waffllemaster wrote:
Why bother playing a match? The loser gets $500 000 (just guessing, but seriously, it's a lot).
Exactly.
Sponsors rarely pay players much to not have a match.
Who will win the 2013 world championship? Anand or Carlsen?
Sort:
TetsuoShima wrote:
Victor-Servranckx wrote:
I know who the world would like to see win.
actually i dont think so, because Anand would be actually a poetical win, that the power of the youth cant tumble the wisdom of the old .
If Anand would win people would believe that chess is also a country for old man.
Where old tigers dont get pushed away by new tigers, because they became toothless and weak.
Interesting point. Although on the other hand we would have a nice fresh champion if Magnus won, instead of having the same one all of the time :)
It would be huge for Magnus, as he would then answer pretty much all of his doubters. Honestly I think the rating system is a better (albeit less dramatic/exciting) indicator of strength -- it keeps an accurate summary of results against a wide variety of players, not just one particular player you might have prepared against really well for example -- but of course it would be nice if Magnus could show he can also win in a match setting.
CARLSEN
Jul 6, 2013
0
#85
I (along with everybody else here) cannot claim any great insight into this match, but as far as I can tell this looks like the biggest fait accompli since Capa - Lasker. I predict a similar score to that match: +4 for Carlsen, with no losses.
Elubas wrote:
Interesting point. Although on the other hand we would have a nice fresh champion if Magnus won, instead of having the same one all of the time :)
It would be huge for Magnus, as he would then answer pretty much all of his doubters. Honestly I think the rating system is a better (albeit less dramatic/exciting) indicator of strength -- it keeps an accurate summary of results against a wide variety of players, not just one particular player you might have prepared against really well for example -- but of course it would be nice if Magnus could show he can also win in a match setting.
I'm picking Anand to win (and rooting for him), but I defintiely agree with Elubas on the point regarding the rating system: it's a better overall indicator of strength than a match. Sometimes, a weaker player will simply be able to perform well against a stronger player for any number of unknown reasons. I don't believe Kramnik was an overall superior player to Kasparov, but he generally outperformed him in individual encounters. I think Lasker was a superior player to Pillsbury, but Pillsbury generally performed very well against Lasker. Ratings aren't perfect, but I do think they are the best available indicator of the best current player.
If I'm allowed to daydream briefly and imagine myself a world class elite GM, I think I'd consider it a greater accomplishment to make #1 than win the WCC title (although I'm sure having both would be nice!) Of course, as I'll never be in that league, that's speculation and I'm not really certain what my goals would be in that situation.
At the same time, however, I confess I like the tradition of having the titled championship decided by a match. Whether it's the most accurate or best way to determine a titled champion is certainly questionable, but I personally like the idea that any given individual vying for that title must meet and defeat one specific challenger (or titleholder) head-to-head.
Anyways, just my personal thoughts on the subject.
Carlsen, although it would be more reasonable to be vishy.
TetsuoShima wrote:
to be honest kingvista i think it will be much harder for Anand. The pride of India, playing in his country. Millions of indians watch him and wait for him to make them proud the way he used to do.
Magnus has nothing to lose he always can think he might get a second chance, but Anand how often will there be a championship in india.
Really the pressure on Anand is probably unbelievable high
Remember, support for Anand will come from everywhere in the country. Magnus will have to adjust to the environment. (I don't mention the food, well, not me who mentions Indian food, it is somebody else)
So, the pressure is on Magnus. Anand has the home field advantage.
bean_Fischer wrote:
TetsuoShima wrote:
to be honest kingvista i think it will be much harder for Anand. The pride of India, playing in his country. Millions of indians watch him and wait for him to make them proud the way he used to do.
Magnus has nothing to lose he always can think he might get a second chance, but Anand how often will there be a championship in india.
Really the pressure on Anand is probably unbelievable high
Remember, support for Anand will come from everywhere in the country. Magnus will have to adjust to the environment. (I don't mention the food, well, not me who mentions Indian food, it is somebody else)
So, the pressure is on Magnus. Anand has the home field advantage.
Magnus will have no pressure, it will raise his fighting spirit. But Anand will have the pressure of not wanting to dissapoint the loyal fans that put their hopes and dreams into his hand.
At least thats what i believe.
Elubas wrote: Honestly I think the rating system is a better (albeit less dramatic/exciting) indicator of strength -- it keeps an accurate summary of results against a wide variety of players, not just one particular player
Agreed, and I never understood why some people seem to be hung up on the idea that the World Champion must be the strongest player in the world, and, as was said just the other day, that the rating system just is incorrect unless Anand is ranked as the best player in the world. Or Gelfand, if he had won that rapid game he lost.
When Smyslov won the Candidates in 1953 with a big margin he lost his minimatch to Kotov, who finished 8-9th. Does that mean that Kotov was better than Smyslov? If so, he must at the same time have been worse than Boleslavsky, who he lost his games to but who finished even further down the field. It is just impossible to construct a world ranking that way.
Kramnik may have done well against Kasparov since his playing style was difficult for Kasparov. When he was given a match without qualifying he won it. Still, if Kramnik supposedly was a better chess player than Kasparov because of this, Kasparov must certainly have been better than Shirov, who he scored something like 15-0 against. And Shirov won the qualification match against Kramnik, so how could Kramnik be seen as better than Shirov? This way of ranking players obviously just doesn't work, and the rating list is in general a much better tool for that.
[COMMENT DELETED]
anandraj365 wrote:
I (Anand) Will Win........................ Go India Go !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
bean_Fischer wrote:
TetsuoShima wrote:
to be honest kingvista i think it will be much harder for Anand. The pride of India, playing in his country. Millions of indians watch him and wait for him to make them proud the way he used to do.
Magnus has nothing to lose he always can think he might get a second chance, but Anand how often will there be a championship in india.
Really the pressure on Anand is probably unbelievable high
Remember, support for Anand will come from everywhere in the country. Magnus will have to adjust to the environment. (I don't mention the food, well, not me who mentions Indian food, it is somebody else)
So, the pressure is on Magnus. Anand has the home field advantage.
If he doesn't want Indian food, he won't have to eat it.
fabelhaft wrote:
Elubas wrote: Honestly I think the rating system is a better (albeit less dramatic/exciting) indicator of strength -- it keeps an accurate summary of results against a wide variety of players, not just one particular player
Agreed, and I never understood why some people seem to be hung up on the idea that the World Champion must be the strongest player in the world, and, as was said just the other day, that the rating system just is incorrect unless Anand is ranked as the best player in the world. Or Gelfand, if he had won that rapid game he lost.
When Smyslov won the Candidates in 1953 with a big margin he lost his minimatch to Kotov, who finished 8-9th. Does that mean that Kotov was better than Smyslov? If so, he must at the same time have been worse than Boleslavsky, who he lost his games to but who finished even further down the field. It is just impossible to construct a world ranking that way.
Kramnik may have done well against Kasparov since his playing style was difficult for Kasparov. When he was given a match without qualifying he won it. Still, if Kramnik supposedly was a better chess player than Kasparov because of this, Kasparov must certainly have been better than Shirov, who he scored something like 15-0 against. And Shirov won the qualification match against Kramnik, so how could Kramnik be seen as better than Shirov? This way of ranking players obviously just doesn't work, and the rating list is in general a much better tool for that.
Agreed, for maybe Anand Will crush Svilder yet Svildlers score against Aronian is pretty good. But then Aronian beats anand who is the best??
varelse1 wrote:
waffllemaster wrote:
Why bother playing a match? The loser gets $500 000 (just guessing, but seriously, it's a lot).
Exactly.
Sponsors rarely pay players much to not have a match.
The emphasis was on the supposed 'certainty' not on whether I understood that there are finanical incentives in a match. I think everyone understands that.
VB
ChessPlayer6033 wrote:
fabelhaft wrote:
Elubas wrote: Honestly I think the rating system is a better (albeit less dramatic/exciting) indicator of strength -- it keeps an accurate summary of results against a wide variety of players, not just one particular player
Agreed, and I never understood why some people seem to be hung up on the idea that the World Champion must be the strongest player in the world, and, as was said just the other day, that the rating system just is incorrect unless Anand is ranked as the best player in the world. Or Gelfand, if he had won that rapid game he lost.
When Smyslov won the Candidates in 1953 with a big margin he lost his minimatch to Kotov, who finished 8-9th. Does that mean that Kotov was better than Smyslov? If so, he must at the same time have been worse than Boleslavsky, who he lost his games to but who finished even further down the field. It is just impossible to construct a world ranking that way.
Kramnik may have done well against Kasparov since his playing style was difficult for Kasparov. When he was given a match without qualifying he won it. Still, if Kramnik supposedly was a better chess player than Kasparov because of this, Kasparov must certainly have been better than Shirov, who he scored something like 15-0 against. And Shirov won the qualification match against Kramnik, so how could Kramnik be seen as better than Shirov? This way of ranking players obviously just doesn't work, and the rating list is in general a much better tool for that.
Agreed, for maybe Anand Will crush Svilder yet Svildlers score against Aronian is pretty good. But then Aronian beats anand who is the best??
No, head to head matches determine who the better of two players are. Ratings show how you average against a set. The only way I'd say ratings show who the real number 1 is is if games were divided equally among the set and played over a long period of time. e.g. Ivanchuk goes to many tournaments leaving him tired or not as well prepared. Others may avoid certain tourneys or have a run against a certain opponent etc.
And back when the candidates cycles consisted of many matches that was an even better system.
If you compare matches from different times then it's pointless. e.g. Kramnik beat Kasparov. It's just silly. Of course early career or near retirement is not the same as peak form.
waffllemaster wrote:
ChessPlayer6033 wrote:
fabelhaft wrote:
Elubas wrote: Honestly I think the rating system is a better (albeit less dramatic/exciting) indicator of strength -- it keeps an accurate summary of results against a wide variety of players, not just one particular player
Agreed, and I never understood why some people seem to be hung up on the idea that the World Champion must be the strongest player in the world, and, as was said just the other day, that the rating system just is incorrect unless Anand is ranked as the best player in the world. Or Gelfand, if he had won that rapid game he lost.
When Smyslov won the Candidates in 1953 with a big margin he lost his minimatch to Kotov, who finished 8-9th. Does that mean that Kotov was better than Smyslov? If so, he must at the same time have been worse than Boleslavsky, who he lost his games to but who finished even further down the field. It is just impossible to construct a world ranking that way.
Kramnik may have done well against Kasparov since his playing style was difficult for Kasparov. When he was given a match without qualifying he won it. Still, if Kramnik supposedly was a better chess player than Kasparov because of this, Kasparov must certainly have been better than Shirov, who he scored something like 15-0 against. And Shirov won the qualification match against Kramnik, so how could Kramnik be seen as better than Shirov? This way of ranking players obviously just doesn't work, and the rating list is in general a much better tool for that.
Agreed, for maybe Anand Will crush Svilder yet Svildlers score against Aronian is pretty good. But then Aronian beats anand who is the best??
No, head to head matches determine who the better of two players are. Ratings show how you average against a set. The only way I'd say ratings show who the real number 1 is is if games were divided equally among the set and played over a long period of time. e.g. Ivanchuk goes to many tournaments leaving him tired or not as well prepared. Others may avoid certain tourneys or have a run against a certain opponent etc.
And back when the candidates cycles consisted of many matches that was an even better system.
If you compare matches from different times then it's pointless. e.g. Kramnik beat Kasparov. It's just silly. Of course early career or near retirement is not the same as peak form.
first i think you have a point waffle, second @ chessplayer how could you write Svidlers name wrong twice in a row???
waffllemaster wrote:
Why bother playing a match? The loser gets $500 000 (just guessing, but seriously, it's a lot).
Well, last year loser got 1 000 000 and the winner 1 500 000, so it ought to be something similar this time as well.
Carlsen