chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

🏆
MATCH STANDINGS
Anand - Kramnik World Championship Match

Viswanathan Anand6.5/11(+3 -1 =7)[games]
Vladimir Kramnik4.5/11(+1 -3 =7)[games]

  WCC Overview
 
  << previous HISTORY OF THE WORLD CHESS CHAMPIONSHIP next >>  
Anand vs Kramnik, 2008
Bonn, Germany

After Viswanathan Anand's victory in the 2007 World Championship Tournament, preparations were made to stage a title contest with former champion Vladimir Kramnik to be held in Bonn, Germany.

This match was a one-off event in which the previous world champion (Vladimir Kramnik) has been given the right to challenge to regain his title. Its origin lies in the complications of re-unifying the world title in 2006.[1]

 Vishy Kramnik 2008
 The State Art Gallery in Bonn, Germany
This event is especially significant because Anand did not win the 2007 FIDE World Championship in the traditional manner, by defeating the standing champion in a head-to-head match, but instead by winning a tournament. By winning this match, Anand cemented the legitimacy of his World Championship status beyond reproach.

The match format was a best of 12 games. In the event that the 12 games end in a 6-6 tie, the match is decided by a short series of rapid games, then blitz (if necessary), and finally, if needed, a single decisive "Armageddon game."[2]

In the game 3, Anand scored a stunning victory from the black side of the Meran variation of the Semi-Slav Defense, giving him the lead. In game 5 the same variation was tested again, and once more Anand triumphed with the black pieces. Anand then won the 6th game (playing White against the Nimzo-Indian Defense) giving him a commanding three point lead in the first half of the match. Kramnik scored his first victory in game 10, but Anand needed only one draw in the remaining two games to secure victory.

After a draw in the 11th game, Viswanathan Anand defended his title and became the undisputed 15th World Chess Champion.

FOOTNOTES

  1. Wikipedia article World Chess Championship 2008
  2. Official Website of the 2008 World Chess Championship

 page 1 of 1; 11 games  PGN Download 
Game  ResultMoves YearEvent/LocaleOpening
1. Kramnik vs Anand ½-½322008Anand - Kramnik World Championship MatchD14 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav, Exchange Variation
2. Anand vs Kramnik ½-½322008Anand - Kramnik World Championship MatchE25 Nimzo-Indian, Samisch
3. Kramnik vs Anand 0-1412008Anand - Kramnik World Championship MatchD49 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav, Meran
4. Anand vs Kramnik ½-½292008Anand - Kramnik World Championship MatchD37 Queen's Gambit Declined
5. Kramnik vs Anand 0-1352008Anand - Kramnik World Championship MatchD49 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav, Meran
6. Anand vs Kramnik 1-0472008Anand - Kramnik World Championship MatchE34 Nimzo-Indian, Classical, Noa Variation
7. Anand vs Kramnik ½-½372008Anand - Kramnik World Championship MatchD18 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav, Dutch
8. Kramnik vs Anand ½-½392008Anand - Kramnik World Championship MatchD39 Queen's Gambit Declined, Ragozin, Vienna Variation
9. Anand vs Kramnik ½-½452008Anand - Kramnik World Championship MatchD44 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav
10. Kramnik vs Anand 1-0292008Anand - Kramnik World Championship MatchE20 Nimzo-Indian
11. Anand vs Kramnik ½-½242008Anand - Kramnik World Championship MatchB96 Sicilian, Najdorf
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2)  

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 442 OF 443 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Mar-25-10  Mr. Bojangles: Radja did issue a challenge to Topalov, a plan that was scuppered by one V Kramnik.
Mar-25-10  Petrosianic: Not exactly. The Unification Match had been agreed to years before. But Radjabov's challenge did evaporate into thin air after Kramnik won. Topalov insisted that he was next in line for a rematch. I remember making the point several times that Radjabov was next, and trying to find out what was going on with that, but never turned up anything.
Mar-25-10  Mr. Bojangles: No, no, no. The unification match wasn't agreed until April 2006.

By this time, Topalov had accepted Radja's challenge in principle.

FIDE which was the facilitator for both matches gave preference to the unification match for obvious reasons and decided to put Radja's challenge on hold.

Kramnik's Elista win scuppered the challenge as it made it redundant.

Mar-25-10  Petrosianic: The contracts weren't signed until then, but it was agreed to when they signed Prague. All the participants at San Luis knew that FIDE was contractually obligated to put their champion up in a Unification Match (though whether or not they would make good on the deal was unclear).

I think you're right that no iron clad deal had been made with Radjabov. They had signed some kind of non-comittal Articles of Interest, or some such, but hadn't finalized a match. But FIDE had accepted his challenge, so something really should have come of it. He certainly should have been in line ahead of Topalov for match consideration, since Topalov had switched places with Kramnik, who had had no place in the cycle whatseover.

By rights, Topalov really shouldn't be challenging now at all. But at least he's pretty clearly the best challenger. Carlsen might be a little stronger, but he's still improving, and might do better challenging later, while Topalov's strength is more fixed. This is the match I personally would most like to see.

Mar-25-10  SetNoEscapeOn: <Petrosianic>

My feelings on Radjabov are sort of the inverse of your own on the Topalov-Anand match: the rule was in place and so the match "should have been" played, but I'm glad that it wasn't.

The whole "2700 challenger" rule was a potentially huge step in the wrong direction.

It defeats the whole purpose of having qualifying cycles. Radjabov should not be able to avoid fighting players like Anand, Carlsen, and Aronian for a title shot just because some rich person suffers from the delusion that Radjabov can win a world championship match against one of the 2780+ players :) I was relieved that they didn't rewind the clock all the way back to the days of Lasker-Janowsky and Lasker-Marshall.

Mar-27-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  thegoodanarchist: Anand could not beat Kasparov in the title match. Kasparov could not beat Kramnik in the title match. And then Kramnik could not beat Anand in the title match.

Chess is a mysterious game....

Mar-28-10  Mr. Bojangles: <Anand could not beat Kasparov in the title match. Kasparov could not beat Kramnik in the title match. And then Kramnik could not beat Anand in the title match.

Chess is a mysterious game....>

The confusion would be complete if Topalov beats Anand.

Those who speak in absolute terms vis-a-vis outcomes when discussing chess strength should bear this in mind. It speaks volumes.

Apr-02-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  Golden Executive: <Anand could not beat Kasparov in the title match. Kasparov could not beat Kramnik in the title match. And then Kramnik could not beat Anand in the title match. Chess is a mysterious game....>.

"The transitivity law does not hold for chess. That is, if player A usually beats player B, and player B usually beats player C, it does not imply that player A usually beats player C. In fact, sometimes itís quite the opposite." Natalia Pogonina.

I found interesting the whole article at http://www.chess.com/article/view/c...;

Apr-02-10  Petrosianic: <Anand could not beat Kasparov in the title match. Kasparov could not beat Kramnik in the title match. And then Kramnik could not beat Anand in the title match.

Chess is a mysterious game....>

Not that mysterious, if you remember that it IS a game, rather than a scientific experiment. The difference being that you don't always get the same results. If you did, it would be impossible for Smyslov to beat Botvinnik by 3 points then lose by 2 a year later.

The idea of treating it as a scientific experiment seems to have originated with Fischer demanding that a challenger win by 2 points because a 1 point victory wasn't decisive enough (granted, Fischer wasn't the inventer of the concept, he's just the one who made it controversial, by forfeiting the world title over it).

But a win is a win. You don't have to win so big as to "prove" yourself, in some scientific sense, to be better than your predecessor (as if that were even possible; Botvinnik proved that even a 3 or 4 point margin of victory might mean nothing). That would be asking too much. All we have to ask is that the challenger wins.

Apr-02-10  SetNoEscapeOn: <"The transitivity law does not hold for chess. That is, if player A usually beats player B, and player B usually beats player C, it does not imply that player A usually beats player C. In fact, sometimes itís quite the opposite." Natalia Pogonina.>

A lot of people have said that besides Natalia...

Apr-02-10  SetNoEscapeOn: <Anand could not beat Kasparov in the title match. Kasparov could not beat Kramnik in the title match. And then Kramnik could not beat Anand in the title match.>

The problem is that it should be "Anand did not beat Kasparov... Kasparov did not beat Kramnik..." etc.

Apr-02-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  thegoodanarchist: <Petrosianic:

Not that mysterious, if you remember that it IS a game, rather than a scientific experiment. The difference being that you don't always get the same results. If you did, it would be impossible for Smyslov to beat Botvinnik by 3 points then lose by 2 a year later.>

Of course I remember that it is a game, that's why I said "chess is a mysterious game" and not "chess is a mysterious scientific experiment."

The gist of your reply seems to be <The difference being that you don't always get the same results.> which is why I said what I said in the first place!

Are you trying to agree with me? :D

Apr-02-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  thegoodanarchist: <SetNoEscapeOn: <Anand could not beat Kasparov in the title match. Kasparov could not beat Kramnik in the title match. And then Kramnik could not beat Anand in the title match.>

The problem is that it should be "Anand did not beat Kasparov... Kasparov did not beat Kramnik..." etc.>

I didn't mean that it wasn't possible, just that they failed in the attempt. Chalk it up to colloquialism.

Apr-02-10  SamAtoms1980: .

Anand = paper
Kramnik = rock
Kasparov = scissors

Apr-02-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  Golden Executive: <A lot of people have said that besides Natalia...> so smart comment !!! you are a genius....
Apr-02-10  AuN1: anand = scissors
kramnik = paper
kasparov = rock
Apr-02-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  HeMateMe: If all three are 30 years old, at the same time, Kasparov is the rock and the other two are paper.
Apr-03-10  AuN1: i'd take karpov or fischer at 30 over kramnik, kasparov, or anand.
Apr-03-10  SetNoEscapeOn: <Golden Executive: <A lot of people have said that besides Natalia...> so smart comment !!! you are a genius....>

yeah

Apr-03-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  HeMateMe: I'll take Kasparov over Karpov, at varying ages, as he proved by winning 4 matches.
Apr-03-10  AuN1: kasparov was 12 years younger than karpov; kind of a big difference.
Apr-03-10  percyblakeney: <kasparov was 12 years younger than karpov; kind of a big difference>

And Korchnoi was 20 years older than Karpov, but that doesn't make him the greater player of the two...

Apr-03-10  AuN1: korchnoi never won the title to begin with when he was younger and he was facing the likes of petrosian, spassky, keres, etc. nor did he dominate the way karpov did between '75 and '84.
Apr-03-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  HeMateMe: karpov was 35 when Kasparov defeated him. Thats young enough; no excuses.
Apr-04-10  percyblakeney: I think Karpov was closer to his peak in 1984-87 than Kasparov was, so it isn't easy to argue that Karpov was the better player of the two.
Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 443)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 442 OF 443 ·  Later Kibitzing>

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
  3. No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
  6. No trolling.
  7. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

Blow the Whistle

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.


NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific tournament only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!
Home | About | Login | Logout | F.A.Q. | Profile | Preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | New Kibitzing | Chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | Privacy Notice | Contact Us

Copyright 2001-2021, Chessgames Services LLC