< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 126 OF 152 ·
|May-17-11|| ||Ulhumbrus: From the chessbase.com website:
<...The match between Kramnik and Grischuk was quite odd overall, not so much because of its distinctly lacklustre play with one exception (game four), but because of Grischuk's very clear opening strategy: draw with white, and hold with black until the Blitz. This might seem an exaggeration, or distortion, of what happened, but consider how quickly Grischuk drew in every white game, whether classical or rapid. In fact, in the Rapid tiebreak games, he drew in fourteen moves in game two and just eight moves in game four as White. It is as if he were clearly stating that Kramnik is a much more fearsome opponent as Black, or simply that he was confident that once in the Blitz, he would have a clear edge worth all this. Whatever the reason, his strategy worked, and after eight draws, he scored his first win in the initial blitz game, and was crushing Kramnik in the second blitz before steering it to a safe draw and his qualifying spot in the finals...>
If this is true, it suggests that it is a mistake to include blitz games as a means of selecting the winner and that the traditional candidates matches are the right way.
Having said that, all contestants had agreed to the rules and the two Gs won, so there is no cause for complaint.
|May-17-11|| ||alexmagnus: <Did you say the same thing when Khalifman (or Ponomariov, Kasimdzhanov) won FIDE KO?>|
Khalifman: once won, thrice eliminated by Anand. By accident, Anand didn't participate in the one Khalifman won.
Ponomariov: THE player proving KO is not a lottery: ever since 2002 he either won (once) or was eliminated by the winner (thrice, twice in the final).
Kasimdzhanov: Most top players didn't play. Ponomariov didn't play too, as didn't Anand. The four top seeds were eliminated by Kasim.
|May-17-11|| ||lorker: <blueofnoon> Ponomariov is in my opinion one of the best chess players in the world and I think Khalifman's and Kasimdzhanov's chess abilities are far less than his. Furthermore Ponomariov is an extremely good case for the claim that knockouts are NOT lotteries. Ponomariov is one of the strongest knockout format ever, reaching the final in 3 times out of 4 appearances, winning once, and one time being eliminated in the quarterfinal by the eventual winner (Kamsky). In doing this he had to bounce back many times in must win situations with either color, and managed to do so almost every time. His excellent nerves and fighting spirit combined with his unquestionable skill at chess are what make him such a strong knockout player (imho the best knockout player in the world). So yes, I do not think Ponomariov's KO victory had anything to do with a lottery. And I do not understand why so many people list him as an example of KO's being a lottery. Not only is Ponomariov a World Class player with many great results behind him, but his consistently strong knockout results just help disprove the lottery theory.|
|May-17-11|| ||Hovik2009: My predictions from last week is coming into truth, Gelfand against a Russian before Anand's match, but FIDE's Russian zakonivors made a tactical error in their calculations(in my humble opinion ofcourse), Gelfand is a bonafide ex-soviet russian-school chess player, trained by Petrosian and Tal and maybe Botvinik, he is extremly high-class positional and fast calculative player with a natural instinct and desire to venture into ocean of combinations and tactical play any time when any good position or overpushing opposition ask for it, so in my opinion Kramnik was much better match to handle him than Sasha, I think today's Gelfand playing more cautiosly will counteract against Grischuk plans to lure him into unknown positional lands, this is all despite the fact that Grischuk has been dominating Gelfand in last 5-6 years!|
|May-17-11|| ||drik: <drnooo: the best poker players are pros, a lot more savvy than these guys>|
Really, when was the last time an amateur qualifier won an elite chess event? Remember Chris Moneymaker winning a WSOP bracelet?
|May-17-11|| ||alexmagnus: <Khalifman: once won, thrice eliminated by Anand.>|
Twice, sorry. Down to blitz btw.
|May-17-11|| ||lost in space: When will the final start?|
|May-17-11|| ||frogbert: i don't think short ko-matches equals lottery. it simply requires <different> skills and strategies to be successful in this format compared to in double round robins or in longer matches.|
consider gelfand and kamsky and grischuk: wcc 2005, candidates 2007, wcc 2007, wcc 2009 - and candidates 2011. they've all done remarkably well.
the two most important (cap)abilities are probably 1) good nerves and 2) a style that facilitates avoiding losses (in the classical games). :o)
but short ko-matches don't necessarily produce the strongest challenger to a classical world championship final over 12+ games. or rather: it's quite likely that they don't.
|May-17-11|| ||lost in space: Here the answer o my own question:
17 May - Free Day
18 May - Free Day
19 May - Game 1, round 3
20 May - Game 2, round 3
21 May - Game 3, round 3
22 May - Free Day
23 May - Game 4, round 3
24 May - Game 5, round 3
25 May - Game 6, round 3
26 May - Tiebreaks / Closing Ceremony
27 May - Departure
|May-17-11|| ||frogbert: <when was the last time an amateur qualifier won an elite chess event?>|
seriously, the poker comparisons are so off in the first place that it shouldn't even be necessary to point out how helpless chess amateurs are compared to chess pros.
|May-17-11|| ||Mozart72: Mornin gents.|
|May-17-11|| ||drik: <MrQuinn: Gris ... No one in their right mind considers him legit WC material.>|
So being in 'their right mind' involves ignoring results in favor of preconceptions? Sounds a lot like being 'all in the mind' to me.
|May-17-11|| ||HeMateMe: Grischuk makes a LOT of money playing poker. Maybe he has other interests besides chess theory. |
I have a feeling he is better than Gelfand, in 6 games. Or, he can beat the senior fellow at G25 chess or G5 chess.
|May-17-11|| ||Eggman: It occurs to me that if we could rewind to 1974 and replay that candidates series using the current format, we might very well have not seen any or all of the following:|
a) Karpov emerging as Fischer's challenger
b) Karpov vs Spassky
c) Karpov vs Korchnoi
If this isn't an indictment of the current format, then I don't know what is.
The candidates didn't just produce a challenger, it produced the most deserving one, and clarified the status of the various contenders. A 4 game match between Karpov and Spassky, for example, wouldn't have so clearly established the young Karpov's status in the chess world (even assuming that he'd won such a short match). Surely the original idea of having a title of World Champion was to provide just such clarification? This is what FIDE seems to have lost touch with. Without such clarification the title is meaningless.
|May-17-11|| ||Caissanist: I wonder how much Grischu's strategy here amounts to making a virtue out of necessity. Since he was an eleventh-hour invite, he didn't have the time, or probably financial resources, to do a "full" preparation, so he seems to have just blown off whie preparation, concentrating on being able to neutralize any white threat that comes along and putting all his chips on the tiebreaks. Perhaps Gelfand has something prepared with black.|
|May-17-11|| ||Ulhumbrus: <chancho> has given on page 100 links to the live video and the live game. Here they are:|
|May-17-11|| ||Peligroso Patzer: <drik: <Peligroso Patzer: a rule that a draw offer (at least before there has been a certain minimum number of moves played, say 40) must remain open for the next 10 moves.>|
That's an interesting idea, it would discourage draw offers in unclear positions - but I think <the marginal cost is rather high>. Perhaps the number of moves should be somewhat less?
I assume you mean "marginal cost" to the player making the offer (in terms of giving his opponent the risk-free option to cast caution to the wind for the next 10 moves in going all-out to get a winning advantage with the right - held only by the <recipient> of the draw offer - to bail our by accepting the draw if things do not go well for him over the next 10 moves). But the main idea of the proposal is precisely to discourage early draw offers unless the position is thoroughly devoid of potential for unbalancing play, so such high marginal cost seems like a good thing to me. Of course, it would not deter a completely pre-arranged draw, but these presumably do not occur in match competition (only in tournaments).
BTW, with respect to pre-arranged draws (which are unsavory in my mind), there is a humorous story from 20-some years ago involving a game between Tony Miles and Larry Christiansen. See this link for the story: Miles vs Christiansen, 1987. That anecdote only gets better when your learn that the 18-year-old Anand saw the game in "Informant", did not bother to do any independent analysis of the opening moves, and decided it was a good way to equalize as Black, which explains this game: A Zapata vs Anand, 1988.
|May-17-11|| ||drik: <SetNoEscapeOn: The last time candidate matches were used to select a challenger for the undisputed title, Nigel Short beat Anatoly Karpov in the 10 game semi-final match....According to chessmetrics, he was world #10 when he played Karpov.>|
Good point! I'd forgotten how much of an underdog Short was. Is Grischuk weaker?
|May-17-11|| ||apollokonrad: Grischuk is a genius: you don't expect someone to settle for quick draws especially when they are playing White. But he does, because:
(1) that is one step towards the rapid and blitz stage, which are his strengths,
(2) he probably guessed right that most of Kramnik's preparation is focused on Kramnik playing Black and Grischuk sidestepped this preparation,
(3) he can hold as Black by making the game as tense as possible and introducing a lot of tactics (even time trouble favors Grischuk, because the opponent cannot keep his calm glancing at Grischuk's clock living off on increments),
(4) settling for quick draws means another rest day.
The guy wants to win (as shown by his Black escapes), and we cannot fault him for adopting that strategy.
You don't beat Aronian and Kramnik in matches - no matter how short or long they are, no matter what your general strategy may be - without being strong in your own right.
Honestly, I was rooting for Kramnik, but Grischuk was much too clever. I will not be surprised if he takes this all the way to win the final and arrange a showdown with Anand. That will be poetic justice, because - please remember - he was only an 11th-hour replacement (with basically no preparation)! Imagine that.
...Then imagine how this will be if he becomes the one to suddenly beat Anand. Dream on...sometimes our world resembles a fairy tale.
|May-17-11|| ||Eggman: <<That's an interesting idea, it would discourage draw offers in unclear positions>> Why discourage premature draws when with Sofia rules you can eliminate them altogether?|
|May-17-11|| ||Mozart72: A prodigy is not the same thing as a genius. But, of course, there are geniuses in history that have been prodigies. Kamsky was a wunderkind but he has NOT changed the course of chess play, so he is NOT a genius. Ivanchuk with all his wacky behavior has NOT changed the course of chess play, so he must NOT be called a genius. Anand is NOT a genius, he has not changed the course of chess play. Carlsen has been a prodigy but he has NOT changed the course of chess play, so he is NOT a chess genius. Maby Fischer has been the only contemporary chess genius. He made "outrages chess moves", and created "Random chess" or "Chess960", because he foresaw that "traditional" chess was plugged. Capablanca with his "Capablanca Chess" also foresaw that "standard" chess was a gonner. You must change the course of chess to be called a chess genius.|
|May-17-11|| ||Eggman: <<(Grischuk) wants to win (as shown by his Black escapes), and we cannot fault him for adopting that strategy.>>|
No, but we can fault FIDE for deciding upon a format which makes such a strategy viable.
|May-17-11|| ||mindfreakkk: OK guys!, BUT The world of chess need more controversy! Enough of those boring games of 8, 9 moves. We want courageous kings that advance to the center in the opening without hesitation. Those games need the early development of the kings. Where is the romantic chess? There is no honor using Rybka to calculate moves, there is no honor cheating in the toilet. Morphy would be very disappointed.|
|May-17-11|| ||drik: <csmath: Anyway you slice it Grischuk / Gelfand is one of the two the worst chess players in the last 60 years that would play for the title in a match. The other one being Leko of course.>|
Because clearly Peter Leko is a far weaker player than Nigel Short? He must be since Nigel managed to get past Karpov in a 10 game match. Perhaps we need 12 games for a candidates semifinal, to ensure such upsets never happen again?
|May-17-11|| ||alexmagnus: <Mozart72>As if you cannot make a quick draw in random chess XD.|
Classical chess is <not> a goner. Actually, it's funny that both players invented their respective chess variants <after> losing the title, towards the ultimate end of their chess career. It was just wishful thinking with no objective reasons.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 126 OF 152 ·