Talk:World Chess Championship 2007

Vandalism Fix

Just reverted the article back two revisions for vandalism, if someone could please make sure I followed procedure please do. Then remove this comment. Thank you. Mutton 23:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Match vs. Tournament?

Shouldn't this article detail the original announced structure of the event (series of matches starting 10/06), and the controversy surronding FIDE's fiat in changing the structure in mid-course? Gelfand's protest, e.g. Billbrock 17:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! BlueValour 22:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Kramnik/Topalov loser left out?

Will the loser of the current Kramnik-Topalov match not be able to reclaim the title next year at all? It seems very odd if the tournament will include all the best players in the world except for the second best. Maybe I have misunderstood the article? -- Jao 20:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You understand correctly. It's a bizarre and very flawed system that FIDE has implemented. SubSeven 07:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is not necessarily FIDE's fault but rather that Kramnik refused to partake in the FIDE system until now. If Kramnik has participated in 2005 then Topalov would likely be the runner up and everything would be fine. But unfortunately given that Kramnik did not participate and only agreed to the reunification match, it would have been kind of unfair to the other competitors to kick one of them out. If Kramnik takes part in the 2007 series then things will get a bit better. By the time of the next series (2009?) Topalov should have made it back to the FIDE Championship (although not automatically) and assuming they are still both second best and best will probably be meeting in the final. Really this all is part of the mess that Kasparov created when he refused to participate and isn't really FIDE's fault. We can at least be glad Kramnik won tho. One can imagine the total mess it would have been if he had lost Nil Einne 13:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not certain that Topalov won't be added. Without Topalov the event will lose some credibility. I suspect that the last word hasn't been said on this. Anyone feeling deeply pessimistic can dwell on the consequences of Kramnik losing in 2007. Since he will have lost in a tournament and not a match it is very unlikely, but not impossible, that he will claim still to be the Classical champion! BlueValour 19:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Kramink's title

FIDE describe Kramnik as World Chess Champion 2006 and I think that's the title we should use here. References to 'undisputed' etc are relevant to the 2006 tourney but not needed from here on. BlueValour 22:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Candidates match scores format

I put in the template to show the Candidates as a "tree" format, but I'm not sure I like it now, because it doesn't allow individual game scores to be shown. I think now I prefer a "box" format, similar to that used for the Kramnik-Leko match at Classical World Chess Championship 2004. So it would look something like this:

Seed	Name	1	2	3	4	5	6	TB	Total
1	Aronian	1	½						1.5
16	Carlsen	0	½						0.5

Comments? Peter Ballard 02:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• At first I thought that the tree would be good to have also (include both), but thinking about it more, since the Candidates is only 2 rounds the tree isn't as helpful as it would be if it were taken 4 rounds to determine a single winner. I say go with the boxes. We should also feel free to create small individual sections for each of the matches if we have good sources. Quale 16:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• I would find it useful to have a part-row showing B/W below the game numbers since it is very interesting to see who does what with each colour, though I don't know hoe easy it would be to do. BlueValour 21:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Good job Walter Chan, thanks. BlueValour 19:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• np :P youngvalter 19:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Konstantin Sakaev

I have created an article for Konstantin Sakaev since he was the only red link in the World Cup top 16. Does anyone have a notable game to add, please? BlueValour 22:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you've done a terrific effort already! There's a link to him at chessgames.com, so I don't think an illustrative game is necessary. I'm not a big fan of illustrative games on wikipedia anyway, because you can't play through them. (Except in the form of a link to chessgames.com, where you can play through them). (The exception would be especially famous games, with a couple diagrams). Peter Ballard 00:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Konstantin Sakaev looks really good, thanks. I tagged the talk page with Template:Chess-WikiProject and importance=High, since I think all World Championship candidates should be accorded High priority. Also, you're not alone in not being crazy about the Notable games sections. In addition to the practical problem you mention, I think they also border on original research. Selection of a particular game as notable is OR unless the fact that it is notable can be attributed to a reliable source. I also agree that famous games (which could use considerable expansion) are the primary exception. On the other hand, one of the fairly unique aspects of chess compared to most other sports is that famous (and not so famous) encounters can be replayed for study and enjoyment by chess players even decades or more after they occurred, and I think it's nice to give that some attention. Quale 00:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but chessgames.com (and other sites too) already let you play through them, so I don't think this is an especially high priority for Wikipedia. Peter Ballard 01:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

crosstable

Should probably be done according to the official drawing of lots, i.e. 1. Kramnik, 2. Morozevich, 3. Anand, 4. Grishchuk, 5. Leko, 6. Gelfand, 7.Aronian, 8. Svidler Peter Ballard 07:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I ordered it by rating, but I don't mind either way. By the way, I cannot find the pairings for the following days. Conscious 07:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind either, I just thought that the official table would follow drawing of lots, so we should follow that. I couldn't find pairings past day 1 either, but I'm sure it'll be released in the next 24 hours. Anyway, a great effort by you for dropping the table in. Peter Ballard 07:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately I suppose we will put the crosstable in the usual finish order, with the winner on top. For now going by order of lots makes sense. Quale 16:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I find the table very hard to read, especially when I get up in the morning and want to find which games were finished the night before (or are still going). So I've added a round by round draw. If people really object it can be removed, but I think the crosstable alone is not enough. Peter Ballard 12:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, and it's useful because the crosstable will not ultimately contain any information on the order of games. Conscious 12:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't want to undo the good work done on the crosstable (which I think was by you), but I think we needed a round by round draw as well. Feel free to improve the format I've used. Peter Ballard 12:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed "Games Played" from the crosstable. It was something I added, but I think it's superfluous now that the draw is up there, and it is clear from a glance at the draw who has and hasn't completed their games. Peter Ballard 02:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Really nice work. I think it would be OK to link every opening name in the round-by-round tables. It's tedious to search to see where the name appeared before in the table so you can click on it, and just as annoying to have to worry about that when updating the tables. (Some people strictly interpret the style prohibition against multiple links to the same page to apply even in tables, but I think that's not a good idea.) I think it might be nice to also have the number of moves for each game in the round-by-round tables. Another idea: instead of doing an incomplete crosstable, maybe cumulative scores by round would be better. How about something like this:

Cumulative Scores by Round

	01	02	03	04	05	...
Viswanathan Anand (IND)	0.5	1.5	2.0	2.5	3.5	...
Vladimir Kramnik (RUS)	0.5	1.5	2.0	2.5	3.0	...
Alexander Morozevich (RUS)	0.5	0.5	1.5	2.0	2.0	...
Péter Lékó (HUN)	0.5	1.0	1.5	1.5	2.0	...
Levon Aronian (ARM)	0.5	0.5	1.0	2.0	2.0	...
Peter Svidler (RUS)	0.5	1.0	1.0	1.5	1.5	...
Boris Gelfand (ISR)	0.5	1.0	1.5	2.0	3.0	...
Alexander Grischuk (RUS)	0.5	1.0	1.5	2.0	3.0	...

This makes the ebb and flow of the tournament more clear. Quale 05:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If possible I would rather incorporate that into the draw, just to prevent there being too many tables. But then the question is whether to put in their score at the start of the round, or the end. I kind of like putting in the score before (much like what a player sees before the next round of each tournament), but I worried about whether it was clear. i.e. rounds 5 and 6 look like this:

Round 5 - 18 September
Anand (2.5)	Svidler (1.5)	1-0	C89 Ruy Lopez
Gelfand (2)	Aronian (2)	1-0	A60 Benoni
Grischuk (2)	Morozevich (2)	1-0	D38 QGD
Lékó (1.5)	Kramnik (2.5)	½-½	C54 Bishop's
Round 6 - 19 September
Aronian (2)	Kramnik (3)
Gelfand (3)	Morozevich (2)
Grischuk (3)	Svidler (1.5)
Lékó (2)	Anand (3.5)

I just thought of another idea: your table, but including results (only done Anand so far):

Cumulative Scores by Round

	01	02	03	04	05	...
Viswanathan Anand (IND)	0.5	1.5	2.0	2.5	3.5	...
	W Gel ½	B Aro 1	W Kra ½	B Mor ½	W Svi 1	...
Vladimir Kramnik (RUS)	0.5	1.5	2.0	2.5	3.0	...
Alexander Morozevich (RUS)	0.5	0.5	1.5	2.0	2.0	...
Péter Lékó (HUN)	0.5	1.0	1.5	1.5	2.0	...
Levon Aronian (ARM)	0.5	0.5	1.0	2.0	2.0	...
Peter Svidler (RUS)	0.5	1.0	1.0	1.5	1.5	...
Boris Gelfand (ISR)	0.5	1.0	1.5	2.0	3.0	...
Alexander Grischuk (RUS)	0.5	1.0	1.5	2.0	3.0	...

Peter Ballard 05:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

And perhaps even better this:

Cumulative Scores by Round

	01	02	03	04	05	...
Viswanathan Anand (IND)	W Gel ½ 0.5	B Aro 1 1.5	W Kra ½ 2.0	B Mor ½ 2.5	W Svi 1 3.5	...
Vladimir Kramnik (RUS)	0.5	1.5	2.0	2.5	3.0	...
Alexander Morozevich (RUS)	0.5	0.5	1.5	2.0	2.0	...
Péter Lékó (HUN)	0.5	1.0	1.5	1.5	2.0	...
Levon Aronian (ARM)	0.5	0.5	1.0	2.0	2.0	...
Peter Svidler (RUS)	0.5	1.0	1.0	1.5	1.5	...
Boris Gelfand (ISR)	0.5	1.0	1.5	2.0	3.0	...
Alexander Grischuk (RUS)	0.5	1.0	1.5	2.0	3.0	...

Peter Ballard 06:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I like incorporating scores into the draw tables, if anything. Conscious 09:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Now that I've seen it, I agree with Conscious. Your idea is excellent—The before-round scores look good in parens after the players' names in the draw tables. The extra cumulative score by rounds table I suggested isn't needed. I think we will want to keep the draw tables even when the tournament is finished. For a regular tournament that would be overkill, but this is the World Championship. We actually should add some brief commentary by round, drawing on reliable sources to describe what happened. For instance, people have commented on the unusual (for WC play) appearance of Bishop's Opening. It would be helpful to use a WP:RS source to describe the intent to avoid Kramnik's Petroff. (And that it wasn't particularly successful—a 24-move draw.) There's a lot more like that to add. Quale 16:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

ECO codes

I must admit that I'm uncomfortable with some of the ECO codes I add to the article. Different sources contradict each other, and while some mistakes are obvious, others are not because games transpose to different openings. There's an option of abandoning the codes altogether, but I don't really like it as they seem to be helpful to distinguish between different varieties of, say, QGD. Conscious 09:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally I'd rather not have the opening codes. It's a form of commentary (and a very incomplete one at that). Let's just give the results, and link to elsewhere for the commentary. Peter Ballard 12:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Being the one who originally added the opening designations (but not the ECO codes), I do think that they are an interesting inclusion. Classifying chess games by opening is so common that I wouldn't really call it commentary. It is, however, an inexact science due to all the transpositions (the same opening might, on equally good grounds, be called either a QGD, a Catalan, or a King's Indian, to take one example). For that reason, I would reluctantly accept their deletion. -- Jao 12:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right. My opinion to delete them isn't strong. I'm just saying that, if it's causing trouble to get them right, we may be better off deleting them. Peter Ballard 12:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Commentary

Quale raised the question of commentary. In my opinion, it might be just as good to link to commentary elsewhere. The Week in Chess and Chessbase both give fairly good round by round commentary, and they both have the advantage that their content seems to stay around forever. For the moment, I've put in a general link to those two, though later on we'd probably want to link to the pages for individual rounds. Peter Ballard 23:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Standings

Am I alone in finding this confusing (oops, shouldn't ask rhetorical questions since the obvious answer is 'probably'!)? Would it not be clearer, now, to put the standings in points order? BlueValour 20:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably, but it's a lot of work to re-arrange the table. An alternative would be to put in "differential" scores (i.e. Anand +3, Gelfand +2, Kramnik +1, Leko =, Grischuk -1 etc.) because I think they're easier to read at a glance. Perhaps put them in as well as prograssive scores, so all bases are covered. Peter Ballard 00:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

What about adding a column with current rank? Much easier than re-arranging, and still gives the reader immediately who is first, second, and third. -- Jao 10:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Drop "FIDE" from article name

Now the world title is no longer split, I think we should drop "FIDE" from the article title, to be compatible with existing articles on the undisputed title (World Chess Championship 1948, World Chess Championship 1963, World Chess Championship 1972). (And we should do the same for the 2006 match also). Peter Ballard 06:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Conscious 09:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course! -- Jao 11:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Footer template

I created Template:World Chess Championships and added it to this article (only, so far). Not everyone likes this kind of boxes, what do you people think? If you like it, I will add it to the other articles as well. If you don't like it, I'll take it out immediately. -- Jao 13:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

All right, I got eager and added it to all the articles. Input still wanted, though. -- Jao 17:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added the row heading "Reunified" to the last row to make it clear that the heading "FIDE" applies to only the second-last row, not to all the champions from that point on. Please reverse this change if you think it unnecessary. 91.105.57.40 20:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

final standings

Is the "standings" section supposed to list the players in order of final score? If so, the last one is wrong. Bubba73 (talk), 03:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Timings

I moved the timing explanation up to where it was first mentioned, but this change was reverted. Could somebody please add an explanation of what the notation for the "normal timings" is if it is different to the timings shown (and explained) later. The first mention was frankly baffling for a non-chess player, but, after struggling to work it out, I came across the explanation in the section below, or at least I thought I did. They look the same to me except one is expressed in hours and the other in minutes, and I've searched in vain for an article on chess timing to explain the difference. Andplus 15:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Kramnik

I think it should be explained in the introduction what Kramnik has to do with the championship, why it is important what he declared. Later it says, a rematch match will be made between Kramnik and Anand and it is not clear what is meant without having the context present. I think the reunification match, i.e. the history leading up to this championship, should also be shortly mentioned. Otherwise, the current article misses something. --Ben ^T/_C 15:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I believe it violates a style guideline, by mentioning something in the lead which is not discussed in the body of the article. I think there needs to be a short section on "background". Peter Ballard 08:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)