Anand v Gelfand

[Christopher Kreuzer]

In the third rapidplay game, Gelfand failed to play 26.Nxe4. How can a 2738 player miss a move like that?

[John McKenna]

Mental fatigue?

[Johnathan Rothwell]

... 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.

I agree, the financial side is and probably always has been a problem. I believe it was Fischer and later Kasparov who really upped the stakes in that regard (to the benefit of all professional chess players I guess), even lasker or Capablanca (I forget which.) demanded $10 000 before they'd put the title on the line in the 1920's. Getting money will always be a problem because it is a niche market, the general populice would rather watch a dancing dog.

[Mike Gunn]

Since the prize fund for the match just concluded was $2.55 millions, there would seem to be enough money available to hold a proper replay match if the first match were tied. OK, the players would have to put in an extra shift, but a sponsor would get extra/ continuing publicity. I can understand the argument that in some situations a proper replay isn't financially viable, but for the world chess championship?

[Matt Mackenzie]

In the third rapidplay game, Gelfand failed to play 26.Nxe4. How can a 2738 player miss a move like that?

Even better players than Gelfand have missed even more obvious moves, with even more time to think

[Paul Cooksey]

In the third rapidplay game, Gelfand failed to play 26.Nxe4. How can a 2738 player miss a move like that?

Even better players than Gelfand have missed even more obvious moves, with even more time to think

I'd wandered over to Twitter by this point, since it was quiet here. Peter Svidler missed it in commentary too. His explanation is that ne4 is such a terrible move positionally, a strong player can completely ignore it. Of course he shouldn't and usually wouldn't, it is still a blunder. But a high class sort of blunder.

[JustinHorton]

Not that high class. if I'd done that you'd be reading about it the next week.

[Paul McKeown]

Justin, there seems to be a problem with the chess viewer app., certainly on "Miss Easy Tactics 1", the report displayed is "Reported Attack Page! This web page at chess.maribelajar.com has been reported as an attack page and has been blocked based on your security preferences."

[JustinHorton]

Mmm, that's bothersome. Quite a lot of our earlier posts used that playthrough so they're probably unavailable.

[Roger de Coverly]

Six: Emanuel Lasker. Wikipedia has a table (already updated): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_ches ... _victories

According to you can guess who, this is disputed. It's a topic of interest only of great interest to Edward Winter, who will perpetually attack a national newspaper's Chess Correspondent and those associated with him.

[Matt Mackenzie]

Six: Emanuel Lasker. Wikipedia has a table (already updated): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_ches ... _victories

According to you can guess who, this is disputed. It's a topic of interest only of great interest to Edward Winter, who will perpetually attack a national newspaper's Chess Correspondent and those associated with him.

Sometimes, it has to be said, with not inconsiderable justification.......

[Ian Kingston]

Six: Emanuel Lasker. Wikipedia has a table (already updated): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_ches ... _victories

According to you can guess who, this is disputed. It's a topic of interest only of great interest to Edward Winter, who will perpetually attack a national newspaper's Chess Correspondent and those associated with him.

I've been alerted to this, and am happy to acknowledge my error. Kazic's International Championship Chess (1974) treats the Janowski matches as title matches, but Hooper and Whyld's Oxford Companion to Chess, 1st edn (1984), describes two of them as exhibition matches. I am inclined to believe the latter - Whyld has always struck me as the very model of a chess historian.

[Matt Mackenzie]

I thought the consensus was that one of them *was* for the WC, but the other wasn't??

[Ian Kingston]

I thought the consensus was that one of them *was* for the WC, but the other wasn't??

Quoting Hooper and Whyld:

Later that year [1909] Lasker played two exhibition matches against Janowski, drawing the first (+2-2) and winning the second (+7=2-1)

and

[In 1910] Lasker defeated Janowski (+8=3), his third championship match victory (or fourth if the Schlechter match is included) in a four year period.

(The first two matches were against Marshall in 1907 and Tarrasch in 1908.)

[Roger de Coverly]

Lasker defeated Janowski (+8=3), his third championship match victory (or fourth if the Schlechter match is included) in a four year period.

That Schlecter match has occupied magazine columns every so often. If I recall the broad details, it was a 10 game match and Schechter entered the tenth game standing at drawn 8, won 1. Many commentators suggest that he lost the final game in trying for a win. So the question asked was why, particularly as his style of play was usually reliable in drawing? Was it that it wasn't a World Championship match, so the score didn't matter? Or was it that there was a clause requiring him to win by two clear points to consider himself world champion. I'm sure Edward Winter has written extensively on it.