< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 21 OF 22 ·
|May-26-12|| ||James D Flynn: lhumbrus: I agree that after 24....Nc5 25.Bxd4 probably loses but even after 25.Rb2 Rd7 Black can play Rc7, e5 and Bf7 piling up on the c4 pawn e5, a6, Ne6 and Nd4 forcing the exchange of White's black square bishop may also be good. I disagree that Black has been fighting for equality against the bishop pair: the moment the exchange of Qs and Ns took place the hanging pawns ere obviously weak and Black had a slight advantage, but 17.Ne5 was more or less forced because allowing Bxf3 would have been worse yet.|
|May-26-12|| ||Peligroso Patzer: <parisattack: All the various ad hoc proposals have some merit. But in the long run (apart from all of us being dead) they just delay the <inevitable>.>|
I’m not sure precisely what you cryptically allude to as “inevitable”. Possibly, you are referring to any or all of the various tie-break mechanisms specified in the regulations for this match.
Regardless of your exact meaning, I do not agree that anything is “inevitable”. In the first place, one can at least substantially reduce the likelihood of a match going to tie-breaks by modifying the terms of the regular phase, and it is even possible to eliminate the possibility of ever resorting to unsatisfactory tie-break methods. For example, preferable to my way of thinking to any system that resorts to rapids, blitz and Armageddon as potential tie-break methods would be match terms calling for a specified number of regular games (which should be at least 16, in my opinion), followed by a limited number of pairs of regular games (for example, up to 4 pairs of such games, i.e., a potential total match length of 24 games). If a WCC match progresses through stages of being tied 8-8, 9-9, 10-10, 11-11, and 12-12, I would prefer it be terminated in accordance with the old rule (i.e., the WCC retains the title in a drawn match) rather than ever resorting to accelerated rates of play, which are an abomination, especially in a world championship contest.
|May-26-12|| ||kevin86: Give both players dueling pistols and then tell them to DRAW!|
|May-26-12|| ||bubuli55: With live bullets? Or should I say deadly ammunitions? :)|
|May-26-12|| ||parisattack: <Peligroso Patzer:> Thank you for the thoughtful comment. I will chew it some. By 'inevitable' I mean the decline of classical chess. The very existence and discussion of draw remedies to me indicates already that there is a problem.|
My own take is to set the computers analyzing chess variations with one or two extra pieces, determine which one is most like classical chess. It is a race against the computers but such might buy 20-30 years. Five years ago computers encroaching the game of Go, which has a space factors times classical chess, seemed impossible. Today, not so...
|May-26-12|| ||qqdos: For those who hate the idea of "rapid" games to settle the outcome of the WC, surely we can devise tie-break rules based on the history of the match itself - e.g. who won a game (or the most games) with black; who posted the first win; who was in the lead for longest; (?) who won the shortest game; etc. Admittedly this does not deal with a match where every game is a draw, but I believe there have been very few of those. If 2 players manage to play 12, 16 or 24 draws on the trot then they should expect some sudden death solution. If between them they are incapable of producing a single winning performance, then they cannot be heard to complain if they must toss a coin.|
|May-26-12|| ||Gurn: In my opinion attempting to win a drawn position against a strong opponent is showing a lack of respect for that opponent. When the strongest players in the world face each other across the board in a World Championship Match and see no way to gain a winning advantage, the game is a draw. In post game analysis one might find a forced win for one of the opponents. I, also, would like to see and/or make notable moves leading to victory, but I do not expect either opponent to lose trying to win a drawn position unless such an attemp is the only way to victory. I'm sure many wood pushers and players have lost games trying to win a drawn game. That's ok in casual chess.|
Let us look at these drawn positions and see if we can find a way to force an advantage leading to victory.
|May-26-12|| ||waustad: Trying to win a drawn game is the easiest way to lose.|
|May-26-12|| ||chessgames.com: Once again we thank all of you for participating in today's live broadcast, especially our two WGM analysts who have provided accurate and colorful coverage of the WCC.|
The 12th and final game of the main classical match is Monday, and with Vishy holding the white pieces he has every reason to give it his best fight. We invite you all back at 7:00 USA/Eastern (11:00 UTC) for more. Hope to see you then!
|May-26-12|| ||moronovich: |
kevin86: Give both players dueling pistols and then tell them to DRAW!> Bullit !?
|May-26-12|| ||Caissanist: I wonder if Anand's draw offer was a psychological ploy. Something along the lines of "I don't have real winning chances here unless Gelfand compromises his position and/or burns through more time, maybe a draw offer will do that. If he refuses it, then it'll be hard for him not to think about whether he should have accepted it later, which might be enough to push him over the edge. If he'd made the offer a couple of moves earlier, it might have worked.|
|May-26-12|| ||Absentee: Trying to lose a drawn game is the easiest way to win.|
|May-26-12|| ||Peligroso Patzer: <chessgames.com: *** The 12th and final game of the main classical match is tomorrow ***>|
According to the schedule here: http://moscow2012.fide.com/en/sched..., tomorrow (Sunday, 27 May 2012) is a rest day, and Game #12 is on Monday (fortuitously and fortunately, a holiday in the US).
|May-26-12|| ||BadKnight: Very strange decision on part of Anand to not keep playing on..|
|May-26-12|| ||Robyn Hode: No reason for Anand to do much of anything on Monday. He knows he can win in rapid. His entire match strategy seemed to be to hold the line, then win in rapid. Rather like playing back and winning in penalty shoot-out. Or worse, having a home run contest to decide a baseball game. Either way, it's not how a world championship should be decided.|
|May-26-12|| ||chessgames.com: Our apologies for the misstatement earlier.
The 12 and final classical game will take pace on Monday, May 28.
Hope to see you then!
|May-26-12|| ||Hesam7: During the game Svidler mentioned that Kramnik thought 9. ... cxd4 was the best move without question. However after 10. axb4 dxc3 11. b5!|
click for larger view
I am not so sure I agree with that. The pawn on b5 really hinders Black's development and 11. ... cxb2? 12. Bxb2 is very good for White, for example: 12. ... Bc8 13. Qc2 Nbd7 14. Bd3
click for larger view
It is hard to suggset a move for Black: 14. ... Qe7 15. Ba3; 14. ... Qb6 15. Bd4 Qd8 16. Bxa7; 14. ... Nc5 15. Bxh7 Nxh7 16. Qxc5 Qd5 17. Qc3 f6 18. b6 a5! 19. Ba3 Re8 20. Nd4 Qh5! 21. Qc4! and finally: 14. ... Nb6 is met by 15. e4! where Black has to come up with a way to meet e5.
|May-26-12|| ||Hesam7: During the press conference Gelfand dismissed 14. e4 as a bad move and Anand remarked that after 14. ... c4 15. Bc2 Qxc3 White can not trap the Queen and you get a sharp position.|
However White can force the following: 16. Rb1 Qa5 17. e5 Nd5 18. Ng5:
click for larger view
And here Black has only 2 moves: 18. ... h6 & 18. ... g6.
|May-26-12|| ||optimal play: <BadKnight: Very strange decision on part of Anand to not keep playing on..> Yeah I think so too. With so much more time on his clock it seemed to me that Anand could afford to try and create complications and really put Gelfand under extreme time pressure. I can only assume Anand is really confident about having White in the last game and then maybe going onto rapid games.|
<Robyn Hode><His entire match strategy seemed to be to hold the line, then win in rapid.> His offer of a draw in this game might indicate that. <it's not how a world championship should be decided.> That’s right. We might have expected a bit more fight in this game from the current World Champion.
|May-26-12|| ||tarraschfan: The drawing rate in this match is no different to most of the other world championships matches in history. In the Aljechin-Capablanca Match there were 25 draws out of 33 games (roughly 75%), in Karpov-Korchnoi(1978) 21 out of 32 games (about 70%),Karpov-Kasparov (1984) has even a 80% drawing percentage. In Anand-Gelfand we have a drawing percentage close to 80%. So, everything normal and no reason to complain. Long Matches don't get better, just longer. Fischer-Spassky was an exception to the rule (with almost 50% decisive games), but that was Fischer at his peak against a Spassky, who at the time already defected mentally from the Soviet Union and wasn't in his best condition.|
|May-27-12|| ||Domdaniel: Another way to do it is to *fine* the players for playing 'middle-aged' moves (as determined by a committee consisting of, er, me).|
Send me your money and I'll keep it. No taurine excrement. Chess is hard.
|May-27-12|| ||Domdaniel: Which, for some obscure reason, reminds me of a comment that Sosonko once made about Leko, after a sub-par result in Wijk-aan-Zee: |
"Peter is still very young, but his chess mentality is in some ways already deformed. A good session with a psychologist would be quite sensible. If there was a rule that you could only offer or accept draws when there are bare kings on the board then Leko's results would have been much better."
It's interesting that a propensity to offer or accept draws can be seen as a deformity.
|May-27-12|| ||Domdaniel: <Give both players dueling pistols and then tell them to DRAW!>|
Historically, many duels with pistols were, in fact, drawn. It depends on the precise rules that were used -- but a system where both players get one shot (and miss) or where both players are wounded (but survive) would normally have been agreed a draw. There's nothing like a chunk of lead in the guts to pacify an inflamed sense of honour.
Draws in chess is a different problem, and outraged honor (!) rarely enters into it. But if WC Matches have an optimal length, it's greater than 12 games (as currently being demonstrated) and less than 48 games (shown to be impractical in the first Karpov-vs-Kasparov match, 1984).
More to the point, any 'short' match *with a rapid/blitz playoff* permits a roughly evenly-matched player to draw their way to the playoffs -- where they might consider their chances to be better.
But, as a matter of principle, any playoff should use the same form of the same game as the main competition (one reason for objecting to penalty shoot-outs as a way of deciding football matches). Tiebreakers in golf and tennis at least use truncated versions of the regular game.
The problem in chess is that the clock is so integral to the game that you can't vary the rate of play without significantly altering the game. You may or may not like to watch a rapidplay game -- but nobody can argue that it isn't different from classical play.
|May-27-12|| ||amadeus: Scaramouche vs The Marquis?|
|May-27-12|| ||queenfortwopawns: The ultimate goal of the match is to win. If either player is clearly not able to demonstrate dominance to clinch it, how about just revoking the title of the champion after the classical rounds instead of going through the rapids and the Armageddons? It wouldn't be the end of the chess world if we didn't have an official FIDE champion for a year. Then have a fresh match format among the top five + the "dishonored" champion to decide the new champion the next year. The challenger should be disqualified from taking part.|
Yeah I know, I should really lay off the shrooms.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 21 OF 22 ·