What do people think of Anand’s win today, and the match in general?
The match started slow ( normal Kramnik). I was pleasantly surprised with Anand’s Win. It is early though. Kramnik likes to wear his opponents down, I am sure he was surprised also with Anand’s attack.
Whats the current World Championship cycle now? I think it used to be once every 3 years, but seems more often now.
I believe the cycle such that it is is two years. Speaking of two Anand just beat Kramnik again with black! Vlad the impaled.
Kramnik appears to be imploding now. 4.5-1.5 at the halfway point.
I don’t see how he can stop Anand at this point. Any news on when or if the Kamsky - Topalov match is going to take place. It seems to be in limbo from the sounds of it.
Wow, i’m proud that Anand came out swinging, not going for “play it safe”. Very courageous in such a short match, taking such chances, and with the black pieces. Is it my imagination, or is Black winning more games than ever before in top-level competition? Somebody do a chessbase-ee thing on this please!
Still, it is unfortunate that, as well as Anand is playing, that Kramnik is clearly in poor form. Anand isn't THAT much better than Kramnik! Plus, it is evident that his seconds did not prepare as well as Anand's. Seems like Anand has been first to the innovation punch in almost every game.
I give Kramnik plenty of credit for having the class and courage to calmly answer questions at the post-game press conferences. Imagine how tough that must be.... That is a real man there. We shouldn't forget that there are things larger than chess, and he is showing how large a man he is by staying around, not making excuses, etc. Given the past crybabies (yes, even our chess heroes Kasparov and Fischer, let's be brutally honest), Kramnik is rising above them in style, even as his chess is badly off-form. I'm sure we haven't heard the last of him on the chessboard. Who knows, he might be ill and is not mentioning it. Not making excuses, just raising the possibility. Anand is playing great nevertheless, best championship match performance in a long time!
Back to Anand. He used to be a real sharp player, then seemed to go into a period of relative positional play. Perhaps this is his return to a past style of his youth. Perhaps he should continue in this style.
Assuming there is no miracle comeback, I would look greatly forward to Anand-Topalov. Yes, I am assuming that Topalov will defeat the excellent but out-gunned Kamsky (sorry, it's my opinion!). I hope Topalov doesn't pull the garbage he pulled in the last match, he lost me as a fan there.
I wouldn’t say “than ever before,” but I would agree that at the highest level, black seems to win more often as of late. I filtered CB Big Database 2008 (no 2008 games) for all games where both players were rated 2700 or above (“top level competition”). The games listed were from 1980-2007, and I made no control for the time control (so…blitz and active games are included).
BLACK WINNING PERCENTAGE (where both players are 2700+)
All years, '80-'07…16%
Decade, '98-'07…16%
98-99…17%
00-01…15%
02-03…16%
04-05…14%
06-07…18%
In the years '98-'07, a winner’s rating is on average 12 rating points higher than the opponent (that goes from both sides of the board). The white winning percentage was almost constant at 27-28% for the past decade.
I downloaded all of the available 2008 TWIC files and when both players are 2700+ black wins 28% of the time. This year is HEAVILY weighted with blitz and active games (e.g. Tal Memorial Blitz and Rapid Championships) in this year’s schedule, so take that number with a grain of salt.
[Edit] Incidentally…world championships back to Steinitz (classical+FIDE+PCA+recent “champion” tournaments) show a black winning percentage of 16% (white 31%).
Wow, thanks for the chessbase analysis! Just seemed to me that Black’s openings are sharper these days and he is winning more games than i remember when i was younger.
I concur. Lines such as the …a6 Slav are more often aimed at not only equalizing but wrestling the initiative from white.
Can you post the percentages of white wins?
Here’s a summary from the ChessBase Big Database 2008, no adjustments made for blitz/active games…
WINNING PERCENTAGE (where both players are 2700+)
…W…B…
All years, '80-'07…28%…16%*
Decade, '98-'07…28%…16%
98-99…29%…17%
00-01…26%…15%
02-03…26%…16%
04-05…28%…14%
06-07…29%…18%
2008…30%…28%**
*CB does not retroactively include ratings prior to ELO implimentation, which explains why the data set starts at 1980…Kasparov v Tal if you care.
**Again…lots of blitz and active games in the TWIC source data so I don’t put much faith in this one.
I agree, Kramnik is showing very good sportsmanship. I am amazed he is being beaten so decisively. I actually thought he very well might win. The match is not over, but it certainly looks at this point it is all down hill for Anand.
I think that his personal life reflects his character, and my admiration for him has gone up. It is refreshing that that people can still compete at the highest level and still be civil and a gentleman.
We are blessed with a classic World Championship match. On what we know and what we have seen in this match, Anand is unexcelled as an attacking player, and Kramnik as a classical positional player, in the history of the game. It is not common to have such a match where the best in history is on display, and both players can be proud of their achievements over the board, to be included among the all time classic games.
I say this because in the Slav games 3 and 5, Anand played a totally thematic and natural move based on the attack on the light squares and g2, and crashed through both times. The line had been forgotten because all the GMs until now were trying to defend the b pawn rather than let it go. The move 14…Bb7 was almost new, but apparently a 2305 rated German player played it in 1993 (Doeppner - Voight), so credit must be shared. Anand’s play in both games is well controlled and powerful, simple and direct but dynamic enough to be out of Kramnik’s comfort zone.
Kramnik showed his strength in game 10. Who else could play like that? It’s the epitome of the Russian positional style as very few Russians could ever do it. The game was won positionally before Anand probably even realized it. And the very general idea of 18. Re1 is so simple (despite GM Rodriguez’s statement that it is difficult to understand): with bishops and more space on the kingside, don’t exchange rooks and move some pieces to the kingside, while playing on both sides of the board. It reminded me of Fischer, but when did Fischer win so smoothly against someone as strong as Anand? Nobody including Fischer could have many games like this.
I also found Kramnik’s positional conception in game 9 to be impressive. He allowed White to occupy the center far longer than I could imagine allowing Anand to do so, but it was the way to get the initiative. Rodriguez says the position after move 14 “looks OK for Black” and it seems that was correct, but the trick is to know that before the game is over! Later on there were a number of mistakes on both sides, but the opening was very interesting. (And yet another endorsement for the Black side of the Slav, a different kind of attack on g2!)
The loser in all three of the games 3, 5, and 10 played very strongly. That means the winning play was overpoweringly strong.
In each case an opening novelty was involved. That’s what it takes these days. But they were positional novelties, new ways of seeing the old positions, entirely different plans but fitting the positional requirements. These TNs are real intellectual contributions to opening theory.
(I have to contrast this with Kramnik’s development of the Berlin Defense against Kasparov. It worked, but I have to hold my nose looking at some of that stuff …)
It’s 6-4 and the match is almost sure to be won by Anand. Anand has been able to produce his type of positions more often than has Kramnik. Also, Kramnik has made more tactical mistakes, and that is not many. But it’s not over yet. I think this match will go down with the great ones. The unification match produced classical chess in the old style, but also with moves that almost without exception (so far anyway) cannot be improved by the computers.
I find Artichoke’s analysis and appreciation on the mark. I think it makes the case for a return to 24 game matches.
Imagine what a great match this would be at this moment, with Kramnik now displaying his awesome talents, and Anand having done so repeatedly. That they both play so fiercely, at so high a level, without personal rancor, and without a prize differential to incent them (though I think it’s disgraceful that the prize fund is split by agreement, regardless of result), is inspiring.
The case for a full month or so match, once every three years, is this:
Despite the high cost to a sponsor, surely one sponsor every three years would desire to see the credit for the only chess event which produces a small article in the main sections of the NY Times and LA Times every single game - and in every comparable newspaper outside of the US, too. At no other time is a chess game published in any newspaper other than in a chess column. Even if the cost of a triennial match is as high as $10 million, surely few things can get worldwide coverage for a month.
The lack of prestige - as evidenced by a lack of apparent coverage - of the current match, is due to some 15 years or so of damage done to the World Championship, and it will take more matches than this one and whatever next one is held to recover fully.
When we allow the importance of the World Championship match to be reduced, when we allow drastic increases in the random elements affecting who the challenger will be, when we speed up the game to make it more “in tune with the current age” - we lose some of the magic and power that chess has developed and carried throughout succeeding generations.
The shift to every second year for matches strained the system of qualifications, and put more pressure on the schedule of the champion. It is understandable that finding sponsors for the events that lead up the World Championship is challenging.
GM Boris Gulko was quoted in an interview that I saw today recalling the glory of the matches that followed the 1948 World Championship, and which continued with no disruption through 1972, and with some turbulance into the 1990s, before sputtering and then disintegrating.
It’s time for a plan to restore the best thing the chess world has ever had.
Hopefully the prize fund issue is just a “one off” that is a result of the unification process. I think it shows Anand’s class that he apparently agreed to it without raising a fuss, when it was a obviously a bone thrown to Kramnik for allowing the title to be put up for grabs in the Mexico City tournament.
I agree it would be nice if someone could bring back a stable cycle with a longer match format (20-24 games).