World Championship 2010

[Mick Norris]

Steinitz-Zukertort, 1886. Steinitz won the first game and the match, but this only after losing games 2-5!

Steinitz-Chigorin, 1889. Steinitz lost the first game but won the match. In fact the players took turns in the lead throughout the first half of the match, and it was only at the very end that Steinitz pulled away and won by a clear margin.

Steinitz-Gunsberg, 1890/91. Steinitz won first and won the match too, but trailed after game 5.

Steinitz-Chigorin, 1892. Steinitz lost game 1, led after game 6, trailed after game 8, and through game 21 he alternating between trailing and being even. He won games 22 and 23 to win the match.

Steinitz-Lasker, 1894. Lasker won first and won the match, but it was even through game 6 and only after that did he dominate.

Lasker-Steinitz, 1896/7. Lasker won first and won in a landslide.

Lasker-Marshall, 1907. Lasker won first, second, third...eighth. Utter destruction.

Lasker-Tarrasch, 1908. Lasker won first and won in dominating fashion.

Lasker-Schlechter, 1910. Schlechter won first, but lost the heartbreaking last game. Lasker kept his title with the drawn match.

Lasker-Janowski, 1910. A Lasker massacre and a whitewash: 8-0 with three draws.

Lasker-Capablanca, 1921. Capablanca won 4-0 with draws.

Capablanca-Alekhine, 1927. Alekhine won first and won the match, but Capablanca won games 3 and 7 and led until game 11.

Alekhine-Bogoljubow, 1929. Alekhine won first and won the match, but it was even through six games.

Alekhine-Bogoljubow, 1934. Alekhine won first, and this time dominated until just before the very end, winning comfortably.

Alekhine-Euwe, 1935. Alekhine won games 1, 3, 4 and 7 (Euwe won game 2) and still led by two games after game 19. Euwe won anyway, 15.5-14.5.

Euwe-Alekhine, 1937. Euwe won game 1, Alekhine game 2, Euwe game 5, but then Alekhine took over (though not without resistance until near the end).

Botvinnik-Bronstein, 1951. Bronstein won first, then Botvinnik won the next two games. The players went back and forth throughout the 24-game match, with Bronstein winning games 21 and 22 to go from -1 to +1, only to have Botvinnik win game 23 and draw game 24 to keep his title with a drawn match.

Botvinnik-Smyslov, 1954. Botvinnik started with 3.5/4, and yet by game 11 he was down 1. Despite this he was +2 by game 16, but in the end the match was drawn.

Botvinnik-Smyslov, 1957. Smyslov won game 1 and the match, but was down one when Botvinnik won games 4 and 5.

Smyslov-Botvinnik, 1958. Botvinnik jumped all over him at the start, winning the first three games, and the final score of +2 for Botvinnik was deceptive - he led by four games most of the way and could very easily have preserved that margin to the finish.

Botvinnik-Tal, 1960. Tal won first, and led by three games after game 7. Botvinnik won games 8 and 9 though, so although Tal went on to win by four games it wasn't because Botvinnik had been too discouraged by the early losses.

Tal-Botvinnik, 1961. Botvinnik won game 1, Tal game 2, and Botvinnik game 3. Tal remained within 1 through game 8, but then Botvinnik took over and won by five.

Botvinnik-Petrosian, 1963. Botvinnik won game 1, but Petrosian came back and took the lead. Botvinnik caught him in game 14, but after that Petrosian went +3 and won the match.

Petrosian-Spassky, 1966. Petrosian won first, in game 7, and was up two after game 10. Nevertheless Spassky had caught him by game 19, but Petrosian finished more strongly and regained his title with two games to go. (The last two games were necessary to see if the match would be drawn, but with draw odds for the match the title was already decided.)

Petrosian-Spassky, 1969. Petrosian won first, but Spassky won games 4 and 5 to take the lead. Spassky was up two after game 8, but then Petrosian won games 10 and 11 to tie the match. It remained tied through game 16, and the rest of the way Spassky took over and won by 2.

Spassky-Fischer, 1972. Fischer lost game 1 and forfeited game 2, but by game 5 he was already tied and by game 10 he was up three. He cruised to win the match by four points.

Karpov-Korchnoi, 1978. In the match to see who'd be the first to win six games, Karpov won the first game, and after being caught he went up 4-1 and 5-2. No big deal: Korchnoi won three games in a four-game span to equal the scores, and then Karpov immediately bounced back to get his sixth and final win.

Karpov-Korchnoi, 1981. Karpov won game 1 (and 2) and went on to win convincingly, 6-2.

Karpov-Kasparov, 1984/5. Karpov won games 3, 6, 7 and 9 to take a 4-0 lead, and after a long series of draws, won game 27 as well. No matter: Kasparov won game 32, then games 47 and 48 back to back. The match was terminated at this point, and the first-to-six wins experiment was finished. Back to the best of 24 that occurred from 1951-1972.

Karpov-Kasparov, 1985. Kasparov won first, but Karpov came back to take the lead. Kasparov reclaimed the lead and won the match 13-11 when Karpov overpressed a bit in the last game fighting for the win.

Kasparov-Karpov, 1986. Kasparov won first, and Karpov immediately struck back. Nevertheless Kasparov regained the lead and was up three after game 16. No problem: Karpov won three in a row. And that in turn was no problem for Kasparov, won game 22 and won the match by a point.

Kasparov-Karpov, 1987. An incredible match. Karpov struck first, then Kasparov later took the lead, and the match was even going into the last two games. Karpov pulled out an amazing win in game 23, in his last White game, only to have Kasparov break his heart by doing the same to him in game 24. With a drawn match, Kasparov kept his title.

Kasparov-Karpov, 1990. Kasparov won first, but every time he had the lead Karpov would subsequently equalize the scores. Only after his win in game 18 did Kasparov obtain a lead that would not be erased.

Kasparov-Short, 1993. Kasparov won early and often, winning easily.

Karpov-Timman, 1993. It was a one-sided match, but even here a Karpov win in game 1 was immediately erased by a Timman win in the second game. The problem was that Karpov stole his eraser for almost the rest of the match.

Kasparov-Anand, 1995. Anand won first, in game 9, but lost the next two games and went on to lose two more.

Karpov-Kamsky, 1996. Similar to the Timman match three years earlier, Karpov won game 1, lost game 2, and then dominated the rest of the way, coasting to a three-point win that could easily have been more.

Kasparov-Kramnik, 2000. Kramnik won in games 2 and 10 and finished the match undefeated.

Kramnik-Leko, 2004. Kramnik won game 1 of their 14-game match, but lost games 5 and 8 to go one down. Only by winning game 14 did he save his title with a drawn match.

Kramnik-Topalov, 2006. Kramnik won the first two games, but after Toiletgate and some good play by Topalov, he found himself down one after game 9 (of 12, just as in the current match). Kramnik struck back to win game 10, and they went to a 4-game round of tiebreaks. After a draw, Kramnik won the second game, but Topalov won the third, only to have Kramnik win the fourth game, the tiebreak and the match.

Anand-Kramnik, 2008. Anand won first, and with a string of three wins in a four game span he took a decisive lead, coasting to victory.

http://www.thechessmind.net/

[David Sedgwick]

Apologies to David Sedgwick from my earlier post ... I stand corrected on both points.

Thanks Jonathan. I may post a bit more on the matter at some point.

I take it Albert Vasse can call you as an expert witness if he gets sued?

Sean, Albert Vasse is the Chief Executive of DGT Projects. I may be missing something, but I'm not clear why that gives him any connection with Chess Base or Play Chess. Or did you mean Frederic Friedel?

I can't comment on the legal position, but I find it worrying that you may simply be able to lift something from someone else's website and re-transmit it on your own. I can't see that the interests of chess are best served by this. A sponsor may be relying on the exposure which he expects to get from people logging onto the official site.

[Adam Raoof]

I can't comment on the legal position, but I find it worrying that you may simply be able to lift something from someone else's website and re-transmit it on your own. I can't see that the interests of chess are best served by this. A sponsor may be relying on the exposure which he expects to get from people logging onto the official site.

The point is that it is not possible to copyright the moves. It could also be argued that it is not desirable as, in fact, sponsors want the games broadcast as widely as possible. What they do not want is for their branding to be stripped away completely and replaced by advertising from companies who had nothing to do with the tournament.

What the organisers of major events can provide is added value in the broadcasts to attract viewers. I have not been very impressed with anything I have seen so far - can you compare any of the media coverage of the world chess championship games favourably to the coverage of any other sports?

In Japan the 200 professional Shogi players sign strict contracts with the national organisation, the Shogi Association, when they take part in Shogi tournaments, which are very lucrative. The National organsation controls access to the media, and the broadcasts are extremely slick. The professional game is very well paid, and amateurs follow the big events avidly.

[Steve Rooney]

It seems to me that the issue revolves on how the moves are being gathered. If the moves are seen at the event on a screen or in a press room, then of course reporters on the spot can broadcast them through their own channels, unless perhaps they have waived their rights to broadcast them in real-time as part of the press accreditation process. Of course they may be spectators not accredited journalists, but then presumably there are some restrictions on using communications devices in the vicinity. If you take the London Chess Classic for instance, someone could have watched the games in the Olympia playing area, then run downstairs and telephoned their editor or webmaster from the street.

If on the other hand, the moves are being captured from the board technology, then that is another matter entirely. It seems to me perfectly reasonable for an organiser to control access to this source and license it for a fee if they can.

On grabbing material from a website, it is probably a bit more tricky. As a publisher I would not take kindly to someone lifting material from our magazines or websites in their entirety. However taking the bare facts of a story - in this case the moves of the game - is routine in publishing. (That's why media people spend a lot of their time watching what stories their competitors have.) However if someone were to lift expert analysis of a chess game from a website it would clearly be wrong.

If organisers want to maximise the worth of the games then they need to add value to the process, as Adam points out. I thought that the live transmissions from the Gibraltar event this year were a great example of how it can be done well.

[Mike Gunn]

On the draws issue, after going through the moves of Short-Carlsen in the commentary room at the London Chess Classic, Nigel commented: "I think we may be able to agree a draw here" (they were down to bare kings).

(PS: Yes: I know.)

[Roger de Coverly]

If organisers want to maximise the worth of the games then they need to add value to the process, as Adam points out. I thought that the live transmissions from the Gibraltar event this year were a great example of how it can be done well.

I thought the way it was handled at the London Chess Classic was very good. You had the logos for the various sites offering coverage on the event website. ICC could compete with Chessbase and others on the quality and price of their commentaries and the look and feel of the software rather than the exclusivity of the move relay.

[TomChivers]

Yesterday's victory for Anand reminded me a bit of his victory with white over Carlsen in Linares 2007. The sudden switch from queenside probing to kingside attack I mean.

I've made several predictions about this match, and so far they've all been wrong. Most impressively that there would be no psychological dimension to the type of openings chosen, that both players would just play what they think was best (in my head I predicted 12 slavs.) Instead Anand is playing like Kramnik.

Anyone else surprised? Like several others here, I predicted a win for Topalov over all. Anyone changed their mind yet?

[Jonathan Rogers]

To answer Richard's point, there have been 14 world championships ("proper" matches of 12 games or more) since WW2 where game one has been decisive. In twelve of these the winner also won the match (if you count Botvinnik as having "won" in 1954, ditto Kramnik in 2004 and 2006). The only exceptions are Botvinnik v Petrosian 1963 and ...Bxh2 in 1972.

Unsurprisingly it is all the more one sided if you count the farcical FIDE KO finals between 1997. When game one was decisive, the winner always went on to win (Karpov 1997, Khalifman 1999, Anand 2001, Ponomariov 2002)

[matt_ward]

I am predicting a close encounter and my money is on Anand to win!
Hope he don't let me down.

Matt.

[John Saunders]

To answer Richard's point, there have been 14 world championships ("proper" matches of 12 games or more) since WW2 where game one has been decisive. In twelve of these the winner also won the match (if you count Botvinnik as having "won" in 1954, ditto Kramnik in 2004 and 2006). The only exceptions are Botvinnik v Petrosian 1963 and ...Bxh2 in 1972.

tut tut, lamentable failure to read earlier posts... Petrosian v Spassky in 1969 also started with a win in game 1 for the eventual loser of the match.

[Jonathan Rogers]

ok, guilty

Still, if Anand does pull it off, it will be the first time since ...Bxh2.

[John Saunders]

I agree with Adam Raoof that the official coverage of the match has not been impressive. The official website is decidedly lacklustre, with poor photographs and videos, and dreary textual items. Luckily there is lots of good coverage on PlayChess and ICC, etc, and some infinitely better videos at chessvibes.com. Despite the best efforts of the non-official press, we are back to the pre-1972 times when world chess championships commanded minimal interest in the general media in the West. This is a pity because the entertainment value of the four games played so far has been remarkably high. However, these are early days and we mustn't underestimate the fertile brain of Silvio Danailov when it comes to creating a bit of controversy and garnering a few headlines.

[Arshad Ali]

I agree with Adam Raoof that the official coverage of the match has not been impressive. The official website is decidedly lacklustre, with poor photographs and videos, and dreary textual items. Luckily there is lots of good coverage on PlayChess and ICC, etc, and some infinitely better videos at chessvibes.com. Despite the best efforts of the non-official press, we are back to the pre-1972 times when world chess championships commanded minimal interest in the general media in the West. This is a pity because the entertainment value of the four games played so far has been remarkably high. However, these are early days and we mustn't underestimate the fertile brain of Silvio Danailov when it comes to creating a bit of controversy and garnering a few headlines.

From a chess point of view the games command attention. But the general media -- i.e., non-chess correspondents -- are only going to be interested if there's a human angle, a human dimension. The players themselves are lacklustre off the board. They don't have the stage presence of Kasparov. The popular perception that chess is played by quiet and unexciting nerdy types is close to the mark.

[Sean Hewitt]

However, these are early days and we mustn't underestimate the fertile brain of Silvio Danailov when it comes to creating a bit of controversy and garnering a few headlines.

How about interspercing the games with some rounds of boxing? No, wait....

[John Saunders]

From a chess point of view the games command attention. But the general media -- i.e., non-chess correspondents -- are only going to be interested if there's a human angle, a human dimension. The players themselves are lacklustre off the board. They don't have the stage presence of Kasparov. The popular perception that chess is played by quiet and unexciting nerdy types is close to the mark.

Yes, but you are being a bit unfair on chessplayers. A number of the other top players (i.e. not just Kasparov, although obviously he was our "special one") are articulate, humorous and actually pretty good at handling the media - when they get the chance. By comparison with some mainstream sports people (e.g. monosyllabic clods such as Paul Scholes or Wayne Rooney), they have dazzling personalities. The difference is that chess is a minority interest and cannot afford the necessary PR and media resource to make its top players and pundits come across well. In the final analysis most chess problems are down to lack of cash.