27 slow time-control games, two decisive games. Understandable in the final perhaps, although I can’t recall a lower decisive game percentage in any championship match.
But…in a knockout every match is a “final.”
Still, this type of event degenerates into a wast of time for all concerned. Instead of trying to win OTB, the players are waiting for an opportunity to spring their latest innovation and hoping that, having achieved that, their opponent will get flustered and lose.
Suggestion: To draw before some number of moves – 35, 40, whatever – you have to ask the arbiter first. He then consults with a panel of 3 “anonymous” (to the players) GMs who are selected randomly from a group of 20 or 25 recruited before the match. This assures that no retaliation will be possible in the event that the panel forces the participants to play on.
Drawbacks:
finding GMs willing to do this (I suspect not so difficult, considering there are about a thousand of them floating around)
a “play on” decision signaling to one or both players that something is up. Unlikely because the two opponents probably understand more about the position than anyone else on earth.
Once having agreed to a draw and been turned down by the panel, the players will blitz innocuous moves to reach the magic move number (very, very likely)
The panel GMs, resenting their perennial second-tier (or third-tier) players, will ALWAYS say play on, contributing to an even greater (social) chasm between top-30 players and the “HAVES” of the chess world
On that note I bid farewell to everyone on this forum, as the world is coming to an end within a few hours. See you all in hell.
Are you still with us? From what I heard, the only one to disappear was Mr. Camping. Perhaps only he was worthy.
One cannot enjoy these candidates’ matches very well just by looking at the results. Moreso than most (and draws are typical for such matches) it appears that nothing is going on. But something is going on in every game. Nobody (not even Grishchuk, I think) wants to waste a turn with White. On the other hand, all that matters is winning the match, and maybe Grishchuk, who has a 3600 blitz rating on ICC, is happy enough to get to the rapid games.
I wrote some comments in this thread viewtopic.php?f=24&t=15480
about the draws. They are draws, but to be honest I haven’t seen a game without a fight, yet. Some are outstanding games. Some are short but there is interest in every game. There was interest in this one too, which Mig spins as being even a bigger shame.
Well we got a very surprising TN in the QGD, and then after five very difficult moves in uncharted territory, just about when things had stabilized to where White would have an extra pawn and Black would have some pressure, Grishchuk offers a draw and Gelfand accepts. Probably with perfect play it was a draw from that point. The computer program Rybka said it was about dead even there. But suppose they have played and … Gelfand made a mistake and lost. Would that be the right theoretical outcome? Would that be the way to present this TN to the world? Or suppose Grishchuk had made a mistake and lost. Is this TN worth a win for Black? The game gave us something valuable and the right result was achieved, but less chess was played than was possible – unlike the prior two games where Grishchuk played until there was absolutely nothing left in the position.
The players are not afraid of their own shadows. They have a healthy respect for their opponents, who are deadly killers on the chessboard. Please, spend some time on the games themselves, with some of the available GM notes if you like, and you’ll see what I mean. These guys are murderers, and when winning positions have not been converted, it’s because the opponent played incredible defense. The quality of these games is way way above other recent events I’ve seen.
Well OK today not even I can say the game was exciting. Game 4 of the final didn’t have much going on. Gelfand tried, but he didn’t get far. A very quiet draw.
I guess Gelfand was cautious because in a similar type of position in game 1 of the Aronian - Grishchuk match, Black got bit by bit a winning attack. I’ve got to look back at that game and see what the difference is.
But Gelfand is running out of games as White, and Grishchuk has to be the favorite in rapid games.
Something’s got to be done. I was totally turned off by this system. I lost total interest. Fischer is turning in his grave both at the system, and the effort of the players.
And we should care what Dead Fischer thinks because . . . ?
Being one of history’s strongest chess players doesn’t excuse him from being a loony. Tell me what Kasparov thinks of the system, and I’ll give it some thought.
It doesn’t matter what Kasparov thinks, either. Do not forget that he quit or “retired” from competitive play at a relatively early age. Most of the other World Champions continued to play deep into their forties and fifties in qualifying events. Like Fischer, he became afraid to lose. But that did not keep him from sniping on the outside about his former colleagues who he called “tourists,” that is, players with no real chance or ability to win the title but who competed to travel and pick up a few bucks. He was referring to 2600’s and low 2700 players. A spoiled child or prima donna, take your pick, he retired in a huff because he did not get what he wanted. Now he writes books pretending he knows something about business and life.
The present candidates system works within the financial realities of our time. There are fewer sponsors and less money around than in the 1990’s and early 2000’s. These short matches make things more unpredictable and random; one error can be devastating. The players find it difficult to risk. The tension has to be enormous. It seems like a silly way to find a championship contender, but most playoff systems in sports have been criticized for how many are allowed into the playoff, seeding, number of games, overtimes, and the quality of play. In soccer, when Brazil was eliminated at the World Cup, it was almost a scandal. Many Super Bowls have been dull. In chess, both Khalifman and Ponomariov were not considered to be “real” world champions. In this cycle, several prominent players are sitting out. The luster is off because there are few true rivalries; a collection of equals compete to see who can climb up and out of the crabpot.
He may have been a loony, but I’d say his opinion on chess and chess match setups was ever so slightly worth more than yours or mine… and he was a better chess player than Kasparov for that matter.
The fact is, any system that produces pretty much random winners instead of the best, is not a good system. Why don’t we just roll dice if the system is so random.
As far as “being difficult to risk”, I dispute that it’s the system, I think it’s the players. They lack the fortitude of the old-time players. Take the 1985 K-K match. Game 24, all Kasparov needs is a draw. Instead of playing it safe, he plays a sharp Sicilian and goes to battle with Karpov, who takes him on in a type of game he himself is not so comfortable with. Or how about Nigel Short in 1993 against Kasparov. He could have made himself “look good” by playing many tasteless draws. Instead he took the chance of playing very sharp chess against maybe the best in history at that type of game, and the score was lopsided. I guess today’s grandmasters prefer to lose by the score of +0 -1 =15, makes ‘em look better.
To summarize, the system stinks, and the players’ fortitude isn’t so up there either, in the opinion of someone who has followed the chess scene for 45 years now.
Are we talking about requiring 1.e4 instead of 1.d4 ? Frankly I got a bit tired of Kramnik’s ugly Berlin variation against Kasparov’s Ruy Lopez. But boy it worked. Nowadays the Petroff is seen as a likely draw too.
In fact people play 1.d4 (or something other than 1.e4) because they don’t want a draw as white. Nowadays it seems impossible to blow open the position if the opponent doesn’t want it. That’s the state of theory, moreso than the identities of the current top players. Grishchuk tried hard today, but Gelfand’s defense was too good and Grishchuk made a small error allowing the pressure to be broken. It was a real chess game, with at least one great defensive move (Qc8!).
I understand the game is different today. It is more difficult to win. But the fact that they have to institute all sorts of “fighting chess” rules (Sofia, etc) is kind of proof that the “fight” has somewhat gone out of the players, compared to yesterday. Fischer-Spassky didn’t produce a single GM draw in 20 games, and don’t tell me it’s theory, there was enough theory then to produce tasteless draws.
By the way, I cite Topalov as a distinct exception on the high level. Here's a guy that is great for chess, constantly takes chances to win, produces exciting chess, and all the chess public can do is remember the "bathroom controversy". Admittedly, a sore spot in his reputation, but should be totally overshadowed by the positive aspects that Topa brings to chess. There used to be a lot of him in chess, but now there's very few. Like I said, I get the impression that GM's would rather lose +0 -1 =15 than to chance winning.
I like Topalov too, and I was rooting for him to win the WC. I even agree with the things he (or Danailov) says, that bring so much controversy, like refusing to play a Russian in Russia. When is the last time a tournament or match was won by a non-Russian in Russia?
He plays fantastic, but once in a while, usually under the greatest pressure, he makes a really strange and dangerous move. It’s like on 1 out of 100 moves, his positional judgment turns off.
Well, an unbalanced game, a strategic mistake by Grishchuk (Bxh4), comprehensively punished by Gelfand. Gelfand was the better player today. This game reminds me of those of 30 or more years ago, what people now think of as the “golden era” of the WC.
A fine match, well and strategically played by Gelfand. I give him good chances in the WC match against Anand, and I’m rooting for him as well. He’s the closest to my age!
Was gone for a few months and now reading up on all I missed. This exchange is amusing.
Fischer won the WC at 29 and quit like a child. Kasparov won the WC at 22 and dominated for 20 years. Fischer has his merits, no doubt. However…if you could pit Fischer’s best day against Kasparov’s best day…
No way. I’ve always said that in a 24 game match, Kasparov would get his brilliancies off, but Fischer would grind him down with his dead accurate chess. Never saw Kasparov beat 20 grandmasters in a row… he couldn’t play with Fischer in a long intense match.
Top level chess may come to be like top level checkers where as I understand it players draw from cards to determine the first few opening moves. A modification for chess could be to allow 10% of the 2-game sets to be go-as-you-please (GAYP).
11-ply restriction would be interesting: that’s long enough to force players into (say) a specific Sicilian variation, but generally not too long to force players to play against their natural style.
Anand and Gelfand agreed on Nov 26th to play a 12-game match on May 10-21, 2012 for $2.5 million purse (60% winner; 40% loser) inside Moscow’s Tretyakov State Gallery. news.yahoo.com/anand-play-gelfan … 27671.html