< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 84 OF 194 ·
|May-21-12|| ||BadKnight: Gelfand had an incredibly easy route to the championship final, but he is not to be blamed for it, its the system that is responsible.|
|May-21-12|| ||dx9293: <BadKnight> Easy?? Are you kidding???|
|May-21-12|| ||Judah: He had to win two tournaments that included some of the best players in the world. What challengers for the World Championship have had a harder road?|
|May-21-12|| ||vsaluki: <He had to win two tournaments that included some of the best players in the world.>|
The tournament included some of the best players, but Gelfand didn't meet them.
|May-21-12|| ||tud: Too many comments against Gelfand. (I was one of them :-)). It is 4-4 ! Still work for Anand and cheers for Gelfand resistance. This match shows the older you get, the better you get. Being a mind business, (like Korchnoy showed in the 70s that he is not prepared to get old), there is no real age :-). I like them both.|
|May-21-12|| ||BadKnight: Not kidding. 4 game match format was a joke. and gelfand faced mamedyarov, kamasky and grischuk - tough opponents, but not the toughest possible you could face. mamedyarov gas wildcard, kamasky was the loser to the match to topalov and grischuk was a replacement for carlsen. any of radjabov, kramnik or aronian would have posed tougher challenger. anyway 4 game match is not enough to give the better player an edge, it gives equal chances to both players, almost like a lottery. gelfand kept his cool in pressure situations, and got lucky with the opponents he faced. none of them are his fault though. he is a damn good player, but i suppose not best possible challenger to anand.|
|May-21-12|| ||BadKnight: i am expecting anand to win the match, and rooting for anand, but gelfand is a very nice guy so i wish him all the best.|
|May-21-12|| ||Edeltalent: <erniecohen: But that's also why they should have a play-by-play guy sitting there with an engine.>|
For me the opposite is true. If one really wants to know what the engines think, an evaluation can be found everywhere, but the commentators don't need it. Otherwise it would take away lots of interesting insights on how grandmasters think, develop plans, intuitively discard moves (also good ones sometimes!) and, yes, even overlook things.
|May-21-12|| ||GilesFarnaby: <Judah: ...What challengers for the World Championship have had a harder road?>|
Alekhine against Botvinnik
|May-21-12|| ||dx9293: <BadKnight> So it is Gelfand's fault that Kramnik, Topalov, and Aronian got knocked out? Did I understand you well?|
And what makes you believe that those players would have defeated Gelfand in a longer match anyway? It's not a tournament.
|May-21-12|| ||Bobwhoosta: <Edeltalent>
+1. A good commentator need not know everything about the position, just more than me is enough. (Well, more than someone far better than me, as there are others they are commentating for as well).
Anything I can get on Fritz I don't really want to know. After all, I never bought Fritz, and if I did I would already have Fritz.
|May-21-12|| ||Bobwhoosta: <dx9293>
No one is saying that Gelfand is not a really strong player. It's just easy to cast doubts on his status as challenger because 1) He would not be many people's choice considering what they knew of the candidates beforehand, and 2) The system for choosing the World Champion's Challenger was obviously flawed and fraught with controversy for months before.
Given these two facts, it would be much easier if someone whom public opinion generally dictates as among the very strongest in the world were sitting in his chair. I don't think many people consider him among the very strongest in the world.
Therefore, I think that if for instance they'd played a double or quadruple round robin Gelfand would have no more than an outside chance of sitting in this chair right now. BUT in that case if he were sitting in that chair I would be much more willing to say he belonged there.
No disrespect to Gelfand in all of this of course.
|May-21-12|| ||ksr: <he is a damn good player, but i suppose not best possible challenger to anand.>|
Best possible or not, this is Gelfand's opportunity out there and lets see what he makes out of it.
His conduct after today's loss has been gracious and dignified and I can only wish him well for the remaining games.
|May-21-12|| ||ksr: <Therefore, I think that if for instance they'd played a double or quadruple round robin Gelfand would have no more than an outside chance of sitting in this chair right now. BUT in that case if he were sitting in that chair I would be much more willing to say he belonged there.>|
In the Mexico 2007 double round robin tournament Gelfand was 2nd after Anand. Gelfand has performed well above his usual tournament performance level when it comes to WCC related events(qualifiers, World Cup, etc).
Not to debate who is the best candidate , but if double round robin is the qualification format , not enough reason to believe Gelfand would do poorly.
|May-21-12|| ||aipragma: No one is faulting Gelfand for how he obtained this chance to play Anand. My point is that he is not in the same class a chess player as Anand. Gelfand is more like Alexander Khalifman and how he won the world title (although Gelfand is definitely a better class of chess player than Khalifman). These two were and are flukes. Winning a title 5 years ago (2007) as someone mentioned before does not even compare to the amount of titles that Anand has won. As for the number of draws in this world championship, only indicates, what Kasparov said about Anand not having the right motivation to play his best level of chess. Enough said...|
|May-21-12|| ||BadKnight: <dx9293> <So it is Gelfand's fault that Kramnik, Topalov, and Aronian got knocked out? Did I understand you well?>|
No, if you could just read my earlier posts.
<<Gelfand had an incredibly easy route to the championship final, <but he is not to be blamed for it>, its the system that is responsible.>>
<gelfand kept his cool in pressure situations, and got lucky with the opponents he faced. <none of them are his fault though.>>
thats saying it twice in two posts. i could repeat 3rd time, but i suppose it would not make a difference.
|May-21-12|| ||BadKnight: <And what makes you believe that those players would have defeated Gelfand in a longer match anyway? It's not a tournament>|
yes i assume he had chances. playing tougher opposition would have made his candidature a little more acceptable to more chess people.
|May-21-12|| ||Chessinfinite: Wow, what a turnaround. A crushing win for Anand, right after he lost the last one ( yeah, Vishy blew that one, instead of Gelfand winning it imho ). |
Clever psychology on the part of Anand to allow wild complications, and big mistake on Gelfand's part to enter these complications given Anand must have been *out for blood* ...
Not to mean disrespect for the Challenger, but What was that talk about ratings not being important ?? Ofcourse this game showed that you can't just get a higher rating for nothing. I wish Anand responded to that comment.
|May-21-12|| ||7he5haman: I really feel for Gelfand.
He's worked incredibly hard to reach this final. When is he going to get the respect that a WCC contender deserves? (Though I suppose he probably doesn't really care either way.)
He is a real underdog - what happened to rooting for the underdog? Perhaps he's just not got the right playing style/personality that makes an underdog so endearing to the viewing public?
I'd love it if he won, if only to shake things up a bit and to give the rating-lovers/those who do not deem him 'worthy' a nose bleed.
|May-21-12|| ||amadeus: <What was that talk about ratings not being important?>|
The fox and the grapes.
|May-21-12|| ||dx9293: <Bobwhoosta> Gelfand nearly won a double round robin: Mexico City 2007. Had he won that, we would be hearing the same complaints. Let's face it: people are biased against players not in the top 5.|
How can one cast doubt on Gelfand's status as Challenger? He played and won fair and square. He never received any special favors like Kramnik, Topalov, Kamsky, and others did. He earned his place.
Not only that, I'm sure that somewhere Khalifman, Ponomariov, and Kasimdzhanov (when Vishy's not looking!) are smiling that Gelfand is once again bolstering the case that Knockout winners are tough customers, not to be denigrated.
|May-21-12|| ||aipragma: <amadeus: the fox and the grapes>|
The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.
F. Scott Fitzgerald
|May-21-12|| ||Ulhumbrus: Gelfand won a qualifying contest in which Aronian, Topalov and Kramnik took part. That, I suggest, speaks for itself. He outplayed Anand in the seventh game. I doubt whether Anand will be inclined to underestimate him.|
|May-21-12|| ||BadKnight: <Gelfand won a qualifying contest in which Aronian, Topalov and Kramnik took part.>
yes, and was lucky to face none of them.|
|May-21-12|| ||pubaer: <No one is faulting Gelfand for how he obtained this chance to play Anand. My point is that he is not in the same class a chess player as Anand. Gelfand is more like Alexander Khalifman and how he won the world title (although Gelfand is definitely a better class of chess player than Khalifman).>
logic is really strange here. Anand just equalized in the 8th game. I would say that he is in the same class as Anand. Why else would it stand 4-4? Chelsea just won the champions league. They were much worse than barcelona, bayern, benfica, but they still won. This is jsut what sport is about. The favourite does not always win. thats what makes it interesting.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 84 OF 194 ·