The 2012 World Championship of Chess!

This was my first WCC, and I followed it online as much as I could. I woke up early and watched the last three blitz matches. I was very entertained by them. Especially I think it was match 3 around move #30 when Gelfand had his queen on g3 and Anand was surrounded by his rook and queen wall (that was so cool, a King truly in the safety of his castle with his queen at his side and the knight guarding the gate). But it looked like Anand was on the ropes and he somehow it turned into a draw by marching his knight into battle on f4 to draw the enemy away...anyhow, I don't have much in the way of chess talent but I was bug-eyed and calling Anand a magician for that masterful defence to get the draw. I was so happy to be watching it live via internet stream.

I don't care to make comments on blunders because no one is perfect, even the best chess players now and through out history lose games either by making mistakes or being outplayed. Both player were playing to win the tournament, its a war not just a single battle, so you have to take the wins, losses and draws as they come and prepare for the possibility of it going to the very last tie break game. I'm sure a boring win is much more satisfying than an exciting loss. And I'm definitely sure Mr. Gelfand would love to have traded places with Anand and be the Champion.

In conclusion, when it comes to winning, they don't ask how, they ask how many!

P.S. I'm looking forward  to the Tal Memorial coming next week I believe...yay for chess!!!

@ fluidwill

that doesn't work though with only two parts involved.

wow... this was such a great experience, following The 2012 WCC and at the same time sharing your views here (positive or negative / balanced or biased, it's all good stuff). I think we got a good mix of learning and entertainment...especially those bar fights we had to break-up .

...so let's make an effort to return here for the next WCC when Anand will face ?????? well we don't know yet, but stay tuned folks...

They both were doing what they thought would win the match. 

I am a patzer, too, and often don't feel qualified to post my views of a position. But I did enjoy following it. Thanks, Sharon.

Hi "corrijean", we are all "patzers" compared to someone else. Don't let your chess skill level prevent you from sharing your opinions on any chess position...it is all part of the learning curve. One does not have to be "pro skilled" to talk about football, cricket, basketball, or even the weather...so why should it be any different for chess. And don't allow yourself to be bullied otherwise.

Thanks, jesterville. Good point.

Kasparov allegedly meant that the match in itself was disappointing, but that the tiebreak was below criticism. He said that the decisive game was an endgame that it is impossible to lose (and mentioned his own knowing how easily it was drawn already when he was 16 and playing it against Geller):

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1049968

Of course it isn't easier with little time on the clock and I don't think Kasparov makes himself more popular among the players with his statements, even if they aren't confirmed by himself but just referred to in another thread:

http://www.chess.com/article/view/anand-gelfand-psychology?page=2

On the third tiebreak game Kasparov pointed out that 26. Nxe4 just wins a piece and the game (fxe4 27. dxe5 Qxe5 28. Rxb8), and also that Gelfand failed to win an absolutely won endgame, as GM Milos also points out at Chessbase where he calls Gelfand's 61st "an incredible mistake". But Gelfand played slightly slower and got into time trouble, and that's also part of the game.

Even if Kasparov may be too harsh on the players I agree with his saying that Anand played splendidly against Kramnik in 2008, so-so against Topalov in 2010, and now on a clearly lower level. It will be interesting to see how he will play in Bazna next month, where he will face several strong opponents, for example Carlsen, Radjabov, Karjakin and Ivanchuk.

Kasparov couldn't care less if he makes himself popular.What he said is absolutely true.Gelfand lost an endgame that no challenger of the title should lose.That is the truth.

    Unfortunately Gelfands  2 defeats was an endgame that shouldn't be lost and a move that shouldn't be missed.Gelfand also lost a simple tactic with which he could won a piece.

    Although I like him a lot his averall performance was hardly that of a Candidate of the World Title.I think either Kramnik , Aronian or Carlsen would be champions against that Anand.

    We say that luck doesn't exist in chess but frankly there hasn't been another world champion that won a world championship without actually doing nothing.Anand's game was uncreative and uninspired.Even his novelties were like they were OTB discoveries rather than well -prepared moves of a player that was always excellently prepared.

     A dissapointing match and a dissapointing world champion.Anand certainly  lost a lot of fans with this match.

The person who is the world champion is not always the strongest player in the world.

No one doubted Kasparov, Karpov, Fischer, Spassky, Tal , Petrosian , Smyslov(and the others) when they won the title.  

.

well every champ goes through a downward spiral eventually (due to age).though in anands case I think it's more due to disinterest than age

that would only make sense in tournament play....wouldn't make a difference in match play

There it would make sense though if people are interested in matches where the players basically have to play for several wins to win a tournament. I think that could be rather exciting.

Thanks, netzach, dashkee, Charlotte, and corrijean

"So Canadians know there's a sport called Cricket. I'm surprised. "

.......................................................................................................

Balachandar, your first mistake is assuming that I am Canadian...I am not.

"well every champ goes through a downward spiral eventually (due to age).though in anands case I think it's more due to disinterest than age"

....................................................................................................

"CerebralAssassin", although I agree with your assessment of the ineviable downward slope of the performance curve...in Anand's case, a host of commentators have also speculated as to the "why". The fact is that there are too many factors that can be the cause. I find it interesting that everyone says motivation or disinterest, but no one has even considered health or other personal stresses which may be affecting Anand. I think we may never really know, unless he chooses to reveal same at some point in the future. 

Gelfand says that he lost because of "luck".  Lame excuse.

Did I miss anything?