< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 477 OF 477 ·
|Nov-09-07|| ||acirce: Um, yes. And Kramnik had favourable positions too. But as for <winning> positions they didn't convert, they seem to have traded one each. Game 2 was extreme though. It should have been an easy win, but even after missing this, Topalov was STILL objectively winning, just much harder. Then he was gradually outplayed all the way to a loss. Bizarre game.|
|Nov-09-07|| ||chessmoron: And? Topalov got outplayed by Fritz 8.|
|Nov-09-07|| ||alexmagnus: Saying Kramnik won the Topalov match in classical is incorrect - the Karmnik won 66% of the match. A match shold always have an even number of games. We can only guess how game 5 would end if it was played out, so 66% probability that he would not lose.|
|Nov-09-07|| ||acirce: <alexmagnus> Of course you win the match if you have the lead and then your opponent refuses to play the last game. Stands to reason.|
|Nov-09-07|| ||Pawnsgambit: <alexmagnus: Saying Kramnik won the Topalov match in classical is incorrect - the Karmnik won 66% of the match. A match shold always have an even number of games. We can only guess how game 5 would end if it was played out, so 66% probability that he would not lose.> your posts as usual are always excellent, and very analytical and very logical.|
|Nov-09-07|| ||Riverbeast: Topalov was down 2-0 after the first two games, when it could have very easily been 1 1/2-1/2 in his favor. He had a favorable position in game One which he pressed too hard to win, and lost, after rejecting a forced draw. |
I realize that mistakes are part of chess. But I did not think Kramnik's win over Topalov was convincing in any way.
|Nov-09-07|| ||acirce: <I did not think Kramnik's win over Topalov was convincing in any way.> This is more or less stating the obvious, and Kramnik would not disagree. I think it should be added to the equation that Kramnik had to play in an extremely hostile environment, with his opponent playing dirty tricks and the organizers rewarding them. Even without considering this, it would be a noteworthy accomplishment to beat who was at the moment the relatively undisputed #1 player. But the chess itself was so-so.|
|Nov-09-07|| ||Whack8888: <game 9 of that match>|
His game against Morozevich in Mexico City was also pretty bad in my opinion--though he did fight a bit harder against Moro than he did against Topa, but that is just a feeling.
I think Kramnik is the most solid player ever to exist, except for these one or two 'blow-ups' where his motivation and concentration both hit lows at an unfortunate time.
Hopefully, for Kramnik fans at least, he will take these two games as lessons, in a similar way that I believe he took Game 2 of his Elista match as a lesson.
"I have to play harder, or I am going to lose. I got lucky then, but that is not how I want to win."
I dont know if he will improve this unfortunate aspect of his playing against Anand, because this is sort of a traditional thing for him. Remember that pawn down game against Leko he lost, and even the Queen sac bit. Against Kasparov he was super solid, but then again, he must have super respected Kasparov.
Will his respect for Anand, and hence his playing ability, be at the same level?
I would say probably not, but hopefully it is at least at something close to that level.
Give 'em hell, Vlad!
|Nov-09-07|| ||Whack8888: As far as the Fritz 10 thing, Kramnik is going to say to his grave that he took that match seriously, because of the money, but honestly folks, who is going to take a match like that seriously. For one, it is 6 games, which means the outcome is going to be more or less random anyway. I am sure Kramnik was looking to draw the match and say, "ok, nice program" and move on. He blew it on a blunder, so then he had to play the Najdorf in the last game to make it seem like he cared. "Thanks for the dosh, boys!"|
Maybe it is just me, but I dont think computer-human matches are at all interesting. I like what John Nunn wrote a bit ago, just because humans have created vehicles that can go much faster than a human, doesnt mean sprinters/marathoners are not interesting and competitive.
If someone were seriously going to put computers into the mix, I think you would have to put them in the top tournaments, so humans could come up with anti computer strategies over a period of time. As it is now, no one really cares about anti-computer stratgies unless you want to get on Tim Krabbe's page or someone is offering you a million dollars to do it.
|Nov-09-07|| ||chessmoron: <His game against Morozevich in Mexico City was also pretty bad in my opinion> It's quite strange that Kramnik said he doesn't care he lost to Moro as Anand's lead was 1-1/2 ahead of Kramnik. His main concern and seems to be kicking himself was that he botched the win against Grischuk with the White pieces.|
|Nov-09-07|| ||cannibal: <acirce:
Kramnik has a positive score against Anand in classical chess. Kramnik has had more Whites, don't know how many more.>
If this database is complete with regard to this, considerably more. 20 for Anand, and something between 28 and 30 for Kramnik. This was new to me, and it makes the 6-4 score for Kramnik quite irrelevant (if you have 60% of the whites on this level, you should be expected to score 60% of the wins)
Another interesting useless statistic I found out:
There are 20 classical games between Anand(white) and Kramnik(black).
11 in the Sicilian: all drawn
2 in the Ruy Lopez: both drawn
7 in the Petroff: +2 =5 for Anand.
Just for the people who suggested switching to d4 for Anand to avoid the Petroff...
|Nov-09-07|| ||Atkins: In your data +2 =5 for Anand. One of victory was plaid during the weakest years of Kramnik. But yes <Cannibal> the match between these great champions is very open. I can't wait for.|
|Nov-09-07|| ||blazerdoodle: blazerdoodle: This is fun.
<Mahendrakumar: It is rather surprising that Kramnik made that statement of lending the world Chess crown to Anand. Shocking!!>
Not the right thing to say, but he was probably just reading these silly blogs and had to stand up for himself. LOL.
I just dislike the idea,
Can you imagine saying : “I’m WC because I beat some guys who beat Kramnik, because he couldn’t beat them?”
Who would want there name tagged on that one?
How about a match?
|Nov-10-07|| ||notyetagm: <blazerdoodle: ... Can you imagine saying : “I’m WC because I beat some guys who beat Kramnik, because he couldn’t beat them?” Who would want there name tagged on that one?
How about a match? >
Yes, Anand won the World Championship at Mexico City only because he beat up on the weak players like Svidler (<2989(!)> @ European Team Chess Championships (2007)/Peter Svidler) and Morozevich (<2855(!)> @ European Team Chess Championships (2007)/Alexander Morozevich).
|Nov-10-07|| ||Petrosianic: Svidler was never rated 2989, nor was he ever World Champion.|
|Nov-10-07|| ||blazerdoodle: I do think of Anannd as WC, because Kramnik "legitimitely relinquished it under the rules he played under. He lost. He was a gentleman about it until the mud started flying.|
But, just entertaining myself, Why isn't Svidler World Champion if ratings decide?
We need several WC's.
* The guy who actually beat the previous WC in match.
* The guy who won an important tournamnt all the hotshots played in: Anannd. He's the only legitimite one right now.
* The best in the Ratings Guy: Svidler or who else has climbed up to 3000?
* The guy who slings the best cow pie: Topy/Dan.
...caveat... devil's advocate again... Let's see. ANANND: "I’m WC because I beat some guys, including Svidler who has fat rating, higher than Kramniks or even mine, so I'm World Champion, now. But, oh, I didn't beat the World Champion a single game, but it doesn't matter. Rules are rules."
He plays Kramnik next year. Can he win it? I don't know. I'm not that good at reading games at that level (although I do all the time).
I still wouldn't want my name tagged to that kind of a win. But who am I, slinking around down here 2000 ponts below these guys who are fighting like crazy?
Lasker,Steinitz: The winner of the match was to be the first to win 10 games, draws not counting. The time control was 15 moves per hour.
What an amazing lost time.
|Nov-10-07|| ||Petrosianic: <I do think of Anannd as WC, because Kramnik "legitimitely relinquished it under the rules he played under.>|
And that's important. You do have to play by the rules in effect, not some other rules. Like, in the 1984 match, you could try to say "Karpov won, because if they'd been playing under the old Best of 24 rules, he'd have won 12.5 - 8.5 after 21 games. Problem is, they WEREN'T playing Best of 24, they were playing first to win 6.
Anand is certainly the champion. He won under the rules used in this event, not the rules used in other events. The fact remains though, that the value of the title is diminished, as it was in 1975, by the fact that he didn't defeat his predecessor. Fortunately though, unlike Karpov, Anand WILL have the chance to defeat his predecessor very soon and the whole thing will become academic.
|Nov-10-07|| ||Open Defence: UNLESS FIDE messes up the match.... always a possibility|
|Nov-10-07|| ||notyetagm: <blazerdoodle: I do think of Anannd as WC, because Kramnik "legitimitely relinquished it under the rules he played under. He lost. He was a gentleman about it until the mud started flying.>|
You mean, until Kramnik started throwing the mud.
|Nov-11-07|| ||blazerdoodle: <Petrosianic: Fortunately though, unlike Karpov, Anand WILL have the chance to defeat his predecessor very soon and the whole thing will become academic.>|
It's a good thing. I'm a traditionalist, old fashioned, and like the way some of those old tournaments were handled. They weren't easy.
<notyetagm: You mean, until Kramnik started throwing the mud.>
I've yet to read the interview, but the mud was being slung before he made the statement. I don't agree with him, as he sure didn't lend Anannd the Crown, he gave it to the winner of the tournament. He felt he had to defend himself, his honor, and lowered himself, but you can't tell me went as far down as Topy/Dan. Sorry. Kramnik doesn't even come close to that debacle, and I'm not saying Topalov shouldn't redeem himself, and bcome a better person, maybe he's already done that. So I was upset Kramnik didn't play Kasparov. Just trying to wander through some of this insanity and get the facts straight is crazy enough. After this bottle of wine with dinner, I'll be on the road to getting it all straightened out. Go Annand! Go Karmnik!
|Nov-21-07|| ||AAAAron: <Jim Bartle>
Thanks, I've been enlightened. That was a great reference!!!!
|May-31-08|| ||minasina: GM Sergei Shipov 's commentaries in English for this tournament starting from here: http://chessok.com/broadcast/live.p... (Note, there are also Rybka analyzed games.)|
|Jul-08-10|| ||GrahamClayton: There were only 2 victories with the Black pieces in the whole tournament. Even more interesting was that Aronian was the player with the White pieces in both instances:|
Aronian vs Anand, 2007
Aronian vs Gelfand, 2007
|Dec-27-11|| ||Penguincw: 3-1-0 Scoring System:
Hope I didn't make any mistakes. :)
|Jan-28-14|| ||visayanbraindoctor: This tournament IMO has many similarities to the World Championship Candidates (2013). All elite veteran players. More or less the same players. The main difference is that we have a motivated Anand at his prime here, and a motivated Carlsen at his prime in the other.|
In this tournament, Kramnik (and Gelfand) raised his level of play so that he should have at least tied for first, had Anand not been playing so well. (IMO Anand who scored 9/14 here was probably playing better than Carlsen who scored 8.5/14 did in 2013, against mainly the same opposition.) What's interesting is that Kramnik also managed to raise his level of play in 2013, and in doing so tied Carlsen for first.
Aronian and Svidler underperformed here, but did better in 2013. The opposite for Gelfand.
It's more difficult to compare the upcoming 2014 Candidates because the player composition is somewhat different, even if 4 players are still in both tournaments (Anand, Kramnik, Aronian, Svidler.)
If Anand plays the same way in the upcoming 2014 Candidates as he did here, IMO he would easily win it. But the Anand today does not play like this anymore.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 477 OF 477 ·