Gilchrist is a legend wrote on 05/30/12 at 01:14:13:


I don't agree. In a balanced position where more than one result is still possible, but a draw agreed early, playing on for another 15 or 20 moves might clarify the position. Even if it is clarified as a draw, so be it. That would still be a more acceptable outcome.

Chap with the chess pieces there, five rounds rapid.

I think there was a thread with another similar topic about draw offers banned, but even if draw offers were not allowed so early, they would simply play on until move _ and agree a draw. The remaining moves will probably not be of much significance.

I don't actually mind the chess that's been played in the match - ok, only 6 games are so have been interesting for me from a chess content perspective (all have been interesting when considering things beyond just the actual moves), but I don't think there was really much left in any of the games agreed drawn and I don't disagree with those decisions. Still, I would rather not see the title determined in some quickplay tiebreaks. And that's even if they are played before the match, which I think introduces a lot of other issues. 

Some time back (when the Candidates Matches were going on), I suggested a system to try and avoid quickplay tiebreaks in a match system. Basically, based on the qualifying tournament performances, the higher seed gets draw odds in the match while the lower seed gets an extra white. 

I later ran some simulations to show that (under some simple assumptions and depending on the match length) the higher seed would be expected to win around 55-60% of the matches. 

I still like that framework, because it pushes quickplay as far away from determining the match winners as is reasonable I think. The same could be said about this match. Draw odds by itself is too big an advantage I think (and it's not exactly an unlikely occurrence, having already happened like 8 times in about 40 WCh matches). At the same time, given that most of the champions/challengers are pretty close in strength, you're not really likely to get any statistically significant result in a match of even 24 games, even if that seems like a long match. So we're not going for any exact result here, but in a 15-game match where Anand has 7 whites and 8 blacks, he's still expected to "win" the match 56% of the time. At the same time, the match is guaranteed to be over with classical time controls, and the introduction of some sort of match-imbalance with colors/draw odds increases the likelihood of more spectator-friendly play. 

In other words, I still like my idea. 

I have heard various times that the 24-game series is implausible, but to prevent opening preparation from ending in draws and having drawn games for a short series, this seems to be the only plausible option, otherwise shorter time controls seem to be a possible solution. Even if the problem is considered as no decisive chess, time control I would think would have a relevance. Perhaps 12-game series of long games, followed by a 12-game series of rapid games, just a suggestion I had contemplated.

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 05/29/12 at 14:05:39:

It is not the time controls, it is the lack of pushing. So far the only thing Anand has shown is that he can win when his opponent blunders a queen for the rest he has failed to put any pressure on Gelfand. 
Personally I hope that Gelfand will now cream Anand in the rapids, so that he can feel very sorry for this match strategy.

Well to play good chess I would have thought. Most of the games in this match have been played out to positions where both players accepted it was drawn so we can't really have any complaints, especially with the final game which was a great effort in terms of preparation by Anand and resourcefulness by Gelfand. One of the best games of the match really. If people really wanted these drawn positions played out for the benefit of the spectators the solution is simple - Sofia rules.

The last game was a great game I thought. Are people complaining about that one as well?