Originally posted by greenpawn34I disagree here, over the last two years Kramnik has adapted his style significantly to try and compete with the carlsen roller coaster. His last win in Dortmund showed much more risk taking, when he won the LCC his play was sharp. While i do think he would take a much more conservative approach to a WC match, i do think he'd attempt to beat Anand this time round. When they played their last WC match, Kramnik had fallen into that old school World champion thing of hardly playing in any tournaments. He sat on that title for years and didn't keep his game sharp. Anand has struggled with this to a certain extent too (though he does play more frequently). If Carlsen does manage to win the WC (which is by no means certain, his results against Anand are hardly convincing) then it will be interesting to see what effect it has on his tournament results. Up until now he's had nothing to lose...
Kramnik would have bored the pants of Anand like he did v Kasparov.
Hi Marine.
Of course Kramnik's approach to his match v Kaparov was in the end justfied,
one can hardly blame him for not crossing swords in any type of game Kasparov
revelled in. But it was awful to watch and a torrid advert for chess.
I'm a great believer in old dogs and new tricks.
I expect the media to jump onboard for this one and the two styles promise
some mouth watering chess.
However...(part 1)
The big thing in Carlsen's favour is his youth and fitness and this perhaps may
throw up a negative quality.
There will be no adjournments in this match.
So we are looking at seven hour playing sessions with a blitz finish.
We have seen Carlsen carry out his war of attrition games against younger men than Anand.
Grinding out wins
He may, and why not?, adopt this wear him down strategy.
However...(part II)
Both players at anytime can slip into the 'call of the wild' and these are
the games we can look forward too.
Originally posted by VarenkaThat's the 'best' I can say? Obviously you didn't see my previous post titled 'Magnus the Magnusifent', did you?
And the best you can say is "through the backdoor" which often means "unofficial" or "underhand". I think you're the one needing to relax and give Carlsen some credit when it's due.
Luck to me is when something out of your control, like another game, helps decide your fate. I am not saying either player won that particular game by luck, I am saying...oh never mind lol. 😛
Maybe it's not what I say but the way I say it that gets under some people's skin. Well too bad. I'm going to be me. I'm not changing for anyone. And I'm through defending and explaining.
Nevertheless, to end this silly argument you started, I will admit that everything you say about me is true. When I used the term 'back door" I meant that Magnus 'unofficially' won purely on 'luck', 'underhanded' play, and that he is an undeserving overrated patzer who has no skill whatsoever and doesn't deserve any 'credit'...especially when it's due.
There, argument closed. Now you can smugly get some rest 🙂
Originally posted by greenpawn34I cannot agree, I thought the Berlin games in the match were amazing. Kramnik parried every threat Kasparov came up with as white.
Hi Marine.
Of course Kramnik's approach to his match v Kaparov was in the end justfied,
one can hardly blame him for not crossing swords in any type of game Kasparov
revelled in. But it was awful to watch and a torrid advert for chess.
I'm a great believer in old dogs and new tricks.
And at the time, the Berlin was out of style and Kramnik brought it back into prominence. It completely changed the way the super guys play. Anand says that he plays the Marshall for a draw and the Berlin for the win these days.
I've read enough of your great writing to know that you fancy fireworks, but if a genie granted me the choice of beating a "regular" strong player in a miniature or the ability to share a point with the best chess players in the world, I'd chose the latter. Draws may be boring to some people, but at that level it's not necessarily an easy feat.
Originally posted by MarinkatombIt was real lottery during the last rounds.
I think the 'number of wins' rules was important to encourage fighting chess. After the last candidates flop (lets face it, it was terrible!) i think number of wins works. It is very harsh on poor old Kramnik though, the guy played brilliantly! You have to hand it to Carlsen though, i think that, in the end, the stronger player won. The last three games ...[text shortened]... him to come good in two years though. He has shown he is still one of the best in the World.
I don`t see how such a narrow win may prove Carlsen`s superiority. Especially taking into account that his results vs tournament top (Kramnik, Aronian & Svidler) was not too impressive. It`s not like Fischer in 70ties.
And I don`t expect easy win for Carlsen vs Anand.
Hi Thabtos
I like interesting chess at all stages of the game. (somethimes including the ending.)
I give credit to Kramnik the way he he beat Kasparov, it was the only way
and holding at bay the games greatest player (albeit getting on a bit) was quite a feat.
Kasparov too was at fault for being so stubborn and allowing the Boring Wall so often.
I give credit but I don't want to see that again.
I think we got the final we all wanted to see.
IMO Carlsen v Anand will be good for chess.
Hi Pacifique
I agree it won't be as one sided as some think. I think Carlsen will prep with
a couple of matches as in this area he is relatively untested. Or maybe not.
Either way I'm thinking Anand will be glad it's Carlsen and not Kramnik.
Hi Woody
"It's been a long time since a Russian wasn't playing in the championship match. "
3 years. Anand v Topalove 2010.
I also made that mistake in another forum. We forgot Topalov is Bulgarian.
(before that no Russians in a final was 1921 Lasker-Capablanca).
PS: Thanks for writing compliment Thabtos.
I write as I see it and I say what I think.
I don't think I'm a good writer on the game. 🙂
I have too many opinions on how the game should be played and studied.
But I enjoy it and I try to do it open and honestly....with a bit fun. 😉
Originally posted by PacifiqueI absolutely agree! Carlsen didn't prove superiority in this tournament at all, Kramnik was inspired in the second half! I just feel that, over the last two or three years, Carlsen has proven superiority, perhaps not against the top three or four, but in general consistency. There really are only four or five players in the World who can compete with him.
It was real lottery during the last rounds.
I don`t see how such a narrow win may prove Carlsen`s superiority. Especially taking into account that his results vs tournament top (Kramnik, Aronian & Svidler) was not too impressive. It`s not like Fischer in 70ties.
And I don`t expect easy win for Carlsen vs Anand.
As for Kramnik, disregarding the last game, i have to say he should have won it. If you look at the first half of the tournament, he took a logical approach, don't lose! Once it became clear that he had to win games to get into contention, he took more risks and it really paid off! I can't help feeling that, had he adopted Carlsens approach (namely, draw your main opponents and out score them against the rest) then he could have been a clear winner as his play was definitely superior over the whole event. Had he decided to really press against the 'weaker' players in the first half, then things would have been different. Carlsen has been so successful lately, it is no wonder that his opponents were so well prepared to face him. Magnus struggled to get an advantage in most of his games, it is only his exceptional technique that has brought him through this time, he really should have come second, Kramnik just left himself too much to do in the second half.
However, Carlsen out rates everyone by a MASSIVE margin! Hell, he nearly out rates Anand by 100 points! His performance in London was not spectacular but, all things considered, there really is only one challenger for the World title and we all know that..
Originally posted by MarinkatombThis will help us see if Carsen really deserves that high rating or if the rating system is flawed.
I absolutely agree! Carlsen didn't prove superiority in this tournament at all, Kramnik was inspired in the second half! I just feel that, over the last two or three years, Carlsen has proven superiority, perhaps not against the top three or four, but in general consistency. There really are only four or five players in the World who can compete with him ...[text shortened]... considered, there really is only one challenger for the World title and we all know that..
Originally posted by RJHindsHis rating is just a reflection of his results, which have been outstanding the last few years. He will more than likely lose a fair few points off his grade against Anand. As with all World championship matches, most of the games will be draws and i fully expect him to lose a game or two at some stage. That is of no practical importance though, the result is the only thing that really matters..
This will help us see if Carsen really deserves that high rating or if the rating system is flawed.
Originally posted by MarinkatombAll I am saying is that the FIDE rating system favors Carlsen to win over Anand.
His rating is just a reflection of his results, which have been outstanding the last few years. He will more than likely lose a fair few points off his grade against Anand. As with all World championship matches, most of the games will be draws and i fully expect him to lose a game or two at some stage. That is of no practical importance though, the result is the only thing that really matters..
Originally posted by RJHindsYes it does, but i think head to head results are more meaningful. Anand is WELL ahead in this regard, though Carlsen i so young it's difficult to tell if that means anything.. A lot of the loses are from a few years ago.
All I am saying is that the FIDE rating system favors Carlsen to win over Anand.
Originally posted by PacifiqueThe thing is, the young generation of GM's now advance so much faster they are in a class by themselves at this point, any one of the four young ones could take on Anand with a decent chance of winning.
It was real lottery during the last rounds.
I don`t see how such a narrow win may prove Carlsen`s superiority. Especially taking into account that his results vs tournament top (Kramnik, Aronian & Svidler) was not too impressive. It`s not like Fischer in 70ties.
And I don`t expect easy win for Carlsen vs Anand.
But the last Magnus-Anand full time control game, Maggie won...
The choice of using number of wins as the tie breaker was to encourage decisive play. A win and a loss beats two draws, so there is additional incentive to play for the win, even with some risk. The thinking may have been twofold a) to make the tournament itself more exciting and b) to bring a more exciting challenger to the World Championship. I think the strategy payed off in creating exciting games. Carlsen had the advantage over Kramnik by virtue of having one more win and one more loss, that pushed Kramnik to play for everything in round 14! And I think we've been given the most exciting player challenging Anand.
I'm looking forward to the match.