I remember at a google famous/interesting person conference that used the poker player cam as I method of improving chess, they were met with a skeptical Kasparovian response.

Oh come on.

Those games were, for the most part, well fought. Some of the games were drawn prematurely because neither competitor wanted to enter into crazy complications with 30 minutes on the clock, others because the positions were equal. Not to mention that that was also a much longer match. In this match they are for the most part blitzing out 25 moves of well known theory leading to dead positions, shaking hands and going home - especially on Gelfand's whites. It's just not comparable. Nobody is complaining about draws. Trying to compare this to Kasparov - Anand 1995 or comparing Gelfand to Petrosian just because of the draw aspect is silly and unfounded.

These players clearly don't want to play and they're showing it on the board. And I suppose it's not even just their personalities. What are they playing for? It's going to be a hollow victory when the 4th and 20th ranked players play for a title, while the new titans of the game continue to rise even further above the rest of the pack. These FIDE knock out qualifiers just keep leading to the dumbest results. This match, regardless of who wins, will go down in history along the same lines as "world champions" like Ponomariov and Kasimdzhanov.

Not really related but a hilarious quote from Gelfand I found while double checking some info on the candidates matches. This was after he won the final game against Grischuk: "I think statistically my chances were very good because I think it was the first victory by White in these matches, so it was very unlikely that there would be no victories for White in such a cycle."

I wonder what Grischuk's face was like if he was within earshot.

+1

I thought this match would be a joke, and so far it's been a complete joke. The games are almost pointless to play through.

Put Nakamura or Aronian in a match (that isn't quite short as well) with Carlsen, and then you'll get my interest piqued.

lol Nakamura, what did he do to deserve a shot at the title? Biased americans ITT...

At minimum, he is ranked #7 in the world. It's not ridiculous or biased to say he is at least could be considered for a wc match.

lol Noir_Desir, ignorant european ITT without reading comprehension.

In a match.

Meaning, ANY match. ANY match between Nakamura/Aronian and Carlsen, even a match that's not an official world championship match would be much more interesting to me than this official one between Anand and Gelfand. Heck, this "official" match between world #4 and world #20 isn't being treated as such by parts of the chess community.

The world championship system still isn't fixed yet. I just want to see two interesting type top players (Yes, world #7 qualifies that for me, and #7 > #20) battle it out.

If I wanted to mean "world championship" match, I would have simply stated that.

He may be within a few pts of #5 in the world soon, anyway.

He didn't say that Nakamura deserved a shot at the world title, he said he would be interested in seeing Nakamura play a match against certain people, as would anyone with a player who had a personality and was highly-competitive, or with a player with whom they share a local connection. That knee-jerk bigotry/nationalistic response is highly incorrect and inappropriate and it reflects poorly on you.

In the context of this thread and that post, it's very very reasonable to think Mclovin is talking about a world championship match. To the point where, if that's not what he actually meant, he phrased it pretty poorly.

And yeah give me a Carlsen vs Anand/Aronian/Nakamura (not because he particularly deserves it, but because he's an engaging player, signed Biased European) match which means something and I'll be happy.

the post he seconded called the qualification method ridiculous. Then he off-handedly suggested a match featuring Nakamura, who doesn't have any achievments whatsoever in the qualification cycles and also hasn't proved that he can hold his own in a match format against a top player. He also compared the winner of this match to Ponomariov or Khalifman which isn't appropriate because of the much longer matches at much longer time controls and the much better standing Gelfand or Anand have compared to those two.

If you want action, watch tournaments, of which there are plenty. The WC match is, and always has been, a different kettle of fish.

To state that chess is dead is simply a claim that no one who understands much of chess would ever make.

If you don't think this match is rubbish that's your right - though implying this is the norm for world championship matches is wearing exceptionally rose colored glasses, to put amicably. However, I can't believe you're actually trying to defend the qualifying system too. Knock outs are just silly. Gelfand qualified for this match in a tournament where, due to sheer luck, he didn't have to play a single game against Topalov, Kramnik or Aronian. He didn't play a single top seed. Instead he got to play the 4th seed, the 5-7th seed and the bottom ranked player. And one of the matches he only won on blitz tie breaks. So he plays 3 of the bottom seeds, wins one in blitz, and is declared the champion of the tournament. I don't really see how you could possibly defend a tournament where that outcome is possible. Round robins are the only reasonable format. And the amusing thing is a double round robin would have had the exact same number of games played (14) as that abominal single-elimination did. There's also the benfit that in the FIDE knockout tournament, there were a total of 7 matches played, 4/7 of the matches were decided in blitz/rapid. A double round robin event would likely be less decided by players rapid/blitz ability, which is probably desirable when competing for the title that's supposed to be classical chess world champion.

I'm not a huge fan of the knockout format either, but the reason Gelfand moved on without having to play those guys is that he won chess games and they didn't.

I can't believe the disrespect Gelfand showed for the fans and organizers by playing for a draw with White in today's game.

GELFAAAAAAAAAND!!!!

yeah knockouts are just silly. You can't believe anyone would defend them. Before knockouts were used, the candidates' tournaments were also silly. Ask Fischer.

Every format has it's advantages, it's up to the players to make them interesting.

Yeah totally. It's so obnoxious he hasn't dropped out yet and just given his sport to Aronian.

Well you're still not defending them. I'm just curious why you feel a tournament where a low seeded player can play nothing but other low seeded players (frequently with results being decided in rapid/blitz) and somehow win the tournament, is a good format for determining who should compete for the title of world champion. The format is directly responsible for the creation of "world champions" like Ponomariov, Khalifman, Kasimdzhanov.

You've seem to have been rather defensive throughout this thread. Calm down. I'm honestly just curious what you're thinking. What do you like about single elimination knockouts with rapid/blitz tie breaks, particularly as it compares to something like a double round robin. The DRR, again, would have been the exact same number of rounds as the knockout was.

Do you believe Gelfand won through good play aiming for the whole point?

I think they played chess and he won. The rest is overanalyzing.

Then again, he played 1. d4?, so I don't know what to think.

i think for the first time in many years there is a credible system to determine the challenger of the world champion. Of course, longer matches would be nice but apparently there isn't enough money in chess atm to run them. It's a huge difference to the knockout WCs that produced Kasimdzhanov or Khalifman, firstly because the matches are MUCH longer, secondly the time control wasn't 90/g+30s and thirdly because it wasn't boycotted by the world's elite plus Israel.

You totally fail to address the crucial arguments against a round-robin qualifier, which is that players without a chance at the one qualifying spot can massively influence the final outcome.

It's a pity that Carlsen dropped out, but that's his fault. His proposals, including abolishing the seeding of the WC into the final match, weren't anywhere close to having the support of a majority of the chess world.

You and McLovin are making the huge statements ITT without much substantial to back it up. I simply say: We do have a cycle now which may not be perfect, but is pretty fair and transparent. Let's see what happens. Now Gelfand won but you're still claiming (if i get your sarcasm right) that he didn't deserve even this win.

Getting a minuscule advantage out of the opening as White, forcing your 2800 opponent to find some precise moves to equalize and then converting the full point when he fails to find them simply is not good enough. We need to see some more fireworks, perhaps a queen sacrifice to finish the game.

Wait...the final position does involve a line where Black goes a queen up with check? I take it back.

GM Naiditsch's commentary on the game from chessbomb is amusing:

16. Bg3 Gelfand continues his match strategy: no chances for me and no chances for you games... pity for us.

16... Rc8 I consider 16...Rc8 to be an inaccuracy because...

17.Qe2 quickly played by White - Gelfand continues avoiding any kind of complications... In this kind of manner it is not possible to put any pressure on the World Champion!

21... Ne4 Vishy is playing now a really surprizing 21...Ne4. This move gives some choice. Why Black played 21...Ne4 and not Rxc2 followed by Bc6-Bb5? It is impossible he has not seen the option. He was afraid of something? Maybe-but of what!?

23... g5 again quite a strange play by Black. Seems like Anand is in a pretty bad shape today.

25. .. f6 we see 25...f6?. This is already a serious tactical mistake, giving White a chance for 26.Bxe4! fxe4 and 27.Nd2! with very good chances for a full point.

30... Nb4 Black is playing 30...Nb4 well...I don't think this move has a deep idea inside.

33... Rb1+ Anand is going for 33...Rb1 34.Kh2 e3, does Black has chances-not really. Blacks King is now going to be in a big danger

Gelfand once again played to draw, but fortunately for him Anand decided to play to lose! This match has gone from a mockery to a joke. That said at least now the games will get interesting. Before Anand has 0 incentive not to acquiesce to the draws now we're 5 games away from getting yet another new knockout "world champion." A world champion that will be crowned world champion without beating a single top 3 player in a game. Oh FIDE.

Ok, so you wrote all that but you didn't answer my question. Why exactly do you like about these single elimination knock outs vs the standard round robin type events? Players without a chance at the qualifying spot can influence the result is your complaint about round robins? Again Gelfand was able to 'win' his knockout without playing any top rated player solely because of a handful of surprise upsets. I'd call that players who, in your words, "don't stand a chance" massively influencing the results.

But for that matter who are these players that don't stand a chance? Gelfand was the second lowest rated player in the candidates matches. The lowest rated player was only 1 elo below him. I assume the complaint you're talking about the candidates turning into a sort of tournament where the question is who can beat the dog the hardest. In this case, Gelfand was one of the dogs. Not as an insult to him but as a contradiction of your point. He may not be world champion material, but he is still a strong player and certainly no whipping boy, even if his rating is more than a 100 points away from the current top dogs. Regardless, this isn't Wijk aan Zee or Linares where they invite some local hundreds of points lower than the rest of the field.

You misunderstand. He's not saying players who he thinks are too inferior to have a chance. He means players who are mathematically eliminated.

In a round robin, many of the matches involve only one player who is still actively competing for the challenger's spot. His opponent is too far behind the lead score to have a mathematical chance to catch up (say, 3 points behind the lead with 2 to play).

In a knockout, every match involves two players still actively competing for the challenger's spot.