Anand vs Kramnik WCh Match Announced

"Is there any reason that match needs to take place after the Anand-Kramnik match?"

try that for a reason: Is there any reason that match needs to take place before the Anand-Kramnik match?

Kramnik should be the favourite. He has a plus score against Steinbrück.

The equal splitting of the prize fund is indeed very weird. If and when this match is covered in the general media, that aspect will be focussed on and will reinforce in people's minds the idea that chess is merely a curiosity. very disappointing in my opinion.

Is there any reason that match needs to take place after the Anand-Kramnik match?

None I can see. Since FIDE has never been a stickler for the rules it makes, why start now?

Can someone refresh my memory: after the Kramnik-Anand winner takes on the Topalov-Kamsky winner, how are challengers to be decided?

What's with the magical number 12? I am more comfortable with the marginal change to 14, but I guess with no draw odds, you have to waste a day on rapid tiebreaks.

I think the idea is not that Kamsky-Topalov should not take place after Kramnik-Anand but that there is no reason to get that match scheduled as soon as possible.

Topalov-Kamsky should occur in 2008, assuming FIDE sticks to all of the previously announced rules. The winner of that match is supposed to face the Anand-Kramnik victor in 2009, and they probably don't want two long matches in one year.

I doubt we will ever see draw odds again. Kramnik had it against Leko, because he had the luxury of setting whatever rules he wanted, and Leko was in no position to demand otherwise. Most professional players oppose draw odds for the champion, and I believe Anand himself has taken this position. It would be a remarkable turnaround for him to now ask for something he has always opposed when he was on the outside looking in.

"Most professional players oppose draw odds for the champion, and I believe Anand himself has taken this position. It would be a remarkable turnaround for him to now ask for something he has always opposed when he was on the outside looking in."

I don't know about his view before this. It would be interesting to see him quoted on the subject. It definitely looks like he was insisting to get draw odds this time.

As I've said I would be surprised if that wasn't decided against already in Kramnik/Hensel's negotiations long before Mexico.

The other thing Kelleher wrote in his report, "It appears that Anand does not regard Germany as a “neutral venue” because Kramnik’s manager, Karsten Henzel, is a German citizen and has close relations with UEP", seems to have no foundation. Anand made clear in a recent interview that he would be glad to play in Germany. And why shouldn't he?

At the time he was still pressing for draw odds. But he apparently had to give in. And no surprise there.

http://www.derwesten.de/nachrichten/sport/2007/12/13/news-10667614/detail.html

the winner gets to play another match and therefore earn quite a bit more money than the loser. yes, chess is sport, but it's also art. the winner takes all (or almost) idea would be quite inappropriate for chess. there's a reason why the fide knock-outs have been complete flops, for example.

Anand ought to have his head examined for agreeing to play in Germany. That is practically home-court advantage for Kramnik. Kramnik has had many of his best and strongest results in Germany. I predict a solid victory for Kramnik in this match (a very Kramnik-esque +2).

And the prize fund split is ludicrous. I don't mind if they both get some sort of equal appearance/expenses fee (say 250K), but make the prize fund something like 100K per won game, draws = no $$! That will make for a sporting competition!

I'm still a fan of the old 24 game matches with ties going to the World Champ. I even didn't mind the rematch clause. Made the challengers prove it wasn't a fluke (a la Botvinnik, who got knocked off a few times but kept coming back, and Kasparov, who provided it wasn't a fluke by winning or drawing all matches vs. Karpov, albeit they were all very close).

They are not playing in Dortmund, where Kramnik was historically extraordinary successful indeed, so no home court advantage for Kramnik. I think this is a smart decision on Anand's part to avoid Dortmund. No draw odds is great news. Rapid tie breaks are great fun. Plus, Anand IMO doesn't deserve draw odds just on the basis of winning a tournament championship. Great news all around as this is the best possible match today.

As I predicted, Anand couldn't avoid this match, nor could he insist on his 2 unreasonable demands: draw odds and moving the match out of Germany. Just goes to show that tournament champion does not have enough clout and leverage to dictate his will to FIDE. If this is a good or bad thing is up to debate.

While splitting the prize fund equally is indeed weird, i doubt this is a huge deal. To anyone with a brain the difference between winning and losing this match even in purely financial terms is obvious. Besides stuff like prestige, honors, and place in history the winner gets to play at least one more very lucrative match.

"Anand ought to have his head examined for agreeing to play in Germany."

Why? He likes to play in Germany, and does so often and successfully. Bundesliga, Mainz...

He, rightly, sees no problem with playing in Germany, and has said so clearly, so neither should we.

Why in Bonn, Why not in Hamburg? And, in the end, why not in Moskow? Or in Kramnik's house? Bonn is neutral as Bombay!

Splitting the Prize Fund--simply disregarding the final result--is just silly. At a minimum, the winner ought to get 60% of the money. 2/3 for the winner would be pretty standard. Yeah, the winner will get the benefit of contesting another, perhaps more lucrative, Match with the winner of Topalov vs. Kamsky. But the stakes ARE supposed to be high, and the reward for winning great.

Frankly, I'm surprised that World Champion Anand agreed to those terms. Instead, Anand ought to have insisted upon, say, getting 20% of the Prize Fund as an upfront appearance fee, and then have the other 1.2 Million Euros split, with 60% going to the Winner. Thus, even if Ananad were to lose the Match, he would still earn more money than Kramnik (780k, vs. 720k).

It's strange that Anand made demands about draw odds, and then neglected to drive better deal on the financials. If there is one area of a match where a champion ought to be able to demand favorable terms, it is the money.

I see no problem with 12rounds - long enough for the stronger player to show himself. I think 24 rounds was a bit too much. It goes on too lond plus it drains the players. I am happy that this matches are going to be played between Anand-Kramnik and Topalov-Kamsky.
I am rooting for Anand.

"And the prize fund split is ludicrous. I don't mind if they both get some sort of equal appearance/expenses fee (say 250K), but make the prize fund something like 100K per won game, draws = no $$! That will make for a sporting competition!"

Yeah, there might be very few draws indeed. Would you be pleased to see Anand and Kramnik win 6 games each, say, and then settle the business of who is Champion with the tie-breaks?
Your scheme would create a huge incentive for Kramnik and Anand to collude in concocting a bunch of brilliant, composed decisive games, which would certainly delight the spectators.
No doubt Anand and Kramnik are basically honest guys, but when they see a Prize Fund structured in a way so as to jerk them around, there will be a strong perverse incentive to come to a "win-win" arrangement so that both players can get (most of) the money they would have coming to them.

I'm glad there will be a match next year. I look forward to get there for Bonn is near enough.

Kramnik has the advantage that his people organize the event - according to the UEP website, Josef Resch is "President and founder of Universal Event Promotion". No draw odds should also work for him. He can use short draw offers as a psychological weapon, if he thinks Anand feels uncomfortable about accepting them. Maybe the Petroff draw feast will make the Berlin walls of 2000 look like romantic masterpieces.

The even split of the prize money is odd. It says you don't have to actually win the title if your management is up to the task of negotiating another re-match deal.

An interesting point is that Anand speaks German but Kramnik does not, at least in terms of speaking to the press.

By the time we've got through this match and a match against the winner of Topalov-Kamsky the winner of it all will have really written their place in chess history and this series really should make an impact on the general public.

People are right to wonder what happens afterwards. Bidding has been invited for the Grand Prix series which will provide one route to challenging for the title but it remains to be seen how much interest there might be in such a series. The World Cup I think may be in the same venue again in a couple of years if I remember rightly.

"Is there any reason that match needs to take place after the Anand-Kramnik match?"

The title that Anand won in Mexico was culmination of the cycle that included World Cup 2005, then candidates and so on. Kramnik got an entry into Mexico tournament as the title holder and is getting a rematch as the losing champion.

But, the loser of Anand-Kramnik match will be denied an opportunity in the 2007 cycle whereas everybody (including Topalov) will have had an opportunity to participate in the current cycle.

When Karpov lost his title in 1985 and then also lost his re-match in 1986, he was duly given a place in 1987 candidates cycle.

My point is that the loser of Anand-Kramnik match should play the winner of Topalov-Kamsky match to determine the challenger from the current cycle. [If Topa can be given such an advanced seeding into this cycle then why not the loser of Anand-Kramnik match!]

The Anand-Kramnik match is still an extension of previous cycle and FIDE has missed the point that the loser will not get an opportunity in the current cycle.

-Amit

Finally a big surge of amazing games. The Kramnik vs Anand match, Topalov vs Kamsky. The Grand Prix events, Grand Slams.
Lot of chessy days ahead.
Lip-smacking action !

Draw odds becomes much more crucial in a 12 game match than the traditional 24 game match - notwithstanding Botvinnik's abaility to draw matches. I dont see Bonn as being a problem: both Anand and Kramnik are very honourable well behaved and they trust each other. Their "niceness" will proably prevent chess returning to the front pages :-). Anand would be very happy to go to tie breaks with his ability in rapids. I think it will be a dull match - the great matches involve a clash of styles but both Kramnik and Anand are very, very solid..... Wins will really be at a premium. Kramnik 1 win and eleven draws is my prediction. More than other matches one really good novelty would be worth a huge amount and could well decide the match

The problem with such a low number of games is that it discourages taking risks. Over a 24 game match u can afford to be trailing by a point or so and still have chances of catching up. 12 games especially with these two customers will see the winner of the first game shutting shop. i predict a drawfest of epic proportions and tiebreak.

A WCC match in which every game is drawn would be a big black eye for chess. It may not happen this time around, but it's just a matter of time until it does.

It would be interesting to know who proposed the prize fund even-split and why. I suspect it's part of Kirsan's overall strategy to downplay the WCC title; to reduce the chance of another "title hijacking."

For whatever reason, when Kasparov and Topalov are out of the equation things seem to go very smoothly.

“The problem with such a low number of games is that it discourages taking risks.”
I totally agree. The World Championship Match should consist of at least 16 games, if not more.

I'm thinking of a prize system something like this: Each game is worth x $s. Winner of the game gets the $s; loser gets nothing. In the case of a draw, the money is added to the value of the following game, so if I am playing white this round, I am playing to win, because NEXT round I will have black (lower winning chances?). While as black I can play for the draw OR the win, since I will have white in the following round. I think it would cause more "fighting draws" and decisive games. I'm not married to the idea, but I thought I would throw it out there for you guys to rip to shreds. My self-esteem needed to be taken down a notch.

“I'm glad that there aren't any draw odds, though most would agree that Anand had a decent case for getting them considering Kramnik had them in his 14-game match against Leko in 2004.”

I do not agree. Though I’m a supporter of ‘DRAW ODDS’, or at least a modified version of it (I’m going to post the details shortly), I think that in instant case neither contestant deserves the draw odds. Anand, as he is only a ‘tournament champion’ and not a ‘Classical Match Champion’, and, Kramnik, as he is no longer the ‘World Champion’.

But, I’m of firm faith that henceforth all ‘Title Matches’ should have ‘Modified Draw Odds’ favouring the World Champion.

"Most professional players oppose draw odds for the champion, and I believe Anand himself has taken this position. It would be a remarkable turnaround for him to now ask for something he has always opposed when he was on the outside looking in."

ARE "DRAW ODDS" - THE VILLAIN ?

Traditionally, in the Chess world championship, defending world champions have been given the advantage of the draw odds in the world championship matches (and here I plagiarize Jeff Sonas heavily). Curiously, this bias in favour of defending champion is now being perceived as being unfair to the challengers, and by extension, every one else, and the so-called modern thinking is to drop this bias.

But have the 'draw odds' really been proved unfair? In how many world championship matches in the last fifty five years, there have been the occasions that the defending champion got advantage of the “draw odds" and retained the title by the virtue of it? The answer is, only once (not counting the Brissago match where Kramnik retained the title after a tie), in 1986, when after the challenger Karpov had secured a tie in the World Championship Match, Kasparov had retained his title. And was the general consensus on all these occasions that it was unfair to the challengers? No. No one thought that the "Draw Odds" were unfair to Karpov. Even in the case of the Brissago match, it was not the public opinion that the challenger was treated unfairly.

As it is, before the Ilyumzhinov era, one used to become the world champion by defeating the defending world champion in a title match by winning in classical games and not in a rapid/blitz tie break, and therefore, deserved the advantage of the "Draw odds" when he used to defend his title. Further, "Draw odds" are a necessary evil for the World Championship Match as I do not think that the chess afficianados would prefer to see the World Title decided through a few games of skittles.

And that is why I will put forward my ‘Modified Draw Odds’ shortly.

‘MODIFIED DRAW ODDS’

I propose to introduce the 'Modified Draw odds' in the Title Match for the World Chess Championship.
The concept is not new, and, in fact, has been advocated by many others, including ‘The Right Move’ Bessel Kok, in similar forms.

In the case of a tie in a World Chess Championship Title Match, i.e., when at the end of scheduled even number of regular games both the players end up with equal number of points, one Additional ‘Sudden Death’ Game at Classical Time Controls should be played. The winner of this game shall, obviously, become the World Champion. However, in case if this game too ends in a draw, the player playing with the Black pieces shall be crowned.
The rule for the draw for colours in this all important game shall be as follows:
There shall be NO draw for colours. Instead, the Champion shall receive the ODDS of deciding the colours.
Now, in almost all the cases, the Champion is likely to opt for Black pieces in the ‘Sudden Death’ Game. However, in exceptional cases, where the Challenger is a fearsome attacker with White pieces and a poor defender with Black pieces and/or where the Challenger has very poor record with black pieces, and, the Champion is himself a ferocious attacking player with the white pieces, he may very well opt for White pieces.

I request all astute chess lovers to post their response to my proposal.

The only thing that concerns me is what procedures will be in place to keep the FIDE prez from enabling Kramnik to receive computer assistance.

I know it may be far too early to know, but is there also any indication of what sort of internet coverage there will be of the games? Will they be freely available or restricted in any way? Also, will there be a time delay on the moves to combat allegations of computer assistance?

Although it's odd that the prize fund would be split evenly, I am just happy that the two parties agreed to it! The money now is just one more thing out of the way toward a successful match. Instead of quibbling over whether it should be 60/40, 70/30, or whether Anand should receive a guaranteed appearance fee, they have come to a gentlemanly agreement where there can be no argument. Strange? Sure, but it's a clear solution to a historically volatile situation.

I have heard it said that ratings can be said to represent not just the most likely outcome (7-5, 8-4, 6-6) of a match, but the probability of each outcome in a match (how likely is it that a match will end in a 7-5, 8-4, 6-6?).

Who can tell me the probability of a match 12-games long between the players of current Kramnik and Anand rankings ending in a draw?

Why would the loser of Anand-Kramnik (or Toppy-Kamsky, for that matter) be excluded from the next WC cycle? Iirc, FIDE stated that post-unification (so to speak), the World Cup winner will be the challenger to the title holder.

So:

Both matches: 2008

WC match between A/K and T/K: 2009

Next World Cup: 2009

WC match between 2009 Champion and World Cup winner: 2010

Granted, FIDE hasn't always delivered, but the proposed schedule exists.

In that case, the two 2008 match losers can be automatically qualified into the 2009 World Cup.

I think this blog entry is worthy of a "Hurray!" tag.

I'd rather have Anand get draw odds than to have the title decided by rapid tiebreak, though. Afterall, Anand did win the Mexico tournament.

"The only thing that concerns me is what procedures will be in place to keep the FIDE prez from enabling Kramnik to receive computer assistance.

Posted by: Daniel I. Miller"

You spelled "Danailov" wrong.

----------------------------

"Both matches: 2008

WC match between A/K and T/K: 2009

Next World Cup: 2009

WC match between 2009 Champion and World Cup winner: 2010

Granted, FIDE hasn't always delivered, but the proposed schedule exists."

Actually, the 2010 World Champion match will, according to present plans, be between the 2009 Champion and the winner in a match between the World Cup 2009 winner and the Grand Prix 2008-2009 winner. See http://fide.com/official/handbook/pdf/dd10.pdf for details.

"I'm thinking of a prize system something like this: Each game is worth x $s. Winner of the game gets the $s; loser gets nothing. In the case of a draw, the money is added to the value of the following game, so if I am playing white this round, I am playing to win, because NEXT round I will have black (lower winning chances?). While as black I can play for the draw OR the win, since I will have white in the following round. I think it would cause more "fighting draws" and decisive games. I'm not married to the idea, but I thought I would throw it out there for you guys to rip to shreds. My self-esteem needed to be taken down a notch."
-Posted by: Evan at December 20, 2007 08:05

Not a totally unreasonable idea. It seems similar to a golf 'skins game' where the winner of the hole claims the skin (money) and the losers get nothing. If there is no winner for a given hole, i.e. the best score is shared by atleast two players, the money is carried over to the next hole. My complaint about this system (in golf) is that it allows a player to have a crappy round overall but still win lots of money by virtue of the other competitors forcing the carry-overs and him playing one or two good holes at the right time. Inconsistency is not penalized heavily enough, so John Daly actually has a shot at taking more money than Tiger Woods. In chess it would be more sensible considering there are only two players instead of four; no additional players to rely on for carry-overs so playing bad games would lose money immediately. However, we could still see some very lopsided distributions of prize money even though both competitors played at a similar level, e.g. player 1 wins game 1, player 2 then wins game 12 after 10 consecutive draws. I'm not even certain this format would promote a more exciting brand of chess because after many draws the players might start to play very cautiously to avoid blundering away the money.

very good. I live in Bonn. Please tell me how to get tickets

Money per win is not solving the problem of short (unfought) draws.

I vote for a ban of the draw offer, with removal of the threefold repetitions rule. It would leave us with games being played out until the logical conlusion - a draw by stalemate / missing material / theory / 50-move rule, or a win for the stronger player.

If a match by these rules were to end in a draw, the lower-rated player could have "draw odds". Fighting to the end should be guaranteed with such rules!

(OK, I see a marginal possibility for prearranged stalemate draws in 15 moves, but I don't really believe in it)

"I'm glad that there aren't any draw odds, though most would agree that Anand had a decent case for getting them considering Kramnik had them in his 14-game match against Leko in 2004."

That's not really that good an argument, considering that Kramnik-Leko wasn't a FIDE match, and that FIDE abolished draw odds several years back for their matches.

Besides, if the match were a draw, then Kramnik would remain unbeaten in championship play, and the new mini-schism would continue.

>>
But have the 'draw odds' really been proved unfair?
>>

Yes.

>>
And was the general consensus on all these occasions that it was unfair to the challengers? No. No one thought that the "Draw Odds" were unfair to Karpov. Even in the case of the Brissago match, it was not the public opinion that the challenger was treated unfairly.
>>

You've completely lost me. The argument seems to fail on both logical and factual grounds. On logical grounds (Because mathematically, we know that 1 is greater than 0), and factually, because it's untrue that nobody thought it was unfair. What you mean is that there weren't *enough* people who thought so to create a really big stink. But is that because draw odds aren't unfair, or because Karpov wasn't all that popular?

In what other sport does the champion get a handicap?

>>> Posted by: noyb
Anand ought to have his head examined for agreeing to play in Germany. That is practically home-court advantage

A bit of an exaggeration imo.

1) Dortmund: if my memory does not betray me too much, most of Kramnik's victories there were done when the field was significantly weaker than it is nowadays.
2) Kramnik's manager is German.

That's about it. It's not like there will be a crowd of hooligans cheering for just Kramnik.

Ah, but where are the days of 24 game matches? ;)

"In what other sport does the champion get a Handicap?"

Boxing! Which is probably the best sport to compare chess with. The champion must lose the match to lose his title. No other way makes sense to me. If you are champion and don't lose then how can you lose your title. Rapid tie breaks after a classical match makes as much sense as telling two boxers that they must fight a series of mini rounds(say 1 minute each) to break the tie.
The term Classical World Champion is a new invention. Previously, World Champion meant that you won a classical match. Now, You can become World Champion without winning a classical match. This begs the question, World Champion of what?
I say bring back long matches with draw odds for the Champ!

I'm so called "purist" because I think that World Champ should be determined in a match between previous champ and a challenger, but IMO rapid tie-breaks are an improvement to the draw odds. If anything, we (the spectators) get to see more top notch chess in the event the match is drawn, which can only be a good thing.

Going back to Elista, the tie-breaks produced arguably better chess than the regular games and the stronger player won. So I don't buy the argument that tie-breaks cheapen the title. The only downside is that draw becomes an acceptable outcome for both players, a situation that does not exist when the draw odds are in place.

Still, with Anand being as strong as he is in rapid chess, Kramnik should try to decide the match in regulation. Therefore I don't think there is a real danger that both players will wait for tie-break instead of going for it if the opportunity arises.

Is there any reason behind the shortening of matches? I think it started in the PCA match between Kasparov and Anand when it became best of 20 and has been going downwards steadily? I really don't see the need - best of 24 really enabled drama and fighting spirit - who can forget Karpov's three wins in a row in the 86 match or the last three games of the Seville match. There was also lots of scope for opening prep during the match as each player adapted and modified his repertoire. the one argument could be that if there is an age mismatch between the contestants - say Carlsen vs Anand then the longer format will presumably favour the younger significantly.

I agree that matches are getting too short. Do sponsors feel that people lose interest over time or is there some other reason?

How on earth did you guys reach the conclusion that a 24 of 16 games match would increas the risk-taking behavior? Nonsense!

These are professionals doing what they do best, and beeing thorough about it, and you belive that all of a sudden one of them will go: "what the hell, I've got plenty of games to come back with should this go wrong"

Does this sound like Kramnik? or Anand?

Yes I too would love a longer match, but I do not believe a leopard can (or will!) change its spots.

Well, lynch me, but I'm not overjoyed with rapid tie-breaks. Feels like deciding the football World Champion in a game of volleyball. Not to mention armageddon; honestly, I'd prefer a coin flip.

A real question to ask is 'how many toilet visits per game per player'?

I'm always amazed by how every proponent of a "claasical match" (24 or more games to decide the World Championship) never takes into consideration the actual cost of organizing this type of event.

Reason for shorter matches--in the old days they played 40 moves in 2.5 hours each, then stopped and the teams retired to analyze. Players took time outs for "medical" reasons. Then the match would reach its fifth or sixth week and fans would complain about how things were dragging. Spassky would tell us it's not chess anymore but two arm-weary boxers.

Now they play each game at one sitting. Five hours, eights hours, whatever it takes. They spend several hours before each game assessing the now gigantic opening terrain. No "medical" time outs.

Near the end of Topalov-Kramnik, even some fans were so exhausted by the nervous tension that they said 12 games was plenty.

And look at it another way. Anand and Kramnik would have to play Mexico six times to face each other as much as they will in the coming match.

"Near the end of Topalov-Kramnik, even some fans were so exhausted by the nervous tension that they said 12 games was plenty." - Well, Topalov-Kramnik only had 11 classical games, not 12.

"I'm always amazed by how every proponent of a "claasical match" (24 or more games to decide the World Championship) never takes into consideration the actual cost of organizing this type of event."

Obviously, a 24 Game match will NOT cost twice as much as a 12 Game match. Depending on the venue, it will cost somewhat more, but (even) an extra 12 games ought not be exhorbitant.

A reasonable solution in the event of a tie after 12 games would be to simply hold Sudden Death tie-break games starting with Game 13. The defending Champion (if any) would be given the option of playing the White Pieces for Game # 13 (and every subsequent odd numbered game). The games would be played at the normal (slow) time control, at the same schedule of 2 days playing, and one day off.
From Game 13 onward, the first player to score a win will win the Match.

True, there is a remote possibility that a long series of draws might ensue. After all, Karpov and Kasparov drew each other for 17 consecutive games in the "Moscow Marathon". But the situation was different in that Match (Karpov was leading the Match by a 4-0 score). In practice, it would be quite rare for a match to last much longer than an additional 4-6 games. (i.e. a total of 16-18 games).

If there was a series of draws that lasted longer than, say, 6 games, there could be contractual provisions. which could provide a real disincentive for short, fightless draws. For ever draw (after the first 6), each player would forfeit 5% of their Prize Money, to offset expenses. Both players would have an increasing incentive to play aggressively, since every draw entails that they are playing for less Prize Money!

Wasn't Kirsan the source of funding for Elista 2005? What percentage of his own personal wealth would you say he spent? 5 %? 2 %? My guess is the number was in the fractions (and there was also some sponsorship to defray the costs). Let's be generous and say it was 1 percent. I am going to guess from that the amount of money one would need for a 24 game match would be, say, 1.8 %. Now what percentage of one's own personal wealth can a millionaire regain in a year? My guess is the number is far more than 1.8 %. Regardless of what numbers you pick, Kirsan would not have ended up spending amount greater than his annual income on a chess match. I find it hard to believe that if Kirsan was willing to sponsor a 12-game match, it was impossible for him to put up a 24-game event.

The players themselves probably do not want a long 24 game match, either. I've heard Kramnik say 14-16 is what he likes. Players are lazy nowadays. Computers help their training, unlike in the 20th Century. Organizers save money, only the fans get cheated, and since when did they ever care about fans? Think Topa/Kamsky will only be 8 games!! heck, Kamsky has proven you do not need to be a full-time professional to get back into the game.

Yes, Kramnik and Topalov both said 12 was perfectly good. Anand suggested 12 games already in 1995. A shame.

If money is a problem to get longer matches they could cut some of the already ridiculously high prize funds and "problem" solved. But of course the players prefer to get paid more for less.

>

Thank you,Bones!!! I agree with you, almost entirely.

Instead of providing 'Traditional Draw Odds' to the Champion, why not make both the players play ONLY one additional game at Classical time controls, with Champion having BLACK pieces, retaining his Title, if the additional game ends in draw.

And what I'm proposing above is not for the ensuing VA-VK match, but for the WC Matches following thereafter.

OOPS!
My previous post should read as under:

>

Thank you,Bones!!! I agree with you, almost entirely.

Instead of providing 'Traditional Draw Odds' to the Champion, why not make both the players play ONLY one additional game at Classical time controls, with Champion having BLACK pieces, retaining his Title, if the additional game ends in draw.

And what I'm proposing above is not for the ensuing VA-VK match, but for the WC Matches following thereafter.

" Yes, Kramnik and Topalov both said 12 was perfectly good."

But they only played 11 games.

nitpicking, but quite often the football world cup is handed out to the winner of a game of "kick from the spot," which, while not volleyball, can reasonably be seen as less like football than rapid is like classical chess. (though it now occurs to me that the previous commenter was probably referring to American football, and using World Champion in the delightfully provincial way that US pro sports leagues tend to elevate their title uber alles).

as for match length: 12 is better than 0, which is what we've been getting most years. I love the 24 game KK matches as much as the next guy, but it could well be the case that in today's computerized preparation environment, we get better action out of a shorter match. less games means fewer attempts at outworking your opponent through a series of small improvements in the same line in favor of greater variety in order to try out all the best novelties your team came up with across a broader spectrum of openings.

or something. it's just nice that, these days, we have a bright side to look on.

Interestingly enough, no one but the Chess in Cheek blog has noticed that the English version of UEP's extended press release (accessible from their website by clicking on "World Championship 2008") accuses Kramnik and Gelfand of "persecuting" Anand during the Mexico City World Championship tournament.

http://www.radicalroot.com/chessincheek/?p=8

"Instead of providing 'Traditional Draw Odds' to the Champion, why not make both the players play ONLY one additional game at Classical time controls, with Champion having BLACK pieces, retaining his Title, if the additional game ends in draw"

My problem with this is that I believed a perfectly played game of chess is a draw. If this is true, How can someone be penalized for playing perfect? It goes against the nature of the game.

If draw odds are the devils concoction then Leko wa world champ...who hooooooo.

Anand v. Kramnik should take place in February, not October. It's only a 12 game match. Why don't they get on with it?

Well, I think a 16 game Match is better for 2 reasons:
Each player gets 8 whites and 8 blacks, if the match goes to the very end, if not, it's their own fault, but 8 is a "chess" number (Rows and columns). Besides this "childish" reason, a 16 game match is not too short (like 12) nor too long (like 24) and provides serius prove of who's the stronger chessplayer, far better than "only" 12 games, and can be played in a single month or a little less. What would had happened if Kramnik and Topalov had had to play 4 more (classical)games in their Elista Match? No one knows, of course, but exciting chess would have been for sure!! Instead, they did play 4 extra games (rapid) and Topalov blundered and lost)
And speaking of Topalov...He's a very bad sore loser, I don't understand why he's playing against Kamsky. He didn't earn it. He won in San Luis in 2005, and...what else? Does this mean that if Anand loses in 2007, Will he be seeded in the semifinal cycle in 2009? (two years after his victory in Mexico?) And will he need someone as vulgar and low-life as Danailov as a manager to get the same privileges as Topalov by then? I don't know...I'm just saying...This is still a mess...

Hopefully FIDE learned something from toiletgate and put more effort into offstage security (rest area & offstage signaling). I see no rematch clause in the announcement, this really kills Kramnik chance to be WC again if he lose. Hence, he had not (more unlikely in the future) can qualify as a legit challenger.

I'm a Kramnik fan, but I'd be happy to see Anand receiving draw odds, the idea of course, is for each successive world champion 'proving' themselves by beating their predecessor, rather than barely squeezing past the finish line in a contest of wrist dexterity. In Kramnik's case I suppose it would be for him to 'prove' or 'show' that Anand was only 'borrowing' his crown.

Of course, in past times the matches were longer, so I suppose draw odds would have been less of an advantage.

“ … draw odds, the idea of course, is for each successive world champion 'proving' themselves by beating their predecessor, rather than barely squeezing past the finish line in a contest of wrist dexterity.”

Couldn’t agree more, Bob, except that one additional game should be played with Champion receiving the Black pieces, and if even that game ends in a draw, the Champion may allowed to keep his crown.

One thing comes to mind when noting comparison to boxing above. Nowadays, the amounts of money fighters are paid in boxing championship matches is usually decided in advance of the match and is not based on a match result. I guess the justification is that a winner will be rewarded with higher appearance fees for future matches as well as better promotional opportunities/contracts. I do not see why the same can not apply to chess considering the success of the boxing model.

i think Anand will become the winner in this WC match.Because Anand is always ranked #2 in the days of Kasparov.Anand is also a gentleman chessplayer,that's the reason why Karpov acknowledge Anand as the world champion!!!

'"

"I have heard it said that ratings can be said to represent not just the most likely outcome (7-5, 8-4, 6-6) of a match, but the probability of each outcome in a match (how likely is it that a match will end in a 7-5, 8-4, 6-6?).

Who can tell me the probability of a match 12-games long between the players of current Kramnik and Anand rankings ending in a draw?"
-Posted by: Yuriy Kleyner at December 20, 2007 12:23

Yuriy, for this I think you need to know a little bit more than Elo ratings. To be specific, Elo gives us the expected score for a match, e.g. player 1: 7.32 of 12, player 2: 4.68 of 12, but we actually require the winning and drawing probabilities for both players.

Just to give an example, let's say player 1 win probability = 0.2, player 2 win probability = 0.2, draw probability = 0.6. My calculations indicate that the probability of a drawn 12-game match, i.e. each player scores 6 points, is 0.181 (18.1%). Strangely enough, only a small reduction, down to 15.7%, is obtained by considering a longer match of 16 games.

The calculations, which involve finding the probability density function of a sum of random variables, are quite easy to do on a computer so long as you assume each game to be an independent trial. Of course, in reality there is momentum, something not so easy to quantify.