Only Chess
05 Oct 07
05 Oct 07
Looked at the FIDE handbook and it says this:
. 1. 1. If the winner of the WCCT 2007 in Mexico is any player other than GM Vladimir Kramnik, then a World Championship match of 12 games will be held within the period May-September 2008 between the reigning World Champion (winner of WCCT 2007) and the then previous World Champion GM Vladimir Kramnik (match A). The minimum net prize fund will be 1,000,000 USD
I'm curious if anybody has additional information on the rules of the match. Specifically, will Anand get the traditional "draw odds" that the Champion receives? Or will a tie match be decided by blitz games? Or is this to be negotiated? Any info (preferably with links) would be appreciated.
05 Oct 07
Originally posted by no1marauderMy guess will be that it'll work like the Kramnik-Topalov match, where someone must win (if not in 12 games, then by tiebreakers), but I imagine this is open to negotiation.
Looked at the FIDE handbook and it says this:
. 1. 1. If the winner of the WCCT 2007 in Mexico is any player other than GM Vladimir Kramnik, then a World Championship match of 12 games will be held within the period May-September 2008 between the reigning World Champion (winner of WCCT 2007) and the then previous World Champion GM Vladimir Kramnik (m ...[text shortened]... tz games? Or is this to be negotiated? Any info (preferably with links) would be appreciated.
07 Oct 07
Originally posted by no1marauder12 games is too short for a world championship match. How can we regard the winner as having any legitimate claim to the title?
Looked at the FIDE handbook and it says this:
. 1. 1. If the winner of the WCCT 2007 in Mexico is any player other than GM Vladimir Kramnik, then a World Championship match of 12 games will be held within the period May-September 2008 between the reigning World Champion (winner of WCCT 2007) and the then previous World Champion GM Vladimir Kramnik (m ...[text shortened]... tz games? Or is this to be negotiated? Any info (preferably with links) would be appreciated.
09 Oct 07
Originally posted by Wulebgrwell, if he wins the tournament once, and then wins the best of twelve, i am inclined to think he has a legitimate claim to the title. twelve seems like quite a lot. Especially in a game where there is no luck or chance, so results should be farily consistent.
12 games is too short for a world championship match. How can we regard the winner as having any legitimate claim to the title?
09 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by ouwe belgThat is true...it is also true that shorter matches result in less overall strain on the participants.
Twelve games is too short imo.The match should only end when one player scores,at least,6 wins.But I guess nobody wants to organise such a match since,in theory,it could last forever.
Karpov vs Kasparov, 1984-85 Championships (5-3 Karpov, 48 games when the match was aborted)
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?tid=55015
09 Oct 07
Originally posted by YugaYes,I remember following that epic battle.One of the best chess matches ever.
That is true...it is also true that shorter matches result in less overall strain on the participants.
Karpov vs Kasparov, 1984-85 Championships (5-3 Karpov, 47 games when the match was aborted)
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?tid=55015
09 Oct 07
Originally posted by WulebgrKramnik-Topalov was only 12 games. Lasker-Schlechter was 10. You don't regard those matches has giving a "legitimate claim to the title"?
12 games is too short for a world championship match. How can we regard the winner as having any legitimate claim to the title?
09 Oct 07
2 edits
Originally posted by WulebgrYour statement was:
The challenger lost both
How can we regard the winner as having any legitimate claim to the title?
Are you saying that if Schlechter or Topalov had won, they wouldn't have had a legitimate claim to the title?
EDIT: Kramnik-Kasparov only went 15 games; is Kaspy still champ?
09 Oct 07
Originally posted by no1marauderThe question was how not whether.
Your statement was:
How can we regard the winner as having any legitimate claim to the title?
Are you saying that if Schlechter or Topalov had won, they wouldn't have had a legitimate claim to the title?
EDIT: Kramnik-Kasparov only went 15 games; is Kaspy still champ?
Are matches the preferred method no matter how few games comprise the match? Will a match of five games suffice for a world championship?
10 Oct 07
Originally posted by Wulebgr10 seems to be a historical minimum. Given the short attention span of FIDE these days, I'd say the days of 24+ game matches are over.
The question was how not whether.
Are matches the preferred method no matter how few games comprise the match? Will a match of five games suffice for a world championship?