Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

2014 World Chess Championship Candidates Tournament


  • 12 months ago · Quote · #481

    MSC157

    McNastyMac wrote:

    I meant the performances, but thanks anyway!

    They are in the table next to their ratings. It says "Perf."

  • 12 months ago · Quote · #482

    fabelhaft

    Comparing Anand and Kramnik, the former has done much better in the World Championship cycles where both have been playing. In the 1994-95 cycle Anand won the Candidates while Kramnik was eliminated by Kamsky, in 2007 Anand won the World Championship clearly, as well as the match against Kramnik a year later. Also this time Anand won, well ahead of Kramnik. So Kramnik has never finished ahead of Anand in a cycle where both have been playing, and never won a qualification for a title match like Anand did in 1994-95 (PCA), 1997-98 (FIDE) and this time (unified). So maybe one shouldn't have been so surprised about Anand's result, but I didn't think he would finish in the top half this time.

  • 12 months ago · Quote · #483

    MSC157

    Here are betting odds for WCC on bwin:

  • 12 months ago · Quote · #484

    fabelhaft

    One unusual thing with this tournament was that it was the maybe first round robin World Championship/Candidates where the favourite or second favourite didn't win. Botvinnik won in 1948, Bronstein in 1950, Smyslov in 1953 and 1956, Tal in 1959, Petrosian in 1962, Topalov in 2005, Anand in 2007, Carlsen in 2013 and now Anand in 2014.

    The players suggested as winners before the tournament:

    Carlsen: Aronian/Kramnik

    Caruana: Aronian/Kramnik

    Grischuk: Aronian/Kramnik, followed by Svidler/Karjakin/Mamedyarov

    Ivanchuk: Aronian/Mamedyarov

    So: Aronian

    Giri: Topalov/Mamedyarov

    Polgar: Aronian/Kramnik

    Seirawan: Aronian/Kramnik/Topalov

    http://www.chess.com/news/predictions-for-the-candidates-tournament-5086

    And then there's the editor of chess-news.ru, Evgeny Surov:

    "If you asked me who would NOT win then I'd be glad to give you a clear reply: Anand. Let's agree on the following: If Anand wins the tournament I'll publicly admit I understand nothing about life or chess"

  • 12 months ago · Quote · #485

    MSC157

    fabelhaft wrote:

    And then there's the editor of chess-news.ru, Evgeny Surov:

    "If you asked me who would NOT win then I'd be glad to give you a clear reply: Anand. Let's agree on the following: If Anand wins the tournament I'll publicly admit I understand nothing about life or chess"

    Haha, the best one! Laughing

  • 12 months ago · Quote · #486

    joyntjezebel

    Pacifique- you say a lot that makes sense.

    You are perfectly right about match upsets.  Another peculiar thing is there are lots of examples of matches between the same two players with opposite results.  There was, in addition to those already mentioned, 2 matches between Kamsky and Anand close to each other in time in the early 90's with one going to each.  It just seems very odd.

    Another factor about the Euwe -Alekhine matches that hasn't been mentioned was Euwe's preparation.  His supporters in Holland arranged for financial support that allowed him lots of time to focus on preparation before match one.  Not only was this not repeated before match 2, Euwe had to spend a lot of time between the 2 matches doing simuls and the like to pay for the support he got before match 1.  It would be surprising if Euwe had played as well in match 2 and match 1.

  • 12 months ago · Quote · #487

    Shakaali

    fabelhaft wrote:

    One unusual thing with this tournament was that it was the maybe first round robin World Championship/Candidates where the favourite or second favourite didn't win. Botvinnik won in 1948, Bronstein in 1950, Smyslov in 1953 and 1956, Tal in 1959, Petrosian in 1962, Topalov in 2005, Anand in 2007, Carlsen in 2013 and now Anand in 2014.

    Don't have very good idea who the favourite was before these old tournaments but think that in 2005 the two biggest favourites were Anand and Leko. Topalov also had shown promissing form but still it was a big suprise to see how he totelly destroyed the field in the first half. The greatest performance of his career thus far.

    Anand this year was definitely a big suprise. Opinion of the general public is one thing but what's notable that even the experts seemed to write his chances off. I also didn't think he still had it in him but glad to be proven wrong.

  • 12 months ago · Quote · #489

    fabelhaft

    Shakaali wrote:

    Don't have very good idea who the favourite was before these old tournaments but think that in 2005 the two biggest favourites were Anand and Leko.

    Topalov had a great 2005, he for example shared first with Kasparov in Linares after beating him (while Leko drew all his games), won also Sofia clearly after beating both Anand and Kramnik, and shared second in Dortmund (ahead of Kramnik and Leko, after beating the latter). But Leko had also done fairly well, winning Wijk in the beginning of the year.

    The betting site Betsson ranked Anand and Topalov as the top two, but Leko wasn't far behind:

    http://en.chessbase.com/post/short-challenges-kasparov-who-will-win-

    With hindsight it's easy to imagine Topalov as being ranked further ahead of Leko than he was, since he soon would be #1, while Leko never reached top 3 and was already fading, but that was difficult to know at the time.

  • 12 months ago · Quote · #490

    shockinn

    varelse1 wrote:

    fabelhaft wrote:

    I don't recall Kramnik ever playing so badly. He has had some bad results before, but the number of blunders here was totally uncharacteristic.

    .

    Now that you mention it, I don't recall Anand playning so well either.

    Lol

    Your dedication on making a fun of Anand is applaudable.

  • 12 months ago · Quote · #491

    Shakaali

    fabelhaft wrote:
    Shakaali wrote:

    Don't have very good idea who the favourite was before these old tournaments but think that in 2005 the two biggest favourites were Anand and Leko.

    Topalov had a great 2005, he for example shared first with Kasparov in Linares after beating him (while Leko drew all his games), won also Sofia clearly after beating both Anand and Kramnik, and shared second in Dortmund (ahead of Kramnik and Leko, after beating the latter). But Leko had also done fairly well, winning Wijk in the beginning of the year.

    The betting site Betsson ranked Anand and Topalov as the top two, but Leko wasn't far behind:

    http://en.chessbase.com/post/short-challenges-kasparov-who-will-win-

    With hindsight it's easy to imagine Topalov as being ranked further ahead of Leko than he was, since he soon would be #1, while Leko never reached top 3 and was already fading, but that was difficult to know at the time.

    I wonder whatever happened to Leko. Lack of motivation, other interests? At his peak he seemed to be among top 4 in the world very close to the level of Kasparov, Kramnik and Anand and of course he is younger than all of them. Somehow he seemd to decline really fast after 2005 or so and nowadays he is nowhere near the elite whereas many of the older guys are still there.

  • 12 months ago · Quote · #492

    joyntjezebel

    Shakaati- What you say leads more generally to a question that interests me a lot.  Or 2 related ones.

    What allows some players to stay at the top for decades while some last for far less time?

    A couple of the top players around in the 80's,Lev Psakhis and Andrei Sokolov only stayed there for a year or so.

    Kasparov talks about this in his books.  He says you have to have a work ethic and be able to identify and improve on your own weaknesses.

    I would add you need good health to stay strong as you age.  I mean both keep yourself fit and by luck or good management avoid serious illnesses.

    The other question is why do some players very strong as juniors go on to be top players and others just don't.   Judith Polgar was as strong as Kasparov, Kramnik or Fisher as a junior, but hardly got any better after around age 15.  Mecking and Pomar were also incredibly strong young, but achieved comparatively little, especially Pomar.

    On Leko, he had a problem all his career with a lack of ambition- in the sense of being too often satisfied with a draw.  Maybe [I don't claim to be an expert on Leko's career] he was not good enough at adressing his weaknesses to stay at the top long.

  • 12 months ago · Quote · #493

    johnyoudell

    It must have been hard to lose that last game to Kramnik in 2004 - to be so close to the classical World Title and have it snatched from your grasp. And then he took a nine month break in 2010.

  • 12 months ago · Quote · #494

    joyntjezebel

    Leko was severely criticised for not even trying to win a game where he was a pawn up late in the match.

    Its extremely puzzling.

  • 12 months ago · Quote · #495

    fabelhaft

    I think Leko was helped a bit by the fact that Kasparov and Anand didn't play the Dortmund Candidates in 2002. He had really bad results against both, and I doubt he ever would have reached a title match if they had been present. Then he played Kramnik in the middle of his weak period around 2004-05. Otherwise Leko reminds a bit of Radjabov the last years. Careful, rather draws than taking risks, peaking just outside top three, and slow but steady decline in results. It looked as if both would be top five players for a decade but then the fire just went out somehow.

  • 12 months ago · Quote · #496

    mshaune

    -Pacifique- I'm finding it difficult [as I believe almost anyone would] to understand how a player who is beaten by '6' games has given an 'even' match. Alekhine's 'crushing'  win over Euwe is made even more impressive when one considers how far positional and defensive play had come. I appreciate the fact that your last remarks dealt with what I said instead of just dismissing me, but I hope you can understand that I see nothing in the 6 game spread that smacks of levelness. 6 games is 6 games. If there is some extenuating circumstance which caused this discrepancy I have not heard it.

    I am very aware that 'most' grandmasters believed that Capablanca would easily defeat Alekhine since I believe he had a 7-0 record against him in tournament play before being doubled up by Alekhine. If 'most' grandmasters agree with you I have not heard that and I would be very interested in hearing them explain away such a demolishing defeat. Again, I appreciate you taking my comments seriously enough to answer them, but I would be lying if I said I believed that Euwe was ever really in Alekhine's class. Grandmaster's opinion's were reduced by 'you' as subjective. The 1937 score stands as a testament that cannot be evaluated away.

  • 11 months ago · Quote · #498

    niceforkinmove

    fabelhaft wrote:

    Comparing Anand and Kramnik, the former has done much better in the World Championship cycles where both have been playing. In the 1994-95 cycle Anand won the Candidates while Kramnik was eliminated by Kamsky, in 2007 Anand won the World Championship clearly, as well as the match against Kramnik a year later. Also this time Anand won, well ahead of Kramnik. So Kramnik has never finished ahead of Anand in a cycle where both have been playing, and never won a qualification for a title match like Anand did in 1994-95 (PCA), 1997-98 (FIDE) and this time (unified). So maybe one shouldn't have been so surprised about Anand's result, but I didn't think he would finish in the top half this time.

     

     

     

    A single tournament is little better than a dice roll between players of this calibre.


    But in any case I am happy for Anand.   I think he will work on his endgames and be better prepared for Carlsen.   It will be a great rematch. 


Back to Top

Post your reply: