English Chess Forum

... which will be hitting our computer servers soon. Anyone think that Gelfand might do it?

Not for the first time, Chessbase has ran an article with predictions from players who are so eminent and well connected with the participants that they don't actually offer any predictions at all. (It was even worse just before Anand v Kramnik, when they sought predcitions from people who were official commentators!). But I think that Karpov probably means to say that he reckons Gelfand will win.

Well Jonathan, I think what they were trying to say was, "Well it's a game of two halves, both players are going to have to give 110% as there are no easy games at this level but if they take it one game at a time, whoever scores the most goals will win and the other team will be sick as parrots."

Most chessplayers are so politically correct they're boring- I couldn't even bear to read all that.

I think Kasparov's snip that this is the first time in modern world championship history where the match between the official World Champion and Challenger won't prove the strongest player in the world is especially revealing. I imagine he more precisely means that Anand is in his consideration no longer one of the top echelon of the elite, unlike Carlsen/Aronian, possibly still Kramnik with age there also a factor. Gelfand has far greater chances than most people realise, but in either case, I do think this will be the last WC either of them wins.

I know Kasparov probably is having a dig, but he is spot on; I can't remember any other WCC match where one of the players has not been world number 1 or recognised as the best player in the world.

But then, that's not Anand or Gelfand's fault. When you have shootout lotteries to decide the challenger, no wonder you don't get the strongest contest. Anand has the right to defend his title. Good luck to Gelfand; he kept his nerve in the Qualifiers and fair play to him. But we all know who would win a 12 game match with Gelfand playing either Kramnik/Aronian/Carlsen.

Dan O'Dowd wrote: I imagine he more precisely means that Anand is in his consideration no longer one of the top echelon of the elite....

Probably more likely he's saying that Anand isn't at the very top of the top echelon of the elite - which he isn't (unlike Carlsen/Aronian etc).

As for the original question, Gelfand could win - shortish match, two-horse race, solid style, Vishy out of form of late - but I don't really see it happening. Mind you, I didn't see Chelsea winning last night either.

Ray Sayers wrote:I know Kasparov probably is having a dig, but he is spot on; I can't remember any other WCC match where one of the players has not been world number 1 or recognised as the best player in the world.

But then, that's not Anand or Gelfand's fault. When you have shootout lotteries to decide the challenger, no wonder you don't get the strongest contest. Anand has the right to defend his title. Good luck to Gelfand; he kept his nerve in the Qualifiers and fair play to him. But we all know who would win a 12 game match with Gelfand playing either Kramnik/Aronian/Carlsen.

Well, Aronian has achieved nothing at match play, it must be said. Gelfand won the only match played with kramnik, when Kramnik was also thought to be favourite. We probably ought to try to give Gelfand his due, he may be world champion soon!

Aronian doesn't seem to have played many matches. He got knocked out by Grischuk in this cycle after tying 2-2, in a rapidplay play off, which kind of backs up my point of the WCC being a bit of a lottery. Carlsen hasn't played any WCC matches at all, but I still think he would spank Gelfand over 12 games.
Gelfand did indeed beat Kramnik 4.5 - 3.5 in a match back in 1994. However, then Kramnik was ranked 6th in the world and Gelfand 9th, so it's not shock of the century. Now, Kramnik is 3rd and Gelfand 22nd. Also, Kramnik since went on to be the only person to beat Kasparov in a match. Like I said, fair play to Gelfand for qualifying, but I stand by what I said about A/K/C beating him over 12 games.

Gazza has never really rated Vishy, has he??

I think what Gazza meant was that the match wasn't between two reasonable contenders; I don't think he meant to say that Anand isn't the world number one. It seems to me he pretty clearly is, in the sense that he'd be at the very least even money against anyone in a match.

Gelfand might indeed be world champion soon and one can't deny he did what he had to do, beat what was put in front of him, etc., but one also can't deny that what he won was a Mickey Mouse qualifier run in FIDE's ineffably stupid style, which wasn't designed to find the strongest challenger and duly didn't.

we are going back here to whether there is a significant difference between tournament players and match players. In Gelfand's case perhaps there is (remember he won the KO World Cup event in 2009 (?) too, and earlier he qualified for the world ch tournament in Mexico 2007 by playing two sis game matches without losing a game in either).

Not saying that Gelfand is anywhere near the world's strongest player, just "let's give him his due in matches" and let's not rule out the possibility that he might also have got this far with a less mickey mouse format, if the format were still matchplay.

I'll still back Anand though.

I think a player like Aronian will want to do well in the World Championships, but this is one of many goals. Gelfand on the other hand seems to be uniquely focused on the World Championships, so for example he might sacrifice his performance at another event so as not to reveal his preparation. That makes Gelfand a dangerous opponent for Anand. I hope that there will be a positive result early in the encounter because I am afraid that I can see a drawfest. I don't see a clear cut favourite.

You can't really guarantee having the two best players in the Final any more than you can guarantee having the best two teams in the World Cup Final. You could give yourself a lot better chance by having long matches in qualification - but is there any likelihood that the players would agree to that these days?

I would love to see a return to the 24 game match format. I miss those epic matches, KvK, Fischer-Spassky, Botvinnik-everyone! FIDE are trying to treat chess like snooker, except it isn't.

I haven't had a bet, but Gelfand is 11/5 with Ladbrokes, that seems incredible value