Anand v Gelfand

[Graham Borrowdale]

Yes, nice finish.

I can go back to watching my paint dry now.

[Paul McKeown]

So what's the verdict? 15... Qb8 was dubious?

[Martin Benjamin]

I can't understand the thinking behind 23....g5. I appreciate Black was struggling positionally at this stage, but this move just seems to create weaknesses without any real compensating counter chances. Watching Anand on screen, he seemed distracted at this point, perhaps annoyed at having lost his way around move 20. A few moves later, he appeared to regained his poise at the board, but in the knowledge that by then his position was completely busted.

[Matt Mackenzie]

So, is Anand going to respond - or will he just give up his title without a fight? On his performance so far, its not looking too promising

And we need to think seriously about the consequences of having Gelfand as WC - not since the Euwe interregnum, if then, will somebody so obviously not the world's best player have held the supreme title. Might the demands for change in how this is decided become irresistible??

[Paul McKeown]

If I was playing against a sub-160 standard player, I would have interpreted 23... g5 as, "Oh, he's having a bit of a lash. Wants to play g5-g4 and drive my knight away, perhaps wants to eat my d4-pawn." I certainly wouldn't expect to see 23... g5 from a 280+ standard player!

[Paul McKeown]

@Matt

Err, Euwe interregnum

[Jonathan Bryant]

Gelfie's victory welcomed by everybody except Team Anand and chess bloggers who've just come in from a long bus journey during which they wrote a post which riffed on

(a) perceptions that the match had been boring
and
(b) suggestions that chess was now dead.

F U Boris.



As for giving up the title without a fight: see also Mr. G. Kasparov (aka the greatest player the game has ever known) and other more historical examples that I have no time to cite as I now have a heavy editing job ahead of me.

[Matt Mackenzie]

What, Paul?

It was certainly an "interregnum" - and did anybody seriously suggest he was the world's best player even then??

A great player, of course - as is Gelfy. One stat I find horribly telling, though, is that Gelfand never managed to beat Gazza in classical chess - even once

[Carl Hibbard]

Won't even reach move 30

It did, although might not last much longer

Yes so wrong at least now we have a match

[Martin Benjamin]

So, is Anand going to respond - or will he just give up his title without a fight? On his performance so far, its not looking too promising

And we need to think seriously about the consequences of having Gelfand as WC - not since the Euwe interregnum, if then, will somebody so obviously not the world's best player have held the supreme title. Might the demands for change in how this is decided become irresistible??

I don't think there is a problem with the world champion not being the world's best player. This happens in many sports. For example, Bolt was disqualified at the last Athletics World Championship in the 100m. It is just the nature of things that the best player in the world in any sport may be slightly off form, or suffer bad luck in any one-off event, or be beaten by someone who has an unusually inspired or lucky day. That is the interest of having a world championship event; an underdog has a chance.

[Matt Mackenzie]

I know, Martin - snooker is another example which is often fairly used. But this would be a very unusual thing FOR CHESS........

Even in 2000, Kramnik was widely seen as GK's main challenger (plus, of course, his "bogey" player)

[Paul McKeown]

Matt, did Botvinnik meet that standard, that of the world's best player, during the 1950's?

[Richard Bates]

What, Paul?

It was certainly an "interregnum" - and did anybody seriously suggest he was the world's best player even then??

Well i don't know, but he certainly wasn't far off...

And really it probably hinges on whether you think Alekhine, the man he beat, or Capablanca, who Alekhine wouldn't play, was the best player. Obviously you have to take into account that matchplay and tournament play have always be slightly different beasts. Even if sometimes the differences have been blurred by the World Champion being clearly the best at both. Possibly only Karpov and Kasparov have been clearly totally dominant in tournament play when World Champion?

[Matt Mackenzie]

Matt, did Botvinnik meet that standard, that of the world's best player, during the 1950's?

He surely was for some of that time - or at least that argument could be made. He was never "rated" 20th (or whatever BG is) in the world, was he??

[Richard Bates]

Bit early to right Anand off though. You don't have to look very hard for examples of World Champions being on the brink of being deposed, often against players who "clearly weren't the best player in the World", only to pull it back at the last.