Crime and Punishment: Grischuk vs Kramnik

I think that the lowly Grischuk beat Kramnik the same way the lowly Kramnik beat Kasparov a few years ago. Draws, draws, draws and an occasional win. And I'd say: "Crime and Punishment".

haha good one, i like the comparison.  can't forget that grischuk is a killer poker player, looks like he has incorporated some of that heads-up psychology to frustrate kramnik into over-reaching and making a mistake.

A huge difference is that Kramnik did manage to win in classical chess, not blitz, or rapid play. Realize that Grischuk is in the final and has not won a single classical game. This fact alone condemns the current "system" being used by FIDE imo. 

The current format reminds me of the movie "The Accidental Tourist", for some reason.

Reb, I have to agree.  This format is good for the sponsers but not the players or the fans.  I hate the way Grischuk won, but he won, and I have to give him his props for succeeding against Aronian and Kramnik, but it's more like he survived than won.  And I don't think there is a way to adjust the current system to encourage players to win.  This is why I agree with Carlsen on this.  This is system that encourages frustration more than championship chess.

Indeed, this turn of events seems to validate Carlsen's refusal to participate; it's not clear how to truly solve this problem though.

Couldn't agree more Reb. Surely this should be about finding the best classical chess player in the world and the fact that Grischuk, who shouldn't even be there, is in the candidates final without winning a long game says it all about the organisational mess this tournament is.

I AGREE 1000000% WITH THIS STATEMENT. IT CONCLUDES THE FLAWS OF THE TOURNAMENT RULES IN ONE SENTENCE.

I agree completely. That said, what sort of system would be better?

(Just to we're completely clear, because it's easy to misunderstand on the net, that is not intended to be read as 'Do you have a better system? No? Then STFU!' or as 'Well, it ain't perfect, but there's nothing better...'. I'm sure there are better systems, I just don't know what they are, am hoping you do know, and want to learn : ) )

Why don't we go back to the good old style of the "x games match and in case of a draw extra games until someone wins"?

I imagine the problem is this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Chess_Championship_1984

: / Although I agree, it would be more interesting. 

Because it costs money to set up and run an event.  As a chess player I'd love a month long match for WC involving a few dozen games, but the problem is who's going to pay for it?

This match was a "first to x wins" match. The format I'm discussing is different. 

Almost anything would be better imo. A RR tourney like Mexico City that Anand won. More classical games / longer match would be best but it seems the problem there is money . As for tie breaks they shouldnt use rapid and blitz chess to determin a challenge for the classical/slow WC .... its stupid. 

It was precisely Kasparov who drew with white in their match twice very shortly, one in 14 moves and one in 11 moves, so you don't know what you're talking about. Kramnik held confidently with black and pressed with white, winning 2 games without losing any, so he was simply his usual self. There's no "switching roles" here.

+1

+ a million :)

Ah, aha, so you are - My mistake >.< 

In a tournament you could give the winner more that a point, like in many sports they give 3 points for a win and 1 point each for a draw. However, this would not be ineffective in an elimination match, which is how I feel the final WC challenger should be selected. Otherwise you get someone who is good at one format playing for the title in a different format...

...so far "the Candidates" has been a great disappointment...and I also agree with "reb"...the classical championship should be settled by long play...the problem of course is money...so I am not certain that any solution will be found soon...that being said, Grischuk faced two of the favourites and came out on top...so he does deserve to play in the final (at least ahead of Aronian and Kramnik).

...Anand must be happy with the results thus far...he should be able to put away either of these easily...

I disagree with the statement about Magnus making the right decision...he above all else, had the potential to make these matches exciting...and Anand vs Carlsen would have been the talk of the chess world...now, no matter who wins, it will be a let down...

 If you check the games of that match you'll notice that Kasparov drew in such a few moves while being at least one point behind. So I'd say that he drew because he was sick of Krammnik's drawing strategy, especially when the second one was on Krammnik's 5th (!) Berlin Wall.