.
Quote:


http://chessbase.com/Home/TabId/211/PostId/4009659/zug-gp-r10-four-wins-three-wi...

Perhaps this is an example of how tiebreak schemes increase the risk of draining major excitement from the final round - what should normally be the most exciting round.
.

A long play match would be even better

Probably not enough time to fit that in fully sensibly before the November title match though so fair enough. 

Can't complain much of course! FIDE have managed to organise a WC cycle to specification and the chosen set up got the three most likely candidate challangers closest etc. That's something of a miracle already

The tiebreak is a little silly, but at least it won't be decided by S-B.  I am kind of glad that there is no playoff, because that would make it much more likely for Carlsen and Kramnik to both play it safe, make a draw, and go to playoffs. In the current situation they both know that Kramnik has to outscore Carlsen today, period. I think it'll make for more exciting games in the last round.

I see people continue bashing Anand. Myself I am more fond of Kramnik or Carlsen (tbh Aronian is my favourite), but firmly believe that Anand has a 50% chance to beat any of these players in a WC match. Maybe his team is better (e.g. see his opening preparation vs. Kramnik during their WC match). Moreover, he has still many novelties up his sleeve (see recent win vs. Kramnik).

imo this 'candidates' double round robin format allows us to observe who are the better players. But when it comes to WC, it is team vs. team..

Quote:

Seeley wrote on 03/31/13 at 23:28:35:

Memory is short... 5 rounds ago, before the epic collapse of a certain Armenian, most of us would have spoken of the 3 best players, not just 2. At that point Kramnik looked like he was giving up too many draws to have any chance of qualifying (and in the end that may still be his downfall).

Seeley wrote on 03/31/13 at 23:28:35:

You can cite many ambitious tries that didn't result in wins, but it's obvious that statistically, an "ambitious" strategy is comparatively more likely to score 1 win and 1 loss and a "solid" strategy comparatively more likely to score 2 draws in any two given games. So if a player can choose a continuation that increases his chance of winning and his chance of losing by about the same percentage, game theory dictates that he should take that risk when number of wins is the first tiebreaker, other things being equal. (tournament situation, strategy against certain opponents etc. can sometimes override this.) 

Unpredictable results and a low drawing rate (read: drama!) is just what sponsors and a large portion of the audience want - so the tiebreaker does its job.

In a way you are right, carlsen and kramnika are the 2 best players in the world, anand just doesnt belong anymore to the elite of chess

LostTactic wrote on 03/31/13 at 22:31:43:

I completely agree with Scarblac and Stigma, and I also disagree that we will be likely to see an anti-climax tomorrow. Kramnik has to play for a win at all costs, and as long as Kramnik is playing, Carlsen will also have to play on. I think it will be a very exciting finish, and I look forward to watching it.

. .
Scarblac wrote on 03/31/13 at 20:47:16:


It ain't over until it ain't tied (in plain points).

. .