Reports | January 21, 2013 11:16

Sergey Shipov’s review of 2012

2012 in chess was, yet again, the year of Magnus Carlsen. The Norwegian prodigy finally surpassed Garry Kasparov’s highest ever rating, causing Sergey Shipov to remark in his review of 2012 at Crestbook: “He’s Kasparov’s heir – not Kramnik, Topalov or Anand”. The full article is here at Crestbook and brief extracts in English can be found here.

Editors's picture
Author: Editors


b3wins's picture

Fascinating read. I miss having more such high level chess commantary in the English speaking world. Shipov writes with professional authority, love of the game, respect for its leading players, and a strong personal opinion.

In particular I'm impressed by his optimism and evident love of chess. He's not afraid of computers and of the alleged draw death. He goes as far as saying that even solving chess mathematically (which experts say will not happen in our lifetime) would not kill the game as a competitive sport.

But would we still be interested in it to the same extent? What's more important, the objective evaluation of a position or the subjective possibility that a player would make mistake in that position? Shipov says in this review, clearly the latter, but it is a controversial thing to say. At the present time, we are interested in both. If chess will be solved - there would be no post-game analysis, since all the answers about each position will already be known, so there will be loss of interest in my opinion.

Regarding Carlsen and the world championship: he doesn't refer to the wide-spread opinion that Carlsen's style of play (and opening preparation) is very much suited for tournaments, and hasn't been challenged in a one-on-one match. I wonder what Shipov would say about it.

Kronsteen's picture

I think he says (not in so many words) that the one-on-one match is an anachronism.

b3wins's picture

He does, but mostly in order to abolish champion privileges. A match tournament, like the format used in 1948, is acceptable for him.
One-on-one matches require a different strategy, and they have always been an important part of competitive chess. Is he suggesting there shouldn't be any more matches?

Lee's picture

Lots of good food for thought there.

On the question of Champion Privileges, I think it needs to be put out to pasture. I can't think of any other major sport that provides the reigning champion with such an incredible advantage.

The idea of an all play all tournament to determine a champion would be satisfactory and I think far more exciting than a 2-man 12 game match.

Latest articles