[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
Round 1: An eight way tie exists after Round 1: Anand - Gelfand: 1/2 // Grischuk - Leko: 1/2 // Kramnik - Svidler: 1/2 // Morozevich - Aronian: 1/2
Joe Joyce wrote on Fri, Sep 14, 2007 01:12 AM UTC:You know, I don't think FIDE is quite dead, but this sort of thing shows it's not doing as well as it used to be. At the very least, they should change the scoring. I'm almost tempted to say players should lose 0.1 points each for a draw, and only the stalemating player should get 0.5 points. I know the arguments about having to capture the king before he could suicide, so checkmate is the win, and nothing else, but how many hockey fans would be content to see their teams win only a handful of games in a year [as hockey allows draws, also]? It's tough for an outsider to see the excitement in a tourney where everyone started out even, and after the first round, everyone is still even. I'd like to see these guys play in a variants tournament. Bet we'd see winners and losers then. Sorry to step on anyone's toes, but how popular would the World Series be, if the Yankees won/lost [pick one] a 7-game series by the score of 1 game to none? No matter how much you love/hate the Yankees, who'd watch such a yawner? [I'm a New Yorker, and a Mets fan, and I wouldn't watch 7 games to see the Yankees lose once and draw 6, even to the Mets - I'd watch the game the Mets won, but who can tell beforehand? So after a few draws, I'd stop watching.]
The scoring changes were tried before - I think Clint 'something' ... suggested 3pt for black win, 2pt for white win, 1pt for black draw and 0 for white draw. There is nothing wrong with the game of chess (orthodox) - its just analyzed to death. If only the top players (GMs) can look through every chess variant and pick the one that they feel keeps the beauty, strategy etc of the original game. A 10x10 with a few new pieces seems best in my opinion .. That would be a chess tournament worth watching.
In a very true sense, chess games are lost. Chess is a game of mistakes. Players will not lose if they don't make A mistake (unless that mistake is missed or their opponent makes a bigger mistake). When we see world championship games end in draws it should not be too surprising. Yes, it is likely not very exciting... A different game with more variables could add spice to these championships. Still, it would come down to making mistakes. So, a new scoring system, as suggested... might be needed at some point to minimize the draw factor. Making a game where draws were not possible would be nice. The Chinese Chess stalemate is not a draw. Also they have rules against 3-move repetition... it is a start.
Results are in for Round 2 of the World Chess Championship. Draw lovers will see that we have 2 more drawn games.... Svidler - Leko: 1/2 Kramnik - Morozevich: 1-0 Gelfand - Grischuk: 1/2 Aronian - Anand: 0-1
Joe Joyce wrote on Sat, Sep 15, 2007 01:39 AM UTC:Alright, two emerge from the pack! That's more like it. Kramnik and Anand, aren't these two the favorites?
Chess (orthodox at least) has in my opinion perfected the rules governing the draw. Stalemate been a draw is very important in chess, and yes, Chinese chess it is a win, but I think it is not logical that way. It looks more like the draw outcome was not considered important. The problem in FIDE chess championships/tournaments - short agreed draws. Once that is not allowed - the draws are PERFECTLY acceptable. The only other problem with orthodox chess is the analysis factor - too many games - too much theory. A new game with the SAME rules but 1 or 2 new pieces will be an ideal candidate for 'evolution'. Sure you can play around with eliminating draws, but most chess lovers will take issue and righfully so. Also, the games played today esp. Anand and Kramnik were very exciting. So even at this high level it has a lot of life left.
Charles Daniel, excellent comment regarding the draws. Thanks. However, in Chinese Chess I find stalemate wins still to be logical. In that game you can work hard at setting up a stalemate much like setting up a checkmate. The Cannons and pawns are often key pieces in that setup. In Fide Chess stalemates are often easy to achieve via a simple oversight... not so in Chinese Chess.
Round 3, World Chess Championship: Morozevich - Svidler: 1-0 Anand - Kramnik: 1/2 Grischuk - Aronian: 1/2 Leko - Gelfand: 1/2
Yup -.. Regarding chinese chess - Yes, it may very well be logical within that context. It is the idea of Orthodox chess have stalemate=win by comparing to Chinese Chess that's flawed Regarding WC The two Draws: Anand - Kramnik: 1/2 Leko - Gelfand: 1/2 were even more exciting than Morozevich - Svidler: 1-0 These were hard fought draws, not the horrible short agrement draws.
Yes Charles, you are correct about these draws being exciting. I watched the the last 40 moves or so of the Round 3 Leko versus Gelfand live. Early in the game Leko looked better, then Gelfand appeared to get the upper hand. The game went to move 100 and Gelfand had 37 seconds remaining on his clock and Leko had 3 minutes / 2 seconds remaining). It seemed they may have been using Fischer Time because when they moved fast some bonus time was added to their clocks. For those last 40 moves I could not tell who was going to win. Gelfand was close to getting a second Queen... but constant checking by Leko put a stop to that. With about 20 moves left I was expecting a draw or a time loss. You can play over the games on your PC or watch live games when in progress at this link: http://partidas.chessmexico.com/
Round 4 results of the World Chess Championship: We see three more draws and a win of Aronian over Leko. Peter Svidler ½ - Boris Gelfand ½ Levon Aronian 1 - Peter Leko 0 Vladimir Kramnik ½ - Alexander Grischuk ½ Alexander Morozevich ½ - Viswanathan Anand ½
The Indian Chess Grand Master Vishwanathan Anand is the new world Chess Champion. He drew with Peter Leko, in the 14th [last] round of the World Chess Championship held in Mexico City. That gave him 9 points. I heard that Anand was very close to losing Round 13, and was even expected to lose - but have not verified that yet. A tie-break round was being prepared, but not needed. Israeli chess grandmaster Boris Gelfand now shares the No. 2 spot with outgoing world chess champion Vladimir Kramnik of Russia. Both with 8 points. Gelfand had three wins, 10 draws and one loss. Anand had four wins and 10 draws and was the only undefeated player. Each player earned one point per win and half a point per draw. The match was 14 rounds. Gelfand's only loss was unexpected to one of the weaker players in the field... had Gelfand won that game we would have seen a tie-break round between him and Anad.
Anand wins. A fitting follow-up to World Chess Championship in nearby Mexico? Chess: Che: Que? Tuesday 9 October is fortieth anniversary of the death of heroic-thinker Argentina-born Che Guevara(1928-1967), avid chess player who played in tournaments from age 12. Cuba marks the occasion today with a gathering of 3000 people(1500 boards) playing Chess, Guevara's favourite game. Great WC#3 Jose R. Capablanca (1888-1942), Cuban of course, is one of three(or four with Morphy) western hemisphere WCCs. Argentine GM Miguel Najdorf (1910-1997) died in Spain after fulfilling a desire to watch a last Chess tournament there. Najdorf in his career played Chess with Che Guevara, Castro, Krushchev, Winston Churchill, the Shah of Iran, Juan Peron. Readers of Najdorf's chess column in Argentinan newspaper Clarin once could also study a chess problem contributed by chess-enthusiast John Paul II. Guevara's traversing Latin America by motorcycle in 1950's, chronicled in 'The Motorcycle Diaries', has precedent in the book 'My Hike' from late 1920's of Argentine adventurers, one of whom succeeded in hiking from south of Buenos Aires to New York in somewhat over a year. Cuban schoolchildren in daily pledge recite 'We will be like Che!' Like FIDE's motto 'Gens una sumus', it is appropriate that their 'unification' Champion be equally determined in the other 'one'(Western) of two hemispheres.
This is a big change in Chess. Ever since Steinitz, to become the world champion was non-trivial. You had to defeat the current champion in a grueling 1-on-1 tournament against the world champion. FIDE made it harder to stay champion in the 1940s: You had to fight every three or four years to stay champion, which resulted in Botvinnik briefly losing the crown twice, once to Smyslov, and once to Tal. This was probably a good change: It stopped Fischer from pulling an Alekhine: Staying world champion by refusing to play a player you know is better than you.
However, now it has become even easier to be world champion. You no longer have to win a 1-on-1 against the current champion. You merely have to win a single round robin tournament to hold the crown. I think this will make the championship more dynamic and exciting. From Steinitz to Kramnik, there were only 14 world champions. Now we should have a different world champion every two or three years.
It's a very interesting change in the world of chess, but one it needs to breathe some life in to a game that I feel is in a slow death spiral.
- Sam
World Chess Championship was just held at Mexico City. From the other end of Latin America, in the 1920's the Argentine adventurer who wrote the book about his hike(no motorized help whatsoever) from near Buenos Aires to New York took just over two years not one(two competitors died en route and others dropped out). It was popular in North America too then to have cross-continent road and running races both(50 miles a day L.A. to N.Y. over couple of months). Che Guevara and Miguel Najdorf were both avid chess players from Argentina. What other recent chess connection to Buenos Aires? Of course Fischer Random Chess, the ingenious locale chosen by Bobby Fischer to announce in June 1996 his version of randomized initial positions actually invented by the 1820's. He still propounds it to stress talent over memorization. GM Najdorf died in 1997, the other of the two leading western hemisphere Grandmasters since Capablanca. Someone may know whether Najdorf attended any of the Argentine ceremonies starting FRChess(Chess960).
Chess is Sport. Just when mentioning the successful hike over two years from Buenos Aeres to New York in 1920's(relating it to Chess players), when FIDE and Capablanca Chess were new, there is an announcement. In spring 2008 Marshall Ulrich, 56, and Charlie Engle, 44, will attempt to break the record for running across the United States. Starting in Seattle(a Chess connection being Yasser Seirawan's Seattle Chess Foundation), they plan to run at least 68 miles--probably 15 to 17 hours a day--for 47 days, ending in Washington D.C. Hey 46, 48 and then 50 were progressively the number of USA states in 1900, 1912, and 1960, for state-based 46-, 47-, 48-square contests. Mexico City where the World Chess Championship took place, is closer to either city than the USA distance between them, the longest leg of triangle.
18 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.