|
|
|
Topic: So who'll be the next champ?
| |
|
|
Author
| Message |
|---|
|
|
Roughly 3 days before the big tournament in Mexico, who do you think who'll be crowned FIDE Champion for this year's edition?
Anand (2792)
Kramnik (2769)
Morozevich (2758)
Leko (2751)
Aronian (2750)
Svidler (2735)
Gelfand (2733)
Grischuk (2726)
Fell free to leave a little comment with your choice. For my part, my heart go to Anand. The guy is just too great  And, except Aronian & Morozevich, I really can't see anyone who can be a threat to him IMO
|
|
|
Our countdown clock is set:
http://clube-de-xadrez.wikispaces.com/
I support Kramnik and Anand, in this order.
Beco
|
|
|
Svidler, Morozevich, Gelfand and Grischuk aren't going to win it, but any of the others.
Anand would be nice, he definitely deserves it.
|
|
|
I'd go for Anand or Kramnik, too, and I'd like to see Aronian do well. But, without Topalov, the tournament lacks credibility. I'm not saying Topalov is the strongest player; I don't even like him very much. Nevertheless, it's inexcusable to exclude somebody because they came second in a match for the World Championship last year, while including people who've never come close to that level.
|
|
|
Anand is getting older and as people age there skill tends to decline. Just look at Karpov, Spassky, and Larsen. Sure people getting better as the generations go by has something to do with it but if you analyse some games by Larsen played in the 90's and played in the 60's you'll see a sharp decline in skill. Sure he defeated Fischer twice (before he was trounced 6-0 in the world champion qualifyers) and Deep Blue at a later date (the one before improvements) but the fact is while Anand is still pretty good I have my pick as Aronian to take the title. I've studied some Kramnik games and Aronian seems to be a reasonable pick. Leko's also pretty good but his play seems quite regid and mathematical. Nothing wrong with that of course but sometimes regidness could be a weakness. Anand in his youngers days I'll admit was quite a dangerous and intimidating chess player. Still applies today of course but to a lesser degree.
|
|
|
I'll have to add a note here: Chess skill at the top level seems to be so accurate almost to that of the machines to such a degree that it is hard to see significant improvement in the future. Perhaps chess has been analysed out? I still see innaccuracies even analysing current computer matches but I fear the time has come that a new dimention in chess is needed to keep the game interesting. And I don't think blitz games is the way to go.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next |
|
|
|
