World Champion Vishy Anand of India has won his second straight Linares title, his third Linares crown overall. (First was in 1998.) He cruised through the last half of the tournament, playing a total of 150 moves in his last six games, all drawn. This low-risk strategy was rewarded when none of his competitors could put together a push to reach his winning +3 score. This is the third year in a row that +3 has been enough for clear first place in Linares. That's not to say this was a tranquil tournament, quite the opposite. Other than Anand, who lost only one game, to Aronian (just like last year, oddly), every player had at least two losses. Even last place finishers Leko and Shirov, who finished on -3, had two wins apiece. There were only three decisive games in the final three rounds, however, which tipped the balance to a 55% draw rate for the event. (It was under 50% at the halfway point.) 70% is not unusual for Linares-level events.
Much of the credit must go to the remarkable fighting spirit shown by Magnus Carlsen and Veselin Topalov. Carlsen finished in second place for the second year in a row. Last year he had to share the 2-3 spot with Morozevich thanks to a final-round loss to Peter Leko. This time he had 2nd to himself thanks to an amazing and bizarre 12th-round win over Topalov. Carlsen's typically ambitious play led to a position that should have ended in a draw by repetition in one of several ways. Instead Topalov, typically ambitious himself, found a way to avoid the repetitions with 34..Nc6. Unfortunately for the Bulgarian, this allowed a forced checkmate with a pretty bishop retreat he must have missed entirely. (To be fair, many of the kibitzing GMs also failed to see it live.) This was Carlsen's second win over Topalov in the event and it adds another strange chapter to a book that includes Topalov resigning in a drawish position against Carlsen at Linares last year.
It also meant that the tiebreak situation was complicated headed into the final round. Apart from the title, the Linares Grand Slam spot in Bilbao was up for grabs. If Anand lost to Topalov in the final round things could get messy. The first tiebreak was head-to-head this year, so if Anand and Carlsen tied for first Vishy would take the title. But if a three-way tie resulted with Topalov, it would go to Carlsen due to even head-to-head combined score with Anand and Topalov and his lead in the second tiebreak, most wins. So Anand needed only a draw with white against Topalov to lock up first and he achieved that without much drama. Carlsen could still reach a tie for first on points with white against Radjabov. Curiously he went for the Topalov-Radjabov instant endgame line of the Schliemann that we'd seen just a few days earlier. He got even less than Topalov did and settled for a draw. Between the endgame line of the Marshall Shirov played against Aronian and Leko and this Schliemann line, we skipped the middlegame entirely in at least four games.
Carlsen won five games and showed that the only question is how strong he will eventually become if he's this good at 17. When Kasparov retired in 2005 few imagined we would ever see any player dominate that way again. Suddenly it's quite easy to imagine a 19-year-old Carlsen as the favorite in every event he plays. He is always aggressive and optimistic but also wins positional grinds and tricky endgames. He wins from worse positions (against Ivanchuk and Topalov in particular) and with strong new opening ideas (Shirov). Three losses showed he still has a lot of room for progress, a terrifying thought. Topalov's tournament was similarly up and down, but without the excuse of being a hormonally charged teen. I kept waiting for him to put together a string of wins and it looked like he was ready to pull it off at any moment. And yet each time he won he followed it with a loss. Topalov has always suffered the predictable consequences of maximum aggression. Usually he is a net beneficiary of this admirable attitude. Here his losses, four of them, almost looked careless. Three of them should have been at least drawn with routine caution. The horrible loss to Carlsen's Alekhine's Defense (!) was another matter, if one perhaps even more troubling for Topalov fans.
Aronian tied with Topalov on +1 in a relatively discreet performance. He had a spectacular win with black against Anand, offset by two opportunistic wins against Topalov and Ivanchuk. He took several short draws in positions that were just begging to be played out, although he was far from the only culprit in that department. Radjabov also confirmed his reputation for sporadic timidity. He reached an even score regardless thanks to a total collapse by Shirov in round 13. The entire game had been played before up to move 20, when Shirov either missed 21.b4 completely or hallucinated that he'd be able to save the rook. 20..Bh4?? goes down as one of the worst forest-for-the-trees moves in recent memory. (20..g5 was played before.) "A subtle maneuver that sidesteps g5, controls e1, and prepares ..Re8. Oh, and it hangs the Rd5." Ouch. That was the last wheel off the buggy for Shirov, who lost all four of his blacks in the Linares half of the tournament after initially defying predictions and finishing the Mexico half on +1.
Leko pretty much rotted equally on both sides of the Atlantic for the worst result in his memory since he was 16 and finished -5 at Dortmund. This is a man who would lose five games per year and here he lost five games in a single tournament. I felt bad when I heard that Macauley Peterson was talking to Leko after the final round and the Hungarian grimly joked that "I bet Mig is happy now." Ouch. I'm sure I've teased Leko more than his fair share over the years due to his drawish proclivities, but I'd never wish bad results on anyone. I root against openings I find boring, yes, so I cheer for anyone who beats the Petroff or the Berlin Defense, for example. But barring that I don't hope for negative results for anyone and certainly not someone as nice as Peter. That said, as a fan I'm delighted to see new guys like Carlsen and Aronian mixing it up, although as I said above, Aronian tanks it on occasion despite his fighting reputation.
I'm more concerned about how some players in supertournaments can draw 80% of their games, lose more than they win, and still keep a high rating and get invited back every year at the expense of new blood. (Mamedyarov counts as new blood but so far he's the epitome of this complaint.) Leko is without a doubt one of the strongest players in the world. He has won titles in Dortmund, Linares, and Wijk aan Zee, something few can say. Anyone who doubts his qualities need only look at the Linares game Aronian-Leko, a defensive masterpiece for the ages that was played at rapid tempo after Leko used 84 minutes (!) on his 9th move to consider his response to Aronian's amazing novelty. I think living in the elite bubble for so long has hurt Leko's killer instinct, which was never that of a rabid grizzly to begin with. He hasn't played anyone outside of the superelite in years, mostly due to his avoidance of team competitions. In club and national team events the big dogs on board one are expected to crush their opponents, which might provide the vegetarian Leko with a little chessic red meat now and then.
Ivanchuk was, well, very Ivanchuk. He blew two games in horrible time trouble, including a forced win against Aronian he turned into a loss by hanging a bishop. He played quite a few interesting games but his only wins were both against the hapless Leko. The overall level of play in Linares was quite spotty, with more blunders and more time trouble than we are used to seeing. This goes hand in hand with the fewer draws and fighting chess, so it's wrong to complain too much about a few blunders.
The future of the tournament is in some doubt. The Morelian organizers sounded quite sure the tournament wouldn't return there in 2009 due to costs. They did hope it might be able to come back to Morelia every two years. We'll see if Linares finds another partner. Since the municipality is the main sponsor we shouldn't expect too prompt an announcement on these things.
The win put Anand into the six-player Bilbao Grand Slam final along with Corus winner (tiebreaks) Aronian. MTel, which begins on May 7 and Dortmund in July will produce the other two qualifiers. The other two will be selected by the organizers. The calendar has suddenly become quite crowded with the appearance of the FIDE Grand Prix tournaments, on which more later. The Garry is in town for a speech here in NY on Thursday, so time has been at a premium.
Mig, welcome back!
Nice summary of Linares.
Who speaks better Spanish, you or Anand?
What were the prizes? Any idea what the appearance fees were?
Why is it called the "daily" dirt and then not updated for a week?
>Why is it called the "daily" dirt and then not updated for a week?
If you are so concerned about "daily" then why in the earth are you reading dirt?
Do people like Leko read the Daily Dirt ? I hope they don't because some of the disparaging remarks put forth by Mig as well as the bloggers could dent anybody's confidence.
I do not know whether Leko reads the Daily Dirt, but I have seen posts here by Shirov, Kamsky and Nakmura, so at least some high level grandmasters read this blog.
Excellent wrap up, Mig!
@Mig:
So what does Kasparov have to say about Carlsen playing approximately 2819(!)-level chess so far this year at Corus and Linares?
Does he think that Carlsen may become the greatest player in the history of the game, greater than even Fischer and Kasparov himself?
Thanks.
Hi Mig - Ignore the idiots with their digs about "daily". Evidently they don't take vacations or have to do real work either...
So what is Kasparov's speach about on Fri.?
Best Wishes
Anand press conference
http://www.chessvibes.com/coverstory/morelia-linares-2008-press-conference-viswananthan-anand/
He is not thinking about the Kramnik match as yet, its too far out he says..
Ten years after his first win, this result is a nice bookend to this phase in Vishy's career.
Linares 1998
1 Anand 7.5/12 ** 1½ 0½ ½½ 1½ ½1 ½1
2 Shirov 7/12 0½ ** ½½ ½1 10 10 11
3 Kasparov 6.5/12 1½ ½½ ** ½½ ½½ ½½ ½½
4 Kramnik 6.5/12 ½½ ½0 ½½ ** ½1 ½½ 1½
5 Svidler 5.5/12 0½ 01 ½½ ½0 ** 10 ½1
6 Ivanchuk 5/12 ½0 01 ½½ ½½ 01 ** 0½
7 Topalov 4/12 ½0 00 ½½ 0½ ½0 1½ **
The "usual suspects" are all here but to put things in perspective, Carlsen was 8 years old then having played his first tournament. Radjabov was 11 still some years away from earning fame as the youngest grandmaster of that time.
"MTel, which begins on May 7 and Dortmund in July will produce the other two qualifiers."
According to a August 2007 press release, not Dortmund but Ciudad de México (Mexico, June 21 - July 6) provides a Grand Slam participant.
nice information jaideepblue, what a bad tournament that was for Gazza just a win and all draws!
and look at Shirov, 5 wins! wow where's that Shirov now? Kramnik and his usual +2 and Topa in the bottom with 5 defeats ouch. those were the years...
Magnus will be 2766 on next FIDE rating list.
Being just 17 and ELO~2770 is scary.
I compared this with figures with estimated average progress I get from chessmatrics of other great 10 players :ratting when they 17 and their best ever rating:
Kasparov,Karpov,Kramnik,Leko,Kamsky,Shirov,Topalov,Adams,Polgar and Anand.
The average difference between their top rating and rating when they were 17 is 101 ELO point.
That would give an estimate of projected Calsen's
rating about ELO 2870!
If Anand really isn't thinking about the Kramnik match, then he'll lose. You can bet Kramnik's not thinking about much else.
But having said that I don't believe Vishy for a moment.
@rdh
Vishy also said that they would be studying each other inside out, I guess he meant concrete variations etc would only be after he finishes Amber and other commitments.
Yes, Peter. I think Dortmund made clear early on that they had no desire to be part of the Grand Slam stunt. But of course things could change without me noticing.
A bit early for predictions, but I'll go out on a limb and say that Kramnik will defeat Anand +2 or +3. Anand is great, but not in Kramnik's league. After all, he was crushed by Kasparov.
I join the club that says that Kramnik will outclass Anand.
"After all [Anand], he was crushed by Kasparov"
Anand is a much better player now. Even if you look at his record against Kasparov in the last 5-10 years, I bet you'll find it's pretty even.
In the same vein, Kramnik was crushed by Shirov, btw.
in my opinion there is no doubt that Anand has more natural talent than Kramnik. so if he manages to prepare well and gets a team of seconds as strong as Kramnik's he should the favorite.
I think Carlsen should be Anand's second for this match. It will help both of them! After all Kramnik was Kasparov's second in 1995 ( if I remember correctly).
"I think Carlsen should be Anand's second for this match."
Why should the world's #5 be Anand's second?
Makes no sense to me.
Martin,
I don't know if it is at all possible, but Carlsen being second of Anand makes as much sense as it made Kasparov having Kramnik as second in 1995 (Kramnik was in top 5 already).
There have even been cases where the second was higher rated than the player :-)
Nothing to be concerned about. Even if Anand offered--and he won't--Carlsen would turn it down. I remember Carlsen turning down Kasparov some time back when the latter offered his services regarding training. I believe that Carlsen, like Fischer, has an independent nature. Fortunately, more well rounded.
Anand and Carlsen have the same second - GM Nielsen.
I remember Carlsen turning down Kasparov some time back when the latter offered his services regarding training.
---
From what Mig explained here previously, Carlsen wouldn't primarily have worked directly with Kasparov (though he did in fact train with Kasparov for three days in Moscow), but rather his 'staff' as it were.
"I heard that Macauley Peterson was talking to Leko after the final round and the Hungarian grimly joked that "I bet Mig is happy now." Ouch. I'm sure I've teased Leko more than his fair share over the years due to his drawish proclivities, but I'd never wish bad results on anyone..."
Sucks when that dog bites back, hey Mig!
To play at such a high level for so long is nothing but astounding to me, Drawnik or not. You should at least give him a free subscription to Black Belt - I'm sure he'd appreciate it once every two months or so, you know, when it *finally* arrives...
:)
Re: Carlsen 2870: By the time Carlsen hits his maximum rating, 2870 will probably be ordinary. Remember, 2600 used to be super-GM material; every decade or so the ratings of the top 10 climb around 20 or 30 points. I expect Carlsen may well hit 2870, although by then it may not even be worth #1 in the world. More likely, he's peaking earlier than average, and he'll top out lower than that.
Carlsen wouldn't train with Anand; too many appearance fees to be made. Anand has worked with Nielsen, Patrick Wolff, Ubilava, Short, and others in the past. The problem with Anand facing Kramnik is that he is solely a 1. e4 player, so he's doomed to the Petroff and Berlin. That said, he got a good position against Kramnik in the Petroff at Corus. I'd think the ideal second would be someone from the Topalov camp, since Topalov plays the Berlin as well and they've all faced Kramnik in a match before. Unfortunately the Bulgarians are a bit insular due to all the infighting.
Failing that, Shirov or another expert on semi-slav lines might be nice. I'd love to see Anand pop out 1. d4, but it's too late in the day I think. Karpov made the switch at about Anand's age, of course, but he had played both moves previously. Anand's lack of experience with the positions would be a tough thing to overcome in a middlegame against the opportunistic Kramnik. Anyone at the top level playing Hedgehog lines? You can get that against Kramnik possibly.
I'm also going to second the notion that Anand is a much stronger player now than in 1995. If you read Anand's notes to games from 1995 or thereabouts it is shocking just how underprepared he was even when he started winning at the top level. Since then he's become one of the best prepared players in the game.
I think it is a relatively balanced fight, but I would tend to think Anand is the stronger player based on recent results. I don't think Topalov could draw a 12 game match with Anand.
Again, as stated above, Kramnik poses serious preparation issues for a player like Anand (or Kasparov) who primarily relies on 1. e4. Until someone cracks the Petroff and Berlin, anyway, which they presumably will eventually.
Well, i dont know if Carlsen will be Anand's second, but in that case, watch out. Every good player who helps another one gets much stronger after a few time. See Kramnik (with Kasparov)or Topalov (with Ponomariov). In any case, i think the match is balanced, but if Kramnik is in normal shape i give him a little edge over Anand. The problem with K. is that he gets unfocused if he loses even a little motivation, and of course, his health (he has proven to be rather fragile over the past). Good to have Mig back, I really missed your blog over the last days.
Alez
Kramnik's losses at Corus to Topalov and Carlsen must have been galling. They've left the impression that he's in a slump, but before that he was showing splendid form. He will be ready. Anand may play better chess now than in '95, but he's getting old for match play. That's one good thing about the 12-game format. They can both show their best before they run out of gas.
I am a big fan of Anand but have to admit his chances in a match versus Kramnik are not high. Anand has not played a long match in years; furthermore his style is more suitable for tournament play not matches. I predict Kramnik will win and then play Kamsky or Topa. By the way Papa Kamsky is back in town and is shooting in all directions at http://www.01chess.com/, the web site of a certain Kamsky Foundation.
I'm glad Lékó said that. But maybe just for once he was a bit too nice.
Kramnik has to be considered to be a slight favorite, but all depends on his health. Of course, if Vishy gets Topalov to cough up some of his opening preparation, then Kramnik would be in trouble. Aronian would be a nice second--for either player.
I don't see where Anand is too old to play matches. Botvinnik and Petrosian were quite successful match players, and they were not young when they were playing the World Championships.
In any case, Anand is in robust physical shape, and should have no trouble maintaining his stamina through a match that is a mere 12 games in length.
Anand could switch to 1.d4, and be successful doing so. Anand has shown himself open to experimentation (employing the Scandinavian in Game 14 of his 1995 Match vs. Garry, getting a good position.
Bobby famously broke out 1.d4 as a surprise weapon in 1972, and he played it well enough.
Even introducing the d4 option for one game makes it a threat for the rest of the match....
The faster time controls and the no-adjournment aspect make it harder for the older player of today.
Then the fifth hour of play was dreaded. Now there's also a sixth.
Kramnik has more experience in matches, but I have the feeling Anand will be more motivated. For Kramnik it is "been there done that", Anand has never won a WC match yet.
(But as mentioned, will Anand be able to break Kramnik's black repertoire with e4?)
Correction, Doug: Bobby played 1 c4 as a surprise weapon. I do not think The Great Man ever played 1 d4 in his life.
Much to this d4 player's chagrin... :(
Humor from New Yorker magazine:
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/issuecartoons/2008/03/17/cartoons_20080310?slide=14#showHeader
"Anand is a much better player now. Even if you look at his record against Kasparov in the last 5-10 years, I bet you'll find it's pretty even.
Posted by: x y at March 11, 2008 11:18 "
What an idiotic assertion:
Chessbase lists 73 games between Kasparov and Anand all time. In Kasparov's favor, the record is +24 - 8 = 41 (utter domination). As for the last ten years (of which Kasparov has only played in 7.5), the record is even more in Kasparov's favor: +7 - 1 = 19. Care to revise your thought's/opinion, x y?
i don't see why anand would need to use chess engines preparing for the kramnik match. botvinnik and petrosian were quite successful match players, and neither of them used chess engines preparing for their world championship matches.
or is it something that i dog't get? :o)
Yes, that their opponents weren't using chess engines either.
Anand should ask Topalov to be his second. He can use some of the d4/d5 ideas both from white and black. Tapalov should be itching to get back at Kramnik anyway...
But the problem is what if Anand wins? Then Topalov will have no ideas of his own.. So probably its not gonna happen.
Sorry for the drivel then:)
Anand is quite capable of playing d4 c4 or Nf6 if he wants to prepare for it. This is what Leko did in his match with Kramnik which shocked Kramnik and brought Leko a victory. Fischer did something similer against Spassky. Incidentally Anands chances against Kramniks Petroff only came after Kramnik spurned a draw by repetition and played for a win (!) - Anand got nothing from the opening. The match looks balanced but I give Kramnik the edge because he seems a bit stronger psychologically and Anands tournament successes recently have been based on doing well wih black which is not so relevant in a match with Kramnik. This is like a tournament for Kramnik in which he only needs +1 to win - pretty scary for any opponent.
I agree that Anand does not have much chance if he uses e4 openings. Anand would have realized this surely. Most probably he is going to do serious preparation with d4.He is not playing them in tounaments because he wants to keep them as surprise.
People talk about disadvantage to Anand since he has not played in a match for 13 years. But in the meantime he has become much stronger so his match strength is undervalued.
Cant wait for the match to start!
x y said:
Even if you look at his record against Kasparov in the last 5-10 years, I bet you'll find it's pretty even.
Actually, after their 1995 match, Anand did not win any single game against Kasparov, in standard time control. The score after 1995 is 6-0=15 for Kasparov, which is not even at all :-).
And even if you count rapid & blitz chess, after 1995 Anand, the great blitz player, also has a negative score against Kasparov.
The only period when Anand was kind of even against Kasparov was at the beginning of his career, in 1991 (2-1=1 for Anand) and 1992 (2-2=2). After that, Anand's score was negative all the way through Kasparov's retirement.
Well, I would say that Kramnik isn't Kasparov. Anand's style is somewhere in between Kasparovs and Kramniks. Remembering Kasparov smashin each and everyone during last decade Anand's score isn't looking so disastrous. :-D
In chess if player "A" beats player "B" and player "C" beats player "A" it doesn't mean that player "C" automatically beats player "B".
If Anand is able to hold during first 1/3 of the match without losing, then he will win. All what Kramnik needs is a quick win in the first games. If this doesn't happen, then the initiative will be on the Anand's side.
About seconds... Does Anand really need anyone apart from those who already help him? How can Carlssen, Topalov and/or any other GM help him to win this match? I find that from psychological point of view Indian player may feel discomfort working with elite GM's who are normally his opponents.
About match experience... Well, Kramnik didn't win many matches... And, for Anand counts his wide experience of playing Illyumzhinov's knock-out competitions. I guess that drawing rate will be high. And, most of games will be quick draws. Each other will check opponents opening preparation. Why to continue a game if it is clear that opponent is prepared to hold draw even in slightly worse position which was analyzed prior to the game?
So, congratulations to Anand - the most successful active chess player in the world - with another professional achievement.
@beliy: "In chess if player "A" beats player "B" and player "C" beats player "A" it doesn't mean that player "C" automatically beats player "B".
So true. Look at the past Linares tournament: Carlsen owns Ivanchuk, Ivanchuk owns Leko, though Leko owns Carlsen!
Re: Kramnik and Anand - I think the most interesting part of Anand's pre-Linares interview was the following, especially bearing in mind that in an earlier interview Kramnik said that he'd slowed down with age and that even Anand wasn't as fast as he used to be.
---------------
Q: You became famous for the speed of your play. Have you lost speed over the years?
A: I'm still winning rapid tournaments and I have better results than Kasparov himself in rapid games. I think I've kept my speed. Even when I spend more time thinking I don't find better moves.
--------------
So I think Anand's probably responding to Kramnik here. It's interesting to see a player of Anand's quality making the comment about not finding better moves. I completely understand (as a patzer my blitz play isn't really any better than my bullet play), but surely at Anand's level you should be able to use extra time profitably.
Generally, Anand seems to have fantastic speed of thought and therefore has a computer-like ability to spot most tactics, but he also plays with a certain superficiality. So he has a wonderful record against weaker players, but Kramnik and Kasparov always took advantage of the superficiality - with Kramnik using his superior positional (artistic, if you like) sense and Kasparov calculating fantastic long-range plans. Kasparov's comment on Kramnik "playing chess" rather than "finding moves" might be relevant.
That said, the chess world is in the hands of the computer-like "finding moves" players now, and especially with Kramnik's health problems the upcoming match could go either way.
Anand should get Gazza's help with the Berlin! After all, he finally cracked it! Anyway I think the Berlin is not going to be such a weapon as it was, simply because its not a surprise any more. Some interesting ideas have been demonstrated.
The opening battles will be fascinating, but I think the Vish will prevail. He's simply more talented.
I don't know how you measure who is more talented. I guess that if you gave the positions that Kramnik got with white in last Tal memorial to any top-tenner, and asked to play it against the same opposition, then, if they scored half of the wins Kramnik did, that would be considered a great success. Go figure how talented he is.
He is the best technical player in the world ever, maybe matched by Karpov at his best.
Anand has only practical chances. If Kramnik is in his top shape, no one stands a chance against him in a match.
Anand regularly plays the semi-slav and nimzo vs 1d4, which at the 2800-level means he has to be an expert on the white side too of these openings. As the semi-slav is also kramnik's main defense against 1d4, kramnik would have to find another defense (other than nimzo or semi-slav) if anand tries 1d4 to really take advantage of anand's lack of white side 1d4 experience.
I think anand would be seriously looking at 1d4 as white against kramnik.
"I don't know how you measure who is more talented."
You cant, its a subjective opinion.
"I guess that if you gave the positions that Kramnik got with white in last Tal memorial to any top-tenner, and asked to play it against the same opposition, then, if they scored half of the wins Kramnik did, that would be considered a great success."
hahahaha. what a load of hypothetical rubbish. Falls rather short of an objective measure of "talent".
"Go figure how talented he is."
No, you go figure. To ME (me, moi, jag etc) Anand is more talented than Kramnik. Just as Tal is the most talented player in history on balance (to me that is). Nothing to do with results. To figure out how I arrive at that conclusion, you'll have to get inside my head. Certainly the weight I give to different criteria in evaluation is subjective.
" If Kramnik is in top shape ... "
So Anand wins against out-of-shape Kramnik and all we're going to hear from a certain group of fans is this excuse?
Please!
Federer gets to be Federer because he can't afford to have "out of shape" days. You pay a price for being on top. Or for that matter, being a challenger. The burden of being in form is on both of them and claiming that the title-holder won only because of an out-of-shape challenger is as pathetic.
"Anand has only practical chances. If Kramnik is in his top shape, no one stands a chance against him in a match."
For someone who wants to "measure" talent, this is a pretty subjective statement. Lets look at some objective measures to back this up. Lets look at matche results.
I believe these are Kramnik's matches:
* FIDE Quarterfinals, January 1994 Wijk aan Zee, Kramnik-Leonid Yudasin (4.5-2.5).
* PCA Quarterfinals, June 1994, New York, Kramnik-Gata Kamsky (1.5-4.5).
* FIDE Semifinals, August 1994 Sanghi Nagar, Kramnik-Boris Gelfand (3.5-4.5).
* WCC Candidates, 1998, Cazorla, Kramnik-Alexei Shirov (3.5-5.5).
* Classical World Chess Championship 2000, London, Kramnik-Garry Kasparov (8.5-6.5)
* Classical World Chess Championship 2004, Brissago, Kramnik-Péter Lékó (7-7)
* FIDE World Chess Championship 2006, Elista, Kramnik-Topalov (6-6, 2.5-1.5 rapid playoff)
So in classical matches, he's won 2, lost 3 and drawn 2.
Lets see Anand's match record.
* WCC Prelimanary Matches, 1991, Madras, Anand-Dreev (4.5-1.5).
* WCC Quarterfinals, 1991, Brussels, Anand-Karpov (3.5-4.5)
* Match, 1992, Linares, Anand-Ivanchuk (5-3)
* FIDE Quarterfinals, 1994 Wijk aan Zee, Anand-Yusupov (4.5-1.5).
* PCA Quarterfinals, 1994, New York, Anand-Romanishin (5-2).
* FIDE Semifinals, 1994 Sanghi Nagar, Anand-Kamsky (3-3, 0-2 rapid playoff).
* PCA Semifinals, 1994, Linares, Anand-Adams (5.5-1.5).
* PCA Semifinals, 1995, Las Palmas, Anand-Kamsky (6.5-4.5).
* PCA Finals, 1995, Las Palmas, Anand-Kasparov (7.5-10.5).
* FIDE Finals, 1998, New York, Anand-Karpov (3-3, 0-2 rapid playoff).
So in classical matches he's won 6, lost 2 and drawn 2.
So on the measure of better match record, Anand is better.
On the measure of FIDE rating, Anand is better.
On the measure of head to head, I believe Kramnik leads Anand by 6 wins (all white) to 4 (2 black, 2 white), i.e. Kramnik is better.
So your statement that "Anand has only practical chances. If Kramnik is in his top shape, no one stands a chance against him in a match." is complete and utter rubbish by a combination of OBJECTIVE measures.
Of the 7 serious classical matches he played in, 5 out of the 7 had some chance, since 3 of them won, and the other two drew.
Also what are "practical" chances? Are they as opposed to "theoretical" chances?
What's that I hear you say? "Yes d_tal, you are correct, my evaluation of Kramnik's chances are as subjective as your measure of talent was. I am very grateful for the lesson in logical argument"
Oh, you're welcome!
"" If Kramnik is in top shape ... "
So Anand wins against out-of-shape Kramnik and all we're going to hear from a certain group of fans is this excuse?"
Not from me: I'm not really a fan of Kramnik's, but I have come to the conclusion--almost reluctantly-- that (when healthy) Kramnik is the best chess player competing among the Elite today. If Anand wins the match, I will reconsider that conclusion. It is clear that Kramnik has genuine health problems, which can adversely affect his playing strength. But, now that he has been given the opportunity (with favorable considerations) for a head-to-head match with Kramnik, the only thing that matters is the end result. If the World Championship is decided by some Armeggedon Blitz game, the most reasonable conclusion to draw is that they are about equal in strength. If Anand wins, then all credit should go to him, and he should enjoy the mantle of being the World's best chessplayer, and have the pleasure of warding off Magnus Carlsen.
Hi all.
I am reading Bareev's book on the Kramnik's world championship matches, and I find it absolutely fascinating. I am reading the Russian edition. Some of Bareev's wit and references may be lost in translation, but the book itself is full of interesting opinions and explanations on how the top players prepare for the match and function during the match. With the Kramnik-Anand match looming on the horizon, the book is even more relevant than it would usually be. I recommend it to the readers of the blogs and the reason is that things have been brought up in the comments to this blog entry immediately made me think of what I have read yesterday: along the lines of "But Bareev said this about the Berlin..." or "yeah, but Bareev said this about preparing for matches...". So I decided not to put up the endless citations and just recommend the book. I think of you are an avid reader of this blog, the dirt (or rather, the insight) of the Bareev book should be right up your alley. I mean, did you know there was a bathroom provocation in the Game 5 of the KASPAROV-Kramnik match?
Anyways, I don't mean for this to sound as an infomercial. Also, the Russian edition I am reading is about the 2000 and 2004 matches only, while the new English-language edition seems to include the Kramnik-Topalov match, too. So, your experiences may vary.
Correction, Doug: Bobby played 1 c4 as a surprise weapon. I do not think The Great Man ever played 1 d4 in his life.
Much to this d4 player's chagrin... :(
--------------------
Brenan, since you are inclined to be pedantic (an unfortunate trait of many 1. d4 players!) about such things, may I point out that your assertion seems to be incorrect. There is a record of a game in which Fischer starts off by playing the move 1. d4 as White:
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[White "Robert James Fischer"]
[Black "Vlastimil Hort"]
[ECO "A50"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "69"]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 d5 4. cxd5 cxd5 5. Bf4 e6 6. e3 Nc6
7. Bb5 Bd6 8. Bxd6 Qxd6 9. f4 Bd7 10. Nf3 Ne4 11. Nxe4 dxe4
12. Nd2 Qb4 13. Qb3 Qa5 14. Qa4 Qxa4 15. Bxa4 Nb4 16. Bxd7+
Kxd7 17. Ke2 f5 18. Nc4 Rhc8 19. Rhc1 Nd3 20. Ne5+ Nxe5
21. dxe5 Rxc1 22. Rxc1 Rc8 23. Rxc8 Kxc8 24. Kd2 Kd7 25. Kc3
Kc6 26. Kc4 b6 27. a4 a6 28. b4 b5+ 29. axb5+ axb5+ 30. Kd4
Kb6 31. h3 g6 32. g4 h5 33. gxh5 gxh5 34. h4 Kc6 35. Kc3
1/2-1/2
You are, in the narrow sense, correct about Fischer's repetoire in the 1972 Match with Spassky. Fischer did commence 4 games with the move 1. c4, and none with the move 1. d4.
Fischer played 1. c4 in games
#6 (D59 Queen's Gambit Declined, Tartakower)
1-0 41 moves
#8 (A39 English, Symmetrical, Main line with d4)
1-0 37 moves
#12 (D56 Queen's Gambit Declined)
1/2-1/2 55 moves
and #14 (D37 Queen's Gambit Declined)
1/2-1/2 40 moves
In 3 of the 4 games, Spassky invited Fischer to transpose into Queen's Gambit openings which are customarily derived from playing 1. d4 Fischer, obliged, and was clearly willing to play into the Queen's Gambit, and had indeed evidently prepared for the possibility that Spassky would seek to play the Tartakower Variation.
The practical effect of playing 1. c4, therefore, was scarcely different than if Fischer had started off with 1.d4
The point is that Fischer was willing and able to switch to playing opening positions commonly derived from playing 1. d4, and that Anand can readily do the same, especially if employed as a surprise weapon.
d_tal, I don't think it is reasonable to claim Anand has a superior match player compared to Kramnik. Most of Kramnik's losses came when he was around 18-19 years old, which was before most players in history were good enough to even make it to the candidates matches. Anand was not good enough to make it to the candidates matches in that early an age, for example. So to take those early Kramnik losses to make conclusions about him now is ridiculous.
Yes, Kramnik did lose to Shirov. But Bareev does say (here I go :) ) that Kramnik was a bad match player before the Kasparov match. But Kramnik worked a lot between Shirov and Kramnik matches and transformed himself from mainly a tournament player into mainly a match player. It remains to be seen whether Anand will be able to do something similar.
At the age of 25, both Anand and Kramnik played Kasparov in world title matches. The differences in their performances is too well-known for me to mention it. And I believe that it is the world championship matches that they match experiences should be measured by. The world championship matches, with their enormous pressure, are what separates the true champions from the merely great players. Anand fell apart in the only WC matches he played even though the match was close for a while and Anand was the first to win a game. Kramnik has shown resiliency and mental toughness in a variety of circumstances in his matches in 2000, 2004 and 2007. I don't care if Kramnik lost a few matches before he even turned 20. What is important is that he dethroned probably the greatest player in the game and hasn't lost a match since. That is what makes Kramnik the better match player of the two up to this point.
And of course, d_tal, you count the Topalov match as a draw despite Kramnik winning the classical games (with one less white). Danailov's shenanigans might count for something, but they certainly have no bearing on chess talent.
Thank you Russianbear, I could not have answered better.
Just to point out: Anand drew his match to Karpov when the latter was far from his peak. I think, considering the strength of the opponent and level of competition, this is the best practical result by Anand.
Now compare that to dethroning top-form Kasparov and top-form Topalov + Danailov.
Don't compare apples to peaches.
While I'm still in the "Kramnik is champ till he loses it in a match" camp, I will certainly not accept poor health as an excuse if he loses to Anand.
Champs have to be ready to play on gameday.
"d_tal, I don't think it is reasonable to claim Anand has a superior match player compared to Kramnik."
Huh! Pick and compare stats. If it doesnt support your argument, ditch. If it does, use it. That's perfectly fine, what I'm saying is, there is NO objectivity to it. Stats A and B may disprove this, but I am disregarding that because Kramnik's left hand weighs a little more than his right hand. Stat C may suggest something, but hey, we all forgot that Mig's cat likes wafers first thing in the morning, so forget that. See what I'm saying? If the criterion is, Matches vs Kasparov, yes, Kramnik is better. If the criterion is matcches, no, Kramnik is not better, UNLESS you interpret these results subjectively, filtering them as you wish. Like, this result does not count because Karpov was weak then, that result counts because Kramnik farted in the morning etc etc.
What a joke.
This notion that Kramnik is invincible in matches is a MYTH. N*O*T B*O*R*N*E O*U*T B*Y F*A*C*T*S.
"but I am disregarding that because Kramnik's left hand weighs a little more than his right hand."
"but hey, we all forgot that Mig's cat likes wafers first thing in the morning, so forget that."
"Like, this result does not count because Karpov was weak then, that result counts because Kramnik farted in the morning etc etc."
"What a joke."
"N*O*T B*O*R*N*E O*U*T B*Y F*A*C*T*S."
Did you try to make a point somewhere in between all that?
d_tal, once against you stress the subjectivity of whatever I state, and once again I think it is irrelevant. I've explained why I think certain results are relevant and some results are not. You may not agree with it, but your opinion is subjective. The objective fact is: Kramnik is a 3 time classical/match world champion and Anand has never won the match title. You may pretend that including Kramnik's early losses is objective and relevant - I don't think so. The very fact Kramnik made it to candidates matches at the age of 18 and 19 is in itself an accomplishment that has not been achieved by many. Again I ask - how many people have even made it to candidates match at such a young age? Most people - Anand included- weren't good enough to make it to the candidates stage when they were that young. So I think your fake objectivity is just a cover for your bias. I think objective analysis does show that Kramnik has had a better match record on the highest level.
Tal the most talanted?? lmao; nonsense.
Russianbear, agree Bareev's book is the best book out for some time. The Topalov section is slightly more removed, but I thought the Kasparov and particularly the Leko sections were fantastic.
I have Kramnik as the favourite, but since when do favourites have the right to win anything.
Anyone who has read the Bareev book may appreciate the following prediction...
If the Kramnik who played Kasparov plays, he will win. If the Kramnik who played Leko plays, he will lose. If the Kramnik who played Topalov plays, it's too close to call...
Anand's match results are from so far ago that most other factors such as age, change in chess level, change in approach towards chess, experience, etc., have become more significant than how easily he became distraught against Garry 12 years ago or the fact that he was able to defeat all other challengers.
Kramnik's results--early ones are from an era when he was definitely not at his current level and are about as useful in his evaluation as pointing out that 5-year old Shaq was not tall enough to succeed in the NBA. His result against Kasparov is impressive, but is mostly due to Garry's woeful unpreparedness and underperformance. His performance against Leko was an underachievement barely pulling off a draw against a player who has not played that well since or before. The Topalov match had too much hoopla to be a good evaluation of either player's level and ultimately had to be resolved in rapid tiebreaks.
With the lack of match play these days, it's hard to predict either player's skill levels. Even without match play, record-based predictions are most of the time worthless in chess. Kramnik had a far better head to head record against all the other players in Mexico than anybody else in the field and Anand was the one who cleaned up. He barely won a match leading up to London and cleaned up nicely in there. Honestly, who draws the first blood probably matters the most in final outcome, especially in a short match. He who wins the first game will overperform and the other player will underperform. All the matches I can think of that were played in the past decade support this pattern.
Thanks, Doug. I was not aware of that Fischer game against Hort.
Maybe Bobby feared that Boris was going to play a Benko against him ... which might explain the reluctance to play 1 d4. ;)
Anyway, since it has been said that Bobby played the hypermodern openings with a classical style, his closed opening games can be said to have the quality of a shimmering diamond.
"In Kasparov's favor, the record is +24 - 8 = 41 (utter domination). As for the last ten years (of which Kasparov has only played in 7.5), the record is even more in Kasparov's favor: +7 - 1 = 19."
noyb,
you failed 5th grade math class, didn't you...
these two records are identical! since i'm sure you won't figure it out yourself, i'll just tell you: 61% for kasparov (yes, my bet was wrong)
Excuse me, But isn't Kramnik trying to piggyback on Kasparov's popularity ?
X Y - You'd better stick to something else 'cause math obviously isn't YOUR thing. You still think they are identical?
From my records of Anand & Kramnik's matches, counting only matches with more than 4 games, with standard time controls, Anand clearly has a better overall score. He played in more matches and lost only twice against Karpov and Kasparov. Kramnik played in fewer matches and lost 3 of them.
However, scores cannot be taken at face values, because it depends on who the opponent is. Even the same opponent might be a different person at different times. So it's a good idea to compare the average rating performances in matches. A quick calculation indicated that Anand is still better, in terms of rating performances in matches.
However, if we take only the last 10 years, Kramnik did well, and won all 3 of his matches including against Kasparov. But there is still no comparison, since Anand did not play any big match in the same period. This could be taken as a disadvantage for Anand (no recent match experience) but a better argument is that since Anand didn't play recently, we just cannot make any conclusion about his current strength in matches.
Counting only games in standard time control, the record of Kasparov vs Anand is 15-3=30.
Yes, as strong as Anand is, he only won three games against Kasparov in his whole career.
Two of the Anand wins came right at the beginning, in 1991, the first year he faced Kasparov. At the end of that year he even had a positive score against Kasparov. Anand came out with a bang! But Kasparov soon rebounded, and before their 1995 match, the score is already 5-2=2 in Kasparov's favor.
Anand won one more game (his third lifetime win) in the beginning of their 1995 match. And that was the last time he won against Kasparov.
Albrecht von der Lieth, perhaps English is not your first language so irony and sarcasm escape you maybe?
Russianbear, look at this for a minute. First of all, I wasnt even referring to anything you said, it was something playjunior said. Secondly, this is the point I make: Any opinion has some subjective interpretation. When sombody ridicules my opinion saying its subjective, and then puts forward his own as being objective, when it really isn't, annoys me. Objectivity means you can't pick and choose, you have to deal in facts. This is the simple point I was making. As soon as you start to filter out the facts in some way, subjectivity creeps in. For example, the match draw with Karpov is dismissed as unimportant, because "Karpov was weak". To me, much more pertinent is the fact that Anand was completely exhausted from fighting a knockout tournament, while Karpov was waiting in the wings, doing anything he fancied.
The statement "Anand has only practical chances. If Kramnik is in his top shape, no one stands a chance against him in a match." that Playjunior made is plain ridiculous.
First of all, what are "practical" chances? Are "practical" chances contrasted with "impractical" chances or "theoretical" chances? Just baloney.
Next, the 3 people who won against Kramnik and the 2 who drew would surely beg to differ that they "had no chance".
What particularly riled me was this was after criticising my opinion as being not measurable, as if his is.
I am a scientist, I cannot pick and choose which results I analyse and which I ignore when I'm trying to model or explain a phenomenon. First I have to define the boundary conditions, and then consider all results which occur within. If I only chose the results which supported whatever thesis I was trying to expound at that point, I could come up with a really elegant model. Except it would have no bearing on reality.
Over the years, Anand did not get even against Kasparov. But neither did he get more dominated. His percentage score against Kasparov stayed more or less the same, at a little below 40%, throughout all periods they had faced each other.
Just to back up Russianbear, the Bareev book is really fascinating. If you want to know why what happened in the matches happened, read this.
One quote I loved. 'Kasparov's preparation for the match was insufficiently intellectual'.
Ouch. Harsh, but when you read it in context, fair and penetrating.
"Albrecht von der Lieth, perhaps English is not your first language so irony and sarcasm escape you maybe?"
It isn't, and usually they don't.
This may have had something to do with it:
http://www.chessbase.com/columns/column.asp?pid=138
There's a lot of schoolyard taunting in there, particularly the bizarre "chart dug from Leko's trash" and shots like "...made Tigran Petrosian look like Attila the Hun."
Leko can't be blamed for a long memory, but at Linares he would have done well to focus instead on his scoring.
For once, I am more on d_tal's side. It is only possible to provide quality statistical analysis on the basis of a large number of events. Kramnik played 3 matches in the past 8 years. Anand, essentially, zero competitive ones. With such a low event number, the outcome of a single game will be more significant than any actual player strength in final result. If Kramnik doesn't win the last game against Leko, would we be talking about his match-playing strength? Or saying that he got lucky against Kasparov? If he wins one less game against Topalov, match does not go to tiebreaks and he loses the championship. Does he become an invincible match legend?
People could also put forth another allgedly objective argument of Anand does not have the recent match-playing experience Kramnik does. However, in London 2000, the player whose experience in matches dwarfed his opponent's, played like the situation was the exact opposite. Almost every player to ever win the championship through candidate match-based cycle did so on his first attempt (the only exception I can think of is Spassky). So is match experience really a factor?
Lastly, there is Kramnik's style, which, everybody acknowledges, is low on errors and has great technique, which should help him in a match. Except that he bungled quite a few times in Mexico and Corus, precisely in the kind of games where you would expect him not to do so. So is there really a strong objective argument for Kramnik being a favorite?
Yuriy Kleyner, for you to be on d_tal's side, you'd have to lean towards the view that Anand's career match record is superior to that of Kramnik.
"Kramnik doesn't win the last game against Leko, would we be talking about his match-playing strength? Or saying that he got lucky against Kasparov? If he wins one less game against Topalov, match does not go to tiebreaks and he loses the championship. Does he become an invincible match legend?"
If Anand took up checkers instead of chess, would we be talking about him? The "what-if" scenarios don't matter much, do they? The fact is - Kramnik did win the final game against Leko. And before that he beat Kasparov. And after that he beat Topalov. You can make the case he could have lost all those matches if things went a little differently. But isn't it the sign of a good player to win the close matches and to win the decisive and most important games?
"Almost every player to ever win the championship through candidate match-based cycle did so on his first attempt (the only exception I can think of is Spassky). So is match experience really a factor?"
Another exceptions are Smyslov and Kasparov. Also, if we are talking match experience, since th 1960s the candidate stage consisted of matches, so a case could be made challenger got good match practice on his way to the top - at least more experience than Anand has had recently. But of course, a case can be made that even with a lot of experience, WC match experience is very different from all other matches.
Here is how challengers had done on their first attempt at the title match since 1951:
-Bronstein didn't win it on his first attempt.
-Smyslov didn't win it on his first attempt.
-Tal DID win it on his first attempt.
-Petrosian DID win it on his first attempt.
-Spasky didn't win it on his first attempt.
-Fischer DID win it on his first attempt.
-Korchnoi didn't win it on his first attempt.
-Kasparov didn't win it on his first attempt.
-Short didn't win it on his first attempt.
-Anand didn't win it on his first attempt.
-Kramnik DID win it on his first attempt.
-Leko didn't win it on his first attempt.
-Topalov didn't win it on his first attempt.
So, more often then not, the first attempt fails. I am not sure if it proves the experience matters or if it proves the champion is more likely to be the stronger player than the challenger, though. Perhaps, it is both.
In any case, Anand already did attemp to win the title once - in 1995. So we can look at the history and people who lost the first match and got to play the second time:
-Smyslov won the second match after drawing the first one.
-Spassky won the second match after losing the first one.
-Korchnoi lost the second match after losing the first one.
-Kasparov won the second match after the first one wasn't completed.
If we go back to pre Fide era, we'd find that Chigorin, Yanofsky and Bogolyubov all failed in their second attempts.
"Lastly, there is Kramnik's style, which, everybody acknowledges, is low on errors and has great technique, which should help him in a match. Except that he bungled quite a few times in Mexico and Corus, precisely in the kind of games where you would expect him not to do so. So is there really a strong objective argument for Kramnik being a favorite?"
- if we are to cite Kramnik's errors, we might as well recall the game 2 of the Topalov match. Rather big blunders were made in all 3 of Kramnik's matches by all players, except maybe Leko.
Anyways, I do consider Kramnik to be a favorite. Not a big favorite, but, say a 60%-40%, +1 final score kind of favorite. And that is because of several factors. One is match experience. Yes, I think it is important. Both in terms of playing under pressure and facing the same super strong guy day in and day out, and because Kramnik knows as well as anyone what kind of preparation is needed to succeed in the WC match these days. Another reason is head-to-head games. And yet another reasons are their styles. Kramnik has more of a match style and will be fine with drawing all his black games - and will probably have good drawing lines prepared in the Petroff and maybe other openings. Kramnik is ridiculously good in the Catalan and the Anti-Moscow Gambit, which seems to be one of the few alternatives, is no picnic, either, especially with Topalov's recent Nxf7 novelty for white and given how Kramnik has a year to prepare/refute the gambit. Anand's black games seem to me to be much more of a potential problem than Kramnik's and it can lead to the repeat of Kasparov-Kramnik match where Kramnik kept drawing with black and kept getting promising positions with white. And even the workaholic like Kasparov with his famous team and preparation couldn't fix the holes in both black and white on the fly. Of course, Anand understands all this and will probably prepare totally new lines, but it remains to be seen if he can switch to 1.d4 (Leko had 2 years for that), or how good his black systems will stand up to Kramnik's preparation.
Even Anand has said that the late-career (post 1995) Kasparov was a personal nightmare for him. He said in an interview once that every year Linares was the same; great tournament, then run into Kasparov.
Kramnik is nowhere near in the same class. I just don't see him winning very many games against the mature Vishy. Anand is currently the best-prepared player in the world (assuming that Aronian can't keep up his Linares level of introduction of novelties: Qa4 vs. Leko was a stunner).
Kramnik's style is suited to matches, sure, but he still has to win games, and Anand isn't going to let him win just by controlling c6 in the Catalan the way some players do.
"Kramnik's style is suited to matches, sure, but he still has to win games, and Anand isn't going to let him win just by controlling c6 in the Catalan the way some players do."
Kramnik did beat Anand in the Catalan last year, didn't he? I think at some point Kramnik even controlled c6.
d_tal, what you say about scientific methods is complete crap indeed. Scientists do not take all data without any categorization and make blind analysis of data. Just giving match win/loss statistics, without taking into account age, strength of opposition, importance of outcome and many other factors. What you say is basically "I am a scientist, and a match is a match, whatever".
To show you how ridiculous is your approach, let's take all matches in last 30 years and try to do figure out a rule that would help us distinguish between successful and non-successful WCh contenders. A rule "The ones who did not win a match against Karpov or Kasparov did not become a World Champion" suits, and is supported by bigger data that you brought up here. Now, let's apply this rule to current situation...See?
What everyone does here-we present our subjective views, giving different weights to different arguments and thus come to different conclusions. Pretending that you have one objective scientific view of everything is childish: predicting a chess match outcome is not science.
Bareev's book offers wonderful insights into Kramnik's three WCC matches.
"Kasparov's preparation for the match was insufficiently intellectual."
--Back in 1995, Kramnik felt that the Berlin was the perfect anti-Kasparov weapon. But Kasparov appeared never to have asked himself "what would I play against a tactical-genius-computer-prepared monster?"
--Kasparov put all his preparation eggs in the Gruenfeld basket, apparently never asking himself what he'd do if he lost confidence in that opening after one game.
As a result of thus being "out-thought," Kasparov had to come up with a whole new opening arsenal in the middle of a WCC match. Hence the exhaustion. Hence the out-of-form play.
Also entertaining are all the humorous, ironic "shots" Bareev takes at Kramnik, Topalov, and just about anyone else who crosses his path.
@greg koster:
Very informative post.
You just confirmed my thoughts about why Kasparov seemed so out of form in the match: he was unable to get positions out of the opening that suited his style.
Just recently Mark Dvoretsky made an interesting comment, devaluing matches as simply "opening duels". His point was -exactly- what you were saying: you can lose a match simply by the other player be better prepared in the opening than you.
If your opponent is able to prevent you from reaching middlegame positions that suit your style, as Kramnik succeeded brilliantly in the Kasparov match, then your superior chess skill will not be seen. As Kasparov has said, true chess skill lies in not letting your opponent show you what he is capable of.
"simply by the other player being better prepared than you"
That sounds too easy.
By the way, Leko outprepared Kramnik (see London to Elista) but it wasn't enough was it. In fact, you could argue that Topalov outprepared Kramnik too. Somehow he went down in flames as well.
I don't know why people are so obsessive about trying to predict the outcome of the match. Before the T-K match everyone was talking about how weak Kramnik was etc. The fact is that anythng could have happened there. Both players are equal in strength and match experience. Both still have things to prove and we can expect a good match with equal chances. More interesting things to discuss are match strategy and all these things.
Come to think of it, it would be very strange if Garry hadn't prepared a backup for his Gruenfeld. Even in his match against Anand, it might have been a different story if he had put all his eggs in the Najdorf bucket... and if Vishy hadnt put all of his in the Open Ruy Lopez bucket..
I think Kasparov did have the backup system in the 2000 match. Grunfeld was his main weapon, but he lost game 2 and was reluctant to play it anymore. Then he switched to QGA. And after he stopped liking how the things were going there, he switched to his 3rd choice - the Nimzo-Indian, where he lost the key game 10.
I think they all have backup systems these days.
>I don't know why people are so obsessive about trying to predict the outcome of the match.>
Perhaps because almost everybody feels that Kramnik has a clear edge yet the explanantions for why one feels so turn out to be convoluted and unconvincing.
Kasparov just got outprepared in 2000. He thought he outclassed Kramnik, and would win because he was the better player. He showed up with openings he'd played for a decade, confident in his preparation.
Unfortunately, he hadn't seen Rxb7 in the Grunfeld, and the QGD had been falling out of favor throughout that decade at the top level. Kramnik showed up to play with a fully prepared line that would become the opening sensation of the decade (name one opening played more often by 2700+ players this decade played less often in the 1990's), and a few surprises in Kasparov's systems.
Kasparov had become too narrow and didn't have the same level of preparation for Kramnik that he had previously undertaken. (Someone confirm - did he really come to London with just Yuri Dokhoian?)
That was a pretty interesting analysis of reason's for Kasparov's downfall. I like most of it.
The following article gives a few more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2000/11/01/wches01.xml
Kasparov seconds vs. Kramnik were: Andrei Shakarov, Yury Dokhoian, Mihail Kobalija and Andrei Kharlov (source: http://www.users.bigpond.com/rebpab/text.htm).
I'll also throw in that a) Kramnik aimed to trade queens as much as possible and Kasparov plays better with the most powerful piece still on the board; Kasparov's played a lot of shaky endings in WC's (Karpov, Short); and c) Kramnik was on Kasparov's team in 1995 vs. Anand. He got first-hand knowledge from Kasparov himself as to Kasparov's opening preparations and method of play.
"...almost everybody feels that Kramnik has a clear edge yet the explanantions for why one feels so turn out to be convoluted and unconvincing."
Not true (it's far from "almost everybody" and the reasoning is very clear), but it's interesting that several posters who believe Anand has the edge are providing explanations that go no further than "I dislike Kramnik and I hope very much that he loses to Anand." So why not just SCREAM it and spare us the bogus analysis?
Wonderful summary, many thanks.
What is Kramnik's overall record against gazza ?
What was it before 2000 ?
Is kramnik the only player to have a respectable
record against gazza ?
Did Anand show a desire to just draw with gazza after 1995 ? I mean, what was his style of play against kasparov ?
"d_tal, what you say about scientific methods is complete crap indeed. Scientists do not take all data without any categorization and make blind analysis of data."
Sorry buddy, you are wrong. I did not say the second sentence at all. What I said was, having categorised something, one cannot pick and choose within the category. Your category was match experience and record. When I pointed out that this proves my point rather than yours, you started to dig for subcategories within the main category, and your only criteria for doing so was to discard the stats that proved you wrong.
Lets get back to your basic point. "Anand has only practical chances. If Kramnik is in his top shape, no one stands a chance against him in a match."
1. What are "practical" chances?
2. How can you say that his opponents will have no chance, when in the past, he has been beaten 3 times, drawn twice, and won twice? Try telling the 5 who won or drew with him that they had no chance. And then post here again with their replies, bearing in mind that Mig has a profanity censoring parser.
"To show you how ridiculous is your approach, let's take all matches in last 30 years and try to do figure out a rule that would help us distinguish between successful and non-successful WCh contenders. A rule "The ones who did not win a match against Karpov or Kasparov did not become a World Champion" suits, and is supported by bigger data that you brought up here. Now, let's apply this rule to current situation...See?"
Huh?? What bearing does trying to find such a ridiculous and arbitraty rule have on scientific analysis of data? I'm forced to the reluctant conclusion you are an idiot.
"What everyone does here-we present our subjective views, giving different weights to different arguments and thus come to different conclusions. Pretending that you have one objective scientific view of everything is childish: predicting a chess match outcome is not science."
Ah, back to educating the idiot. Man, you gotta learn to read. I DID NOT say that my opinion is objective. On the contrary, I CLEARLY SAID my opinion is SUBJECTIVE. You on the hand, rubbished my opinion as being SUBJECTIVE, and put forward your own with an implication of OBJECTIVITY. Then, I proceeded to teach you the logic of argument, and showed clearly, how your opinion was as subjective as mine, and even more so, based on your stated criteria of match results.
Savvy?
The strongest case supporters of Kramnik could make is by taking his recent matches (say in the last 10 years). It does make sense to focus on recent results. And in the last 10 years Kramnik indeed did well in matches. 3-0. Good for him.
The problem with that analysis is that in the same period Anand did not play in any serious match at all. So we don't know his recent match strength.
We are comparing something good to something we don't know about. No comparison. No conclusion.
Per chess games.com overall record is Kasparov 23 wins Kram 22 wins 79 draws This includes rapid blindfold blitz and classical. Since 2000 in classiscal chess the record is Kramnik 3 wins kasparov 1 win 29 draws. Overall classical chess is as follows:Kramnik 9 wins Kasparov 9 wins and lots of draws! Most of Kasparov's wins came when Kramnik was a teenager. In classical chess this is, if correct, a better record against Kasparov than Karpov had. Anyway they were obviously very evenly matched - even drawing a famous 24 game blitz match 12:12. Howver after Kramnik stopped playing the sicilian against him Kasparov only managed 1 win in classical chess (Astana against Berlin) A turning point was when Kramnik finally got to grips with the KID and apparently knocked it out of Kasparovs repertoire.
d_tal, personal insults do not prove a point.
Do you feel insecure or something? Claiming being a scientist, talking about how scientists make chess match predictions and proving that your method is better than mine...does this all make sense?
I am not going to argue with you and try to prove a point-people with much more patience have failed here to do so.
If a player wins against Kasparov, can we say he played a brilliant game ? After all, a game of chess is only as brilliant as the least intelligent of the two players.
So, if one analyses a win over Kasparov, I am curious if it reveals some brilliant idea.
( I know that the analyser needs to be intelligent enough to understand the hidden idea )
playjunior, answer my points, which I will repeat again here:
A - Your statements
---------------------
"Anand has only practical chances. If Kramnik is in his top shape, no one stands a chance against him in a match."
1. What are "practical" chances?
2. How can you say that his opponents will have no chance, when in the past, he has been beaten 3 times, drawn twice, and won twice?
B: Your misconstruction of my statements
-------------------------------------------
1. "d_tal, what you say about scientific methods is complete crap indeed. Scientists do not take all data without any categorization and make blind analysis of data."
You are wrong. I did not say the second sentence at all. What I said was, having categorised something, one cannot pick and choose within the category. Your category was match experience and record. When I pointed out that this proves my point rather than yours, you started to dig for subcategories within the main category, and your only criteria for doing so was to discard the stats that proved you wrong.
2. "To show you how ridiculous is your approach, let's take all matches in last 30 years and try to do figure out a rule that would help us distinguish between successful and non-successful WCh contenders. A rule "The ones who did not win a match against Karpov or Kasparov did not become a World Champion" suits, and is supported by bigger data that you brought up here. Now, let's apply this rule to current situation...See?"
What bearing does trying to find such a ridiculous and arbitrary rule have on scientific analysis of data?
3. "What everyone does here-we present our subjective views, giving different weights to different arguments and thus come to different conclusions. Pretending that you have one objective scientific view of everything is childish: predicting a chess match outcome is not science."
I DID NOT say that my opinion is objective. On the contrary, I CLEARLY SAID my opinion is SUBJECTIVE. You on the hand, rubbished my opinion as being SUBJECTIVE, and put forward your own with an implication of OBJECTIVITY. Then, I proceeded to teach you the logic of argument, and showed clearly, how your opinion was as subjective as mine, and even more so, based on your stated criteria of match results. Comment?
Andy wrote:"Overall classical chess is as follows:Kramnik 9 wins Kasparov 9 wins and lots of draws!"
AFAIK, before the match the score was equal. Then Kramnik won 2 games in the match and Kasparov won the game in Astana. That should leave Kramnik at +1. Or did Garry win another game somewhere?
In Bareev´s book it is mentioned that the score was 3-3 before the match. That should make it 5-4 overall.
Yes, 3-3 score before the 2000 match and the overall 5-4 in favor of Kramnik are the right numbers.
3-3 prior to 2000. How many draws before 2000 ?
Any player has a + score against Kramnik? Shirov has ?
"Yuriy Kleyner, for you to be on d_tal's side, you'd have to lean towards the view that Anand's career match record is superior to that of Kramnik."
Sorry, if I didn't read all of his posts very closely, I think you will understand my lack of desire to do so. My leaning is towards the fact that you can't make a strong scientific objective argument for Kramnik being a favorite. There is simply not enough data.
“But isn't it the sign of a good player to win the close matches and to win the decisive and most important games?”
More a sign of mental composition than chess skill, I would say. But isn’t it the sign of a truly superior player not to let matches come down to one game? Shouldn’t Real Madrid advance to the next stage on something more than penalty kicks?
"The "what-if" scenarios don't matter much, do they?"
This is not a what-if scenario. I am pointing out that Kramnik's match superiority is based on a couple of games--sure, the fact that he won them makes him stronger than if he hadn't, but again, it's only a couple of games. Had he crushed Leko and Topalov in match-play, for example, my perception of him and subsequently his chances against Anand would be a lot higher.
"Another exceptions are Smyslov and Kasparov."
I very specifically said candidate match-based cycle, and that does not mean candidate plays champion in a match (if so, you can include almost everything that went on since late 19th century), I mean that the candidate qualifies through a series of matches.
"Here is how challengers had done on their first attempt at the title match since 1951:"
You miss the point. Most of these guys did not win the championship ever, so we can't tell if they didn't win it the first time because of lack of experience in match-play or because they simply weren't good enough. I set out to answer if match-playing experience is a factor. Nearly all the guys who won the championship did it on their first try. The only exception is Spassky and if you want to count Kasparov’s 1985 match as his second attempt. What’s more, Fischer, Karpov and Kasparov each won the title as part of their first candidates cycle—lack of experience in match play did not matter. Kramnik did it on his second, if you want to count his first cycle.
“- if we are to cite Kramnik's errors, we might as well recall the game 2 of the Topalov match. Rather big blunders were made in all 3 of Kramnik's matches by all players, except maybe Leko.“
Please don’t fall into: “everybody does X so everybody is the same when it comes to X.” Do all players blunder at the same rate? Kramnik is praised for his technique and lack of errors, yet it seems that recently he blundered against DF, failed to put wins away on a couple of occasions in Mexico and made mistakes that led to losses in Corus. I feel that in the past year he has been more mistake prone than before. Of course, this is entirely subjective, but so is “match style”.
“Not a big favorite, but, say a 60%-40%, +1 final score kind of favorite.”
Here is a nice scientific question: what are the chances of a +1 score in 60-40 situation for the 60 guy vs the chances of a +1 score in a 50-50 situation? That is, how likely is such a margin in a 12 game match to be due to chance.
I have to say that I think all this talk of past results against Kasparov and Topalov probably won’t matter much. There is a huge difference in that unlike those two players Anand won’t be coming into the arena thinking he is facing an opponent 50 points or so below him. (unless he is insane) He is not likely to try to knock-out Kramnik, but will probably adapt the same wait-for-mistake-or-advantage approach Kramnik is renown for. Even if he falls one game behind, he won’t try to mount a comeback in the next game, regardless of position. My prediction is one win for each, and Vladimir winning on tiebreak.
I would also say a win apiece but would favour Anand in the rapid tiebreaks.
Notes on Kasparov-Kramnik
In classical games the score is 5-4=36 for Kramnik
Between them, Kramnik was the first to win a classical game (Linares 1994) when he was only 18(!). Since then the cumulative score has been always basically equal, with at most a +1 for one side. The progression is: Kramnik-Kasparov: 1-0 1-1 1-2 2-2 2-3 3-3. Then came the big match, which brought Kramnik to 5-3, but one year afterwards Kasparov narrowed the gap to 5-4 (Astana 2001).
All Kasparov wins were with white. Same with Kramnik wins, except one.
All 3 Kasparov wins before the big match were against Kramnik's Sicilian. During the match, Kramnik dropped the Sicilian, and successfully employed the Berlin wall. But one year later, Kasparov got his revenge by crushing the wall in Astana.
Unfortunately, after Astana they just didn't meet that often anymore.
@henry:
Thanks for that info on the Kasparov-Kramnim rivalry.
Yes, a nice summary.
Fischer, Karpov, and Kasparov became champions in their first candidates matches cycle. But that doesn't prove lack of experience does not matter in their cases. Theirs are not cases of lack of experience. After all, by the time they played in the world championship match, they already had recent experience in 3 candidates matches along the way. Also notice, the candidates matches started with relatively short quarter final matches and continued with longer semifinal and even longer finals. So it was a nice progressive training experience going into the world championship.
Not that I am making any conclusions about the relevance of match experience. Just pointing out that the cases of Fischer, Karpov, and Kasparov are not cases of lack of match experience.
"Any player has a + score against Kramnik? Shirov has ? "
No, I don't think Shirov has a plus score in classical games against Kramnik anymore. With recent victories, Kramnik has either evened the score and maybe even has a +1 lead.
"Had he crushed Leko and Topalov in match-play, for example, my perception of him and subsequently his chances against Anand would be a lot higher."
He is not a crushing type of a player.
"very specifically said candidate match-based cycle, and that does not mean candidate plays champion in a match (if so, you can include almost everything that went on since late 19th century), I mean that the candidate qualifies through a series of matches."
I don't know how relevant that is. Anand didn't qualify through a series of matches. Not this time. Also, one may argue the series of matches would count as match experience, too, even if it is not the WC match experience.
"Nearly all the guys who won the championship did it on their first try. The only exception is Spassky and if you want to count Kasparov’s 1985 match as his second attempt. "
First, there aren't that many guys who won the title AND qualified through a match based cycle, period. Kramnik didn't qualify through a match based cycle. Karpov didn't win the match in 1975 so he can hardly be taken as an example. Kasparov didn't win the first match. Spassky didn't win the first match. So if we really examine your claim, we find that only Fischer has gone through the match-based candidates cycle AND won the title match on the first try.
In any case, Anand did play in the WC match in 1995, so he does have the experience. Though, it is not a positive experience of course. So perhaps it was more relevant to look at the data I suggested - namely, people who failed to win their first WC match and got to play the second one.
"Please don’t fall into: “everybody does X so everybody is the same when it comes to X.” Do all players blunder at the same rate? Kramnik is praised for his technique and lack of errors, yet it seems that recently he blundered against DF, failed to put wins away on a couple of occasions in Mexico and made mistakes that led to losses in Corus. I feel that in the past year he has been more mistake prone than before. Of course, this is entirely subjective, but so is “match style”."
I also think Kramnik is more mistake prone than before. Not as prone as in 2005, but more so than earlier in his career. But with all his mistakes, he lost fewer classical games from 2006 on than Anand, even though he played a match with Topalov in this period.
"He is not likely to try to knock-out Kramnik, but will probably adapt the same wait-for-mistake-or-advantage approach Kramnik is renown for. Even if he falls one game behind, he won’t try to mount a comeback in the next game, regardless of position."
I agree that Anand will probably not repeat Topalov's mistakes. But I also doubt he will match Topalov's tenacity. And he probably won't get a gift of a forfeit for one of his black games. And it remains to be seen whether Anand can match Topalov's (or for that matter, Kramnik's) preparation.
I based my record between Kramnik and Kasparov on chessgames.com records which may not be right. Here are the wins in classical chess according to this sourceand having gone through them again I am coming out with Kramnik 10 wins Kasparov 8 wins in classical chess! Perhaps someone can give a definitive result??:
Kramnik wins:1994 1-0 KID Moscow, 1994 1-0 KID Linares, 1995 0-1 sicilian Paris, 1996 0-1 semi-slav Italy, 1996 0-1 english Moscow, 1997 1-0 KID Italy, 1998 1-0 Grunfeld Frankfurt, 2000 1-0 Grunfeld WCC, 2000 1-0 Nimzo WCC, 2001 1-0 QGD Zurich
Kasparov wins: 1992 1-0 sicilian Paris, 1994 1-0 sicilian Italy, 1994 0-1 KID Munich, 1995 0-1 KID Paris, 1996 1-0 sicilian Italy, 1997 1-0 Nimzo Italy, 1999 1-0 sicilian Frankfurt, 2001 1-0 Berlin Astana
Antway I can recomend playing over these incredible games!
Indeed, good job on the summary of the Kasparov-Kramnim rivalry, Henry.
If you could provide the year/tournament of the other decisive games, I would appreciate that. I remember having hard time finding which games were classical and which games were not in the database - even though I knew the exact classical score.
RE: Melody amber
How come Loecky of the Welys is always playing with the big boys? I he just Lucky? He must be a real scene-maker. I can understand with the Dutch tournaments and all, bring in the hometown guy...but why bring him down to Monaco to get Smithereened? Is he the Paris Hilton of Chess?
Kramnik's good score against Kasparov gives some justification to the fact that he is selected to challenge him. Of course, it is not a complete justification, since Shirov beat him, so it is still not fair. But in terms of chances against Kasparov, Kramnik is definitely better than Shirov.
Shirov's record against Kasparov is well known. A big disaster. Zero win and lots of losses, in any type of game. Not even a practical chance, as Shirov himself said once. Even when Kasparov was at his worst (e.g. Russia vs World match), there is still his win against Shirov.
But Kramnik has stood equal against Kasparov right from the very beginning, when he was still in his teens. He is the only one who got not only some chance but a realistic chance.
People could explain Kasparov's match loss in many ways. External problems and whatever. Perhaps. But even if he didn't have those problems, I might still bet on Kramnik - he still had good chances to win.
More on Kasparov vs Kramnik.
Andy, chessgames.com is correct, except you counted many games that are not classical.
Here's the record of wins:
1994 Linares Kramnik-Kasparov 1-0 40 King's Indian
1994 Novgorod Kasparov-Kramnik 1-0 36 Sicilian
1996 Amsterdam Kasparov-Kramnik 1-0 43 Sicilian
1996 Dos Hermanas Kasparov-Kramnik 0-1 35 Queen's Gambit Declined
1997 Linares Kasparov-Kramnik 1-0 43 Sicilian
1997 Novgorod Kramnik-Kasparov 1-0 32 King's Indian
2000 London Kramnik-Kasparov 1-0 40 Grunfeld
2000 London Kramnik-Kasparov 1-0 25 NimzoIndian
2001 Astana Kasparov-Kramnik 1-0 41 Ruy Lopez
Note on chessgames.com
The game records in chessgames are correct for the most part. I think it covers all the big tournaments.
However, it sometimes doesn't include smaller or local tournaments, such as team championships, national championships, or junior tournaments.
For example, if you wanna see the record between say Bareev vs Beliavsky, you might rightly suspect that chessgames misses some games between them at Soviet national tournaments or team championships.
Fortunately, Kasparov-Kramnik encounters all happen in high profile tournaments. Both joined the elite pretty early and have since stayed away from the smaller venues. Hence their records in chessbase are good.
In addition, chessgames does not make a good job in distinguishing classical and other types of games.
Besides chessgames.com, you might want to check out:
http://www.365chess.com/
http://www.newinchess.com/NICBase/
Both are not complete either. But they might hafve things chessgames don't have.
How come Loecky of the Welys is always playing with the big boys? Is he just Lucky? He must be a real scene-maker. I can understand with the Dutch tournaments and all, bring in the hometown guy...but why bring him down to Monaco to get Smithereened? Is he the Paris Hilton of Chess?
Posted by: Splendifferah at March 14, 2008 11:48
The tournament's organised by a Dutch billionaire - whose daughter is apparently called Melody Amber(!).
The Kramnik-Shirov score is more or less basically balanced, until their 1998 match, which gave Shirov a little edge. Then in the 2007 Kramnik won 2 games in a row, restoring the balance.
Interesting points made by all. here are a few more thoughts from me:
1. I don't see how anyone can say Anand's modern style is not suited to matches. Apart from his reliance on 1. e4 he has a broad and strong opening repertoire, and his performance at Linares (lead, draw out) is reminiscent of match strategy. The effortless draws he finished the tournament with may not be fun for spectators but they are indicative of how well prepared Anand is for a match.
2. Kudos for the point that it was Kramnik who knocked the KID out of Kasparov's repertoire. Although it may not have been losses to Kramnik himself that did it, Kramnik was one of the major proponents of the Bayonet Attack (9 b4!) which led to the virtual abandonment of the opening by top class players. Moreover, 10 Re1!, after 9...Nh5, planning to meet ...Nf4 with 11 Bf1, was Kramnik's own innovation, and the real killing blow to the entire line for Black (temporarily).
3. Generally speaking, I think Anand's play has been stronger over the past two years (since Kramnik returned from hospital, so to speak). Kramnik is stunning in technical positions but has become a bit one dimensional since his match with Leko. He relies heavily on his positional abilities and chooses very ordinary continuations even when greater opportunities are available. He plays like Karpov circa late 1990's: Still profound, but without the profound confidence that Karpov had at, for instance, Linares 1994 (or that Kramnik had in 2000).
Very helpful to know billionares. Very good for undeserved opportunities.
And what's this about Anand having a poor "match style"?? "Match style" means the ability to draw games after getting a +1 lead. Anand can do that...he just drew out to win Linares. Now, Shirov and Moro, maybe not so good at match style. But Anand? His book is as deep as Kramnik's, he can play as solidly as Kramnik, so Anand has plenty of "Match Style".
I guess I can address the point of why Anand's style doesn't seem to be as suited for matches as Kramnik's. The main part of it is openings. In a match between top 2 players in the world these days, they are not playing to win with black - unless the guy with white screws up really badly - and that isn't likely to happen when the guy with white pieces is 2800-level player. So it is all about not losing with black. Kramnik has the openings repertoire that does just that - that is why Kramnik loses so rarely. Anand's repertoire, on the other hand, includes relatively sharp Sicilians and Semi-Slavs, which are good to have in tournaments because they will bring in some wins with black - not against Kramnik, but against people like Van Wely, Grischuk etc. But against Kramnik these sharp openings are not likely to bring in wins, but they will still be prone to be put into difficulties by the superb analysis of Kramnik. Kramnik was the reason Kasparov stopped playing the KID, like people have mentioned. Kramnik also made Kasparov become reluctant about going into another double edged opening - the Grunfeld. Leko has realized his Sicilians will not survive Kramnik's match preparation and completely changed his repertoire - and that is probably the main reason he had done as well as he did. But Leko had 2 years to revamp his repertoire for both white and black. Anand has less than a year.
So when I talk about the "match style" is not one's strategy when one goes up by 1 point in a match. It is about the types of openings one plays, and I think Anand's openings are perhaps too risky to rely on them in the world championship match - mainly because they are prone to possible strong improvements for white (see Topalov's idea Nxf7 in the Anti-Moscow, for example). Kramnik's openings, on the other hand, are rock-solid and the whole opening battle - if Anand doesn't make any drastic changes- will look very good for Kramnik. Anand will pretty much have to refute the Petroff - at least find some very strong ideas, while Kramnik will have the Semi-Slavs to work with, which are way more promising for white.
henry, again, thanks a lot for the Kasparov vs Kramnik record of wins.
"He is not a crushing type of a player."
Meaning his advantage in a match will be smaller and therefore more significantly reversed by a single loss.
"So perhaps it was more relevant to look at the data I suggested - namely, people who failed to win their first WC match and got to play the second one."
Korchnoi, Spassky and you also count Kasparov. Smyslov, Bogolubov, Chigorin if you include the players from before the match tournaments. I think the more you look at it, the less I see older more experienced match players having an edge. Geniuses don't come back for a win the second time, they triumph the first. Candidate cycle winners defeat more experienced and less experienced competitors as long as they are in top playing age.
"And it remains to be seen whether Anand can match Topalov's (or for that matter, Kramnik's) preparation. "
I think aside from 2000, opening preparation has not been a big factor in chess matches this century. Topalov got a couple of novelties in Elisa, but failed to capitalize on most of them and even lost with a couple, suggesting that perhaps opening novelties are no longer as devastating against experienced and top-level players as they were 10-20 years ago. Did Kramnik even show a novelty in Elista? I recall he was on disadvantage coming out of opening when anybody had an edge. Leko-Kramnik is beginning to fade from my mind...I am thinking one or two novelty by Leko and one under-preparation by Kramnik?
I don't think aside from 2000 Kramnik showed particularly strong preparation...I think they are about evenly matched as far as prep...I do think Kramnik is simply a slightly better player. And you make an interesting case for him having a better suited opening repertoire.
Bottom line though to me is the advantage is too small not to be negligible because of chance.
They will play for the win with black if they are down by 2 games in the match. They won't risk their neck but you won't see them go for .... Petroff? Berlin? whatever ID is drawish these days ... every time in that situation.
Interestingly, for all this talk of "only playing for the win with white", weren't 2 out of 5 decisive games in Elista won with black? And 2 out of 4 in Brissago?
1. Kramnik lost with white at Corus to Carlsen, and no one thinks Carlsen is a stronger player than Anand.
2. Anand has probably the strongest and most varied black repertoire of any player active today with the possible exception of Leko. He showed (Just at Linares)the Sicilian, the Caro Kann and the Semi-Slav, and we know from experience that the full Slav, Ruy, and QGA are all available to him. Just a few years ago he was considered invincible in the Slav. Kramnik's d4 and Reti are not likely to make an impression.
3. Anand had a winning position in Corus in the Petroff, if I recall correctly.
"Interestingly, for all this talk of "only playing for the win with white", weren't 2 out of 5 decisive games in Elista won with black? And 2 out of 4 in Brissago?".
I'd be surprised if Black won 2 games in the Kramnik-Anand match. Kramnik's opponents did lose their first game with white in both the 2004 and 2006 matches, but I wouldn't count on multiple black wins this time around. Another two were Topalov blundering horribly in the won position and Kramnik losing to Leko in computer analysis without making a single move on his own. Computers have gotten better since the Leko match :)
"1. Kramnik lost with white at Corus to Carlsen, and no one thinks Carlsen is a stronger player than Anand."
And that was like his first loss with white since the Topalov match. I guess we can expect Kramnik to lose another game with white sometime in the middle of 2009 :)
"2. Anand has probably the strongest and most varied black repertoire of any player active today with the possible exception of Leko. He showed (Just at Linares)the Sicilian, the Caro Kann and the Semi-Slav, and we know from experience that the full Slav, Ruy, and QGA are all available to him. Just a few years ago he was considered invincible in the Slav. Kramnik's d4 and Reti are not likely to make an impression." - Anand is a great e4 player with both colors, no doubt. But the Sicilian, the Caro Kann and the Ruy will probably not matter since Kramnik isn't likely to play 1.e4 at all. I don't know if Kramnik's d4 will make an impression, but he has had excellent results in the Catalan, including a win over Anand in Wijk 2007. And the Semi-Slav is no picnic either. Anand will have to make sure Topalov's Nxf7 idea doesn't work. Then he will have to make sure black's ok in the Nxd7 main line. And for all he knows, Kramnik will play the Meran, anyway :) Semi-Slav is a lot of work just to stay alive.
"3. Anand had a winning position in Corus in the Petroff, if I recall correctly." - only after Kramnik decided to show a little gamesmanship and declined a draw by repetition with black. That winning position relatively late in the game had little to do with the opening, I think.
I agree the Semi-Slav is a lot of work to stay alive, I only implied that Anand has done that work. I don't think Topalov's Nxf7 will have a very long shelf life. Just like Topalov's 4 Nxf7 in the Petroff ;).
I also agree that the winning position Anand acquired in Wijk wasn't really a matter of preparation. But I don't think that means any less for WC purposes. I believe Anand acquired a "promising" position a pawn down for an attack in that game, and that bodes well for preparation against the Petroff. It is notable that Anand played the fashionable line with Queenside castling, which to my knowledge is not his main line against the Petroff.
Amusing how some of you guys finally see what everyone has seen for a year and a half - that Carlsen is likely to become the dominant player of his time.
To the person who said 2870 will be standard and that ratings increase 20-30 points per decade, please do check your math. 2803 + 20 + 30 + 20 = 2873. Noone expects Carlsen to peak this late. :)
While this method of assessing Anand's chances against Kramnik by looking at his score with Kasparov may have its adherents, I'd like to check the head-to-head record of the two contestants themselves.
Chessgames gives Overall record: Viswanathan Anand beat Vladimir Kramnik 18 to 15, with 92 draws. Is this accurate?
Anand comes first alphabetically so of course he'll come first in the match! Since everyone has some kind of bizarre method of predicting the winner I'll go with whoever wins the blindfold game they're playing right now :D
blindfold game drawn without much ado.
"I'd be surprised if Black won 2 games in the Kramnik-Anand match."
I was also surprised that Black won 2 games in Kramnik-Leko and Kramnik-Topalov. Recent empirical evidence does not support the statement that in world championship matches the players only go for the win with White, 4 out of 9 wins were with Black. Match situation and on-board position matters a lot more.
"While this method of assessing Anand's chances against Kramnik by looking at his score with Kasparov may have its adherents, I'd like to check the head-to-head record of the two contestants themselves.
Chessgames gives Overall record: Viswanathan Anand beat Vladimir Kramnik 18 to 15, with 92 draws. Is this accurate?"
It may be accurate, but Kramnik leads the classical games between the two by the score of +6-4, I think.
"I was also surprised that Black won 2 games in Kramnik-Leko and Kramnik-Topalov. Recent empirical evidence does not support the statement that in world championship matches the players only go for the win with White, 4 out of 9 wins were with Black. Match situation and on-board position matters a lot more."
- Just because black got some wins doesn't mean people with black played for a win. Leko and Kramnik don't usually play for a win with black even against the weaker people, let alone in the WC match. Kramnik did play for a win in game 13 of the Leko match, but that was an exception (he was losing a match with 2 games to go) and he didn't win, anyway. And for all their reputation that Topalov and Kasparov have as people who play for a win with both colors, they also played for a draw first when they had black against Kramnik, except for maybe a game of Kasparov where he was becoming really desperate. And since Anand is much less of a "play with black to win" kind of a guy - at least against the very top players- than Kasparov or Topalov, it is not unreasonable to expect black to most play for a draw in this match. At least, until one side got really desperate.
Woo! did anyone see Kramnik-Anand?! a great finish!
all the Kramnik fanboys who say he's the favorite against Anand should go to check todays game: fantastic Qf3!! by Anand with checkmate. Kramnik didn't see THAT coming.
---
all the Kramnik fanboys who say he's the favorite against Anand should go to check todays game: fantastic Qf3!! by Anand with checkmate. Kramnik didn't see THAT coming.
Posted by: Jean at March 15, 2008 13:50
---
I know it's not worth bothering to respond to posts of that caliber... but anyway.
Qf3 was very nice. Kramnik may well have seen it coming, but only when he had a lost position anyway.
Anand having the edge in blitz isn't news - and neither is Kramnik tending to have an edge at classical time limits (and at blindfold, for that matter).
Whats scary is Anand's speed! There was a slight hesitation (probably to double check) before embarking on the whole Qf3 idea but thats it.
btw -Its not blitz, its rapid - 25 min with increments of 20 seconds.
the scary thing is Anand had to see Qf3!! quite many moves before.
People have posted two versions of what is scary about Anand. I got another one:
The scary thing is that Kramnik is maybe the second best rapid player in the world.
Anyway, today is a good reason why Kramnik should really try to win the Bonn match in the classical part.
Even last years matchup was spectacular, Anand sacrificing a rook and a bishop but ultimately failing to spot the win against Kramnik. reboot the intel Grandprix anyone?
Anand just burst the Kramnik bubble. He must have seen the mating net when he offered up the a7 pawn and the just-in-case repetition in Qxf4, Rh1+ etc. This game just proves no one EVER played chess is close to Anand in terms of chess talent!
It doesn't matter rapid or regular. You do your work in unfamiliar OTB positions in half the time or less of your opponent. And still your opponent get credit for being the best?? Sounds ridiculous isn't? Or else, make chess complicated so you can clearly make out the difference. Incredibly fast calculations and brilliant finish by Anand!
Here is my analysis on ninja board.
http://www.chessninja.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=001714
"...burst the Kramnik bubble". Kramnik himself has said, that Anand is the best rapid player in the world. This doesn´t change that. But anyway, this is significant, because if Anand plays like this he has the draw odds.
...Qf3! was very nice. Last week, I put a position up that is similar. It was a 3-minute ICC game between IMs Simutowe and Roussel-Roozman. Simutowe found Qf6! in a mirrored theme.
Check it out!
http://www.thechessdrum.net/blog/?p=192
Today's win by Anand has brought forward an interesting point. It will be a very risky for Kramnik to keep drawing in the upcoming match because the rapids are more likely to see Anand stronger. Now once Kramnik has to take a few chances to avoid tiebreaks, he might have to step into the marsh and fight a muddy fight. Unless he is vastly superior than Anand in classical chess, this would be an unwelcome tactic as it would require him to play sharper and more double-edged chess.
More knowledgeable kibitzers have noted that his strategy in Kasparov match was to create situations where Kasparov was not very comfortable. I guess if he tries the same vs Anand, plays Petrovs and Berlins, draws games and ends up in a rapid-play tie breaks, he will have to fight Anand at skill that is Anand's forte.
On the other hand, if he plays like Gods and wins positional battles in relatively quite games too, well then you got to admit that he will have his mettle proved.
I guess we might as well expect Anand to draw all games and enter rapid tiebreaks where he might feel at advantage. Too bad they don't include blindfold in tiebreaks, or may be Kramnik will demand that after a few more results like todays', lol!
from the offical bulletin:
And so, today at two thirty in the afternoon the first round of the seventeenth Amber tournament got underway, which immediately saw a special pairing (well, obviously any round here will inevitably have attractive pairings) as the World Champion faced the challenger he will play in a match later this year in Bonn (and most probably they won’t meet again before that date).
Vishy Anand and Vladimir Kramnik played a Petroff with the fashionable 5.Nc3 line in the blindfold game with which they started. In the words of Kramnik, his opponent chose ‘a rather innocent line. For a while they followed a recent encounter between Karjakin and Gelfand, until Kramnik deviated with 15...Bf6 (Gelfand exchanged queens on d5). White kept a tiny plus, but Black’s counterplay with Ng7 and Re4 sufficed to equalize. On move 23 Anand offered a draw and after a brief thought Kramnik accepted, satisfied with the outcome. As he put it with a smile to the future: ‘If he wants to refute this line he’ll have to find something more serious.’ There was no post-mortem, but in the analysis room they together amicably looked at an endgame that John Nunn showed them.
They also analyzed extensively in a friendly after the rapid game, even if Kramnik lost spectacularly with the white pieces. In a Queen’s Indian that quickly took on the characteristics of a Dutch Defence, both players were building up their forces behind their pawns, waiting for the right moment to act. According to Anand, his opponent ‘drifted too long on the queenside’ in this phase and once he got his attack going it soon took on devastating force. The World Champion crowned his attack with the marvellous 42...Qf3!!, which allowed White to take a piece and queen a pawn, but left him defenceless against Black’s mating threat. As one kibitzing grandmaster remarked, ‘Have we already seen the most brilliant game of the tournament right on the first day?’ Well, let’s say, there’s still ‘some’ games to go.
zombre, I am saying "Anand is the best chess player ever" and you are saying Kramnik says "Anand is the best rapid chess player". This is like when I say "X is a national champion" and Kramnik comes and says "X is a state champion!" while Kramnik himself being a zonal champion (Lets assume a zone consists of a few states.).
Just two:
1) PircAlert - the fact that Anand's the fastest player around (though I wonder how Carlsen compares) doesn't necessarily translate into his being the most talented. Imagine a poor chess engine from a few years back that plays at, say, 2400. At quick time controls it may still be almost unbeatable, but that doesn't make it as "talented" as a 2800 player.
If you want to argue about pure chess talent then you could make an argument for blindfold play being at least as good an indicator.
2) Even if Anand has the edge at rapid play it's not a huge edge (they're both very strong, & often got to finals together as far as I recall). If it comes to a play-off in the World Championship then Kramnik's proven ability to play under immense pressure might come into it(the way he won classical games when he had to against Leko and Topalov, and then won the play-off with Topalov).
Anyway, there's no point overreacting to any individual games. All that's certain is Anand and Kramnik are hugely talented and the match could go either way.
"More knowledgeable kibitzers have noted that his strategy in Kasparov match was to create situations where Kasparov was not very comfortable. I guess if he tries the same vs Anand, plays Petrovs and Berlins, draws games and ends up in a rapid-play tie breaks, he will have to fight Anand at skill that is Anand's forte."
To beat Kasparov did not require Kramnik just to play Berlin. He refuted Kasparov´s Grünfeld in the second game.
mishanp,
Imagine I memorize all necessary lines for tic-tac-toe or some simple game and I draw all the time with a computer and occasionally I beat the computer by forfeit when the power goes off. Can I claim I am equally or better talented than the computer?
"- Just because black got some wins doesn't mean people with black played for a win. "
This is where it gets tricky because one interpretation of "black plays for the win" is "black will choose an opening that is likely to result in combative-advantageous position" and another is "black will try to win if he has an advantage". I agree that every player has a more conservative repertoire with black than with white. However, given an on-board position where black seems to have an advantage, such as Game 8 of Kramnik-Leko, or a situation where black needs to win, such as Game 13 of the same match, the color of the pieces stops to matter. Similarly having white pieces will not result in a player pushing for the win if he doesn't have an advantage. The repeated phrasing of "black is unlikely to play for a win" makes it seem like the GMs take a pass on this color--they don't, they simply play more defensively, and are often more dependent on the other player in opening choice.
I can just picture the smile on Mr Von Oosterom face after Anand's brilliant win today. The guy is wealthy, loves chess, sponsors the most prestigious event in the chess calendar, and gets rewarded with such a beatiful game in the very first round!
How nice of Anand to demonstrate his talent almost immediately after I had expended considerable energy trying to explain that he possesses an enormous amount of it! What a game!
Yep, d_tal, because none of us thought that Anand has an enormous amount of talent or is a phenomenal rapid player :)
well speak for yourself mishanp; I guess you at least stand corrected now.
Just to emphasise how closely matched Anand and Kramnik are. Their Melody Amber results are:
Rapidplay wins: Anand - 8, Kramnik - 3
Blindfold wins: Anand - 4, Kramnik - 6
Overall wins: Anand - 5, Kramnik - 6
d_tal, you may want to have a quick look at the definition of irony, or at least sarcasm.
mishanp, I think first you need to check the meaning of irony yourself, because you missed it in my first post to which you responded, and secondly the meaning of sarcasm, because you missed it in my second post. ROFL.
I'll give you the second one, but good luck finding a definition of irony that supports your first post.
mishanp, I think the problem is your understanding of irony, not mine. Since you're struggling, I'll give you a clue. The irony is in the incongruity of what I'm saying; i.e. Anand obviously did not consider anything I said in playing his masterpiece, as implied by my post. Clearly an attempt at an ironically humorous post. I say "attempt", because one man's humour is another man's yawn. However you cannot deny the irony.
Jesus Christ, when you have to go to the dictionary to track down irony, I think you can assume the point didn't get across. Nothing sadder to see.
I think Topalov missed 29 Qe5 against Moro, when Nf3 or Nc6 protects the b2 mate.
Vishy had about 20minutes left at the end of the rapid game with Mamedyarov!
Topalov got his revenge in the rapid, very nice game. Poor old Leko got hammered as white by Kramnik. The Vish seemed to win so easily, he's really in form. That Qf3 from the first round is reminiscent of many Tal brilliancies. Really hope he keeps his mojo up till the match.
Qf3 is a fairly simple move. I am sure Kramnik realized he was in trouble, but just wanted to let it get played out. Of course Anand may have seen it 5 moves back or so.
Maybe the irony lies in the fact that explaining why the attempt at humour was ironic removed any humour from the post? :)
"Qf3 is a fairly simple move." Well for a super GM, I think I have to agree. The combinational motif is probably fairly straightforward. Still, a very pleasing effect, and I suspect that Kramnik saw it too late.
Anybody else impressed by Topalov's rapid effort against Moro? I liked the way he held down Black's rook to defense on the Q side, and just played at will on the K-side. He plays these kinds of positions really well. I recall the rapid victpry against Kramnik in their match.
Kramnik probably saw it but was very low on time at the end so must have played on hoping that Vishy might miss it.
For what's worth ( i.e. not very much ), although I'm a huge Vishy fan I think Kramnik will win with + 1 = 11. My reasoning is that if Vishy has a flaw, it is that he hates defending passive, slightly inferior positions, and doesn't have the patience to sit them out. I'm sure that in one of Kramnik's white games he's going to get such a position and exploit it - no-one since Karpov is better at winning technically drawn endings !
"My reasoning is that if Vishy has a flaw, it is that he hates defending passive, slightly inferior positions, and doesn't have the patience to sit them out."
I would say one of Vishy's true strengths is that he is a brilliant defender of inferior positions. He manages to find some resource more often than not to gain activity, and squeezes out some amazing draws.
"Maybe the irony lies in the fact that explaining why the attempt at humour was ironic removed any humour from the post? :)"
To me, far more ironic was somebody trying to appear sophisticated and knowledgable about the use of irony, and not understanding it himself. :-) The phrase "physician heal thyself" comes to mind.
d_tal,
You might want to bear in mind that the fact that someone decides life is too short to respond to your posts doesn't equate to them agreeing with you :)
mishanp, you might bear in mind that a fact can be proven or disproven without your agreement. Life is too short to try and convince you of the obvious :-)
That's the point, though. You can't "prove" your comment was intended to be ironic rather than a simple gloat that "it's great that Anand's play showed I was right to claim he was talented". [either way it was idiotic given that everyone on this thread acknowledges Anand as supremely talented]
You can no more prove that the "What a game!" comment that follows ISN'T ironic. Hence the pointlessness of the discussion.
Possibly the irony lies in the fact that although explaining the irony should take the humour away, this has gone so far that it's now funny again!
"[either way it was idiotic given that everyone on this thread acknowledges Anand as supremely talented]" You cant PROVE that mishanp, for example in my opinion you're the idiot, a supreme idiot! :-) Incidentally, its amazing how so many people speak for others ("..given that everyone on this thread..").
Irony on the other hand can be understood by somebody sufficiently versed in the language (note the qualification).
Mig,
Please post a new item, this one has devolved to the point that the monkeys are flinging poo again.
Any word on why (if) Topalov lost the blind to Vishy?
and the official site does not seem to have this topalov-anand game that was today..anybody know where i can find?
Go to the Archived games list, it should be there.
What's up with Van Wely-Ivanchuk blind? Looks like someone didn't show up to the table.
This is pure conjecture, but the two issues may be related. Perhaps there was a problem with the hardware/software at the Topalov-Anand table and it wasn't fixed in time for the Van Wely-Ivanchuk game.
The Anand-Topalov game is indeed very strange. At the 'final position', Topalov seems to have an extra pawn in a dead-draw opposite color bishop ending. Impossible to loose (even) for Topalov... Anyone knows what happened...?
http://xkcd.com/386/
A handy safety tip for mishanp and d_tal.
It is entirely possible (given that this is Melody Amber, especially), that Kramnik saw ...Qf3!, realized he was lost and had no way to avoid it, and played into the position for teh sake of the spectators rather than resigning immediately. Amber doesn't affect ratings so the elite tend to let their hair down a bit and enjoy themselves. The QID is getting faddish at this point, and Anand winning against Kramnik isn't likely to help.
I think Anand would be happier to play the QID against Kramnik compared to either Catalan or Semi-Slav.
But it is possible Kramnik will use a different move order and after 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 he may play 3. g3 and force it towards the Catalan, like he did in Wijk 2007. I'd be surprised if we saw a lot of Queens Indian in the Bonn match.
Anand can avoid such problems by just playing 2...c6, as he has frequently in the past to reach Slav and Semi-Slav structures.
Thinking about this now is sort of silly, however, since this summer will see a complete reinvention of opening preparation by both players. Kramnik will come up with a new line against 1. e4 which is most likely even more insipid than the Berlin, and Anand will find a way to reach equality in the Catalan reliably (or avoid it reliably).
I expect Kramnik to open 1. d4 to avoid the more unbalanced options against 1. Nf3, but what do I know.
When I replayed today's Kramnik - Mamedyarov I mistakenly thought I was still looking at the blindfold games. Jeez.
ps: And I wish the "Posted by:..." tag was at the _top_ of the post sometimes.
pps: >> http://xkcd.com/386/ is missing a panel saying "-> it might be you!" ;)
Btw, that Randall dude is into chess as well, see: http://xkcd.com/chesscoaster/
"Mig,
Please post a new item, this one has devolved to the point that the monkeys are flinging poo again.
Posted by: Zinger at March 17, 2008 11:12 "
ROTFLMAO! That's got to be the funniest blog I ever read... Can't stop crying... LOL!
For all those who support Kramnik in this blog or in any other forum discussion on the net elsewhere let me point out that you are taking part in a losing battle when any chess discussion on the net has the name 'Anand' on it.
Vishy Anand has the biggest internet fan base of any player in Chess History and because of the large numbers of his supporters any anti-Anand sentiment will be drowned by the collective voice of these numbers.
Vishy Anand ill win 98% of all chess polls on the internet he is involved in (just go check out the Chess Ninja poll in international event and you will find that he currently has a very long 'winning' streak.
Kramnik may be objectively slightly stronger than Anand, but that is a fact that will have to be proven on the board because off the Board, Anand wins hands down....
Mehul, who cares who wins "off the board"? Popularity doesn't win titles.
Hotep,
Maliq
Maliq is right.
"Vishy Anand ill win 98% of all chess polls on the internet he is involved in (just go check out the Chess Ninja poll in international event and you will find that he currently has a very long 'winning' streak. "
Well, it just goes to show the correctness of a claim that 99.3% of all stats is made up.
First of all, I am not so sure Anand has a bigger fan base. Just because there are a lot of people in India doesn't mean he has more fans than Topalov or Kramnik or Morozevich. Former USSR may only have one fourth of the population of India, but I imagine the popularity of chess in India is only a fraction of that in the Eastern Europe.
Anand does indeed win some polls (often quite unreasonably) on ChessNinja, but I wouldn't take ChessNinja forum as a represantative sample of the chess world. It is an English language forum, which makes it a little Anand-biased by definition, given the relative proficiency of the Indians in the English language, compared to the Eastern Europeans.
And like Maliq said, the popularity is really irrelevant. What is important is what happens on the board.
Kramnik crushed Moro in a very impressive blind game. Played a long combination at the end of which he won a pawn, and had the 2 Bs. Didn't look back...
Russianbear, there's no doubt that the ChessNinja blog readers is a biased sample. But it's not Indians' general proficiency in English that makes Anand so popular on English-language forums. Anand is a great guy with a pleasant personality, and he plays interesting chess. And there are several top Eastern European players who are wonderful people who play interesting chess. But one thing that helps Anand's popularity is that he is not a product of the ex-Soviet chess machine. Americans love outsider/underdog stories. And that contributes to Carlsen's popularity too. Judit Polgar's chess is just a shade below the top, but if she make a serious run, she'll be wildly popular as an outsider. Eastern European, yes, but she's the only woman anywhere near the top.
wow, check out the Q sac by the Chukster!!
Who said Anand is the fastest player?
Against Kasparov, in rapid & blitz games, Anand's score is only 5-12=13. It's not even close to equal. In fact, he didn't even win half as he lost.
In case you think that's only when he was young and inexeperienced, well since 2000 his score is still lost 0-3=8 in fast games.
Since 2000, Anand did not win any single game against Kasparov. In any time control.
It is interesting that Anand once said (sorry I forgot where, but I remember he said it) that even when he thinks longer, the best move he finds is still the same one he finds quickly.
If that's true in general, his strength (or talent, if you want to call it that) in speed chess does not scale up. He might be able to find great moves quickly, but given more time other very strong (top 5 level) players will see it as well and get to the same level, while Anand does not improve much in the meantime.
I mentioned Anand's comment somewhere in this thread, I think, but it's from the pre-Linares interview: http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/2008/02/anand_interview_in_mexico.htm
As you say it's a fascinating comment, if true.
That doesn't explain great player's ducking. You play more games for whatever reasons and you expose yourself. I don't measure talent by time control or results achieved. You reach a minus position or unfamiliar position and how you perform afterwards is what matters. Anything you win from opening by novelties prepared by others, you can just scrap for talent comparison.
There is a great contrast between today's Leko's win and Anand's win the other day against Kramnik. IMO, Anand calculations are far superior and much faster in complicated positions compared to that of any player ever lived.
"Kramnik may be objectively slightly stronger than Anand, but that is a fact that will have to be proven on the board because off the Board, Anand wins hands down..."
I'm curious: what does "objectively" mean here? Surely the only proof of chess strength is how one does on the board.
A lot of things can be called "talent". The ability to do intensive preparation and work together with others also require talent.
For me, talent in humans is measured by result.
By the way, if Anand's calculations is faster than anybody, how come he lost 5-12 in fast games against Kasparov? His wins are not even half of Kasparov. And that's in fast games.
Henry,
I think you have a flawed logic. Kasparov had the luxury to sit and prepare for Anand and a few others. Anand has to prepare for a whole lot of others too. Anand played more. So results alone won't show the entire picture. Also, if results between the individual is what matters most, it would be the first criteria in tie breaks. Obviously not.
Kasparov also said in an interview something like he would never start a fight with someone he would be able to overcome?? So we don't know.
it should read "wouldn't be able to".
Monkey Poo!! This blog is covered in Monkey Poo!!
PircAlert,
1. What makes you think Anand plays more? Except in the last 2-3 years of his career, Kasparov's average number of games per year is about the same as Anand's. Both played around 45 games per year, Anand played a little more but the difference is only 2-3 games per year. And during his most active years (around 1985 - 1995) Kasparov's average number of games played per year was higher, about 50 games per year, higher than Anand's average per year in his career. And still, Kasparov produced results better than Anand in almost every tournament they played together. And I don't need to remind you about the record between them :-).
So forget about the argument that Anand plays more.
2. Yes, long term results between individuals is a significant measure of their overall comparative strength, as long as it covers a large number of games. Of course it is not used in individual tournaments, because there might be a surprise for that specific case. But notice I use the keyword "overall", not case by case per tournament. For overall comparison between 2 players, there's only 2 measures: the overall score between them, and their overall score against others. In both respects, Anand is by far not comparable to Kasparov.
3. What makes you think Anand calculates better in complicated positions? In what sense is he better than Fischer? Kasparov? Or even Alekhine?
4. What makes you think Anand calculates fastest? Faster than Capablanca? Than Kasparov? He has negative overall score against Kasparov in fast games, so at least Kasparov plays as fast, and with better results.
5. Why is talent measured only in complicated positions? What about talent in handling quiet positions? I can think of several players who probably have better talent than Anand in this respect. Karpov, Capablanca, Petrosian, and yes even Kramnik probably.
6. And yes, pre-game preparations is part of talent as well. And even Anand relies on that.
Anand is a great player. But whether he is best (or most talented) in history in some aspects can be doubted. Even in fast games, supposedly his biggest talent, in which he is indeed outstanding, I doubt he is the best in history. He has a negative score against Kasparov even in fast chess.
anand is not the best in anything in history....he was kaspys hand puppet throughout his career, give me a break he has not even won one championship match...Kaspy could whip him anytime he wanted..LOL u r a joke
anand is not the best in anything in history....he was kaspys hand puppet throughout his career, give me a break he has not even won one championship match...Kaspy could whip him anytime he wanted..LOL u r a joke
anand is not the best in anything in history....he was kaspys hand puppet throughout his career, give me a break he has not even won one championship match...Kaspy could whip him anytime he wanted..LOL u r a joke
anand is not the best in anything in history....he was kaspys hand puppet throughout his career, give me a break he has not even won one championship match...Kaspy could whip him anytime he wanted..LOL u r a joke
comparing Anand to Kaspy..LOL...compare pintos to Ferraris...you would be closer..Anand is his hand puppet...what fools post here
Don't worry, PircAlert was joking. It is a running gag between me and him. He pretends Anand can be compared to Kasparov and I pretend to not believe in gravity.
If Anand wins convincingly in the fall, we'll need to start comparing. If he beats Topalov later on, we'll need to use numbers to prove our way out of the comparison.
Too bad Anand never got another match with Kasparov. We all missed out in 2000 when Anand said no (due to FIDE contracts).
Hmm..yes i agree..kasparov was a better player compared to anand..kasparov is a legend as anand himself says..but in the post kasparov era, i am pretty confident that anand is the best player..way ahead than kramnik in rapids and maybe in classic its tough to say..the bonn match this year may be the test grounds :)
>Why is it called the "daily" dirt and then not updated for a week?
If you are so concerned about "daily" then why in the earth are you reading dirt?
Posted by: raindeer at March 10, 2008 15:35
>>
If it's not Daily, how can we be sure it's Dirty? It could be like Grape Nuts (Not Grape, Not Nuts).
Comprehensive and Intelligent!
Really enjoy your work..
Thomas.
Does'nt Kamsky have wins over Anand and Kramnik in match play??
Let's be fair.
Kamsky beat Anand in Sanghi Nagar on the way to his collapse against Karpov; he lost the return match in the next cycle. I think Kramnik was about twelve when he lost a match to Kamsky.
I don't think there's any serious argument that Kamsky is in the same class now. Kramnik and Anand have improved by light years, and Kamsky is just clawing his way into the top 20.
The only player playing at the level of Kramnik and Anand right now is Aronian.
Monkey Poo! Monkey Poo!