In round 7 of the world championship tournament in Mexico Vishy Anand was the sole winner. He beat Grischuk and moved into the clear lead at the half with an impressive +3 score and a 2900 performance rating. Anand pulled away from Boris Gelfand, who worked miracles to draw against Kramnik and preserve his +2 score, good enough for clear second place. Kramnik is lurking in 3rd. Round 7 podcast here.
Round 8: Gelfand-Anand, Svidler-Kramnik, Aronian-Morozevich, Leko-Grischuk. LIVE.
Anand and the rest of the chess world are lucky Alexander Grischuk doesn't play the Petroff. I do wonder if Grischuk gave it some thought before round seven, however, considering how poorly Vishy has fared against it so far in Mexico. Instead we got an Anti-Marshall and the world #1 comprehensively outplayed the young Russian to move to +3 and clear first place at the halfway mark of the tournament. The game was a positional master class in several ways. The domination of the b4 knight was a great illustration of playing against a piece. Anand took his time to put together a typical Nc4 assault against what had become a Benoni structure. White's kingside breakthrough came in time and although it got a little messy Anand pushed his d-pawn through to triumph.
It was a vintage Anand win, smooth from the start. Kasparov said Vishy is simply playing better than the others so far. He also praised the high quality of the Kramnik-Gelfand duel. Either Gelfand was in a surprisingly combative mood or Kramnik's Catalan is getting such a rep that the super-sharp Anti-Moscow Semi-Slav looks attractive in comparison. We've seen this a few times already and Kramnik had a new twist up his very long sleeve, 13.Qc1. It looked like the champ was making steady progress in the sharp battle. His king was safer and the Bb7 bishop was a bystander. When White gained two connected passers on the queenside it was looking very grim indeed. But Gelfand conjured up last-second counterplay with ..h3 and ..f5, and don't forget the cheeky 33..0-0-0! that saved the day. Garry recalled his own 35.0-0-0 against Tony Miles (86 match g1) that "almost made Tony drop from his chair!" A great game from both players and an amazing save from Gelfand, who confirmed his excellent form.
Morozevich repeated the Scotch line from his win against Svidler against Leko, who responded more aggressively. GM Federowicz on the ICC was calling it about even and the players really took their time. Instead of the short draw the Fed was predicting, Leko got just enough of an edge to keep going. Play became sharp as Leko sacrificed a pawn to infiltrate with his queen. Moro held on and Black forced the draw on move 60. An excellent example of how drawish positions don't have to be drawn on move 20. Kudos to both players. Let's hope Leko keeps swinging in the second half.
No kudos for Svidler and Aronian, who drew in 20 moves of a Lopez Exchange. Svidler became befuddled and played Kf2 before g4 and Black equalized instantly with 17..f5.
Predictions? Anand has four blacks in the second half, including against Gelfand and Kramnik. But he's looking awfully good and +4 is almost a guarantee of clear first. Kramnik came close to three other wins (Anand, Grischuk, Gelfand) and is looking so comfortable it's hard to imagine that he won't score at least one more win while no one seems willing or able to threaten him. Can Gelfand keep it up? Can anyone else make a move? Will we ever see a Sicilian?
I am of the opinion that Kramnik will score at least another win; and while I am no Kasparov, Anands play has not thrilled me so far, I predict a loss for him in the second half (regardles when it comes – while he has white or black). For Boris… would be nice to see him win (and if he does, Leko will be the loser) but I doubt it. He will end on a +2 or +1 score. Hope Moro pulls up on an even score but doubt it will happen. The other Aleksandar will get a +2 score in the other half.
And we will see some sicilians, not to mention a lot of spaniards, the ocassional french and a weird looking russian who will be soundly beaten.
Today's game Gelfand-Anand is extremely important for psychological reasons. If Gelfand manages a win to leap into the lead, this could be a huge psychological blow to Anand, and it would be interesting to see how Anand recovers. On the other hand, if Anand holds a draw with black (or somehow wins), this puts the squeeze on Gelfand and Anand will likely take the championship. Other quentions: How much resistance will the players in the bottom half provide. Will Kramnik catch Anand? I'm rooting for Gelfand to win it all. Although if Anand becomes champ, this would considerably boost the promotion of chess, considering his popularity in India...
This tournament, as predicted is recieving much less interest than the Topalov - Kramnik match. I struggle to find this tournament even being mentioned in any of the mainstream media in Europe or across the Atlantic. Only the chess players seem to be interested really, and we are showing much less passion than during last year's match. You can see it on Mig's blog, on Susan's blog. Last year we had news articles here that recieved hundreds of comments. Now we have to do with 35 or 41 etc. Not much more than news articles on Linares would recieve.
I don't get the feeling that world championship is at stake here. And it seems that this feeling is shared on the chess servers such as ICC and Playchess.
The Topalov - Kramnik games we analysed, debated and argued in detail, now we just skip through the games and talk about Fischer, Poker and Anna Kournikova.
Chess 101: And this should be obvious to everyone now, World Championship Matches, it is what gets chess the most attention, it is what gets us chess players fired up, and it should be the future of World Chess Championship for as long as humans keep playing this game.
No more messing around.
Re: Chess 101's comments, I agree that the tournament format, as opposed to matches, does seem to take away somewhat from the drama of one-on-one, "mano a mano" competition; on the other hand, it produces many more possibilities as well, for a variety of possible outcomes. I think, though, that the "casual" feeling he alludes to is also somewhat due to the drawn-out nature of the tournament being inextricably linked with the followup matches, including Topalov's and the World Cup: this is just one of four, like a Grand Slam event.
On another topic, Susan Polgar mentioned in her blog that at a restaurant in Mexico City where there were some of the candidates, "Of course the players would be dining with their seconds or families and not with each other." Would this be so weird, though, as long as they don't discuss strategies for upcoming games? My impression was that generally the players are all on friendly terms with each other (especially Kramnik with Svidler, I believe; can anyone confirm this or know of other friendships among the group?); is this a wrong impression? Is there tension or "bad blood" between any of the players?! I do get the feeling that Morozevich is somewhat of an outsider in terms of personality, but maybe this is also due to the fact that he's less often in the same tournaments as some of the others...?!
To me this is just another interesting tournament, certainly not a real world championship. Take the title away from Kramnik because Anand barely squeaks a draw from him and beats up on the bottom half, while no one beats Kramnik? That's what it looks like is going to happen. I won't ever consider Anand as having been a real world champion until he beats the world champion in a long match. A few people care what FIDE says; well they are welcome to it.
It's very important that Kramnik still has his White game against Anand left.
Let's say all the other games from now on end in draws except that one. Then if Kramnik beats Anand, he'd catch up AND win the whole tournament according to the tiebreak rules.
Free live commentary of all games can be found at these sites:
http://www.chessdom.com
http://www.crestbook.com
http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com
One thing that we have to account for is the fact that Svidler might give a free win to his good friend Kramnik. Then, Svidler will play for a draw against Anand. So the Kramnik-Anand game is the key game(unless Gelfand continues to surprise me).
However, it looks clear to me that Anand is the best tournament player and that Kramnik is the best one-on-one player. So, Anand might become a world champion, but for how long?
[Kasparov's comments as caught by secret microphone]: "A good game, reminds me of the chess I was playing at age twelve, and much better than the crap these two usually play."
[As edited by Mig]: "He also praised the high quality of the Kramnik-Gelfand duel."
"The Topalov - Kramnik games we analysed, debated and argued in detail, now we just skip through the games and talk about Fischer, Poker and Anna Kournikova."
Thank Topailov for that. In a tournament there are more games each day so they get less individual attention. I doubt the Kramnik - Leko match was more interesting than this tournament or San Luis.
Good one Greg
>I won't consider Anand as world chess champion >unless he beats Kramnik in a match.
>Posted by Knight_Tour
There are some people who will find excuses in everything.. And who will never accept Anand's accomplishments..
Fact:Anand wins 1998 Groninjen and loses to Karpov unfairly
Response: Anand signed it and so he suffers.
Fact:Anand wins 2000 FIDE championship in Teheran
Response: Nope.. this is just Lottery
Fact: Anand wins Linares 2007
Response: Nope.. this is just another tournament
Fact: Anand becomes #1 rated in Chess
Response: Nope.. this is just FIDE's list
Now: Anand wins world chess championship tournament
Response: Nope.. this is not a match
Fact: Kramnik loses to Shirov but handpicked by Kasparov
Response: Shirov and Anand declined. What can poor Kramnik do?
Fact: Kramnik beats Kasparov
Response: Kramnik the world champion from 2000-??
And Khalifman,Anand, Ponomariov and Topalov are FIDE's jokers
Fact: Kramnik ties Leko 7-7 and Topalov 6-6 in matches
Response: Kramnik the best match player and the greatest champion ever. Following the tradition from Steinitz
.... Are you kidding.. Whats wrong with FIDE's tournament format? It gives possibility to each and everyone in the world..
If this tournament is not so popular in the world.. so be it.. But we want a fair tournament.. Fair champion..
I am a great fan of Kramnik. Just because some X wins wimbledon, and not Roger Federer.. Will you say Wimbledon is a lottery.. and the X should beat Federer in a match of 20 games to prove he is the best?
Cheers
Ganesh
good one Ganesh - eventhough you have skipped some of Anands achievements.
The people who get the reputation of being great match players are often (=not always; before you start pointing exceptions) ones who always use a safety first approach and play dour unenterprising chess. The likes of Karpov and Kramnik. What a pity.
I think it's a bit unfair to say Kramnik plays dour unenterprising chess - at least with White. Kramnik is pretty consistent at playing for a win with White and it seems to me his style is more about keeping control and squeezing rather than being 'unenterprising'. His style is a good way to play in must-win situations aswell. With Black, well... I guess his only excuse could be if you know your openings that well with White, you probably don't have much time to learn anything proper for Black. :)
Besides, look at his game against Morozevich!
knight_tour:
"Anand barely squeaks a draw from [Kramnik]". In chess there are only three results, just like in tennis a ball is either in or out. You can measure how far the ball landed from the line if your guy lost and you feel bad about it.
"Anand... beats up on the bottom half." They're in the bottom half in part because Anand beat up on them.
"A few people care what FIDE says; well they are welcome to it." Yes a few people, including every top player in the world, seem to consider this the world championship. I guess they have no idea what a real champion is.
Kramnik has gone on record saying that he will accept Anand as world champion if he wins this. If he is ok with it then its irrelevant what any tom/dick says here.
i was speaking relatively of course.
Even Karpov had some brilliant attacking games but he will always be classified as a technician and known for his great endgame play and prophylactic moves. Traits shared by Kramnik who also happens to be a great match player according to some. I don't think there needs to be any special significance attached to being a great match player or a great tournament player. You are either a great chess player or not. Kramnik is a great chess player but I cant see why people make a big deal of his being a great match player. Of course, given his style of play, he will be more successful in matches than tournaments (like Karpov in his later years). That seems obvious.
In some ways it should be a back handed compliment to be call someone a great match player because it means you lack the courage to trust your intuition and head into unclear complications. Like Tal for instance is considered by many to be the greatest chess talent ever and... he wasn't a great match player. So what?
nice ones Ganesh, stingT, RR..
actually I would pick Vishy as the favorite against Kramnik even in match-play provided Kramnik does not have draw-odds..
as far as I remember, he only loses in matches after entering the top 5 have been against Karpov, Kamsky (freak! up by 2 games in a 8-game match and lost from there) and Kasparov (outplayed more psychologically than chess-wise). Has he played any matches after 1995? I can only remember that FIDE joke against Karpov in '98 which he drew (and lost the tie-break)...he has grown and stabilized a lot in this decade and I'm just hoping Kramnik does not find an excuse to avoid him in a match...Vishy will win by at least a 2-point margin...in 2008 when it actually happens, remember that you first read it here :)
btw, it is funny how the best chess player on the planet gets his name misspelt on the offical WC site (pairings and crosstable page).
Wasn't the Kamsky loss also in a tiebreak?
Fact: Kramnik loses to Shirov but handpicked by Kasparov
Response: the Champion has the right choose anyone who wants to play for the title. Even his aunt in a park in Moscow.
It his title, he owns it.
Fact: Kramnik beats Kasparov
Response: Kramnik becomes the legitimate world champion from 2000-on
Fact: Kramnik ties Leko 7-7 and Topalov 6-6 in matches
Response: And retains the title, that's the rule.
"Kramnik the best match player and the greatest champion ever"
"straw man" argumentation, you should have become a lawyer, nobody (i.e. greg koster) says or believs such things.
Anyone else says only that Kramnik is the WCC. Boring, drawish and colorless but the Champ.
"Just because some X wins wimbledon, and not Roger Federer.. Will you say Wimbledon is a lottery and the X should beat Federer in a match of 20 games to prove he is the best?"
Response : Chess is NOT tennis.
The title has to be gained by defeating the WCC in a title-match.
Anand will have to defeat Kramnik and then, and only then, he will be acknowledged as the WCC.
yes, I think so...which means he has only lost 2 matches - one 8-game match against Karpov and one 20-game match against Kasparov (two of the all-time greats).
btw, does anyone know when was the last time Vishy was not in the top 3 of the rankings?
Ovidiu: "Anand will have to defeat Kramnik and then, and only then, he will be acknowledged as the WCC."
Acknowledged by whom Ovidiu? Kramnik for example? Perhaps if Kramnik owns the title he can also disown it? Or are you going to be the final arbiter of who owns what.
"Chess is NOT tennis".
a shame; I've been preaching for years that the Four Majors a Year format is hands down a better solution for sponsors, players, and fans. tennis and golf don't suffer from the lack of a "World Champion". More players would play inspired chess like Gelfand if it was all on the line every three months-- no saving of novelties, just fight like hell and collect as many grand slams as you can.
"To me this is just another interesting tournament, certainly not a real world championship."
In my opinion, this is a real world championship. And the level of play in my opinion is much better than the one in San Luis two years ago. The only thing to regret is the absence of players like Ivanchuk and Topalov, but this has been a great championship.
I think the reason we haven't seen the huge amount of kibitzing comparing to San Luis or Elista was because this tournament does not have a "personal story" or another excepcional event (in San Luis, the whole Topalov thing; in Elista, the toiletgate), we have seen just world class chess. The fact that Anand is winning is by coincidence (thinking in Anand's personality), very consequent with the atmosphere of this championship.
I disagree with people who say things like: "Svidler and Morozevich should be replaced, look at them", etc. I think everyone there had merits to be there and just because there are in the bottom of the table we can say they didn't deserved the invitation. I guess it is obvious in a tournament there will always be a last place, no? (and this is nobody's fault).
" You have to beat the man to be the man!"
If Anand wins this tournament he will be World Champ in name only. This is for the organizers in Mexico. Imagine, Kramnik going undefeated and losing his title, Nonsense. This is why he gets a match if he doesn't win. Chess has a long tradition of match play determining the best player in the world. It apears that FIDE is finally trying to fix what they broke by going back to match play. Unfortunately, We have to all look away while they have one more WC tourney. I hope Kramnik wins so we don't have the dishonor of having a World Champion lose his title in a tournament(1st time ever?!).
"One thing that we have to account for is the fact that Svidler might give a free win to his good friend Kramnik. Then, Svidler will play for a draw against Anand. So the Kramnik-Anand game is the key game(unless Gelfand continues to surprise me)."
That would be ironic indeed, especially since Svidler drew with his "good friend" Kramnik in the first leg, and gave little resistance to Anand, essentially granting Vishy a "free win".
If your scenario were to transpire, Svidler would have a loss and a draw against both Kramnik AND Anand.
As for other Russians (Morozevich, Svidler, and Grischuk) supposedly conspiring to pad Kramnik's score by losing....let's look at the data, shall we?:
Anand has wins against 2 of the 3 players from the Russian contingent (obviously excluding Kramnik himself) having beaten Svidler and Grischuk. Kramnik has only managed to defeat Morozevich. A rather poorly executed conspiracy, I should say.
Posted by: RR at September 21, 2007 12:23
>Acknowledged by whom Ovidiu? Kramnik for example?
Everyone Kramnik included, just as Garry (Elo No.1) acknowledged Kramnik in the years after their match
>Perhaps if Kramnik owns the title he can also disown it?
Sure, Lasker offered exactly that to Capablanca immediately after WW1, but Capa refused and insisted in a match.
So I hope you have no problem if someone else wins Mexico and Kramnik acknowledges him (as he says he will) as the WC.
Just like in chess where one key move decides a game, a strategically entered into agreement between two match participants has the ability to decide the result of that match.
Applying game theory and assuming that everybody is in it to win initially, I don't see why two participants would collude in the beginning where the effectiveness of that collusion is not clear and the loss of winning chances and rating points to the loser are tangible disincentives. As the match progresses and it becomes clear that one of the participants has no realistic chances to win the match, the cost of losing rating points to the loser may no longer be very much of a disincentive if the loser really has ulterior considerations (financial, IOUs, nationalism ...)
If Anand really wins this match, I would rate it higher than a match win given that he is in effect playing loosely formed teams of more than one 2750+ opponents. To be safe he would have to build such a lead that one or two end of the match collusions would not change the result thus deterring such events from happening.
Since I cannot edit comments, here is an amended posting.
Just like in chess where one key move decides a game, a strategically entered into agreement between two tournament participants has the ability to decide the result of that tournament.
Applying game theory and assuming that everybody is in it to win initially, I don't see why two participants would collude in the beginning where the effectiveness of that collusion is not clear and the loss of winning chances and rating points to the loser are tangible disincentives. As the tournament progresses and it becomes clear that one of the participants has no realistic chances to win the tournament, the cost of losing rating points to the loser may no longer be very much of a disincentive if the loser really has ulterior considerations (financial, IOUs, nationalism ...)
If Anand really wins this tournament, I would rate it higher than a traditional match win given that he is in effect playing loosely formed teams of more than one 2750+ opponents. To be safe he would have to build such a lead that one or two end of the tournament collusions would not change the result thus deterring such events from happening.
I personally have never felt comfortable considering any of the non-match winning "world champions" as the real thing.
While I feel that the structure of the current cycle is a little weird and stinks of FIDE's mismanagement of top level chess, I do look forward to an Annand Kramnik world championship match. And this time you know it won't be tainted by accusations and the like: these two guys are class acts and would give us some great chess, and nothing to distract from it.
>I personally have never felt comfortable considering any of the non-match winning "world champions" as the real thing..
of course, but we all know the circumstances surrouding this Mexico-"WCC"..so let's keep quiet until it's over for the sake of organizers.
..And hope for an Anand win since Vishy would be a much better challanger to Kramnik than the character-wise dubious and scandal-prone
Topalov.
The idea that Kramnik would not play anand in a match if anand wins the tournament is absurd. However much fans from the indian sub continent go on about it Anand if he wins the tournamnt needs to beat Kramnik to be regarded as WCC if he loses I believe the that it will be generally regarded as Kramnik having been WCC the whole time. In the same way the FIDE WCC title was devalued by the knockout formula.
Anand is playing great chess. In the last game Grischuk didnt seem to do aything really wrong and chessdom were calling the ending basically drawn at move 30. 1 move later Grischuk made a fatal mistake playing 31..gxf4 when 31..gxh4 holds as black can easily defend his exposed h pawn and there is no way for white to break through. But cant do the same for the f pawn when the f file is opened. I suspect time trouble caused this and that seems to be the one area that is just holding him back. Still perhaps only Anand could have won this game after the slip on move 31.
The idea that Kramnik would not play anand in a match if anand wins the tournament is absurd. However much fans from the indian sub continent go on about it Anand if he wins the tournamnt needs to beat Kramnik to be regarded as WCC if he loses I believe the that it will be generally regarded as Kramnik having been WCC the whole time. In the same way the FIDE WCC title was devalued by the knockout formula.
Anand is playing great chess. In the last game Grischuk didnt seem to do aything really wrong and chessdom were calling the ending basically drawn at move 30. 1 move later Grischuk made a fatal mistake playing 31..gxf4 when 31..gxh4 holds as black can easily defend his exposed h pawn and there is no way for white to break through. But cant do the same for the f pawn when the f file is opened. I suspect time trouble caused this and that seems to be the one area that is just holding him back. Still perhaps only Anand could have won this game after the slip on move 31.
Kramnik: "You do know that 2...Nf6 is an implicit draw offer?"
Svidler (thinking to himself): "Giggle, I just avoided a trade of queens against Vlady. This is the reason I started to play chess, when I was 6!"
We can all talk about how little we like the world champion win his title in a match, but I think what is different here is that Kramnik has actually agreed to put his title on the line.
He got good conditions yes, but he's playing in the tournament.
And I like both the idea of Anand winning the title, and then we would also get an Anand-Kramnik match, its all good baby!
Just for the record to all the Anand fans who jumped on my post - I happen to be an Anand fan who dislikes Kramnik. I want Anand to win the world title. I believe that any true Anand fan would want Anand to win the REAL title, not a questionable one. I believe in what is right, not in what I want. To me, if you are an Anand fan you would want Anand to fact Kramnik in a long match and win, thus becoming a true world champion.
I'm not sure why Kramnik playing in Mexico is a big deal considering what went on before and what happens afterwards. Kramnik, by his own stated standards, has practically nothing to lose in Mexico and will make a lot of money. Like many fans, he doesn't consider this a real WCh event because it's not a match, regardless of what he is obliged to say for political reasons. Nothing really wrong with that; many players in many sports have problems with the rules but they still play. Kramnik would not be in Mexico without the rematch clause. I'm happy he's playing because it saves headaches, and his presence in Elista showed he wanted to come in from the cold. But for seven of the players in the field, if they lose they don't have another title shot until 2009, or maybe 2010, when all the rematches are over. Kramnik has one next year. It's simply very strange. But, as ever with FIDE, it's what's for dinner.
Regarding this being just another tournament, yes and no. The players are definitely taking it more seriously from most indications (prep time, etc.). But five of these eight players were in Linares. Just swap Ivanchuk, Carlsen, and Topalov for Grischuk, Kramnik, and Gelfand. That's why long matches are special and always will be. They existed only for the world championship and the cycle. Some sponsor could organize a category 22 with Anand, Topalov, Kramnik, and Ivanchuk playing each other four times each in November and the winner of Mexico would almost seem irrelevant (other than the democratic aspect of the cycle, which is essential). Yes it's about winning when it counts, but it's still a little arbitrary. Long matches aren't.
A pig ignorant question. Was Topalov considered a WC after San Luis?
Srikanth 01:26 -- 'considered a WC' by whom? Each of us must decide for himself. From there a public consensus is achieved.
Mig's post of 22:04 says it all.
Ovidiu 14:09 is right too.
Kramnik-Anand 2008 will be a fantastic World Chess Championship match.
Meanwhile, let us enjoy this excellent Mexico 2007 tournament.
Two unrelated questions :
a) After becoming friends, how many times Kramnik and Svid have beat each other ?
b) What is the protocol to offer draw ? Does the player just ask "how about peace ?" =)
Srikanth 01:26, There are actually three questions --
1) Did people consider Topalov to be WC after San Luis (and before Elista)?
2) Do people today consider Topalov to have been WC between San Luis and Elista?
3) Do people today think Topalov was considered WC between San Luis and Elista?
There is only anecdotal evidence, but I believe the answers are yes, no and no. I.e. a large proportion of people (probably a majority, going by comments on this blog) at the time considered Topalov to be WC, all of them changed their opinion after Topalov's fraudulent behavior and Kramnik's good performance in Elista, and now everyone believes that they never considered Topalov WC at all.
The people who are now expressing absolute positions -- that the WC is the only one who owns the title, that he does not lose his legitimacy if the challenger system is broken, that the only way to become WC is to wait till he wants to play you and then beat him -- ask yourself what you thought 1 year back? Chances are that you thought Kramnik won the title with his brilliant victory in 2000, but morally lost it by avoiding the strongest challenger (Kasparov), only drawing with a far weaker challenger (Leko), and that Topalov was the legitimate WC by his San Luis results. (As you also probably think about Fischer and Karpov.) In any case enough people thought this that Kramnik was FORCED to give up ownership of his title to FIDE, in return for a chance to become a truly legitimate champion. His own title was becoming a sham.
My point is that people ignore the nuances when they say that the match tradition as it exists today is 100% legitimate and that the Mexico WCC is 100% illegitimate. If Fischer can resign his title, then Kramnik can lay his on the line in Mexico. The Mexico winner has no less a right to be called World Champion than Karpov. Even though everyone probably agrees that the winner of the next match with Kramnik is an even more worthy World Champion.
In the matters regarding World Championship, it's pretty irrelevant what Kramnik thinks or says. What counts is what general public thinks. The opinion of chess public was always predictable: to be a champ you had to beat the previous champ mano a mano. The only exception happens when the champion starts to slip rather badly, just as Kramnik did around the time of Sen Luis.
Kramnik playing badly was the only reason why Topalov's Sen Luis championship was considered legitimate in public opinion. On the contrary, Karpov's win over Anand or Kamsky never were more than a shame in minds of the majority. With Kramnik playing the way he plays now, the winner of Mexico will never be considered a real champion by most until he beats Kramnik in a match.
Even though I wish Kramnik to win, to avoid another debate as to who is the real champ, Anand victory is the next best thing since it produces the title match that should be played anyway: Kramnik-Anand, the two currently strongest players face to face.
The best I have read so far on this tourney was on TWIC: "The same 8 players encountered also in Wijk twice lately." Now in Mexico they call it a World Championship. Nevertheless I would call Anand the WC, because Kramnik said he would do to the winner of this event. And of course Anand highly deserves it anyway.
Again, I do not like re-matches. One could argue about Kramnik here, because with many chess friends wanting to see the WC defeated in a match that makes some sense. The re-match clause for Topalov is only a smash in the face of all other players, comparable only with the ridiculous Lex Karpov in 1986.