened to Rubinstein or Maroczy or Keres or Nimzowitsch?
Shorter cycle...more challengers get a chance...plus direct title transfer via champion seeded to the finals = perfect system...especially if we realize that the difference between the champion and the challengers is usually less than we suspect -- i.e. Botvinnik was first among equals throughout the 50s, as the matches with Bronstein, Smyslov and Tal showed. You dont' get overwhelming champions all that often...unless you artificially extend their reigns via 3 yr cycles that keep challengers away.
Remember -- I was reacting to Mig's comment that by not keeping an old-style finals match...chess was costing itself sponsorship. That kind of thinking is rubbish ... as shown by other sports. Our problem is 1) size of audience and 2) idiosyncratic behavior of players and organizers.
@rdavis: "I think we are all way too quick to assume that Topalov and co. will do anything to win just because they are losing. Sure, Danailov comes off as a first class jerk at times (and oddly, is both T's manager and VP of the Bulgarian Chess Fed), but going back to Elista, the Topalov team was objecting to things that were a little out of the ordinary. Yes, they ran with it right into crazyland, but that doesn't mean they have no values."
Agreed 100%. I tend to believe that this match won't see any big incidents besides the silliness danailov/Topalov seem to be too happy to display anytime. I'll continue to hope that the only novelties we get to see come from the chess board.
"And what would prevent the Sofia organizers from providing live commentary in a separate room? This happened at the Anand-Kramnik match, this is standard procedure at Corus."
Yep, exactly what I was going to post yesterday before I had to catch a bus! Even a simple board and relay of whatever the official site is showing would have made a big difference to the experience. Though it would also have been nice to have had toilets that didn't mean going out through the metal detector and round to the back of the hall... It's possible the venue just isn't large enough and can't handle the logistics (though there's a big empty space downstairs by the cloakroom), but then they should have held the match somewhere else.
It sounds like I missed out on a good opportunity for an on-site report yesterday :) I imagine the hall would just have been pitch black when the lights failed.
As long as Kasparov was world champion he was also the best player in tournament play and he had the best elo rating.
Anand and Topalow are not and have not.
Anand is a very good and a very nice world champion and this match is interesting but like Kasparov I want to see a match between Kramnik and Carlsen or between Anand and Carlsen. This match against Topalov is wasted time and a wasted year.
I agree with Mig in that a chess championship ought to be a match of a minimum of 16 games, even 24. I am a bit more in favor of a classical arrangement as this, despite the arguement that 12 games are enough to show superiority. Perhaps, but does it show dominance!?
My only other suggestion would be a round robin match between the best 5 players in the world, having them play one another x6 games, a total of 24 again.
And please let these games be more classical time controls where correctly played endgames are thus given their proper due!
I visited this page first time to get info on people search and found it Very Good Job of acknowledgment and a marvelous source of info......... Thanks Admin! http://www.reverse-phone-look-up.net