< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 477 OF 477 ·
|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.
|Aug-12-14|| ||Mr. V: Wow, in seven years not much changes. Substitute Karjakin for Gelfand, Andreikin for Leko, Mamedyarov for Morozevich, Topalov for Grischuk, and you have the 2014 Candidates. Half of the players here remained.|
|Aug-12-14|| ||Mr. V: Just out of curiosity, why exactly didn't FIDE allow Topalov to play here? Currently the page's introduction doesn't explain.|
|Aug-12-14|| ||Petrosianic: <Just out of curiosity, why exactly didn't FIDE allow Topalov to play here?>|
The rules of the 2006 Kramnik-Topalov match stated that the winner would be included in this tournament, while the loser would be out of the cycle completely. It was probably a combination of not wanting to expand the tournament, combined with a strong belief that Topalov would win the match. When he lost, he tried to backtrack on it and be admitted anyway, but wasn't successful.
|Aug-12-14|| ||alexmagnus: Well, Topalov was given a "compensation" of form of having to play only one match to qualify for the 2010 WC match (that was the Topalov-Kamsky match, Kamsky being determined as the winner of the 2007 World Cup). The rest of the story we know - Topalov beat Kamsky thereby qualifying to the match against Anand, which he lost.|
|Aug-12-14|| ||Petrosianic: Yes, Topalov came out ahead. Rather than have to win a Candidates Tournament for another title shot, he only had to win one short match.|
It was Radjabov who came out the real loser. Had Topalov beaten Kramnik, Radjabov would have had the first crack at the reunified title. (He'd challenged under the 2700 Rule and been accepted). When Topalov lost, Rad never did get his shot.
|Aug-21-14|| ||Mr. V: Thanks for the explanation, people. But just when things seem clear, FIDE throws a curveball. Specifically, what happened with Radjabov? I'd never heard that he challenged for the title.|
|Aug-21-14|| ||Petrosianic: Here's a story about that. Radjabov had challenged under the "2700 Rule", and been accepted.|
But when Topalov lost the title, Radjabov lost his shot.
|Aug-21-14|| ||Mr. V: Wow, that makes more sense, thanks.
FIDE had some crazy rules (and maybe still does). I guess you're right, however, in that Radjabov was following the rules, then suddenly the rules changed with Kramnik as Champion. I'm glad I missed all this craziness; I didn't follow chess in the early 2000s.
|Aug-10-15|| ||fisayo123: Where did the tournament table go?|
|Apr-04-16|| ||PawnSac: will this do?
( +4 -0 =10 ) Anand 9
( +3 -1 =10 ) Kramnik 8
( +3 -1 =10 ) Gelfand 8
( +2 -2 =10 ) Leko 7
( +1 -2 =11 ) Svidler 6.5
( +3 -4 =6 ) Morozevich 6
( +2 -4 =8 ) Aronian 6
( +2 -5 =7 ) Grishuk 5.5
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 477 OF 477 ·