Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

thoughts on WCC 2012?


  • 3 years ago · Quote · #1

    ThePeanutMonster

    With the World Chess Championship just around the corner, and as we are all an enlightened and intelligent community, I thought I'd just ask around and see what everyone thinks of how the world title of our great game is run?

    It's clear from his Tata Steel performance and rank generally (no. 15) that Gelfand is way off the mark. Aronian and Kramnik on the other hand,(neither of whom Gelfand played in the Candidates match) are showing excellent form (granted, Aronian's London results were not flash, but there were draws with Anand, Kramnik and Carlsen). This alone suggests to me some wierdness in the way its run. I'd much rather see Anand v. Aronian of Any thoughts about who should be filling the spot?

    Calrsen, as we know has rejected the structure of the tournament, and I think there is some argument for either a swiss type tournament, or at the very least that the current approach is too long winded. I've never really liked Carlsen from the interviews I've seen with him (his playing ability aside) but I have to concede that seeing Gelfand being annihilated by Anand this year is not going to benefit the spectators or the game. Maybe it should just be no. 1 versus no. 2 on the FIDE list? What do people think about have a champion-challenger type approach, or should the champion have to win it fair in square as in football?

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #2

    Shivsky

    The world championship qualification and scheduling is always "lagged" in reference to the peak performers today ... which kind of sucks for those expecting the most entertaining players to be the ones duking it out for the crown.

    Nevertheless, you can't  discredit Gelfand's fight  up the challenger hurdles nor can you forget how Anand defended this title the last two times.  They actually might provide some spectacular games for us to watch! :)

    To your point about the #1 vs #2 being the sole candidates for every WCh. bout => I'm not too sold on that idea  as  the title is won via a series of head-to-head matches and the ranking is more derivative of current tournament successes around the world. I imagine they are a few different skill sets between the two?

    There are 1-on-1 match players, there are tournament players and sure, we'd like to believe the true great ones ought to do both really well!

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #3

    Arctor

    ThePeanutMonster wrote:

    With the World Chess Championship just around the corner, and as we are all an enlightened and intelligent community, I thought I'd just ask around and see what everyone thinks of how the world title of our great game is run?

    It's clear from his Tata Steel performance and rank generally (no. 15) that Gelfand is way off the mark. Aronian and Kramnik on the other hand,(neither of whom Gelfand played in the Candidates match) are showing excellent form (granted, Aronian's London results were not flash, but there were draws with Anand, Kramnik and Carlsen). This alone suggests to me some wierdness in the way its run. I'd much rather see Anand v. Aronian of Any thoughts about who should be filling the spot?

    Calrsen, as we know has rejected the structure of the tournament, and I think there is some argument for either a swiss type tournament, or at the very least that the current approach is too long winded. I've never really liked Carlsen from the interviews I've seen with him (his playing ability aside) but I have to concede that seeing Gelfand being annihilated by Anand this year is not going to benefit the spectators or the game. Maybe it should just be no. 1 versus no. 2 on the FIDE list? What do people think about have a champion-challenger type approach, or should the champion have to win it fair in square as in football?


     And like Gelfand won the candidates?


Back to Top

Post your reply: