Talk:World Chess Championship 2010

Seconds
Should we list the seconds of Anand and Topalov? Anand had the same group of helpers as in Bonn: Peter Heine Nielsen, Rustam Kasimdzhanov, Surya Ganguly and Radoslaw Wojtaszek. We already knew that Topalov worked with Jan Smeets, Erwin l’Ami, Ivan Cheparinov and Jiri Dufek. . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishikt (talk • contribs) 23:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If you can cite the information, it definitely belongs in the article. (Normally new talk topics are started at the bottom of the page.) Quale (talk) 02:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Basic Info Missing
I came to this page to find out about the terms of the match - ie: how many games? What are the time controls? How does a player win the match? What happens if scores are tied? What is the date of the first game?

None of this basic information is in the article. Can someone with some knowledge of this event please insert the info? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ditto! Just a couple of months away and still nothing about this. --96.233.84.12 (talk) 12:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

World Cup non-participants
"Because of the special provisions for Kramnik and Topalov, these players are excluded from the World Cup. All other top-rated players are qualified for it, but Viswanathan Anand, Peter Leko, Aleksandr Morozevich, and Boris Gelfand will not take part."

-- Any word on why not? Peter Ballard 09:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In the World Cup participants list, they are replaced by other players. I have not found any comments on this. It looks like Leko, Morozevich, and Gelfand are giving up any chance to get the World Champion title before 2011. Conscious 10:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

There has been no word on this from any of the normal chess news outlets but rumour has it that they were not happy with the special provision given to Topalov (seeded straight to final). FCKosice, 18 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.91.91 (talk) 20:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's my translation of a fragment of Moro's interview:
 * Yury Vasilyev: Numerous admirers of your talent are afflicted with the news of your refusal to participate in the World Cup, the winner of which will face ex-World Champion Veselin Topalov in fight for the right to play the match with the 2008 World Champion in the next cycle. What is the reason for your refusal?
 * Aleksandr Morozevich: ''Several months ago, FIDE changed the selection system again, giving Topalov the right to play right away in the final challengers' match. And in Sofia, at that. The nature of these changes in unclear to me. All this looks absurd, but I don't want to go deeply into it. Taking into account my relations with Topalov, the match in Sofia would never take place, and I cannot play a tournament without the motivation to win the first place.
 * Conscious 10:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. Peter Ballard 12:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason for Gelfland's absence does not seem to have been officially reported anywhere (although it's very possible that his reasons are the same as Leko & Morozevich), but the article on Chess World Cup 2007 states that "Péter Lékó and Aleksandr Morozevich refused to take part as a form of protest against the special privileges given for the inclusion of Kramnik and Topalov in the World Chess Championship Cycle." Two supporting references are given:




 * Gregorytopov (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Gregorytopov (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Infobox
I've added Pictures of Topalov and Kamsky to the infobox, but I'm not sure if I've made it too messy. Feel free to fix or even revert. But I thought the "?" picture was a bit tacky, especially since there are only 2 possible challengers. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting facts
Is forgetting to shake hands really worth mentioning? Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that it is not significant. But I'm not going to remove it.  Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 20:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This has now been moved to 'Game 3'. This is so trivial that I intend to remove it unless there is a good reason for it retention. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's that trivial. It adds a little bit of color, and the article is not in any immanent danger of growing too long.  The discussion of the individual game is probably the right place to put it.  In general the article need more description of the progress of the match, covering what happened at and away from the board.  I think more details of this sort would make the article better and a more interesting read.  Chessbase.com has is a little more discussion of the non-handshake: http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6287.  "Maybe the arbiter has to shake hands."  Quale (talk) 03:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it is fine to have it in game 3, but I didn't like it as a section. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 04:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

ECO code for game 7
Hi, I am not exactly sure which ECO code is right for game 7, but E03 seems wrong since, according to what I found on the net, it implies the white move Qa4. So, I believe it should be either E01 (1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 g3 d5 4 Bg2) or E04, by transposition (1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 g3 d5 4 Bg2 dxc4 5 Nf3) : they did play all these moves, if later than expected by Mr. ECO. Oyp (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

links to Chessgames.com
I think it would be better to link to the games on chessgames.com in the "Games" section rather than "Schedule and results". The "ref" format could be used and they would also show up in the notes. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 21:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree; then remove the links from the "Schedule and results" section.Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

prize fund split?
How is the prize fund to be split? That should be in the article. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 03:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Tie Break Table
Critique and revision is welcome. Of course, the colors will probably have to be changed, but the Anand and Topalov columns should remain in place for consistency. Also should it go to the Armageddon game, how should a draw — giving victory to black — be noted in the score column? Legitimate options are: ½-½, 0-1 (both with a note), 0-½, and ½-1.

Regular schedule
All games started at 3.00 PM EEST (UTC+3), except Game 1, which began at 5.00 PM EEST.

Tie breaks
Time control for quick games: 25 minutes plus 10 seconds per move.

Time control for blitz games: 5 minutes plus 10 seconds increment per move.

Time control for armageddon game: 5 minutes for White, 4 minutes for Black. If the game is a draw, the player of the black pieces is declared the winner of the match.

Jedzz (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Game 9
Game 9 must have been a Draw by agreement instead of perpetual check. A draw by perpetual check hasn't been in the rules for decades. (And it wasn't threefold either.) Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 18:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed - Chessbase says that Anand offered and Topalov accepted through the arbiter. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Topalov had the choice to make a move which turns the position into a threefold repetition, so it is a threefold repetition. It doesn't matter he actually didn't make the move. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.113.163 (talk) 10:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, the first occurrence of the position was farther back. If 83... Qc1+ it is the same as after Black's 75th and 81st moves. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 13:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I just want to point out that a true perpetual check position is equivalent to a three-fold repetition with best play. (Proof is left as an exercise to the reader.) Historically if you saw a game adjudicated as "drawn by perpetual check" they are just acknowledging this fact, though technically either the arbiter is just forcing the issue (a prerogative they usually have) or the players themselves are just agreeing to a draw. This sort of thing would only be removed in modern times due to the "sudden death" nature of the time controls (remember in the old days, you could adjourn the game every 40 moves.) So now you can actually win K+R+B vs K+R if you can avoid a 3-fold repetition over the course of however many moves you can blitz out and force your opponent to lose on time. Qed (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Duplicating references
There are numerous references that could be added to game analysis. In my view we normally only need one reference to back up each piece of analysis and we should use the most authoritative. There may be exceptions where multiple refs are needed but there should be a good reason in such cases. I have removed a Chess.com ref from Game 9. The analysis is incomplete and it adds nothing to the Chessbase ref. I should welcome views, please. I would add that comments and analysis must be a fair summary of comments/analysis in the source. I note that the same editor has added comments to Game 10 that are not reflected in the source; I shall amend these. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Lede rewrite
I did some rewriting of the lede, mainly because it had a mildly clunky feel to it. I did remove the reference to the organizers being Bulgarian, and removed the description of Anand's volcano-induced road trip as being "exhausting", as I thought they were mildly non-NPOV. I would not be against reintroduction of that content, perhaps in the article body, so long as there was not a POV flavor to its presentation. I think the lede now reads better, although acknowledge it was a significant change so wanted to invite scrutiny here.

I also think the time-control quote in the lede is misplaced -- perhaps a summary without an inline quote might be better? -- but did not change it, yet. Discussion welcome. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Game 12 does not end in zugzwang
Game 12 does not end in zugzwang as mentioned in the caption of the final position diagram.

Although zugzwang occurs a couple of times in game 12, the final position is not zugzwang. Zugzwang is defined as a position where if able to pass, the player would be OK. In the final position, even a pass will not save Topalov as his knight is hanging, among other things. Rather, after 56...Qg7 Topalov is simply lost. According to GM analysis from chessbase.com, the positions after 52...Qe4 and 53...Kh7 are both zugzwang. (http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6327) Zugzwang occurs about once every ten games, so to see it twice in a world championship match is very notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.145.40 (talk) 15:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You are right - it is really a case of not having any good moves rather than zugzwang. It would be good to mention where zugzwang does occur.  Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 15:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Is it correct to say that Topalov has to lose his knight (or his rook) in that position? &mdash;JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Nope. Not losing anything but can't stop the pawn with correct play. 57. Nd8 c3 58. Ne6 Qg4+ 59. Kh2 c2 60. Rc6 Qe2+ then pawn queening, i.e. 61. Kh3 Qf1+ 62. Kh2 c1=Q. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

( <- ) Alright, the caption to the final position in game 12 has been changed to claim zugzwang. Unless a source is provided to back that claim up, I will remove that attribution based on two things. The discussion above, and my own OR: from the final position, I got mate in 25 with White to move, and mate in 18 with Black to move. I acknowledge that my engines might have found a slightly quicker mate if I left them on for a lot longer, but that would be true for either scenario, and the one with White to move would have to prune 7 moves, at least, off its line just to be equal. So empirically White is better a lesser shade of doomed with the move. That is not zugzwang, and where a point is contested, the onus is on the includer of the content to source it. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 13:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The final position is zugzwang; hence why Topalov resigned. Probably the easiest way to demonstrate this is after 57. Nd8 (forced) Qg4+ 58. Kh2 h4! winning material on the spot; if 59. ghx4 Qf4+ wins the R; otherwise the g3 pawn will fall with catastrophic additional material loss.  That is zugzwang; you don't need a computer to calculate that. BTW, after 57. Nd8 Qc7 wins as well. Shotcallerballerballer (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Two polite requests: 1) Please point out and include a source for the claim (or in lieu of that, accept its removal), as clearly some here are contesting it. As an editor wishing to include contested content, that is your obligation. 2) Could you spell out what your understanding of what zugzwang is? From your descriptions, I do not see you supporting that claim, even if your analysis itself is correct.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The final position is obviously not a Zugzwang. See, for example, Giri's analysis on Chessbase, which points out every Zugzwang, which does not include the final position. Also, by the looks of Shotcallerballerballer's talk page, polite requests seem rather uneffective on him, to say the least. Oyp (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * When a player is in zugzwang, every move he could make worsens his position. He would be better off if he could pass.  That is not the case here - he would immediately lose the knight.  White has no good moves but he is not in zugzwang.  It is simply a lost position.  Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 23:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * FWIW, more OR with a program. With White to move, Rybka 2 gives Black an advantage of a little more than 8 points.  With Black to move, the advantage for Black is a little more than 13 points.  So it is better for White to be on move, so he is not in zugzwang (although the position is clearly lost).  Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 03:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see how White is in zugzwang - the position is just clearly lost. 57. Nd8 is forced, and after 57.... Qc7 58. Rd1 c3 59. Ne6 Qc8 60. Re1 c2 61. Rc1 Qc3 62. Nd4 Qxd4 65. Rxc2 Qxa4 and Black will win easily. Zugzwang is when White will better off letting Black move - I don't see how letting Black move allows White to be better off - it just allows Qxf7.


 * In the position on the right, the one to move is in zugzwang because he will be better off letting his opponent move. In the position in the game, White will be in no way better off letting Black move, instead he will only be worse off because Black can just take his knight, so the position is in no way zugzwang. MichaelSchumacherFerrari (talk) 05:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Also. "According to Anish Giri, White is in zugzwang before his 51st, 53rd, and 54th moves." Before the 53rd move, White is not in zugzwang, he is threatened with a mate in one - 53... Qh1#. Giri seems to like the term "zugzwang" a lot! Umesh (talk) 06:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)