Candidates Matches, 2011: News and Analysis

Originally posted by no1marauder
There's about a 20% difference in Grischuk's winning percentage with White v. Black and a 15% difference in Gelfand's on the Chessgames database.

so what? now your getting hung on statistics, its chess, its an art form, its a world candidates final, nor does it detract from what was stated previously, Sasha played better on the two previous occasions and Gelfand managed to hang on. You know its true.

Robbie, thanks for the pgn bud.

I think there should be a rule that the players cannot agree to a draw. They should have to play it out, or draw through stalemate or repeated position.

Originally posted by SmittyTime
Robbie, thanks for the pgn bud.

you are most welcome, although it would have been better if someone at our level had posted annotations, those grandmaster annotations are virtually useless.

Originally posted by SmittyTime
I think there should be a rule that the players cannot agree to a draw. They should have to play it out, or draw through stalemate or repeated position.

yes, Sofia rules, rule!

The rule functioned well and made Mtel Masters 2005 and Mtel Masters 2006 very
exciting. We saw fighting chess and all fans were pleased with the level of the
games. It is clear, Sofia rule directly eliminates the possibility for fast (less than 15
moves draws). However, skeptics still debate if the Mtel Masters rule is the key to
making games exciting. Here are some alternative suggestions and their effects:


1. Draw offer can be made after a certain number of moves have been completed.

Positive: This is a logical alternative of the Sofia rule since it will eliminate short
draws as well.

Negative: It does not prevent draws in unbalanced equal endgame positions. Exactly
there is the moment where chess gets exciting for the majority of the audience.


2. Every win is encouraged by financial incentive. The players receive parts of the
prize fund not according to their final standing, but according to the number of
games won.

Positive: Encourages the fighting spirit and makes the games exciting in unbalanced
positions.

Negative: It is not fair for a player that drew all his games to take as much money
as somebody who lost all his games.

3. A change the pointing system. For a win are rewarded 3 points, one point for a
draw, and 0 points for a loss.

Positive: Encourages fighting chess, eliminates short draws, and increases
importance of endgames.

Negative: Requires solid organization by FIDE and major tournaments to apply a
global change. It will also be difficult to adjust to for experienced players.

4. Give different points for games drawn with black and white (0.45 to 0.55 for
example).

Positive: Statistically it will bring down the number of draws by reducing the strive
for draws with blacks.

Negative: This rule will make many last round games a draw for securing a certain
place in the table.

http://rules.chessdom.com/sofia-rule

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
so what? now your getting hung on statistics, its chess, its an art form, its a world candidates final, nor does it detract from what was stated previously, Sasha played better on the two previous occasions and Gelfand managed to hang on. You know its true.

If Sasha was soooooooooooooooooo confident he could "play better" in classical, he wouldn't be offering draws on the 14th move as White.

I'd say Grischuk failed to cash in his advantages in the first two games and Gelfand outplayed him in the endgames to secure draws. I think Gelfand has an excellent shot at winning game 4.

Originally posted by no1marauder
If Sasha was soooooooooooooooooo confident he could "play better" in classical, he wouldn't be offering draws on the 14th move as White.

I'd say Grischuk failed to cash in his advantages in the first two games and Gelfand outplayed him in the endgames to secure draws. I think Gelfand has an excellent shot at winning game 4.

if you listened to the post game conference you would have heard both players state that black had compensation for the pawn and even a slight initiative but Sasha reckoned it was not enough for a victory and the position was therefore drawish. Gelfand must have a greed with him as he acquiesced to the draw. out played in the endgames? you mean fighting for survival in the endgames! Yes Gelfand has an excellent chance and i hope he succeeds, but Sasha is also awesome!

Originally posted by no1marauder
If Sasha was soooooooooooooooooo confident he could "play better" in classical, he wouldn't be offering draws on the 14th move as White.

I'd say Grischuk failed to cash in his advantages in the first two games and Gelfand outplayed him in the endgames to secure draws. I think Gelfand has an excellent shot at winning game 4.

even with a win in game 4 the old man still has to survive game 5 and 6 also.

Originally posted by watchyourbackrank
even with a win in game 4 the old man still has to survive game 5 and 6 also.

OOPS I thought it was another 4 game match.

That makes Gelfand decision to accept a quick draw even more understandable.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
if you listened to the post game conference you would have heard both players state that black had compensation for the pawn and even a slight initiative but Sasha reckoned it was not enough for a victory and the position was therefore drawish. Gelfand must have a greed with him as he acquiesced to the draw. out played in the endgames? you mean fi ...[text shortened]... ndgames! Yes Gelfand has an excellent chance and i hope he succeeds, but Sasha is also awesome!

If you say so. Most analysis I saw say Grischuk missed some moves which would have gave him better winning chances in the endgames (like 43 .... a3 in game 2). If you have an inferior position going into the endgame and get half a point, you've outplayed your opponent IMO whether you're "fighting for survival" or not.

Originally posted by no1marauder
OOPS I thought it was another 4 game match.

That makes Gelfand decision to accept a quick draw even more understandable.

feelin da heat? could be roasty toasty for Boris! 😛

Originally posted by no1marauder
If you say so. Most analysis I saw say Grischuk missed some moves which would have gave him better winning chances in the endgames (like 43 .... a3 in game 2). If you have an inferior position going into the endgame and get half a point, you've outplayed your opponent IMO whether you're "fighting for survival" or not.

sure thing, lets not argue over it. I really dont know how they can concentrate for so long, it was hard enough trying to concentrate on them concentrating. Boris has played some awesome chess, for sure, and he is actually quite entertaining to watch. So is Sasha, he talks to himself and the pieces. Anand, by comparison is rather poker faced. Their sportmanship afterwards was also truly refreshing.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sure thing, lets not argue over it. I really dont know how they can concentrate for so long, it was hard enough trying to concentrate on them concentrating. Boris has played some awesome chess, for sure, and he is actually quite entertaining to watch. So is Sasha, he talks to himself and the pieces. Anand, by comparison is rather poker faced. Their sportmanship afterwards was also truly refreshing.

I don't think either one can beat Anand at this point.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I don't think either one can beat Anand at this point.

I'd be very surprised if gelfand was up to it. but then again, he's surprised me almost every time these last year or two. maybe the old dog still has some fresh tricks left.

still, I'd put my money on grischuk of the two. apparently he's not really taking chess as professionally as the others, and yet he's one of the last two men standing. if he puts the real effort in before the anand match, maybe he'll have a chance. but that's a big if. why would he suddenly change his ways now, when he hasn't done it so far? he obviously has the talent (and in my opinion has been continuously underestimated these past few years), but will he have the work ethics of a champion?

but yeah, I'll be quite surprised if anand doesn't keep his title.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I don't think either one can beat Anand at this point.

After that "show", I don't think either of them deserves to.

It's not as if they were in need of a day off, after all.

Richard