Anand retains World Champion crown

[Uri Blass]

YAWN²

I guess this was the most boring WCh ever. Let's forget it fast...

Exactly.
My suggestion to FIDE is to increase the stakes for the players to give more incentives to produce entertaining chess.

1. More games. The winner should win at least 6 games.
2. The winner gets a Bobby Fischer "I'm a Genius; a REAL Genius" WC memorial medal
3. The looser of the match gets tarred and feathered, driven out of town, bound naked to a donkey
4. After the match, the winner will find 72 virgins in his hotel room, unless he is gay, in which case he will sent to a monastery.

Please post other "improvements", which we then can present to FIDE.

A.

One of the reasons that 4 is bad is because you forget the case that the winner is a woman.

[Uri Blass]

YAWN²

I guess this was the most boring WCh ever. Let's forget it fast...

The times of Bobby Fischer and Garry Kasparov won't never return.
In the era of the computers, there are a huge number of Gm that are Gm only for the opening preparation and some general chess knowledge.

I would be curious to see them playing at chess960 to see how good they would be without their opening home preparation.

Every GM is very strong in tactics and end-games, I don't know what you are talking about "only openings". I bet a chess960 champion would be a strong GM like in standard chess, and not some unknown player.

I don't think it is a problem of formula.

I think it is a problem of players.

I think only Carlsen and Kramnik can be someway compared with the generation of Petrosjan, Spassky, Geller, Botvinnik, Bronstein, Stein, Tal and...Bobby Fischer.

Best Regards

Bobby Fischer was the youngest Gm at his time at 15 years old.

Now there are kids that become Gm at 12,13 or 14 years old.

Are they stronger than Fischer? They become GM because they study and memorize opening lines thanks to the computers and make training with the computers.

You refer to my previous post but if you look well i say a pretty obvious thing.

Anyway you said that every GM is very strong in tactics and endgames.

I don't agree. There are some Gms that are not strong in tactics because they are positional players and probably there is a huge number of IM or FM that tactically could beat them. For example, Smyslov wasn't a great tactician but he was a great positional player and a superb endgame player.

As regards ''only opening'' i simply meant that many Gms are GMs and not simply IM or FM thanks to the huge opening preparation, it is a question of study.

I didn't say that without the opening preparation they would be relatively weak.

As regards chess960, i agree with you but i said another thing: i said that in my opinion many gms would have a lot of troubles to play at chess960 because their opening knowledge would be useless and many more talented and/or tactical players could beat them.

Best Regards

I believe that
The 14 years old of today are stronger than fischer at the same age thanks to training with computers
but
I do not think that it is mainly result of memorizing opening lines.

If it is the case it is easy to beat them with white by lines like 1.a4
or 1.e4 c5 2.a4

They probably do not remember theory after these lines and need to think and if they can win with black then it is thanks to chess knowledge that is not memorizing lines.

I do not believe that many GM are going to have a trouble to beat FM players in FRC.

Maybe some FM's are better today because they have more experience in FRC and GM are not used to the castling rules but if you give both GM's and FM's some months to train for a serious match then I fully expect the GM's to win.

If some sponsor makes 20 matchs of 12 games(total 240 games) for good money between 20 GM's and 20 FM's in FRC then I expect at least 90% of the GM's to win and I expect the GM's to score at least 160 out of 240.

[MM]

Bobby Fischer was the youngest Gm at his time at 15 years old.

Now there are kids that become Gm at 12,13 or 14 years old.

Are they stronger than Fischer? They become GM because they study and memorize opening lines thanks to the computers and make training with the computers.

They are still strong in tactics and other aspects than openings.

You refer to my previous post but if you look well i say a pretty obvious thing.

Anyway you said that every GM is very strong in tactics and endgames.

I don't agree. There are some Gms that are not strong in tactics because they are positional players and probably there is a huge number of IM or FM that tactically could beat them. For example, Smyslov wasn't a great tactician but he was a great positional player and a superb endgame player.

I think you are wrong to call some GMs as weak in tactics. Probably there are very few (if at all) FMs tactically stronger than a GM.

As regards ''only opening'' i simply meant that many Gms are GMs and not simply IM or FM thanks to the huge opening preparation, it is a question of study.

I didn't say that without the opening preparation they would be relatively weak.

As regards chess960, i agree with you but i said another thing: i said that in my opinion many gms would have a lot of troubles to play at chess960 because their opening knowledge would be useless and many more talented and/or tactical players could beat them.

Best Regards

Hi,
i didn't call some GMs weak at tactics. I just think that many GMs are not so strong at tactics and so they are tactically weaker than some IM or FM. I made an important example (world champion Smyslov).

Anyway i think you understood what i mean. You just have a different point of view.
I think you tend to mythicize Gms like they were Gods of chess.

Of course, in many cases (not all cases), they are super players, full of imagination, talent, tecnique, generally they are complete players.

But i think that many of them aren't so good, i mean, they could be IM or FM but they are GM thanks to the study, especially in recents decades, cause the help of internet, media and computers.

A Gm can be a Gm for several reasons, not necessarely all together.
But there is a fact that, i think, you underestimate. The study.

This regards not only Gms but all categories of chess players.

There are 1700 that are tactically stronger than 1900 but 1900 can be positionally stronger and have a bigger chess knowlege and so 1900 usually beat 1700.

Chess abilities are made by several factors: tactics, strategy, concentration, will, and others but, this is the real point of my post, there's a fact that in many way makes a big difference (when i say in many case i dont mean in most cases): the study.

So, like at school, a player that studies very much and prepares a lot of work at home (especially in the opening reportoire, but also in endgame) can be often stronger than a more talented player that doesn't study too much.

This is well shown when, some Gm get into a position in middlegame or in endgame and sometimes we all see that they seem to lose theirs head...it happens a lot of time.

Another example: if you know the activity of playchess, you see that there are a lot of tournaments and games between computers.

Well, most of them are Houdini, but the real fight is not about the engine used, but the opening book.

So it often happens that the winner is not the biggest hardware but the one who uses a better book that drives in winning or very good positions.

And the same ''method'' is used by several GMs.

I would like to see a human rating at chess 960 for these reasons, i 'm pretty sure that some top Gms (surely not Nakamura, the reigning chess960 world champion) will drop a lot and some IM will jump high because opening study would be totally useless.

But hardly chess960 will become a real field of competition.


Best Regards

[MM]

YAWN²

I guess this was the most boring WCh ever. Let's forget it fast...

The times of Bobby Fischer and Garry Kasparov won't never return.
In the era of the computers, there are a huge number of Gm that are Gm only for the opening preparation and some general chess knowledge.

I would be curious to see them playing at chess960 to see how good they would be without their opening home preparation.

Every GM is very strong in tactics and end-games, I don't know what you are talking about "only openings". I bet a chess960 champion would be a strong GM like in standard chess, and not some unknown player.

I don't think it is a problem of formula.

I think it is a problem of players.

I think only Carlsen and Kramnik can be someway compared with the generation of Petrosjan, Spassky, Geller, Botvinnik, Bronstein, Stein, Tal and...Bobby Fischer.

Best Regards

Bobby Fischer was the youngest Gm at his time at 15 years old.

Now there are kids that become Gm at 12,13 or 14 years old.

Are they stronger than Fischer? They become GM because they study and memorize opening lines thanks to the computers and make training with the computers.

You refer to my previous post but if you look well i say a pretty obvious thing.

Anyway you said that every GM is very strong in tactics and endgames.

I don't agree. There are some Gms that are not strong in tactics because they are positional players and probably there is a huge number of IM or FM that tactically could beat them. For example, Smyslov wasn't a great tactician but he was a great positional player and a superb endgame player.

As regards ''only opening'' i simply meant that many Gms are GMs and not simply IM or FM thanks to the huge opening preparation, it is a question of study.

I didn't say that without the opening preparation they would be relatively weak.

As regards chess960, i agree with you but i said another thing: i said that in my opinion many gms would have a lot of troubles to play at chess960 because their opening knowledge would be useless and many more talented and/or tactical players could beat them.

Best Regards

I believe that
The 14 years old of today are stronger than fischer at the same age thanks to training with computers
but
I do not think that it is mainly result of memorizing opening lines.

If it is the case it is easy to beat them with white by lines like 1.a4
or 1.e4 c5 2.a4

They probably do not remember theory after these lines and need to think and if they can win with black then it is thanks to chess knowledge that is not memorizing lines.

I do not believe that many GM are going to have a trouble to beat FM players in FRC.

Maybe some FM's are better today because they have more experience in FRC and GM are not used to the castling rules but if you give both GM's and FM's some months to train for a serious match then I fully expect the GM's to win.

If some sponsor makes 20 matchs of 12 games(total 240 games) for good money between 20 GM's and 20 FM's in FRC then I expect at least 90% of the GM's to win and I expect the GM's to score at least 160 out of 240.

Hi Uri,

the chess knowledge is itself memorizing. It can regard the opening, the middlegame or the endgame.

Talent is another thing. Talent is imagination, smartness, speed and precision in calculation.

Many Gm's are more talented than IM and FM but not all. Study has become very important.

Best Regards

[AdminX]

YAWN²

I guess this was the most boring WCh ever. Let's forget it fast...

Exactly.
My suggestion to FIDE is to increase the stakes for the players to give more incentives to produce entertaining chess.

1. More games. The winner should win at least 6 games.
2. The winner gets a Bobby Fischer "I'm a Genius; a REAL Genius" WC memorial medal
3. The looser of the match gets tarred and feathered, driven out of town, bound naked to a donkey
4. After the match, the winner will find 72 virgins in his hotel room, unless he is gay, in which case he will sent to a monastery.

Please post other "improvements", which we then can present to FIDE.

A.

How bout this, Only long time controls and No speed games at all. However you only get paid 100% for your wins, 25% for your draws, and 0% for your losses.

Example:

So if a pot is only worth up to $600,000 for a 6 game match. Then each game is worth a possible $100,000. FIDE keeps whatever is left over. Of course for WCH Match it should be 12 Games or more.

[Dr. Axel Schumacher]

YAWN²

I guess this was the most boring WCh ever. Let's forget it fast...

Exactly.
My suggestion to FIDE is to increase the stakes for the players to give more incentives to produce entertaining chess.

1. More games. The winner should win at least 6 games.
2. The winner gets a Bobby Fischer "I'm a Genius; a REAL Genius" WC memorial medal
3. The looser of the match gets tarred and feathered, driven out of town, bound naked to a donkey
4. After the match, the winner will find 72 virgins in his hotel room, unless he is gay, in which case he will sent to a monastery.

Please post other "improvements", which we then can present to FIDE.

A.

One of the reasons that 4 is bad is because you forget the case that the winner is a woman.

I thought of that but since no women is in the current loop I neglected to pay enough attention. Of course, if a woman wins the WC title, she will get 72 pairs of new shoes, all different colors or she can stick with the virgins in case she is gay.

[Mike S.]

Your opinion really don't count as much as the Number #2 and #3 players of the World

That's true; I'm just a spectator. But at least I know what I want to see and what I don't want to see. This match was 100% on the negative side.

[Mike S.]

My opinion has nothing to do with engine suggestions. Their chess was just shit. I can get a hundred times more entertainment by playing my online games at a 1500 +/- level, than from this "World Championship" match. I lost any respect for these players. Where is Bobby Fischer when we need him...?

[gerold]

My opinion has nothing to do with engine suggestions. Their chess was just shit. I can get a hundred times more entertainment by playing my online games at a 1500 +/- level, than from this "World Championship" match. I lost any respect for these players. Where is Bobby Fischer when we need him...?

Plus one.

[MM]

My opinion has nothing to do with engine suggestions. Their chess was just shit. I can get a hundred times more entertainment by playing my online games at a 1500 +/- level, than from this "World Championship" match. I lost any respect for these players. Where is Bobby Fischer when we need him...?

Plus one.

Plus 2