One imagines that Anand has the better background and Gelfan

[S.Taylor]

I think most people expect Anand to easily come through in the end, and hold on to his title. The impresion i get, is that Gelfand will only hang on for a time, but is not a fire in all its blazing fury.
If in these days, one of the opponents was Alekhine in his prime, or some other old biggies, or even Fischer, I wonder if the games would be any more entertaining than now.

[Mark Mason]

If in these days, one of the opponents was Alekhine in his prime, or some other old biggies, or even Fischer, I wonder if the games would be any more entertaining than now.

I think the difference is that pre-1970's players did not have access to computers and therefore could not utilise engines and databases to pre-prepare and memorise long 20+ move lines of theory, which they then trot out over the board. With these tools and preparation, it is much harder to find the opportunity for novelty and innovation so the game will by default be more dull and predictable than the ones between the "old biggies".

Don't get me wrong - I think computers and engines are a wonderful tool for analysis, but don't make for entertaining and exciting chess for spectators.

[Harvey Williamson]

If in these days, one of the opponents was Alekhine in his prime, or some other old biggies, or even Fischer, I wonder if the games would be any more entertaining than now.

I think the difference is that pre-1970's players did not have access to computers and therefore could not utilise engines and databases to pre-prepare and memorise long 20+ move lines of theory, which they then trot out over the board. With these tools and preparation, it is much harder to find the opportunity for novelty and innovation so the game will by default be more dull and predictable than the ones between the "old biggies".

Don't get me wrong - I think computers and engines are a wonderful tool for analysis, but don't make for entertaining and exciting chess for spectators.

Isn't the problem that all the spectators now have Computers and think they know better than the players!?

[gerold]

I think most people expect Anand to easily come through in the end, and hold on to his title. The impresion i get, is that Gelfand will only hang on for a time, but is not a fire in all its blazing fury.
If in these days, one of the opponents was Alekhine in his prime, or some other old biggies, or even Fischer, I wonder if the games would be any more entertaining than now.

Plus one.

[syzygy]

Isn't the problem that all the spectators now have Computers and think they know better than the players!?

And they might in fact "know" (but not understand) better, simply because they have more/better information available.

Let's exaggerate a bit: nowadays, watching two GMs play is like watching two blind boxers trying to hit each other.

With these tools and preparation, it is much harder to find the opportunity for novelty and innovation so the game will by default be more dull and predictable than the ones between the "old biggies".

This I don't believe. Better human players will still be better at guiding the computer search towards more promising novelties. Chess is so complex that there is no reason to think that all professional chess players are looking at the same moves. Of course, what might make a difference is the computational power available to a player, but in the past that wasn't so different (number of secondants available to a player).

[Cubeman]

They both get over $1,000,000 each no matter what the result.With the prize fund split 60-40.Make it 80-20 and then you will see some sharper chess.

[CRoberson]

Some say a game of chess is lost by he who makes the last mistake.

If we treat a match like a game, then they could be doing the same thing.

Also, there is something about computer chess that most don't think about. Computers are overly patient. They will see two lines that get to the same position, but one line wins the material earlier. Computer programs typically don't care about which line wins material earlier. Also, all the forward pruning going on in top programs leads to inaccuracies.

I think the fighting Chess of yesteryear was due to they had nothing telling them "that won't work".

Maybe, the top GM's play programs for practice and after getting beat numerous times, they develop an ultra conservative style which gives us what we have today.

[Uri Blass]

They both get over $1,000,000 each no matter what the result.With the prize fund split 60-40.Make it 80-20 and then you will see some sharper chess.

I do not think that it is going to make a lot of difference.

The main advantage of the winner is not the money that he is going to win thanks to this match but the money that he is going to win thanks to the next
world championship match(when the loser will probably not qualify to another world championship match because carlsen or aronian have better chances).