Talk:World Chess Championship 2010

message: Should we list the seconds of Anand and Topalov?
Anand had the same group of helpers as in Bonn: Peter Heine Nielsen, Rustam Kasimdzhanov, Surya Ganguly and Radoslaw Wojtaszek. We already knew that Topalov worked with Jan Smeets, Erwin l’Ami, Ivan Cheparinov and Jiri Dufek.http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/wch-g12-anand-beats-topalov-retains-world-title/.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishikt (talk • contribs) 23:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can cite the information, it definitely belongs in the article.  (Normally new talk topics are started at the bottom of the page.) Quale (talk) 02:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seconds 

message: I came to this page to find out about the terms of the match - ie: how many games? What are the time controls? How does a player win the match? What happens if scores are tied? What is the date of the first game?
None of this basic information is in the article. Can someone with some knowledge of this event please insert the info? Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto! Just a couple of months away and still nothing about this.  --96.233.84.12 (talk) 12:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic Info Missing 

message: I've added Pictures of Topalov and Kamsky to the infobox, but I'm not sure if I've made it too messy. Feel free to fix or even revert. But I thought the "?" picture was a bit tacky, especially since there are only 2 possible challengers. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: Is forgetting to shake hands really worth mentioning? Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion is that it is not significant.  But I'm not going to remove it.  Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 20:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This has now been moved to 'Game 3'. This is so trivial that I intend to remove it unless there is a good reason for it retention. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's that trivial.  It adds a little bit of color, and the article is not in any immanent danger of growing too long.  The discussion of the individual game is probably the right place to put it.  In general the article need more description of the progress of the match, covering what happened at and away from the board.  I think more details of this sort would make the article better and a more interesting read.  Chessbase.com has is a little more discussion of the non-handshake: http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6287.  "Maybe the arbiter has to shake hands."  Quale (talk) 03:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it is fine to have it in game 3, but I didn't like it as a section.  Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 04:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting facts 

message: Hi, I am not exactly sure which ECO code is right for game 7, but E03 seems wrong since, according to what I found on the net, it implies the white move Qa4. So, I believe it should be either E01 (1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 g3 d5 4 Bg2) or E04, by transposition (1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 g3 d5 4 Bg2 dxc4 5 Nf3) : they did play all these moves, if later than expected by Mr. ECO. Oyp (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ECO code for game 7 

message: I think it would be better to link to the games on chessgames.com in the "Games" section rather than "Schedule and results".  The "ref" format could be used and they would also show up in the notes.  Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 21:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; then remove the links from the "Schedule and results" section.Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  links to Chessgames.com 

message: How is the prize fund to be split?  That should be in the article.  Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 03:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  prize fund split? 

message: Critique and revision is welcome. Of course, the colors will probably have to be changed, but the Anand and Topalov columns should remain in place for consistency. Also should it go to the Armageddon game, how should a draw — giving victory to black — be noted in the score column? Legitimate options are: ½-½, 0-1 (both with a note), 0-½, and ½-1.
===Schedule and results===
====Regular schedule====
Game      	Date     	Topalov	Anand	Standing
1         	24 April 	1      	0    	Topalov leads 1–0
2         	25 April 	0      	1    	Match tied 1–1
3         	27 April 	½      	½    	Match tied 1½–1½
4         	28 April 	0      	1    	Anand leads 2½–1½
5         	30  April	½      	½    	Anand leads 3–2
6         	1  May   	½      	½    	Anand leads 3½–2½
7         	3 May    	½      	½    	Anand leads 4–3
8         	4 May    	1      	0    	Match tied 4–4
9         	6 May    	½      	½    	Match tied 4½–4½
10        	7 May    	       	     	
11        	9 May    	       	     	
12        	11 May   	       	     	
Tie Breaks	13 May   	       	     	
All games started at 3.00 PM EEST (UTC+3), except Game 1, which began at 5.00 PM EEST.Anand-Topalov – FIDE World Chess Championship 2010 (Section "Schedule")
====Tie breaks====
Game	Format    	Topalov	Anand	Standing
13  	Quick     	       	     	
14  	Quick     	       	     	
15  	Quick     	       	     	
16  	Quick     	       	     	
17  	Blitz     	       	     	
18  	Blitz     	       	     	
19  	Blitz     	       	     	
20  	Blitz     	       	     	
21  	Blitz     	       	     	
22  	Blitz     	       	     	
23  	Blitz     	       	     	
24  	Blitz     	       	     	
25  	Blitz     	       	     	
26  	Blitz     	       	     	
27  	Armageddon	       	     	
 Time control for quick games: 25 minutes plus 10 seconds per move.
 Time control for blitz games: 5 minutes plus 10 seconds increment per move.
 Time control for armageddon game: 5 minutes for White, 4 minutes for Black. If the game is a draw, the player of the black pieces is declared the winner of the match.
Jedzz (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Tie Break Table 

message: ====Regular schedule====
Game      	Date     	Topalov	Anand	Standing
1         	24 April 	1      	0    	Topalov leads 1–0
2         	25 April 	0      	1    	Match tied 1–1
3         	27 April 	½      	½    	Match tied 1½–1½
4         	28 April 	0      	1    	Anand leads 2½–1½
5         	30  April	½      	½    	Anand leads 3–2
6         	1  May   	½      	½    	Anand leads 3½–2½
7         	3 May    	½      	½    	Anand leads 4–3
8         	4 May    	1      	0    	Match tied 4–4
9         	6 May    	½      	½    	Match tied 4½–4½
10        	7 May    	       	     	
11        	9 May    	       	     	
12        	11 May   	       	     	
Tie Breaks	13 May   	       	     	
All games started at 3.00 PM EEST (UTC+3), except Game 1, which began at 5.00 PM EEST.Anand-Topalov – FIDE World Chess Championship 2010 (Section "Schedule")
====Tie breaks====
Game	Format    	Topalov	Anand	Standing
13  	Quick     	       	     	
14  	Quick     	       	     	
15  	Quick     	       	     	
16  	Quick     	       	     	
17  	Blitz     	       	     	
18  	Blitz     	       	     	
19  	Blitz     	       	     	
20  	Blitz     	       	     	
21  	Blitz     	       	     	
22  	Blitz     	       	     	
23  	Blitz     	       	     	
24  	Blitz     	       	     	
25  	Blitz     	       	     	
26  	Blitz     	       	     	
27  	Armageddon	       	     	
 Time control for quick games: 25 minutes plus 10 seconds per move.
 Time control for blitz games: 5 minutes plus 10 seconds increment per move.
 Time control for armageddon game: 5 minutes for White, 4 minutes for Black. If the game is a draw, the player of the black pieces is declared the winner of the match.
Jedzz (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Schedule and results

message: Game	Format    	Topalov	Anand	Standing
13  	Quick     	       	     	
14  	Quick     	       	     	
15  	Quick     	       	     	
16  	Quick     	       	     	
17  	Blitz     	       	     	
18  	Blitz     	       	     	
19  	Blitz     	       	     	
20  	Blitz     	       	     	
21  	Blitz     	       	     	
22  	Blitz     	       	     	
23  	Blitz     	       	     	
24  	Blitz     	       	     	
25  	Blitz     	       	     	
26  	Blitz     	       	     	
27  	Armageddon	       	     	
 Time control for quick games: 25 minutes plus 10 seconds per move.
 Time control for blitz games: 5 minutes plus 10 seconds increment per move.
 Time control for armageddon game: 5 minutes for White, 4 minutes for Black. If the game is a draw, the player of the black pieces is declared the winner of the match.
Jedzz (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Tie breaks

message: Game 9 must have been a Draw by agreement instead of perpetual check.  A draw by perpetual check hasn't been in the rules for decades.  (And it wasn't threefold either.)  Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 18:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - Chessbase says that Anand offered and Topalov accepted through the arbiter. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Topalov had the choice to make a move which turns the position into a threefold repetition, so it is a threefold repetition. It doesn't matter he actually didn't make the move.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.113.163 (talk) 10:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, the first occurrence of the position was farther back.  If 83... Qc1+ it is the same as after Black's 75th and 81st moves. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 13:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

text: I just want to point out that a true perpetual check position is equivalent to a three-fold repetition with best play. (Proof is left as an exercise to the reader.) Historically if you saw a game adjudicated as "drawn by perpetual check" they are just acknowledging this fact, though technically either the arbiter is just forcing the issue (a prerogative they usually have) or the players themselves are just agreeing to a draw. This sort of thing would only be removed in modern times due to the "sudden death" nature of the time controls (remember in the old days, you could adjourn the game every 40 moves.)  So now you can actually win K+R+B vs K+R if you can avoid a 3-fold repetition over the course of however many moves you can blitz out and force your opponent to lose on time. Qed (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game 9 

message: There are numerous references that could be added to game analysis. In my view we normally only need one reference to back up each piece of analysis and we should use the most authoritative. There may be exceptions where multiple refs are needed but there should be a good reason in such cases. I have removed a Chess.com ref from Game 9. The analysis is incomplete and it adds nothing to the Chessbase ref. I should welcome views, please. I would add that comments and analysis must be a fair summary of comments/analysis in the source. I note that the same editor has added comments to Game 10 that are not reflected in the source; I shall amend these. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicating references 

message: I did some rewriting of the lede, mainly because it had a mildly clunky feel to it.  I did remove the reference to the organizers being Bulgarian, and removed the description of Anand's volcano-induced road trip as being "exhausting", as I thought they were mildly non-NPOV.  I would not be against reintroduction of that content, perhaps in the article body, so long as there was not a POV flavor to its presentation.  I think the lede now reads better, although acknowledge it was a significant change so wanted to invite scrutiny here.  
I also think the time-control quote in the lede is misplaced -- perhaps a summary without an inline quote might be better? -- but did not change it, yet.  Discussion welcome.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede rewrite