Greengard's ChessNinja.com

Mtel 2005 r7

| Permalink | 57 comments

I'm putting his up early so people don't start freaking out in the r6 thread. Kramnik just lost in 20 moves to Anand in the same Petroff line he lost in to Adams. He hung a piece to a fork. It was more complicated than that, maybe he missed that in the final position 20...Qxc1 21.Bxc1 wins a full piece. 21.Rxc1 Ba3 is probably what he saw, hard to say. Still, very ugly and an immediate candidate for worst-ever blunder by a world champ. (17...Qe4?? loses a piece by force.) I'm still calling it poetic justice for the lame line he played in this same Petroff against Anand in round two! He brought down the Petroff Curse!

Polgar-Ponomariov a Berlin draw. Topalov scored the first black win by beating Adams. The Englishman had a small plus but couldn't manage to extricate his knight without losing material. With 5/6 games decisive after the break, you have to wonder if the players are getting tired.


But you are right, it was one of the worst blunders by a world champion. Kramnik's own loss to Topalov in Wijk this year and Kasparov's loss in game 6 against Deep blue come to mind, too.

Sorry, deleted the bizarre troll portion of your post. I'm cracking down on this sort of BS to keep threads at least minimally on topic for the first 24 hours. Please try.

I don't think any one move in the Kramnik-Topalov game comes close to this one, although it was an equally ugly loss. Same with the Deep Blue game, although counting such exhibitions, rapid, and blindfold would expand the list considerably.


This was just a sad blunder. To call it any form of poetic justice is being mean. While you made a nice call on Re1 in the Adams game, it was Kramnik's bold attempt at Qd4 rather than Adams' Re1 that lost the game for him. I think it would have been poetic justice if Kramnik had won for his decision to try Bd4 rather than the other way round. Just my two bits.


Oh, I don't mind being mean at all. But I just meant it in the karmic sense. You punish Kaissa with a lame game, you lose an exciting one in the same line. Now two of them.

Kramnik had his chances against Adams. I don't think anyone will show ..Bxd4 was losing.

Sorry, but it seems you started trolling first with your "poetic justice" comment. I thought Adams game was poetic justice for the Anand game. How much losses will Kramnik have to sustain for playing a line you don't like before it ceases to be poetic justice?

Deep blue sure was an exhibition, but it was classical time control.

My joke was on topic, it was about round seven, this tournament, these players, and this planet. My answer to your question depends on what Kramnik plays against the Petroff next time! Or he might be back to 1.d4 for a while. It might be hard to look at those Petroff positions after the losses, even from the other side.

Alright - the mean thing was just what I felt immediately after reading your post. After all, there is some journalistic license, I guess. Or should I promote it to hack license:) after the comment on ICC today?


Kramnik had his chances against Adams. I don't think anyone will show ..Bxd4 was losing.

I am a patzer and cant say anything on my own. so I will quote a 2750 GM - straight from the horse's mouth:

[“Despite 40 minutes thought the capture on d4 loses the game. A normal move was 18...Bg5 with an equal position” – Kramnik]

(from TWIC round 3 commentary)

If we count computer games, Kramnik hung a full piece against Fritz in Bahrain. It was an inferior position, but a hung piece it was. I'm not a fan of including computer play just because it's such a different thing for the humans. The entire mentality is different.

Hmm, either Adams-Topalov is still going or the transmission is screwed up. Adams has an extra rook pawn, Topalov has the bishop pair.

Because it was a troll, Russianbear, and I'm trying to cut down on them early in threads. I don't need a dozen people here discussing ancient world championship politics just because you crave attention. Waah, censorship, waahh.

Gansy: Yes, I saw Kramnik's comment, but I think he's just overreacting to a tough loss. Of course ..Bg5 was a safer move, but that doesn't mean he didn't have some good chances in the game. It's standard procedure for GMs to credit their losses to horrible blunders.

Is this game an example of the fatigue factor that Kasparov alluded to at the beginning of the tournament?

Alright this may be off topic so feel free to delete this:

I would agree it is Kasparov's standard procedure to blame losses on blunders, but not Kramnik. Here is an example of what Kramnik said about his loss to Karpov in 1994:


"Karpov has beaten me in Linares - 94, in that tournament I scored 11 of 13. I had a worse ending, but there was nothing tragic about it. I was making normal moves but I do not understand why there appears a lost position. Even after the game I could not understand anything, though I was in the top ten. It was one of the few games after which I had a feeling that I`m a fool and understand nothing in chess! This is a rare thing to happen with high-level chess players, usually at least you understand the reason of a loss. This moment is difficult to describe, but there is something imperceptible, a kind of Karpov`s spirit."

I dunno about fatigue, they had a rest day two days ago, but this is certainly more moves of chess than some of them are used to in total. But this blunder notwithstanding, it's just a very tough tournament. Kramnik lost three games against weaker opposition at Corus, so this isn't some unprecedented collapse. And he's still only at -1.

Good quote, gansy, but that was about a loss 10 years ago, not yesterday when he was still kicking himself! Also it was in an article praising Karpov, not exactly what I was talking about. But it was Karpov who scored 11, not Kramnik. A typo in the text, it seems.

Speaking of computers, the last time Kramnik lost consecutive games was against Fritz in Bahrain. But really, two in a row is rare for any of these guys if only because losing with white is so rare. Here he had two blacks in a row.

I came back from the office and checked the games and I couldn't believe it. I saw Hari making a similar blunder in Olympiad. Are there any such blunders in contemporary play?

Anand just got lucky after a tough and unlucky tournament. Is it poetic justice, Mig?!

russianbear wrote:

"But you are right, it was one of the worst blunders by a world champion."

Didn't Karpov drop a piece on move 12 or something to Christiansen (or Browne maybe?)


Karpov wasn't WCh at the time, you could probably make a rather long list of such games.

But what about Liberzon-Petrosian 1964: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1106644

I was just reading an old interview with Kramnik (with Dirk Jan ten Geuzendam), and he went on and on about how his energy level was key to his performance. He seem pretty fixated on this.

And didn't Kramnik offer draws to Kasparov during their WCH match, even when he had a slightly better position with black, just to save his energy for the white pieces?

Perhaps this is an Achilles hill for Kramnik: forcing him to expend energy during each encounter, knowing he will eventually get tired?

On the other hand, now he will probably win his next 2 games in this tournament, destroying that theory!


All this talk of fatigue and concentration makes me wonder: How much is "no-draw" rule affecting this? Perhaps having to fight every single game, without the hope for a 16 move GM draw, is taking its toll on players really early! It seems we are going to get two types of games 1. weak blunders or 2. incredible fights. I will take those options because at least 1/2 the games will be fantastic instead of the usual great 1 or 2 games with the rest being short draws.

Yah, the Liberzon-Petrosian one is a horrible blunder as in oversight, but it wasn't as bad a move, objectively. Petrosian could even have played on in that game, but down a center pawn.

Chess is certainly much more about energy level when you can't draw half your games in 20 moves. It will definitely affect some players more than others. Even when he was 18 Kramnik talked a lot about his health (genuinely fragile) and energy problems. I thought he would be okay with these longer games due to his style and general san froid. Tactical grinders like Topalov use a lot more energy at the board, typically. But Kramnik hasn't been playing his normal chess, either. He's playing a lot of tactical stuff and that could also be tiring him out.

I hope he doesn't come out against the no draw offer rule because of this.

Come on, let's forget about the "poetic justice" comment. Consider the source and get on with your analyses.

Actually I also feel a bit sorry for Kramnik now cos he really seems to be suffering. But then I remember his arrogance in comments like "a painter paints" and my sympathy seems to evaporate.. I just think paint on brother! Anyway back to the round, I thought Adams was unluckier than anybody else! Fought like a tiger and seemed to be winning most of the game, then a couple of inaccuracies loses him even the half point. Same against Polgar yesterday. Darn :-( I was really rooting for the dude.


What exactly was arrogant about the "a painter simply paints" quote outside of the fact that you didn't say it first? Was it any more arrogant than Kasparov's 1987 Time Magazine comment "I have brought the element of art into the game of chess"? I didn't think so. Lay off Rad Vlad.

Pawn grabbing is a tough man's game. His knight got hung out to dry.

Clubfoot, this time let's skip the snivelling about my editing out your gratutious insults of me and others from your above posts and get on with your analyses.

Its sad that Adams lost the game. I don't understand why Kramnik keeps playing the Petroff Defense? Its better for him to play quiet Chess and get atleast 1/2 point than these devastating losses.

Anyone else think it's odd that Kramnik and Adams were leading at the half, and have now both dropped two consecutive games?

Actually Ryan, I think the Petroff (at least until recently!) was supposed to be super solid.

"I don't understand why Kramnik keeps playing the Petroff Defense?"

I'm thinking it must have been part of his preparation for this event. The Petroff was already in his repertoire, but is he known for playing such a steady diet of it?

Biggest blunder or not, Kramnik has lost to Anand after a long long time. And the first decisive classical game after around 3 years.


I think your unfair to Kramnik. You could also say with the Petroff he won the WCC against Leko.
I dont wonder that Mig is against Kramnik and pro Kasparov. Because Mig gets a lot of interesting news from Kasparov and considers Kasparov to be his friend (I wonder if this is a one-way friendship). Im a fan of Kramnik!

I thought it was the tournament in Sofia where Kramnik just lost two games with the Petroff. What possible point could being "anti-Kramnik" have? (Especially since I support his possession of the classical title.) Or "pro-Kasparov" when he's retired from professional chess.

More to the point, what was unfair? I didn't make him lose. I'm a fan of Kramnik, too. And why complain about others not mentioning his success with the Petroff in Brissago when you can just do it yourself? So many martyrs around here. Just say, "He won the WC with the Petroff against Leko." Done. Magic! Instead of all the bizarre accusations and straw men.

In the past few years Kramnik has played 1..e5 and 1..c5 almost equally against 1.e4. But he has played 1...e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 far more often than the Petroff. (31 times vs 6 in the past few years. After Brissago, where it basically forced Leko to switch to 1.d4, he played it once at Corus and then once at Melody Amber. Oddly enough, or not, those two games were against Adams (1/2) and Anand (1-0)!

Yes, how strange to hear the Petroff described as too wild for sensible players to play.

Through 7 rounds, We have these openings:

6: Petroff
5: Sicilian
2: Caro-Kann
2: Queen's Indian
2: Ruy Lopez (Berlin)
1: Ruy Lopez (Morphy's)
1: English
1: Nimzo Indian
1: QP Game

If the Petroff's is suddenly a wild and crazy opening, then there's been a lot of wild and crazy openings!

I think we now see Kramniks weak points very exposed. I think the new rule with no drawoffers is here to stay and I really hope so. This maybe makes the game a little bit different but I also think it makes it more fair. Earlier the highrated players that was supposed to be strongest could always have their rest-days when they met the other top names. It was very easy to save energy for Kramnik or Anand or another top-player when they often could get an easy draw against each other and then go full out against the so called under-dogs. Now they just have to play chess all the time which just show who is the best.

Sure it become more of a fysical test than before but if chess will be called a sport this would not be a problem. Drawoffers should not be part of the game on the highest level. Kramnik talked a lot of how Leko had very good fysic in their wc-match and I think also this new format is more like a real wc-fight one on one which is much more tense and really much harder psycological than tournaments. When Kasparov played Kramnik for the wc in 2000 it was very obvious that Kramnik was the one who had the best condition or at least Kasparov self had come to this conclusion. It wasnīt Kramnik who offered early draws or was afraid to play on in equal positions but it was Kasparov. Against Leko we saw a different scenario where it was Leko who clearly had the best fysic of the two but I think he didnīt took advantage of it for full.

Itīs not surprising that a player like Ponomariov who often play on in equal positions leads the tournament. He has won the KO FIDE-championship earlier which really is a marathon never mind not the best format for produce a wc. I donīt think that this new format is the end of the world for either Anand or Kramnik but I think every player realises that chess is no longer a game where you donīt also has to be in very good condition.

> Kramnik-Polgar, 1-0: Black overpressed and lost.

I believe the consensus is that Polgar had an inferior position throughout and her "overpressing" was her only possibility of counterplay. So it was more a Kramnik win than a Polgar loss.

On the other hand, Kramnik's losses are all due to blunders/overpressing as he is very tough to beat in a normal game. He should work on his nerves if he wants to avoid these blunders again. (Quitting smoking wouldn't hurt either, and would make his health "less fragile").

I'm very happy to have Ponomariov back, if that's the case. He played a lot of very interesting chess at Corus this year despite the mediocre result. It would be nice to have him back in the top 10.

I wouldn't want to see people falling apart at the board. If the various anti-draw rules we're seeing now cause worse chess at this level (certainly not shown) then maybe an extra rest day or two could be scheduled.

Probably I'm completely wrong, but I find all those comments about energy rather surprising.
I'm not a chess pro, nor a GM, but I don't see why being 400 points below them I would expend less energy than them in a game. The difference is that they see deeper and better with the same effort, not that they need a bigger effort.
Moreover, they have rest days, while in open tournaments you often have double rounds, or you may play in the afternoon after being at university or at work in the morning, and the rate of short draws is much higher in their games than in mine, even considering this tournament.
But I wouldn't put tiredness as the main reason for a bad result in a tournament, although it obviously has some influence, so I don't see why it should be a major reason for them.

Sorry Mig. My previous post was somewhat childish.

I wounder if since GMs know they cannot take short draws if they will start just sitting out matches, at least if someone has a nice lead on his competition and the person he is playing has no chance of winning?

Is a extra rest day greater then 1/2, or 1 point, if it causes you to overstress yourself and effect your performance for the rest of the battle.

I'm a little touchy today myself. Apart from not having slept in 48 hours, having several twits (not you) trying to turn this place into their personal dumping ground for insulting behavior ticks me off.

As for tiredness, it's relative. Your body adapts to a tournament rhythm. If you are used to a certain number of hours and level of work, it's going to mess with you somewhat to change it. That would probably be true if they had many MORE rest days as well, the way baseball pitchers can be out of form if they get too much rest between starts.

Kramnik Fan: I think its fair for Kramnik to play Openings that suit his style. These openings demand the highest skill of combinations. But Kramnik normally plays strong defense. Maybe he will reconsider about his playing style. So if a painter simply has to paint why he is trying to be a showman? Pono has been very lucky here. Its very unlikely that he will repeat this again in near future. Anand, why does he play every game like a rapid Chess? Adams is as always very unpredictable. He is a great player but sadly he does not posses that sustaining power. Topolav is playing great, but I dont understand his style at all. Little bit unstable like Moro. Only God knows how Polgar can play at this level.

I love the no draw rule. It is instructive to see how these top players play in unbalanced but equal positions, which in the past they might have been content to leave on the board. I was suprised that there was only one rest day at M-Tel given the added time at the board for the players. I think some players will not agree to such schedules. Of course rest days suck for the spectators and organizers/sponsors. If this idea is to catch on, we'll probably need to see more tournaments with odd numbers of players, so there are extra rest days built in, but the organizers and spectators get something nearly everyday.

"Adams is as always very unpredictable."

Bizarre comment - Adams is known as a very solid, predictable player (particularly when it comes to opening choice). He's had a few bad results lately but is doing just as expected for this tournament.

Did you note that Adams had 38.Qc1! winning? Had he played that, we could have had Adams in the lead and Topalov last instead of the other way around! Really small margins in this tournament.

Or is there a way to get a B vs R ending possible to save? Doesn't look like it. The lines will be something like 38..Bd4 39.Rxa7 Bxa7 40.Qc7 Qd7 41.Qxd7 Bxd7 42.Rc1 Bb6 43.a7 Bxa7 44.Rc7 Bxf2+ 43.Kxf2 or similar after 38..Qc8 39.Rxa7 Bxa7 40.Qxc8+ Bxc8 41.Rc1

all those who talk about fatigue for Kramnik - the last two games that he lost were right after the rest day. I think it is more a matter of form than fatigue. He needs to play a few rapid events to get back in the groove tactically. At the same time almost all of Anand's losses have come where he has had to think deep. He should play fewer rapids.

By the way, Mig maybe you should do an article on opening novelties by Topalov. Is the bugarian govt subsidizing him or something? The guy threw up the amazing novelty in Corus against Kramnik. Here in both games against Anand he has come up with very powerful novelties. In contrast every other player looks like playing the same positions.

Yes, more rest days are needed with these draw rules. But an uneven number of players would make the tournament a little unfair for the players whose rest day is on round one or last round, and also more difficult to follow because of the uneven number of games per player on each round.

But why not have every third round played on two successive days? For example, round three with half of the games on the first day and the other half on the following day. Round 6 likewise. That would give all the players many extra rest days and nevertheless provide spectators with games each day.

An exception should be made towards the end of the tournament, of course, where the rest days should include all the players.

Mtel rocks! A flash of psychic energy is being released with the retirement of Kasparov. Topalov's rook on e6 is the standard bearer of the new guard. (Well, maybe Nakamura's queen on h5?!?) Even Kramnik is playing in an uncharacteristically go-for-broke way.

Pasternak's "After the Storm" comes to mind:

This century outgrows its tutelage
To clear a way for all the years to come.

A question about acirce's long line after 38.Qc1 in Adams-Topalov. After 38..Bd4 39.Rxa7 Bxa7 40.Qc7 Qd7 41.Qxd7 Bxd7 42.Rc1 Bb6 43.a7 Bxa7 44.Rc7 Bxf2+ 43.Kxf2.

I put my pawns on e6, f6, g6, and h5. My king on f7-f8. I move my bishop back and forth between g4 and h3 forever. How does White make progress? No zugzwang, no king entry. My king just never leaves either f7 or f8.

Yes, I guess you're right. I didn't look carefully enough there, thought White would be able to stop the fortress construction, like it seems he can in the other line.

Hey, no need to rush! Check out 43.Kg2 instead of the immediate a7. Then you can even play f3 if necessary *before* doing anything with the a-pawn. White is always able to win a bishop for the pawn later. After that White keeps the f-pawn and with it pawnbreak possibilities unlike before. Try 43..Kf8 44.f3 Ke7, I just play 45.Rb1 etc

However after 43..f5 I run into various typical fortress ideas everywhere and at least I don't find anything of which I am competely sure it is won. There occur some borderline cases where you need to be an endgame expert to know what's going to happen.

Or maybe just seeing ghosts...43..f5 44.f3

Funny, I saw Kramnik's loss and thought immediately of Game 3 of his WC match against Leko, where he sucked all the play out of the game with the ...Qe4/...Qc2 manuever, and thought there was definitely some poetic justice here, if justice is on the side of spectators wanting to see a full-blown fight.

The no-draw rule should stay. You want to be chess champ - you should have energy. (Is there ANYTHING you can get without energy?)
The number of rest days can be extended without spectators having to suffer. Some rounds could be played in two days, with half of the games in the round played on one day, the other half next day.
Example: it's round 3, day 3, there are 8 players (from A to H), the round's schedule is B-H, C-A, D-G, E-F. Games B-H and C-A are played on day 3, the other four players get a rest day. Games D-G and E-F are played on day 4, the players of the previous day get a rest day. So in two days everyone gets a rest day, and chess-fans get something, too. From round (4 and day 5) back to the usual schedule. My 2 cents.

That's a very good idea, Misi! Thanks for support ;-)

Karpov made a worse blunder than this of Kramnik in his title match against Kapsparov in 1985 in game 11. Perhaps the game that lost him the title.

Big impact from a little change in the rules!

Speaking as one of those who have argued for a 3-1-0 scoring system, I believe I'll change my mind! I mainly thought the quite small no-draw-rules would not change much...

There's still not enough data, but if this tournaments an indication of the future, then good!

And (if not quite yet) I'll consede to all who have argued against me and others, the greatest pleasure there is in debating. (saying "I told you so")

"Is there ANYTHING you can get without energy?"


ding ding: you're welcome... :-) And sorry, next time I'd better read previous posts more carefully.

Twitter Updates

    Follow me on Twitter



    About this Entry

    This page contains a single entry by Mig published on May 19, 2005 9:34 AM.

    HB Global Challenge was the previous entry in this blog.

    MinneMania Report is the next entry in this blog.

    Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.