Wall St was down 94 overnight, its biggest fall in a month, while the local market is down 66.
World championship chess: Nadal v. Federer with pawns
|
When a Channel Nine crew were travelling through London on their way home from the 1986 Edinburgh Commonwealth Games, they dropped in on the World Chess Championship match between Garry Kasparov and Anatoly Karpov. The crew viewed a chess match between two Russians as a minor detour after their main assignment and were shocked to discover that for most of the world, K v K was the main event. “I can’t believe there are 900 registered journalists here,” commented one of Channel Nine’s then-ubiquitous Tims. “That’s much more than in Edinburgh.” Two decades on, the job of reporting on a World Chess Championship has become easier to fake, with the result that by the end of the Bonn contest the organisers expect to accredit only 400 journalists, of which more than a quarter have been specialist photographers or television cameramen. Nowadays, newspapers don’t even need to rely on wire agencies like AP to create their chess story. For example, while most major Indian media outlets have sent representatives to Bonn, the Times of India is attempting to cover the Bonn match from Chennai, with a reporter watching the game online, sometimes viewing the feed of the press conference, and then writing a story. The New York Times and The Sydney Morning Herald chess writers are also trying to cover the Bonn match from “home” — a tactic which will probably be used for more and more sports as budget cuts bite. The downside is that the journalists cannot value-add and are relying on internet sources which their readers can also readily access, many hours before the newspaper appears. Even for The Times of India, in a country where internet access among readers would be more limited, readers interested in Anand’s fortunes — meaning almost all sports fans — are likely to turn to rival publications such as The Hindu for atmosphere and interviews. There was atmosphere and passion aplenty in Bonn on Friday as Anand and Kramnik fought out one of the greatest World Championship games of the modern era. This was the Nadal-Federer 2008 Wimbledon final fought over a chessboard — two players at the top of their game trading powerful mental forehands. The game began with Anand, playing Black, catching out Kramnik early by offering material to set up a rapid attack. Thousands of spectators around the world, analysing with their computers, believed that Anand had miscalculated but both players saw further. Kramnik responded after long thought by refusing to accept Anand’s offer, setting up his own sacrifices which this time could not be refused. Anand, with head in hands while he spent almost 40 minutes on a single move, soon returned his extra bishop and more — taking over the initiative again at the cost of a pair of pawns. As the clocks ran down for both players — the players must make their first 40 moves in two hours or face an immediate forfeit — Kramnik’s king was chased around the board. After just under four hours play, Anand’s unrelenting pressure, plus Kramnik’s more serious time trouble, cost the Russian the game; only the second serious game Kramnik has lost with the white pieces in more than two years. It was Anand’s misfortune that his victory came on the same day that Sachin Tendulkar broke Brian Lara’s Test scoring record — only a world title win for Anand might have captured the back page of the Indian papers that day. By game four on Saturday, both players seemed exhausted and the result was a very peaceful draw, Kramnik easily neutralising Anand’s winning attempts. Anand now leads 2.5-1.5 with eight games to play. Kramnik, whose ideas to date would have been good enough to deal with almost any other player in the world, remains remarkably sanguine about his deficit; “I have lost just one game — it happens. I just have to play well and my day will come. I don’t feel like I have to panic; I have been in this situation before.”
|
|
|
|














3 Comments
Ev, for description of how notation works:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebraic_chess_notation
Computer chess games can translate this into a visual representation
How do people understand this? Do people that understand chess find some meaning in the numbers? I try, but I just don’t get it.
Thanks Ian Rogers. This is a new one for Crikey! Congratulations, and keep it up!