Magnus more hungry. Anand nothing to prove.
Does Anand even have a "puncher's chance"?
Sort:
the prof. of the big bang theory vs matt daemon.
Oct 31, 2013
0
#44
shepi13 wrote:
Lawdoginator wrote:
Carlsen will win for sure. It's embarrassing for the World Champion to be so much lower rated than the number one player.
Until recently, Anand was rated above 2800. He is still rated 8th in the world, and it is well known that he is one of the best match players there is.
It's embarrassing that you aren't even over 2100 on a little chess web site.
Was Karpov ever rated #8 while he was champion?
Or Kasparov?
Or Fischer?
that yungn from halfaways across gawds green acre better play with all the gumpshun he can muster, yessiree
Oct 31, 2013
0
#46
The good news for Vishy is, if he can survive the 12 regular games with an even score, he can probably beat Magnus at the tie-breaker games. Anand was always awesome at speedchess.
varelse1 wrote:
The good news for Vishy is, if he can survive the 12 regular games with an even score, he can probably beat Magnus at the tie-breaker games. Anand was always awesome at speedchess.
How awesome was he in the rapid tiebreak against Gelfand? The latter had the advantage in all four games, missed several wins and lost one single game after overpressing.
mike_tal wrote:
Magnus more hungry. Anand nothing to prove.
+1
varelse1 wrote:
The good news for Vishy is, if he can survive the 12 regular games with an even score, he can probably beat Magnus at the tie-breaker games. Anand was always awesome at speedchess.
I hate to bring bad news to all that have mentioned how good Anand is at speed chess but........ well.......Carlsens better than Anand in that area too. Sorry. Whether it's blitz, rapid. Both actually. Sorry. I do like Vishy a lot and think he has some chance because he's more experienced and will likely be able to relax and concentrate better because of that but don't count on any advantages for Vishy if it goes to quick tiebreak games.
Oct 31, 2013
0
#50
The most important aspect is going to be time management. Unlike Gelfand last year, Carlsen is a quick player. Carlsen's youth and grinding play style will exhaust Anand, unless he comes up with a more attacking style of play (like the Anand vs Aronian game in Tata Steel earlier this year). My guess is Anand will be in time trouble more often than Carlsen. If neither are in time trouble, chances are the game is headed for a draw.
Oct 31, 2013
0
#51
Carlsen is objectively the better player, but Vishy has so much more experience. It will be a close match, slight edge to Carlsen.
chess_uncertain wrote:
The most important aspect is going to be time management. Unlike Gelfand last year, Carlsen is a quick player. Carlsen's youth and grinding play style will exhaust Anand, unless he comes up with a more attacking style of play (like the Anand vs Aronian game in Tata Steel earlier this year). My guess is Anand will be in time trouble more often than Carlsen. If neither are in time trouble, chances are the game is headed for a draw.
I think if you look at their encounters, even recently, Anand has still used
less time than Carlsen almost always. Carlsen may indeed prevail, but
it's not because he's a quicker player than Vishy.
--Vic.
aloishudal wrote:
all you people so confindently predictling a Carlsen match win have no eartly idea of how a young nordic white person prepares for a game. hint: he doesnt.
Don't talk bro... If your chess.com rating is ~200 points higher than ELO, that means even the worst FM has twice your rating...
fla2lens wrote:
unfortunately though, you can only predict something, before it happens.
lol
Nov 1, 2013
0
#55
varelse1 wrote:
shepi13 wrote:
Lawdoginator wrote:
Carlsen will win for sure. It's embarrassing for the World Champion to be so much lower rated than the number one player.
Until recently, Anand was rated above 2800. He is still rated 8th in the world, and it is well known that he is one of the best match players there is.
It's embarrassing that you aren't even over 2100 on a little chess web site.
Was Karpov ever rated #8 while he was champion?
Or Kasparov?
Or Fischer?
Now I'm curious. When Kasparov finally won the title from Karpov, which was rated higher? Who was rated higher when they first met?
good question. Let's have the answer, data crunchers.
Anand is only 26 points behind Aronian, and he has probably done worse in tournaments due to preparing for the WC.
When Kramnik beat Topalov he was rated much lower than him, but no one said that was embarrasing (Kramnik was rated 2743, while Topalov was 2813, a difference of 70 points). The Anand-Carlsen difference is around 95 points, not that much more when you consider that Carlsen is the highest rated player in history.
Of course, this all must be very embarrasing for Anand. He is obviously just a low rated patzer.
shepi13 wrote:
Anand is only 26 points behind Aronian, and he has probably done worse in tournaments due to preparing for the WC.
When Kramnik beat Topalov he was rated much lower than him, but no one said that was embarrasing (Kramnik was rated 2743, while Topalov was 2813, a difference of 70 points). The Anand-Carlsen difference is around 95 points, not that much more when you consider that Carlsen is the highest rated player in history.
Of course, this all must be very embarrasing for Anand. He is obviously just a low rated patzer.
No one thought Kramnik's 2743 was anywhere close to his actual level, since his rating was caused by a year of illness with horrible results. He was 2800 a couple of years before and after the match, while Topalov was in the 2730s to 2760s a couple of years before and after the match.
As for Anand's rating the last years being caused by his saving preparation I have my doubts about that. You may realise that he has dropped somewhat in playing strength as all players do due to age, but that doesn't equal him being a "low rated patzer".
Nov 1, 2013
0
#59
the low rated patzer was a joke :)
I'm sure that Anand has been focusing on prep rather than his recent games, but he is starting to slip with age. His big advantage is his prep and experience, not strength.
If you want to speculate over this match ie, who is the likely winner, then get a better idea of each of the players' chances by asking a bookmaker for the odds They rarely get it wrong. I would suggest Ladbrokes or William Hill in the U.K. they have years of experience over this kind of speculation. Just a 'phone call away....