Chess World Championship
 

In case anyone feels like a random gamble that I like.

On Pinnacle:

V.Topalov -0.5game +135
V.Kramnik +0.5game -145

I think Kramnik is excellent value here. His rating has gone down quite a bit in the past few years due to some health problems which appear to be resolved now (he's had some excellent recent results and his rating is recovering). Topalov is a very streaky player who has had up and down results since winning the FIDE world championship.

The "draw odds" from the 0.5 game are very large in this; Kramnik often goes many many games without a loss so a drawn match is a distinct possibility. As well, Kramnik has always done well against Kasparov, and Topalov has a very similar style to Kasparov in terms of aggression.

In the end, I'm going with Kramnik as Kramnik has always (since his mid teens) been considered a World Champion level talent. Topalov has always been considered a strong grandmaster but not necessarily an obvious future world champ.

Re: Chess World Championship
 

i those are your thoughts then you kind of missed the boat. a few weeks ago that line was K -108 T -108 or there abouts. not to say its not a good bet now, if its +EV then its +EV, just thought i'd share the lines history.

i am starting to think topalov has value. but i am not as up on chess as i used to be.

Re: Chess World Championship
 

Was it really -108 with the +0.5game? I hadn't been following pinnacle lately.

Re: Chess World Championship
 

[ QUOTE ]
Was it really -108 with the +0.5game? I hadn't been following pinnacle lately.

[/ QUOTE ]i can't remember the number exactly but i distinctly remember both sides being negative with kramnik having draw odds. so it had to be pretty close to it.

here is google cache from 9 days ago. http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:MXpK...lient=firefox-a

Kramnik was only -126 then so it supports my memory.

Re: Chess World Championship
 

Topalov isn't the most talented World Champ or the most exciting but the guy may be the most TENACIOUS. I see these tournament games he plays with the smallest of edges and he drags them out for a million moves still trying to break his opponent down. In a long match, to me, this is the worst kind of player you want to face.

Re: Chess World Championship
 

If you know anything about the top players, isn't betting on this stuff almost impossible to lose? The ball doesn't take funny bounces in this game. I see nothing to randomize the outcome. Shouldn't the favorite win just about every single time?

Re: Chess World Championship
 

They're humans, so they get tired and make the occasional mistake. I recently watched a documentary, Game Over, which was about the Kasparov-Deep Blue matches. It was an interesting case study in tilt.

In the match in which the computer first beats him, it makes a very un-computer-like move - Kasparov offers up a material sacrifice in exchange for positional advantages - a typical sucker play computers used to always fall for - and the computer actually turns it down.

Kasparov can't let this go, implies that the computer isn't playing on its own, and plays distracted for the rest of the competition and loses another game.

Re: Chess World Championship
 

[ QUOTE ]
Shouldn't the favorite win just about every single time?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would have to agree. Since playing poker I have completely ignored chess. I would say take the higher rated player. The problem is I don't understand how its bet. What does the .05 mean??

Re: Chess World Championship
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Shouldn't the favorite win just about every single time?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would have to agree. Since playing poker I have completely ignored chess. I would say take the higher rated player. The problem is I don't understand how its bet. What does the .05 mean??

[/ QUOTE ]
+0.5 games, so if the match is a draw, he wins for betting purposes.

Re: Chess World Championship
 

The outcome of the match should provide a winner and a loser. That is unless health reasons or some other act of God put a stop to the match.

If that is correct, how is betting on the higher rated not +EV??

(Thanks for the info. Stupid betting noob here [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img])

Re: Chess World Championship
 

The match consists of exactly 12 games, so a draw is certainly possible, though I couldn't say exactly how likely. Also, Topalov is currently the highest rated player in the world, but Kramnik has been rated almost as high in the past as he is now, Kramnik dropped off, then came back up, and is currently fourth in the world, and catching up rapidly.

Re: Chess World Championship
 

[ QUOTE ]
The outcome of the match should provide a winner and a loser. That is unless health reasons or some other act of God put a stop to the match.

If that is correct, how is betting on the higher rated not +EV??

(Thanks for the info. Stupid betting noob here [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img])

[/ QUOTE ]

at this high of a level ratings are still a very good measure but not a perfect measure. there a lot of stylistic things that could come into play. meaning if A>B and B>C then A is not always > C. anyway, kramnik's rating has been depressed by health problems that he is apparently overcoming so his true rating could arguably be higher.


just an example, Kasparov has an insane record against Shirov, even though shirov is rated lower than kasparov he 'shouldn't' have done so poorly against him. Shirov, was/is one of the top players in the world, i think he got to as high as 3 or 4 in the world, but the fact of the matter than he just matched up poorly against kasparov.

furthermore, many would argue anand was better than kramnik 4 or 5 years ago but that kramnik was much better at playing at kasparov.

Re: Chess World Championship
 

[ QUOTE ]
just an example, Kasparov has an insane record against Shirov, even though shirov is rated lower than kasparov he 'shouldn't' have done so poorly against him. Shirov, was/is one of the top players in the world, i think he got to as high as 3 or 4 in the world, but the fact of the matter than he just matched up poorly against kasparov.

furthermore, many would argue anand was better than kramnik 4 or 5 years ago but that kramnik was much better at playing at kasparov.



[/ QUOTE ]

Boy it has been a while since my chess playing days. It took me a min to get the cobwebs out.

When players are rated this high, they look to see what openings each other prefer to play. If player A knows that player B specializes in a certain opening, they can get a team of players together to come up with a deeply laid plan to get them off the beaten path that they are familiar with. Its hard to do, these guys have seen it all but it does happen. Kasparov had one of the best teams of specialists helping him last I remember. That explains why one player, even though highly rated, may struggle vs another.

May the best labratory win. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Chess World Championship
 

Does anyone have a link to the match?? (english I hope)

Re: Chess World Championship
 

[ QUOTE ]
Topalov isn't the most talented World Champ or the most exciting but the guy may be the most TENACIOUS. I see these tournament games he plays with the smallest of edges and he drags them out for a million moves still trying to break his opponent down

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an absolutely backwards assessment of Topalov's style, IMO. He's a flashy attacking tactical player - small edges and technical grinds are not his strong suit.

Re: Chess World Championship
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you know anything about the top players, isn't betting on this stuff almost impossible to lose? The ball doesn't take funny bounces in this game. I see nothing to randomize the outcome. Shouldn't the favorite win just about every single time?

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that right now, Kramnik's rating is quite deceptive - he has struggled with serious health problems for an extended period, which have seriously depressed his rating. Meanwhile, Topalov has been having some exceptional results and without Kasparov or Kramnik around to deliver him some beatdowns, his rating has perhaps soared a bit higher than expected.

As well, at this level, there is a great deal of behind the scenes work that decides usually a game or two in the match - opening preparation that supercedes either player's individual talents. One just gets a superior position and either wins or draws very comfortably. As such, my belief in Kramnik is partially based on his more experienced team and his experience in doing a world championship match level of preparation.

Re: Chess World Championship
 

King Loek?

Re: Chess World Championship
 

[ QUOTE ]
King Loek?

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Chess World Championship
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Topalov isn't the most talented World Champ or the most exciting but the guy may be the most TENACIOUS. I see these tournament games he plays with the smallest of edges and he drags them out for a million moves still trying to break his opponent down

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an absolutely backwards assessment of Topalov's style, IMO. He's a flashy attacking tactical player - small edges and technical grinds are not his strong suit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Chess World Championship
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Topalov isn't the most talented World Champ or the most exciting but the guy may be the most TENACIOUS. I see these tournament games he plays with the smallest of edges and he drags them out for a million moves still trying to break his opponent down

[/ QUOTE ]
I was wondering how long it would take you to chime in on this, NajdorfDefense [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
This is an absolutely backwards assessment of Topalov's style, IMO. He's a flashy attacking tactical player - small edges and technical grinds are not his strong suit.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Chess World Championship
 

[ QUOTE ]
King Loek?

[/ QUOTE ]

Since his previous posts make reference to spending time in Costa Rica, and I've never heard any of the chess people around here mention having heard from him in any way, I doubt it. If he's down here, I'd love to meet him.

Re: Chess World Championship
 

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone have a link to the match?? (english I hope)

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's Game 1, a very good match: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1430918

Gotta love Topalov's style.

Re: Chess World Championship
 

The accusations against Kramnik listed here are fascinating.

Also, game 7 live here

With live text commentary on the original link.

Lori

Re: Chess World Championship
 

This is just awesome...it has everything, the permanently 9 year-old chess prodigies, surveillance by the KGB, corrupt officials, $500k tax-free each, and because it's all about bathrooms, that touch of the scatological to excite the popular imagination.

Whether they like it or not, this match is going to fit perfectly into the lineage of previous world championship matches.

Re: Chess World Championship
 

Also, this quote from Karpov on Susasn's blog is equally awesome:

[ QUOTE ]
[In my matches], there were protests. But the Appeals Committee was comprised of people who could be trusted, and were of unimpeachable reputation...

[/ QUOTE ]

And this other article is just killer:
[ QUOTE ]
You might think, given the celebrated eccentricity of chess grandmasters, that the Kofi Annan of the international game would need to be as sane and balanced as any man alive. You would be wrong. The president of the Fédération Internationale des Echecs (Fide), Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, astounded reporters five years ago by revealing that he had been temporarily captured by aliens: "The extraterrestrials put a yellow spacesuit on me. They gave me a tour of their spaceship and showed me the command centre. I felt very comfortable with them."

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I'm getting off-topic and will stop. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

Re: Chess World Championship
 

I'm mediocre at best at chess, but I love the circus that seems to follow the world championships everywhere.

The comments on the blog are simply brilliant.

[ QUOTE ]
OPEN LETTER TO SILVIO DANAILOV

In the name of the chess-programming computer world we would like to thank Mr. Danailov for his important contribution. His analysis proves clearly that Fritz 9 is already 78% as good as reigning classical world champion Vladimir Kramnik! In fact, Kramnik's play in Elista - i.e. the remaining 22% of moves that Kramnik played and Fritz 9 was not capable to consider - teaches us what still has to be improved in our computer programmes to make them as good as possible to come at least close to Mr. Kramnik's strength.
Mr. Danailovs worries that go along with his analysis also make us especially proud of Fritz 9, since they imply that a player of Topalov's kind can be defeated by Fritz 9. Mr. Danailov, as soon as you think that Veselin Topalov has improved his play to be able to compete with Fritz 9, let us know, so we can arrange a match! As long as Mr. Vladimir Kramnik plays that strong, it is him who will be considered as the worthy candidate to play a match man-machine as he will do in the million-dollar-match in the fall of 2006 in Germany.


[/ QUOTE ]

Lori

Re: Chess World Championship
 

[ QUOTE ]
The accusations against Kramnik listed here are fascinating.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are ridiculous and insulting. Here's a good source:
Mig on chess

First, Danailov makes no explanation of how he came up with 78% as his number - chess analysis engines will consider a variety of moves during their analysis, and a variety of moves will at one point or another appear as the #1 choice. Kramnik has also made several atrocious blunders in the match that are utterly impossible to make a computer replicate. In the end, I agree with Mig's comment:

[ QUOTE ]
98% of what Danailov says correlates with the first line produced by his ass.


[/ QUOTE ]

Topalov is losing. They are trying to upset Kramnik enough to make him possibly even abandon the match. The huge majority of grandmasters are praising Kramnik and condemning Topalov:

GMs support Kramnik

Edited to add: Kramnik is winning today.

Re: Chess World Championship
 

Topalov knew he had zero shot after game 2. He isn't remotely in Kramnik's class, remember, Kasparov himself said Kramnik would eventually take his title, like 15 years ago.

Re: Chess World Championship
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you know anything about the top players, isn't betting on this stuff almost impossible to lose? The ball doesn't take funny bounces in this game. I see nothing to randomize the outcome. Shouldn't the favorite win just about every single time?

[/ QUOTE ]


It's probably closer to that in chess than other championship sports.
But there is still the human factor.

When Fischer played Spassky in 1972 he made a bad error in game 2 that lost the game.
I believe it was in that match that he surprised everyone in a different game by opening with white with his queen's pawn when he had previously ALWAYS been a king's pawn player.


The Karpov-Kasparov match of 1984 is another example.
Karpov has a big lead and is on the verge of winning.
Kasparov battles his way back and closes it to 5 wins to 3 I believe (with about 9-zillion draws) before the chess federation president called it.


Simple things like the format of the match can favor one player over another (just like making hockey higher scoring can be to the benefit of one team more than another).


I don't follow chess at all anymore so I don't know about this particular match.
Just addressing the idea that handicapping this would be as straight-forward as some people might think.

Re: Chess World Championship
 

I couldn't bet on chess. What if Kramnik gets upset that he's not allowed to use his favourite potty again or that he's upset that Topalov's second has accused him of cheating today, and he quits with an unassailable lead before the match ends? Does your Kramnik bet win? Lose? Push? What's to stop Topalov from walking out with Kramnik needing 1/2 point to sew up the title and claiming that there was no result. Remember the guy who is deciding these things this is the "Aliens took me into space" arbiter.

And none of this is unique to this match. For betting, I'm sticking to sports where they can just show up, play the game, and have a result. This is like holding a glass up to the wall and betting whether the husband or the wife next door is going to win their domestic dispute.

Re: Chess World Championship
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is like holding a glass up to the wall and betting whether the husband or the wife next door is going to win their domestic dispute.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Chess World Championship
 

Husband v Wife(-130) (12 units)

This is my 5-star, cast-iron plunger of the week. Wife should be around -400 here. Although Husband did sneak a victory last Sunday and got to watch the football, Wife's performance was hampered by the appearance of her mother for a planned shopping trip. Before that, she had won 12 in a row after "the mobile phone incident." While Husband is a bit liquored up, Wife was observed buying hygiene products yesterday morning and is unlikely to give husband a mercy win here. Husband's boss yelled at him today, causing him to have a few after work, but he is not soused enough to thump her one and this match will be a Wife soliloquy as Husband looks at his shoes and wishes he had just married that chick at the bar on St Pat's day. If 12 units exceed your risk tolerance, just buy back an arb on the husband at about +350 just before game time after the sharps push this line up to where it should be. Also parlay the Wife to the Over 30 min if you can find a bookmaker stupid enough to take the bet.

Re: Chess World Championship
 

[ QUOTE ]
Husband v Wife(-130) (12 units)

This is my 5-star, cast-iron plunger of the week. Wife should be around -400 here. Although Husband did sneak a victory last Sunday and got to watch the football, Wife's performance was hampered by the appearance of her mother for a planned shopping trip. Before that, she had won 12 in a row after "the mobile phone incident." While Husband is a bit liquored up, Wife was observed buying hygiene products yesterday morning and is unlikely to give husband a mercy win here. Husband's boss yelled at him today, causing him to have a few after work, but he is not soused enough to thump her one and this match will be a Wife soliloquy as Husband looks at his shoes and wishes he had just married that chick at the bar on St Pat's day. If 12 units exceed your risk tolerance, just buy back an arb on the husband at about +350 just before game time after the sharps push this line up to where it should be. Also parlay the Wife to the Over 30 min if you can find a bookmaker stupid enough to take the bet.

[/ QUOTE ]
LOL.

Re: Chess World Championship
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you know anything about the top players, isn't betting on this stuff almost impossible to lose? The ball doesn't take funny bounces in this game. I see nothing to randomize the outcome. Shouldn't the favorite win just about every single time?

[/ QUOTE ]


It's probably closer to that in chess than other championship sports. But there is still the human factor.

When Fischer played Spassky in 1972 he made a bad error in game 2 that lost the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. First off, he forfeited game 2. Secondly, his endgame maneuver in Game 1 was questionnable, but certainly not a 'bad error' by any stretch if one is playing to win. It looked odd to GMs who only play to draw those positions.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe it was in that match that he surprised everyone in a different game by opening with white with his queen's pawn when he had previously ALWAYS been a king's pawn player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, that was in the Interzonal versus Oscar Panno, which led to the alltime classic Score Sheet of Fischer v Panno:
1. c4 Resigns.
Yep, Oscar resigned on the first move, no kidding. This move has a lot to recommend it, suprise value, immediately gets Fischer out of 'book,' eliminates the need for pregame preparation, disguises your later intentions, allows you to drink during matchtime and still make your flight to Argentina on time.

Prior to that, he occasionally opened 1. b3 as he did v Mecking in the same Interzonal.

Then came the candidates matches against Taimanov 6-0, Larsen 6-0, and then he demolished former WC Petrosian 6-2 iirc. He then played English and QGambit v Spassky for wins.

[ QUOTE ]
The Karpov-Kasparov match of 1984 is another example.
Karpov has a big lead and is on the verge of winning.
Kasparov battles his way back and closes it to 5 wins to 3 I believe (with about 55 draws)
Just addressing the idea that handicapping this would be as straight-forward as some people might think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah, it's still straightforward. Kramnik was clear value here.

Re: Chess World Championship
 

Right, it was game 1. Thanks for the correction.
Obviously my memory of chess history is a bit sketchy.

However, I've read many who believed that Fischer's move was indeed a 'blunder'. Your opinion may indeed be valid (not sure, I'm not very good) but certainly the idea that it was just a 'terrible blunder' isn't an uncommon one either.

Here's what wikipedia said about that game:

[ QUOTE ]
No one knows what went on in Fischer's mind when he blundered with 29... Bxh2?? (see algebraic chess notation) in this rather lifeless position. Every chess beginner learns that the rook pawn is poisoned for the Bishop. Could Fischer really have missed 30. g3 h5 31. Ke2 h4 32. Kf3 h3 33. Kg4 Bg1 34. Kxh3 Bxf2 35. Bd2, trapping the bishop? Karpov has suggested that the reason was overconfidence. The move 29... Bxh2 would become Fischer's most famous move. Fischer probably planned 32. ... h3 33. Kg4 Bg1 34. Kxh3 Bxf2 but overlooked 35. Bd2 and the bishop is trapped (Kasparov 2005:434). Surprisingly, Fischer had good drawing chances with two pawns for the Bishop but he bungled again before adjournment. He resigned on move 56.

[/ QUOTE ]


I had previously read the comical line about the 'surprise value' of the 'move 1 = resign'.
Pretty funny.
I think I saw it in the book, 'The even more bizarre complete chess addict' but know that it has bounced around elsewhere.


Fischer did play a queen's gamblit against Spassky in game 6 (I said queen's pawn opening which isn't correct since he opened with c4).

It was considered extremely surprising that Fischer would choose this opening (I guess it isn't correct that he had NEVER played it before but I could swear that I read that somewhere).

my chess books are in storage right now so I can't refer to them.

But here's what one website said about game 6 of 1972:

[ QUOTE ]


Fischer v Spassky Game 6 1972

Perhaps the best game of the 1972 match and certainly one of the most famous games in chess history. And to think this was the first time Fischer had played the white side of a Queen's Gambit as an adult.

Spassky chooses to defend with the Tartakower Variation of the Orthodox Defence, probably a good choice as he had previously never been beaten in this opening. But here he plays below his best and allows Fischer to establish a clear advantage from the opening. That alone would not be enough to make this game a classic - Fischer then goes on to play one of the most beautiful middlegames in the history of chess.

When Spassky resigned, he joined in the applause given to Fischer, I think I would have probably have thrown a punch.

[/ QUOTE ]


here's what wikipedia said about games 6 and 8:


[ QUOTE ]
In the sixth game, Fischer opened with 1. c4, one of the very rare instances he has not opened with 1.e4, nullifying Spassky's extensive opening preparation. Once again, Spassky played passively.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
After this game, Spassky joined the audience in applauding Fischer's win. Psychologically, he had already lost the match. He would later reluctantly refer to this game as the best of the match.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
In game 8, Fischer again played 1. c4, this time an English opening. Spassky gave up an exchange for little compensation, and it is unclear whether it was a sacrifice or a blunder. Fischer won, and he was ahead 5-3.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Chess World Championship
 

Im curious if any of the posters here have a decent rating?? I sure don't but curious about others...
Naj, Microbob, anyone???? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Chess World Championship
 

[ QUOTE ]
Im curious if any of the posters here have a decent rating

[/ QUOTE ]

My rating

Dunno what you consider decent but I'm ok.

Re: Chess World Championship
 

2000 rating in Canada blows away my ancient USCF rating of 1450.
I really suck.

Haven't played USCF since 1999 though.
Was playing ICC through about 2002 or 2003 or so and was definitely improving just from volume of play. Probably was a 1600-ish player I suspect when I gave it up for poker.


If you are asking about ANY of the posters on 2+2 (instead of just posters in this thread) then TimM, Dynasty and Curtains are among the best chess players on the site.

Curtains is Greg Shahade and has written for Chess Life before I believe.
His younger sister, Jennifer Shahade, was (is?) one of the top female players in the U.S. and recently wrote a book about life as a female chess player called 'Chess Bitch'.


TimM and Dynasty are certainly over 2200 USCF I would have to think. How much higher I'm not sure.

TimM has even posted a chess game or two in OOT before IIRC.

Possibly some disucssion about such stuff in the newer 'POG' forum.

Re: Chess World Championship
 

curtains is an IM

Re: Chess World Championship
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Im curious if any of the posters here have a decent rating

[/ QUOTE ]

My rating

Dunno what you consider decent but I'm ok.

[/ QUOTE ]

NH!

Microbob- I was 1496 then I found poker and I bet Im 800 now [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Thanks for the info. Very interesting. I thought Curtains= Greg S. but I wasn't sure. I remember following his games online at the US masters that I think were played every Tuesday night. I may be wrong, its been a while.

Is Naj another 2000+ player as well?