[gwnn]

Interesting first game with the Grünfeld. Should Gelfand have pressed longer with his bishop pair knowing that Anand can almost certainly hold?

[Foxx]

It is highly likely that the position was dead drawn.

Sure, you and I would have liked to have seen more moves, but you can't blame Gelfand for saving his fuel for one of his White games, where he has a better chance to get something in the middlegame that he can convert.

A bishop pair and an outside passed pawn are good assets, but are they enough to push for a full point at this level, with both pairs of rooks still on the board?

[JLOGIC]

Exciting game, though short

[gwnn]

After a slightly boring second round draw (to people like me who never really understood the strategical subtleties of the Slav), another intense game in the Grunfeld. Too bad Gelfand didn't go for Dembo's 3 .. e5

[gwnn]

yawn.

[Antrax]

Finally

[JLOGIC]

oh SNAP

[JLOGIC]

nice choke gelfand

[jjbrr]

yikes

[EricK]

JLOGIC, on 2012-May-21, 14:23, said:

nice choke gelfand

Bit harsh! The commentators (Leko and Nepomniachtchi, who are no slouches) didn't see that coming either, and were recommending Qf6. It's quite a subtle trap, really - a quiet move (Qf2) in a variation which just looks lost for white. It is understandable, perhaps, that Gelfand didn't devote as much time to that variation as, in hindsight, he should have.

[gwnn]

This is poetry.

[JLOGIC]

Can someone just pay a ton to aronian and carlsen to play a long match and we will all know that is the real world champion lol? Geez they are both playing so well, lol at carlsen just doing weird stuff in the opening to get an equalish but unknown position in the mid game and always converting to a win in the endgame. It is so amazing. Positions that anand would just offer a draw after 20 moves with are always 80 move wins for carlsen.

[gwnn]

Hence the criticism of the non-match-based Candidates format (Carlsen can squeeze out a win against positions 3-8 so no need to perform well against #2). However, it will definitely be an improvement over what happened in 2011 (several super short draws, most matches being decided by rapid/blitz playoffs). Anyway, you are unduly dismissive of Kramnik who has played some great chess in the past year.

[mike777]

as usual not sure what the question is


we can all debate the answer


ARE YOU REALLY SURE THAT IS THE Question?

[gwnn]

mike777, on 2013-February-02, 01:19, said:

as usual not sure what the question is


we can all debate the answer


ARE YOU REALLY SURE THAT IS THE Question?

'What is the fairest Candidates format that is still compatible with the financial needs of today's players?'

[mike777]

gwnn, on 2013-February-02, 01:35, said:

'What is the fairest Candidates format that is still compatible with the financial needs of today's players?'

and?

[gwnn]

mike777, on 2013-February-02, 02:02, said:

and?

and now you know what the question is.

[mike777]

gwnn, on 2013-February-02, 02:07, said:

and now you know what the question is.

you make zero claimsonlimits...zero


at this point you claim zero indv rights.

[zasanya]

'What is the fairest Candidates format that is still compatible with the financial needs of today's players?'
[/quote]
After a lot of experimentation FIDE has settled on the present format whereby the world's strongest Grandmasters play a tournament to decide the challenger for the world title.The reigning world champion then plays a match with the challenger to decide the next world champion. This seems a fair format.
Comparing Anand and Carlsen, Carlsen does show a willingness to go on playing till he can squeeze out a win whereas Anand does not show the same spirit. But then Anand is 41 years old and has won the world title 5 times in different formats and has held the number one rating slot many times in the past. Carlsen is 23 years old, at present has the highest elo rating in history but has yet to win the world title. Surely this explains the motivation levels of the 2 grandmasters?

[gwnn]

zasanya, on 2013-February-02, 11:14, said:

'What is the fairest Candidates format that is still compatible with the financial needs of today's players?'

After a lot of experimentation FIDE has settled on the present format whereby the world's strongest Grandmasters play a tournament to decide the challenger for the world title.The reigning world champion then plays a match with the challenger to decide the next world champion. This seems a fair format.
Comparing Anand and Carlsen, Carlsen does show a willingness to go on playing till he can squeeze out a win whereas Anand does not show the same spirit. But then Anand is 41 years old and has won the world title 5 times in different formats and has held the number one rating slot many times in the past. Carlsen is 23 years old, at present has the highest elo rating in history but has yet to win the world title. Surely this explains the motivation levels of the 2 grandmasters?

It is definitely better than the super short matches from last time around but I'm not sure if it's best. Anyway it seems to favour Carlsen and I'm a Carlsen fan so why not?