So there's no money for a longer match, and little chance of attracting sponsors due to the desultory nature of the chess produced by the current format...that's some catch, that Catch-22....

It makes sense that longer matches will require greater prize funds. This isn't because the result would be any less important, but because logisitically, it would be very difficult to host a series of long matches as a single event. 

If each round is its own event, or more pragmatically, if the quarterfinals and semis are one event and that candidate finals are another event, the players who advance to the second event will need to be compensated for that second event. 

Still, I far prefer long matches to tournaments. A tournament is often won by the bunny-killer who keeps his losses to a minimum. This does not separate the two best players as clearly as a match does. 

I agree completely with Kramnik that the tie-break system itself was not bad. Rather, the tie-breaks came too soon. The football equivalent is to have overtime be 30 minutes long, but the regulation match is also only 30 minutes long. In such a situation, the better penalty kicking team will usually win.

In close games, most goals are scored after the 60th minute. In close matches, the decisive games are usually played when the two players are tired. 

I'm still opposed to the Sophia rule, but perhaps not allowing a draw before the 25th move would make some sense. 

But what would happen in cases of a three-fold repetition at move 15?  Could the players just shuffle the pieces back and forth for 10 moves ( or 15 or 25 moves) before agreeing to the draw? 

I'm still opposed to the Sophia rule. The players should be free to decide how to play their own game. Longer matches will make Grischuk's strategy in this Candidates' tournament much too risky to be worth trying.

I'm having a hard time believing that Kramnik wouldn't have showed up, if the price founds was the same, and it was 8 games instead of 4. It's still a ticket to the WC-match.

brabo wrote on 06/01/11 at 06:49:34:


It is not about doing extra work without extra pay. It is about not correctly judging the financial value of your work to begin with. 

He played 13 classical games at Tata Steel and ended up in 5th place. What should he have been paid for that effort since he got 60,000 for Kazan? According to you unless he was paid more at Tata than Kazan he was being robbed and working for free.

Kramnik interview about Kazan up on chessbase:

http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7262

I disagree with him that longer matches of 6 to 8 games instead of 4 should have more prize money. 

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 05/26/11 at 12:57:19:


Wasn't Gelfands last win in 1993?

Quote:


Agreed.

Some things to consider when making predictions:

Since 2001, Anand has won precisely one game in classical time controls against Gelfand. He's going to be a tough out. 

We have no clue really how Gelfand will play in the Finals because he's never been there and we don't yet know who his seconds are. 

We also don't know how Anand will react to the pressures of his new family. 

Yes, I still favor Anand over Gelfand, and I am rooting for the defending champion. I'd even like to see Anand dominate him. A +2 score in such a short match should be sufficient to suggest that he is a class above Gelfand.  It would also solidify his position as a great world champion.  

But I expect the match to be very close.

Gelfand does have a decent chance of defeating Vishy- his Black openings have stood up very well . He will need a strong anti-Grunfeld. 
Opening prep is the key- if he gets decents seconds and support he might just do it.