29 Oct 08
Can a world chess championship only be 12 games? Now that Anand has won what next? It doesn't feel like a chess championship like the way you want to wake up at odd hours to look at a boxing match. Here is the FIDE ranking for October :
Rank Name Country Rating Games B-Year
1 Topalov, Veselin BUL 2791 10 1975
2 Morozevich, Alexande RUS 2787 9 1977
3 Ivanchuk, Vassily UKR 2786 50 1969
4 Carlsen, Magnus NOR 2786 31 1990
5 Anand, Viswanathan IND 2783 10 1969
6 Kramnik, Vladimir RUS 2772 16 1975
29 Oct 08
Originally posted by JieFIDE really sucks right now, but i think theyre going to turn it around. theyve gone away from their roots in recent years.. at least it wasnt a tournament
Can a world chess championship only be 12 games? Now that Anand has won what next? It doesn't feel like a chess championship like the way you want to wake up at odd hours to look at a boxing match. Here is the FIDE ranking for October :
Rank Name Country Rating Games B-Year
1 Topalov, Veselin BUL 2791 10 1975
2 Morozevi ...[text shortened]... iswanathan IND 2783 10 1969
6 Kramnik, Vladimir RUS 2772 16 1975
30 Oct 08
Originally posted by JieAnand should go up, shouldn't he, since he won, what, 4 games in the match? Besides, there is only an 8 point dif between Anand and Toppy, you can win or lose that much in a single tournie.
Can a world chess championship only be 12 games? Now that Anand has won what next? It doesn't feel like a chess championship like the way you want to wake up at odd hours to look at a boxing match. Here is the FIDE ranking for October :
Rank Name Country Rating Games B-Year
1 Topalov, Veselin BUL 2791 10 1975
2 Morozevi ...[text shortened]... iswanathan IND 2783 10 1969
6 Kramnik, Vladimir RUS 2772 16 1975
30 Oct 08
Originally posted by JieSo, it's no longer enough to win a traditional championship, and a tournament with most of the best players in the world, in order to call yourself champion?
Can a world chess championship only be 12 games? Now that Anand has won what next? It doesn't feel like a chess championship like the way you want to wake up at odd hours to look at a boxing match. Here is the FIDE ranking for October :
Rank Name Country Rating Games B-Year
1 Topalov, Veselin BUL 2791 10 1975
2 Morozevi ...[text shortened]... iswanathan IND 2783 10 1969
6 Kramnik, Vladimir RUS 2772 16 1975
30 Oct 08
Originally posted by GalaxyShieldA tournament is like a lottery and should not be used to decide a world chess championship. A proper match should be played but in my opinion at least 24 games not 12 games. Anything less and you risk someone grabbing a quick win and then playing for a draw in the remaining games. If Kasparov vs Anand PCA was 12 games all Anand had to do was draw the first 8 games, win game 9 and then coast home to victory in three drawn games. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1004807
So, it's no longer enough to win a traditional championship, and a tournament with most of the best players in the world, in order to call yourself champion?
30 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by JieRegarding the short match length, haven't you learned yet that Kirsan does whatever the heck he wants to do?
A tournament is like a lottery and should not be used to decide a world chess championship. A proper match should be played but in my opinion at least 24 games not 12 games. Anything less and you risk someone grabbing a quick win and then playing for a draw in the remaining games. If Kasparov vs Anand PCA was 12 games all Anand had to do was draw the first 8 gam ...[text shortened]... home to victory in three drawn games. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1004807
30 Oct 08
Originally posted by JieIf in your opinion at least 24 games were needed to play then champion is still Kasparov, as his match with Kramnik in 2000 did formally consist from 16 games.
A tournament is like a lottery and should not be used to decide a world chess championship. A proper match should be played but in my opinion at least 24 games not 12 games. Anything less and you risk someone grabbing a quick win and then playing for a draw in the remaining games. If Kasparov vs Anand PCA was 12 games all Anand had to do was draw the first 8 gam ...[text shortened]... home to victory in three drawn games. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1004807
30 Oct 08
Originally posted by KorchThe problem is that FIDE can do whatever they want and make up the rule depending on who is president. It should be written somewhere in the FIDE rulebook that at least 24 games should be played. If Kramnik vs Kasparov was 16 now Anand vs Kramnik is 12 then next time Anand vs Kamsky/Topalov might be 8 games. Is this right?
If in your opinion at least 24 games were needed to play then champion is still Kasparov, as his match with Kramnik in 2000 did formally consist from 16 games.
- Joined
- 26 May 02
- Moves
- 72546
30 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by vipiuI think Kasparov's comment was a bit unfair. It's more likely that Kramnik's health problems have been the main cause of his decline in chess strength. Kasparov has never forgiven him for taking away his World Championship title.
I like Kasparov statement when he says that Kramnik's defensive style made his overall chess slowly worse 🙂
He is somehow right, all the rising players now are aggresive...
30 Oct 08
Originally posted by JieIn my opinion 24 games is too long - as practice of World Championship matches (with limited number of games) shows that after first half of match players usually starting to get tired which increases number of mistakes.
The problem is that FIDE can do whatever they want and make up the rule depending on who is president. It should be written somewhere in the FIDE rulebook that at least 24 games should be played. If Kramnik vs Kasparov was 16 now Anand vs Kramnik is 12 then next time Anand vs Kamsky/Topalov might be 8 games. Is this right?
From this point of view 12-16 games would be optimal number.
30 Oct 08
Originally posted by KorchThe problem is that FIDE are making up the rules as we go along. For example Kamsky vs Shirov was a four game match affair, when Kamsky won $120,000 (which after taxes and FIDE 20% deduction leaves him with very little). There is no record in history of a world cup but are 4 games enough?
In my opinion 24 games is too long - as practice of World Championship matches (with limited number of games) shows that after first half of match players usually starting to get tired which increases number of mistakes.
From this point of view 12-16 games would be optimal number.
30 Oct 08
Originally posted by David TebbKasparov had said before the match that he favored Kramnik to win it. Kramnik vs Anand's record before the match was Kramnik 6 wins and Anand 4 wins with 41 draws. Kramnik also had Leko as a second. However there was talk of Kramnik's health being in a decline over the years so this may have contributed to his defeat as you have said.
I think Kasparov's comment was a bit unfair. It's more likely that Kramnik's health problems have been the main cause of his decline in chess strength. Kasparov has never forgiven him for taking away his World Championship title.
30 Oct 08
Originally posted by JieThe problems to make these matches longer could be with:
The problem is that FIDE are making up the rules as we go along. For example Kamsky vs Shirov was a four game match affair, when Kamsky won $120,000 (which after taxes and FIDE 20% deduction leaves him with very little). There is no record in history of a world cup but are 4 games enough?
1) organization
2) finances
If we have choice between short matches and no matches at all then I would prefer short matches.
As you can see from chess history before WWII, then also rules had been changed - only they were changed by World champions instead of FIDE. Is that you suggest?
Also before 1993 rules of World championship matches (to say nothing about pretendent competition) has been changed by FIDE several times.