< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 30 OF 30 ·
|May-29-11|| ||gazzawhite: <kia0708: Well, so it looks like Gelfand has no chance agansit Vishy.|
<Gelfand (2001-2011, CG Classical stats):
+0 -1 =8 vs Anand
+0 -3 =4 vs Topalov>>
How does this imply that Gelfand has no chance against Vishy? Looks pretty even to me.
|May-29-11|| ||achk: <I play the Fred>, very interesting summary.|
However, it must be noticed that Alekhine is 4/5 (beating Capablanca, Bogoljubov (twice) and Euwe). It is also not clear how to count Kramnik's Elista '06 match - he won it in tiebreak, and in addition he was leading 6-5 in classical part. And Kasparov should be 5,5/8 (Sevilla '87 match was drawn). There are controversial circumstances of K-K '84 match, but I think you are right counting it as Karpov's victory (he was de facto winner).
To the end, in my opinion percents don't say anything, but the numbers of world championship matches show how big domination of Lasker, Botvinnik, Karpov and Kasparov was.
|May-29-11|| ||blueofnoon: I think we should appreciate it if this match ever takes place, regardless of the result.|
More possible scenario is nobody wants to sponsor Anand - Gelfand as occurred in Kasparov - Shirov and Anand ends up picking different player as a challenger.
|May-29-11|| ||frogbert: no hurry. there's supposed to be a world championship final in 2013 as well. with a new challenger.|
|May-29-11|| ||I play the Fred: <Kasparov should be 5,5/8 (Sevilla '87 match was drawn).>|
Here's how I scored Kasparov's matches:
1984 - 1/2
1985 - 1
1986 - 1
1987 - 1/2
1990 - 1
1993 - 1
1995 - 1
2000 - 0
Six points out of eight matches. As you can see, I counted the first K-K match as a draw. Why? The match was played without an official result and Kasparov didn't have to do any additional qualifying for the 1985 match. Kasparov was still challenger and Karpov was still champion, just as it was before the first match. If Kasparov was required to qualify again, I would have counted it as a win for Karpov.
Yep, screwed up on Alekhine. That makes him the top match dog, Lasker second, with Kasparov third.
Like I said, though: For What it's Worth.
|May-30-11|| ||NGambit: Interesting.
1)The problem with percentages is that for small numbers the "percentage result" is generally misleading. In this case, most people would agree that 4/8 is much more creditable than 1/2.
2)Also, is winning 2 matches against Bogoljubov = Winning(or even drawing) two against Kasparov?
|May-30-11|| ||APatzer: What about this scoring system ?
-1 for loss
0 for draw
+1 for win
|May-30-11|| ||I play the Fred: I have to emphasize this in saying it for the third time:|
<For What it's Worth.>
That is, I'm not advocating this as any sort of champions ranking or anything. I'm not saying that Alekhine is the greatest champion or anything like that. Read the above as trivia or disregard it altogether.
|May-30-11|| ||alexmagnus: <APatzer> It is exactly equivalent to the traditional scoring system :))|
|May-30-11|| ||achk: <frogbert: no hurry. there's supposed to be a world championship final in 2013 as well. with a new challenger.>|
Ok, it may be good news after all. It is very likely that the 2013 match will be delayed (like Kamsky-Topalov, Anand-Topalov, Anand-challenger 2011 (in fact 2012), candidates and so on), so in fact it may be played right in time - in 2014. :P
|May-30-11|| ||drik: <I play the Fred: I have to emphasize this in saying it for the third time:
For What it's Worth.>
Point taken - but perhaps it could be worth more with a little additional editing? How about counting the instances where the champion defended against the best possible opponent?
Lasker's matches against Marshall & Janowski can be discounted as can Alekhine's against Bogolubov. After all Kasparov won exhibition matches against Andersson, Timman & Miles.
|May-30-11|| ||SetNoEscapeOn: <drik>
I think if you continue down that road, you'll soon find the wisdom in <I play the Fred>'s "I know it's not that important but here's the data" approach.
|May-30-11|| ||kia0708: very interesting analysis of the last game by a grand master is here:
|May-31-11|| ||Sokrates: <I play the Fred: I have to emphasize this in saying it for the third time:> It's okay, we've got your point. Interesting statistics, thank you for composing it. However, it's also quite useless, since quality not quantity is of the essence here. As noted by <drik:> matches aren't just matches. |
Botvinnik, low on the list, had to face some geniuses of his own time: All of them in 1948, Bronstein, Smyslov, Tal and Petrosian. True, he lost three of the matches, but they way he won in 1948, kept a draw against Bronstein and fought back against Tal and Smyslov was so very convincingly. I don't like the person Botvinnik and what he stood for in the Soviet time, but one has to give him credit for a level higher than most of the VMs.
But in my point of view one cannot really compare neither champions nor WC matches diachronically. When Lasker was at his height (around 1900) only Rubinstein, and a few years later Capa were worthy opponents. Today, Anand has to face a wide range of worthy players - you know all of them. It is much harder for any world champ to be superior and dominant today. Perhaps Kasparov will be the last of that breed. Neither Kramnik nor Anand have been or will be as dominating as the big K (which also includes Karpov in his time).
|May-31-11|| ||drik: <SetNoEscapeOn: <drik> I think if you continue down that road, you'll soon find the wisdom in <I play the Fred>'s "I know it's not that important but here's the data" approach.>|
Not all data are of equal significance - Lasker v Janowski was +8 -0 +3. Does that really compare with the titanic K v K struggles? Janowski had no business sitting across the board, when Rubinstein & Capablanca were real challengers.
|May-31-11|| ||Sokrates: <drik: > <Does that really compare with the titanic K v K struggles? > Of course not. The K & K matches were on an unusual high level - in fact one could argue that because of the colossal strength of both players, not other match in chess history have had such a consistantly high level of play.|
But this is also a matter of relativity, really. With the exception of the obviously superfluous or unequal matches before WW2 (especially Lasker's with Janowsky and Marshall and Alekhine's with Bogoljubow) all matches for the throne have been very tough and balancing on a knife's edge. The latest - Anand vs. Topalov - is a good example. IMO Anand didn't appear as a clear winner. It was more or less a coincidence that he and not Topalov won the last game. Such last-game decisions have occurred frequently and they bear witness of the lack clear superiority of one part.
|May-31-11|| ||drik: <Sokrates:> I agree with what you say. Perhaps I should have said 'counting the instances where the champion defended against a worthy opponent', rather than 'the best possible opponent'. There is some randomness in any selection process, so the champion cannot be held responsible for that - but deliberately chosing substandard opposition has to impact on the validity of a title match. |
P.S. Of course I meant +8 -0 =3 for Lasker v Janowski.
|May-31-11|| ||AVRO38: <I play the Fred>
Your numbers are a tad off, here are some corrections:
Alekhine 4/5 (80%)
Kasparov 5.5/8 (68%)
Kramnik 2.5/4 (63%)
|May-31-11|| ||researchj: Any bids for a venue?|
|May-31-11|| ||BobCrisp: The stakeholders for such a match should be highly respected professional figures. I nominate <Dominique Strauss-Kahn> and <Sepp Blatter>.|
|May-31-11|| ||parmetd: I don't know that I expected him to win... but I'd say I wanted him to win once he knocked out kamsky who was my first choice.|
|Jun-03-11|| ||Bondsamir: Everybody was saying that Carlsen will be in the final vs Anand, what happened ? can somebody tell me please.|
|Jun-03-11|| ||keypusher: <Bondsamir: Everybody was saying that Carlsen will be in the final vs Anand, what happened ? can somebody tell me please.>|
Kidnapped by the Mossad. You missed it?
|Jun-03-11|| ||Bondsamir: <keypusher>, thank you for the bravery and the frankliness.|
|Jun-03-11|| ||bronkenstein: I guess this summarizes Carlsenīs decision to withdraw precisely :|
<Gelfand: Very strange to withdraw from the cycle with no obvious reasons.>
<... so I see no reason whatsoever for him to withdraw. But its his choice>
More info here , including top GMs scratching their heads , and some funny football-chess parallels =)
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 30 OF 30 ·