Sofia 2010: What I think

Not that what I think matters to you lot :), when I'm done rambling please tell me what you think too.

First, the most intriguing match since Spassky-Fischer. (yes, I was around for that too)

Unlike then, I have no personal favourite this time. Then I was young, and believed Fischer was going to save us from communist domination.

Again, we have 2 very different personalities. The calm Anand, and the Gung-Ho Topalov.

For me (patzer) these are the most exciting WC games I've seen.

When Topalov fell behind in game 4, I was afraid the match might fizzle out, espeially as Anand got 2 consecutive Whites in 6 and 7. But how Topalov played those Black pieces! Especially yesterday in game 7. And today he equalised with White.

So, now we're all even, is Topalov in the ascendancy? It must be a little ominous for Anand that he could get no advantage from those consecutive Whites, and he gets Black in the last game...

I know they wont read this, But I want to thank 2 great players for putting on  a great show.

BTW, what happens if it's tied after 12?

as far as i know, if there's a tie after 12 the champion keeps his title.

Actually, if there is a tie after the 12 games, 4 games of rapid will be played as a tiebreak.  G/25 with 10 second increment.

If there is a tie at the end of that tie break, 2 games of G/5 with 3 second increment.

No. There will be a tie-break match (25 mins) of 4 games. If the result is still equal, there will be another match of 2 games (5min+3sec). If after 5 such matches there is no winner, one armageddon game will decide.

My sentiments are very similar to Rooperi's. One of the most exciting championships - yes. No personal favorite - yes. Very different playing styles -yes, and I noticed a Petrosianesque touch to Anand's play, very guarded and solid. Topalov likes to take risks, his play is reckless sometimes.

What is an armageddon game?

[EDIT] oh a sudden death. What's the time control for that one?

an armageddon game is a blitz game where black starts with one less minute, and if the game is a draw, black wins.

To decide the WC with anything less than the long standard time controls is a disgrace.  As terrible as it would be, it would be better to have co-champions or no champion at all.

i don't like the rapid games thrown into the mix, especially if wrapped up eventually with an armageddon game.

I still like the old rules that after a tie 12-12, the reigning champion retains the title.

I'm willing to accept rapid games, but I agree that the armageddon game is a mockery of chess. the match shouldn't end immediately after 12 games, but if after attempts at more reasonable tiebreaks are inconclusive, the champion should keep his title.

I disagree about your sentiment that this is the most exciting match since Fischer - Spassky. I can recall other matches with intrique and stake much higher: Karpov vs Korchnoi in Manila, Karpov vs Kasparov when Karpov led 5:0, Karpov vs Kasparov when Kasparov had to win the last game to stay the champion, Anand vs Kasparov, Botvinnik's rematches. I don't know why this particular match is so much different then those battles of the past.

The quality of chess is good, partly because both players understand how wrong Fischer was concerning 1.e4.

the G/5 games should continue until a winner is found.

Settling the grandest chess title by blitz games seems so wrong-headed to me.

Hi guys,

I agree that this is a very exciting match.  I am rooting for Anand but have a new found respect for Mr. Topalov.  What an incredible fighter. 

I would really hate to see a World Championship decided by speed chess.  I mean, come on, that is deplorable.  I dont understand how any serious chess organization would agree to such a thing.  If it gets comes to that (and it may) we will be setting a terrible precident.  If the organizers cannot sustain sets of two game matches to determine a winner, than the current champion should keep his title on a 6-6 tie.  There is plenty of precident for that.

Watch your back rank. 

To toss in my 2c's worth - I'm ok with the 4 rapid, and the 2 blitz games, if the score remains tied at 6-6. The idea is to crown the player who is able to establish his supremacy in all forms of the game, be it classical time controls, rapid, or blitz. The armageddon is, seriously, about as logical as flipping a coin to decide the outcome - in OTW, a mockery of the chess talents and preparation these great players have exhibited, and hope it doesn't come down to that.

That's not the stated idea of this Classical WC, though if they allow rapid and blitz and even armageddon in the tie breakers then it's defacto not a pure Classical WC.

It's quite a change from the days when the WC match was arranged so that enough games were scheduled to "assure" that the best player won the title, and allow for some brief streakiness without ending the match. Nowadays we get about a dozen games.

In 1982, former World Champion Smyslov won a Candidates match against Robert Hubner with the spin of a roulette wheel. They had to spin the wheel twice because even the first spin was another draw (green). Armageddon blitz is better.

I thought Anand blew his chances with white by trotting out the same old predictable Catalan after Topalov was showing he could hold with black. Totally blown opportunities to throw Topalov off guard with an opening surprise.