Mtel 2005 r1

Hi Mig

I think that Kramnik missed a clear win on move 21. On the Anand-Topalov game it was singular. What were Kasparov's comments? Does he follow the games? Has he analytical stuff too?

21.b4 Qb6 22.a5 +-

Terrible pity he overlooked that. Just glad he still won. That's the difference between his blunders and Kasparov's. ;-)

I agree with what many have said, both draws were more interesting than Kramnik's victory. Anand-Topalov was just... breathtaking.

Dear chess-loving friends,

Oh dear, once again, the Caro-Kann had suffered a blow to its denfensive prowess. :-... (Perhaps I should give up playing it) The game could have ended only in 22 moves if Kramnik played 21.b4! that traps the Black queen. If Ponomariov made 15...Qh5 instead of the impatient 15...g5?!, the endgame will look even after the queen exchange followed by multiple piece exchanges. An interesting Knight versus Bishop endgame would probably be reached whereby the outcome would probably be a long and theoretical draw. Anyway, I think Black's plan 15...g5 followed by 16...0-0-0 is simply too dangerous. Maybe 15...g5 was simply the losing move. I don't know but what do you guys think?

Regards,

JZY

Isn't the whole line considered somewhat dubious since Lautier-Karpov?
I think White keeps an initiative after 15..Qh5 16.Qxh5 Nxh5, maybe 17.Nf5!? or just Rad1 I think Kramnik in particular would be happy with that. If Black had already castled, sure.

In the game, why not 17..Qe5 ?

Chessbase.com now seems to have posted a "final" Round 1 report. But where are Kasparov's "pithy comments"?

Mig, there are no Kasparov comments in the article you linked.

Mig hasn't started a thread on the second round - not that it is worth. Hence I'm using this one. Yesterday we were happy with the rules. Today, it looked to me, the players have found a way out.

I see people are still complaining and booing. (Some) chess fans are a tough lot to please, indeed. You have to ask yourself if it's worth it at all.

"Players have found a way out" Well you do not own them, and IMO every player has the right to play boring [In your view] chess. If you do not like it please do not watch it!

Why can't fans complain? If I were to hold a tournament and I wanted to attact the maximum number of fans and I wanted them to be happy with the chess being played, I would want to know who the fans like and who they didn't like.

Saying, "if you don't like it, don't watch" is very passive. I don't think the world would make much progress this way. It's like telling political critics, "if you don't like the government, leave the country." Some of us prefer to fight to change things to get them the way we want them! (And some of us just like to complain about things we don't like.)

If the players and organizers were compensated in correlation with viewership (as with sports on TV), not watching would be a practical option. It would send a message. But there are poor metrics for chess viewership, and even less commercial maturity. Fans have no way to punish or reward the players other than by posting to blogs and message boards.

"Saying, "if you don't like it, don't watch" is very passive. I don't think the world would make much progress this way. It's like telling political critics, "if you don't like the government, leave the country.""

No it's not. The way super-GM's play chess have no essential impact on our lives and you can simply look away from it if you don't like it. Nothing more happens. Comparing with politics? How absurd.

This is a question of purely subjective personal preferences. Don't you get it? It makes no sense to blame the players. I found the Kramnik-Anand game interesting. You didn't. That's all there is to it.

This tournament already goes to great lengths appeasing a more and more demanding crowd. Some people (very far from all!) are never going to stop complaining. They get to watch great, deep chess for free and instead of thanking the players for this enormous privilege they complain and cry boo every time the games are not "exciting" enough according to some arbitrary criterion. Guess in the end we will have to outlaw draws. And certain openings. And certain players. And...

Mig

I think acirce made it clear that your comparison was not a good one.

"Fans have no way to punish or reward the players other than by posting to blogs and message boards."

Why sould fans punish or reward? For me being a fan is not being a judge, and chess players play for themselves. What you propose is similar to forcing all directors to make action films because they sell but many high quality boring movies do not. Chess it is not a show to entertain people. At least I can say I have not this kind of preception.

Sorry, you have no right to say you enjoyed the Kramnik-Anand game. It is irrelevant what you like, please stop talking about it. Get the point? If it had no impact on our lives we wouldn't be here. We are here because we enjoy chess and talking about chess.

We are also a market the way a movie audience is a market. Many organizers take a player's popularity into account when they invite the field. Young players and dynamic players who play more decisive games often get preference. Their presence attracts more attention.

Hesam, I don't propose anything, let alone propose forcing anyone to do anything. I'm saying it's absurd to criticize people for saying they don't like a player's games, or any game. If you see a bad movie you can go to a movie website and say it was a bad movie. Would your reply to those people be, "then don't go watch it"? Too late.

If a basketball team plays slow, boring basketball they might lose fans and won't be shown on television as often as exciting, high-scoring teams, even if the boring team wins more. This is not a crime, it reflects the market. My point was that chess does not have a developed market like this. It is marginally influencial at best because it's not a mass-market sport (i.e. no TV).

Chessplayers would play for themselves if they didn't earn an income from their play. The moment they do that, they play for the sponsors who supply the money. (Or they can play elsewhere for free.) The sponsors usually hope to gain something for their money, usually publicity. Popular, highly-rated players bring the most publicity.

Obviously open events are different since you pay to play and only keep what you kill.

i'd certainly like to think that people watch chess because they are interested in it, and not that players play chess because people find it interesting.
Culturally, if you think chess is not important enough to get support from society without changing into a more crowd-pleasing form, then maybe chess professionals should not exist?
But what does it say of our culture that chess and chessplayers are not respected for what they are and do but only for the flashing lights and thunderbolts entertainment they may provide for the plebeie?

The same goes for all art forms today. People demand entertainment for their money and serious art is seriously handicapped because no funds can be found for such as so few are truly interested in it.

Our culture is truly the saddest of all, and it's only going from bad to worse as long as money and popularity dictate. In a hundred years there will be nothing of our culture for history, as our culture will have provided only for the "facile futile and totally blind".

"I'm saying it's absurd to criticize people for saying they don't like a player's games, or any game."

Nobody is criticizing anyone for that. You still don't get the point. It is certainly the right to have personal preferences and to express them. But to blame the players and attack *them* because of one's personal taste?!

"If a basketball team plays slow, boring basketball they might lose fans and won't be shown on television as often as exciting, high-scoring teams, even if the boring team wins more. This is not a crime, it reflects the market. My point was that chess does not have a developed market like this."

Thank God for that.

As far as my understanding goes "slow basketball" is not possible at a professional level due to the introduction of the shotclock rule.And in my experience of viewing proffesional sports I have never seen a top class team or player who is not shown on TV as a result of a style which is not flashy.It would reflect the market if it were so,but such a market does not exist in pro sports.And of course I hope one wont develop in chess thanx to a multitude of low level chess "fans" on the internet.

Usually personal style of playing & tournament strategy stand behind
some player's decisions at the board, like making a quick draw or
playing for a win: this is "stock exchange" chess afterall, isnt it?

However, if the masses want the scalp in every game, they could just start
a campaign of boos, whistles and colourful language from the crowd:

-choice of opening: 1.e4 "great!! yes,yes,yes!!,go-go-go-goooo!" 1..e5 "booo"
2. Nf3 "yes!yes!" 2...Nf6 "boooo,booo,coward!!!"

-missed oportunity -according to an engine of your choice-: "oh, nooooo!!!"
"lame useless %*&m--f!!!"

-draw offer "boooooo-ooooooo-oooo!!!!, $%*!$%@* coward!! co-ward!,co-ward!"

-draw accepted "oh nooo!!! %$^&*&^% coward!!!! co-ward! co-ward! co-ward!"
"boo,booooo, kill'em!"

It may be accompanied with finger pointing, obscene signals, etc

It works in football. And could be the first step into TV.

> My point was that chess does not have a developed
> market like this. [Mig]

> Thank God for that. [acirce]

Thank God we have Kirsan as the sponsor. Thank God that making a living out of playing chess is only possible for the top 100.