Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Why not use the 2007 championship tournament as a way to determine a
challenger? It works better this way.

Bravo. Well said. 

That's exactly what the 2007 tournament should be: A way to determine a
challenger.

Not a way to determine the world chess champion. Which is the way it is
set up now. Right? 

Really, it doesn't make sense to call this a reunification match if the
only 'reward' besides monetary is that it's just a candidates match to
qualify for the 2007 world chess championship tournament. 

RIDICULOUS!!!!

The loser of this tournament, if Topalov, should qualify to play in the
2007 round robin and the winner of that should then play Kramnik for the
world chess champion title.

'If Anand is greatest, why isn't he the highest rated?'

Ratings do not always tell best player. Rating points are often earned in tournaments where many opponents are weaker. Tournament results do not always correlate with best player as well as match results. But match results have smaller effect on ratings.

I am not saying that Anand IS best player, only that he MAY be best player and that only match will determine.

I'm not convinced that these tournaments really identify a 'best player
in the world' (most of the time), or even that there is such a thing
(most of the time). If you were to apply statistical theory to the results
and calculate a confidence level, I doubt that the hypothesis that
'Kramnik is better than Topolov' would get anywhere near the 95%
confidence that's considered standard for scientific purposes.

Mark Thompson I agree completely.  But is the same for all sports.  Is
winner of world cup best team in the world with 95% confidence?  No.  All
we can do is hold competition and declare winner as champion.  More valid
competition produces more legitimate champion.  Chess still has many
problems holding event that can produce most legitimate champion, more
than most sport.

Susan Polgar Reports: 

'Game over! Black hung a Rook! A shocking ending to the most bizzare
match! Unification has been achieved! Congratulations to Kramnik! Well
done!'

Cheers to Kramnik, and it is a pleasure that Topalov/Danailov are
disqualified from 2007 World Championship.

Why did Topalov have such relatively low grade seconds? Who would you
rather have, Bareev and Svidler (Kramnik) or Cheparinov and Vallejo
(Topalov)? Cheparinov, maybe, with a youthful penchant for tactics but
surely not Vallejo. How would studying with Vallejo help me defeat
Kramnik?

Jeremy, you say ....

Why did Topalov have such relatively low grade seconds? Who would you
rather have, Bareev and Svidler (Kramnik) or Cheparinov and Vallejo
(Topalov)? 

well he is rated ...

34   Vallejo Pons, Francisco  g  ESP  2674  

And, from what i've read on chess forums during the match just played,
Vallejo did a great job, possibly the best of any of them. 
He is 34th in the world, been higher than that too i think, and played 
so often against the greats because at Linares .. plus he is a opening
theory study guy. I think he did a great job.

stop bagging Vallejo :))

For the record

Bareev #24 - 2683

Svidler #4 - 2750

Cheparinov #83 - 2632

Christine, I'm not picking on Vallejo. My impression is that he is one of the most gentlemanly of grandmasters, but if he wasn't a hometown boy, he probably would never get invited to Linares ever again. I would have thought that Ponomariev would have been a much more logical choice. After all, I believe they have the same manager (do they still?) and Topalov was a second for Ponomariov when he played Ivanchuk for FIDE world championship. But maybe Ponomariov was on Topalov's team too. He just didn't get mentioned in the news item I saw. I'd like to know more about this. Vallejo may be an opening whiz, but he sure seems to lose starting with the opening when he plays against the top ten.

Ponomariov #20 - 2703

Maybe you're right though. After all, you don't have to be the best player to be the best sparring partner.

Kasparov had Kramnik as a second at one time. Maybe that's why Kasparov ended up allowing Kramnik to be his Achilles Heel; the familiarity undermined him. What I wonder about Topalov is whether he chooses not to work with the best because he is afraid of divulging secret weapons. Topalov had to contemplate playing against Ponomariov soon in Mexico City after all! I wonder whether Topalov chose his own seconds or allowed his manager to select them for him. Perhaps Ponomariov was offered the chance but declined.

Perhaps you can tell me who on what message boards had the inside knowledge to be able to make the judgment that Vallejo helped with Topalov's successes in this match. Did Topalov himself perhaps convey such sentiments in any of his press conferences?

he is the hometown boy, why can't he play if they want, he doesn't mess
up the tournament or anything, in 2004 linares i think it was, he drew
both games with kramnik, and both games with topa!
linares wouldn't be linares with vallejo!

I doubt that the seconds are of much signifigance in these matches.  For
example: Fischer could have had Christine and me as seconds back in 1972*
and, in my opinion, he would have still won convincingly.  Maybe even by
another point as we would have tried our hardest to get him to play that
second game which he didn't show up for.

Also, it is known that these days top level players use computers
extensively.  A player can always have seconds who are of the artificial
intelligence nature.

But the true value of a second seems to be to have some buddies to provide
encouragement and support during the ordeal.  Computers won't do that.
------------------------
*If she had been born by then, of course.

Excellent points, Gary. As I recall, Fischer had William Lombardy and Larry Evans. I can remember seeing photos of Fischer looking like he was really enjoying himself with them, playing on a compact set floating in a swimming pool! If companionship were a primary consideration, who would you take? Polymathic grandmaster Jonathan Rowson or Kings Indian expert retired grandmaster Tal Shaked might be my choices.