12376 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
first game draw
You missed the second one today? Second game also drew.
This has been discussed to great detail before, but Carlsen did originally turn up for the qualification and won the first event. Among the players that refused to turn up were Topalov and Kramnik, who didn't want to qualify from the same starting point as Carlsen and Aronian.
Then FIDE changed the rules so Topalov and Kramnik were given Candidates spots without qualifying, as they had demanded, and the longer final match was substituted with a knockout of the sort Khalifman and Kasimdzhanov had won in the past. The players that were most positive about this change were of course those that were given a spot they otherwise wouldn't have had. Aronian won all his Grand Prix tournaments, but the only reward he got was one spot of eight, together with players that had refused to play the qualification.
So Carlsen withdrew, the knockout produced another sensation, and here we are.
Are "knockout" events really the best way to find a challenger for the WC?
Why not start everyone at 0 at the end of a WC and track the players from there, where they look at number of Tournaments/Games played and anyone that meets the requirement would be evaulated...the top 20 in that group would be legitimate contenders.
They could then do a couple of qualifying tournaments for those in the top 20 to narrow it down even more until they finally get a challenger worthy of fighting for the WC?
Anand is Scottish...
Rubbish. Both Anand and Gelfand are Indians. So, the World Champion this time will surely be an Indian. And, all the top 100 chess players in the world are from India.
Anand is Indian ofcourse.
But who got you the idea that Gelfand is Indian?!!
Boris Gelfand is an Israelian GM, born in USSR but immigrated later to Israel. See Wilkipedia.
It is also NOT true 100 best players are from India!!
I was just kidding in response to two others doing the same. I thought it was obvious.
How Gelfand won the candidates tournament?
Because Anand probably make him regret to win the candidates.
Both their names end in -and
That means another draw, another draw...?
I was just meaning that I'd love to see a world championship with more unusual "championships openings" ,and what's wrong with King Gambit ?If draws were forbidden unless material reasons ... I think it would be interresting to see what would happen .Technique and safety ... I love fighting spirit ... on those 2 games I only saw a boring technical demo :p
The only thing that I can imagine happening if you could never settle for draws was that the playersw ould tire out and the quality of the matches would drop. If it's a draw in both players eyes then it's fine for them to go for it. It wouldnt be russian to proceed in any other way.
Actually it means that Anand AND Gelfand will win.
The Aronian-Kramnik match was better.
Every match was better...
Because there wasn't anything at stake, this is for the World Chess Championship, they aren't going to bust out the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit to entertain the masses.
The problem is that 12 games is too short for a match between equal opponents - 70 points is nothing in the hyper inflated ratings world we have now. At their best, Gelfand is only slightly weaker than Anand and its obvious that Anand is nowhere near his top form so basically its a wash. Unfortunately there wasn't a decisive game in the first 3-4 because now as the number of games left to recover from a loss goes down the likelihood of one of them taking a shot in the opening recedes, although really Gelfand should go for it because he's likely to get blown away in a 25 minuute game.
The match should have been 24 games, or first to 6 wins.
I agree 12 games is too short for a title match, but it hasn't been possible to get sponsors for a long match. It costs a lot of money - a 24 game match would tie up the venue for 6 weeks.
maybe another 6 games to play in Israel and then another six games in India ?
If it was a theatre or concert hall I can see that reasoning, but its an Art Gallery, I am sure they haven't closed the entire building to the public while the match is going on. The real problem is Gelfand isn't Kramnik, Carlsen, Aronian, Topalov, Shirov or even Nakamura or Ivanchuk - they can't sell his name to sponsors. I am sure this is what the 1963 match must have been like, no Tal , no Fischer, no Keres just two grinders feeling each other out...
Most Active member race with Macer
by kayak21 a few minutes ago
by JagWar7 3 minutes ago
The Ultimate Test of Engine Fanatics
by Otomun 4 minutes ago
Cannot add utube videos no more!!
by thunder_tiger123 5 minutes ago
How do I go about studying the middlegame
by EscherehcsE 6 minutes ago
Chickenhead Cut-off Ending
by Scottrf 9 minutes ago
If you could combine two chess pieces powers what would the two pieces be???????
by nameno1had 11 minutes ago
what the #$%^was he playing and how did he win?
by Somebodysson 11 minutes ago
0-2224 in less than three years
by TheGreatOogieBoogie 13 minutes ago
12/12/2013 - Polugaevsky - Szilayi, Moscow 1960
by jonath99 17 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!