Talk:World Chess Championship 2006

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Trivia?[edit]

As far as I can remember, this is the first forfieted game in a world championship match since Fischer-Spassky 1972. Is that correct? If so, it can be added to the trivia section. Bubba73 (talk), 00:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is also the first world chess championship when one of the players has an opportunity to play white 3 games in a row. Topalov played white in games 4, 6, and 7. In all 3 games he played 1.d4 Probably should be added too. (Igny 13:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]


I think another notable trivia fact is that every game thus far has been 1. d4. I am not sure why, and I don't think it should be stated why, though I suspect that both players want to avoid a possible petroff, which may be a waste of a white. Anyway, I think that all 10 games being d4 is notable.

In think we should wait and see if all games are 1. d4. Bubba73 (talk), 22:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to Mihail Marin at chessbase.com, [1] (a) this is the first championship match in which all games started with the same move; (b) It is NOT the first match to not have 1 e4 - Botvinnik-Petrosian 1963 was all 1 d4 or 1 c4. Rocksong 04:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

News[edit]

There should absolutely be a news article on the main page about this bizzare match.--DCo 00:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FIDE World Chess Championship 2007[edit]

I have started the FIDE World Chess Championship 2007 article now that the candidates' tournament seems likely to go ahead. BlueValour 00:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

beginning time of games?[edit]

does anybody have the exact times when the games are beginning on each day? I guess they should be added...

oops, I see it is already stated... forget what I said... Sirana 08:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Classical World Chess Championship 2004[edit]

I have created the article Classical World Chess Championship 2004. I should welcome help in developing it. I wonder if any skilled person could put the results in a table, please, so they line up? BlueValour 21:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chess world championships category[edit]

I have created this new category, as a subset of Chess competitions, since articles on the world championship were starting to get hard to find in a large category. BlueValour 21:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Implication of computer assistance[edit]

I'm slightly skeptical about Chessbase's implication that Team Topalov is accusing Kramnik of cheating with Chessbase's software - especially when Rybka is, I think, universally agreed to be the stronger program. However, I think it's a significant enough claim to be included with what I hope is Chessbase's potential conflict-of-interest as a source made clear. Ribonucleic 16:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since Polgar has commented, I'm proceeding on the assumption that Danailov has actually issued this press release. Since the bathroom section is pretty long and dense already - and since this seems to be the first time Team Topalov has officially implied (though still not accused - contrary to the Chessbase article heading) Kramnik is cheating - I'm giving it its own section. Ribonucleic 17:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about adding some background to these accusations/implications. Topalov was accused of cheating before, see for example [2]. There was a mention of this in some older edits of Veselin Topalov, but after a mediation it was removed for obvious reasons. The accusation was anonymous and no evidence was provided. I think this information is relevant to the recent events and could provide some perspective on this chess crisis. I, myself, think it is not personal attacks against Topalov or Kramnik, but rather a systemic problem in chess championships, any other person in their places would be attacked just as well. I understand now why Garry Kasparov was advocating the advanced chess. (Igny 02:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
As I see it, the only relevant background is contained in the article: Topalov is more than halfway to losing the match, despite getting a free point, and is now resorting to a cowardly smear that doesn't even make sense on its own terms. But hey, that's me. Ribonucleic 03:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
at a computer chess playing site experienced computer matchers have run, and are running further tests to see comparison rates with kramnik's play. http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=53547&page=2 Early results seem to show that kramnik is a human.

Characterization of Kramnik loss in Game 8[edit]

I'm admittedly partisan. But I think the statement that Topalov "outplayed" Kramnik is misleading. Kramnik blundered by snatching the g-pawn and Topalov effectively punished him for it. That's not the same as Topalov opening a commaning lead early and keeping it throughout the game. Ribonucleic 18:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of the chess world, myself included, is partisan in the same direction after the Topalov team's antics. 41.Kxg3 was a big mistake, but Susan Polgar thought Kramnik's position was already "very bad" before that move, so unless other GM's disagree and say that Kramnik was doing fine until he played 41.Kxg3, I think "outplayed" is a fair characterization. Polgar thought Kramnik's a4 was weak. Mihail Marin at ChessBase also questioned Kramnik's h4 and f4. For what it's worth, my impression is that Kramnik should have played 30.Rcc7 playing for Ra7. The side fighting with a rook against minor pieces should usually try to exchange off the other side's rook. Krakatoa 02:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In this article GM Sveshnikov says that Kramnik's mistake on move 12 was the primary reason for his loss. Conscious 06:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since I don't read Russian, I'll have to take your word for it. About all I can make out is that he gave 12.Bb5+ a dubious mark. I have a hard time believing White's anywhere near lost after that move, though. Krakatoa 08:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bold for the game, regular for variations and analysis[edit]

If nobody objects, I'll use bold for the notation of the actual game, and non-bold for the rest. That'll be much easier to read and is used everywhere. I guess there's nothing in Wikipedia against it.
What do you say? Velho 18:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Chessbase uses this convention and it seems to work well so I support it. BlueValour 22:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have done that in some places (I believe the "Desperado piece" article, the "Stalemate" article, and my own user page). I think it works pretty well, so no objection from me. Krakatoa 23:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, bolding the moves of the game and not bolding side lines in analysis is pretty much standard in the literature. Bubba73 (talk), 00:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have implemented Velho's suggestion in the article. Krakatoa 01:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I didn't even have to do it myself! :-) Velho 02:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Game 10[edit]

The article implies that Topalov was fine before f6?? but Kasparov said that Topalov's position was already very unpleasant.

Topalov's position was unpleasant but he still could have held the game with accurate moves.

Well, when is Game 12 anyway??[edit]

FIDE says Wednesday. [3] Chessbase says Thursday. [4] I need to know so I can take off from work! Ribonucleic 20:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Checking the history of this page, I see that the original schedule had a 2 day gap between Games 11 and 12, even though there had been another 2 day gap between Games 10 and 11. That, plus today's Chessbase post, seems to outweigh even the FIDE web site - which has had a tendency to suck balls. So I'm changing the date back to the 12th. If anyone can get some more confirmation, I'd very much appreciate it for personal - rather than Wiki - reasons. [see above] Ribonucleic 20:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ECO codes[edit]

Can someone put in the ECO codes of the games? Perhaps in the subsection headings. Bubba73 (talk), 05:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Conscious for putting the openings in! It doesn't matter much, but Chessgames lists E04 instead of E02 for game 3 and E00 instead of E08 for game 10. Bubba73 (talk), 17:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't trust this source too much. They list E00 for game 10, but it's clearly Slav. For the record, my source is [6] (Sport-Express). Conscious 17:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
thank you. Bubba73 (talk), 01:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the ECO codes for the tie-break games per Chessbase. Perhaps Concious could check with Sport-Express? BlueValour 19:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article featured in "In the News" on the front page[edit]

This article is being featured in "In the News" on the front page. See Main Page. There is a template that can be used to note this, but I can't find it. Carcharoth 22:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia is wrong?[edit]

1984 World Chess Championship between Karpov and Kasparov started with 5:0 deficit of Kasparov. It was later abandoned without a result.(Igny 04:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Actually, that match started with 2 draws; Karpov led with 4 wins to none after 9 games, and won Game 27 before losing Games 32, 47 and 48. Walter Chan 04:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Separate article for games?[edit]

The article looks kinda long. Should the game scores and analysis be moved to another article perhaps? Walter Chan 04:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, good point. If we were to split then the Games section is the obvious candidate. I don't see the article growing a lot more; perhaps some diagrams and analysis. Though the article is over the optimum length there is a convenience in having everything in one place. My inclination is to leave things be. BlueValour 19:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tie-break or tiebreak?[edit]

Actually, I don't mind. Checking on Google and with various dictionaries, both seem acceptable and the FIDE site mixes both. What is important is that we are consistent. At the moment we use tie-break and tie-breaker and I suggest that we stick to that formulation unless anyone feels strongly enough to definitively source tiebreak. BlueValour 19:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone add the moves for the tiebreak games?AaronCBurke 23:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They have been up for some time - see Games 13-16. BlueValour 01:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

I have replaced the picture with a copy of the match logo because, having studied the licence again, I am not confident that the licence applies. BlueValour 23:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linking games from schedule[edit]

I don't know if anyone fancies the work but it would be cool to link each of the games under Schedule to the relevant game score. BlueValour 01:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Chess engine analysis[edit]

An interesting point was raised as to whether including chess engine analysis is OR. My inclination is that it is not since it is fully verifiable. I have added a query on this at Wikipedia talk:No original research. BlueValour 15:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like original research to me. Conscious 16:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would assume it is not OR until definitively told otherwise. But I don't know. And would removing the citation to the engine make a difference?
Update I accept the consensus which appears to be building. Baccyak4H 14:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Baccyak4H 18:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion: If you run the engine yourself, that's obviously Original Research. Rocksong 03:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is definitely OR. It also is not verifiable, as the results depend on the hardware, configuration, and specific version of the engine. It's the equivalent of performing a physics experiment in your kitchen and reporting the results you got—this is not allowed. Another source meeting WP:RS reporting the moves recommended by an engine could be fine. 24.241.226.16 07:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image caption[edit]

  • Apologies as I'm unfamiliar with this topic, but the text states that Kramnik is now the undisputed world champion. However the image caption lists a ranking of 3rd, with a lower score than Topalov. If this is not an error, an explanation for those of us unfamiliar with what the discrepancy means would be useful. Santaduck 21:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an error. The ranking is based on rating. The title of world champion is based on a historical tradition of defending and winning the said title through playing matches. Carcharoth 22:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silvio Danailov[edit]

I have created a stub for Silvio Danailov. Contributions to expand the non-Elista parts of his biography are invited! BlueValour 03:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anand quote[edit]

Here's part of an Anand quote that might be suitable for use in this article if we can get context and a good cite:

It's great entertainment, no doubt. But there is no place for such things in sport. He (Kramnik) was accused not of something he actually did, but something he could have done, and losing a game was extremely unfair to Kramnik. To say that it could have been handled better would actually be putting it mildly. The event is tainted now.
Viswanathan Anand: (The Hindu, 9 October 2006.) on the Kramnik-Topalov match

Quale 19:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on World Chess Championship 2006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on World Chess Championship 2006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_Chess_Championship_2006&oldid=1206077840"