Kazan Candidates 2011 R2

Well, Shipov's audience is primarily Russian, and there is one semifinal with two Russians in it, and another with no Russians in it...hmm. I'm guessing that these next 4 days the "audience voting" will ensure that no coverage of Gelfand-Kamsky is made.

Of course, if Grischuk playing white offers a draw after 16 moves, that's Kramnik's fault. Does Grischuk - like Radjabov - consider the classical games just a prelude to the tiebreak where his chances are supposedly better?

On Shipov's coverage and the vote from the primarily Russian audience: All that needs to be done is find an American or Israeli GM who is willing and able to provide similar standards of live commentary (and maybe someone to translate it from Hebrew into English). Well, that's easier said than done - IMHO Susan Polgar isn't really up to the challenge.

But it should be known by most people that if Grischuk gets a chance to take a toothless draw, he will (i.e. his 2 whites against Aronian). That's why Gelfand-Kamsky should have been covered instead. And even though today wasn't his fault, there's a reason why Vladdy has the nickname "Drawnik"; its not as though he played inspired chess against Radjabov either.

Actually the voting was close when I last checked - something like 40:30 - and that was when people thought Kramnik was playing White. In some earlier rounds e.g. Radjabov - Kramnik got almost no votes - so I think the voters, who include Russian-speakers from Bulgaria, Azerbaijan, Israel and so on, and so on, are mainly interested in the chess and not a patriotic victory!

On Shipov not switching games - he needs something to talk about in his video (!), and also at least from my point of view today's game was very hard work! Always trying to catch-up with the play...

Fair points, mishanp. Once again, thank you SO MUCH for all the hard work you do in translating everything...it adds so much for the chess fan. For the record, I think that Kramnik being white tomorrow should probably ensure that his game would be preferrable to cover, but after that, Gelfand-Kamsky should get centerstage.

You can never predict beforehand what will happen in a game. BTW, I guess nothing prevents you or anyone else from voting at the Crestbook site (the poll isn't limited to Russian IP addresses).

The reason why Kramnik got the nickname "Drawnik" goes back a few years - basically the period between his first and fourth WCh match against Kasparov and Anand, respectively. The reason why he still has such a nickname ... essentially because people like you keep mentioning it and may not have realized that his style has changed. But it takes two for action on the board - and Radjabov's strategy (at this and several earlier occasion) was to survive the classical games and look for chances in the tiebreak.

You are probably more familiar with Kramnik's history than I am, so here is my understanding of the development of his style -- please correct me where I am inaccurate.

Kramnik started out (as a junior) as an extremely tactical and dynamic player (the Stonewall Dutch was a staple in his repertoire), and then gradually became more and more positional. During the 1990s, he gained the reputation of "Drawnik" b/c of his focus on not losing, rather than playing to win -- which culminated in his long non-losing streak in the late 1990s and then of course his match against the GOAT in 2000 (although Shirov handled him in the 1998 Candidates match, as we all know) where he won twice (and could have easily won an additional two games) and failed to lose against Kasparov over their 15 games.

After becoming champion, Kramnik played even more conservatively, and only changed his style after Anand thrashed him in the 08 match...which resulted in his great 09 season. His style as it presently stands is actually fairly enjoyable to watch (plus his change in personality from being reclusive/standoffish to being enjoyable/entertaining for the chess media and fans), but I don't buy that he will continue in this fashion...if he ever becomes World Champion again, he will revert back to Drawnik fashion and obstructionist politics in order to do whatever it takes to keep the crown.

You are a joke. You know nothing about chess. Go and troll somewhere else.

This should rather be "Grischuk, stop offering draws with white" - he (not Kramnik) released the tension with 16.de6: accompanied by a draw offer. Maybe he was put off by Kramnik's quick play, but can we blame Kramnik (and his seconds) for doing their homework??

As to Kamsky-Gelfand, IMO it was a longer but not too eventful or enjoyable draw. I am pretty sure that if that one had been played between Kramnik and Grischuk, you and others would also comment "Drawnik, boooooring" .... .

I am not that familiar either with Kramnik's entire career ... . While changes in style tend to be gradual rather than abrupt, I would say his solid, positional, arguably boring and drawish phase started during and after his match against Kasparov, rather than long before. Another story is that positional squeezes and refined endgame play can be impressive and mean a lot in terms of chess understanding, but are somewhat under-appreciated by many chess fans as well as journalists. BTW, the following boring Catalan (1-0, 27) is from Mexico 2007:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1472877

If opening choices mean something:
- true, he abandoned the Dutch when he turned about 20. This might simply indicate that it's less promising and more risky against stronger opponents. I know Nakamura plays it with quite good results, but he's the only one from the current world top - otherwise, only some respectable subtop GMs like Glek and Dutchman(!) Nijboer seem to play it regularly.
- he played the Sicilian with either color (i.e. also 1.e4 with white) until about 2005.

As to "change in personality": if that's even true it might rather have non-chessic reasons such as changes in his private life (marriage and fatherhood) and, somewhat related, becoming more fluent and at ease with speaking English. This wouldn't change if he regains the WCh title - which may or may not happen.

1) You are right. Grishchuk is heavily at fault here. But that does not absolve Drawnik from making a joke out of chess by his play against Radjabov. Regardless of the contestants or venue, a 16 move draw is just ridiculous.

2)I have to disagree regarding Kamsky-Gelfand. How can a Najdorf be boring? The queen-side action was pretty intense for normal spectators like myself.

"So Carlsen's problem with matches has hardly to do with the number of games. It has to do with the matches themselves. Basis his reasoning, he wont participate even if the matches were 12 games long."

He participated in a qualification cycle that was to end with an 8 game Candidates final. The rule change during ongoing competition that substituted this with a minimatch knockout was what made him withdraw, but it does seem as if his preferred system for the World Championship is a double round robin like Mexico. But that doesn't mean that he won't participate in other formats.

Don't know about you, but I thoroughly enjoy being an internet tough-guy. :)

No gg, you are wrong. Go back and read Carlsens letter again. The Candidates format is nothing more than a sidenote.
His reasons for pulling out was current Championship privileges.
He does not believe that there should exist such a thing as determining a Candidate at all.
His idea of WCH is top 10 player tournament.

Why try to paint credibility on Carlsen by sighting the 'shortcomings' of the Candidates matches. It just does not hold water.

No one in their right mind is going to believe anything you say about Magnus, George the Creep.
You burned your cred bridge a month ago with your creepy remarks. There's no turning back now.

1) How did Kramnik "make a joke out of chess" in his match against Radjabov? I will just discuss the classical games:
Maybe the Lasker variation with black is a joke, but then Carlsen, Anand and Nakamura were also joking - they all played it at classical time control against strong opposition.
With white Kramnik tried to win for many, maybe too many moves in his first game.

And Shipov wrote the following about the second game (thanks as always to mishanp for his English translation): "“Their [both players] play’s amazingly clean and accurate, but it’s well-known that with clean and accurate play you get a draw.” He said Kramnik was always exactly one tempo short of a big advantage."
Shipov's chess understanding is presumably better than yours and mine - "clean and accurate play" might not be crowd-pleasing, it certainly isn't just a joke.

At the other end of the spectrum, did Topalov made a joke out of chess when, and how he lost against Kamsky? He played a coffehouse-style novelty and didn't understand the resulting position at all ... . That game was crowd-pleasing, though, particularly for Kamsky's fans.

2) There are Najdorfs and Najdorfs ... . This particular line is known to be rather harmless, and the players followed previous games until move 21 (of course as a spectator, it might help if one is blissfully unaware of this). BTW, some Najdorfs with spectacular sacrifices followed up by perpetual check still don't mean anything for the players' creativity, it might just be established theory ... .

[quote]Shipov's chess understanding is presumably better than yours and mine - "clean and accurate play" might not be crowd-pleasing, it certainly isn't just a joke.[unquote]

Thomas,

"Clean and accurate" does that mean anything? I guess not. I will explain how.

Haven't you seen some kids rattle out opening moves cleanly and accurately from memory? Then there come a phase where you need to think and play where they fall short.

Just extend this bit more for the whole game. You are sort of familiar with the whole game and you played it "clean and accurate". Whereas in Topalovian games, you are pulled into unfamiliar territory and your game becomes "unclean and inaccurate". Now what is the point of getting a satisfaction out of your less calculating skill required and more from memory "clean and accurate" when you needed to show your skills in an "unclean and inaccurate" games?!!

I think even untitled players can produce a "clean and accurate" game sometimes!

Thomas, I agree with you on Kramnik. But note that Shipov gave the "coffehouse-style novelty" 9.0-0-0 from the second game Topalov - Kamsky a ! and says, this is a serious novelty that might give White an advantage. He strongly recommends 12.Kb1 instead of 12.h4 to renew the e4 threat.

I tend not to hold it against a player, if he has the Black pieces, and his opponent, as White, offers him a Quick Draw. The onus is on White to make the game a real fight. If for nothing else than pride, the player with White should keep the game going for a few dozen moves.

Kramnik certainly adheres to the school of Chess thought that has been around since Botvinnik: Press with the White Pieces for a win; equalize with Black, and be satisfied with a Draw. If you can force a short Draw when black, all the better....

Nobody is going to confuse Kramnik with a Maximalist. Beyond temperament, there are still some questions about his stamina and overall health. If Grischuk is obliging enough to offer an easy half-point, and extra hours to prepare with White, it's not for me to condemn Kramnik.

That said, if Kramnik doesn't do much with his 2 "Classical" Whites, and loses out in the Rapid or Blitz lottery phase to Grischuk, he won't have my sympathy.

Carlsen said his preferred format was a double round robin, but he pulled out for many reasons, the most important obviously being the rule changes. He played under the regulations as they were when the cycle started, with a Candidates match followed by a title match, and never had any complaints about that but was upset when this system disappeared. It's not his preferred format, but turning that into Carlsen stating that he'll never play matches is another thing.

It's one thing to play a few "clean and accurate" moves, even as many as 25, reproducing existing theory that you have memorized. It's another thing to play clean and accurate moves for the whole game creating opening theory. Here it's irrelevant whether they produced theory over the board (unlikely) or, together with their seconds, already before the game started.

I merely wouldn't call the game "just a joke" - and if it was a joke, it isn't Kramnik's or Radjabov's (or - referring to yesterday - Grischuk's) fault. Instead we would have to blame Rybka, Houdini and colleagues.

Some time ago on this forum I suggested to ban computers, i.e. engine assistance would be cheating no matter when it happens, during but also before a game. I was obviously joking, now Kramnik made the same suggestion in the press conference (also in jest) ... .

That's why I wrote (after editing) "coffeehouse-style" rather than just "coffeehouse". But bear in mind that Shipov's commentary was live, he might not dare to put ? or ?! behind 9.0-0-0 even if that would be the correct evaluation - we need more games to reach such a conclusion.

I criticize Topalov not for pulling the opponent into unfamiliar theory, but because the position was about as unfamiliar to him while he played the novelty and should have done some home analysis. Either he/they missed something soon after the novelty (10.-Bh6+!?) or the preparation wasn't THAT deep, more like "this looks interesting and will be a shocker for Kamsky, I will find the rest over the board". This might work in rapid or blitz, or at a lower Elo level, but not at the candidates event.

Are there other high-level games where white played an "interesting" novelty followed by a relatively quick and seemingly straightforward win for black? One game of the Kramnik-Leko match comes to my mind (some differences: here Kramnik's novelty in the Marshall was obviously bad), maybe also the well-known Mamedyarov-Kurnosov game from Aeroflot Open.

Its one thing to have an idea, its another to be able to make it a reality. Kasparov had many great ideas once he split from FIDE, but never had the ability to win the financial support to sustain them, which is why he ultimately had to come crawling back to FIDE with his tail between his legs, eventually calling his departure from FIDE the worst mistake of his career.

I am thankful that we actually have a real Candidates tournament in action, not just in theory. The whining on this board about the length of the matches has to stop. If you're good enough, four classical time control games provide enough time to find a way to win. Period. If you're not, you won't be staying long (i.e. Topalov, Aronian).

"If you're good enough, four classical time control games provide enough time to find a way to win. Period"

Obviously Kasparov wasn't good enough since he was 1.5-2.5 down against Korchnoi after four games.

Last i checked, that wasn't a 4-game match. The champions adjust to whatever the conditions are and prevail. Those who aren't good enough use those conditions to make excuses.

The conditions at this tournament -- which everyone knows beforehand -- are clearly sufficient to determine who is the best player in each match. Just because the higher rated players that people want to see win aren't winning doesn't mean that the conditions are flawed -- it means that those players aren't good enough in match situations right now.

"Last i checked, that wasn't a 4-game match. The champions adjust to whatever the conditions are and prevail. Those who aren't good enough use those conditions to make excuses."

Does this mean that a 4 game match for the WC title would be just fine?

For the candidates its fine, but I would prefer it not to be for the world championship. However, if it was and the conditions were clearly spelled out beforehand, I would acknowledge the winner as the WC without whining about it afterwards.

And that Kasparov-Korchnoi match wasn't for the WC...it wasn't even the Candidates final.

Somehow, "but I would prefer it not to be for the world championship" doesn't quite rhyme with "If you're good enough, four classical time control games provide enough time to find a way to win. Period.".

If four is enough - period - what do we need those extra games for? Just icing on the cake for the chess enthusiasts?

Four is enough for the candidates...I don't personally believe it is enough for the WC match itself.

I think at least six games for the candidates selection is better than just four. I wouldn't want to wear out the candidates, but the greater the sample size...

Well, yes. But I think I know who is going to win.

Yep but that's only in July ... . If current events without Vachier-Lagrave also count ,:) two are underway competing with the candidates event for attention:
1) For those who miss Ivanchuk, he's now playing the Capablanca Memorial with Dominguez, Navara, Bruzon, Andreikin and Le Quang Liem.
2) New on the agenda is the "Bahia Feliz GM tournament" in Gran Canaria - the field isn't super-strong but interesting: Vallejo AKA Mr. all over the world (previously playing in Thailand and Azerbaijan), South American oldies Granda Zuniga and Mecking, Austrian rising star Ragger, young CTRL+V Nyzhnyk, three Germans, Mateo from the Dominican Republic and unknown Spaniard Sabrina Vega Gutierrez to complete the field.
It's organized by a German real estate businessman from Munich also doing business on the Canary Islands, which might explain location and field.

Vachier-Lagrave? Maybe, but don't count Carlsen out. ;)

Four games is waaaaaaay too much for the WC. Those guys are supposed to be the best in the world, aren't they? Why not have them play one game at 10 seconds each and whoever doesn't flag wins. I mean really, all this extra chess just gets in the way of the results. Surely they can train themselves to win no matter what the conditions. In subsequent cycles we can do the same but underwater or while diving out of a plane.

I don't think jumping out of planes or playing underwater should be part of it, but if the players agree then it's ok I guess.

Maybe Morozevich will surprise everyone? He has won Biel three times already, last time in 2006 ahead of (young) Carlsen ...

I agree, hence I wrote "maybe Morozevich will surprise everyone" (including himself?). But when Vachier-Lagrave won Biel in 2009 - still or for the time being the best result of his career? - it was due to the following crazy game, which also scores high on the list of "most comments on a single game" at this forum:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1551140
Morozevich had Elo 2750 at the time (vs. 2703 for VL), his subsequent decline might have been due to personal problems - serious illness of his parents, apparently mentioned by various sources - which might now be resolved as he accepted the invitation? In any case, I wish him/them the best, there are more important things in life than tournament results and Elo! BTW, for the tournament Gashimov might also play a role, it seems that he is back on form.

On the candidates event: even a few weeks ago Kramnik might have been considered "second favorite" (after Aronian) to win the candidates event, which made him first favorite just two days ago?! But about four years ago Kramnik and Gelfand had the same score at the Mexico WCh tournament.

Are you Carlsen? Then you do not know whether he will or won't play a match, nor do you know what the most important reason is for him not playing. Why pretend you do?

He stated clearly that he does not like the current format, and that he wants a format based on a tournament instead of matches. That's his position. Whether he will actually play if there is some compromise in between is anyone's guess.

yeah. He wasn't good enough then. But, he was getting better with time. Like when he went down 5-0 in his first match against Karpov

My bad to overlook Gashimov. After all, he's number 10 in the world. V-L is 20th (now). And yes, I remember Gelfand's score in Mexico. I also remember his still recent World Cup win pretty well. There have been bumps along the way, but he's a tough customer.

The comment you agreed with as being perfectly rational and common sense said that Carlsen's reason for pulling out of the cycle was title holder privileges, not the rule changes. Carlsen pulled out for many reasons, but I do wonder if he would have done the same thing if the cycle just had continued according to the regulations.

That Morozevich--Vachier-Legrave game is crazy.

Wow.

Wow! Why did Morozevich refuse to capture on h7, even with check?

Books could be written about this game and related Najdorf theory ... but Vachier-Lagrave's analyses in the German magazine "Schach" took 'only' five pages. Morozevich probably thought that his pawn on g6 is worth more than the helpless black rook on h7 - he may well have been right as long as his attack was going.

Moro had a forced win with 26.Rf8:+! - part of the discussion here was on how he could possibly miss this, my explanation was that he thought "everything wins" and missed 27.-Rh7! which looks like the only move. Vachier-Lagrave could have won more easily with 49.-Ng6:! 50.hg6: h5 breaking out of the prison while he had that chance. And there are many more variations ..... .

Please no more! :)

Today's game is Kamsky - Gelfand: http://www.chessintranslation.com/live-game/

And yesterday's literary (and musical? "quasi-una-fantasia"!?) masterpiece was: http://bit.ly/ihzbsB

"Strangle, strangle and strangle again." How perfectly apt, although a bit dark.

And then the evaluation dropped when Kamsky did NOT play 29.Bc4: but 29.Qh1 ... .

and he finally makes the capture..on his third chance! 31. Bxc4

The current Rybka line after (34.-Ng4 35.Qc7) ends with perpetual check. If this happens, will people complain about yet another draw??

it's crazy..Kamsky made a huge blunder himself, but Gelfand missed it and Kamsky is back in the game. what a great game so far

LOL @ "great game" containing two clear blunders by each side, one each to throw away a win and then another to seemingly give the game away! At least it has not lacked entertainment value, but DAMN IT, GATA!

Hotep,

Maliq

Well, in order to keep with that sentiment, he created a losing position out of thin air and only then returned to a drawn position. At least he followed the advice that my former trainer (GM Yudasin) gave me several years ago; always give your opponent a final chance to make a mistake before resigning!

Hotep,

Maliq

If Kamsky is first asked at the press conference, his answer will be "Why me?". If Gelfand has to talk first, Kamsky will say "I agree" to Gelfand's "It was a complicated game, we probably both made mistakes in time trouble".

Good call. If the tie-break means rapid chess, then Grischuk is Vlad's equal.

As good as they are, I don't believe either of them can vanquish Anand in a match anyway. Anand is a little better perhaps because he grapples less with the time god.

Exactly, but you can only defend tenaciously like that against Aronian and Kramnik for so long, it may cost him tomorrow. One of the reasons Kramnik is thought of as a great match player is that his draw with black, press with white when it works well (2000) seems unbeatable. On the other hand when called on to win with Black, switching to the unsuitable Sicilian doesn't seem to cut it.......

"when called on to win with Black, switching to the unsuitable Sicilian doesn't seem to cut it......."

You certainly refer to the last game of his match against Anand - well, it isn't easy to win on demand with black against a strong opponent. But Kramnik managed at (at least) two other occasions: last round of Amber 2009 (a Sicilian against Leko) and last round of Shanghai 2010 (a sharp Catalan against Aronian). Against the same Leko, he tried a Benoni in their WCh match but "only" got a favorable rook endgame played down to bare kings.

On today's Petroff, I would have been curious to see what Kramnik had in mind against 5.Nc3, given that in the Tal Memorial this led to troubles against Nakamura and a loss against Karjakin. Well, he certainly wasn't unprepared, what could have been the role of his second Karjakin? Instead, according to Kramnik in the (English part of) the press conference, the variation on the board was leftover preparation from his match against Anand, together with his then-second Leko.

"Only Grischuk is to blame for short draws as White."

Objectively speaking, there can be no "blame". None of the players are obligated to entertain - they're here to qualify for the WC title match. If Grischuk thinks he's better off playing a short draw with white, then that's his prerogative. (And he's not necessarily wrong, either. If all you have is some half-baked idea that you should play to win, Big Vlad will be happy to punish you for your unwarranted optimism.)

It's disappointing from the chess enthusiast's point of view, for sure, but it's very much in the nature of the format.

I bow to your encyclopedic knowledge Thomas :-) Note Kramnik tried unsuccessfully a Sicilian against Deep Fritz as well!
Kramnik's dry Black repertoire hurts him most in tournaments where relatively modest GM's can easily get a half point against him ...... I'd say he's as aggressive with White as anyone ..... has anyone any stats on players with White and Black
Anyway Sunday I expect Vlad to deliver a classical win!!

I agree. I do however think that it cannot be the best strategy to let your opponent press you with when he has White and then make quick draws when you have White. Even if you think your best prospects are in rapids you run the risk of giving your opponent too much momentum.

Partly it's memory, partly knowing where to look such things up ... . BTW Kramnik played the Sicilian quite regularly until 2005, so it wasn't all terra incognita against Leko in 2009. He never became friends with the Najdorf, but had OK scores with the Sveshnikov, Taimanov-Paulsen-Kan lines and, a bit further back in time, the Richter-Rauzer. His very first Sicilian game and win in chessgames.com is from 1984 when he was eight years old:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1544415
The Pirc is another story: he played it occasionally in his youth, and then recently trying to beat Smeets (it worked) and Naiditsch (it backfired), and with mixed results in rapid and blitz games, maybe just to have some fun.

White and black statistics are rather readily available on the FIDE rating pages, click on the pie chart next to the player's record. I checked them for the Kazan participants plus Anand and for some who might play a role in the next WCh cycle (Carlsen, Ivanchuk, Karjakin, Nakamura). I would only interpret relative scores with white vs. black, because the level of opposition (all rated games since October 2007) is quite different between players. I don't give all data, just the extremes:
- Kramnik indeed heavily relied on the white pieces: W +38=51-5 (67%), B +9=76-13 (48%)
- The other "white monster" is ... Grischuk (68% with white, 48% with black)
- The most balanced players are Radjabov (58% vs. 56%) and Nakamura (71% vs. 69%) - Nakamura's monster score reflects his partly weaker opposition: he was the only one to play the likes of Michael Aigner, Masahiro Baba and Axel Bachmann, to name three at the beginning of the alphabet.
So Kramnik ended up playing two extremes ...

Obviously, Kamsky's being world #36 was the aberration, not his current ranking, since he has been as high as #4 in the world and won the 07 World Cup. He is an elite player, and his performance here should not be a shock to anyone who seriously follows chess. I look forward to seeing him rejoin the top 10 soon.

The truth may be somewhere in between: Kamsky went down to world #36 (and Elo about or just below 2700) for a reason, basically several non-convincing results in supertournaments. Normally he isn't the type of player with a sharp style (Ivanchuk, Shirov, Morozevich) where such form swings are part of the picture. At the time, he mentioned personal problems - understandably not going into details - which may now be resolved. Then he re-entered the top20, while hardly playing 2700+ opposition. So IMO even those who "seriously follow chess" (what's 'seriously'?) can be surprised about his result at the candidates event.

As to "he has been as high as #4" - this was before his career break, during a period when Karpov, Salov and Jussupow were also top10 players (just to indicate that it's long ago). I still think he hasn't quite reached that level, with respect to whoever else is world top, in his "second chess life".

Yeah and who is the poker player :-)

This was speed-poker ... of course Grischuk also has (quite) some experience in that. In any case, Kramnik certainly tried with the white pieces.

"Kramnik certainly tried with the white pieces."

Apparently, Kramnik offered a draw around move 20 or so. But Grischuk declined, so it's not like he had any choice.

Incredible save by Grischuk with 14 seconds left on the clock, though...

OK then kudos to both players - Kramnik still played for a win before and after his draw offer!? It's also interesting - given their press conference after game 1 - that only such non-theoretical lines seem to still offer winning as well as losing chances.

If the various computers and analysts are to be trusted, Grischuk was bettter - for a while even quite a bit better - until Bg7 (correct was Rg7). After that Kramnik was suddenly in the driver seat, and it wouldn't have made much sense to not play for the win.

I presume they'll say this in English soon... but overall after the opening Grischuk and Kramnik both thought they were better :) Then Kramnik couldn't find anything that really worked... but Grischuk said his position was very hard to play as all his pieces kept coming under attack.

Towards the end Kramnik said he kept looking for direct wins but couldn't find any - he thought he had something at the end but it didn't work. He saw the 3 v 2 rook ending, of course, but wanted something better. Grischuk said he didn't see anything better than that 3 v 2. Neither of them have really said if they thought it was winning.

By the way, Grischuk said he offered a draw, I think after 22...Rdc7, but Kramnik rejected it. (Grischuk was surprised Kramnik rejected it) He said he liked his position and had more time.

"By the way, Grischuk said he offered a draw"

That's different, then. I believed they said the opposite on ICC, but there they also liked black's position a lot until the (nearly) fateful 28... Bg7.

If Kramnik declined the draw, then he's not as risk averse as I've thought. I'd give him kudos if I didn't hate that word.

I was referring to their postmortem while still sitting at the board (on the live video with mostly music in the background). I tried to follow the press conference though I understand VERY little Russian - if I got it right, Kramnik said about five times "I don't know" and at least ten times "komputar" ... .

As to the draw offer, Naiditsch commenting on Chessdom spread the rumor that Kramnik offered one after 21.Qf3 - because Grischuk thought for a long time about the 'obvious' 21.-f5 and then did not play it. Overall, Naiditsch's commentary (also yesterday on Kamsky-Gelfand) leaves the impression that he would have done a much better job than the players (who don't have engines at their disposal). He needs to gain at least 50 (more) Elo points to prove himself in the next cycle ... .

It seems that Grischuk was better for a few moves after Kramnik's 26.Bg4 - Shipov thinks this was playing on Grischuk's time trouble and "the effect of the unexpected".

Btw mishanp, did you have a cognac (or some other strong drink) as suggested by Shipov? ,:)

I said shocked, not surprised. Anyone who seriously follows chess could see that Kamsky had a legitimate shot to beat Topalov, although Topalov deserved to be the favorite in their match -- to say its a shock that Kamsky won is disrespectful, and even if (unlike me) you didn't expect Kamsky to win, it should have been a mild surprise, nothing more.

And with the exception of his post World Cup hangover, Kamsky has played at an elite level -- as we are seeing now. He had some good starts in the FIDE Grand Prix events in 2008 where he faded late -- possibly b/c of those "personal problems' you referenced. But make no mistake, he is an elite super-GM and is probably better now than when he was #4 in the world pre-retirement.

That being said, Gelfand should be considered the slight favorite in the tiebreakers tomorrow, and I would probably favor Grischuk in the other SF b/c of his rapid/blitz prowess. However, I expect Kramnik and Kamsky to win.

And no wins for White in those 24 games :).

That event seems tailor made to give Magnus rating points.

Turns out "kudos" is a real word, not a slangy neologism - who knew?
http://wordsmith.org/words/kudos.html

I'd already checked the dictionary, so I had an inkling. But while I usually don't mind greek words or slang or neologisms or even slangy neologisms, there's something about "kudos" that rubs me the wrong way.

It's like fingernails scratching the blackboard to my ears, and the idea that "chances are over time kudo will drop the black mark on its reputation and become a well-respected word in the language" leaves me shuddering... Just. Can't. Stands. It.

Oh, you might be wrong about that. Yes, Magnus is likely the strongest in the group, but his only sure ELO points will come from Pelletier. Vugar Gashimov and Maxime Vachier-Legrave are both capable of beating Magnus. Caruana and Morozevich are unknown in that Moro has been playing under his real strength for some time now (when he has played), and Caruana is strong enough to hold Magnus to a draw.

A vile phrase; kudos is a vile phrase. Just like "beautified."

or bombastic :)

"Grischuk is supposed to be good in rapid games... why did he draw in just 14 moves???"

Grischuk is trying out the new and improved formula: "Press with black, draw with white".

(Doesn't seem like he has anything all against Kramnik's black openings anyway..)

Well, 16...c4 is not an easy move to spot -- it was only made possible b/c 15. a3?? took away the only escape square for White's queen.

Rapid tiebreak results so far:

Kramnik-Grischuk 1.5 = 1.5
.5, .5, .5 (Grischuk white in final rapid game)

Gelfand-Kamsky 1-2
.5, .5, 0-1 (Kamsky white in final game)

Jay visit http://www.chessdom.com/candidates-matches-2011-live

Pioneer, thanks...

Well, Kramnik now has to show that he's better in blitz than Grischuk. A smart (if not somewhat cowardly) approach by Grischuk in his white games, though. I'll bet the blitz gets much more interesting.

It seems as if having the black pieces is nowadays a valid excuse to accept draws in any position, no matter what. Shame on Grischuk for the offer, and shame on Kramnik for accepting it.

The only two decisive games in this whole mock up of a Candidates Match were won by black. Out of 24 games!

I don't get it. If they don't want to play I'm sure there's plenty of other players out there dying to have a chance to prove their worth.

If you really are a 1350 player, I would advise you to watch the game on the official website without the computer engine on...then you could improve your ability to evaluate positions without relying on the computer as a crutch. When you play in tournaments, there won't be a computer to help you.

Tired of what exactly? There were two rest days before the semifinals and, after that, Kramnik and Grischuk played 16, 57, 25 and 44 moves draws. If they find this tiring I guess they would need CPR if they ever had to play something like Zurich 53.

In all the opens I've played in my live, I never had anything like a rest day. And before you say it, yes, it's not the same. But these people are professionals. You would think they could play for more than a week without getting tired enough to have to resort to these kind of draws.

No, I do believe the players are just taking advantage of a broken system, as you pointed out. But it's still painful seeing things like a draw in 8 moves, for crying out loud.

Ricardo,

Passionately argued... however "I do believe the players are just taking advantage of a broken system" cannot be...

It is a zero-sum game... both Kramnik and Grischuk cannot take advantage of the system... if one takes advantage, the other is at a disadvantage.

Mehul, it isn't a draw... Gelfand won.

Hence they play on.

"Tired of what exactly?"

Alexander Khalifman was also asked why players get tired nowadays when tournaments used to be much longer: http://www.crestbook.com/en/node/1233

"In those golden days, the preparation for a game went something like this: "Should I play the King’s Indian today? Hmm… or the Queen's Indian? Oh well, what’s the difference anyway." Now, without concrete preparation for the concrete opponent it is impossible to accomplish anything on the elite level, and so the working day has increased at least one and a half times. Correspondingly the pressures at the board on your thinking apparatus and your nervous system have also grown. In addition, the games used to be adjourned after 40 moves (in fact, this was still true when I got started), while now in the same game you might fall into time pressure two or even three times, and the stress grows in a geometric progression. In sum, to organize a tournament today with 20 or more rounds would be a mockery of chess and the players."

Sure, they haven't been playing so long here yet, but just imagine how much work they have to do for the rest of the day after any short draw e.g. Radjabov mentioned in his final press conference that the main match took place away from the board against Kramnik. Plus of course the stakes here are vastly higher than in any tournament.

Most draws didn't indicate that "they don't want to play", there are many reasons for a draw between players of roughly equal strength:
- the balance was never disturbed (which doesn't mean that neither player even tried)
- one player couldn't convert his advantage
- players exchanged favors (i.e. blunders) to arrive at a drawn position.
There were many draws, but just a few premature ones with plenty of pieces and play left on the board.

To those criticizing the "fake" or "stupid" format: What do you propose instead? Longer classical matches might have avoided tiebreak lotteries, but there would have been no guarantee.

"I'm sure there's plenty of other players out there dying to have a chance to prove their worth."
If only I had been invited, there would have been three decisive games in my first and only match! ,:) You cannot blame the players (those who qualified and deserve to be invited) for, overall, neutralizing each other.

Everyone's a critic when they aren't under the pressure these players are on. That's disrespectful to compare these players to 2000 level players. My ELO is 2200, and they are much better than me. Mistakes will be made under this type of pressure...its part of the game.

Pioneer, it doesn't take someone of even my level to see that Kamsky's exf5 simply lost a piece. The errors that they are making are of very low grade. It is not as though they are missing big-time shots due to pressure; they are missing things that junior high school players were finding at Nationals last month. Of course, these players are much stronger than most people in this world -- thus, why they are playing and we are observing. Yet, this does not excuse these blunders any more than having an advanced degree absolves someone of misspelling his own name.

Hotep,

Maliq

Yup.

Regular games (24 total) -- 2 wins for Black, 0 for White
Rapid games (16 total) -- 1 win for White, 2 wins for Black
Blitz games (6 total so far) -- 3 wins for White, 2 wins for Black

You can go to the official site:

http://kazan2011.fide.com/live-games.html

Although there's no computer engine to help you there ;)

Everyone makes mistakes (sometimes even big mistakes)...no matter how talented you are or how many advanced degrees you have. Only people who have never accomplished anything fail to realize this -- which is why there are so many critics and so few leaders.

The official site was also overloaded, at least for me some time ago. Chessok also still seems to work.

He has no choice...he did the same when down against So at the World Cup (playing the Dutch) when he needed to win with Black...it didn't work then, and probably won't work now.

I'm looking at the official site right now with no problems...its worth it to try the site again.

Well, yes, everyone makes mistakes, but some mistakes are more understandable than are others. We cling to pressure or fatigue as an explanation because we know that the moves we are seeing make no sense.

Hotep,

Maliq

Congrats to Gelfand for not letting his errors cause him to lose spirit and for persevering to the end. It was not a great match by any means, though. Indeed, it was one of the weaker displays of prowess that we have seen from top-level players in some time.

Sad but true (as far as I am concerned). Would you say that Grischuk played a "great match with fighting chess throughout"?

Anand's title is quite secure, indeed, if this is the level of play that he will meet with.

Hotep,

Maliq

Why? He has no reason to be afraid of Kramnik.

I thought it was a 4 game blitz series. Gelfand leads 2-0 and Grischuk leads 1.5-0.5.

Then imagine how many more reasons he has to be not afraid at all now! Mmmmmm...that Utappam is just melting in Anand's mouth tonite.

Anand lives in Spain, so I suspect he's actually dining on tapas.

But yes, I can't imagine he's too worried about facing either Grischuk or Gelfand.

I also thought it was to be 4 blitz games per match... but guess not as they seem to have stopped playing.

Good gracious, I thought that having names that start with K would surely give Kramnik and Kamsky the upper hand.
The Blitz Tie-Breaks are 2 game mini-matches. If a player is ahead after those games, he wins the Tie-Break play-off. So, both Kamsky and Kramnik were in a must win situation, after losing the first Blitz game

One thing to remember about Gelfand... One important consideration for the 2012 WCC is that Anand was supposed to be at a disadvantage because he would be quite old... Gelfand is actually even older than Anand.

For the sake of saving chess from muppets like you, I hope Grischuk qualifies and then beats Anand in the WCH and keeps it for 12 more years.

Yes, Grischuk, who replaced Carlsen.

In the meantime someone send Carlsen some napkins please.

"In general, he doesn't seem to get the respect he deserves--I've never seen anyone rooting for him. Yet he's been a top player for, what, 25 years now?"

I have liked him a long time, though I agree he hasn't been much on the radar.

From the tenor of the posts here, I would say most would be rooting for him over Grischuk.

I agree with most of your points. Kramnik failed to win in the classical games. He failed to win in the rapids. And finally, he failed to win in the blitz. He lost the match fair and square. Same with Aronian. If they were so much better that people can guarantee that they would have won in an 8 game match, or a 14 game match, or whatever, then why didn't they put in a better showing in 4 games? They lost over the board, and according to the rules they agreed to, were knocked out. Simple as that. Yes, I would prefer longer matches, if anything to see more top-level chess. But simply because the favorites lost in a format doesn't mean that the format is flawed. Sometimes an upset is just an upset.

Grischuk was not the slightest bit cynical and Gelfand was of course born and raised in Belarus and only emigrated to Israel in 1998 (!) aged 30. A former junior champion of the USSR he is israeli just as Karjakan is Russian. :)

But what the heck I think Grischuk is the favourite and h8s resistence has been stunning

You are right people would bid more for a Carlsen-Anand match than the match we are going to see here. But, is that really the basis for determining the challenger? How popular someone is, or whether or not they come from a rich or western country?

>> The result isn't random, and whether or not a longer match "might" have ended in a different result is completely irrelevant.

+1

Also irrelevant is whether someone else who is not even one of the contestants here would make a "more compelling" challenger.

Congratulations to the winners! Whether their victory is due to capitalizing on opponent's errors or due to a planned strategy - power to them, either way!!

I'm sorry, I just don't think Khalifman is being objective here. Preparation for tournaments and matches has been usual since Alekhine, or that's the impression I've had since I started reading chess books. And even in that case, the bulk of the work, seconds aside, is done before the match.

I've always been a strong fan of letting the players do whatever they want. It's their game after all. Never been very fond of Sofia rules either, because it felt artificial to me, but... hell, draws in 8 moves is stretching it a bit.

I don't know, I apologize for the initial outburst. And I appreciate not being trolled afterwards :-)

I believe things have changed drastically with the advent of strong computers. Now you are always under the threat of running into near perfect chess in a prepared line that you have literally no hope of playing against over the board.

That was never the case before.

"Kasparov's total score against Gelfand and Grischuk: +19 -0 =14."

Goodness gracious ... Kasparov, come back! :-p

Excuse me, but who is Kasparov? ,:) Some retired chess player (hence of no relevance to this thread) who BTW also has a big plus score against Anand.

@SJ: "Will Kasparov play easy draws in a short match? He would try to win even one game that he gets with anyone."
While that was a long match, Kasparov drew game 7 against Kramnik in 11 moves, and game 13 in 14 moves (he had white in both cases and was behind in the match). There were plenty of rest days, one after almost each classical game. [I didn't remember all this, but looked it up in "From London to Elista"]

At last, someone on this board with sense instead of endlessly whining about formats that all the participants agreed to prior to competition.

"Will Kasparov play easy draws in a short match? He would try to win even one game that he gets with anyone."

Uh...look at the latter games from his match with Karpov in 1990; also several of his matches against Kramnik in 2000 were toothlessly short draws.

"Remember, he did not let win Judith Polgar for years in any form of the game."

That's because he had to cheat in order to do so -- i.e. the touchmove controversy. Fortunately Judit finally did beat him anyway later on.

"Look at Anand's record. No complaints about what was thrown at him. He took it gamely and won in all formats."

That's why Vishy is the greatest world champion chess could have...no complaining, no whining, no politicking, just play chess, show class and do what is best for the game. Period.

"If Kramnik was such a good player, he would have won in the 4 classical games. The fact is he did not. The only really great thing Kramnik did was to beat Kasparov and that too was aided by Kasparov's self-combustion at Berlin Wall. At least, Kamsky tried gamely and that result could have gone any which way. In my opinion, let's congratulate the winners and not demean their hard work and achievement. People did this to Anand for years."

Well said.

Again, doubtful. He owns Kramnik. His sigh of relief probably came when Aronian lost.

I do think the strongest challengers to Anand would have been one of Aronian, Topalov, Kramnik or Carlsen.

As followers of the game we do want a strong challenge. For this reason FIDE should think about changing the format next time.

No complaining for this round. Matches were won as per rules.

"Grischuk had a plan for Kramnik. It worked and so now we applaud him. If the plan had backfired, we would have criticized him. Same guy, same plan. Luck decides whether he goes down in history as a smart guy who hoodwinked a chess legend or a cowardly fool."

Funnily enough Grischuk said something quite similar in the press conference - if his strategy had failed he'd have been criticised for not being a man etc. He was very honest about not playing with the black pieces, even saying he'd only slightly kept up appearances in the classical games.

Also on the format - he made the point that people decide who the favourite is and if the favourite, e.g. Aronian, doesn't win they then blame the format.

p.s. yes, I might try translating/transcribing some of the conference :)

For now here's yesterday's commentary by Shipov on Kramnik - Grischuk yesterday - at the end I've included Shipov's description of Grischuk's Great Predecessors... who include Harry Houdini! http://bit.ly/iLqcBo

My link didn't work. Let's just try this:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ezsearch.pl?search=gelfand+vs+grischuk

Gelfand is definitely NOT weaker than Kamsky. IMO, he was the slight favorite in their match (even though I was rooting for Kamsky). Gelfand continually gets underestimated and then proves people wrong when it matters most (2007 World Championship, 2009 Chess World Cup, current Candidates).

Whether it is Gelfand or Grischuk as the challenger, it will not be easy for Vishy to defend his title -- although I think he will.

Spassky was admitted to the 1977 Candidates' matches as a replacement for Fischer, who had the right to participate as the dethroned champion. (As we all know, he did not.) Earlier, Boris had failed to qualify as a candidate at the 1976 Manila interzonal.

Spassky defeated Hort in the quarterfinals and Portisch in the semis before losing to Korchnoi in the finals.

I'm definitely getting old, as I remember these matches from the 70s far better than the various candidates' formats from the 90s and 2000s.

-sjw

"Aronian and Kramnik both thought the format was acceptable, given that they agreed to play in it, and when they lost, acknowledged that they lost fair and square."

Fair enough, but it would have been "amusing" if they had declined to play. Carlsen was replaced by Grischuk, Aronian and Kramnik would have been replaced by Jakovenko and Wang Yue who finished next in the FIDE Grand Prix series. Next in line would have been Gashimov and "fan favorite" Leko. "Best of the west" * (besides Carlsen) would have been Bacrot who finished 13th.

* Americans may consider Kamsky "one of their own", but I guess for many Europeans he is rather "just another Soviet", like Spaniard Shirov and Gelfand from Israel.

Stop whining. Stop whining. Stop whining.

If those had been the final rules Gelfand wouldn't have been ranked first in the World Cup, but most of the players in the top ten would also have participated.

Just like in this Candidates...that hasn't stopped Gelfand.

Boris Gelfand win of the World Cup was a big deal; a trial by fire. You have to respect accomplishment. I think he's a different player in matches v. tournaments when it's him or the highway. It's very possible that Grischuk won't get past the classical section. It ain't a terrible day for chess unless you're an ageist or a partisan for a particular player. To chime in: Stop Whining and get your board ready.

Bang on, you're absolutely right.

And I, too, remember those 70's matches far better than the rubbish we've had in the last 15 years.
And they produced REAL challengers, too - Fischer in 1971, Karpov in 1974, Korchnoi in 1977.

What do we have now, it's a joke. There will be so little interest in the next WC match that it either won't be held or else will have a very low prize fund - unless Ilyumzhinov or the Russian Federation stump up. Malcolm Pine must be very glad he got out of holding the WC now.

You are entitled to your opinion about the essence of Grischuk's metastrategy in his matches; however, you are in the extreme minority here: Offering draws with the White pieces after just 8 moves is hardly evidence that Grischuk put forth his best efforts to play at his highest level throughout the matches. One can make a principled effort to outplay one's opponent, or one can shirk that responsibility....

On your other point, you are flat out wrong: the salient fact about Gelfand is that he emigrated to Israel, became a citizen, plays 1st Board for Israeli teams, and is playing these matches with the Israeli flag net to his chessboard.... Due to the "Principle of Representation" Gelfand is most certainly Israeli in fact and in identity.

Gelfand was hardly required to stay in Belarus, just to suit you.

Moreover, you can bet that the Arab countries would take him at his word....

___________________________________________

Grischuk was not the slightest bit cynical and Gelfand was of course born and raised in Belarus and only emigrated to Israel in 1998 (!) aged 30. A former junior champion of the USSR he is israeli just as Karjakan is Russian. :)

"I'm definitely getting old, as I remember these matches from the 70s far better than the various candidates' formats from the 90s and 2000s."

Join the club.

"And they produced REAL challengers, too - Fischer in 1971, Karpov in 1974, Korchnoi in 1977."

And Spassky in the two cycles before that, and Korchnoi and Kasparov in the ones after. Those were the days...

Someone (I think it was Hans Ree, but I can't find the quote at the moment) once said that most people consider the Golden Age of any field to be the time when they first got interested in that field. It's true for me, in chess, where that time was the early 70s. I have fond memories of interzonals, candidates' matches, and 24-game (then, later, first to 6 wins) championship matches. But I recognize that those days are long past, and, in terms of deciding the world championship, never to return. Yet one of the great things about chess is that all I have to do is take a book off the shelf to bring them to life again. Which in itself probably dates me, since I didn't say look in a database... :)

Amen.

If your link is correct, the last time Anand has beaten Gelfand in a classical event is in Wijk Aan Zee (Corus) 2006. So, it has been 5 years , it should be a great match if Gelfand gets past Grischuk. He is a great player.

Touche'.
Yes, those Interzonals, Candidates Matches, and WC Matches were fascinating, far more exciting than anything we get nowadays.
True, there were significant issues with the system then too, which I remember well, but at least it wasn't totally corrupt like it is now. Campomanes and Ilyumzhinov have done enormous damage to chess.

I wouldn't say a similar system could never return, but it almost certainly won't under Ilyumzhinov, which unfortunately could be a very long time indeed.

I still haven't got myself a database, I'm afraid of the amount of my time it would consume. MCO 10 was my bible for several years when I started out, well that's all I could afford. Then there came out 'Kings Indian Defence' by Barden, Keene and Botterill; and 'Sicilian Flank Game' [Najdorf] by O'Kelly - What, a whole book on just one opening!? Plus Informator. Hell, keeping up with the openings was a major exercise then, too...

Indeed he is, chessplayer. And he doesn't seem to have gotten any weaker in the last 5 years. If anything, the reverse is the case:

http://ratings.fide.com/id.phtml?event=2805677

I bought Gelfand's "My Most Memorable Games" a year or two ago-- I played through several of them, and then stopped. Too many books, too little time. But it's quite possible that Boris Abramovich will move back to the top of my chess reading list in a week or so...

The Russians and/or the Israelis better be ready to pony up some serious cash. There is no doubt a lot of culture in India, but based on what I've read and seen, very little cultural capital, if any, is going to be at stake for the WC.

"p.s. yes, I might try translating/transcribing some of the conference :)"

I, just like many others on this message board, am very thankful for, and look forward to, the translations.

Sorry for asking a dumb question, but what is the deal with Russian surnames? Gelfand is sometimes Abramovich and Kasparov is some Kimovich (or something like that).

Given that India just hosted the multi-billion dollars World Cup Cricket, a campaign to get the industrialists to support another champion should get a few millions at least.

Thanks!

"ovich = son of. Note that neither Gelfand nor Kasparov is ethnically Russian."

Ashish, thank you for the explanation. Also thank you for the invitation to enter the ethnicity swamp. I must respectfully decline.

Genetically speaking, Gelfand and Kasparov are most likely homo sapiens whose ancestors recently emigrated out of Africa (in geological timescales, 100K years ago is "recently").

A kind of silly question in that you will be impressed with anyone who takes this championship, unless it's a whitewash by one of the three. Then you'll trash whoever played badly and possibly denigrate the accomplishment of the one who won large.
I don't expect it to be a cakewalk for Anand. You shouldn't either. He didn't exactly roll Topolov. It was close. And he hasn't been killing people in recent tournaments either. Is he better than Grischuk and Gelfand? Well, he should be by his lofty rating, but he too has negotiated a bunch of draws in various venues lately, right?

So, back to reality we should go...

Don't hold your breath for Ivanchuk. As good as he is, he doesn't have the nerves for the process. He'll be the first to tell you that. If he did, he would probably already have been champion - or awfully close. He's the Akiba Rubinstein of the modern era.

Bobby Fischer

>

Exactly my sentiments!!! :-)

"I do hope Gelfand wins the candidates and gets to play for the crown though. He's been too good for too long to be denied that. Grischuk can wait another day. I hope Ivanchuk gets his turn some day as well."

Exactly my sentiments!!! :-)

Grischuk and Gelfand qualified for the candidates event (Grischuk only as a replacement for Carlsen, but it isn't his fault that Magnus dropped out - and he still finished well ahead of e.g. Ivanchuk in the FIDE Grand Prix Series). One of them will win the candidates event to qualify for a WCh match. If that one then beats Anand, of course he will be world champion - there's no such thing as "the wrong person qualifying" or "the wrong person winning a match". Whether he will fit into the lineage lies in the future: he would have to "back up" or "confirm" his title with some tournament results, if past results (Grischuk already won Linares) aren't enough.

In any case, methinks G or G would be a more legitimate champion than Carlsen beating Anand in a match for which he didn't qualify - Carlsen fans or fanboys again suggest that this might or actually should happen. Notwithstanding the fact that Carlsen's Elo is higher and he already won several tournaments.

Grischuk did had he had to do to win in a knockout system and it worked. He was not afraid and had the self belief against the top players whatever the rating said. Incidentally it shows rating to be often a psychological weapon rather than having that much objective predictive value. He believes he is as good a player as all the rest and he's right. As for Gelfand and Arab reactions LOL - whats all that about. Barmy - the guys from Belarus and a product of the soviet chess system. What a load of racist nonsense to characterise all Arab opinion and gratuitously haul it into a chess context and please dont tell me it was a lame joke. That would be like me saying all the zionists would be happy that a rep of a terrorist (sic) state got to contest the WCC. Sorry dude got to call you on that kind of crap best to stick to the chess :)

Talking of chess anyone know the link for live games Nak v Pono?

Before we get carried away with uncritcal hero worship its not actually true that Anand never whines. He did a bit of whining about his loss to kasparov in the WCC match complaining about kasparovs facial expressions and kasparov slamming the door (!)and his general demeanor during the match. Losers whine winners dont :)

Um, you ARE aware that Arab chess teams have repeatedly refused to play Israel in the past, right?

You ARE aware that Arab countries have refused to admit Israeli teams, including Libya, which once hosted a WC event but refused visas to Israeli players who had qualified (including Gelfand), right?

Racism has nothing to do with it. The actions of Arab nations and players have everything to do with it.

Please do not use the private unofficial match result to declare who is a winner and who is a loser. The results are accepted only if the match is conducted under official neutral supervision with all sorts of anti-cheating measure in place. We can just disregard the match and the result when no such steps were taken!

That was a different era, with far fewer strong players. Now there is very little gap among the top few players.

I'm pretty sure Fisher, Karpov, Kasparov in their hey day, given the competition they faced, would not have had much of a problem getting through this "flawed" qualification system.

kenh: "A kind of silly question in that you will be impressed with anyone who takes this championship, unless it's a whitewash by one of the three. Then you'll trash whoever played badly and possibly denigrate the accomplishment of the one who won large."

You have obviously never (comprehensively) read my posts, including the one you replied to. I try very hard to avoid subjective opinion, thus confirming my handle as an 'observer' only. The post in question only asked each person to use their own criteria for forming -- and possibly rethinking -- their own opinion, and then informing us of their process. You evidently have projected your feelings onto me.

"I don't expect it to be a cakewalk for Anand. You shouldn't either."

I did not even imply that I felt this way (nor the opposite, for that matter).

"So, back to reality we should go..."

Reality is obviously a concept you have trouble with ... just an observation.

CO

Thomas: "If that one [Grischuk/Gelfand winner]then beats Anand, of course he will be world champion - there's no such thing as "the wrong person qualifying" or "the wrong person winning a match". Whether he will fit into the lineage lies in the future: he would have to "back up" or "confirm" his title with some tournament results, if past results (Grischuk already won Linares) aren't enough."

*I* did not imply that either player was the "wrong person" under any circumstance. Winning the championship confirms his 'fit' into the lineage, regardless of past or future results, or the opinion of anyone else.

Just an observation ...

CO

Consider also that recently (January 2011) Grischuk was rated 2773 and pushing into the top 5. He has been inconsistent at times in his career, but he has steadily gone up the rating lists, and is clearly among the top ten in the world. I will be pulling for him in his next match, where he will face a very formidable opponent.

Are you aware that to to talk of arabs as has been done is racist? Do you think the actions of some middle eastern governments is representative of arabs. Sorry but the reference to arabs in this context is gratuitous lets confine it to chess

LoL what are you talking about? Kasparovs defeat of Anand was not a proper match?? Really? It was billed and reported as a WCC and Anand got beat fair and square and yes did a bit of whining after the event so every ones human. Lets not deify him :)

Err, no. The system was considered bad by many long before the matches began.

Facial expressions Kasparov evidently cannot control - a form of facial incontinence.
But slamming doors disturbs your opponent's concentration and is avoidable. I see no reason why Anand should not have mentioned it.

:-)

Some whine when they lose, but are gentlemanly and gracious when they win. Kasparov being the notable exception.

Great observation. Plus remember that Grischuk also made the semis of the 2000 FIDE championship as well, before losing to Shirov (who then lost to Vishy in the final).

Relax. I didn't really intend to put you on the defensive, chief. I was making a statement about human nature in the WCh context. When I used the word "you," I was being more generic than picking out CO in particular. I should have substituted "people."
But you knew that you were being controversial when you wrote "Which one of these (if either, of course), fits the perception YOU have of a world champion?"

You're not George the creep for nothing. And I'm afraid that your pre-emptive strike "dint" work.

(Good grief.)

.
SJW wrote:
"one of the great things about chess is that all I have to do is take a book off the shelf to bring them to life again."
.
I agree. And this is a great advantage that a 'digital' sport like chess has over 'analog' sports like tennis.
.

Neither offended or defensive.

Encouraging people to examine their own opinions is not being controversial. There is no need for *me* to argue with anyone who is having a disagreement within himself (regardless of my opinion on the matter), whether or not he is aware of it.

I strive for clarity in my own opinions, and simply request others to attempt so as well. If that comes off as anything other than contemplative, then the nerve I have triggered needs to be addressed. My methods may be likened to trolling, but they are much more ethical and intellectual than much of the drivel we have to wade through in these comments at times.

Personally, I could say WC Gelfand *or* WC Grischuk with relative ease.

CO

Yes, Andy is aware of all that. Just as I am now aware that Andy is merely trolling.

He obviously fancies himself to be a clever Sophist, and is only too willing to argue that Black is White, or claim that Day is Night.

So what? Topalov never qualified for a WCh match - as far as the tradition of several consecutive qualifying matches goes. He played two matches and lost both of them. Kramnik played four matches and won three of them.

Carlsen did not, at least not yet qualify for a WCh match - but several people suggest he should play one against Anand.

Yeah. Fantastic point about sticking it to the Arabs by having a match in Israel. That would be awesome. But, did you think about what would happen if Gelfand won and the subsequent match was also held in Isreal? Gelfand would have to play a WC match against a guy who - let's face it - kinda looks like an Arab? Wow. Now that would really be a "pickle".

P.S. The above comment was meant to be tongue in cheek. Maybe we should keep irrelevant racial slandering out of the discussion?

"So what? Topalov never qualified for a WCh match - as far as the tradition of several consecutive qualifying matches goes. He played two matches and lost both of them. Kramnik played four matches and won three of them."

--------

Uh...no. Here are Kramnik's results when he has been required to EARN the right to play for the title, instead of being seeded there by rating or rematch:

1. 1994 PCA = Destroyed by Kamsky (1.5-4.5) in first round
2. 1994 FIDE = Beat Yudasin (4.5-2.5), lost to Gelfand (3.5-4.5)
3. 1998 Classical = Lost to Shirov (3.5-5.5)
4. 2011 Candidates = Beat Radjabov (6.5-5.5), lost to Grischuk (4.5-5.5)

That's hardly convincing -- a 2-4 record in match play (all against players he was supposed to beat -- except Kamsky in 1994) when required to win to reach the World Championship match. Add to that Kramnik's loss to Adams at the 1999 FIDE world championship and his match record is even less impressive -- although it is still more impressive than Topalov's match record.

Nope it was just the arab reference was roped in quite out of context in hobby horse fashion nuff said

Could not have put it better - stand by for troll accusations!

Forgot to mention it, but I was referring to world championship matches: He beat Kasparov and did what was required to defend his title against Leko and Topalov.

"Seeded by rematch" is odd to say the least. A rematch means that you lose a WCh match and, for whichever reason, get to play another one against the same opponent. Though Topalov also got some sort of delayed rematch privileges: losing against Kramnik to play a final against Kamsky (where he was clear favorite), then a WCh match against - in the meantime - Anand. But if Kramnik had won Mexico, there would have been an immediate rematch between him and Topalov.

Instead, Kramnik qualified for his second, third and fourth WCh match by winning the previous one (at least if one believes in the tradition that the world championship should be ultimately decided in a match). The fact that he played four different opponents indicates that the times of multiple matches between two players (Karpov-Korchnoi, then Kasparov-Karpov) are over.

The original point (astutely made by Manu, BTW) is that Kramnik has never earned the right to face the World Champion in a match by winning matches -- it has been by rating (the farce where Shirov was screwed in 2000) or rematch (the farce where he automatically bypassed everything to challenge Anand in 2008).

You can see that when he has to earn the right to face the World Champion by winning matches, Kramnik is anything but an elite match player.

That was the original point that you responded to, and that I responded to in kind. No one is questioning Kramnik's match performance against Kasparov to win the Classical title, his draw against Leko to retain it, or beating Topalov to unify the titles -- its just that (unlike EVERY OTHER undisputed world champion over the past 60 years) Kramnik has never won matches in order to earn the right to face the world champion.

Therefore, unless some politicking comes into play that allows Kramnik to "automatically" challenge for the 2014 title, it is my prediction that he will never again earn the right to face the World Champion in his career.

I see your point, but Fischer was seeded into the 1970 Interzonal as Benko's replacement; he was never seeded at the Candidates level.

As noted above, Spassky (who replaced Fischer in the 1977 Candidates) was the last replacement player to make the Candidates Final.

Karpov, Kramnik, Topalov, and Kamsky were parachuted in at strange places in various cycles, but that's another story....

Amen to that.

Well, Manu wrote that Kramnik "never qualified for a WCh match", which is a bit more than "never qualified to challenge the world champion". Anyone winning a WCh match duly qualifies for the next one - at least it has been like that for many decades (never mind that Carlsen wants to change this tradition).
Manu is a known Topalov fanboy who was remarkably silent recently, including the Topalov-Kamsky (re)match because there was nothing to brag about his hero. He is now happy again because Kramnik was also eliminated - and even if the content of his post was 100% correct, the tone reflects his bias.

But that's all history, more interesting might be if history will continue to repeat itself.
What already happened:
- those who might have the best chances against Anand in a WCh match (at least that's what several people argue) were eliminated: Aronian, but IMO also Kramnik and Topalov, plus Carlsen who eliminated himself.
What currently happens (on various chess forums):
- some people suggest that the candidates matches should be ignored in favor of an Anand-Carlsen match, actually quoting a historical precedent: no sponsors could be found for Kasparov-Shirov, no sponsors will be found for Anand-G (-elfand or -rischuk). If this really happens, it would be more or less the equivalent of Kasparov-Anand at the beginning of this millennium - and indeed Kasparov had first approached Anand, then Kramnik.
If history should continue to repeat itself:
- Carlsen gets a match against Anand and wins
- Carlsen then defends his title twice
In 2020, will people be as harsh on Carlsen as some are on Kramnik?? It might depend on how much "noise" Gelfand/Grischuk make - it makes perfect sense to me that Shirov was, to put it mildly, unhappy. It might also depend on whether Anand would be a fair loser, while Kasparov was a sore loser.

Was there a vote? Some people might prefer that he covers Ponomariov-Nakamura ... ,:)

"- some people suggest that the candidates matches should be ignored in favor of an Anand-Carlsen match, actually quoting a historical precedent: no sponsors could be found for Kasparov-Shirov, no sponsors will be found for Anand-G (-elfand or -rischuk). If this really happens, it would be more or less the equivalent of Kasparov-Anand at the beginning of this millennium - and indeed Kasparov had first approached Anand, then Kramnik."

And that would be a disaster for the credibility of the game and the title match, just as it was when Shirov was bypassed over Kramnik in 2000.

"If history should continue to repeat itself:
- Carlsen gets a match against Anand and wins
- Carlsen then defends his title twice
In 2020, will people be as harsh on Carlsen as some are on Kramnik?? It might depend on how much "noise" Gelfand/Grischuk make - it makes perfect sense to me that Shirov was, to put it mildly, unhappy. It might also depend on whether Anand would be a fair loser, while Kasparov was a sore loser."

Yes, they should be. Carlsen has to earn the right to face the World Champion by winning matches -- not just because of his rating. Unlike Kramnik, however, at least Carlsen will likely be world #1 if such a match happened. However, this would still not be good for the integrity of the World Championship cycle.

As a Kramnik fan, of course you're omitting one VERY important detail -- if history were to truly repeat itself, Carlsen would have to lose a 10 game match against Aronian, and then be hand picked by Anand ahead of Aronian to face him for the title. Which of course is as absurd as when Kramnik was picked over Shirov in 2000.

"If Carlsen gets a match against Anand.."
"If Carlsen wins a match against Anand.."

If ifs and buts were pots and pans there would be no tinkers. No way Anand will patronize Carlsen or ruin the chess world in any other way like Kasparov did. Apart from being one of the strongest chess players known to mankind there is very little in common between Anand and Kasparov.

Agreed. Unlike Kasparov (and Kramnik, and Topalov, and Karpov), Anand has integrity.

"rr": I see that you relish the role of being Andy's fanboy!

You might have bothered to look at my actual posted comments in the thread, rather than blindly relying on Andy's disingenuous glosses and outright misrepresentations.

As I've noted, Andy is simply trolling the site, and you are the one caught up in his net of deception.

______________________________

"P.S. The above comment was meant to be tongue in cheek. Maybe we should keep irrelevant racial slandering out of the discussion?"

______________________________

I suppose that you are proposing to keep all of the *relevant* racial slandering, though?!

Just the same, "rr", I think that I will continue posting "inconvenient truths", especially as those truths relate to FIDE's corruption and hypocrisy.

Notwithstanding Andy's "Over the Top" reactions and clumsy attempts to stifle open discourse, I prefer a forum where folks are free to speak their mind. If I have to suffer personal attacks from a couple of denizens of the Daily Dirt, then so be it.

DOug

Yeah, right....So, apparently it is completely out of context to discuss the political implications (in the Chess World) of a victory by Boris Gelfand-- in a thread devoted to the topic of the "Kazan Candidates 2011....".

Indeed, it is merely a fact that Gelfand (who happens to represent Israel) is now playing in a Candidates Final match vs. Grischuk.

If the Arab Chess Federations don't wish to be the objects of amusement, they need only change their politics and amend their policies to comport more with the ideal of the FIDE motto:

Gens Una Sumus

Otherwise, it is perfectly appropriate to call them out on it, every once in a while.

_________________________________

"Nope it was just the arab reference was roped in quite out of context in hobby horse fashion nuff said"

Yes your right it is cmpletely out of context to start grinding on about imaginary political consequences of some belarus chess player who emigrated to Isreal. Its laughable - there is a possibility that Gelfand would challenge for the WCC against an Indian incumbent and somehow this might have political consequences in the arab world. Yes of course thats reasonable now I come to think of it. Anyone who suggests that this is strange stuff is trying to stifle debate and guilty of trollery. Just for the record I am cool with all the raving zionists to find any excuse in this chess blog to make debating points. As for all the stuff about Sephardic Ashkanazi and ethiopian jews that was hilarious keep it up. Just look at the way the ground keeps moving: arab, arab governments and now arab chess federations. Ah there all the same these arabs like blacks I suppose :)

Of course there are similarities as well as differences between the past and the possible future scenario. What's worse, losing a qualifying match or not even playing qualifying matches? As I already mentioned, it would have been a closer analogy if Kramnik-Shirov had been followed up by Kasparov-Anand (and, as far as events near the turn of the century can be reconstructed, this was Kasparov's preferred scenario).

"at least Carlsen will likely be world #1"
Granted, Kasparov remained world #1 until his eventual retirement. But for the rest, we had a somewhat comparable situation then and now: Kramnik and Anand were #2 and 3, sometimes swapping places but often well ahead of #4 until 2005 (when Topalov entered the picture). Now we have Anand, Carlsen and Aronian as #s 1-3, how stable this situation is remains to be seen: Carlsen might become clear #1 (but predictions that he will establish Kasparovian Elo dominance haven't materialized yet) or he might be overtaken by Karjakin and/or Nakamura in the next few years.

Also @Anand Nair: The issue isn't Anand's integrity but FIDE's integrity and how Carlsen might react to "opportunities" coming up. We could have the following turn of events:
- FIDE concludes that "no sponsors can be found" for Anand - (Gelfand or Grischuk)
- FIDE then decides to proceed with Anand-Carlsen because sponsors can be found
- If Anand refuses to play such a match, he will lose his title and be replaced by Nakamura because sponsors can be rather easily found for a match between him and Carlsen (note that sponsorship is a popularity contest as much as anything else).
All hypothetical - but it could happpen ... .

It won't happen that sponsors won't be found for Anand-Gelfand/Grischuk. One of the reasons why sponsors were not found for Kasparov-Shirov (apart from the fact that Shirov wasnt ranked high enough and had a poor record against Kasparov) was that it wasn't an official WC match. Karpov and Anand weren't part of the qualification and hence didn't have the same credibility as the earlier matches with Short and Anand. In this cycle all the big names played and lost (and Carlsen chickened out).

Also, this is now a slightly low pressure WC match for Anand fans because if he had to lose to any of the 9 guys (these 8 + Carlsen) in the race, they'd be least hurt if he lost to one of Gelfand or Grischuk.

Well said.

I see your point, and hope you are right ... but "never say never" and don't blame me. I was merely picking up what circulates on the chessic Internet. Here it was just calvin amari (May 16 1:09PM), but there were similar comments on Chessvibes and apparently Ronen Har-Zvi on ICC also suggested that FIDE might want to proceed with an Anand-Carlsen match (I didn't hear it myself but refer to someone quoting him, and it doesn't mean that Har-Zvi would be happy with such a turn of events). Anyway, don't blame the messenger!

As to the players' integrity, I have no doubts regarding Anand. But it would be a tricky situation: it might cost him his title, and while some would praise him for his integrity others might criticize him for chickening out.

I am less sure about Carlsen (or maybe rather those advising him, who could include Kasparov): When he dropped out of the candidates event he said that he would prefer a tournament over matches, and doesn't like privileges for the defending champion. He's entitled to his opinion, but he is (or they are) well aware of his status and popularity. So what if FIDE had responded "OK Magnus, at your service"!? He would like it, and it's quite possible that he was hoping for or even expecting such a turn of events ... . Indeed FIDE's reaction was something like "sorry Magnus you are too late, but we will take all your wishes and needs into consideration for the next WCh cycle".

I know that I am provocative, and I hope that I will be all wrong - but never say never ... .

As unlikely as that scenario is (and you can never say never after the Kasparov-Shirov-Kramnik debacle), Anand would do the right thing. He always does, even when it is not personally beneficial to him.

"Anyway, don't blame the messenger!"

The messenger of what? Random ramblings spat into the giant void that is the Internet? Do the people on those other boards you speak of have any credibility at all?

I'm not sure what exactly it is that you're attributing to Calvin Amari, but I don't see his post as endorsing such a match. And I really don't think Har-Zvi is the kind of commentator that should be quoted. His back and forths with Yermo are hilarious, but in just five minutes of commentary time, Ronen can easily launch five or six players as super strong contenders for the throne (but you know, omigosh! such strong player. look at that rating! give him a match for the title!) If he's suggested such a matchup, then that's just one of a thousand possible scenarios he touches upon during a standard commentary session.

What I'm getting at is that if you're going to be a messenger, then at least apply some sort of filter. I guess you're free to discuss any what-if scenario you please, but trying to justify the discussion by pointing to the "chessic internet" doesn't really add much.

"He would like it"

You don't feel the least uncertain about that one? Carlsen would like it if FIDE had changed the rules once more during the cycle just before the final event, in spite of his repeating that he only mentioned "possibilities for future cycles" and explicitly pointed out that he didn't want more changes now?

Yep. Absolutely. Well said.

Wow, Andy--you are a complete mess! Do you even take a moment to read what you've typed, before you hit "submit"? It's clear that you are so emotionally invested, so vexed, that you are simply unable to compose a coherent response.
Perhaps you have not intended to be a troll; if that was your intention, you are singularly clumsy at it.

It is more plausable that you have "Israel Derangement Syndrome": The mere mention of Israel was enough to start you on your invective-filled rants. I first assumed that you were deliberately distorting my comments, cynically taking statements out of their context, and mendaciously ascribing things to me that I never wrote at all.
[This can be readily confirmed from an actual reading of my postings in this thread]

However, it now seems more likely that your outrage simply has diminished your cognitive abilities.... to the point in which you are actually delusional: The provacative comments that you think you read were actually concocted by you, and exist only in your mind. If "the ground keeps moving", it is only because you are not on an even keel, and your comprehension keeps shifting as you are buffeted about by the swells of your flood of emotionality.

Andy, you are a curiosity to me. One wonders where you were so effectively indoctrinated (with respect to the Israel-Arab conflict), to the extent that a single quip sets you off like a Roman Candle"?

My surmise is that you are a product of the English University system. Perhaps from one of those schools that happily takes huge wads of endowment funds from such human rights stalwarts as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain...Libya. And then sanctimoniously prosecute an "Academic Boycott" of Israeli Universities. If so, your hypocrisy is as great as theirs.

In any case, you resort to the same racialist rhetoric which you unjustly blame others for using! It should not be even controversial to hold that Gelfand has the right to determine and proclaim his own identity. Who are you to judge him for renouncing Belarus, and instead choosing an identity as an Israeli?
[It's sheer conjecture, but maybe if the Lukaschenko regime did not degenerate into a dictatorship in Belarus, Gelfand might have chosen to remain. It's also moot, since Gelfand does not need to justify his actions to you.] Your argument is that there is a racial essence to Gelfand, which always renders him, at his core, a Russian (or, more absurdly yet, a Byelo-Russian). But, there is a foolish inconsistancy to your "logic": You implicitely make the assumption that it is possible to authentically be an Arab, or a Russian....but that one cannot have an authentic identity as an Israeli, since YOUR dogma holds that none of these (Jewish) Israelis are legitimate inhabitants of "Palestine", and therefore that these people must ultimately be traced some other area of the world.

Just read the tripe that you've written below, and take a good hard look in the mirror.

______________________________________________

"Yes your right it is cmpletely out of context to start grinding on about imaginary political consequences of some belarus chess player who emigrated to Isreal. Its laughable - there is a possibility that Gelfand would challenge for the WCC against an Indian incumbent and somehow this might have political consequences in the arab world. Yes of course thats reasonable now I come to think of it. Anyone who suggests that this is strange stuff is trying to stifle debate and guilty of trollery. Just for the record I am cool with all the raving zionists to find any excuse in this chess blog to make debating points. As for all the stuff about Sephardic Ashkanazi and ethiopian jews that was hilarious keep it up. Just look at the way the ground keeps moving: arab, arab governments and now arab chess federations. Ah there all the same these arabs like blacks I suppose :)"

I confess that I am not certain. However, I would not be in the least bit surprised if Carlsen jumped the queue, and let his PR flacks come up with the justifications later.

Let's just say that it takes (among other things) a fairly mamoth ego to reach a 2800+ rating. His feelings of entitlement may be greater than you may think.

And it is a Super GM's prerogative to change his mind, and renounce all previous vows and commitmemnts,

If Carlsen were to have tried and failed--like Aronian--it would have "damaged the brand". Even if the Candidates' cycle were exactly to his specifications (A Double Round Robin tournament), there is a substantial chance that he will not be the one to finish first. His chances are better in a match against Anand, since he doesn't have to play against the field.

Thanks DOug, I started wondering if I am really the only one on this forum who wouldn't be all surprised. My "it could happen" is somewhere in between "it will never happen" and "it will happen". As to Carlsen suggesting changes only for the next cycle, yep maybe it was a long-term sacrifice: giving away his chances in the current cycle to maximize his chances in the next cycle.

I will return the favor regarding Gelfand and Israel ,:) : You made a valid point - which I hadn't at all considered, so it was very low on my list but also just fourth on your list. It's irrelevant that Gelfand is originally Belorussian, it matters that he emigrated to and now represents Israel. I don't know for sure if he's Jewish (religion rather than 'race'), but I guess so because that's the usual reason to emigrate to, of all places, Israel. And as far as I remember, Libya had also refused Jewish players from other countries (Milov from Switzerland?). Another story is whether it was really needed to inntroduce such elements into the discussion and invite trolls - but that was your choice.

It would be nice to have open discourse on this blog about any number of topics pertaining to the world of chess. And I think that the treatment of Israel and Israelis in FIDE sanctioned events (as well as by its constituent National Chess federations) is a legitimate point of discussion.

But, alas, I must regrettably conclude that such a discussion is unlikely to yield thoughtful comments.

On balance, worse sins are committed by FIDE than the occasional cynical panderings that lead to awkward situations such as Dubai Olympiad, 1986, or the 2004 World Championships in Libya.

Still, few would commend FIDE for such unprincipled decisions, and occasionally it makes sense to pull back the carpet, to see what has been swept under it.

The trolls I don't mind: one will find them in every thread on the Daily Dirt. However, it is clear that the signal to noise ratio is too low to be of any use. I'd like to spare the good readers the ugliness of a flame rout. I suppose that the mere mention of Israel, even tangetially, has the effect of conjuring up a manifestation of Godwin's Law.

So, no more mention of Gelfand's nationality--unless he wins!

re: "Anand is a Tamil Brahmin and his facial structure is that of a Caucasian, because in reality he is a darker skinned Caucasian, quite different from most Arabs (some of whom are also Caucasian)."

I always thought that Arabs were caucasian. Certainly, they are a mixed group of people. The Sudanese arabs do not look like the Lebanese folk I have met, with brown or blue or hazel eyes, brown to blond hair, and varying skin shades dark to light. In a short period of time, I could find some "indigenous" British Isles denizens who are darker than some Arabic people.

People from Lebanon are not really Arabs (if you define Arabs to be those who came from the Arabian Peninsula), they rather are mostly Southern Europeans who got run over by the Muslim invasions about 12 to 13 hundred years back.

Caucasian is the polite term since Hitler made the term Aryan politically incorrect.

Ancient Greeks, Persians, Indians (especially upper castes), and other ethnicities from that region (like Armenians, Azeris etc.) share an ancestry which is different from Arabs. But many of these people inhabit areas that are thought of as belonging to the Arabic world (like Lebanon).