Anand v Gelfand

[David Shepherd]

I think a better format would be to put the tiebreak at the start and give the winner 0.25 points. That way at the end of the match there would be an outcome, the deciding games would be over a longer time limit and draws would be less likely as the score would never be equal - one player would always be behind.

[Paolo Casaschi]

I think a better format would be to put the tiebreak at the start and give the winner 0.25 points. That way at the end of the match there would be an outcome, the deciding games would be over a longer time limit and draws would be less likely as the score would never be equal - one player would always be behind.

I belive this is a bad idea.

With the current format, the rapidplay tiebreak MIGHT have a huge impact on deciding the winner (as it happens this year) or NO impact at all (as it happened in the recent past, such as in Anand/Kramnik and Anand/Topalov).
With your proposal, the rapidplay tiebreak will ALWAYS have a huge impact on deciding the winner: with such a small number of classic chess games, starting with draw odds would be a major advantage and would change the match strategy completely.

If you dont want the chess world championshiop to be decided by rapid games, then you better stick with the current natural order (regular games, THEN rapidplay if needed); only change I'd welcome: more games.

[Jonathan Bryant]

I think a better format would be to put the tiebreak at the start and give the winner 0.25 points. That way at the end of the match there would be an outcome, the deciding games would be over a longer time limit and draws would be less likely as the score would never be equal - one player would always be behind.

I belive this is a bad idea.

Indeed. I have heard the same suggestion made for penalty shoot-outs in football matches for at least 20 years now. There's a reason why they don't do it.

[Paul Cooksey]

I agree with Paulo's argument that a tie-break at the beginning impacts all matches.

I disagree a bit that a tie-break at the end does not. I think it is widely believed that Topalov's last game loss to Anand was influenced by his belief he had no chance in a rapid tie-break. Arguably, this match has been influenced by both players believing they had a better chance to win in the playoff.

More games certainly, but how to arrange; how about letting the champion keep the title in a tie, but giving the challenger the right to a rematch?

[Jonathan Bryant]

More games certainly, but how to arrange; how about letting the champion keep the title in a tie, but giving the challenger the right to a rematch?

Probably unpopular with challengers, champions and everybody ... and perhaps particularly challengers. Didn't Korchnoi offer to play to Fischer rules (i.e. that he'd have to win a match 10-8) if Karpov would give up the right to a rematch for Merano 81?

[Paul Cooksey]

Probably unpopular with challengers, champions and everybody ... and perhaps particularly challengers.

Really? I know the old losing champion rematch was considered unfair. I'm not proposing that, but instead a rematch on a tie

[Jonathan Bryant]

Probably unpopular with challengers, champions and everybody ... and perhaps particularly challengers.

Really? I know the old losing champion rematch was considered unfair. I'm not proposing that, but instead a rematch on a tie

Yes I realise that, but Korchnoi felt the rematch was so unfair to him that he was willing to suggest not that Karpov could have draw odds in a one match championship but that he could effectively start at +1.

Admittedly, Korchnoi's antipathy was in part due to the state support that Soviet Union players got which wouldn't be relevant now. Still, I don't see a rematch clause being particularly popular.

[Paul Cooksey]

Yes I realise that, but Korchnoi felt the rematch was so unfair to him that he was willing to suggest not that Karpov could have draw odds in a one match championship but that he could effectively start at +1..

Well yes, but I think Korchnoi's position was that he would rather win one match by a large margin than have to win two. I am still only asking him to win one match.

I imagine you could have convinced Bronstein, Smyslov, Spassky and Leko to play a rematch rather than requalify. Gelfand too, so long as he is getting paid, which is the essence of being a professional chess player. (on the assumption this was a better match, because he was trying to win, and someone is willing to pay of course)

[Paolo Casaschi]

I disagree a bit that a tie-break at the end does not. I think it is widely believed that Topalov's last game loss to Anand was influenced by his belief he had no chance in a rapid tie-break. Arguably, this match has been influenced by both players believing they had a better chance to win in the playoff.

"disagree a bit"... I'll never master the subtleties of the English language

Anyway, my point is that the tie-break at the beginning ALWAYS affects the final outcome. The tie-break at the end MIGHT or MIGHT NOT affect the outcome depending on circumstances. If Gelfand had won two games in the first half of the match, then managed draws till the end, the prospect of a tie-break at the end of the match would not have had any impact whatsoever.

[Ray Sayers]

When Anand had to win to level the match - Pow! He did it double quick.

So I wonder why he didn't throw the kitchen sink again?

I can't understand why the world champion and world number 4 plays for the chess version of penalties against the world number 22. Do you think something is up with Anand?

If he loses the shoot-out he will be kicking himself.

[David Shepherd]

Indeed. I have heard the same suggestion made for penalty shoot-outs in football matches for at least 20 years now. There's a reason why they don't do it.

I haven't seen many football matches where both teams agree a draw half way through the match.

[David Shepherd]

I belive this is a bad idea.

With the current format, the rapidplay tiebreak MIGHT have a huge impact on deciding the winner (as it happens this year) or NO impact at all (as it happened in the recent past, such as in Anand/Kramnik and Anand/Topalov).
With your proposal, the rapidplay tiebreak will ALWAYS have a huge impact on deciding the winner: with such a small number of classic chess games, starting with draw odds would be a major advantage and would change the match strategy completely.

If you dont want the chess world championshiop to be decided by rapid games, then you better stick with the current natural order (regular games, THEN rapidplay if needed); only change I'd welcome: more games.

I am not quite sure of the logic in your final statement - under my proposal rapidplay maybe has more of an influence, not less as
you point out, so I am not against rapidplay being part of the tie break, although I prefer the idea of it at the start (it makes it less likely for the tournament to end in farce as from memory a womens world championship did).

I just believe it would influence the chess to make early draws less likely, I accept the arguement of it being slightly to the detriment of the player that is worse at rapidplay but I think the impact is not so high.

I accept it does change the nature of the match - I think in a similar manner to the away goal rule in football, which seems to result in more exicitng and attacking football.

[Michael Jones]

I'd favour giving the champion draw odds: that way one player will always be (effectively) behind in the match, and thus will have an incentive not to play for draws all the time, which should in theory lead to more interesting games...

[David Shepherd]

Yes that doesn't seem unreasonable either assuming that one of the players is a defending champion, although in someways nice to see a winner rather than just someone winning by drawing.

[Geoff Chandler]

"I can't understand why the world champion and world number 4 plays
for the chess version of penalties against the world number 22"

These ratings and placings mean nothing.
If they did then the No.4 would have hammered the No.22.
Gelfand has just drawn a 12 game match with the current World Champion.

I like the current WC format. It has a start and finish date with a definate outcome.
Clearly designed to attract television (that is where the proper money is.)
What the match has lacked is an incident for the media to get it's teeth into.
(toliet gate or yoghurt gate, something like that).

Talk of a lottery and penalties is also off beam.
The guy who plays the best chess on the day will win.