Comments on: FIDE accepts bid, Anand-Topalov in Sofia

By: Ianis

Ianis — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 01:48:18 +0000

It’s true the fall of the Soviet Union was a real loss for chess .

By: EAMONN REAY

EAMONN REAY — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 21:10:23 +0000

If consistency and equity were universal political, social and sporting traits then we truly would have Utopia. Whilst it is impossible (quite normally) to agree with everything the FIDE beurocracy does, I believe we are enjoying a rich period of chess talent, competition and indeed organisation. Of course there are a lot of contributors to this state. The chess media, all of the national and local organisations, the various mentors. Chess is a game of high ego, both on and off the board
FIDE could do better, and needs good positive criticism to improve. However, without their ruling influence, anarchy would indeed rule.
Long live d4, e4, and all the rich diversity of the game and its promotion.

By: Chris

Chris — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 20:40:03 +0000

Well it looks like we need to bring back the USSR.

Because the 24 game WCC only really existed from 1951 until 1990 in parallel (apart from the Fischer hiccup) with Soviet chess domination. All the champions & challengers apart from Fischer were products of the Soviet School of chess (yes, even the dissident Swiss, Viktor Korchnoy.

Before that it was anarchy, with different rules each time there was a match & conditions set by the reigning champion.

Since then it has been anarchy – parallel WCCs, classic but shortened matches on one hand, FIDE KOs & Tournaments & matches on the other with rules set by the Great Dictator, Kirsan.

So bring back the Soviet Union !

By: Coco Loco

Coco Loco — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 19:14:10 +0000

When Anand and Kramnik were battling it out, Topalov was making his run back to number 1 on the list. By the time, Anand and Topalov play, Carlsen and Aronian will be 1 and 2. And so on…

Here’s an idea: no more matches until one (or two) player(s) distance themselves a little from the pack. Smth on the order of 50 Elo points. The last two tournament-style championships were great successes, so why not stick to that format for now?

By: Castro

Castro — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 17:06:25 +0000

@cashparov (great nick, BTW)

I agree with your irony, but the Hübner – Smyslov made to me a lot of sense, if the alternative was blitz tie-breaks. They played a classic elimination match for a classic chess title, and they got tied. So any of them could advance.
If there couldn’t be played more clasic games, roulette is as fair as it could get!
So your first “sugestion” is way worse!
One thing is letting luck decide, among equal pretenders, at the end of their tied fight, in order to advance to the next stage.
Other is calling other totaly different game (one we make all effords to distinguish and is — in the chess sphere — specialy opposed).
It’s almost like tie-breaking tennis by a ping-pong game.Outragious!

By: Castro

Castro — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 16:49:54 +0000

*rapid chess, I meant, of course

By: Castro

Castro — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 16:49:09 +0000

@Lee

Solved?? Not even quite adressed.
New classic? Oh god!
Maybe you’d made some sense if talking about raid chess.
So, no, no questions!

By: cashparov

cashparov — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 12:01:49 +0000

why 12 games? one armagedon game should be enough. or spin a roulette wheel like in huebner-smyslov 1983. hahaha.

By: Lee

Lee — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 06:32:11 +0000

Solution: The longest time control for all chess tournaments and matches is 60+10 Fischer, and if the Wch match is tied, there’ll be no need for rapids because rapid is the new classical, so the players will head straight into the blitz. Ditto for candidates.

Problem solved, any questions?

By: Castro

Castro — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 02:26:10 +0000

Indeed. WCC shouldn’t be so short on games.
(Also, obviously, there shouldn’t be rapid tie-breaks! That’s shameful.)
That said, there have been WCC short matches before. For instance Lasker x Schlecter had just 10 games.

I know the sponsor thing can get difficult, but I think we should return to a certain number of wins, say 6.
The WC keeps the title if he scores 6 wins, and the match stops The chalenger wins the title if he scores 6 wins and if on the imediate next game the WC can’t even the score.