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

🏆
TOURNAMENT STANDINGS
World Championship Candidates Tournament

Viswanathan Anand8.5/14(+3 -0 =11)[games]
Sergey Karjakin7.5/14(+3 -2 =9)[games]
Vladimir Kramnik7/14(+3 -3 =8)[games]
Shakhriyar Mamedyarov7/14(+3 -3 =8)[games]
Dmitry Andreikin7/14(+2 -2 =10)[games]
Levon Aronian6.5/14(+3 -4 =7)[games]
Peter Svidler6.5/14(+3 -4 =7)[games]
Veselin Topalov6/14(+2 -4 =8)[games]
*

Chessgames.com Chess Event Description
World Championship Candidates (2014)

Played in Khanty-Mansiysk, Russia, 13-30 March 2014. The field consisted of the loser of the Anand - Carlsen World Championship Match (2013) (Anand), the top two finishers in the FIDE Grand Prix series 2012–13 (Topalov and Mamedyarov) (see FIDE Grand Prix Paris (2013)), the World Cup (2013) finalists (Kramnik and Andreikin), the next two highest rated players (Aronian and Karjakin), and FIDE's wild card (Svidler). Tiebreak criteria: 1) head-to-head results, 2) number of wins, 3) Sonneborn-Berger score, 4) rapid/blitz playoff. Prize fund: €600,000, with €135,000 to the winner. Chief arbiter: Panagiotis Nikolopoulos.

Viswanathan Anand won with 8.5/14, and qualified for the Carlsen - Anand World Championship Match (2014).

Elo 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 1 Anand 2770 ** ½½ ½½ 1½ ½½ 1½ ½½ ½1 8½ 2 Karjakin 2766 ½½ ** 01 ½½ ½½ 01 ½1 ½½ 7½ 3 Kramnik 2787 ½½ 10 ** 1½ ½½ ½½ ½0 01 7 4 Mamedyarov 2757 0½ ½½ 0½ ** 1½ 01 1½ ½½ 7 5 Andreikin 2709 ½½ ½½ ½½ 0½ ** ½1 0½ 1½ 7 6 Aronian 2830 0½ 10 ½½ 10 ½0 ** 1½ ½½ 6½ 7 Svidler 2758 ½½ ½0 ½1 0½ 1½ 0½ ** 10 6½ 8 Topalov 2785 ½0 ½½ 10 ½½ 0½ ½½ 01 ** 6

Official site: http://candidates2014.fide.com/
Wikipedia article: Candidates Tournament 2014
Arbiter report: https://www.fide.com/images/stories...
Chess.com: https://www.chess.com/news/view/ana...
ChessBase 1: https://en.chessbase.com/post/2014-...
ChessBase 2: https://en.chessbase.com/post/candi...
ChessBase 3: https://en.chessbase.com/post/candi...
Chess24: https://chess24.com/en/watch/live-t...
TWIC: http://theweekinchess.com/chessnews...
FIDE: https://ratings.fide.com/tournament...

Previous: World Championship Candidates (2013). Next: World Championship Candidates (2016)

 page 1 of 3; games 1-25 of 56  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves YearEvent/LocaleOpening
1. Anand vs Aronian 1-0472014World Championship CandidatesC84 Ruy Lopez, Closed
2. D Andreikin vs Kramnik ½-½322014World Championship CandidatesE32 Nimzo-Indian, Classical
3. Karjakin vs Svidler ½-½262014World Championship CandidatesB48 Sicilian, Taimanov Variation
4. Mamedyarov vs Topalov ½-½362014World Championship CandidatesD11 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav
5. Topalov vs Anand ½-½542014World Championship CandidatesA09 Reti Opening
6. Aronian vs Mamedyarov 1-0442014World Championship CandidatesD38 Queen's Gambit Declined, Ragozin Variation
7. Svidler vs D Andreikin 1-0312014World Championship CandidatesB32 Sicilian
8. Kramnik vs Karjakin 1-0392014World Championship CandidatesD20 Queen's Gambit Accepted
9. Svidler vs Kramnik ½-½512014World Championship CandidatesA35 English, Symmetrical
10. Topalov vs Aronian ½-½352014World Championship CandidatesC84 Ruy Lopez, Closed
11. D Andreikin vs Karjakin ½-½302014World Championship CandidatesC65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense
12. Mamedyarov vs Anand 0-1312014World Championship CandidatesD11 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav
13. Mamedyarov vs D Andreikin 1-0422014World Championship CandidatesD45 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav
14. Aronian vs Svidler 1-0572014World Championship CandidatesD85 Grunfeld
15. Karjakin vs Topalov ½-½402014World Championship CandidatesA29 English, Four Knights, Kingside Fianchetto
16. Anand vs Kramnik ½-½302014World Championship CandidatesD39 Queen's Gambit Declined, Ragozin, Vienna Variation
17. D Andreikin vs Anand ½-½422014World Championship CandidatesC65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense
18. Karjakin vs Mamedyarov ½-½312014World Championship CandidatesB52 Sicilian, Canal-Sokolsky (Rossolimo) Attack
19. Svidler vs Topalov 1-0482014World Championship CandidatesC78 Ruy Lopez
20. Kramnik vs Aronian ½-½602014World Championship CandidatesE10 Queen's Pawn Game
21. Anand vs Karjakin ½-½332014World Championship CandidatesC67 Ruy Lopez
22. Aronian vs D Andreikin ½-½482014World Championship CandidatesA11 English, Caro-Kann Defensive System
23. Topalov vs Kramnik 1-0412014World Championship CandidatesD37 Queen's Gambit Declined
24. Mamedyarov vs Svidler 1-0312014World Championship CandidatesA81 Dutch
25. Kramnik vs Mamedyarov 1-0542014World Championship CandidatesD38 Queen's Gambit Declined, Ragozin Variation
 page 1 of 3; games 1-25 of 56  PGN Download
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2)  

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 221 OF 222 ·  Later Kibitzing>
May-09-14  Chessinfinite: Petrosianic, that was a nice hit, i think you may be quite close to the answer :) You may also ignore FIDE KO matches such as Anand-Karpov , Anand - Shirov etc.

I consider the PCA matches played between Kasparov, Short, Anand as legitimate for the official world title. Please ignore all rival matches played between Karpov - Timman, Karpov- Kamsky in the 90s. The last match Karpov played was his last match against Kasparov in 1990 for this question.

Clue: If you include The rival FIDE matches held during the 90s, then Karpov can also be added in that group of 3, it can be argued, though it gets complicated - Actually it is best to ignore all Karpov matches starting from the Timman match. Nice catch !

May-09-14  Petrosianic: Occasionally, I've heard people argue that Steinitz gave up the title, Tchigorin won it at New York 1889, and that Steinitz-Tchigorin 1892 wasn't a title match. The idea was that Tchigorin was Steinitz's successor despite losing the two matches to him.

I've only heard this idea from 1 or 2 people, who pretended to have no idea that there was anything controversial about it, and seemed to think that everyone regarded it the same way, even though they had no sources for it (which is why I called it a trolling argument).

May-09-14  Chessinfinite: That is very strange about Chigorin and Steinitz. Without wanting to disclose too much for the moment, i will just say that for this question, Steinitz played 6 world title matches from 1886- 1896.
May-10-14  Chessinfinite: The answer :)

"Those 3 are the only players who do not have a continuous world title cycle matches in all their title matches played - someone else played a world title match in between any two World title matches played ever played by Chigorin, Anand , Topalov. "

Between two of Chigorin's matches against Steinitz, there was a world championship match between Steinitz and Gunsberg in 1890, for Anand there was the match in 95 vs Kasparov and a long gap before 2008 match with Kramnik, for Topalov there was a match played in 2008 (Anand v Kramnik) between his two title matches in 2006 (vs Kramnik) and 2010 (vs Anand) . None of the other players had a 'break' in the middle of all of their matches played for world title, including of course those with just one match played !

Petrosianic almost got it, if the Gunsberg match was considered as a world title match and in view of the reasons, it is possible that it was missed ! Very close !

Sep-22-14  visayanbraindoctor: Compare this Candidates tournament with the original ones:

Budapest Candidates (1950)

1 Bronstein ** ½½ 01 ½1 11 1½ 01 ½½ 1½ ½1 12.0/18
2 Boleslavsky ½½ ** 1½ ½½ ½½ 1½ ½½ ½1 ½1 11 12.0/18
3 Smyslov 10 0½ ** ½½ 1½ ½1 01 ½1 ½½ ½½ 10.0/18
4 Keres ½0 ½½ ½½ ** ½½ 10 1½ ½½ ½1 ½½ 9.5/18
5 Najdorf 00 ½½ 0½ ½½ ** ½½ ½½ 11 ½1 ½½ 9.0/18
6 Kotov 0½ 0½ ½0 01 ½½ ** ½1 10 10 1½ 8.5/18
7 Stahlberg 10 ½½ 10 0½ ½½ ½0 ** ½½ ½½ ½½ 8.0/18
8 Lilienthal ½½ ½0 ½0 ½½ 00 01 ½½ ** 10 ½½ 7.0/18
9 Szabo 0½ ½0 ½½ ½0 ½0 01 ½½ 01 ** 10 7.0/18
10 Flohr ½0 00 ½½ ½½ ½½ 0½ ½½ ½½ 01 ** 7.0/18

Zurich Candidates (1953)

1 Vasily Smyslov ** ½½ ½1 11 ½½ ½½ 11 ½0 ½½ ½½ ½½ ½½ 1½ 11 1½ 18.0 2 David Bronstein ½½ ** 11 1½ ½½ ½½ ½0 ½½ 1½ ½½ ½½ 01 1½ ½½ ½½ 16.0 3 Samuel Reshevsky ½0 00 ** ½½ ½½ ½½ ½½ 10 ½½ ½1 ½1 1½ ½1 11 1½ 16.0 4 Paul Keres 00 0½ ½½ ** ½1 ½½ ½1 ½½ ½½ 0½ 11 1½ ½1 ½½ 11 16.0 5 Tigran Petrosian ½½ ½½ ½½ ½0 ** 0½ ½½ ½½ 00 ½½ ½½ 11 ½1 1½ 11 15.0 6 Miguel Najdorf ½½ ½½ ½½ ½½ 1½ ** 00 1½ 1½ ½0 ½½ ½½ ½½ 0½ 11 14.5 7 Efim Geller 00 ½1 ½½ ½0 ½½ 11 ** ½0 01 ½½ 01 1½ ½1 01 ½½ 14.5 8 Alexander Kotov ½1 ½½ 01 ½½ ½½ 0½ ½1 ** 10 1½ 00 10 1½ 0½ 01 14.0 9 Mark Taimanov ½½ 0½ ½½ ½½ 11 0½ 10 01 ** 10 ½½ ½½ ½0 0½ 11 14.0 10 Yuri Averbakh ½½ ½½ ½0 1½ ½½ ½1 ½½ 0½ 01 ** ½½ ½½ 0½ 11 00 13.5 11 Isaac Boleslavsky ½½ ½½ ½0 00 ½½ ½½ 10 11 ½½ ½½ ** ½0 ½½ ½1 ½½ 13.5 12 Laszlo Szabo ½½ 10 0½ 0½ 00 ½½ 0½ 01 ½½ ½½ ½1 ** 1½ ½½ 1½ 13.0 13 Svetozar Gligoric 0½ 0½ ½0 ½0 ½0 ½½ ½0 0½ ½1 1½ ½½ 0½ ** ½1 11 12.5 14 Max Euwe 00 ½½ 00 ½½ 0½ 1½ 10 1½ 1½ 00 ½0 ½½ ½0 ** 1½ 11.5 15 Gideon Stahlberg 0½ ½½ 0½ 00 00 00 ½½ 10 00 11 ½½ 0½ 00 0½ ** 8.0

Amsterdam Candidates (1956)

1 Smyslov ** ½½ ½½ 0½ ½½ ½1 11 ½1 1½ ½1 11½ 5000 2 Keres ½½ ** ½½ ½½ ½½ ½1 ½½ ½0 1½ 1½ 10 3500 =3 Szabó ½½ ½½ ** 1½ ½½ ½½ ½1 0½ ½½ 01 9½ 1310 =3 Spassky 1½ ½½ 0½ ** ½½ ½1 0½ ½½ ½½ ½1 9½ 1310 =3 Petrosian ½½ ½½ ½½ ½½ ** 0½ 01 1½ ½½ 1½ 9½ 1310 =3 Bronstein ½0 ½0 ½½ ½0 1½ ** ½1 1½ ½½ ½1 9½ 1310 =3 Geller 00 ½½ ½0 1½ 10 ½0 ** 11 ½1 1½ 9½ 1310 =8 Filip ½0 ½1 1½ ½½ 0½ 0½ 00 ** 10 ½1 8 650 =8 Panno 0½ 0½ ½½ ½½ ½½ ½½ ½0 01 ** 1½ 8 650 10 Pilnik ½0 0½ 10 ½0 0½ ½0 0½ 0½ 0½ ** 5 500

Bled-Zagreb-Belgrade Candidates (1959)

1.Tal XXXX 0010 ==== 01=1 1111 1=11 111= 111= 20 2.Keres 1101 XXXX 0=== 1==0 0101 ==11 1110 1111 18.5 3.Petrosian ==== 1=== XXXX ==0= 11== 0==1 100= =11= 15.5 4.Smyslov 10=0 0==1 ==1= XXXX ==10 0=10 =1=1 =011 15 5.Fischer 0000 1010 00== ==01 XXXX 10=1 ==10 =1=1 12.5 6.Gligoric 0=00 ==00 1==0 1=01 01== XXXX ==10 =1== 12.5 7.Olafsson 000= 0001 011= =0=0 10=0 ==01 XXXX 00=1 10 8.Benko 000= 0000 =00= =100 =0=0 =0== 11=0 XXXX 8

Curacao Candidates (1962)

1.Petrosian XXXX ==== ==== =1== ==11 ==1= 11=* =11= 17.5 2.Keres ==== XXXX ==== 0=1= ==1= 1110 1=1* =11= 17 3.Geller ==== ==== XXXX 11=0 ==1= ===1 =11* =11= 17 4.Fischer =0== 1=0= 00=1 XXXX 010= 01=1 =1=* 1=1= 14 5.Korchnoi ==00 ==0= ==0= 101= XXXX ===0 10=* 1111 13.5 6.Benko ==0= 0001 ===0 10=0 ===1 XXXX 10=* 011= 12 7.Tal 00=* 0=0* =00* =0=* 01=* 01=* XXXX 10=* 7 8.Filip =00= =00= =00= 0=0= 0000 100= 01=* XXXX 7

The old ones were a lot longer. The players look to me just as tough as the ones now. Any one has any speculation on how Anand, Karjakin, Mamedyarov, Kramnik, Andreikin, Svidler, Aronian, Topalov might do in such company in such a marathon tournament format?

Two players immediately stand out IMO. Smyslov wins 2 out of 4. Keres not only is the only one to qualify and play in all of them, he takes second place 4 out of 5 times!

Oct-10-14  jphamlore: The real chess tragedy apart from Nakamura this event may be Mamedyarov. After all, the event is being held in Baku and Mamedyarov was good enough in the last FIDE Grand Prix cycle to qualify for Candidates 2014.

But as Candidates 2014 showed, Mamedyarov's defense as Black to 1. d4 has simply collapsed. He simply can't find anything to play that can reliably draw. He's tried just about everything in his career. And it's killing him this event as well.

Karjakin as a 1. e4 opener has used that mostly against Mamedyarov for indifferent results, including Candidates 2014. But Karjakin has shown more variety this event. This may be the time for Karjakin to try 1. d4 as White.

Oct-10-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Troller: <The real chess tragedy apart from Nakamura this event may be Mamedyarov. After all, the event is being held in Baku...>

This is an interesting point and has some relevance for the ongoing GP tournament also in Baku. In fact Sutovsky, another strong Baku GM, opined that Mamedyarov would be affected negatively by playing in his home city. Mamed has of course a history of nervousness - often falling apart in the games following a loss - but he seems to have improved in this respect recently. However, (according to Sutovsky) Mamedyarov has a great awareness of his fans which in turn triggers his old nervousness when fans are closely following him, as they will do in Baku.

Oct-10-14  jphamlore: <Troller: This is an interesting point and has some relevance for the ongoing GP tournament also in Baku. In fact Sutovsky, another strong Baku GM, opined that Mamedyarov would be affected negatively by playing in his home city. Mamed has of course a history of nervousness - often falling apart in the games following a loss - but he seems to have improved in this respect recently. However, (according to Sutovsky) Mamedyarov has a great awareness of his fans which in turn triggers his old nervousness when fans are closely following him, as they will do in Baku.>

That would be highly unfortunate if Mamedyarov plays worse in Baku than elsewhere because Baku is always a potential bidder for a Candidates tournament or even to host a World Championship match if Mamedyarov were to benefit by being a potential player, particularly if hosting a Candidates tournament would allow Baku to select Mamedyarov as the sponsor's choice.

Dec-16-14  visayanbraindoctor: There have already been two matches to decide the final placement in Candidates tournaments. Why not again?

1. Bronstein - Boleslavsky Candidates Playoff (1950)

This was played in order to determine Botvinnik's Challenger after Bronstein and Boleslavsky tied in Budapest Candidates (1950). Bronstein won and went on to Challenge Botvinnik.

2. Keres - Geller 2nd place Candidates Playoff (1962)

Another Candidates play-off match was held for theCuracao Candidates (1962) 2nd and 3rd placers, because it wasn't certain if Botvinnik would continue to defend his Title. Had Botvinnik had decided to retire we would have seen a Petrosian vs Keres World Championship match in 1963.

Speaking of the FIDE rules for tiebreaks in the 2014 Candidates, it was just 'lucky' that we had a clear winner (which happened to be Anand). Imagine if Anand had tied one or two others for first. It's as if FIDE has not learned anything from the controversy that resulted in Candidates 2013 when Carlsen and Kramnik both winded up first with the same score, but Kramnik got disqualified because he had less wins (and to make it more bitter, Kramnik even obtained the higher SB, which might have qualified him instead had the rules been slightly different).

I do hope FIDE would announce that in the next Candidates, joint winners would have to fight it out in a match.

Dec-17-14  Conrad93: if only Anand had played this well in the WC, then Carlsen would have stood no chance.
Dec-17-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: <donkrad: if only Anand had played this well in the WC, then Carlsen would have stood no chance.>

By all means you are permitted your fantasies, but Anand was not at all likely to defeat Carlsen, even playing better than last year as he did. It was only with a supreme effort that he kept this match close in the face of a determined titleholder.

Dec-17-14  Petrosianic: <It's as if FIDE has not learned anything from the controversy that resulted in Candidates 2013 when Carlsen and Kramnik both winded up first with the same score, but Kramnik got disqualified because he had less wins (and to make it more bitter, Kramnik even obtained the higher SB, which might have qualified him instead had the rules been slightly different).>

Yes, but winning by Sonnenborn would hav been as bad as winning on some other tiebreak. There was a time when tiebreaking systems weren't considered good enough to even determine interzonal spots much less a challenger. They still aren't, it's just that FIDE doesn't care. You say they haven't learned anything, but what is there to learn? That the chess world would be unsatisfied with a tiebreak challenger? They know it, they just don't care. This is the same FIDE that's perfectly willing to let someone lose the world title by drawing an armageddon blitz game. That's much worse than rules for the candidates tournament.

Dec-17-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: <petrosianic> to me, winning the title by Armageddon is not worse than winning it by having beaten some completely different chap three years ago... Also, the probability of an Armageddon game in WC match is extremely low. Look at a whole bunch of rapid and blitz games placed before it. Likely if we keep the current mode forever, we won't witness an Armageddon WC game in our lifetime. As for Candidates tiebreakers: direct encounter and number of wins depend only on the tied players themselves. SB depends also on the opponents. For this reason I find Candidates tiebreakers as they are now fair.
Dec-17-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: By the way, visayan, no "luck" here. In the last Candidates <all eight> places could be arranged solely by scored points plus direct encounter. Actually, such a scenario is more likely than having to resort to second, let alone third, tiebreaker. In the 2013 Candidates, two tiebreakers were enough to arrange all eight.
Dec-17-14  1d410: Magnus deserved to challenge Anand, at least eventually because of his anomalously high rating anyways. That's how I justify him challenging Anand over Kramnik. If there weren't even candidates cycles then somebody would have chosen him.
Dec-18-14  visayanbraindoctor: <Petrosianic: Yes, but winning by Sonnenborn would hav been as bad as winning on some other tiebreak. There was a time when tiebreaking systems weren't considered good enough to even determine interzonal spots much less a challenger.>

I agree. No tiebreaking system can take the pace of an outright match between tied players. But as you put it <They know it, they just don't care.>. Hoping for a future FIDE that would care.

As another poster said, the main barrier to a play-off match may be financial. In the old days, I guess the Soviet state machinery could always dole out the cost of these matches. Not anymore. If this is the real reason, then the issue of using tiebreakers over play-off match will continue to remain.

A financially friendly alternative I would propose is a play-off mini-match of two classical games. One player gets two blacks, the other two whites. If the mini-match is tied, the player with two blacks qualifies. The player with the higher SB, or won games, or who won their individual encounter gets the choice if he would have two whites or two blacks.

<This is the same FIDE that's perfectly willing to let someone lose the world title by drawing an armageddon blitz game. That's much worse than rules for the candidates tournament.>

This possibility is quite galling. Yet the present FIDE rules allow such a possibility. I imagine that if it comes to that, the world championship page would have reams of additional posts of heated debate.

There have been discussions on this before. I would propose the same thing as above, if finances for an extended play-off are lacking. This time the Challenger gets two whites. This is his advantage. The sitting champion retains the Title if he ties. This is the champion's traditional advantage that he retains, but for which he must pay for with two blacks. Fair trade-off IMO.

Thus the Challenger must still beat the sitting Champion in order to seize the Title. IMO it's the possibility of the Challenger taking the Title without beating the sitting Champion, under present FIDE rules, that opens the way for another schism. I expect that a significant number of the Champion's supporters would still regard him as Champion.

Let us suppose that in 2016, Carlsen loses the Title (according to FIDE rules) by drawing an Armageddon blitz game with White to Caruana. Who is going to regard Caruana as the new World Champion? Official FIDE obviously, but I expect that many chess fans won't.

Dec-18-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: I will. Even if the winner is determined by throwing a dice five times. Because these are the rules, rules known in advance. World champion is just world champion, not that mythical "best player" creature which never existed.

As for champion retaining the title - no matter the comensation for it - as I said, why should having beaten someone else years ago matter with respect to the new opponent? I mean, if Caruana draws MC why should it matter that MC beat Anand two years before? The two events are unrelated, the only constant being MC himself.

Dec-18-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: And if the player achieves a whole <streak> of drawn matches after taking the title, it becomes even more absurd. The player retains the title because some 10 years ago he beat some other player, who possibly retired 5 years ago :D
Dec-18-14  Petrosianic: Are you saying that all rules are good, simply by virtue of being rules?

If FIDE decreed that the winner of a Pin the Tail on the Donkey Contest would be the next world champion, would you accept it?

To be fair, in one sense, you should. He would be the official FIDE World Champion. But in another sense, if they told you that this was the next champion in a line of existing champions, that wouldn't be quite true, would it?

Dec-18-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: < Are you saying that all rules are good, simply by virtue of being rules?>

I'm saying that if both participants accept the rules, the shouldn't complain after they fail under them.

Kramnik is known for such complaints:

Before Mexico 2007: "I accept this tournament as world championship.". After it: "Anand is champion, but only on paper, I'm a match player".

Before Candidates 2011: "It's pretty long, it's four games". After it: "The matches were ridiculously short".

Before Candidates 2013: No objections. After: "The tiebreak was unfair".

Dec-18-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: ... And if you don't accept the rules, just don't play. Like Carlsen did by dropping out in 2012.
Dec-18-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: By the way schism: note how Kramnik competed in both cycles before he eventually beat Kasparov.
Dec-19-14  Petrosianic: Smart move. With a reunification match perpetually on the horizon, winning the FIDE title could have been equal to winning the PCA Candidates.
Dec-19-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: <visayan.....No tiebreaking system can take the pace of an outright match between tied players....>

+400

Dec-19-14  Conrad93: <By all means you are permitted your fantasies, but Anand was not at all likely to defeat Carlsen, even playing better than last year as he did. It was only with a supreme effort that he kept this match close in the face of a determined titleholder.>

Another narcissistic and clueless comment from you.

Anand was not at all playing at the same level as he was at the Canditates. Anyone with a brain and some common sense would see and know this.

He had excellent positions against Carlsen and completely ruined them. If he had the same precision as in the Canditates, he would have never lost.

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 222)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 221 OF 222 ·  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!

Copyright 2001-2021, Chessgames Services LLC