Anand v Gelfand

[Paul McKeown]

In fact they have just agreed a draw. That was a thriller.

[AustinElliott]

Draw - just as I was having visions of Boris 'doing a Bobby FIscher World Championship Kamikaze special' by capturing the pawn on h2 with the Bishop. Though he would have ..f4 as a follow-up, which Bobby F didn't

Anyway, you'd have to call that a moral victory for Boris, I think - comfortably saw off Anand's opening choice with his own novelty early on, never in any strife and neutralised one of Anand's remaining games as White. So starting now it's basically a two game standard-play mini-match, with rapid-play denouement to follow.

[Jonathan Rogers]

The Anand v Gelfand exam

1. How many of their games would have infringed the Sofia Rules had they been in force?

2. Which of their games be remembered in 20 years for their quality?

3. "Modern one to one matches tend to minimise the differences between players of different standards, and to slightly exaggerate the differences between similar strength players" (Rogers). Discuss.

4. Forecast the future of WC matches, given also that Carlsen and perhaps others don't seem to like them

[John McKenna]

"Ma droite est enforcee, ma gauche cede - tout va bien - j'attaque!" (Foch to Joffre during the 1st Battle of the Marne - an allied victory)
"... too weary and dazed by unfinished sleep even to swear, there comes a degree of numbness in fatigue and exasperation, which can be expressed only by sullen silence.' (H. Cobb in Paths to Glory - later a film by Kubrik)

[Graham Borrowdale]

The Anand v Gelfand exam

1. How many of their games would have infringed the Sofia Rules had they been in force?

2. Which of their games be remembered in 20 years for their quality?

3. "Modern one to one matches tend to minimise the differences between players of different standards, and to slightly exaggerate the differences between similar strength players" (Rogers). Discuss.

4. Forecast the future of WC matches, given also that Carlsen and perhaps others don't seem to like them

1. I guess most of the draws, but so what? Sofia rules would have added a number of meaningless moves to each game, or resulted in some contrived repetitions.

2. Probably the yet to be played 12th game...

3. "Modern tournaments tend to exaggerate the differences between players of different standards, and to slightly exaggerate the differences between similar strength players".

4. I think it is fair to say that there was a clamour for a return to WC matches, after the clutch of FIDE tournaments and mini-match championships, none of which produced champions whose title commanded much respect among chesss fans. It seems as though this match might have a similar outcome. I guess it is the apparent lack of rigour in the qualifying process, as well as the fact that one or two individuals did not take part. I think if Carlssen had entered and won through and were playing Anand today there would be far fewer complaints.

[JustinHorton]

In truth how many of the great classics were played in world championship matches?

(I don't necessarily disagree with Jonathan's thinking, but it's worth asking whether quality of play is normally a feature of these matches.)

I think I'd like longer matches, but as I suggested upthread, I'm not at all sure that the players themselves do. I also wonder whether the world championship as an event is much more important to the average chessplayer, i.e. you and me, than it is to the elite players.

[JustinHorton]

As far as point three is concerned - in a close match - which a short match is likelier to be than is a long one - there is an advanatage or sorts handed to the weaker player, similar to that enjoyed in a one-off football match (i.e. one that has to have decisive result and will not go to a replay). So that has a kind of levelling effect.

I'm not sure about separating equal players. A lot of matches have been very close, haven't they?

[Mick Norris]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ch ... ip_matches

[AustinElliott]

The Anand v Gelfand exam

2. Which of their games be remembered in 20 years for their quality?

Hmmm. I guess game 7 is the only candidate so far, but when you put it like that...

4. Forecast the future of WC matches, given also that Carlsen and perhaps others don't seem to like them

As a moderately old fart I'd be happy with a match-tournament, if it was a real contest, say the top five qualifiers plus the champion in a six-cycle quadruple round robin, cf the 1948 tournament or some of the old candidates' tourneys. Of course, that would take six weeks (or more). Even a double round robin (also cf the old candidates) might be OK at a pinch, IMO.

One problem with matches seems to be that, with modern computer-based opening preparation, the players are so primed for each other's repertoire (and likely changes to it) that they effectively neutralise each other. Then you combine this with the risk-aversion that comes from shortish matches, so that they fear a single loss will be fatal. Put together, it does seem to make for very drawish matches.

Of course, in the past certain combinations of match-play opponents tended to have this draw problem, for instance Petrosian and Korchnoi in the 60s and 70s. And then there were matches where one or other of the players was perhaps trying to draw as a tactic, e.g. in some of the Karpov-Kasparov ones. But nowadays, positive results in matchplay games do seem to be getting rarer, overall. [Do the stats actually bear this out?]

[Jonathan Rogers]

In truth how many of the great classics were played in world championship matches?

(I don't necessarily disagree with Jonathan's thinking, but it's worth asking whether quality of play is normally a feature of these matches.)

I think I'd like longer matches, but as I suggested upthread, I'm not at all sure that the players themselves do. I also wonder whether the world championship as an event is much more important to the average chessplayer, i.e. you and me, than it is to the elite players.

I certainly agree with the latter. apparently moro replied to an interviewer that he had never bothered to give any thought to who would win this match!

Well, to answer Justin's questions we need to make a list of classics, and a few years later we can work out the percentage. But one would certainly expect quality of play from a WCh match, and so the wisdom of matches may have to be revised if they produce very few classics in practice. I suspect indeed, they do not produce very many. I suggest the following games (not many) from 1972 onwards as ones they will be still discussing in 40 years time for their pure chess content

cold war 1972 (6) (13) (17)
k v k 1978 (5) (14) (29)
k v k 1981 (13)
k v k 1984 (9) (48)
k v k 1985 (4) (24)
k v k 1986 (8) (16) (22)
k v k 1987 there was a draw which involved some brilliant adjournment analysis (game 7 perhaps, but am not sure)
k v k 1990 (2) (3) (20)
anand v k 1995 (10)
kramnik v k 2000 (2) (4)
kramnik v leko (13) (14)
kramnik v topalov (8)
anand v kramnik (6) (7)
topalov v anand (4) (7)

[Jonathan Rogers]

As far as point three is concerned - in a close match - which a short match is likelier to be than is a long one - there is an advanatage or sorts handed to the weaker player, similar to that enjoyed in a one-off football match (i.e. one that has to have decisive result and will not go to a replay). So that has a kind of levelling effect.

I'm not sure about separating equal players. A lot of matches have been very close, haven't they?

you might have expected closer matches between kasparov and adand (1995) and anand v kramnik 2008 - and just to close the loop, you might have expected kasparov to win a game v kramnik! and let's not even think what would have happened if Kas v karpov 1984, said to be too close to call at the time, had been over 24 games only ...

[JustinHorton]

Though you might have expected a closer match between Kasparov and Anand after eight or nine games of that actual match....

[Matt Mackenzie]

Well, Jonathan, I certainly wouldn't class game 48 (the last of the notorious 1984/85 KvK match) as a classic - not least because Karpov was, by all accounts, half dead by that point. The 1987 match produced several excellent games - it is curious, perhaps, that none have become "immortals".......

I have sympathy, as I think I said before, with those who think 12 classical games is not enough - but it is equally fair to point out that the last three WC matches stand up much better than this one does. Part of it, surely, is that the two players styles "cancel each other out" too much - the comparison with the Korchnoi-Petrosian match four decades ago may actually be pretty accurate (I recall reading that even the "tame" Soviet media made clear their displeasure at that one )

[Christopher Kreuzer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ch ... ip_matches

A few things struck me about that list:

1933, 1935 and 1937 were held (collectively) in 30 cities. Can you imagine that happening nowadays?

1981 (Karpov-Korchnoi) was only 18 games because it was "first to 6 wins".

There have been 'best of 20' and 'best of 16' and 'best of 14' before.

1886 was first to ten wins, but only lasted 20 games. Lot more decisive games then.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Well, Jonathan, I certainly wouldn't class game 48 (the last of the notorious 1984/85 KvK match) as a classic - not least because Karpov was, by all accounts, half dead by that point. The 1987 match produced several excellent games - it is curious, perhaps, that none have become "immortals".......

I listed 48, perhaps trusting kasparov unduly, since GK says that despite his condition karpov played apparently sensible moves but he (GK) just played super-accurately. In other words, a "where exactly did Black make the fatal mistake?" game.

I agree that there are probably more interesting draws to be remembered from the 1987 match.

happy to hear more suggestions regarding my list ...