Greengard's ChessNinja.com

MTel 2006 Round 8

| Permalink | 78 comments

Only three rounds to go and Kamsky is leading by a full point. Today he has white against Anand, who is in second place. In some tournaments this might be a recipe for a short draw so it's great that's not an option in Sofia. A win by Kamsky basically locks up the tournament for him; a win by Anand and they are tied for first. Hoodoo over Anand aside, it's hard to imagine Kamsky's form breaking at this point. Who needs a hoodoo when you've got Brooklyn mojo?

Not that White has meant all that much here so far. Seven wins versus five for black. Anand can play just about anything against 1.e4. Will he go for it with a Sicilian? He played 1..e5 against Topalov and Svidler. Speaking of those two, they have white against the tail-enders today. Topalov in particular is capable of stringing together wins and he'll need a lot of them to have a chance at catching Kamsky. Last year Topalov finished by winning four of his last five.

Update: It's all Ruy Lopez all the time in Sofia. All the attention goes to the only decisive game, Topalov's sacrificial win over Ponomariov. Yet again he gave up an exchange to generate attacking chances. Yet again his opponent failed to defend under pressure. Ponomariov missed a good chance to play for a win by eliminating White's breakthrough chances with 29..f6. After that it was going to be a fight for survival, although Topalov also missed the best continuation. 30.Kh2 was a superior move order. 31..d5 was a real blunder, missing Topalov's pretty mating combination. (I put a diagram on the ChessBase report.) Pono had to give up his queen and went down slowly.

I talked to Kasparov for a while about this game, although I'm a little skeptical about his opinion of 29..f6. Not that he isn't entirely correct, it's clearly the best move, only that I'm not as convinced that it's so easy to find. (A secondary point is that Black still isn't lost after 29..Rbd8?) Garry is always quick to toss out a "any 2700 should find ..f6 with no trouble." Perhaps, not that I would know what a 2700 should find. I'm more of the opinion that Ponomariov saw White's f6 but entirely missed the brutal Kh2 - Nxf6 - Bb1 mating trick. And if you're not so worried about f6 there is no reason to spend a tempo on ..f6. But after spending 20 minutes on the move Pono definitely should have found it. Anyway, it's hard, or impossible, to judge how easy or hard a move is to find in a game. This isn't a composed puzzle; there are ticking clocks and tournament pressures.

Kamsky played the Exchange variation against Anand and not much came of it. A draw was certainly not a bad result for Kamsky here. Topalov is more likely to play a Sicilian against him tomorrow, however, and there's no exchange variation there. But Gata has played confidently throughout and should be ready to punish Topalov if the Bulgarian pushes his luck. Svidler and Bacrot drew another fighting Spanish game.


well Kamsky broke the mold. he played the exchange variation of the ruy lopez. BxNc6. the queens are gone. kamsky has the g pawn moved to f3 leaving some weakness in front of the king. the h pawn on h3.

Kamsky has taken it out of the book in my estimation. although this might be "in" the book, I dont think it is played that often that Anand has it so well studied.

On the other hand I am not sure there is a lot of complexity to the position. Anand is certainly capable of handling this position.

I expect Kamsky is ready to do battle today.

Is Mtel a thematic Ruy-Lopez tournament? These guys play all the time the same opening..It seems to me that a modern 2600+ grandmaster can cross 2700 ,thereby becoming elite player, just by memorising thousands of variations in Ruy Lopez, Najdorf and two or three more openings...

So i wonder are alternative openings so overanalyzed that top players are "obliged" not to choose them?

Anyway, Kammsky 's position looks fine to me untill now (18 moves have been played) and who knows maybe he scores again... Topalov seems angry enough playing that f4, i wouldnt like to be in Ponomariov's shoes right now..

Oh and svidler-Bacrot...hmm...i just do not care about that game!


There is nothing out-of-book about Kamsky-Anand. These are all typical ideas, except black sometimes plays the more aggressive ...f5 rather than ...f6. Truly, I see no way for Kamsky to lose, but also no way for him to make progress. His last move, 19. Rdc1, says that he doesn't see much going on, either. I think this will be one of the games in which the anti-draw rule actually forces frivilous moves prior to an ending that is inevitable.

As for the Ponomariov game, black is fine. I thought he should have gone ...Ne5, though, instead of ...Nd4.




What do I know about chess?! Kamsky-Anand has changed after the b4 push by Gata. Now, there are chances for a fight again. This is why there is an average of 600-point difference between these guys and me, I guess!



They're punching out the moves, but Kamsky definitely looks good to me. I think he can play this one for a win for a long time to come. The win may not be there, but all the chances are with Kamsky.

Gata is now down a pawn in a double-rook endgame.

Factors in favor of a draw: white's K is better placed and all the pawns are on the same side.

Factors in favor of a Vishy win: the white d-pawn is weak. If it topples, black will obtain a deadly passed d pawn.

I think Gata can draw, but I would rather be black in this position.

Kamsky-Anand have simplified it to the max. It's really hard to imagine any result other than a draw (although I thought the same thing about their R3 rook endgame, so what do I know...)

Topalov-Ponomariov, on the other hand, have complicated it to the max. I don't believe Topalov's exchange sac is correct, I think he's taking too much of a risk. Pono has a good chance of fending off the attack and emerging victorious.

As for Svidler-Bacrot, I really expected Peter to play a bit more energetically against the tail-ender. If he doesn't go all out for a win against Bacrot, then against whom?? Draw #6 in a row for Etienne, by the way.

A pawn is a pawn, but I believe White had the advantage thanks to the initiative. Black can't hold the pawn. But it should be safely drawn.

I also thought Black preferable since 24 .. d4. Dont think its enough for a win though.

Kamsky-Anand is looking very drawish right now. And I think Vesko may have been trying too hard for the win; in my poorly-informed opinion, he doesn't appear to have much for his exchange sac.

Kamsky-Anand is officially 1/2 - 1/2. It was indeed a dead draw.

After Pono captured a5 and Topalov was forced to play the pathetic-looking 29.Ra1, I can be bolder in my evaluation - white is lost.

Kamsky-Anand officially a draw. You can see why the exchange variation is seldom played at the GM level. Anand equalized easily.

Topalov is lost, unless Pono blunders.

"It was indeed a dead draw."

Where did the phrase 'dead draw' come from? Are there any live draws?

It's just a phrase, like "sucking chest wound" (we all know there are no awesome chest wounds).

Ra1 has the threat of Kh2 and Bg8!! (or Bxf7) with a mating attack. The rook discovers against the queen to gain a tempo. It was also forced.

Black has an exchange is is probably better with best play, but White's pieces are menacing. f6 is always a threat. Black could definitely lose this without a serious blunder. I would not be happy to have Black's position against anyone, let alone Topalov. Human chess.

"It is difficult to play against Einstein's theory" Tal' said after a game with Fischer.
May be Topalov and Anand will say the same at the end of this tournament.

May be Ponomariov will say that... WOW Topalov what have you created !!!

After sacking his knight and playing 33 d4, I think Topalov may have turned the tables. I'm having trouble seeing how Pono avoids heavy material loss, and perhaps losing outright. What am I missing?

And sure enough, Pono has now lost the initiative.

It reallyu looks like Black's rooks are on the wrong files, and that Queen is looking like a goner.

Human chess indeed. A bit TOO human for my taste even - one doesn't have to be a computer or a super-GM to appreciate the weakness of black's moves 29 and 31. (just 29...f6 and 30...d5 would've secured everything) Now Topa is winning.

Pono really had to give up Q for B? what about 33...Bg7 and 34...f5?! Bb1 was that strong of an idea?

Oh I should not wake up so early (10 am ct usa lol ;-))

Too bad Pono threw away this position. Ra1-Bb1 idea is very hilarious/good

Wait a minute, what about 33 .. Bxd4 34 Bb1 Bg1+ 35 Kxg1 Qe1+ 36 Kh2 f5 37 Bxf5 Rxf5?

Never mind. 35 Kh1 stops that nonsense, and even if it didn't Black has to be losing in the above line after 38 Qxf5 Qxa1 39 Qf6+ picking up the other rook, and leaving the Black King in major trouble. Maybe 38 .. Qe7 instead, but then 39 Rxa6 just adds to Black's problems. So I guess 33 .. Qxa2 is (was) forced.....

That being said, if Pono can keep his dark squares good, is it really that bad of position to play with 2 central passers?

Actually a sucking chest wound refers to a chest wound that has penetrated a lung (or lungs), hence the "sucking" noise on inhalation. But I do appreciate the humor of "there are no awesome chest wounds". You made this EMT's day!

Yeah Icepick, it looks like Topalov pulled a Tal (magical eyes)... except certain auditors on this blog call it computer cheating ;-)

Mike P, your line still drops the Q after 34 .. f5, but without picking up the WB. And Black will probably lose an exchange a move or two after as well.

33..Bg7 34.Bb1 hits the queen and threatens mate on h7, so 34..f5 still loses the queen.

This way Pono has a lot of material for the queen, (R+N+one or two P), so it's far from clear what's happening

All correct! Ruslan's 29... Rbd8?? colossal blunder whereas 29... f6 was a sure winner (Kasparov, Shipov and Sakaev). However, now it's over as Topy got lucky. I'm guessing Ruslan just overlooked Topy's Kh2 idea (with Nf6! and d4! to follow) completely thinking he could allow the dangerous f6! Can't see everything at the last moment with the clock ticking away.

Yeah Zaf, I didnt realize how dire the situation was until i posted my 'waking up early' comment lol.

I don't know how Toppy does it. He plays these exchange sacrifices that ought to be unsound, but his opponents happily oblige him by squandering the advantage. Nobody should be surprised any more that he's going to do this, but it keeps working.

I tried this method but I fail all the time ;-) Here is a game where I tried 'twice as hard'


Hardly a sure winner. Better, obviously. But still many chances for black to go wrong. The position was very sharp and tough for black to play, especially on the clock. I don't consider this luck at all. Topalov takes risks and lowers his opponents' margin of error to almost nothing. In human chess this pays off far more often than it backfires. That a computer would defend perfectly doesn't mean a move that ends up losing is a huge and horrible blunder. The winning combination was very pretty. It's ipso facto if you ask me. Ponomariov didn't see it so it's not easy to see.

Now then, 31..d5 could be more seriously called a blunder. The lines were more forcing and he had a chance to calculate the lines and failed, missing Nxf6 entirely it seems. Missing the need for 29..f6 was another kettle of fish. Black was still okay at that point and the white attack still speculative.

I see as things move fast here... ~lol~ The final chance to keep the edge was 31... Rg8 (instead of 31... d5?). As given by GM's Shipov and Sakaev (ChessPro and e3e5 respectively). TC made and Topy will win...

Mig, you dont use enough colloquialisms ;-)

Hehehe... Colorful aren't they? We agree Mig not easy to see when humans play humans chess and then humans expect computer perfection from humans playing chess which is *not* going to happen (sans implants and cyborgs)...

Yup, that was Pono's mistake - not getting a Rybka implant.

I haven't gone over today's Topalov game, but did quickly run through his win over Kamsky from a few days ago. Besides seconding Mig's overall assessment of Toppy's style (i.e., creating unclear, unbalanced positions where you have the initiative and your opponent is under maximum pressure to defend, usually succeeds in provoking mistakes so is a psychologically astute strategy even at the super-GM level), I am also reminded of something someone wrote about Fischer at his peak: "His opponents just seem to die of natural causes."

By the way, in what follows I don't mean to dignify (much less resurrect) the computer-cheat line of comments; my aim is rather to gain some insight into comps-vs-humans differences.

In view of the unclear nature of Topalov's Exchange-sacs in several games, it would be interesting to see which if any engines would prefer those moves in the respective positions. This question was briefly addressed earlier this week in the thread devoted to Topalov-Kamsky. This weekend I hope to do a systematic analysis, letting Fritz, Shredder, Junior et al loose (with no human guidance) on a few key pre-Exchange-sac positions from important Topalov games. Besides the 2 here that I already know about, I'll also try Topalov-Aronian from (Corus? San Luis?) -- I forget which event, but it was the Queen's Indian ...Ba6 line. That one should be of personal value to me, because I play that same line with Black myself.

I'll report what I come up with here, hopefully over the weekend or early next week. No analysis of what's objectively best -- simply the first and 2nd choices of each engine for the 3 (or more) chosen positions, the evaluation at the end of each engine's full analysis of the given move, and how much time each engine worked on the position.

My hunch is the comps will uphold the conventional wisdom about comps -- that is, I think they will prove to be materialistic, will dismiss the unclear Exchange sacs. While engines do recognize positional compensation, it has to be fairly formulaic: breaking up the opponent's pawns, creating open files around the opponent's king, obtaining the bishop-pair, etc. Even then, in most cases I think an engine would have a hard time justifying a positional Exchange sac (i.e. if it couldn't see a forced mate or win of material) unless it also came with partial material compensation (i.e. a pawn for the Exchange).

Hopefully, this exercise will enlarge some readers' understanding of what engines can and cannot do. And if my hunch proves wrong, I will have learned something from the exercise too.

Alex, don't poke the trolls!

Remember in all of this, the master was Tal, and he showed the way before any computers were strong enough to play Mig's cat. So just because Topalov plays speculative sacs and then finds the correct tactical path doesnt mean any Si implant. Topy's just mega talented, though not as strong as Tal..(but then who is..)

Coming back to the game, I really, really failed to see anything behind the xchng sac and Ra1 from a cursory glance. I thought this was like one of my bullet games, and Topy was desperately sacing material to find a perp or something. Only when Pono sac'd his Q did I take a second look and see the extremely pretty Ba2-b1 idea. This guy rocks. WC all right.

speaking of comments, reminded of one by Tal's trainer. "So many of his opponents apparently had wins, but only after the game" :-)

"My hunch is the comps will uphold the conventional wisdom about comps -- that is, I think they will prove to be materialistic, will dismiss the unclear Exchange sacs."

As far as I can tell, Topalov's sac in this game depended on his opponent making errors, which Pono did. With accurate play from Black, Topalov's sacrifice might well have backfired. A computer would fail to find this move, not because it is materialistic, but because a computer always assumes the opponent will play correctly. Furthermore, computer analysis doesn't take time pressure, psychological pressure, or indeed any kind of pressure, into account.

Marc, I agree with the thrust of your comment (with the caveat that I haven't looked at the actual game). And, combining the idea in Marc's comment with d's last one, I recall Tal himself once said: "In chess there are two kinds of sacrifices -- Tal's sacrifices, and sound ones."


"Remember in all of this, the master was Tal, and he showed the way before any computers were strong enough to play Mig's cat."

Don't bag on Mig's cat; it plays a pretty mean Sicilian...

The references to Tal, of blessed memory, got me to thinking the following.
Assume player X plays a sacrifice and wins the game. In post-mortem analysis the move is found to be unsound (i.e. it loses). I think a strong computer program would be *extremely* unlikely to play an unsound sacrifice. I think that fact would establish that player X is not getting his moves from a computer. You can't prove a negative, but if the above facts were established, that would be enough for any reasonable person.

I have two books in my chess library signed ny the master himself, prized possessions if you will. And yes, even without trying, he could stare you down.

Nice! In rounds were short draws begin to come into effect, we have games of 61 moves, 52 and 52, gotta love it! It's been some time since I've felt this involved in wanting a particular chessplayer to win a super tourney.

Computers can get into time pressure and make mistakes, but those mistakes are not easily preventable because the number of positions they can evaluate is directly proportional to the amount of time they have left in the game.

(just playing the Advocatus...)

ThreePete, no, that would not establish anything. First of all, you have to make sure that your play looks "human". Therefore you have to make a reasonably good move of your own liking every now and then.
And also, assume that sacing the Exchange will drop the eval. by one pawn but makes for a extremely complicated position. Having mighty Rybka to rely on for the rest of the game, I might just go for the sac, knowing that it's objectively unsound, even knowing the refutation, but simply relying on the fact that the refutation requires 10 best moves in a row by my opponent...

I think I'm going to change my handle from chesstraveler to Mr. Typo. :)

"Computers can get into time pressure and make mistakes...."

Yes, but the premise of the discussion was that flyonthewall would do a computer evaluation of the various positions in which Topalov has launched exchange sacs, without regard to the mutual time situation that existed in the actual games.

"ThreePete, no, that would not establish anything. First of all, you have to make sure that your play looks "human". Therefore you have to make a reasonably good move of your own liking every now and then."

ThreePete's comment is valid, because there is no evidence that anyone can play like Topalov by relying on a computer, but just occasionally ignoring its advice so that people won't realize you're cheating. On the face of it, it seems absurd. ThreePete conceded that "you can't prove a negative," but the burden of proof is on those who believe Topalov is cheating." Even his fellow-GMs do not think he's cheating. They'd be the most likely to suspect it, if the suspicion were warranted.

Interesting points, guys, but let's take care not to invite the trolls back into our house.

My purpose is to improve our understanding of what engines are and are not capable of, so that we may better use them for analysis and commentary (and so we may sound less ignorant while following live online commentary of in-progress GM games and kibitzing with our own engine-generated move suggestions).

I most definitely am not out to test or discuss the "Topalov is cheating" joke, and you shouldn't either - don't feed the troll(s).

Fly and others:

It's a fund exercise to go over old Tal games with a computer and see if the guess the sac.

More recently, I did the same with Topalov-Aronian. While Fritz 9 underestimated the sac, it later wanted to return the exchange, which may have been Levon's best defense. Yesterday, for example, Fritz missed the B+N for R+P exchange in Topalov - Anand, while Zappa (and some reported, Rybka) recommended it right away.

Today's game by Topalov was very imperfect, and 7 times out of 10 he'd lose against 2700+ players (and probably 9 times out of 10 against a 2700+ computer). But add time trouble, all the pressure, and he won.

A GM may suspect one of his peers, but no responsible GM would go public with that suspicion without indictable evidence.

I agree with Marc, tho. Top bridge players suspected Terrence Reese for a while before he was caught. Pausing at the "wrong" time, thinking at the "wrong" time. Something was "off."

No responsible person would go public with that suspicion without strong evidence, period.

On Tal, the most accurate analysis of him I heard came from Karpov. He said that it was like losing for a punch-drunk boxer, it's not that the next move to come is so devastating, or that each previous move was sound, but that one was so exhausted disproving the previous attacks that one was almost finished. How much time and energy did Pono spend today refuting Topalov's unsound attack? How capable was he by the time Vesselin put the final squeeze on?

It explains why a master defender like Korchnoi had the least difficulty against Tal and Tal's frequent admissions to thinking about something else behind the board.

Completely off-subject, my dad just called me to say he found a whole bunch of chess books at a yard sale. I asked him what was there and coudln't believe my luck . . . Bronstein! I love David Bronstein. Aside over.

Well, it was a bit disappointing to see the Ruy Lopez Exchange Variation rolled out by Kamsky. Given the tournament situation, however, it was a pragmatic and justifiable decision.

Of course, that is predicated on whether or not he can hold against Topalov.

Topalov's win over Pono featured a pretty--and far from obvious tactic. He's really salvaged a respectable result for the event, although Kamsky will need to choke for Topa to have a chance to vie for 1st Place.

Bronstein is one of very few chess players turned author who actually writes well. Add to that his amazing talent. I so agree, Yuriy!


I wasn't at all disappointed to see an Exchange Lopez from Kamsky. Actually, I was rather amused, because a friend of mine plays it religiously and must now feel so great that he shares an opening choice with a guy who was guarding a tournament lead against Anand.

The opening was a solid choice to play for two results and therefore remain perched atop the leaderboard alone. Gata now goes into the final two rounds a clear point afield, with no chance to do anything worse than head into the final round tied for first; truly, he played his tournament position well and is on his way to perhaps the greatest shock that we have seen since Bologan's major-tournament win a few years back. True, he must get past Topalov, but if he loses and therefore goes into the final round only tied for first with the World Champion, who here would not have bet heavily against such a situation prior to this event? Way to go, Gata!



"He's really salvaged a respectable result for the event, although Kamsky will need to choke for Topa to have a chance to vie for first place."

The two play tomorrow; Kamsky doesn't need to "choke" to lose to the 3rd-highest rated player in history who is the reigning World Champion. If Topalov wins, then he ties Kamsky, which is hardly a case of needing the miracle that you suggest.



Albrecht - you changed my argument, which was:
"In post-mortem analysis the move is found to be unsound (i.e. it *LOSES*)"
I am not talking about a move changes the evaluation slightly for the worse, but that it loses the game with best play.
The hypothetical you made up would in fact be ambiguous.


what do you mean with "before computers were strong enough to play Mig's cat" ?

Do you man that Kasparov's cat would play better than Mig's cat? Do you really believe that the rating of the master can have some influence on the cat's moustache? :o)

So the pairing tomorrow is Kamsky-Topalov and not Svidler-Kamsky?

Regarding great chess players who wrote wonderfully, I mention two people in the hope someone reading this might be enriched by checking them out.

One is the late GM Eduard Gufeld. I have yet to obtain his book, "The Search for the Mona Lisa" (which I know has its detractors). But I read a Chess Life cover story he co-authored 6 years ago, and was just blown away by the originality of his ideas, the elegance with which he expressed them, and the dozen beautiful positions he chose to illustrate his points.

The second is Vassily Smyslov, who is very much alive. He recently turned 85 and remains quite sharp and apparently in good health despite having gone blind several years ago. Although blindness forced him to stop competing in chess, he is still active as a problem composer.

I was fascinated with Smyslov's thoughts as revealed in this interview: ttp://www.gmsquare.com/interviews/smyslov.html

Finally, on the subject of books, I can't help mentioning a classic I just bought last night and have started reading for the first time: Chess For Tigers, by the late Simon Webb.

I mention Chess For Tigers not because Webb was on a level with Bronstein, Smyslov, et al as a player (he wasn't), but rather, because the Webb book goes into detail about some of the central ideas being expressed by others in this very thread.

That is, Webb is perhaps the most articulate advocate of the psychological value of just the kind of pressure-cooker style that Topalov has been honing in MTel and other recent events.

Webb was writing for amateurs, who he urged to always look for the most active, unclear moves and plans when in lost positions (a concept he dubbed, "The Secret of the Swindle"). And he advised playing in a similar manner when facing someone much stronger than you. If you aim for unclear, incalculable, strategically muddy situations, even making dubious sacs to create maximum pressure on your opponent, you will find that even GMs can crack under such pressure, he wrote.

Although the context we are dealing with is quite different, I was reminded of Webb's advice when I read the comments here about Topalov's play against Ponomariov.

Yes, they swapped rounds 4-5 in the first half to avoid a triple color, standard in a double round-robin.

Susan Polgar is now saying on her blog, "The sacrifice by Topalov was basically unsound. But for some inexplicable reasons, Ponomariov made a series of bad moves which resulted in a horrible loss."

re: flyonthewall computer project, I tried a dozen free engines after move 64 from Topalov-Ponomariov and none could find 65.Kxf7 (which was Topa's last move) within couple of minutes. I was wondering if there is any commercial product that solves this in 1-2 min time. BTW I did not use tablebases. My point is that computers generally hate sacrifices.

It's chess like this that gets you on postage stamps: http://www.mtelmasters06.com/en/news&article_id=29.html

Maybe it's the 'professional' staring down of opponents that forces them to make mistakes. Kaspy employed it successfully. Maybe Toppy is doing it also (despite making unsound sacs). Wear dark glasses and never look at your opponents. :o

Funny, here was my list of authors I told my dad he should look for at the sale:

Bronstein--I have heard many wonderful stories from Bronstein, both about learning chess and peripheral chess stories
Kotov--I still can not get a story he had in one of his books about having to do a presentation on genetics, remembering only that using Mendelian principles somebody grew a giant pig (if anybody knows what Kotov book this is from, please tell me) and I have a great analysis piece from him in "Treasures of Chess Creativity"
Smyslov--Love his playing style and personality. Taimanov said Smyslov never needed to rely on analysis, because he always had his right hand (thus praising Smyslov's keen innate sense of the game). Smyslov didn't fall for the traps of other GMs of his era (Petrosian, Botvinnik) of becoming a one-track minded apparatchik.
Karpov--Hate the player, love the game. His books are very beginner friendly (partially because he had great help from a friend of his ;)

Is "any 2700 should find ..f6 with no trouble" a real quote, or just your illustration of how he usually puts these things? Just making sure.

To me ..f6 looked like the most natural move on the board to stop White's own f6. (Which doesn't say anything about whether a 2700+ "should find" it.) Calculating concrete lines, you need to see 30.Kh2 with the Bg8! threat, but then you wouldn't even have to find ..d5! as ..c4 also seems to work. Doesn't look very difficult for a super-GM.

Assuming he saw the Kh2-Bg8 idea he really should have seen the Kh2-Bb1 idea when Kh2 was played... I wouldn't since I always miss these elegant backwards moves (optically pleasing for sure), but I also do consider Ponomariov to be somewhat stronger. :-)

"But Gata has played confidently throughout and should be ready to punish Topalov if the Bulgarian pushes his luck."

Kamsky just got spanked. I feel badly for him, but the comeback isn't yet complete.

Hi Folks,

Round 9 page is not created yet - looks like. Just saw Topa crushing Kamsky just now in 29 moves - this proved that Kamsky is still a novice and Topa is very brilliant and came fully prepared today!! Awesome!! I don't know why Kamsky took the Rook sac :) Can't he see what's coming??

He was already lost before the rook sac. The eval jumped in Topalov's favor after the innocent-looking 21.b3. Arguably, the error came much earlier, when he allowed Topalov's a and b pawns to advance so far down the board.

Kamsky is no novice, but this won't go down as one of his finer efforts. You have to give credit to Topalov too. He creates the situations where these kinds of mistakes can happen. Over the last couple of years, only Anand has been his equal.

Kamsky should have played a Bb5 sicilian. What I find incredible is that he went into an open sicilian vs. Topalov.

"Kamsky should have played a Bb5 sicilian."

Or 1.d4.

Topalov on top of the list again. White against Bacrot tomorrow. Looking good for the world nr 1. Did not look like Topalov`s tournament in the first half, but "you can`t keep a good man down" and "it ain`t over untill the fat lady sings" ;)

Twitter Updates

    Follow me on Twitter



    About this Entry

    This page contains a single entry by Mig published on May 19, 2006 5:56 AM.

    Kibitz Me Not was the previous entry in this blog.

    Player Hating is the next entry in this blog.

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