| |
Main
Date: 01 Nov 2008 19:06:00
From: SAT W-7
Subject: How come they can't play 24 games for that amount of money ? WCC
|
It seems to me they ( Anand and Kramnik ) made a lot of money for their
match for twelve games , so i take it they want twice that much money
for 24 games ?
Why couldn't they just play all the games in Bonn ?
That amout of money seems to me to be enough for 24 games ...
|
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2008 10:15:05
From: a_linux_user
Subject: Re: How come they can't play 24 games for that amount of money ? WCC
|
I have a new suggestion for the number of games. Potentially it might
lead to a long match, though.
Minimum n games will be played. (Let us say n =3D 6.) Let p be a
threshold probability that I will explain below. But for now let us
say p =3D 0.05.
Suppose at the end of the first n=3D6 games, player A leads player B by
k points. Then we calculate the probability (based on rating
difference or simply based on a variation of unbiased coin tossing,
assuming that the players are equal) that player B will equalize after
n more games. If the probability that player B will equalize in n more
games is at least 0.05, then we continue the match to one more game.
If not, we end the match at game n=3D6. If we continue the match to the
7th game, then after the 7th game we again calculate the probability
that in the next 7 games, the losing player will equalize. If it is <
0.05 then we do not continue the match, else we continue the match to
the 8th game. And so on.
In this method we are saying that the match will be over after say
game 10 if in 10 games one player has so much lead that it is very
unlikely that player B will equalize in the next 10 games.
This method would create some drama in early stages of the match. For
example, if n=3D6, then perhaps Kramnik would have been in a must-win
situation in game 6 itself.
On Nov 2, 2:06=A0am, [email protected] (SAT W-7) wrote:
> It seems to me they =A0( Anand and Kramnik ) made a lot of money for thei=
r
> match for twelve games , so i take it they want twice that much money
> for 24 games ?
>
> Why couldn't they just play all the games in Bonn ?
>
> That amout of money seems to me to be enough for 24 games ...
|
| |
Date: 03 Nov 2008 13:05:37
From: help bot
Subject: Re: How come they can't play 24 games for that amount of money ? WCC
|
On Nov 3, 1:10=A0pm, William Hyde <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Nov 2, 2:42=A0am, Sanny <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 2, 7:06=A0am, [email protected] (SAT W-7) wrote:
>
> > > It seems to me they =A0( Anand and Kramnik ) made a lot of money for =
their
> > > match for twelve games , so i take it they want twice that much money
> > > for 24 games ?
Very unlikely.
> > > Why couldn't they just play all the games in Bonn ?
>
> > > That amout of money seems to me to be enough for 24 games ...
What amount of money? If you don't know, how can you
make such a comment.
> > When 12 games are played the players get very tired.
>
> > And if they play 24 games they will get more tired. So the quality of
> > games played will be low.
The trick is to spread out the games over time.
In my most recent tournaments we played five games,
back to back; and yes, it was both tiring and it made it
quite difficult to play high quality chess. But in matches,
the schedule can be arranged to suit; there is no need
to finish up in a single day, or weekend.
> Nonsense. =A0Matches this long and longer have been played with high
> quality games resulting. =A0I take it you have heard of the Alekhine-
> Capablanca match?
> Except for Lasker-Schlechter, every world championship match until
> very recent times has gone over twelve games, most over 20, and
> several to thirty or more =A0games. =A0And some very find games indeed
> were played after game =A0twelve.
Good point. The problem these days is that one must
choose between adjournments -- which entail the use
of computers on adjourned positions -- and faster time
limits, which /can/ reduce the quality of play. Those
oldtimers had only to worry about other, fallible humans
looking at their adjourned positions.
I recently looked over a few annotated games from the
magazine Chess Life and noticed that as usual, the
comments are nonsense, and even our best players do
not play at the same level as some of the names listed
above.
In one game from a recent big tourney, a top-level
grandmaster played the opening rather poorly, then
allowed his opponent a plethora of superior endings
from which to choose. However, his weaker opponent
fumbled every such opportunity and ultimately lost.
The game was annotated as if the eventual loser was
beaten like a carrot, right from the opening; in effect,
there has been little if any progress in this area over
the last century.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 04 Nov 2008 14:42:52
From: help bot
Subject: Re: How come they can't play 24 games for that amount of money ? WCC
|
On Nov 4, 9:35=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> The prize fund is 1.5 million Euro (approximately 2.35
> million US Dollars) including taxes and FIDE license fees, and is
> split equally between the players.
This seems rather unusual-- the winner is to get no more
than the loser?
As for the time controls, it comes as no surprise that the
edgame is treated as a mere nuissance, while the opening
and early middlegame are afforded a huge amount of time.
In my recent tournament games, I have gone over to the
new style myself, spending a good deal of time early on
and gambling that I can somehow play any possible
endgame as in blitz chess. In the old datys, I was more
concerned with *results*, whereas now I am concerned
with improving the quality of the games-- at least the
first half of them.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 04 Nov 2008 06:35:46
From:
Subject: Re: How come they can't play 24 games for that amount of money ? WCC
|
On Nov 4, 1:49=A0am, [email protected] (SAT W-7) wrote:
> Some one on here posted the amount of money they were getting , now is
> it true or not i do not know ...It was over a million $ in prize money .
The major terms of the match were posted at chessbase.com:
The World Chess Championship is taking place from October 14 =96
November 02, 2008 in the Art and Exhibition Hall of the Federal
Republic of Germany in Bonn. The match consists of twelve games,
played under classical time controls: 120 minutes for the first 40
moves, 60 minutes for the next 20 moves and then 15 minutes for the
rest of the game plus an additional 30 seconds per move starting from
move 61. The prize fund is 1.5 million Euro (approximately 2.35
million US Dollars) including taxes and FIDE license fees, and is
split equally between the players.
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2008 06:25:15
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: How come they can't play 24 games for that amount of money ? WCC
|
On Nov 4, 5:47=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Nov 4, 1:16=A0pm, [email protected] (SAT W-7) wrote:
>
> > See =A0, =A0to me that is enough money for 24 games .
>
> =A0 But nobody is gouing to come up with that kind of
> dough to see you play; maybe half a million, tops.
>
> > =A0 Twelve games just does not seem long enough , i know both play by t=
he
> > same rules but still , i want to see who gets =A0tired and starts to ma=
ke
> > mental mistakes ...The strongest chess mind =A0would win in 24 games ..=
..
>
> =A0 Also the number twelve allows a plethora of ways
> in which to end up with a tie. =A0This is why I always
> set the number of games in my matches to a
> prime number... say thirteen.
That would work in games that don't have draws, e.g. baseball. But
in chess a 13-game match can easily end in a tie, for example +6 -6
=3D1, +3 -3 =3D7, etc.
The Anand-Kramnik match would have resorted to extra games at
shorter TLs had the score been tied after 12 games.
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2008 14:47:25
From: help bot
Subject: Re: How come they can't play 24 games for that amount of money ? WCC
|
On Nov 4, 1:16=A0pm, [email protected] (SAT W-7) wrote:
> See =A0, =A0to me that is enough money for 24 games .
But nobody is gouing to come up with that kind of
dough to see you play; maybe half a million, tops.
> =A0 Twelve games just does not seem long enough , i know both play by the
> same rules but still , i want to see who gets =A0tired and starts to make
> mental mistakes ...The strongest chess mind =A0would win in 24 games ....
Also the number twelve allows a plethora of ways
in which to end up with a tie. This is why I always
set the number of games in my matches to a
prime number... say thirteen. In one recent match
where I forgot to give myself odds, it came out 13-0
in favor of Fritz, but he was lucky.
-- help bot
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2008 10:16:30
From: SAT W-7
Subject: Re: How come they can't play 24 games for that amount of money ?
|
See , to me that is enough money for 24 games .
Twelve games just does not seem long enough , i know both play by the
same rules but still , i want to see who gets tired and starts to make
mental mistakes ...The strongest chess mind would win in 24 games ....
|
| | |
Date: 03 Nov 2008 22:49:51
From: SAT W-7
Subject: Re: How come they can't play 24 games for that amount of money ?
|
Some one on here posted the amount of money they were getting , now is
it true or not i do not know ...It was over a million $ in prize money .
|
| |
Date: 03 Nov 2008 10:44:00
From:
Subject: Re: How come they can't play 24 games for that amount of money ? WCC
|
On Nov 3, 1:10=A0pm, William Hyde <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Nov 2, 2:42=A0am, Sanny <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 2, 7:06=A0am, [email protected] (SAT W-7) wrote:
>
> > > It seems to me they =A0( Anand and Kramnik ) made a lot of money for =
their
> > > match for twelve games , so i take it they want twice that much money
> > > for 24 games ?
>
> > > Why couldn't they just play all the games in Bonn ?
>
> > > That amout of money seems to me to be enough for 24 games ...
>
> > When 12 games are played the players get very tired.
>
> > And if they play 24 games they will get more tired. So the quality of
> > games played will be low.
>
> Nonsense. =A0Matches this long and longer have been played with high
> quality games resulting. =A0I take it you have heard of the Alekhine-
> Capablanca match?
Bill, Sanny is our resident ignoramus. Well, one of several perhaps,
but almost certainly the most incorrigible.
> Except for Lasker-Schlechter, every world championship match until
> very recent times has gone over twelve games, most over 20, and
> several to thirty or more =A0games. =A0And some very find games indeed
> were played after game =A0twelve.
For the record, here are the number of games played in various World
Championship matches, taken from "Chess: The Records" by Ken Whyld:
Steinitz-Zukertort 1886: 20
Steinitz-Chigorin 1889: 18
Steinitz-Gunsberg 1891: 19
Steinitz-Zukertort 1886: 20
Steinitz-Chigorin 1892: 23
Steinitz-Lasker 1894: 19
Lasker-Steinitz 1896-7: 17
Lasker-Marshall 1907: 15
Lasker-Tarrasch 1908: 16
Lasker-Schlechter 1910: 10
Lasker-Janowski 1910: 11
Lasker-Capablanca 1921: 14
Capablanca-Alekhine 1927: 34
Alekhine-Bogolyubov 1929: 25
Alekhine-Bogolyubov 1934: 26
Alekhine-Euwe 1935: 30
Euwe-Alekhine 1937: 25
All matches after that through 1972 were best of 24. Then, partly
due to Fischer's influence, there was a return to open-ended formats.
I believe the following all required 6 wins with no maximum number of
games:
Karpov-Korchnoi 1978: 32
Karpov-Korchnoi 1981: 18
Karpov-Kasparov 1984-5: 48
The 1984-5 match was tthe longest ever, It put the kiss of death on
open-ended WCh matches. Since then, all have been best of 24 or less,
with a recent trend toward less, e.g. 16 games in Kasparov-Kramnik
2000, and 12 games in Topalov-Kramnik 2006 and Anand-Kramnik 2008.
|
| |
Date: 03 Nov 2008 10:10:19
From: William Hyde
Subject: Re: How come they can't play 24 games for that amount of money ? WCC
|
On Nov 2, 2:42=A0am, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Nov 2, 7:06=A0am, [email protected] (SAT W-7) wrote:
>
> > It seems to me they =A0( Anand and Kramnik ) made a lot of money for th=
eir
> > match for twelve games , so i take it they want twice that much money
> > for 24 games ?
>
> > Why couldn't they just play all the games in Bonn ?
>
> > That amout of money seems to me to be enough for 24 games ...
>
> When 12 games are played the players get very tired.
>
> And if they play 24 games they will get more tired. So the quality of
> games played will be low.
Nonsense. Matches this long and longer have been played with high
quality games resulting. I take it you have heard of the Alekhine-
Capablanca match?
Except for Lasker-Schlechter, every world championship match until
very recent times has gone over twelve games, most over 20, and
several to thirty or more games. And some very find games indeed
were played after game twelve.
William Hyde
|
| |
Date: 02 Nov 2008 00:42:03
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: How come they can't play 24 games for that amount of money ? WCC
|
On Nov 2, 7:06=A0am, [email protected] (SAT W-7) wrote:
> It seems to me they =A0( Anand and Kramnik ) made a lot of money for thei=
r
> match for twelve games , so i take it they want twice that much money
> for 24 games ?
>
> Why couldn't they just play all the games in Bonn ?
>
> That amout of money seems to me to be enough for 24 games ...
When 12 games are played the players get very tired.
And if they play 24 games they will get more tired. So the quality of
games played will be low.
So playing better quality game without Tiredness is useful.
Remember we played IVAN vs GETCLUB and we both get tired after 4
matches. So imagine playing 12 games how much tired they will be.
Playing 24 Games with same player is very boring and Tiresome. And
they World Class players will not play Quality games.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| | |
Date: 03 Nov 2008 01:06:02
From: SAT W-7
Subject: Re: How come they can't play 24 games for that amount of money ?
|
That is true , they get tired and the quality of chess go's down but
since it is a Championship match i like the longer format ...
I have a book on Kasporove vs Karpove 24 game WCC match , you have to
overcome your mental fatigue to be the best ...
I have played two games , vs my Ivan at random chess and since there is
no opening book , i have noticed Ivan thinking hard from move one ..I
lost both games but they are very interesting games depending on where
the pieces are set up..I wish you could program GC to play that way for
one or two games ..
We can play again in awhile , i am still looking for another computer to
play random chess vs ivan..
|
|
