Anand v Gelfand

[Paul Cooksey]

Anand describing himself as relieved and saying the match could have gone either way in the press conference. Gelfand conducting himself with a lot of diginity

[Alex Holowczak]

Gelfand conducting himself with a lot of diginity

What did you expect him to do? Blame it on the arbiter, because he missed a blatant touch move in game five?

[Paul Cooksey]

Gelfand conducting himself with a lot of diginity

What did you expect him to do? Blame it on the arbiter, because he missed a blatant touch move in game five?

Rumour has it one top GM reponded to a request for a drugs test with a head butt, and he'd lost a single game, rather than a match which will define his career

But seriously, it is pretty common to see losing sportsmen give a couple of mono-syllabic answers and shuffle off as quickly as they can.

[JustinHorton]

And who can blame them?

[Paul Cooksey]

It's exciting, but it is no way to settle a WC. Poor Boris

I'm beginning to wonder if this is the future of over-the-board chess; games with something like 25 + 10' on the clocks, rather than the seven-hour stuff.

It seems that the two games so far have been more exciting than the twelve that went before it. Speaking personally, I'm not really interested in sitting down and watching the seven-hour stuff, but I've watched the second of the two games this morning, and found it interesting. The games are long enough for commentators to provide analysis, but short enough to hold my interest for an hour without wandering off and doing something else.

The trouble with rapidplay is the standard is terrible. Off the top of my head I can only think of one really great rapidplay game. (Ivanchuck-Yusupov Candidates 1991). Mostly, what you get is something like a world class player losing an endgame because he only has 10 seconds per move and can't play fast enough.

There is an existing industry (books, magazines, dvds) built around the deep concepts of great players. I can't see rapidplay as a spectator sport replacing that. In fact I don't think it can even exist in parallel, the only reason people are watching a play-off is because the World Championship is a big deal. If it was just a rapidplay match, even one with great conditions and prizes, it would have little prestige. Everyone knows rapidplay is just for fun, it isn't serious chess.

[Ian Stephens]

I've just got up...What time does it start?

Geoff, as soon as you can get there!

[Alex Holowczak]

The trouble with rapidplay is the standard is terrible. Off the top of my head I can only think of one really great rapidplay game. (Ivanchuck-Yusupov Candidates 1991). Mostly, what you get is something like a world class player losing an endgame because he only has 10 seconds per move and can't play fast enough.

But so what?

If I want to sit down and be entertained by a game of chess, I don't necessarily want to watch players playing perfect moves. I want to see them make mistakes, and the game toing and froing. That's where the interest lies.

I don't want to sit down and watch a game that lasts 7 hours. If I want to learn something from the game, then I'll take a look at the PGN afterwards.

I'm not interested in seeing perfect chess, because I never will. I'd rather be entertained by a game lasting about an hour, than a 7-hour game that cuts to an art gallery and music every so often because there is nothing more to say/do but to watch people sitting at a board.

[Paul Cooksey]

If I want to sit down and be entertained by a game of chess, I don't necessarily want to watch players playing perfect moves. I want to see them make mistakes, and the game toing and froing. That's where the interest lies.

No interest in the depth of play? No element of art or science, just basic sport?

Visually, it isn't particularly interesting. Why not watch boxing instead?

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I'm not interested in seeing perfect chess, because I never will. I'd rather be entertained by a game lasting about an hour, than a 7-hour game that cuts to an art gallery and music every so often because there is nothing more to say/do but to watch people sitting at a board.

Ah, but presumably those players sitting at the board for seven hours are trying to play something approaching their best chess, and might even have pretensions on perfection. That is something that sets chess apart from most other sports, maybe more so at this rarefied level.

[Matt Mackenzie]

It's exciting, but it is no way to settle a WC. Poor Boris

I'm beginning to wonder if this is the future of over-the-board chess; games with something like 25 + 10' on the clocks, rather than the seven-hour stuff.

It seems that the two games so far have been more exciting than the twelve that went before it. Speaking personally, I'm not really interested in sitting down and watching the seven-hour stuff, but I've watched the second of the two games this morning, and found it interesting. The games are long enough for commentators to provide analysis, but short enough to hold my interest for an hour without wandering off and doing something else.

The trouble with rapidplay is the standard is terrible. Off the top of my head I can only think of one really great rapidplay game. (Ivanchuck-Yusupov Candidates 1991). Mostly, what you get is something like a world class player losing an endgame because he only has 10 seconds per move and can't play fast enough

The 2006 WC play-off games weren't bad at all, IMO.

[Alex Holowczak]

If I want to sit down and be entertained by a game of chess, I don't necessarily want to watch players playing perfect moves. I want to see them make mistakes, and the game toing and froing. That's where the interest lies.

No interest in the depth of play? No element of art or science, just basic sport?

Visually, it isn't particularly interesting. Why not watch boxing instead?

Because I don't like boxing. I like to watch chess live, but not for 7 hours. If a game lasting one hour has some inaccuracies, then I can live with that.

[Johnathan Rothwell]

Congratulations to Anand, and likewise commiserations to Gelfand.

Regarding the length of games debate: I would much prefer classical time limits, possibly even with adjournments. Rapid chess holds no interest whatsoever, especially with the World Championship. I would also prefer a 24 game or first to 6 wins format. With 12 games of rapid chess you may as well toss a coin.

I don't understand people who have complained that the match has been boring, I have enjoyed it, but more importantly the championship and the players aren't there to entertain. It is a board game, an intellectual pursuit, not a spectator sport.

[Paul Cooksey]

Congratulations to Vishy Anand - World Rapidplay Champion

I don't think the legitimacy of Anand's title can be questioned. He won a standard play match against the reigning champion, and no-one has beaten him.

I would have been uncomfortable if the title had changed hands in the rapid play-off.

[Sean Hewitt]

... but more importantly the championship and the players aren't there to entertain. It is a board game, an intellectual pursuit, not a spectator sport.

The problem with that view is that financing the event becomes a problem. The players appear to want to be paid for a start, and that almost certainly requires sponsorship.

[Giulio Simeone]

It may well happen, in 20 or 30 years, that chess will completely submit to broadcasting requirements, and that the most important international tournaments, as well as the world championship, will be blitz tournaments ... but let me hope I won't happen.

I'm not proposing blitz; I'm proposing what we now call rapidplay. Long enough to sit down and watch for an hour, but short enough not to bore you.

The commentary of this match has sometimes switched to some art gallery because there's nothing going on at the chess. At least, in a 7-hour day of Test cricket (including the hour for lunch and tea combined), there are 540 discrete moments of interest during the day. With a 7-hour chess game, there might be 100 on average. (A fifty-move game, which is probably a bit generous.)

Yes, I used the term "blitz" unproperly, I understood you proposed a rapidplay time rate ... still, my opinion doesn't change. You are considering the problem mostly from the point of view of a TV spectator: I believe, though, that the majority of chess enthusiasts likes to play rather than to simply watch, and there are also a consistent number of people who spend a lot of time studying and trying to improve theirselves.

Now, it seems to me that people definitely prefer to play slow tournaments rather than rapidplay tournaments: many chess players spend money and travel long distances in order to play slow tournaments, it seems to me that the same doesn't happen for rapidplay tournaments ... as for studying, it is obvious that a slow game is played much better than a sleazy rapid game.

So I believe and hope that chess won't submit to broadcasting requirements, and that it will continue to be a slow thinking game ... but don't worry, if TV networks find out that people enjoy watching rapidplay games, it will be enough for them to put electronic boards on the already existing rapidplay tournaments and trasmit them live. Until now, it seems to me that this happens very seldom.

Finally, I want to point out that watching a 7-hour-session between two strong grandmasters, isn't necessarily boring, on the contrary can be very instructive: it's not true that the intervals on which they think are uninteresting, while they think you also can think about the position, try to understand why they play in a certain way, try to guess their next move ...