Anand vs World was a joke.

What losing some repect out the window because he'd have a challenge or lose to people who are at best average in chess.

bronsteinitz wrote:

Please show some respect people. The guy is world champ and I'm sure he did what hè did for reasons that none of us can completely understand.

Do you think the public enjoyed playing à couple of moves? For sure. Would they have wanted the thing to last 10 hours? For sure not. Did they feel good about à draw? For sure they did because they could have avoided

Next time we need to have the time control 3 days per move.

Yes I saw the game and thought it was very lame, I hoped Anand would have pushed us, it was obviously just a cash grab for him.  

Your best friend invited you to à party that cost him time and money and you were entertained for free. Would you complain about the quality of the catering or would you Thank him with your smile and friendship...

DO you think it was really a joke?

I just don't understand why chess.com removed the discussion from the game.  That pretty much ruined it for me. Was it because they were worried their servers couldn't handle the volume of comments? 

Why is everyone blaming anand for taking the draw?  Why would he risk being embarrassed by playing a group of players with an average rating of my own?  I blame ourselves for wanting a draw when we could've played to win, and regardless of win or loss, the game would've been much more instructive.  Isn't that the whole point to learn something from the game?  You know plenty of people had their chess engines out for the game so it was probably a waste of time anyway. Stop blaming Anand.  

I want my money back.

I'm going to post the game .pgn (unannotated) since I and some other posters were asking about it.  Exciting stuff!

Thanks for posting, I see now what people are complaining about. Still, I guess it was an experience that others have not been able to enjoy, so take from it what you will :)

I got nothing from it. Unless the lesson is to take a (probably) once in a lifetime chance to play the WC and draw in 22 moves.

Contrast that with what Kasparov said to one of the junior players he played against during a simul, when Kasparov (playing black) repeated the position, allowing his oppenent a choice: play to win, with some risk, in an unclear position, or repeat a 3rd time and claim a rep draw. He chose the draw.

Kasparov looked like his head was going to explode when the opponent stuck his hand out to shake. Kasparov said (I'm paraphrasing) "You have the white pieces, you are playing the World Champion with the white pieces. You have to play on!"

He was disgusted - and he had absolutely nothing to lose whether it was a draw or not. But what seemed very clear was that Kasparov, much like Bobby Fischer, believed deeply that you not only played to win, but with white it was an obligation - especially when your opponent is the world's strongest player. The guy may as well have just urinated on the chess board, Kasparov seemed that offended by such an insult to chess.

What does Anand do with the white pieces? The same thing the junior did against Kasparov: repeat three times for a rep draw with white. That is the difference between Kasparov and Anand (and being a big fan of Karpov, it took me a long time to warm to Kasparov). And that's why I hope Anand loses his title soon and why (largely why) I got nothing out of that simul.

I would much rather chess.com gave the money they gave to Anand to any one of the many great players who are staff here to do a proper simul against us.

Egads. The most interesting thing about that game (post 81) is the piece set @johnmusacha chose, to liven it up at least some.

LOL. Marvin the Martian for bishops :-)

A question: when playing a simul (I've never done it), do you have a good recollection of all prior positions in each game, or do you just play each position you're presented with without regard for how unit arrived there? Was Anand even aware that he was playing for repetition? Who claimed the draw?

Jesus Christ you "high" rated players are a bunch of egotestical J.As. So what if the median rating was 1400? Guess what, you "smart" chess players? The median rating of the world probably is 1400. And it was, oh my gosh, Anand vs The world. So yes, the world played like 1400s because the world is a 1400 and if the world is happy with a draw, so be it. And if you "high" rated players don't like it...

A) Get better

B) Play more tournaments

C) Raise your rating

D) Get high enough rating to play Anand in a tournament

and E) STOP INSULTING OTHER PLAYERS.

Am I the only one who enjoyed the game and thought it was decent?  The center ended up completely locked (interesting that Anand chose to play c5 at all) and Anand didn't think he had beter than a draw.  I thought we were worse and should be happy with a draw because of what I perceived as queenside pressure by white.  Anand was concerned about our kingside play after a bishop trade, and didn't think he had anything better than repitition.

Pulling the trigger with cxd5 might just backfire for white, trading bishops is potentially dangerous, and white's Ba3 is fairly useless.  So, it seems logical that Anand would go for the draw by repitition.

It's a weird state of balance in the final position between white's queenside pressure and black's kingside potential, and it ended up with a draw.  I personally found that interesting.

Plus, I got to take part in a game against the World Champion.  That has to count for something.

Ok, I know there is a book out there on this subject, but what was the format of the Kasparov vs. The World match in '99?

most of the games vs world are silly

because the world has to play based upon voting and not by selecting the best move