S.Taylor wrote:If Anand has so much trouble winning as white, and now it's a black one coming along for him, which he might well lose, then he is still far from looking like a clear winner.
By the way, when is game 5?
Huh? What are you talking about? Anand won with black in game 3. It's Kramnik who needs to worry about losing with white again in game 5.
Game 3 might have been a one-off, but not normally expected, especially as he hasn't even won yet as White. White is normally considered an advantage. (doesn't matter what happened ONE time).
S.Taylor wrote:If Anand has so much trouble winning as white, and now it's a black one coming along for him, which he might well lose, then he is still far from looking like a clear winner.
By the way, when is game 5?
Huh? What are you talking about? Anand won with black in game 3. It's Kramnik who needs to worry about losing with white again in game 5.
Game 3 might have been a one-off, but not normally expected, especially as he hasn't even won yet as White. White is normally considered an advantage. (doesn't matter what happened ONE time).
Looks like lightening struck TWICE.
Maybe the lighting DID strike twice, but thankfully the white win saved me!
I was only saying that wins as white are normally more than wins with black, if you are trying to prredict based on 2 draws as white and one win as black.
Normally, one would be inclined to say that the black win was a one-off. But maybe the other way round, the 2 white draws may have been a two-off!
S.Taylor wrote:If Anand has so much trouble winning as white, and now it's a black one coming along for him, which he might well lose, then he is still far from looking like a clear winner.
By the way, when is game 5?
Huh? What are you talking about? Anand won with black in game 3. It's Kramnik who needs to worry about losing with white again in game 5.
Game 3 might have been a one-off, but not normally expected, especially as he hasn't even won yet as White. White is normally considered an advantage. (doesn't matter what happened ONE time).
Looks like lightening struck TWICE.
Maybe the lighting DID strike twice, but thankfully the white win saved me!
I was only saying that wins as white are normally more than wins with black, if you are trying to prredict based on 2 draws as white and one win as black.
Normally, one would be inclined to say that the black win was a one-off. But maybe the other way round, the 2 white draws may have been a two-off!
The white win "saved" you?? LOL You said Anand was "far from looking like a clear winner" by pointing out his "trouble winning with white" and poo pooing his first win with black as a merely a "ONE" timer. Now you claim Anand's win with white as "saving" you?? LOL
Please, just admit you were completely wrong.
I mean, if Anand wins with black, he should win with white as well.
What's the problem? Do you disagree that white has the advantage? Or maybe you mean to say that it is on average, but not with everone vs everyone?
S.Taylor wrote:I mean, if Anand wins with black, he should win with white as well.
What's the problem? Do you disagree that white has the advantage? Or maybe you mean to say that it is on average, but not with everone vs everyone?
White having the advantage is a "generality". It does NOT follow that if someone wins with black against a specific opponent, then the same person should win with white against the same opponent. That depends on the specific opening they choose to play, and their specific strategies when playing white or black.
What Anand showed early is that he can easily draw with white, but that Kramnik has a "hole" in his white preparation and cannot easily draw when he is white. That is a much more dangerous flaw for Kramnik--not even being able to draw with white--than a problem for Anand--not being able to win with white. Although Anand has shown, even that is no longer a problem for him. So now, Kramnik must worry whether he's playing with white or black.
By the way, the match is pretty much over. Anand only needs to maintain draws, which he has shown he can easily do. While Kramnik will have to push harder for wins, and potentially expose himself to even more losses by trying too hard.
OK, if that's your actual theory, fine. Mine might be wrong in this case.
So now, Anand might not push much to win, whereas Kramnik might mess up more, in trying to win. so Anand will still have wins.
Kramnik ought to make sure he ends up atleast with well over 50%, and atleast ONE win. I'd prefer two.
Only to keep up his reputation and popular image.
If Kramnik can't do that, then did it even need Anad to beat him? (Maybe others also could)
S.Taylor wrote:OK, if that's your actual theory, fine. Mine might be wrong in this case.
So now, Anand might not push much to win, whereas Kramnik might mess up more, in trying to win. so Anand will still have wins.
Kramnik ought to make sure he ends up atleast with well over 50%, and atleast ONE win. I'd prefer two.
Only to keep up his reputation and popular image.
If Kramnik can't do that, then did it even need Anad to beat him? (Maybe others also could)
Anand outprepared Kramnik, that and Anand is somewhat stronger than Kramnik at this time.
