Talk:World Chess Championship 2012

Chess Grand Prix

This article lists the Chess Grand Prix 2008-2009 as an event and goes on to explain it is a grand prix event. What does that mean? It is not apparent to me from either this article or the Chess Grand Prix 2008-2009 article. I would propose that some effort should be made to explain this term in this article, create an article about grand prix chess contests in general, or perhaps that the words "grand prix" in the explanation (not the event title) be removed. Erechtheus (talk) 03:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That seems to be explained at Chess Grand Prix 2008-2009#Format. Bubba73 (talk), 17:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That makes a certain amount of sense, but I'd think the words grand prix aren't really very necessary as a description. The linked title of the event indicates it's a Grand Prix and sends the reader to the article with the format explanation. Am I thinking about this wrong? Erechtheus (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

For GP contests in general, the Grand Prix page is probably the place for an explanation. I thought that "Grand Prix" refered to a series of events where points are accumulated in each event and the Grand Prix winner is the competitor with the most points. That's the case for the most famous GP (Formula One) and is also the case for the Chess Grand Prix 2008-2009. However a look through the various events linked from the Grand Prix article indicates that not all GP are like that. For instance World Grand Prix (darts) is a single event, so I wouldn't call that a "Grand Prix" at all. Peter Ballard (talk) 04:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"grand prix" has a couple of definitions. One is just a contest for a major prize. The other is a series of contests, such as some of those examples. Bubba73 (talk), 15:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

2011 not 2010

It's true that a chessbase chart says it will be in 2010[1], but the official FIDE handbook says 2011.[2] FIDE documents take precedence over charts. So we should remame it back to "World Chess Championship 2011". I hope it's not too hard... Peter Ballard (talk) 11:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. This FIDE press release, dated 28-Feb-2008, says the match will be in 2010.[3] Perhaps that is dated later than the FIDE handbook. Or perhaps FIDE don't know themselves. Perhaps the article title should reflect the ambiguity... Peter Ballard (talk) 11:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Just spelling out the 3 references from above:

• Says 2010:
  • Chessbase chart which comes from FIDE
  • FIDE Press Release 28-Feb-2008
• Says 2011:
  • Section D.I.6 of the FIDE handbook

I'm inclined to believe that the handbook has a typo or is outdated. So stay with 2010, but the article reflect that it may be 2011. Comments? Peter Ballard (talk) 12:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

participants in challenger

This says only 1 from the world cup (not 2), and then the next 2 highest rated (not 1). -84.131.56.189 (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Overhaul

I thought the article was a bit hard to follow, and actually described the Candidates' qualification twice. So I've re-arranged it, putting the current regulations, and then a timeline of the different changes and protests. I've added the fact that Morozvich and a few other boycotted the Grand Prix from the beginning (copied from FIDE Grand Prix 2008–2009); otherwise it's just a major re-arrangement rather than any new material. I'm not sure if I've done the timeline in the best way, but I think it's a bit of an improvemet. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

tal memorial

kramnik says the win at the Mikhail Tal Memorial puts him in the Candidates’ tournament. http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5917 anyone got more info? -188.96.209.246 (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I assume it means he has virtually clinched one of the two ratings places, even though he and his contenders still have another tournament to play. I posted the following elsewhere, but didn't want to put it in the article because it'd be WP:Original Research:

For the 2010 candidates, two spots are allocated on rating. They will use the average of July 2009 and January 2010 rating. Since July 2009 has been published, and we have Elo rating system#Live ratings to predict Jan 2010, I thought I'd keep a table of who's in the running. I've excluded people who've otherwise qualified (Anand/Topalov, Aronian, Kamsky). The following are the players averaging over 2750. It looks like Carlsen has a spot in the bag, and Kramnik almost does.

Player July 09 Live rating average
Carlsen  2772  2806        2789
Kramnik  2759  2786        2772.5
Gelfand  2755  2759        2757
Gashimov 2740  2763        2751.5

Peter Ballard (talk) 23:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

ok, thanks -188.96.209.246 (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Organizer's Nominee

The Tournament Organizer's nominee has not been announced, and is not limited to Gashimov or Mamedyarov, or any Azeri player. Although likely, this should not be put in until formally announced. 82.45.40.4 (talk) 14:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, teoretically it may be anybody over 2700 on January 2010 list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.149.240.13 (talk) 18:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Grischuk to replace Carlsen

Grischuk was said to be the replacement if Topalov dropped out of the candidate matches, is it reasonable to presume that he will replace Carlsen considering recent events? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.254.61 (talk) 10:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Grischuk was replacement for the wildcard, but Carlsen qualified by the rating. I guess Gashimov is the next highest rated player, but we'll have to wait what FIDE decides. --Jisis (talk) 11:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Someone pointed to the regulations in the article. Replacements for any withdrawls are taken in oder from the Grand Prix. So Grischuk. -Koppapa (talk) 09:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Right. It's in the news already. --Jisis (talk) 12:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Venue

This source says the venue is Chennai, India. Should it be updated? Adithyak1 (talk) 13:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the source says so at all. -Koppapa (talk) 13:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Split the article

Looking at the upcoming championship in a week, shall we split the article and move the content related to Candidate tournament in a separate article? -Abhishikt (talk) 03:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we should. All the articles for previous championships also include the qualification process as well as the actual championship match. I do think it should reformatted to resemble those other articles once the match is over, though. dllu (talk) 08:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually I think a split is a good idea if someone wants to do it, though I'm not volunteering. For the simple reason that this article is getting fairly long. Comparisons to previous championships aren't necessarily valid, because a lot of the previous championships' pages don't have a lot of content. The Candidates was an interesting tournament in its own right, and some other major tournaments have their own pages. Adpete (talk) 12:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Openings

Currently game 2 is labelled as QGD and games 4 and 6 as Slav Defense (even though the opening moves are the same!) In fact the opening is the Semi-Slav Defense, characterised by Black playing both ...c6 and ...e6 in the early moves. I will amend this accordingly. 2.25.130.41 (talk) 22:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Too much white space

I think one pair of moves per column wastes space and looks bad, the page is full of white space. I'll reformat if I get the time. Adpete (talk) 01:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

You are right. -Koppapa (talk) 05:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that would be correct. One pair of move per row makes it look neat and easier to interpret rather than all moves in a para. HARSH ^TALK 12:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

A couple of points. First, few if any other WP chess articles do this. Second, I doubt many readers can read and follow the moves anyway - they are more likely to go to a site where they can click through the moves. In other words, the moves are a waste of space, so we may as well keep it brief. Adpete (talk) 12:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll add: I didn't do the change because it wrapped uglily around the diagrams. So if we are to remove the white space (and I still think we should) we first need to solve some formatting problems. Adpete (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Can someone put the moves in a collapsible table? That should take care of the whitespace problem, while keeping the moves in a one pair pr row format. 88.89.195.17 (talk) 11:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Game 6 and Game 7

Why is Game 6 the Semi-Slav defence whereas Game 7 is associated with the Slav defence?!

Notation of the first 3 moves in Game 6 is: 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 Nf6

Notation of the first 4 moves in Game 7 is:

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 Nf6

From my point of view (as both games share 3. Nc3 Nf6 and the traditional Slav defence ends with 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6) both games should be declared as Semi-Slav defence.

But correct me if you can explain why one of the games is the Semi-Slav but not the other one too.

I now pasted the notation in Fritz 12, it also classifies the game as "Semi-Slav Defence". Screenshot: http://i47.tinypic.com/1ift3a.png --Itssaturday (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Done Both Game 7 and Game 6 deviate slightly after the Main line and eventually develop into semi-slav like position. The Nbd7 in Game 7 looks like Meran Variation of slav. But you are right in saying that Game 7 should be titled semi-slav. HARSH ^TALK 06:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

And thanks for posting the Fritz 12 image. I think it is very reliable. Comment. HARSH ^TALK 06:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Match coverage

What about adding section called Match coverage? The news articles writes about breath of coverage in India, Israel and over internet. -Abhishikt (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Such a section isn't needed. HARSH ^TALK 11:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd go for including it if it is well sourced. The livestream was pretty neat (and unprecedented?) with all the GMs commentating. A short section is surely fine. -Koppapa (talk) 11:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Lacks coherent structure and prose

Article is jumping about all over the place, can it be restuctured into sequence of events? I currently basically starts with the result, goes through the games and then talks about the qualifying process. :( Also the final game, has not one word about it. Surely the concluding game deserves some explaination. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 12:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Openings, again

Tiebreak game 1 begins 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e3 e6 and is labelled QGD. These are the same opening moves as games 2, 4, 6, 7 of normal play and should be labelled Semi-Slav. (7. Bd3 makes this D46, whereas the earlier games were D45.)

Tiebreak game 3 begins 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 Bf5 5. Nc3 e6 and is labelled QGD. This should be Slav Defence (and the heading B12 is an obvious typo for the correct D12). 2.25.135.49 (talk) 16:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

2011 redirect

for some reason the 2011 world chess championship redirects to this page. where is the 2011 page? 129.93.4.33 (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

There was no World Chess Championship in 2011. Toccata quarta (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)