Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

World Champ Draws Match vs World!

  • IM DanielRensch
  • on 8/14/12, 3:04 PM.

In what was surely one of the most gruelling simuls of GM Viswanathan Anand's career, the World Champion played 20 boards at once with one of those boards belonging to... the World!

The 19 "in person" players' ratings ranged from 1800-2350+ USCF; however, his toughest opponent was represented by a computer screen - the glass veil separating the Champ from over 5000 chess lovers here at Chess.com! Previous Vote Chess Matches would suggest the World's average playing strength to be somewhere north of 2650+ FIDE. And in this instance, the combined power of many was enough to match the world's best!

Though the game ended in a slightly disappointing (to some of the spectators) repetition of moves, the actual "clock time" of the game was nearing 4 hours of play! It was clear Anand wanted to win - but in the end, the prospect of 22. h3 may have seemed too dim to justify an even longer struggle toward an uncertain end - especially in one of the very last active games of a demanding simul. 

By repeating with 22.Be2, Anand gave us the benefit of the doubt, and gracefully granted over 5,000 Voting Chess.com Members a draw:



The entirety of the match was covered live on Chess.com/TV by host IM Daniel Rensch, along with co-hosts GM Pentala Harikrishna and Jason Stoneking (aka "ThePoet"). IM David Pruess provided on-site interviews with simul participants, as well as assisted with the relaying of moves. A full video of the broadcast will be available in the archives within 48 hours!

A final thanks must once again go out to Metropolitan Chess, Inc as well as the many other sponsors who helped bring World Champion Viswanathan Anand to Los Angeles for this event!

10861 reads 63 comments
4 votes

Comments


  • 2 years ago

    EternalChess

    all I can say about this match is.. zzz

  • 2 years ago

    IM dpruess

    You can find the video at www.livestream.com/chesscomlive

  • 2 years ago

    Spartan_FTW

    @Gert_Jan

    Thank you, though it's not an accurate calculation since it's a very rigid showing of voters per vote, and amount of votes per move. there are a lot of variables that come into play that prove for a little more consideration into calculation. flucuations of total numbers of voters and types of voters come into play, and from there you need to factor in the mean for each type...etc. i mainly was trying to illustrate that it is very possible to end up with 5000 voters due to the growth pattern after every move. though, there might likely could've been significantly less voters, but i believe it would be less probable. the only true way to know is to find out the facts. 

  • 2 years ago

    kingfisher6

    "A full video of the broadcast will be available in the archives within 48 hours!"

    Can someone please tell me where to find this?

  • 2 years ago

    Gert-Jan

    @spartan: good explanation.My example was not to come to exact numbers but to show that it was not very likely that there were so many different participants. however, a you showed , the number of participants can be suprisingly large.

  • 2 years ago

    Spartan_FTW

    @Gert-Jan

    Your argument against IM dpruess isn't too sound. IM dpruess didn't state that with each consecutive vote an entirely different group of chess players vote, but that there is a mix-up of new and old chess players for each vote-- hence the word "same."for instance, like you were stating before, there most likely is a group of die-hards of say 300 people consistently voting for each move,  then, obviously, there is a continual renewal of voters because the whole amount isn't the same. of the 700 it could be further categorized,as frequent voters(voting 75% of the time, but at random intervals), infrequent(voting25%randomly), and just one-time-voters.  So let's just say that of the 700, the frequent voters comprise half of that amount/350, and the remaining 350 is further split between  the infrequent and one timers--so infrequent makes up about 230, and the one-time-voters 120.  through a bit of calculation based on the former assumptions you get these numbers for the total amount of voters given for the total amount of 22,000 votes: 

    die-hard-fans=300

    frequent= 438

    infrequent=  1265

    one timers= 2640

     

    total= 4643

    though this calculation is crude, it is realistic, and it may even underestimate the potential one-timers, meaning there could be a significant amount more total amount of individual voters since one-timers compose the smallest portion of the shares per vote.  this logical concept of compounding numbers of voters after moves simulates--not nearly as much of course-- the exponential growth pattern of possible moves after each move in chess. which may conclude why a master such as david pruess was able to comprehend the concept more easily than you.  other than this, it was a quite entertaining game, though the ending was perhaps, as many would agree, dull. i doubt the same conclusion would happen if chess.com was unaided and Anand was only facing one opponent. 

  • 2 years ago

    JimLasker4

    THE  chat option on the chess.com tv site explains many things, i didnt know about that and was completely blown away seeing everyone voting for the strongest moves by instict(as i thought).Even if the 1000 + people voting were the high rated the team average couldnt be above 1800.i wish i knew about that.

  • 2 years ago

    IM dpruess

    i've answered that below in the comments already, but i'll repeat it +16=4-0

  • 2 years ago

    abad_alnorxxx

    i think back is better by playing 18..... Ng4

  • 2 years ago

    Sicilian101

    Can anyone tell what was the result of the rest of the games of anand with the "in person" players.

  • 2 years ago

    IM dpruess

    i think your math is wrong.

  • 2 years ago

    chessdoggblack

    Say what we will, but we all cannot figure this guy out. We had our chance and still blew it. He gave us a shot and at the end of the day the world did not defeat him....any other questions.Cry

  • 2 years ago

    Gert-Jan

    @drumdaddy:

    "Gert-Jan, to find the 5,000 members who voted, they are listed in order of player strength after clicking on Team Members on the following page:

    http://www.chess.com/votechess/game?id=30534#"

    I found the list but these are the 6000 people that has joined the group and are POSSIBLE voters. The number of people that really voted during the game was per move much lower. Not over 1200. There are always people that has to do other things instead of this vote chess game.

    @ IM dupress: with all kinds of respect, but it is not very likely that the 1000 voters that voted for the first ten moves were totally others than the 1000 voters that voted for the second ten moves and so on. I think it is more likely that there was a group of die-hards of say 300 people that stayed the whole game and the others were participants that came after a while and were gone after a while. But then we don't speak about thousands of people but hundreds of people.

  • 2 years ago

    PiPPoI

    I played and enjoyed it a lot. Can anyone please explain to me the move 13 ... Nb6 (instead of Nf8, with the intention of Ng6). Honestly that was the only move I didn`t like by my fellow teammates, aside from the opening (I prefer the Indian type of games to the Slav structures) but that`s another story. Maybe the Idea was to force the pawn move, thus solidifying the pawn blocade? White`s double c-pawn however still leaves breaking options?

  • 2 years ago

    IM dpruess

    on any given move if there are 1000 votes, and the match lasts 4 hours, then the 1000 who vote on one move are not the same as the 1000 who vote on another move. over the course of 4 hours, the number may well be ~5000 as reported by Danny.

  • 2 years ago

    drumdaddy

    Gert-Jan, to find the 5,000 members who voted, they are listed in order of player strength after clicking on Team Members on the following page:

    http://www.chess.com/votechess/game?id=30534#

  • 2 years ago

    cafestream

    Although there was no chat option on the vote board, there was a chat option on the chess.com tv site, and most of us who voted were waiting for other people to discuss what are the possible good moves, and why some instinctive moves were bad.I think that helped a lot of us. Also, GM Hari talked of the idea of Nd7-Nf8-Ng6 a few moves before it happened, also many other lines were discussed during the game giving us patzers some idea of what to play.

    So we were not completely playing at our 1400 level, we obviously were helped a lot by others. Also, the average rating of the 5000+ players was 1400, but as many people pointed out only about 1000 people voted. These 1000 players were the most fervent fans and their average rating was probably much higher than the 1400.

    Please don't base your conclusions on that 1400 number which is just a statistic.

  • 2 years ago

    Gert-Jan

    "5,000 Voting Chess.com Members"

    maybe I am wrong but I only saw 500 people voting at the end while we started with about 1200 voters. Where are your numbers coming from?

  • 2 years ago

    Chess_Lover11

    Totally agree with SerbianChessStar

  • 2 years ago

    Chess_Lover11

    Previous Vote Chess Matches would suggest the World's average playing strength to be somewhere north of 2650+ FIDE.

    What a joke, though it might be cause of Silicons! 

Back to Top

Post your reply: