Anand v Gelfand

[Mats Winther]

No, the match format is not the problem. Chess, as such, is in crisis. The British GM William Winter (1898–1955) advocated "Greater Chess", invented by W. Day, 1942. Extra pieces are Dukes, which move one or two squares in any direction.



Winter pointed out that the weakness of Capablanca's Chess was that the heavy pieces dominated the board, the light pieces being merely cannon-fodder, whereas the dukes' powers are sufficiently restricted to enable them to combine effectively with the minor pieces. A duke ranks between a B and a R but is stronger in the endgame (Chess, Nov 1942) (cf. The Classified Encyclopedia of Chess Variants, pp.130-131).

M. Winther

[Ray Sayers]

"I can't understand why the world champion and world number 4 plays
for the chess version of penalties against the world number 22"

These ratings and placings mean nothing.
If they did then the No.4 would have hammered the No.22.
Gelfand has just drawn a 12 game match with the current World Champion.

That was exactly the point I was trying to make - a number 4 SHOULD have beaten the number 22, quite handily. I was wondering therefore what was up with Anand - which was the end of my original statement which you omitted.

I mean, take the last game for example - the higher ranked player is a pawn up, in the deciding game for the title, with his opponent having to make 16 moves in 18 minutes. Even if the extra pawn is not going to count for much, what is the risk of playing on? Put a bit of pressure on Gelfand? Gelfand was in time pressure in the previous game, so again - why not squeeze a little? But in fact it was a prompt draw offer instead.

Edited for PS - I just read this comment on Chessbase.com after writing the above. The below is what I was getting at:

After an interesting tussle in which Gelfand gave up a pawn for compensation in a massive center and bishop pair, one that Kramnik even favored for Black, Anand managed to come out of it into an endgame a pawn up. Though his winning chances were minimal, to be fair, his opponent was down to sixteen minutes to make eighteen moves, and it was entirely riskless to press on and see what happened. Vishy’s justification in the post-game conference was that it was equal and simplified, but that is hardly the question. The real question is: where was the harm in playing on? The only certainty is that he will not win if he does not even try.

[Roger de Coverly]

a number 4 SHOULD have beaten the number 22, quite handily.

I don't see why. This match just shows there's not a lot of difference in standard between the top players. Anand is ranked 4 and Gelfand 22 because Anand gets slightly better results against the rest. More invites to play other top 10 players probably helps.

Anand is 2791 and Gelfand 2727. It's the difference that matters, you wouldn't expect a player rated 2091 to have much advantage against one rated 2027.

[Paul McKeown]

I don't actually understand all this "Yaaboo, Gelfand sucks" rhetoric. Boris Gelfand is one of the world's top players and has been for the best part of three decades. The more I hear this garbage, the more I hope he wins. According to the ratings, his performance is only marginally worse than Anand's or the current absolute top players. Can I ask these one-eyed Anand fans, suppose Adams, Short, McShane, Jones and Hawkins were all playing in the British, but Keith Arkell won instead, would that mean these people would say that Keith wasn't worthy of the title?

[Ray Sayers]

I'm not a one-eyed Anand fan. To be honest, I don't really mind who wins. I've said previously that Gelfand earned the right to play for the title in other posts.

And Anand was favourite to win because:

1. He has much more World Championship match experience
2. He was ranked higher
3. Gelfand, until this match had never beaten Anand in a classical game since 1993
4. Anand had previously beaten such great players as Topalov and Kramnik previously in title matches.

Now, if you take the names Anand and Gelfand out of the equation and had a match between players A and B and put those 4 points forward, you would say that one was, on paper, a favourite.

I have never said that 'Gelfand sucks', ever. He is a strong, dignified Grandmaster. My post was wondering whether something was up with Anand. Too often posts in this forum end up with someone doing a hatchet job putting words into people's mouths. I expressed an opinion. Sorry. I won't raise my head above the parapet again!

No wonder SG has so much material.

[Paul McKeown]

Ray, I wasn't replying only to you, many people seem to have expressed themselves upset that Anand hasn't won more easily than he has yet to do. You say that you have never said that Gelfand sucks, yet earlier you also say "a number 4 SHOULD have beaten the number 22, quite handily." I really don't believe that is borne out by the ratings and seems to me rather disrespectful towards the challenger.

Your point about Anand not pressing in the final game is well made, although it is difficult for club players to really know what world class players consider trivial.

"No wonder SG has so much material." Oh, do come on. Gibbon attacks people for having suffered from mental illness or for being homosexual. That is hardly finding "satirical" material on this forum.

"Sorry. I won't raise my head above the parapet again!". You are perfectly free to express an opinion, but you must expect it to be challenged on a forum, that's the whole point surely? If anyone else expresses an opinion, you are free to disagree with it.

[Mick Norris]

I don't actually understand all this "Yaaboo, Gelfand sucks" rhetoric. Boris Gelfand is one of the world's top players and has been for the best part of three decades. The more I hear this garbage, the more I hope he wins. According to the ratings, his performance is only marginally worse than Anand's or the current absolute top players. Can I ask these one-eyed Anand fans, suppose Adams, Short, McShane, Jones and Hawkins were all playing in the British, but Keith Arkell won instead, would that mean these people would say that Keith wasn't worthy of the title?

Paul

I don't think there is any problem with Anand fans, I think the major problem is with Carlsen fans

Gelfand won the World Cup and then the Candidates - it isn't his fault if those events were flawed, any more than if he becomes champion in a too short match decided by tiebreaks

Whoever wins, there will be a championship match in November 2013 to look forward to

[Paul McKeown]

I look forward to Carlsen playing, he is obviously viewed (with some justification) as the uncrowned champion. Doesn't mean that anyone will simply hand him the title, though! And because he has chosen not to play in this cycle, it shouldn't mean that the actual challenger is viewed with any disrespect.

[AustinElliott]

I look forward to Carlsen playing, he is obviously viewed (with some justification) as the uncrowned champion. Doesn't mean that anyone will simply hand him the title, though! And because he has chosen not to play in this cycle, it shouldn't mean that the actual challenger is viewed with any disrespect.

Yes, it is easy to draw parallels with the late 60s, when Fischer was regarded by many (notably including himself) as the 'uncrowned King', whilst the title matches were between the Soviets. Then try imagining that the world title matches in 1966 and 1968 had NOT involved Boris Spassky, but say (losing 1966 candidates finalist) Viktor Korchnoi instead, whose record against Petrosian was for turgid matches composed mostly of draws, with the two players eyeing each other warily waiting for the other to make the first aggressive move.

Now, that wouldn't have inspired the chess-playing world, or even a lot of the fans in the USSR, but it would still have been a title contest between two great players.

Or - imagine if Bobby Fischer had sat out the 1970-71 interzonal/candidates cycle, as he threatened to do at various stages, and the 1972 title match had been between an increasingly jaded-looking Spassky and the drawing master Petrosian. Again.

There do seem to be some indications that Anand in this match is not the force of old (cf Spassky in 1972). I'd also say that Gelfand is a tough and resourceful battle-hardened competitor, in the form of his life in his mid 40s (cf say Korchnoi in the 1976-78 title cycle). Gelfand also has a lot more to prove than Vishy. But.... the two players are there contesting the title, they are the ones that qualified, and that is that. Perhaps we all regret that Carlsen isn't there... but what if Kramnik, for instance, had been playing instead of Gelfand? Would we have been getting knock 'em down-drag 'em out chess slugfests? I have my doubts.

[Paolo Casaschi]

I'd favour giving the champion draw odds: that way one player will always be (effectively) behind in the match, and thus will have an incentive not to play for draws all the time, which should in theory lead to more interesting games...

Depends what your goal is: is this a match to determine in a fair way the Chess World Champion or is this a match to entertain the mostly unskilled public?

For this one event, I'd prefer the former, so no draw odds, as many games as possible and rapidplay tie-break as last resort.

If you prefer the latter, you pick your choice: draw odds, Sofia rules, upfront tie-break, chessboxing, bughouse with a celebrity playing from a desert island, your imagination is the limit.

I enjoyed this match so far very match and for sure I haven't found game 8 more entertaining than any of the draws... for more dramatic chess I really recommend to watch the live broadcast of any of the various open tournament you can find on the web or on FICS, there you can always enjoy a GM trashing a FM in a very non-drawish style. Or you can switch the computer off and get a book, such as a collection of games of Viktor Kortchnoi, no boring games/comments there. Dont keep looking for entertainment somewhere that since the start was clearly not entertaining for you and it's not even supposed to be entertaining in that way.

[Mats Winther]

...
Yes, it is easy to draw parallels with the late 60s, when Fischer was regarded by many (notably including himself) as the 'uncrowned King', whilst the title matches were between the Soviets. Then try imagining that the world title matches in 1966 and 1968 had NOT involved Boris Spassky, but say (losing 1966 candidates finalist) Viktor Korchnoi instead, whose record against Petrosian was for turgid matches composed mostly of draws, with the two players eyeing each other warily waiting for the other to make the first aggressive move.

Now, that wouldn't have inspired the chess-playing world, or even a lot of the fans in the USSR, but it would still have been a title contest between two great players.

Or - imagine if Bobby Fischer had sat out the 1970-71 interzonal/candidates cycle, as he threatened to do at various stages, and the 1972 title match had been between an increasingly jaded-looking Spassky and the drawing master Petrosian. Again...

To use Petrosian as an example isn't very relevant. All the three Petrosian WCH matches are regarded as very fine chess matches. Kramnik thinks that one of the Petrosian-Spassky matches is one of the finest ever played (I don't remember which of them). A match against the archfiend Korchnoi would have been a splendid event. It's not draws, as such, that are the problem. Fighting draws are fine, but not draws in 22 moves.

M. Winther

[Paul Cooksey]

...you can always enjoy a GM trashing a FM in a very non-drawish style.

Again I disagree a bit . Depending on your perspective, it is not always enjoyable

I agree with most of what Paulo says about the WC match. But I do think there is some importance that the match is prestigious and/ or well rewarded, otherwise there is no incentive for the top players to play.

I suspect the sponsor is delighted to see playoffs - they are likely to be exciting, to get lots of traffic on the official site, and raise the profile of the match generally. I am fairly traditionalist, but still, it is worth arranging some time off work to spectate tomorrow... I don't like penalty shootouts either, in principle. but I always watch them

[Roger de Coverly]

A match against the archfiend Korchnoi would have been a splendid event.

Petrosian and Korchnoi met in the semi final in 1971. In a 10 game match, there were 9 draws and a sole win to Petrosian. Game lengths 35,37,27,65,15,42,13,16,41,40. Petrosian white on the odd numbered games.

Here's the 13 move effort

[Event "Ch World (match) (cand.) (1/2)"] [Site "Moscow (Russia)"] [Date "1971.??.??"] [Round "7"] [White "Petrosian Tigran V (ARM)"] [Black "Korchnoi Viktor (SUI)"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [ECO "D75"] [WhiteElo "2640"] [BlackElo "2670"] 1.g3 d5 2.Nf3 c5 3.Bg2 g6 4.O-O Bg7 5.d4 cxd4 6.Nxd4 Nf6 7.c4 O-O 8.cxd5 Nxd5 9.Nc3 Nxc3 10.bxc3 Nc6 11.Nxc6 bxc6 12.Bxc6 Bh3 13.Bg2 Bxg2 1/2-1/2

In the other semi, Fischer beat Larsen 6-0.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Ray

Sorry if it looked liked I was taken your quote out of context.
I don't think it's any secret that I despair at the faith people put
in numbers to determine how strong chess players are and think
(or appear to think) that this is an accurate way to determine to
who can beat who and how many times.

There is only way to see who is better player on the day.
Playing chess on board not playing with chess with a pocket calculator.
The very moment the first pawn is pushed all numbers are out the window.

Re The last game.
At that level 16 moves in 18 minutes is not time trouble.
Also what will Gelfand be doing whilst waiting for Anand to move.
It's still legal to think on your opponents time.

Pressing on in a drawn position is asking for trouble.
For Anand to make anything of Gelfand's so called time trouble
he will himself have to speed up.
Change gears, re-adjust, switch into two move trap mode.
All this against a position that is not lost.
Then you really are getting into the realms of a penalty shoot out where prior
to the shoot out the players have been running around for 120 minutes.

If Anand thought he was mentally prepared to re-adjust and comfortable
with himself that he could have squeezed a win out of that game using Gelfands
clock then he would have gone for it.

Looking forward to tomorrow. Acting unwell at work today, tomorrow call in sick.

[Mike Gunn]

In most events (where there isn't enough money in sponsorship) you cannot justify a replay, but surely in the case of the world championship there is enough money and interest to justify a proper replay in the case of a drawn match? The incentive on the players to produce a won match would be no prizes awarded until a decisive match takes place.

You could make the same argument for high profile football matches too, e.g. if the Champions' League final ends in a draw, have a full replay a week later rather than the farce of a penalty shootout.