KKRRRRrrrrrramnik Wins!

Mig (and Mark C),

How were your hits, unique logins, posters etc for San Luis vs Elista? I'm guessing (and hoping) the match was better.

Thank you Mig for an excellent venue during the match. Very educational, entertaining and enlightening! Long live the Royal Game of Chess! Are we ready for a Kasparovistic comeback? Yes!

Thank you Mig for an excellent venue during the match. Very educational, entertaining and enlightening! Long live the Royal Game of Chess! Are we ready for a Kasparovistic comeback? Yes!

Indeed, this is a good time for a "hurray" tag.

Now Mr. K brings on another computer vs man match. That should get a lot of chess publicity.

RUSTY

Thanks for the great venue Mig. Educational, Entertaining and Enlightening. Long Live The Royal Game of Chess! Are we ready for a Kasparovistic comback? Yes!

Well, I would say Kramnik played the better chess in the match. But I have better things to do right now than arguing that ;-) Hurrah for Kramnik! A well-deserved win in so many ways.

Kramnik wins the so-called FIDÉ World Championship here. He defends the real title. Both were on the line, but one remains utterly worthless. The only hope is that Kramnik will use his position to make FIDÉ stop this stupid tournament nonsense, stop the KOs, stop the crap. We need real matches, hopefully 24 games. That's what it's all about. Until FIDÉ does the right thing (unlikely with Ilyumzhanov in charge), its "title" is nothing.

The ultimate goal should be to restore control of the crown to FIDÉ, of course, but as it is they would just throw it in a closet and forget about it. This is when I wish ghosts were real, Steinitz could come back and murder all those FIDÉ idiots for all this destructive nonsense.

Time for real chess, and real championships. That means, time for someone else to come forward to challenge Kramnik and seize the sceptre.

Hmm, my "per definition" disappeared above as I put it between brackets... "per definition played the better chess.." anyway.. nevermind that.

Amazing several weeks of chess, full of excitment and drama... I'm glad that there is a Unified Champion, and really hope Kramnik plays more often and doesn't just disappear again. In terms of play... I think Topalov is the stronger player, and Kramnik got lucky in this one, but that's life and sports, the better player or team doesn't always win.

Wouldn't be surprised if Topalov does indeed play in Mexico City, wins, and we have Kramnik-Topa Part 2.

Hey mig, maybe the Yankees announcer was there with the announcement. Doesn't seem to have anything else to do since last week...

Ability to play well in the face of great pressure, come up with sound decisions in limited time, with the eyes of the world on you and not commit any blunders is one of the essential characteristics of a great champion. If it wasn't, Vesselin would be the champ right now. Congratulations to Kramnik on his terrific play and accomplishments.

And thanks to Mig for creating the best chess community online.

Amazing several weeks of chess, full of excitment and drama... I'm glad that there is a Unified Champion, and really hope Kramnik plays more often and doesn't just disappear again. In terms of play... I think Topalov is the stronger player, and Kramnik got lucky in this one, but that's life and sports, the better player or team doesn't always win.

Wouldn't be surprised if Topalov does indeed play in Mexico City, wins, and we have Kramnik-Topa Part 2.

Mig,s what's Garry's reaction to the games and to the result?

I bet a Kramnik-Kasparov match, with a Unified Champion, would get huge sponsors... not 1million prize fund... but more like $5 million a piece... that would bring Kasparov out of retirement... Kasparov is the best.

Is that justice I smell?

Joining the chorus of thanks to Mig for incredible coverage! Without this site and Susan Polgar's, I for one would certainly have turned my back on chess as a sport during this match, and that probably goes for a lot of people.

My traffic here was around 40% higher than San Luis. But since my 2006 traffic was already significantly higher than 2005, it needs to be corrected. Every day since the match began, my traffic was roughly three time my daily average and double the last few event daily averages. San Luis was never double, say, Linares, but it was over 50% higher, quite a spike. But nothing close to the relative leap from Elista. The bizarre thing to me is that my traffic numbers, as judged by a few vaguely accurate online trackers, is similar to that of TWIC and much better than that of ChessCafe. And they PAY people and have that wacky revenue thing, being the two largest online chess shops. Shows the power of community and my total disregard for my children's inheritance. Anyway, thanks to those who clicked the "donate" button, and a tiny bit less thanks to those who didn't! Nice having you around anyway.

Other than traffic, I'm also getting a lot more calls from mainstream media people who find this site looking for information. I've done three radio bits in the past week and will do BBC/NPR later today, so they tell me. Sadly, I doubt that would have happened without BladderGate and the forfeit. Good or bad, dunno.

No worries about MY server. The message boards hog CPU power but not really bandwidth. But I'm hosted on Pair and they have fat pipe. Pair rocks.

Joshua Lilly : I agree.
Styles: Danailov's crap distracted from the chess - which was a very interesting study in contrasting styles. Topalov's aggression had the potential to break Kramnik's over-prophylaxis several times, but Kramnik was also able to expose his unsoundness at times. A rapid finale to a WC match doesn't make sense, but it was fun to watch, anyway.

"I don't know if the better player won today. "

That is a very unfair comment.
Chess is first of all a struggle (viva Lasker).
The chess player is a combination of a zillion things.
Kramnik won, at the board.
Whether that was because he was a better fighter, or because of his superior understanding of the game, or because of any other reason u may choose to use,
the man deserves the applause of the world for winning.
And has certainly proved himself the better "player"

By the way, how about I show all these traffic numbers, and those of ChessBase, to the Mexico guys and suggest they cut the tournament prize fund in half, swap Topalov in for Kramnik, and use the other half of the prize fund ($650K) for a WCh match of 18 games in November? Too little cash? I can only think of, oh, just about everyone but the fans finding lots of reasons to disagree...

"I don't know if the better player won today. "

That is a very unfair comment.
Chess is first of all a struggle (viva Lasker).
The chess player is a combination of a zillion things.
Kramnik won, at the board.
Whether that was because he was a better fighter, or because of his superior understanding of the game, or because of any other reason u may choose to use,
the man deserves the applause of the world for winning.
And has certainly proved himself the better "player"

"I’d rather blunder a queen or a mate in one than appear in the situation of Leko in 2004. He did not yield to Kramnik two years ago, but Leko is nobody now, and Kramnik is a world champion."

I mean, C'mon. If this guy is calling Leko a "nobody" then he can make up for all the mud he and his team have produced in the last few weeks all he wants - but he still is an a**hole...

I'd like to go back to Interzonals and candidate matches, with WC matches every other year. Either that or just do away with WC title and go to golf/tennis-style rankings with only four major and numerous minor tournaments.

Oh, don't nitpick, sartaj, we know who won the match. But chess is a science as well as a sport. We can't call it luck because of that, but we can also see when someone was fortunate and admit that too. I'm not taking anything away from Kramnik at all to say his play was far from perfect. I'm sure he'd say the same.

Go for it, Mig, I’d say.

My, but I’d like to see the contract between your boys and FIDE. Given the balls-up FIDE are making of attempting to produce the field for Mexico…….

I wonder what Kramnik’s going to do when FIDE tell him they’ve decided to invite Topalov after all?

Not sure if anyone has mentioned it, but Kramnik has twice now defeated the clear world #1 in match play. (The hedge that this match was actually drawn is counter-hedged by one loss being a forfeit.) Anyone else ever done that before? I can only imagine it might have been possible for Botvinnik's match wins over Tal and Smyslov being in the neighborhood.

Does anyone know if Kramnik considers himself to be the holder of 2 separate titles or 1 unified title now?

2 different scenarios next year in Mexico:

(1) Anand wins the tournament and in the process beats Kramnik (2-0).
(2) Anand wins the tournament and in the process loses to Kramnik (0-2 or 0.5-1.5) and Kramnik otherwise has a solid plus score (and no losses).

It seems to me (in the second scenario, but probably not the first) that the precedent Kramnik took by ignoring San Luis (and hasn't that paid off for him!!) would allow him still to consider himself the Classical (or Matchplay) Champion.

Hi Mig, my compliments for running a very good website, also during this WC(C).

Actually, Kramnik beat Topalov twice now (classical and rapid) so one could argue he beat the #1 three times ;-).
Hopefully Kramnik can keep it up and reach the #1 spot himself. Would be deserved IMHO.

Topalov should take Kramnik's spot in the Mexico tournament and the winner should play a match with Kramnik.

Just curious, but will Radjabov challenge Kramnik to a match in 2007 now that he is FIDE champion?

Curt Collyer

Even if one wanted to sympathize with Topalov, he makes it impossible. I wish he would just shut up. He is (was) playing Kramnik, not Leko, so why attack Leko? Calling Leko a nobody is absolutely ridiculous. At least Leko drew a match with Kramnik without getting free points and without off-board dirty tricks and accusations.

"I don't know if the better player won today. But looking back over the past few weeks I'd have to say that the better man certainly did."

If, for Kasparov2000, Topalov, and Kramnik you could somehow remove the "chess calculator" part of their brains and compare them, Kramnik's might well finish last. [who the hell am I to judge?]

But Kramnik's brain is connected up to a strikingly well-balanced personality. Hard to imagine him throwing tantrums. Hard to imagine him tolerating a manager like Danailov.

These days top GMs are so well prepared and so technically proficient that it seems like the only way they're ever going to lose is by a blunder. In such an environment the man with the cooler head has a distinct advantage.

Kramnik may not be the best chessplayer, but over the past three WCC matches he's played the best chess, and that's probably good enough.

Congratulations to Kramnik for the great victory. All discussion about the championship are over.

Thank to Mig for providing the only forum that didn't break during these exciting and intense games.

D.

Kramnik’s been number 1 before, at least in 1996 or so. He was quoted as saying something like ‘I was pleased for about fifteen minutes, then I went back to watching the news and forgot about it. Of course when you watch the news in Russia no-one can be happy.’

I don’t think he’s ever been that fussed about ratings; I’m not sure the top players are. Except Topalov, of course, who will now have to start calling himself the world number one.

I’m rather looking forward to his press conference. As a friend is wont to say to me after refuting my moves in analysis, ‘Not so full of yourself now, are you?’.

Agree with RB. Compare:
=> Leko drew with Kramnik over the board
=> Topalov lost to Kramnik over the board

I think we, as the chess public, need to accept a few things.

First, FIDE is going to hold two rounds of Candidates Matches from 16 players to determine who gets into the Challenger's Tournament - 4 players from the candidates and 4 seeded players. Right now, Topalov is out and he was one of the seeds, so a replacement has to be found, IF FIDE holds to the rules of the WCC 2006.

I think Leko deserves the pass to the tournament based on San Luis, so a replacement for Leko will need to be found...and then perhaps reshuffle the matches based on ratings, if needed.

Second, the victor of this challenger's tournament get a match with the current World Champion (Kramnik) for the Title. Most likely, it will be a 12-game match with similar tie-breaks.

In retrospect, I found the length of the match nearly perfect. 12 games and three weeks is plenty to decide who is best, and if it cannot be decided, then on to tiebreaks. The 4 rapid games were highly entertaining to me.

Ranting about 24-game matches, draw odds, etc., etc., are immaterial these days, and well, this is NOT your daddy's Chess title, so forget it.

Mig, any news about Topalov and his participation in Mexico yet?

Well done Vlad!

What do you think, will he accept match against Radjabov? What if he does and Radjabov wins? Will he replace Kramnik in Mexico? Could be a lot of confusion

Once again great venue Mig

Perhaps you could put some ads and affiliate stuff to take adavanteg of traffic? One thing these 2 stuck to the same lines relentlessly in the tie break despite rapid format. I think Kramniks win is a good result for chess - will there be a Kramnik Radjabov match now?

Comments about Topalov being the better chess player dont make sense. This was a match - totally totally different from tournament. Good nerves and ability to take pressure is a very big part of being the best chess player in the world. The title does not go to the best analyst or the best opening innovator or the best entertainer. Kramnik beat the highest rated player in the world of chess despite that player having 1 extra white and getting a free point - who else could have done that in chess. I think nobody else.

Congratulations to World Chess Champion Vladamir Kramnik - a truly professional guy

Viva Kramnik!

To end the scism, we now have a worthy World Champion! Chess fans all over the world salut you!

Any info on the rating changes for Potty and Kramster after the match?

I think a fair assessment is that Topalov had better novelties prepared and generated winning chances out of the opening more often than Kramnik did. Even Kramnik concedes this is true. But Kramnik played the better chess at the board. Not perfect by any means, but better than Topalov's.

I think the difference is that while Kramnik may have played his share of inaccurate or imprecise moves, Topalov played far too many outright blunders. You just can't blunder so often at this level and expect to be world champion.

Topalov could very easily have been up 1.5-0.5, instead of down 0-2 at the end of the first two games. But I wouldn't assume he wins if that happens. Kramnik has shown repeatedly that he can win in must-win situations.

At this point, I have no hesitation saying that both the better PLAYER and the better PERSON won.

Incidentally, it's worth pointing out that Kramnik played by far the better OFF-the-board chess. His refusal to play Game 5 turned out to be the best move of the match: he got the changes reversed (probably the only way he could have done so), allowed the moral opprobrium to soak into Topalov, leaving him as the moral victor no matter what happened -- and, in a stroke of genius, ensured that no matter what happened, Topalov could never really win the match (unless he won by +2). Finally, in putting out the press release about sueing FIDE in the event of a Topalov "win", at such a critical time in the match, he placed huge pressure on Topalov to win big -- and Topalov folded.

The Topalov camp's crude attempts to manipulate the media and upset Kramnik were made to look totally amateurish by Kramnik's much more sophisticated approach. Dare I say that the trajectory of this off-the-board match resembles a chess game in and of itself? Topalov attacks like a loon, overpresses, blunders; Kramnik soaks up the pressure, defends in a sophisticated manner, strikes back -- and wins!

"I wouldn't go as far as saying Kramnik played the better chess in the match."
"I don't know if the better player won today"

Can we please stop claiming that its a defect of Kramniks that Topalov blundered? Playing under pressure is perhaps the main feature of such a match and not delivering means you are not better. Taking advantage of your opponents errors is the essence of chess so give Kramnik his due. All this stuff about how far from perfect the moves were misses the fact that this was the human world chess championship and humans make mistakes which is not a bad thing but how they learn. Who learns from the mistakes and takes advantage of the others mistakes is the better player. Topalov might create exciting chess but in match play with the guy who beat the guy before him, he failed. Kramnik is better, period. That he survived all the off the board tactics makes his superiority even more convincing.

Well done Mig on the visits:)
What are the actual numbers?

Ok, I have been informed I got it all wrong. Kramnik replaces Topalov in Mexico 2007 and *that* is the Championship Tournament.

I was under the impreassion it was a challenger's tournament.

Apparently match play is going the way of the doo doo bird. Hopefully after this match, FIDE will reconsider...

Poor Radjabov....

My Chessmetrics ratings have Smyslov #1 in 1958 and Tal #1 in 1961, so Botvinnik is the only other player I see having beaten the #1 twice in a match.

God do I hate John Sterling.

Rating changes?

Mig just can't resist whipping it out and piddling on Kramnik every now and then. But if he can pull off his suggestion (posted at 12:11), he'll be the hero of the chess world.

Russianbear--
I'm not sure Topalov was actually calling Leko a "nobody". He may have been trying to say, "Look, the poor guy played Kramnik even in 2004 and what has it gotten him?"

"Mig, wake up, Wake Up! It's ok, the Yankees lost last night...it wasn't a nightmare. It was bad pitching."

Congratulations to World Chess Champion Vladimir Borisovich! It's nice to be able to forget about the ridiculous FIDE "champions" since 1993 and recognize that the line goes from ...Fischer, Karpov, and Kasparov to Kramnik (2000-2007+?).

Well guys, so how many (FIDE) rating points did Topalov lost and how many did Kramnik gained ?

-Amit

Greg Koster sez "Kramnik may not be the best chessplayer, but over the past three WCC matches he's played the best chess, and that's probably good enough."

Well said. True, I agree.

The result from the tie-break removes any doubt in my mind as to who the better player is. Clearly it is Kramnik. This match went through a lot of back & forth, but the tie-break result solidifies in my mind Kramnik's superiority at this point in time.

D.

Greg, read the game 12 press conference with Top. The quote is from there...

"Cooler" chess heads probably go on playing while keeping the lawsuit option open. People who don't throw tantrums don't show up at Appellation Committee's press conference pouting about lack of evidence and threaten lawsuits.

One of the most significant qualities of a good chess calculator is ability to avoid errors. Considering that in this match most errors came no earlier than late midgame it's hard to say that opening preparation made much of a difference.

No. This was a win of skill. And skill means being able to avoid serious errors. Especially with the amount of time limited Kramnik did a much better job in that than Topalov.

I find it hard to say that Kramnik is not the better chess player than Topalov. Perhaps less imaginative and certainly less offensive and risk-prone than Topalov. But when it comes to avoiding errors and spotting those of his opponent he once again proves himself to be one of the best. That is known as chess understanding.

Congrats to Kramnik. Deserved winner and moral winner.

What for Topalov now? Spirits crushed, reputation ruined, one million dollars minimum in Azeri oil money lost. Got to be difficult, not that he didn't bring it on himself.

Yet despite everything hopefully he will recover and will still get invitations to top tournaments. He is coming up with very original opening ideas, and what is remarkable is that it's happening early in the opening.

Hopefully he will eventually come to his senses once it's all over and the pressure wears off. Open apology to Kramnik and to the chess public and restraining Danailov on his future conduct would go a long way repairing the damage.

Then couple of tactical brilliances and eventually people will forget and forgive. Worse things have happened. Not the end of the world.

I'd lay long odds against Topalov ever offering any kind of apology. Nothing he's ever done has suggested to me that he has the class, and firing these Svengali types is awfully difficult, especially as Danailov's the type to make trouble for him if he does.

I actually agree with those who say that Topalov has in some sense played the better chess in this match. Blunders are never just blunders - I'm sure nerves or whatever came into it - but equally there is a random element to them, and it IS unfortunate to have so many and such costly ones just now. Kramnik is not yet back to his best form - maybe he never will be - and has looked anything but invincible here. But of course it doesn't matter: Anand's sad comment after 1995 comes to mind; of course it doesn't matter what the winner does because he's always right.

I dipped into Gazza's Fighting Chess last night: here's a trivia question; who finished eighth in the World Junior Gazza won, ahead of several present-day grandmasters?

"Anand's sad comment after 1995 comes to mind; of course it doesn't matter what the winner does because he's always right."

what did he say?

That is what he said. 'Of course it doesn't what the winner does because he's always right'.

(referring to some - comparatively extremely mild - antics by Gazza. But I thought it apposite here; it doesn't matter who's played better, because the result's in the scorebook.)

"Can we please stop claiming that its a defect of Kramniks that Topalov blundered? Playing under pressure is perhaps the main feature of such a match and not delivering means you are not better."

Hear hear. One of the main reasons I beat players 200 points below me, and lose to players 200 above me, is blundering in close but tense positions.

Kramnik retained his title of World Chess Champion which he has held since 2000.

He now has the moral backing of all the chess world, with a few exceptions, and can refuse to defend his title except in a match.

The Mexico tournament (suggestion partly stolen from Mig) can serve as the old interzonals did - and choose the top players for thee Candidates Matches in 2008, and then we can have a WC match in 2009.

Grats to Kramnik, new chess WC.

Topa's strategy in this match was dead wrong -- he underestimated his adversary

Thanks for everything, Mig! Will consider donating or subscribing to your newsletter as a sign of gratitude.

I LOVE matches and didn't even mind having it short and having a tiebreak now afterwards.

For the future, here is what I hope:

1) Kramnik agrees to play Mexico and promises to give up title if he doesn't win.

2) Kramnik is given the right to a rematch (no draw odds) againt the winner of Mexico.

3) FIDE promises to stick to matches and starts a new circle to produce a candidate for a new match in say 2009.

Reminds me very much of Karpov-Korchnoi 1978. Like Korchnoi, Topalov played the best chess, but he also played the worst chess, and the gross blunders outweighed the good stuff.

"Can we please stop claiming that its a defect of Kramniks that Topalov blundered?"

No one is saying it's a defect of Kramnik's that Topalov blundered. It's simply a reality that Kramnik's three wins came from horrendous blunders. Any reasonable analysis of the games shows that this is the case.

We don't know what would have happened otherwise --- Kramnik has a history of playing up to the level necessary to win. But in the games actually played, Topalov blundered, and badly. That's no defect of Kramnik. It's a defect of Topalov, actually.

Nisipeanu played a very imaginative long term piece sacrifice against Georgiev today and won with a brutal king attack. Reminds you of this brilliancy Kramnik played against Kasparov 10 years ago. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1070865 , which has to be one of the worst defeats Garry has ever suffered with white.

(Another Slav so it fits in with the topic of the match)

Kramnik of course has the talent to play any style. But if he gets the best results with "stock exchange chess" who can blame him.

Catenaccio is well and alive in football, New Jersey won a few Stanley Cups preventing the opposition from playing.

Chess is so much richer this way. Style shouldn't come into it whether a player deserved to win or not. He just won his third World Championship match (ok one was drawn, but anyway), so obviously it's working fine.

I did a little research on how #1 rated players did in World championship matches.
First, I thought like Mig that Other than Kramnik, only Botvinnik has beaten #1 rated player in the world more than once (they both done

it twice). But I was wrong! There was one more! Think before you read on :)

Let me say that I used chessmtetric's ratings(chessmetrics.com). I don't think chessmetrics are flawless - they are quite flawed when

comparing between eras, I believe, but within each particular monthly rating list I think chessmetrics has enough consistency/accuracy:

In the classical tradition there have been 14 champions and 39 World championship matches.

Out of those 39 matches, in 6 matches #1 rated player did not even play in the title match.

Steinitz - Gunsberg 1890 (Lasker was #1)
Steinitz - Chigorin 1892 (Lasker was #1)
Lasker - Marshall 1907 (Marуczy was #1, though Lasker got punished for inactivity, which doesn't exactly seem fair, Lasker won +8=7-0

and cemented chessmetrics #1 spot once again)
Lasker - Tarrasch 1908 (Rubinstein was #1)
Spassky - Petrosian 1969 (Fischer was #1)
Kramnik - Leko 2004 (Kasparov was #1)

But most of the time #1 rated player did play in the title match. Out of those 33 matches, #1 rated player failed to win just 13 times.

Out of those 12 matches, The top rated players had drawn 4

Lasker-Schlechter 1910 (Lasker was #1)
Botvinnik-Bronstein 1951 (Bronstein rated #1)
Botvinnik-Smyslov 1954 (Smyslov rated #1)
Kasparov-Karpov 1987(Kasparov rated #1 prior to the match)

and once the match was not finished:

Karpov-Kasparov 1984 (Kasparov rated #1 prior to the match)

That leaves us with just 8 matches where top rated player in the world was beaten in the world championship match.

Alekhine-Capablanca 1927
Euwe-Alekhine 1935
Alekhine-Euwe 1937 (Euwe took over the first spot after his match victory against Alekhine,
but then lost it twice and regained it twice before the rematch with Alekhine -
once to Botvinnik (late 1936) and another to Capablanca (mid 1937). It is a testament to how great Botvinnik has been,
he became #1 as early as 1936 and yet beat Tal in 1961 at the edge of 50.)
Botvinnik-Smyslov 1958
Botvinnik-Tal 1961
Petrossian-Spassky 1966
Kramnik-Kasparov 2000
Kramnik-Topalov 2006

So, Alekhine also beat two top rated players in the world (Capablanca, Euwe) in World Championship matches. By beating Topalov Kramnik joines Botvinnik and Alekhine as the only players to beat top rated player in the world 2 times. It is worth noting that Botvinnik, in addition to beating 2 World number 1's, also drew 2 more WC matches against top rated players. And Alekhine, in addition to beating a top rated player twice, also lost one of the world championships where he himself was the number one

player.

I did a little research on how #1 rated players did in World championship matches.
First, I thought like Mig that Other than Kramnik, only Botvinnik has beaten #1 rated player in the world more than once (they both done it twice). But I was wrong! There was one more! Think before you read on :)

Let me say that I used chessmtetric's ratings(chessmetrics.com). I don't think chessmetrics are flawless - they are quite flawed when comparing between eras, I believe, but within each particular monthly rating list I think chessmetrics has enough consistency/accuracy:

In the classical tradition there have been 14 champions and 39 World championship matches.

Out of those 39 matches, in 6 matches #1 rated player did not even play in the title match.

Steinitz - Gunsberg 1890 (Lasker was #1)
Steinitz - Chigorin 1892 (Lasker was #1)
Lasker - Marshall 1907 (Marуczy was #1, though Lasker got punished for inactivity, which doesn't exactly seem fair, Lasker won +8=7-0 and cemented chessmetrics #1 spot once again)
Lasker - Tarrasch 1908 (Rubinstein was #1)
Spassky - Petrosian 1969 (Fischer was #1)
Kramnik - Leko 2004 (Kasparov was #1)

But most of the time #1 rated player did play in the title match. Out of those 33 matches, #1 rated player failed to win just 13 times.

Out of those 13 matches, The top rated players had drawn 4

Lasker-Schlechter 1910 (Lasker was #1)
Botvinnik-Bronstein 1951 (Bronstein rated #1)
Botvinnik-Smyslov 1954 (Smyslov rated #1)
Kasparov-Karpov 1987(Kasparov rated #1 prior to the match)

and once the match was not finished:

Karpov-Kasparov 1984 (Kasparov rated #1 prior to the match)

That leaves us with just 8 matches where top rated player in the world was beaten in the world championship match.

Alekhine-Capablanca 1927
Euwe-Alekhine 1935
Alekhine-Euwe 1937 (Euwe took over the first spot after his match victory against Alekhine,
but then lost it twice and regained it twice before the rematch with Alekhine -
once to Botvinnik (late 1936) and another to Capablanca (mid 1937). It is a testament to how great Botvinnik has been,
he became #1 as early as 1936 and yet beat Tal in 1961 at the edge of 50.)
Botvinnik-Smyslov 1958
Botvinnik-Tal 1961
Petrossian-Spassky 1966
Kramnik-Kasparov 2000
Kramnik-Topalov 2006

So, Alekhine also beat two top rated players in the world (Capablanca, Euwe) in World Championship matches. By beating Topalov Kramnik joines Botvinnik and Alekhine as the only players to beat top rated player in the world 2 times. It is worth noting that Botvinnik, in addition to beating 2 World number 1's, also drew 2 more WC matches against top rated players. And Alekhine, in addition to beating a top rated player twice, also lost one of the world championships where he himself was the number one player.

You could argue that Karpov played the better chess in 1987 and blunders cost him the match. But the point is academic, because blunders are part of the game.

Russianbear--

Thanks for your good work.

Interesting, thanks. I thought of Alekhine but couldn't imagine Euwe took the #1 spot. But I guess if you play that many games against the #1 and finish ahead of him your chances are pretty good. Still, I don't feel the 1937 match the way I do the other four. Euwe played his best chess and still clearly overmatched by an in-form Alekhine. The math is there but nobody had Euwe as a favorite then, and with good reason.

I don't think Kramnik would agree, Mig. In his excellent article on his predecessors, he seem to give Euwe more credit than people usualy do and give Alekhine less than his usual:

http://www.e3e5.com/eng/petersburg/creativity/article.html?12

As for me I think Euwe just played extremely well for a couple of years (almost like Fischer and Tal had their 1-2 year peaks), and then got content with the accomplishemnt of wining the title and was never the same (kinda like Spassky).

Looking at the match overall, I think Kramnik is to be congratulated on his win. Topalov's opening preparation was far better ( was there in fact any evidence at all of Kramnik's preparation ? ) and he was continually confronted with having to solve problems over the board which Topalov had studied deeply at home. That meant he was always under time and psychological pressure.

I came away with the impression that Kramnik's understanding of chess is simply deeper - only once did Topalov outplay him in a queenless ending and that was very difficult to defend anyway. Much of the rest of the time Topalov resembled a high-class coffeehouse slugger relying on bluff to get a win, but running up against someone who was cool enough to see through that and find the holes.

I don't want to be too critical of Topalov though - it was the contrast of styles and his determination and aggression which was the cause of the tension and excitement. All credit to him for that.

The question now is what will Kramnik do with the title ? I pretty sure he won't milk it for as much money as he can the way Topalov's manager was planning to...

David

"We are planning to get drunk with my friends today"
Vladimir Kramnik

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6049276.stm

LOL :-D

I think some people did have Euwe as favourite for the second match against Alekhine (maybe even most). Euwe was I think the form player going in to the match. Its one of my favourite matches actually, really dynamic chess.

A few more idle thoughts.....

Every game began with 1.d4. (Has there ever been a WC where that was the case?)

Now, everyone expected Kramnik to use 1.d4. But from Topalov's history, as far as I can tell, this was atypical. Topalov had so much respect for Kramnik's 1.e4 defense that he did not dare play it.

Topalov's 1.d4 repertory and his responses to it were arguably one-dimensional. Although he got a lot of novelties out of the opening, fundamentally he was playing it on Kramnik's terms, and not the other way around.

Harry Golombek's introduction to the 1937 Alekhine - Euwe match book.

"The result was a surprise to the chess world and many reasons have been put forward to explain Alekhine's triumph. It has been said that at the beginning of the match Euwe underestimated his opponent and that by the time he realized Alekhine's true strength the latter had established an invincible lead."

I was pretty sure people thought Euwe the favourite in 1937.

...

I think the difference is that while Kramnik may have played his share of inaccurate or imprecise moves, Topalov played far too many outright blunders. You just can't blunder so often at this level and expect to be world champion.

Topalov could very easily have been up 1.5-0.5, instead of down 0-2 at the end of the first two games. But I wouldn't assume he wins if that happens. Kramnik has shown repeatedly that he can win in must-win situations.

...

-- Posted by: Marc Shepherd at October 13, 2006 12:33

You hit the nail right on the head.

Taking the c5 pawn in the last game was not only a blunder, it was like his mind has been other places. Strange.

"Now, everyone expected Kramnik to use 1.d4. But from Topalov's history, as far as I can tell, this was atypical. Topalov had so much respect for Kramnik's 1.e4 defense that he did not dare play it."

I thought Kramnik was more likely than Topalov to use 1.e4.

I hate to interrupt this Kramnik admiration society, but its got to be said.

Kramnik deserved to win the match, but he doesn't deserve to be World Champion. Someday chess will move into the 21st Century and have a World Championship in which all players are treated equally. I seem to be the only one that feels that way at the moment, so that day is a long way off, but it will happen.

Topalov didn't criticize Leko, he sympathized with him. Of course Leko is not a nobody, everybody knows he one of the world's top players. But even during this match, nobody seemed to mention the Kramnik-Leko match which was a tie.

There was even some hope after it that Leko would get another match soon because Kramnik had not actually defeated him. But that didn't happen.

Leko is hardly talked about and is being ignored in various ways, so he's being treated as a nobody. He may also be having a hard time coming back and working his way thru the FIDE cycle again. That is certainly what Topalov meant.

Kramnik is now the FIDE champion, succeeding Topalov, and must follow FIDE's rules. Those rules say that he can hold the title until the Mexico WC tournament.

Someone said that boycotting San Luis didn't pay off for Kramnik. Oh yeah?

1. He got to play a 1 on 1 match for the FIDE title rather than a tournament of many players, so his odds were much better just by raw numbers.

2. He's believed to be better at matches than tournaments.

3. There's that $500,000 he just won for the "unification" which really amounted to submitting himself to FIDE's regime. If he had played in San Luis he would have given up the ability to claim that extra payment.

"I am planning to get drunk with my only friend"
Veselin Topalov

Spud you are not the only one who feels that way. I do too.

Folks,

Don't forget to drop a mail to FIDE and sound off about the frankly infuriating way their servers failed during a decisive part of a historic match.

The continuing absence of a congratulation to the World Champion might also be worth a comment...

admin@fide.com

Cheers, and a pleasant weekend to all!

If San Luis was a "good" championship, the results must be a true indication of participants' relative strength.

If so, Kramnik proved himself to be better (IMO, considerably better) than a player who finished heads and shoulders above the rest of participants in that tournament.

Given that, I don't think whether Kram played San Luis or not really matters.

Certainly it would be nicer to have some photos and words from the official site. Instead we only have this??

http://www.worldchess2006.com/main.asp?id=1143

Anand some time back rather candidly said he would take whatever world championship offers he thought was in his own best interests. It wasn't any of the top players fault that they were forced to get on with their careers in the best way they could. Kramnik defended his title against Leko. Topalov, Morozevich and Adams also played in that Dortmund qualifier and then had another shot in San Luis. Kasparov had an invitation and turned it down. I really rather doubt anyone else would have beaten Topalov in this match and the fact they could play at all under all this tension, especially in the rapid playoff games which were under the circumstances really rather splendid games is credit to the both of them. Kramnik is the deserved champion. Lets hope we can get a proper cycle that works year in year out in place as fast as possible and that Kramnik defends his title in Mexico City. I'm personally really happy I can once again ask the question who is the world chess champion in two words not fifty or more.

Anand some time back rather candidly said he would take whatever world championship offers he thought was in his own best interests. It wasn't any of the top players fault that they were forced to get on with their careers in the best way they could. Kramnik defended his title against Leko. Topalov, Morozevich and Adams also played in that Dortmund qualifier and then had another shot in San Luis. Kasparov had an invitation and turned it down. I really rather doubt anyone else would have beaten Topalov in this match and the fact they could play at all under all this tension, especially in the rapid playoff games which were under the circumstances really rather splendid games is credit to the both of them. Kramnik is the deserved champion. Lets hope we can get a proper cycle that works year in year out in place as fast as possible and that Kramnik defends his title in Mexico City. I'm personally really happy I can once again ask the question who is the world chess champion in two words not fifty or more.

Along with press conference transcripts and pics
I'd like to see a recent pic of Danailov. Wonder what kind of a smirk he has now.

Ahhhh, schadenfreude.

"But in the games actually played, Topalov blundered, and badly. That's no defect of Kramnik. It's a defect of Topalov, actually."

Precisely my point yet these blunders are being used to claim that Kramnik's chess was not as strong--he only won because Topalov blundered. I thought finding the best move made you better, playing bad moves makes you worse. All the talk about how Topalov could have, should have been up 2-0 instead of down are just wishful thinking. If a frog had wings it wouldn't bump its ass so much....

Mig, On the Morelia page you typed every variant of the phrase World Champion. World Champion, world champion, or World champion. Was this some notation or just randomness?

I've seen those numbers and made similar analysis myself, but I think chessmetrics is, at times, skewed. Nobody in 1890 regarded Lasker as #1 or anywhere near it.

Maybe we should name Topalov "Vice World Champion". Cause when I think if his behavior in this match, I think of vice.

I've seen those numbers and made similar analysis myself, but I think chessmetrics is, at times, skewed. Nobody in 1890 regarded Lasker as #1 or anywhere near it.

Maybe we should name Topalov "Vice World Champion". Cause when I think of his behavior in this match, I think of vice.

Oh Lordy, some much needed comic relief.

I found this on the comments section of "64". Someone had some fun with photoshop.

http://rsport.netorn.ru/potemkin/enot/foto052.htm

1) I congratulate Vladimir Kramnik on winning an extremely tense match. It was a truly heroic feat, and I am not saying that lightly.
2) I hope the next World Championship will again be a *match*, not a tournament; I am sure the World Champion agrees.
3) And, last but not least: I hope we will find it in our hearts to readmit Veselin Topalov to the circle of players we admire. There are wounds now, they will heal - perhaps even their scars may disappear someday.

Friday the 13th of October 2006 will remain a great day in chess history! A champion's triumph against all odds, a successful unification of the World Chess Champion titles.

Chess is not a big sport like the truly big sports, football, soccer, formula one, etc.etc. - Ok, we may not be big but we are alive and we have more relations to the worlds of art and science than all these primitive "muscle and sweat" sports. We are looking into a bright future - a bit smaller than others, but very nice!

Given that, I don't think whether Kram played San Luis or not really matters.

--Posted by: Yuriy Kleyner at October 13, 2006 14:56

The only classical games Kramnik won were due directly to Topalov's ??-blunders.

It is -highly- unlikely that Kramnik would have won San Luis or any other tournament by just winning games when his opponents ??s.

Now -matches-, that is a different story. There you can just sit back and do nothing, waiting for your opponent to self-destruct and give you free points.

But that win-only-when-my-opponent-??s does not work in tournaments.

If you think Kramnik is so strong that San Luis would have been a cakewalk, then surely Kramnik will not duck Mexico City, right?

And do you really think Kramnik would have scored +8 or +9 at San Luis when the only classical games he won here were the results of ??-moves?

I, too, understood Euwe to be the favourite, if anything, going into the 1937 match. His results between the two matches were better than Alekhine's.
I think there may be a good case to consider Euwe as the No. 1 just before going into the match as the 1936 performers Botvinnik and Capablanca had declined in 1937 (Botvinnik with the Levenfish match, and Capa with Semmering-Baden). I think we tend to discount Euwe because he got slaughtered in the 1937 match, and had that terrible result in the 1948 World Championship Match Tournament; but just BEFORE the 1937 match I think he was favourite.
Very good analysis Russianbear!

To go slightly off-topic (hope you don't mind in this instance, Mig), if Jeff Sonas is reading this, may I apologise to you for not yet having got back to you as I promised under 'Kramnik-Topalov g4'. In the first place my analysis took a lot longer than I intended (I have a lot of good stuff for you!), second, there's been the WC distraction(!), and third my elderly mother fell and broke her hip, necessitating a major hip replacement operation [she has come thru ok]. I definitely hope to post to you in 2-3 days (under 'Kramnik-Topalov g4').
In my view (which I will try to justify):
Steinitz or Tarrasch is No. 1 in 1890.
Tarrasch is No. 1 in 1892.
Lasker is No.1 in 1907.
Lasker is No.1 in 1908.
Botvinnik is No.1 going into the 1951 Match.

Russianbear thanks for the link

http://www.e3e5.com/eng/petersburg/creativity/

it's a great website and a very interesting article by someone well qualified to write it.

It's a history of match-play champions, and that is indeed a gripping story. The idea of "tournament" world champions is harder to understand and maybe not even a good idea. There would also be more faces to write about, making such an article too long.

But tournament-play is the system we have now, and there are too many closely matched players at the top to abandon that system now. This is a time when FIDE, not the champion himself, has to set the rules.

Minor niggle: he only mentions "Morfi" once in passing while starting history from Steinitz. Here in the USA we tend to start with Morphy.

Is Kramnik the best?
I doubt, but he is in my all-time Top 50 list!

"Precisely my point yet these blunders are being used to claim that Kramnik's chess was not as strong--he only won because Topalov blundered. I thought finding the best move made you better, playing bad moves makes you worse. All the talk about how Topalov could have, should have been up 2-0 instead of down are just wishful thinking. If a frog had wings it wouldn't bump its ass so much...."

I think you misunderstand what people are saying. It's simply a fact that his wins were achieved primarily through through his opponent's rather severe blunders. It's not a matter of "would have, could have, should have." It's just a matter of being honest about how Kramnik's wins came about.

Whether you want matches to decide the world title or not it would be sheer folly to change the system once its in place and a sponsor has been found. The Candidates series has to go ahead and the final tournament in Mexico City. Anything else would be unfair on the other players involved and their chance at a title. The following cycle is up for grabs though. FIDE have put themselves in a bind by the exclusion of Topalov (or Kramnik if he'd lost) however.

Euwe said that in 1935, when he won, he was weaker than Alekhine, but that in 1937 he was stronger. He also attributed his loss in 1937 to overconfidence. I think he was definitely the favourite in people's eyes.

That article by Kramnik talking about the world champions is a very interesting read. He, incidentally, says in there that Lasker was miles ahead of the rest in the early 1890s.

Let this be the first, only, and LAST Match World Chess Championship match that involved short time controls (Rapid, Blitz, Armageddon) in tie-breaking.
Rapid games should be restricted to Rapid title matches, Blitz games to Blitz titles, etc.

Another bad aspect was the exclusion of the loser from the next world championship cycle. Imagine if Spassky had been barred from challenging Petrosian in 1969 because Petrosian had defeated Spassky in the 1966 title match!

The Fix: Change the rules to allow Topalov a spot in Mexico 2007. But as a necessary part of that, RE-CAST the Mexico 2007 tournament to have the purpose of determining who next gets to challenge Kramnik for the Match WCC title.

If Topalov is allowed to play in Mexico 2007 without the re-casting of purpose, then it would be a bias & unfair gift to FIDE's Topalov that FIDE would never have given to Kramnik.

The list remains...

Steinitz , Lasker , Capablanca , Alekhine
, Euwe , Botvinnik , Smyslov , Tal
, Petrosian , Spassky , Fischer , Karpov
, Kasparov , Kramnik.

Gene Milener
http://CastleLong.com/

Kramnik didn't win game 2 because Topalov blundered, exactly. The course of the game was rather upset by a horrible mutual blunder, true, but in the end Kramnik won by prevailing in a very unclear ending in which both sides were playing for a win at one time.

An amazing comeback by Kramnik to my mind after what happened, and losing like a child in games eight and nine. But what little things these matches turn on - suppose Topalov hadn't played 24....f6?? in game ten? I suspect this was like Nijinsky's St Leger, an awful lot closer even that it looked.

Incidentally, the idea of someone above to make Mexico a tournament for the world championship, but with the champion guaranteed a rematch if he doesn't win, strikes me as a brilliant one. Keeps the Mexico sponsors happy, and us happy. What could be better?

I imagine the Mexico sponsors need a bit of cheering up just now. They'd have surely preferred Topalov, especially as I imagine he's very popular in Mexico, being a kind of honorary Spaniard.

Mig wrote:

"Every day since the match began, my traffic was roughly three time my daily average and double the last few event daily averages. San Luis was over 50% higher, quite a spike. But nothing close to the relative leap from Elista.
...
my traffic numbers [were] similar to that of TWIC and much better than that of ChessCafe. And they PAY people ... Shows the power of community ..."

Yes it does show the power of community. It also shows the power of a 1-on-1 match over a tournament.

ChessCafe.com was not even on the radar during this huge event. ChessCafe.com is a major chess website, but its lack of a blog (with a viewpoint to discuss) sometimes makes that website feel stale.

Kramnik was the biggest winner in this event.
But Mig and Susan Polgar, with their blogs, also came out as big winners.

>And do you really think Kramnik would have scored +8 or +9 at San Luis when the only classical games he won here were the results of ??-moves?
Posted by: gmnotyet at October 13, 2006 15:34
>

Your criticisms are, frankly, irrational. Kramnik just took on one of the big powerhouses of our time, compared by some to Kasparov in his prime, regarded by many as unstoppable. Played him in FIDE's home court. Not only beat him, but beat him in a handicap match, with one fewer white, and an unprecedented three straight blacks. Turned around and beat him again in a Rapids playoff, and in your mind, he's a great big chicken because he *might* want to defend his title the same way all 13 of his predecessors did.

No offense man, but that's more than a bit nutty. Go have a drink. Kramnik is. It'd be better than those sour grapes you're drinking now.

The traffic doesn't show the power of a match over a tournament.It shows the power of Topalov to draw crowds. Imagine a Kramnik - Leko match. Even the people who post here regularly would leave.

I understand Kramnik's manager stated before the match that his client would not play in Mexico City. I am afraid the World Chess Championship mess is not finished yet!

Please compare Elista vs. Brissago. That is a meaningful comparison.

"...But Mig and Susan Polgar, with their blogs, also came out as big winners..."

Oh really? Susan Polgar posted an article on her blog which stated something like "how do we know Kramnik wasn't really cheating in the bathroom?".

I don't think that reflects too well on her.

Mig,

Perhaps a good way to capitalize off all this traffic is to have the DailyDirt do to chess what DailyKos.com did for politics. Creative a more interactive forum where users can submit chess news, opinions, and trivia from around the globe.

Theres ad revenue there, not to mention it would be the first chess site of its kind. If I had the time and money, I'd invest in something like it myself.

Just a thought

-Stephen

Only Kamsky has the capacity to beat Kramnik in a match.

There's no reason Kramnik should be ashamed to avoid the Mexico City tournament. It doesn't resolve the championship issue, but would bring it back into turmoil since it's a poor way to select champions.

Kramnik should do what he's been saying since 2000: fight for a dignified system of qualifiers and a nice match. Go Vlad!

"I understand Kramnik's manager stated before the match that his client would not play in Mexico City."

No, he didn't. He said they would start negotiations about the format, trying to find the best way to connect traditions to contemporary realities.

I would be surprised if Kramnik split away again.

Kramnik a deserved winner. Topalov played too ambitious, to many blunders, and in the rapids he did kind of self-destruct. Kramnik's best game? Guess the last rapid, gradually increasing his advantage.

Topalov may take comfort in the fact that he still is the nr 1 ranked player in the world, with the ranking system being the best measurement of the world strongest player. Prestigious to have the title World Champion, but also prestigious to be ranked nr 1. Kramnik the World Champion and Topalov the world's strongest player (as Kasparov is not playing).

Mainstrean coverage!

Front page of Boston.com (the web page of the Boston Globe, Boston, MA USA's largest newspaper):

http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2006/10/13/kramnik_crowned_world_chess_champion/

I find the Kramnik article to be a little odd in places to be honest (though I would not claim to be anywhere near his strength).
He claims that Lasker 'absolutely smashed' Steinitz in 1894. The actual score was +10 -5 =4 (12-7). While a large difference, I would not describe it as an absolute smashing, and I am wondering if Kramnik is thinking more of their return match in 1896/7, which was indeed a smashing (+10 -2 =5 or 12.5-4.5). eg Fischer beat Spassky in 1972 12.5-7.5 on actual games, but I don't think this match was considered an 'absolute smashing'.
I don't understand Kramnik's saying that Tarrasch wasn't very good in early 1890's and got stronger later. Tarrasch won 4 big tournaments Breslau 1889, Manchester 1890, Dresden 1892, and Leipzig 1894. He rarely got results like this later.
Also, Kramnik says 'Lasker stood head and shoulders above the others ...in the beginning of 1890's...this...lasted two or three years, and then he was run down by those, who had evidently had learned from him.' How can Lasker's giant victories at St Petersburg 1895/6, Nuremburg 1896, London 1899, and Paris 1900 be being 'run down' by the others?
Seems strange talk to me.

The traffic doesn't show the power of a match over a tournament.It shows the power of Topalov to draw crowds. Posted by: dirtbag at October 13, 2006 16:08
>>

Yeah, but he only drew those crowds by sacrificing his character. He has no character left to be able to do it again.

Only Kamsky has the capacity to beat Kramnik in a match.
Posted by: dirtbag at October 13, 2006 16:25

AMEN

As I was saying before the match...
Kramnik has won Linares 3 times
Kramnik has won Dortmund 7 times
Kramnik has positive head to head records against Anand, Kasparov and Topalov (100% of the +2800 players)
Before the match, Kramnik had a clear plus against Topalov. After the match, the plus just got bigger.

Well done, Vlad. Now, you can go and watch football for a few years. Then you'll wake up a few months before the start of your future title defense, prepare a little, and disgust another chess monster with your huge natural talent.

Vlad is the guy who ended Kasparov's career.
Vlad is the guy who transformed Leko in "nobody", according to Topalov.
Vlad is the guy who placed Topalov's ego into a toilet, and flushed it (how cooool !!!!).

By the way, Kramnik defended his title in abnormal conditions. In a normal world, the WC keeps his title in case of equality. In Elista, Topalov even had a full bonus point. Two point difference with regular WC conditions...

Another remark, the rating opposition faced by Kramnik in his world championships is also totally unprecedented. Kasparov was 2849, Leko 2763 and Topalov 2813.

Before the match, when I was saying that Kramnik's head to head results against the best rated players ever made him one of the two strongest chess players ever, everybody did laugh at me. Well ... I think that now Kasparov, Karpov, Fischer and Kramnik can reasonnably be considered the four best players ever.

Kramnik's performances since he came back to chess in Turin this year : Turin, 2847. Dortmund, 2813. Elista, 2844. So please, to every idi... oh sorry I can't say that, to every nice person who called him drawnik (5 decisive games out of 11), cowardnik (offering a full point to his opponent to end the schism in the chess world), lyer about his illness, and so on... welcome to reality.

We are lucky. Kramnik's not only a huge champion, he's also a gentleman. Even in the worse moments in Elista, when most of you were yelling everywhere and insulting Topalov, he just stayed himself.

Vlad, congratulations. Great champion, great man, great gentleman. No doubt you now will take advantage of your title and of the situation to help the chess world to get rid of Makropoulos, Azmaiparashvili, Danailov, to offer a chance to Kirsan to do a better job introducing a brand new team with Kirsan as honorary president (the guy with the $$$) and Kok as manager (the guy with the brain)... now, you've got everything in your hands to bring the chess world out of his perpetual mess.

"..Only Kamsky has the capacity to beat Kramnik in a match..."

To qualify, Kamsky must first defeat Short in chessboxing.

www.wcbo.org/

"Only Kamsky has the capacity to beat Kramnik in a match"

Kamsky is out of time. As a lawyer he can only win by protest (the next toilet game).

I am kind of surprised by some of the negativity towards Kram. I am no big fan of his either, and was bitterly disappointed by Topalov's performance until Game 5 when, like so many others, I changed allegiance.

Kramnik is simply a technician, the latest in a long line of 'boring' players, such as Reshevsky, Smyslov, Karpov et al. None of these guys have been big favs with the masses like a Tal, but gosh, Kramnik plays strong chess. One must at least respect it if not appreciate it.

Congrats to Kramnik, who one has to grant World Champion status. He beat the guy who cleaned up at the FIDE tourney.

Today once again reignited my dislike for rapid / blitz tiebreaks to determine the title. However, if it can't be decided in classical time controls, better in the rapids than in blitz games.

Well today is truly one of bittersweet memories. On the one hand, Kramnik pulled off the victory to in a Hollywood manner to have his Hollywood ending. On the other, President Bush signed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act on this very same day, sending the online poker world into the type of chaos that usually requires the acronym “FIDE” be associated with it to generate such a mess in so short a time. For me personally, it is overall a tragic day, with Kramnik’s victory providing a mere moment of comfort, but I am happy that bigger fans of chess are so thrilled with today’s history.

As to the whole rumbling that Kramnik didn’t win the match so much as Topalov lost it with his blunders, I would suggest that in many top level competitive endeavors between world class contestants, games are more often won by avoiding mistakes rather than brilliant plays, simply because as world-class players the contestants have too much experience to be susceptible to flashy, unforeseen, startling plays. Great examples are the current 2006 Denver Broncos, the 2000 Superbowl champions Baltimore Ravens, the 2003 SB champ Tampa Bay Bucs in the NFL, the Detroit Pistons recent reign in the NBA, and more. These teams played “ball-control” strategies of conservative, low variance on offence (preferring to safely punt / not give up the fast-break rather than risk giving any easy points to the opponent), coupled with a philosophy of defense that would look to capitalize on opponents’ aggression on offence and force them into mistakes. The very heart of poker is on the defensive side of the ball – making less mistakes is the goal, not more brilliant plays than your opponent, contrary to what people want to believe about poker and sports.

Kramnik fits right in line with this type of “Mike Shanahan” approach to the game, knowing that he can win more games by simply having less mistakes on offence than his over-anxious, “wilder” opponent. When facing a Topalov or a Kasparov, this counter-strategy is extremely smart, since you are only playing their game if you enter the free-for-all offensive style.

To now somehow say that Kramnik should not get ‘credit’ for his victories either though his strategy was exactly to “create turnovers” while avoiding his own turnovers at all cost is just being blind, period. It is the poorly informed spectator that only concentrates on the offensive side of the game when the defensive side and strategy can be equally (if not more, judging by recent results in other sports) important in determining the better competitor.

Commentators may say that Topalov had more novelties and played more dynamic chess, but with these innovations and dynamics is the burden of proof that these provide more ways to win than to lose. Maybe the ‘scoreboard’ (Fritz) said that Topalov was winning during some points in the first few games, but a highly tactical style is inherently prone to the ‘big turnover’ (blunders), so when it happens you cannot just discount it as an outlier result, but rather must incorporate its chances of happening into calculating whether or not Topalov is a better player. So what if Fritz says that Topalov should have won if he found an exact line of play – that is the difficulty of a high variance offense of walking the tight-rope without a single slip. Kramnik bet that Topalov would slip more often than he would navigate that rope. It is not the score at halftime that matters, but at the end of the game.

“Slow and Steady Wins the Race” is not only a legitimate strategy in chess, but is indeed a very clever one when facing a high-variance offense over many games that a match structure provides.

Now back to trying to get my money out of all the online poker sites listed on the London Stock Exchange and crying.

Well done Stern!

Agree, Stern!

As much as we all appreciate dynamic play and occasional heroics, there is beauty and wisdom in careful defense. That's how most people act I guess - strive for greatness, but keep your feet on the ground.

Stern,

Enjoyed reading your post, especially the analogies. Thanks.

According my database
Kamnik vs Kasparov +21=80-22
Kramnik vs Anand +13=85-18
Kramnik vs Topalov +21=37-9

for a total of Minus 6. against the first two

rdh Kramnik should have no guarantee of a rematch if he doesn't win Mexico. What about Topalov, if he's excluded from the field? Leko, whom Kramnik did not defeat but wouldn't give a rematch to? Kasparov whom Kramnik would not give the expected rematch? Shirov who beat Kramnik?

Kramnik just won his first FIDE World Championship. That puts him equal to Kasimzhdanov, Ponomariov, etc. in that regard. I am not saying that anyone will forget his match win against Kasparov, and he can claim the "Classical" championship from that. But he's got to start putting together his FIDE string now.

Topalov and Kasparov (defeated champion's rematch), Leko (tied championship match) and Shirov (beat Kramnik, unjustly denied title shot) are all still around and each has some special claim to challenge Kramnik for his FIDE title, in my opinion. At any rate, he'll have good competition in Mexico next year.

Another recent example - two actually - from the world of football (real football, ie soccer :P) are the two winners of recent large championships.

Greece won the European championships 2004 after beating world-class opposition (France, Portugal). Their quarter-final, semi-final AND final scores were 1-0 (in all three matches). No goals conceded = win the cup! And they did deserve it then, even though they played really boring, closely organised football.

The last WC football, same story. Italy conceded a total of two goals in the entire championships. One from an own goal, one from a penalty.

Defending is a more important part of many sports than most people care to realise.

Any words from the press conference? Misha Salinov, where are you?

It's relatively well known that Kramnik claimed to have been inspired by the Czech hockey team for his defensive strategy against Kasparov. From a New In Chess interview immediately after the match:

"When did you decide on this generally defensive strategy?"

"I follow ice hockey a bit, and the Czech national team has been winning everything the last couple of years. The Olympics, championships, everything. But they never score more than two goals. Which is not normal for ice hockey. They always win 2-0, 1-0 or 2-1, all the time. They don't show any brilliancy but they win all the events. The Russians may win their other matches 8-1 or 10-2 but they will lose 0-1 against the Czechs in the final. Then nobody cares any longer how much the Russians scored in previous matches because in the decisive match they are helpless. The Czechs have a very solid defence. In fact there are some parallels with chess. They have a brilliant goalkeeper. In chess this is the last barrier, when you are on an edge of losing, but you sense very well where exactly this edge is. And then you go on the counterattack. Their strategy is so clear. They have been doing this for two or three years and nobody can do anything. This idea occurred to me when they won another championship in May and I had already signed the contract to play Garry, I thought, okay, it's a different game but the approach is very interesting. And that's how I chose this defensive approach. You need to be sure that you will be strong enough to hold. If you are not sure that you can hold worse positions, this approach makes no sense. I had been defending all these Petroffs, which I hated, but it proved very useful. It's no accident that I lost so rarely, because I got really aware of this final edge."

I do not think there is any prospect at all of Kramnik playing in Mexico and putting his title on the line in a tournament. This is not how he has won or defended the world title over these past 6 years and it is not how he is going to lose it. It is surpising that anyone seriously thinks he would. The prospect of FIDE "stripping" him of his title would ,I imagine, be of no concern. Even if this occurs there will be money for a match involving Kramnik so it will not make much difference.

As for Toppys blunders they arose becuase of the position Kramnik put him in - no other chess player is capable of putting Topalov in these situations which is why I believe he would have beaten anyone else. So I think its artificail to regard the Toppys mistakes in isolation as if he was a computer that had a temporary power failure because of the weather. Moreover putting the mistakes together as "horrendous blunders" is over simplifying. Each move had its own context and was quite different. For example the first game Toppy lost he missed a move that neither player saw - although Toppy saw the drawing line that Kram missed. In his 2nd loss I think he was stunned by Kramniks resistence and one move in particular - he had perhaps one drawing resource and blanked. His 3rd loss he was under pressure and perhaps fell victim to his strategy of keeping Kram at the table. So its not really 3 mad blunders gave 3 Kram victories. In each case Krams play was a key factor in creating the situation.

Heaven forfend that Kramnik should defend his title in a tournament!
A disgusting idea.

Congratulations, David Quinn. Your notion that Kramnik 'refused Leko a rematch' represents a new bitch about him, one which I have not previously heard even from Hungarians. This is a milestone.

But are you not missing something? My computer gives the final Rxb7+ instantly. This move is not easy for a human to see, as we can see from the fact Topalov missed it. It seems pretty clear to me that this move must have been signalled to Kramnik.

I bet you're still telling your mates about that ....Bc5-b4. 'There was this bloke on the internet who claimed it was to force the trade of knights, said he was 2400 but he bet he wasn't. Posted some link to notes he said were by Svidler but they weren't signed - anyway Svidler's another Russki - still looks like a computer move to me......'.

thank you, Mig, for the great job you did here.

Congratulations to Kramnik! The tiebreaks really don't mean anythign to me (other than to say no point in playing game 5 now) but I'm glad this is settled to everyones satisfaction.

As far as who played the better chess I really have no business saying one way or another. (althoguh that doesn't stop me)

But I am curious from opinions from those who are more in the know. Obviously strong players who looked at this with a computer would be able to give some good input.

The horrendous double blunders of game 2 overshadow the rest of the game. But after the double blunder of game 2 didn't Topalov still have an advantage?

Didn't that advantage slowly crumble away and lead to an advantage to black as Kramnik outplayed Topalov? Yes there were key moves missed by Topalov like Qh5 and a few other ways later to perhaps save the game but is it fair to say not playing them were blunders? Would missing moves like Qh5 and perhaps other chances to save the game not occur in typical WC match games? No they did not play perfect chess but now that we all have 2800 pcs is every imperfection a blunder?

Also, yes Krmanik seemed on the defense allot but he also had black for 6 of the 11 games.

I can't judge this other than by what the computer tells me but it seems like Kramnik impoved his position relative to Topalov over a series of say 10 moves as often as Topalov did the same.

I guess opinions on this are really just too subjective.

I dont think its a disgusting idea I just think it wont happen. How about this which world chess champion having won their title in a match defended it in a tournament? Ok I've got it - none of them. Or try this does anyone imagine Kasparov would have agreed to defend his title in a tournament? Yep I can answer that too - no. If you dont have the world title then I suppose a tournament seems fine it seems obvious that when you have won it by playing one or more tough matches you feel differently.

rdh you said it not me about Rxb7+ . Someone (you?) gave a good explanation of Bc5-b4-c5, thanks for that and once I understood it I stopped asking. Nobody has yet explained the mysterious rook moves 22-25 in game 12 which I asked about right after the game, but it's only been a day. Please watch your language by the way, aren't you even happy today?

The FIDE title is what Kramnik won today. That title is going to be contested again in a tournament in 2007 and as a free man it's Kramnik's decision whether to compete there.

Kramnik plays very similar style to the Italian soccer. Many hate them for that, but I find them fascinating -- they can defend and they can score too (particularly when needed).

Topalov needs more balance in my opinion. There's no point to pretend to be Zoro all the time. I think he will learn from that experience, particularly after getting humbled by someone who didn't crack under his bravado.

Kramnik, I think defined his image in this match as more than a closet character -- this was the impression I got from peeking into various forums before the game.

Anyway, so long, until it gets interesting again. At least we pulled the old dusty chess set out of the closet and my son is hooked...

D.

It seems the notion of winning the WC title through a tournament has become acceptable. Think back to 1993, no one could have imagined having anytype of tournament choose the WC. It just didn't make sense.

Unfortunately all these FIDE knock-out events have watered down the meaning of the title and somehow made it seem like an acceptable means of determining the world champion. But it isn't.

If Kramnik has to break away from FIDE again, so be it.

Azmai and Makropoulos were responsible for screwing over Kramnik. Once Kirsan got back to Elista he did his best to pick up the pieces. (Replaced the appeals committee, tried to negotiate a 14 or 16-game match, and evidently stuck a sock in Danailov's piehole.)

Chess' long-time problem was that Kasparov and Kirsan didn't need each other to accomplish their individual objectives.

But Kramnik's life would be easier under a Kok-lead WCC structure. And Kirsan is likely tired of the managing the chessmess and might take pride in putting chess back on a reliable footing.

Kirsan will work out a compromise to keep Kramnik on the ranch.

Well put, Stern. You are looking at the whole picture. Andy's comments about blunders help explain what I'm getting at.

"I think you misunderstand what people are saying. It's simply a fact that his wins were achieved primarily through through his opponent's rather severe blunders."

I look at it from both sides. Why not say Topalov's blunders were achieved primarily as a result of Kramnik's moves? The moves are not made in isolation one from the other, the gestalt of the situation produces whatever happens. I'm not saying kramniks moves were so amazing they forced Topalov's blunders just that calling Topalov's mistakes more of a factor than Kramnik's moves that preceded and followed is to impose a bias. There's the whole match situation and what happens within that. this includes the players styles and whether or not they execute well. Stern presented it well:

"a highly tactical style is inherently prone to the ‘big turnover’ (blunders), so when it happens you cannot just discount it as an outlier result, but rather must incorporate its chances of happening into calculating whether or not Topalov is a better player."

It's not a matter of "would have, could have, should have." It's just a matter of being honest about how Kramnik's wins came about."

I think its a matter of seeing the whole situation and observing who came out better. By every measure in this match Kramnik was better. Ruslan points out all the other ways Kramnik's results support his claim to being better. The only way Topalov can prove otherwise is to beat him in a match.

I have no love for Kramnik whose style is not my favorite; I think I was rooting for Topalov as the match started. I was annoyed at the off the board tactics-especially as they suddenly arose when he was down by 2- but this is also part of all WC matches to some degree and I was impressed that Kramnik still prevailed as his stamina was supposed to be a weak point. I just don't think we should make excuses or somehow diminish his achievemet becasue of some weighting that implies your blunders don't mean you suck, only your good moves mean you're good.

Dimi my 5 year old now says "I like chess!". He didn't say that before the match.

Ruslan, Stern, thanks for those posts! :o)

I agree, Dimi. Topalov should learn from this, just like Kramnik did from losing to Shirov in 1998, and modulate his style. Although will he need to, if he thinks from now on the title will be won in super-tournaments, where it's all a matter of making a good score against Moro and Judit Polgar and the like?

nikeforkinmove: indeed. Kramnik didn't win game 2 because of a blunder. He won it because he played better.

DQ: sure I'm happy but I'm tired of you guys not giving Kramnik credit and saying dumb things. Knock it off for a week or so, why not?

Speaking of credit, Topalov fought very bravely in this match on the board, shared the credit for making it a magnificent fight and would have emerged with an awful lot of admiration and goodwill were it not for you-know-what. It would be fascinating to know what he really thinks when he gets home in a week's time, sits down and really thinks about it. I suspect the answer is - nothing at all; his manager did great, everything was great, and if only he'd not played that 24...f6 everything would have been fine. I have the impression he's surrounded by enough sycophants, and spends enough time talking to children and having people think he's wonderful, that he has no real need to care what the world thinks of him at all.

rdh I did give Kramnik credit, said he's a brilliant player and the FIDE champion, that he won according to the rules. What more would you want, please be specific.

We agree that we just saw a great match between two great opponents.

I think Topalov has little support and no infrastructure behind him. I don't even detect any support from the Bulgarian government. Kramnik has more support than that. Sycophants? Please tell me what you're referring to, I don't understand. If the public likes him, well there's nothing wrong with that, either for him or for the sport of chess.

"Why not say Topalov's blunders were achieved primarily as a result of Kramnik's moves?"

lol surely this comes right out of (WC)C Krapniks own private toilet...

I congratulate Kramnik for winning this match. Thanks to Garry Kasparov, Kramnik has achieved a great status in the chess world. Why thanks to Kasparov? Because he proposed him the opportunity to play a match he didn't earn in his own right. He won it and now there is no legitimate way to put him down of the throne he has successfully defended.

Think in this situation -apologies for its inaccuracy- Suppose all of a sudden, a boss decided to give to some person the chance to be the CEO of the company he owns; maybe he didn't showed to be the most capable employee, but he was certainly one of the best, the boss appreciate his qualities and he was lucky enough that the circunstances were favourable in a specific moment. Others are skeptical and believe they deserve the position more than him, but he manage to hold it. They try to show in a direct confrontation they are better, but they can't and of course, as a new leader:

- He is getting some experience and knowledge the others lack for being in the new position
- After being in this position, he would be afraid of participating in any open competition of merits that involve a big group and he would reject any offer to do that.

Of course, to be able to do that, he certainly needs understanding, equilibruim and coldness to hold the most ferocious attacks; his strength would be to take advantage of the necessity others have to reach the top... Kramnik has shown these qualities.

He might not be the #1 rated player in the world, but he was lucky enough to shine in the precise moment six years ago; sounds unfair to others, but I guess a essential key of success in life consist of taking advantage of chances you got. Kramnik has done that in chess.

My only wish is that given the circunstances he got his position, he might try to give something back to chess. What? A sense of coherence as a leader, coherence that has been missing a long time ago. How? By not using his title for his own self indulgence and think in the chess world instead.

What I criticize about Topalov's team was his lack of equilibruim (consistent with the playing style and the human being) and lack of experience and how they consider the title important enough than their own reputation. I hope they will recover and get a second chance. Kramnik in the past was not the best leader (delayed rematch against Kasparov until it was virtually impossible to do that), but this experience today and the way he won might give him insight.

Chess is an extremely aggresive sport, unfortunately associated with many stereotypes. He see that in the posts here and not even the managers and promoters can control their behavior.

Imagine when you won a title, of course, people is trying to reach the top and became sometimes dominated by their own insecurities: Kasparov claims on how Kramnik didn't defend his title against him are like the typical fight: "You need to fight against me, now ... or maybe you are a chicken? Chicken, chicken ... I am better than you, I know you don't want to fight because you are afraid, bla bla bla" . So, in such a world, if nobody is really dominant in the sport, I would root for the players that bring a sense of equilibruim, that are able to slow down the pace, even at the cost of not caring too much in other's provocations. Kramnik is one of these players (Anand might be other).

Congrats to him.

Superb posts on this column!

Today the world's best match player finally defeated the world's best (active) tournament player.

Even though Topalov's style is considerably more exciting to watch from the vantage of a club player, I am grateful that Kramnik won the Unified title, regardless of the Game 5 stain on Topalov's character reputation.

I took Kasparov's side in 1993, believing the true world champion had more authority over his playing conditions than FIDE would permit him. With no sympathy for FIDE's political scheming, I developed a true disdain for the petty powerbrokers at FIDE, a disdain which carried over for the second-rate "world champions" that they paraded around like puppets.

Granted, each played a great tournament, and understood chess at a level I can never touch, but what an enormous gap between Khalifman, Kasimdzhanov and Kasparov. I felt embarrassed for FIDE and embarrassed for my favorite sport.

When Anand won the FIDE title I finally felt compelled to validate the title; not that Anand was better than Kasparov, but because he was the first FIDE champion who was arguably equal to Kasparov at the time -- and a dignified and likeable human being as well. When Topalov won last year, and then became rated #1 in the world, the FIDE title finally held some real weight in my opinion and that of many others (most notably Kasparov).

If Topalov had won this match, it would have validated the entire FIDE championship lineage, including the players who were clearly nowhere near Kasparov while Kasparov was active. What was at stake here was the FIDE lineage vs. the Classical lineage, and the Classical lineage prevailed. In support of the great tradition of one-on-one matches for the world title, I have favored Kramnik since before the match.

It is my sincere hope that Kramnik does not participate in Mexico City tounament because that would mean capitulating to FIDE and abandoning the classical tradition. Let it serve as a "candidates" tournament that determines Kramnik's next opponent.

Annuntio vobis gaudium magnum:
Habemus Papam!
Eminentissimum ac reverendissimum Dominum,
Dominum VLADIMIR
Caissa Cardinalem KRAMNIK,
Qui sibi nomen imposuit WORLD CHESS CHAMPION XIV

meant to say:

Anand was arguably equal to Kasparov ***and/or Kramnik*** in 2000 when he won the FIDE title...

First, the obligatory congrats and thanks - to Kramnik and to Mig and Susan Polgar's blogs, without whom I wouldn't be able to follow the match because of that horrendously slow Chessbase server. I just may sign up the Ninja newsletter.

Second, any thanks Kramnik should provide to Kasparov were probably delivered in 2000 when he offered Vlad the chance to play after Shirov couldn't close the deal and Anand had conflicts. I'm not sure Garry thanked him after the match is over.

Finally, this may be off the mark for most of the posters here, but I find Kramnik's play inspiring (yes, I do). Defensive play is an art, but it's not only about protection - I find him more of a counterpuncher: waiting for weaknesses and opportunity and then striking when the opponent over-extends himself.

As Dan Heisman said (yes, I'm a patzer), when you get an advantage, think defense first (Pernell Whitaker for you boxing fans)! For Kramnik, I think he does the reverse: play defensively and then press for an advantage at the first sign of an opening. With Topalov's go-for-it style of sacs and constant pressing forward, while exiting for the viewers, this was tailor-made for Vlad.

To me, to consistently draw with Black and draw/win with White means you will win and I don't see anything wrong with that and is the perfect strategy in a match knowing you'll get alternating White and Black. Given that he was screwed out of a White on Game 5 and had to play 3 consecutive Blacks starting with Game 6, it makes his victory even more impressive.

I think there's a lot to learn from Kramnik's play: make no wild sacs, make no bad moves and when your opponent shows a weakness, jump on it and step on his throat. We can't all be Tal, Kasparov or Topalov; Kramnik's style might be easier to follow/learn for the majority of us!

Kramnik has nothing to prove by playing in tourney in Mexico. He united the title in a Match, he should only be able to lose it (or put it on the line) in a match.

Should he worry about an 8-man tourney in Mexico when they haven't even set the Candidates Matches yet? The only way that 8-man tourney means anything is if the winner meets Kramnik in match for all the marbles. I do think that Topalov should be in tha final 8. In the old format of Candidates matches, wasn't the PREVIOUS World Champion already seeded into the Candidates matches?

Sandorchess, I believe you're rather unfair to Kramnik in your previous post. Except for Shirov, who really got screwed by the whole cancelled-match unfair, which other player in the world in 2000 was more worthy than Kramnik to face Kasparov in a title contest ? Only Anand had a tournament record the equal of Kramnik's at that point, and he had already gotten his chance before while showing no interest in taking up Kasparov's offer to play in 2000. So, who was left ? Topalov, Kamsky, Moro, Ivanchuk, Svidler, Leko ? All of them combined couldn't match Kramnik's victories in super-tournaments up to that point. It's not as if he was somehow produced by Kasparov out of nothing, and besides Shirov I can't recall any other contender voicing displeasure with Kasparov's selection of a challenger. So, your comparison to an office situation where 'an employee who hadn't proven his superiority over his coworkers got the promotion ' is completely mistaken.

But I agree that Kramnik owed both Garry and all chess fans a rematch.

Dear Vladimir Kramnik,

Congratulations !!! You set good standards despite lot of odds against you and came out a winner. Keep up the good work!

Dear Topalov,

Please accept this defeat with dignity and make amendments in your team to get the worldwide recognition you deserve. People do make mistakes at times. I want you to try hard next time.

Kris Knight

It's too bad that many of today's players (and blogposters) weren't yet around during the "golden age" of Zonals, Interzonals, and Candidates Matches. They were fantastic. The winner (who thereby became the official challenger against the world champion) had to have survived the toughest tournaments and the toughest matches.

I say: bring back the Interzonals and Candidates Matches!

Congrats to Kramnik for being the WC Champion.

Congrats to Topalov for sticking to playing attacking chess.

Congrats to Danailov for making this event more interesting.

Thanks to Mig for this great forum.

"congrats to danailov for making this event even more interesting".

Was it humor?

Silvio Danailov is so quiet all of a sudden

Write to Kramnik or Topalov through Chessbase:

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3424

ComputoJon,

I remember those days, and that was when 4 years separated title defenses, wasn't it? I remember Fischer buzzing through Taimanov, Larsen, then Petrosian, winning an unbelievable 13 games IN A ROW! Think about that for just a minute and put it in perspective...

Write to Kramnik or Topalov through Chessbase:

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3424

ComputoJon,

I remember those days, and that was when 4 years separated title defenses, wasn't it? I remember Fischer buzzing through Taimanov, Larsen, then Petrosian, winning an unbelievable 13 games IN A ROW! Think about that for just a minute and put it in perspective...

http://chess-training.blogspot.com

"congrats to topalov for sticking to playing attacking chess".

Again, was it humor? I mean... can a player who chooses to play the slav with black pieces, and who accepts to play against the slav with white, can this player still be considered being "sticking to playing attacking chess" ??

Attacking players play e4 !!! What? What did I hear? Petroff? Berlin defense? No way : e4 e5, and now true attacking players play f4.

Topalov played his style in the first two games. 2-0. After such a sudden pain in the a_s, his chess was almost as quiet as Kramnik's...

Topalov first played the catalan, and was totally outplayed. Did he gave a shot to the nimzo indian, queen's indian, king's indian? Did he choosed an unbalanced structure? Nope. The slav. Probably the most boring opening variation available on a chessboard.

So please. To all those who keep saying that Topalov was playing better, just think about it : this world championship match ended up in a theoretical debate on the slav. Isn't it enough significative of how far Topalov was outplayed by Kramnik?

To all those who still believe that Topalov was the best player :

When Kramnik plays d4,
1) he totally demolished Kasparov's king indian systems.
2) he outplayed nearly everybody (including Topalov) on the catalan.
3) his results against the nimzo and the queen's indian are impressive.
Even Topalov "the great" had to switch to the slav in order to try to resist.

With the black pieces, Kramnik ALONE picked up a minor variation (the berlin defense) and transformed it into a weapon that annihilated Kasparov's e4 and eventually convinced Topalov that playing e4 against him was useless.

I still have difficulties to understand how a guy, who has lost 5 to 6, can be considered the best chess player. Topalov's overall score against Kramnik before the match was negative. It just got worse today.

Ruslan, as you point out, all the evidence is on Kramnik's side. He won the match. But I wonder how it might have gone if the match had been 24 games. Maybe Topalov would have settled down and stopped blundering. Maybe not.

Anyway, they should play more games. Give the players a chance to comeback after blowing a few games.

Peace...

Ruslan, stop saying this foolishness about which opening moves indicate aggressive play; they sound, in regard to chess, quite uneducated. Very many players who are known for sharp play prefer 1. d4, so your contention has no empirical merit. And please, to suggest that Topalov should have played King's Gambit against Kramnik in the name of fighting is just outrageous.

Hotep,

Maliq

Hey, I was WC for a while so HARD CHEESE to you!

Go Ruslan!

The over-the-board result was 6-5 in Kramnik's favor, but sometimes the score doesn't tell the whole story.

In the 1960 World Series the Pirates beat the Yankees four games to three.
--Pirate victories: 6-4, 3-2, 5-2, 10-9.
--Yankee victories: 16-3, 10-0, 12-0.
If they were to play seven more games, who would you have bet on?

In London2000, Kramnik won Game 2 and missed wins in Games 4 and 6. Kasparov thenceforth played with extreme caution, but nonetheless lost Game 10 and the match. If there had been an immediate 16-game rematch, who should you have bet on?

In Elista2006, the case for Topalov comes down to "what if he hadn't blundered so many times?"

The case for 6-5 over-the-board winner Kramnik centers around "what if Game 5 hadn't been forfeited against him?" (For this discussion it doesn't matter who was to blame for the forfeit.)

Kramnik's strategy in London, and, perhaps, in Elista, was to go for a two-point lead, then avoid risk.
--In Elista, leading 2-0 going into Game 3, Kramnik passed up 32. exd5, giving him two central passed pawns and strong winning chances, preferring to play it safe.
--But after the Game 5 forfeit, leading only 2-1 going into Game 8, and finally getting the white pieces after having survived three straight blacks, Kramnik embarked on the risky, dubious, two-knights-for-a-rook swap and lost, evening the match.

"What if" Game 5 hadn't been forfeited? Others have commented on the disadvantages involved in fighting Danailov's charges, playing three straight blacks; playing only five whites to your opponent's six.

But it's also arguable that but for the forfeit, Kramnik continues to "play safe" in Game 8 and succeeding games, and preserves his 2-point edge or, if Topalov plays too speculatively, increases it.

Hey, this is the top news story on the English and German Wikipedias:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauptseite

Right on top on two of the most visited websites in the world...very nice.

Daniel, right on! What's more amazing is that on the FIDE site, they don't even have the results on the front page! It just has the "tiebreaks today" note and links to the official site and the Chessbase site.

Furthermore, the official site's terse

"Vladimir Kramnik of Russia has won Veselin Topalov of Bulgaria in tie break games with the score 2.5 to 1.5. The total score of the Match is Vladimir Kramnik (8.5), Veselin Topalov (7.5)"

and "read more" link to nothing says more about the "official" site's bias against Kramnik than anything. The following lead story about Gennady Namsinov's description of how the playing site's conditions were accoring the regulation is amazing.

But I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

The match that just concluded was a UNIFICATION match i.e. the titles FIDE World Champion and Classical World Champion have been united back to what it was before 1993: World Chess Champion. World Chess Champion defends his title in a match against a challenger preferably found through a valid candidates system.

There is no more FIDE title to be 'defended' in a silly 'WC-tournament' in Mexico 2007. If FIDE demands that Kramnik paricipates in a WC-tournament in Mexico and Kramnik refuses I guess FIDE can say that Kramnik is breaking away like Kasparov did in 1993. But is this in the best interests of FIDE? I do not think so. I think in the in the interests of FIDE is to have a strong World Champion who is with FIDE. If FIDE accomodates Kramnik (maybe restores old candidates system...or changes Mexico 2007 into a candidates event) in the matter of title defense in match I think FIDE and the champion will be happy. The rest of the players will be happy as well... at least after this chaotic 'cycle'... And the audience would love it: qualifiers (zonals?, interzonal?), candidates tournament and the ultimate match - could it get much better than that!!?

Ruslan

2.5 out of 4 was for the fun of it, you've guessed 1.5(!), which one is the other one?

"Only Anand had a tournament record the equal of Kramnik's at that point, and he had already gotten his chance before while showing no interest in taking up Kasparov's offer to play in 2000"

Definitly wrong. This myth is propagated again and again that but that does not make it more true.

Anand has so little interest for a WC, he WAS SCHEDULED a match with Kasparov in 1999. Imagine that. Which failed as most Kasparov matches. After that Anand demanded warranties (remember Shirov?), and was thrown away in favor of Kramnik - who shamelessly accepted. Kramnik was ready to play in worst unwarranted conditions since after all he had lost the qualifier match to Shirov, and this was a golden opportunity to leapfrog Anand - off the board without playing a move.

Congratulations to Kramnik for his title, congratulations for the classic chess!

Topalov / Danailov got their chance for the title, and they messed it. Hopefully we will never see them again on this level!

Kramnik is clearly Win-On-Demand -player. He is much stronger than he appears to be. If required he can outplay almost anyone or, I hope, anything.

Kramnik interview: ‘Now I have to relax…’
http://www.worldchess2006.com/main.asp?id=1147

to all the kramnik haters shut up

Regarding Kramnik's role as challenger vs Kasparov in 2000: I agree that in a perfect world, the official challenger would have fought his(/her) way through the ranks, via tournaments (Interzonals) and Candidates Matches. Kramnik hadn't done that, e.g. his lost match to Shirov. But it is worth recalling that from Steinitz through Alekhine, and even later, the champions were able to (and did) accept challenges from any top player, not necessarily the #2 player at the time. Examples include Lasker-Janowski, Alekhine-Bogoljubow, and Topalov-Radjabov (which was scheduled to be played next year.)

I'm not arguing in favor of this method, but it is worth pointing out, because in my opinion it doesn't make sense to discount Kramnik's victory in 2000 by questioning the legitimacy of his role as the challenger.

All in all: Kramnik defeated the two best players on earth in two match: Kasparov in 2000 and Topalov in 2006!

That's a great achievment!

"Congratulations to Kramnik for his title, congratulations for the classic chess!

Topalov / Danailov got their chance for the title, and they messed it. Hopefully we will never see them again on this level!"

How idiotic is this? Over a span of about a year and a half, we saw some incredible tournament wins by Topalov. Any one who has a true appreciation for the game had to have been excited by the chess that was being played. Topalov's uncompromising style made the other GMs either play for wins or fight to defend inferior positions. Drawing after 15-20 moves with the White pieces would get you nowhere. Substitute Kramnik for Topalov in any of those tournaments and you can guarantee that the draw percentage would have increased markedly.

To be a Kramnik fan is OK, but this statement is ridiculous.

If nothing else, Topalov gave us a period after Kasparov's retirement that was full of tough "fighting" chess, and in spite of who you like, you have to give him credit for that. Personally, I would much rather prefer to have Topalov or someone like Morozevich or Shirov as World Champ. But as it stands, I have to give Kramnik his propers.

Thanks for keeping us updated and amused, Mig!

This message was originally posted by myself on the chess ninja message boards in International events under the heading: Kudos for Kramnik.

It occurred to me just a minute ago, if I were ever to meet D-Lov the need to give him one punch in the face might be too much. We're all talking about Lov this, Lov idiot that. In all sorts of media outlets there has coverage about toiletgate.

I tell you it makes me feel highly annoyed, you know what this match should be about. What mainstream media sources should be talking about? That just about a year ago Kramnik was playing chess like a corpse. Hell, he probably couldn't be moving a pawn wihtout some sort of pain. Here's a man who beat the most feared player in history, who himself has had a stellar career. Then his career was threatened by a life-time illness from which there's no true cure. This is nothing short of remarkable, and every press outlet that has published any one thing about toiletgate should force themselves to create another story about this heroic, yes heroic comeback to the board.

Despite rumours to the otherwise chess does take a large amount of energy and physical exertion when played at classical times on the big stage. These are the types of playing conditions that tend to aggravate any kind of illness. Yet, there he is playing well, and winnig the match. Like I stated originally, I'm very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, annoyed with this D-Lov fellow for not only be a tool but also for hogging the spotlight from the one true compelling humanitarian story in this match.

So if you want to give Vlad some kudos for this great comeback or even laud his sportsmanship during the match this is the thread to do so.

Way to go Vlad, you're playing great and you're an inspiration to all those who suffer from a similiar affliction.

I hope no one here forgets that Vlad was great upon the board this match, but even greater than most competitors in our lifetime,throughout the contintents in any game. I tell you now, don't forget such rare beauty as was displayed by my man. Kramnik has played for the WCC 3 times in six years. What modern player has played so much in the WCC?

Mostly I would also like to totally agree with Inky's comments, the only thing I would disagree with is this: Championship matches need to happen every other year and thusly the canidates cycle should be either quickened, shortened. Three years is just too slow, we need these premier matches every other year to keep the flow going.

As for Kamsky, hey he would be right up there with Vlad had he not quit. Good luck Gata, somehow, I hope you come all the way back, but the way will not be pleasant for you I'm sure, should you choose to reutrn.

>>I think some people did have Euwe as favourite for the second match against Alekhine (maybe even most).
>>

Reshevsky: "I have no opinion."
Capablanca: "I will not say a word."
Keres: "The last good move will win."
Eliskases: As an assistant to Dr. Alekhine, I have to use the greatest discretion."
Flohr: "No matter what the result, the chess world will gain in aesthetic values."

has anyone seen any reaction from Topalov or Danailov? Did they attend the press conference after the match?

Slightly off-topic, perhaps, but when is Mig's children's college fund ever off-topic?

I greatly appreciate the opportunity to flap my gums in here, but my membership in the KADL raises quasi-religious problems about donating to the Dirt Fund.

But what if the Dirt Fund was set up with a choice of options? 49% of the contribution always goes to Mig's children's education. But the other 51% goes as a gift from the Daily Dirt to one of various worthy causes. The donator would choose the particular fund:

--champagne for Kramnik
--an appropriate gift for the battling Topalov
--a gift for the greatest of all--Kasparov
--a gift for the greatest of all--Fischer
--a Sam Sloan/Mig grudge match prize fund

Kramnik, Topalov, Kasparov, Fischer, and Sam Sloan fan(s) would compete for which cause would be given the most money, and Mig's children would get 49% of it all.

I don't have a quote, but my understanding is that Reuben Fine thought that Euwe would win.

While on the subject of Euwe-Alekhine, the myth that Euwe was generous in granting Alekhine the rematch in 1937 dies hard. I heard with my own ears Euwe say in a radio interview in 1972 that a rematch clause was written into the contract for the 1935 match. Euwe was not being generous - he had no choice, as he himself said.

One more consideration in favour of keeping the match tradition alive:

=> it is much easier to change a tournament outcome by way of bribing than to change a match outcome by the same means

=> considering that FIDE is not above bribing to change an election outcome, proven beyond doubt or just apparent, there is a concrete probability of FIDE changing a tournament outcome by way of bribing to get a world champion submissive to FIDE

Peace...

I find it absurd that people are trying to claim that Topalov actually was the better player in this match, and that Kramnik won only as a result of Topa's blunders. Game 1 was a drawn position, and it was not a blunder that cost Topalov, but rather his stubbornness in trying to win a position that he had all right to be happy with a draw in. Game 2 will forever be remembered by many for Topalov missing mate in 3, and so they foolishly say "See, Kramnik won only because of a blunder!", but it was KRAMNIK who blundered first in order to allow that winning chance to exist! Would people say "Topalov only won because of Kramnik's blunder" if the game had gone to the Bulgarian? No, they would not, because people prefer to attribute the blunders of Topa's opponents to "the pressure that Topalov puts on them with his aggressive style". (Recall the recent game vs. Ponomariov.) Look, by every measure, Kramnik was superior to Topalov in this match. Topa, with white in 3 consecutive games and an extra point that he did nothing to earn, nevertheless could not defeat Kramnik; spotting the opponent an entire point plus an extra game with white, Kramnik nevertheless tied the classical match. In positions that looked dangerous, Topalov was not able to break through on most occasions. In positions that required technique and understanding, Kramnik played admirably, while Topalov was found to be lacking such good technique. In the rapid games, in which intuition plays a great role, Kramnik's feel for where pieces went was much stronger than Topalov's. There is NO argument left for Topalov being the better player -- Kramnik has dismissed such a claim in resounding fashion by essentially winning this match twice. Incidentally, the distance in rating, of which Topalov boasted during the time at which he was trying to avoid Kramnik, was reduced by the significant number of 30 points in this match, so maybe he will shut his mouth in that regard, as well.

Hotep,

Maliq

http://www.focus-fen.net/index.php?id=n97602

I have to say, Kramnik's win made my day, probably my week, and certainly my chess-year. I hope he has the strength to resist placing his title on the line in a lame tournament now. Champions are made with matches!

Quote Topalov (from the focus article above): "The rules are the same everywhere. It’s strange that Kramnik’s violation remained unseen but my manager Silvio Danailov will give you more details on the case”.

So Topalov/Danailov are still at it. I have a lot of respect for Topa as a chess player, but he seems to have lost all sense of reality and decency lately. Now would probably be a good time to not act like a sore loser (and to get rid of Danailov)

Topalov has fled the scene? It is a pity that we can't see his and Danailov's facial expressions at the closing ceremony.

It is amusing to see Kirsan's facial expression at Kramnik's first invertiew after his victory, I am looking forward to the photos of the closing ceremony.

I second Bb3's views about the compelling human-interest angle that the world news media missed in the just-concluded WCC match (or more precisely, as Bb3 points out, the angle was hidden from them by Danailov's goofball antics).

As a long-time newspaper reporter and editor I concur that the illness / downfall / recovery theme does indeed have enormous human-interest appeal when overlaid on any important current event -- especially any kind of sporting event. I believe the media would have run with that angle had it been pitched to them by someone officially associated with the match. That could have been a publicist for Kramnik, or a publicist for FIDE. Obviously the latter didn't happen, and I'm guessing that the former didn't either.

On the other, unless a news organ had some further, additional reason to cover the match (such as national pride, geopolitics, some minimal threshold of public interest in chess itself), then the fact that it was held in Elista might have outweighed the human-interest dimension -- resulting in no coverage until the trumped-up "scandal" broke.

Had it been played anywhere in western Europe, or even in Mexico or South America, substantial mainstream coverage from Day One would have been a given. And that coverage would most probably have emphasized the "Profiles in Courage" angle of a competitor triumphing over physical infirmities. (Those of you who were sickened by the Zapruder clip should love this analogy!) So, by the time Danailov launched his disinformation campaign, the media would already have "framed" the entire match story in a way that would have created for Kramnik a pre-existing well of goodwill among both the readership and the editors. As a result, even the coverage of "Toiletgate" that followed, would very likely have gone the opposite of the way it actually went (i.e., the media would have remained sympathetic to Kramnik, and would have made Topalov and his hatchetman/manager look like the cheaters, which we all know is far nearer to the reality.)

Had Topalov committed one or two blunders in this match while dominating all the games, an argument could be made that it came down to luck and Topalov is the more skilled player. Yet Kramnik largely dominated the games, defended excellently for many moves, most of the blunders came with Kramnik already in a better position. In such a situation you have to say that Kramnik is the better player.

gmnotyet,

>>The only classical games Kramnik won were due directly to Topalov's ??-blunders. >It is -highly- unlikely that Kramnik would have won San Luis or any other tournament by just winning games when his opponents ??s.
Now -matches-, that is a different story. There you can just sit back and do nothing, waiting for your opponent to self-destruct and give you free points. >If you think Kramnik is so strong that San Luis would have been a cakewalk, then surely Kramnik will not duck Mexico City, right? >And do you really think Kramnik would have scored +8 or +9 at San Luis when the only classical games he won here were the results of ??-moves?<<

*Shrug* Topalov had little luck pressuring Kramnik in these games and was unable to defend successfully himself. I have little doubt as to who the better chess player was. Throw in the huge psychological pressure and the extra white and Kramnik's achievement is even more impressive.

If you are in favour of the tournament in Mexico 2007 being a world championship here’s a scenario that might make you think otherwise.
Vladimir Malakhov (just to pick a random one of the “small guys” in the candidate matches) plays a couple of very good candidate matches and qualifies for Mexico 2007. Kramnik is also participating and according to FIDE rules his title is up for grabs (remember this is a hypothetical scenario – not a realistic one). Malakhov then plays the tournament of his life and ends up tied for first place with, say, Anand at +3. The mini-match between the 2 ended 1-1 (two draws), but the tiebreak rules (I don’t know which one they will use, but for arguments sake let’s just say most wins with black) ends up giving Malakhov the title.
Don’t get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for Malakhov. He plays chess at a level that I can only dream of, but he is not the strongest player in the world. It would be a great feat if he did win Mexico 2007 but would it make him the champion in the eyes of the chess world? Unless he followed it up with several wins in other super tournaments, I suspect he would be considered the FIDE joke champion, much akin to Kazimjanov, Ponomariov, etc.
The only reason that anyone gave any credence to the San Luis championship was because Topalov won it so clearly, and was the nr 1 ranked player. There was really no doubt that he was the strongest player at that time and thus it gave some legitimacy to the FIDE title. Had Michael Adams scraped home a tight tournament win, no one would have thought any higher of the San Luis title than any of the previous FIDE so-called “championships”. Again, I mean no disrespect to Michael Adams. he’s a great player, but not the best in the world.
To finish off I will give you a scenario that would make Vladimir Malakhov a legitimate champ. Take my whole Mexico 2007 scenario from above. Substitute Kramnik with Topalov and make it a candidate tournament. Again Malakhov wins on tie-break and earns the right to face Kramnik in a match. He then steps up his game big time, and produces one of the biggest upset in chess history by beating Kramnik by one game (in a well fought, fair match without any controversies). Now that would make the entire chess world consider him the true champion.

Not sure where how far back the Alekhine/Euwe stuff is. I think in the three tournaments where Euwe and Alekhine met between their matches, Euwe finished ahead of him in all three, beating him once. So my impression that Alekhine was the favorite was clearly wrong. There was no way to know Alekhine was going to come back to such strength, especially as it was something of a last gasp.

My Congratulation for Vladimir Kramnik.
He deserve this win all the way.
As for 8 player tournament in St Louis.
I really don't understand why Kramnik must play 8-player championship. Unless he wants to..
He should wait for the winner and play him/her
for World Championship title.

Also everybody should get used to chess being much more dynamical and more popular game today with 100 people playing the strength of 1960 time best player.This is mainly due to computer and chess development programs.

Chess community should start to recognize evenly
(with more respect) many various champions:
1) World Match Champion (Classical)
2) World Tournament Champion
3) World Rapid Champion (with 25min+10S)
4) Quick (15 min)
5) Blitz (5 min)

"It’s strange that Kramnik’s violation remained unseen but my manager Silvio Danailov will give you more details on the case"

Classy.

frankly spoken, isn't any chess move, allowing a decisive advantage or even a mate in 1,2,4,8 or 20 moves a BLUNDER?

analyzing e.g historical WCCh games you will find such "blunders" in each decisive game, won't you?

Neither, let's say Fischer, nor, let's say Lasker would have won any game of chess, if their opponents would not have "blundered" the equality of their own positions away ... EACH competitive GAME is decided by blunders, mishaps, mistakes ... i'm sure.

The man has no shame!

No Regrets, Says Defeated Chess King Topalov Back in Bulgaria

Bulgaria's chess king Vesselin Topalov, who lost the title of world's best chess grandmaster with a narrow defeat against Russia's Vladimir Kramnik, returned to Sofia Saturday afternoon.

"I have no regrets. I have nothing to be ashamed of," Topalov told journalists at the airport. "I am happy it's all over. The suspense I had to endure was too big to take."

"I had the upper hand during most of the time, but I missed many opportunities," Topalov admitted. He resolutely denied circulating rumours that he succumbed to the defeat for money.

Asked about the so-called loo scandal, Topalov just said the story is not over....

http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=71152

Bottomalov is so low that he could pass under a snake's stomach wearing a top hat.

Is Topalov going to disappoint the non-Bulgarian portion of his fan club who're holding their breathe waiting for him to voice regrets and fire his manager!?

Stay tuned!

Sirocco,

Nice link.

After enduring photos of Danailov's bizarre gleeful mug during the match, how sweet to view grim-faced Topalov beside grim-faced Danailov. The Bulgarian Bobsey Twins.

Who frowns last, frowns worst.

It would be nice if someone combined this nice picture of Topalov and his obnoxious manager frowning with another one where Topalov gleefully smiles after his cheap-victory in game five...Then the compilation could be e-mailed to Veselin...

Kramnik: "There are three controls in chess: classical, rapid and blitz. All three have the right to exist. They should supplement each other, like in tennis, where the games consist of three or five sets, depending on significance of the competition. I adhere to the opinion that the most important events must be held under classical time control; however, I am not against seeing many rapid tournaments. They are spectacular and attract the crowd. But classical chess must stay, at least for such matches. Classical chess has many supporters, and it is not out of place to say it has more than a century of history."

Classical World Champ: Kramnik
Rapid World Champ: Kramnik
Blitz World Champ: Grischuk

Kramnik should challenge Anand to unify the Rapid title

Kramnik should challenge Grischuk for the undisputed Blitz title

Now, THAT would attract sponsors, would it not?

For my part, such human-human matches would interest me far more than human-machine matches

Three points:

Topalov would do himself immeasurable good if he'd just be contrite, apologize for the scandals and hard feelings, and move on. Most people would then quickly forget about toiletgate and root for him again. (His manager is another story.) If Topalov continues to say snippy things toward the Kramnik camp he is going to continue to look like the bad guy.

Chess ain't dead yet. Out of the 15 games actually played, eight were decisive!

It's not entirely correct to say Kramnik won both matches (the regulation and the rapid). If the forfeit counts, the regular match was a draw, and if it isn't counted then the match is incomplete. Even if Kramnik had white in the unplayed game, you gotta play an even 12. Nevertheless, Kramnik won the whole shebang and we've got a great world champion and hopefully chess will be better off for it. Until FIDE wrecks in again.

Mig,

It might be a good idea for the Mexico tournament to use the glass wall between the spectators and the players which prevents the latter from seeing the former, as I understand they did in Elista. While, without specific evidence, I do not want to accuse Topalov of any form of cheating, it is still interesting how his blunder rate jumped up (and his overall level of play went down) in Elista compared to San Luis and other tournaments where he could see Danailov while playing.

On a separate note, I find Topalov's statement that the toilet scandal is not over simply disgusting. Doesn't the guy have some dignity to accept the fact that he lost?

Mig,

You know Topalov? What's your impression of him? Has Danailov changed him? Does he strike you as a sportsman or an opportunist schemere or both?

Who's going to come up with the million-dollar challenge to Kramnik?

Topalov.

Hi,
I saw a video of Topalov resigning in the final game of the match on Dutch TV. It's only a few seconds of chess but worth a look if you haven't seen it. I dont know if it's possible to watch it outside of Holland though. You should go to:

http://www.nos.nl/nosstudiosport/artikelen/2006/10/13/13102000kramnikwinnaarwktweekamp.html

and on the right there are two videos. The one on top 'De ontknoping van het WK schaken' is the video of the match. Enjoy!

Come on you Kramnik sycophants, you think Topalov won't let go:

– Vladimir, after you won on the board, will you continue the duel in Arbitration Court in Lausanne?
– Let us not talk about sad things. I’d rather enjoy the moment of triumph and tell more about the games I won! I am not thinking about future right now, except for the match against the computer. I was so concentrated on the WCC match that I am not going to start making plans any soon. Today I have to relax and drink with my team and people who supported me in Elista. And only then we’ll start thinking…

The world champion throne is still vacant in my opinion. There is no champion after 1995. The unification has only brought the players under one umbrella. We will have a new World Champion if top players including Anand, Kramnik and Topalov participates in qualification tournament on a equal level and the top 2 or top 4 ends up playing match(s) against each other.

It's hard to resist horrible puns like "Who says Kramnik has a weak bladder, maybe he as choking the bishop?"

Lovely link, Njitski! Lovely moving pictures from the match! Possible to watch even outside Holland.

Posters here seem to exaggerate facial expressions in the light of their own prepossessions.

Topalov and his manager aren't "frowning" - they even have half-smiles, which is more than can be expected under the circumstances.

Danailov was definitely grinning, but Topalov didn't "gleefully smile" after game 5 (http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3377) - it's almost imperceptible.

indeed, get your vision checked if you can't see what 99.9% see

The latest outpouring of Topalov in Sofia may be an indication that he is still being brainwashed by a fear-of-losing-the-job Danailov.

Otherwise, Topalov may distance himself from Danailov who then has no (immediate) alternative source of income and a damaged reputation which needs a long long time to repair.

If Toppy keeps saying these nutty things it is just going to make things worse for himself. I do not think this is the professional way to carry on. Learn some lessons improve come back win next time I believe thats the attitude . All these dark hints about Kram rule breaking is looking a bit bonkers. I do not understand it he is still the highest rated player won $500,000 USD just needs to draw the right conclusions and get back to chess perhaps a bit of immaturity here. I hope he settles down.

Don't know about a million but I will give five dollars for another Kramnik-Topalov (just no toilet wars this time, please). Now I need to find 199,999 other people to agree with me. What was that traffic again?

What 99.9% of Kramnik lackeys see - big difference.

All of the negative talk about Kramnik's 'style' is truly missing out on something great. Defense Wins. This simple fact is the whole reason Kramnik plays the way he does. He does not play to impress or show off but rather to win. Is that not the goal?? Many amateur players don't appreciate the depth of strategy and understanding here. It seems similar to Petrosian's lack of popularity in his day. But if you look at Petrosian's game's now, not only do you see ahead of its time prophylactic play but also many brilliant attacks. Smyslov's play was characterized as overly positional yet his games are full of sparkling combinations. The point is, Kramnik plays the way he does by choice. Why? Because it wins. So for all of you who don't see the beauty in Kamnik's play, I humbly suggest that your range of appreciation needs to grow rather than Kramnik's style needs to change.

I have to admit, I learnt to appreciate Kramnik's style during this match.
Watching the games real time instead of just playing over the games after the event gave some sort of plus which deepened my understanding a bit.

That's great to hear, Linux fan. I believe a deeper understanding is the best thing to hope for out of a WC match. And Kramnik's style is probably more suited to the chess student in the manner of Botvinnik, Karpov, Petrosian etc. A great and instructive world champion. Perhaps Kasparov should focus his energies on the next logical tome in the series, My Great Successor.

Some of this Kramnik style adulation makes me want to puke my guts out. Topalov had far more to do with making the games interesting than Kramnik. It was Topalov (for example) that rejected a draw in game 1 a pawn down, to continue and press White's position. I can't imagine Kramnik or Leko having the nerve for that. Yea, he lost that game and others are saying he should have taken the draw. bah! humbug!

In the end, it was Topalov that blew up on and off the board though. Those first two games should have practically sealed his fate in a 12 (err.. 11) game match.

If we're swapping videos, here are a couple of interesting ones:

(1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va9Hxr7bfEk
This seems to be a report (in Russian?) about the match. Shows Kramnik winning (although with a little cut: you don't get to see Kramnik play Rb7+ or the look on Topalov's face at exactly that moment); also shows the infamous toilet and rest area.

(2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEcIFtLIYi0
Shows Grischuk and Kramnik analyzing after a game. Since we were talking about chess geniuses recently, I find this fascinating. I have no idea what they're saying -- but it doesn't really matter!

Lwolf has no idea what he is talking about. Chilirat obviously knows a thing or 2 about chess

Theorist--

Cool stuff! Thanks!

I was interested in the comment that Kamsky is the only one who could beat Kramnik in a match. It's true that Kamsky did this years ago, but Kramnik was a much less mature player back then. I would love to root for Kamsky, but since he returned to the game, his actual tournament results don't suggest that he's a top-10 player yet.

The ideal outcome now is that Kramnik boycotts Mexico, and the next WC is decided by a long match featuring the Mexico winner vs. Kramnik. I can only hope FIDE sees that worldwide interest in this match far exceeded anything that a double-RR tournament can generate.

Lastly, it doesn't bother me at all that the outcome was decided in rapids. There needs to be a way to resolve ties, and no one has suggested a better way.

Marc,

A DD poster did suggest a better way.

A single armageddon tie-break game at classical time controls. White must win. The players "bid" for the black pieces. The player willing to accept the fewest minutes on his clock with black gets to play black.

Thanks for the video links. Fascinating.

Marc, we no longer need a way to resolve ties. The Champion retains his title if the score is equal at the end of the match.
I see no need to break with tradition.
Elista was different, because it supposedly involved *two* world champions.

Is the closing ceremony really that meagre as the photos on the FIDE site suggest? Or is it to still catch Topalov in a hurry to leave? Hope chessbase will have more photos from Ali and others

I just read the Focus quote from Topalov when he got off the plane, and I can't believe he can be SUCH an idiot...He is just clueless and continues to blame Kramnik when he should be apologizing for his abhorrent behavior and that of Danailov. What a SCUMBAG.

http://www.focus-fen.net/index.php?id=n97602

Also, Chessmetrics is utter crap, imo. Comparing different generations is stupid and Sontas' methods do not incorporate that the game itself has evolved and become stronger overall. You just need to look at the actual games to get a sense of this. Morphy was great, but he played utter weakies, so what good is comparing him to players today? There is no way his chess was that of a 2716 (his ChessMetrics rating) player today...He could have been that strong had he been born today since he had the talent no doubt, but with what they knew about chess then, not a chance he would fare well against today's 2700's with the knowledge he had at the time. UTTER CRAP "SCIENCE".

Hey!! Check out my new website: www.Danailov-Before-and-After.com

I agree wholeheartedly with KCotreau regarding the chessmetrics thing.

KCotreau--Jeff Sonas has probably put a tad more thought and effort into this area that you have. Listen to the dude and keep an open mind.

To KCotreau and conical flask

Your opinion is obviously more important than Fischer's opinion. He actually believed that all Morphy would have to do would be to study a bit of theory and he could have beaten anyone in his times.

I guess that would make him a player worth a bit more than 2716. So Jeff is actually under-rating him. In Morphy's match with Paulsen, Morphy actually lost a game because his opponent would play about 10 times slower. There was no such thing as winning on time back then. If that were the case, Morphy's domination of his contemporaries would have been even greater.

So if your rating is anything over 2000, just study Morphy's games and you will come to the same conclusion Steinitz, Lasker, Alekhine and Fischer came to.

In statistics, we call Morphy an outlier :)

Clubfoot,

Wouldn't the next logical volume be not "My Great Successor", but rather "I am Great"?

By the way, Kramnik managed to win/defend the title 3 times, vs. Kasparov, Leko, and Topalov. And he had naver lost the title yet!
How many champions managed to achieve the same result? Nobody, IMHO, except Kasparov (assuming Kramnik will lose soon or late).

Mig,
The 3 tournaments in which Alekhine and Euwe met between their matches:

(1) Nottingham, August 1936
Euwe 3-5th; 9.5/14
Alekhine 6th; 9/14
Alekhine beat Euwe in their individual game.

(2) Amsterdam, October 1936
Euwe 1-2nd; 5/7
Alekhine 3rd; 4.5/7
Euwe beat Alekhine in their individual game.

(3) Bad Nauheim/Stuttgart/Garmisch, July 1937
Euwe 1st; 4/6
Alekhine 2-3rd; 3.5/6
Euwe beat Alekhine +1-0=1 in their individual games.

Thus in this period, Euwe beat Alekhine +2-1=1.

Somewhere in Alekhine's book 'My Best Games 1924 - 1937', Alekhine says something to the effect that in the whole period between the two matches he was unable to get his act decently together. No doubt many people must have thought Alekhine had gone into a permanent decline. So Euwe was favourite more by default rather than by anything positive he had done.

dear rob villeneuve,

the difference between morphy and today's top GMs is more than just opening theory. 100+ years of chess knowledge counts for a lot. In particular the additions that nimzo, botvinnik, karpov made to the game are not to be underestimated.

a separate issue is that, to my mind, it is nonsensical to assign numbers to players in different times and then compare their strengths accordingly. Elo can only ever compare players playing in the same pool. Perhaps if his opponents weren't so slow-moving morphy would have won all his games, and therefore attained a rating of infinity...? ridiculous. If I play a selection of monkeys, gorillas and babboons and beat them all can this achievement be compared to kasparov being number 1 rated player for 15 years (or however long it was)?

Well, I wouldn't dare to speak on behalf of Jeff Sonas, and I am certainly not interested in angry disputation ... I merely make two simple points about the remarkable Sonas body of work.

First, its roots run deep in statistical theory. There might be telling critiques of the work, but they certainly don’t begin with a Meldrewesque “I don’t believe it”.

Second, I am reasonably confident that the Sonas Numbers are not intended as a quasi-scientific way to resolve hypothetical and trivial pub debates like “would Smyslov have beaten Carlsen”. That’s just not an interesting enough question. If you look back on the utterly brilliant (if self-parodically batmanesque) post which Sonas made on Mig’s Blog, in the midst of the despicable Danailov allegations, you will get a better idea of the use to which all of this statistical analysis can be put. This data allows us to ask interesting questions about human excellence, human performance, human behaviour, and patterns in those phenomena. It is not (IMHO) intended to create some “Mother of all League Ladders”.

A new wrinkle to the Topalov story, from the Sofia News Agency: did Topalove take a "tumble" for money?...

http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=71152

It's absurd, of course, but amusing.

The match may have been exciting, but the standard of play was abysmal. This must be the worst World Championship match since Alekhine-Bogoljubov 1934, and perhaps since the Lasker-Janowski matches. Topalov committed about as many gross blunders as Spassky did in the twice as long 1972 match.

I understand Kasparov has started work on a new book called 'My Weak Successors'. I believe it is coming out fairly soon. The reason it is coming out so quickly is that it is small - apparently Garry couldn't find many games worthy of inclusion. Eg none of the games in the match will be included.

'Second, I am reasonably confident that the Sonas Numbers are not intended as a quasi-scientific way to resolve hypothetical and trivial pub debates like “would Smyslov have beaten Carlsen”.'

They aren't intended to measure the absolute strength of chess players--Sonas himself has said that. They only measure a player's relative strength, against comtemporaries.

"The match may have been exciting, but the standard of play was abysmal. This must be the worst World Championship match since Alekhine-Bogoljubov 1934, and perhaps since the Lasker-Janowski matches."

This is BS. The standard of play was not worse than in almost all previous WC matches. Back then there were simply no online patzers with computers screaming at each "blunder" and the commentators missed a lot of mistakes too. Go through previous matches with Fritz and you will find a lot more blunders than in this match.

Andrey is correct.

Unanswered question:

How would the CAS court have ruled the case?
Sadly we never will get an answer to this...

Will Kramnik accept Mexico winner as new WC or not?
Possibilities for a new shism are there, now that Kramnik has gained extrem political strength. He could use this strength to dictate futere WC match conditions

Will Kramnik play Radjabov instead of Topalov?

PS:
ComputoJon: Put the two pics of this unbelievable grin of danailov and topa after forfeit win also on the page, can be found here:
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3377

this Link of nijitski is also great, can someone save the video?
http://www.nos.nl/nosstudiosport/artikelen/2006/10/13/13102000kramnikwinnaarwktweekamp.html

Ok, Andrey, name me some. And I'm talking about gross blunders, such as those that immediately lose half a point or more. And you must be fair, this was a short match; in a longer match you would expect more blunders as there are more games to make them in. (In other words, how many of the matches have this many blunders per 11 games.)
It's hard to think even of any of the shorter Candidates matches that were this bad.

Silvio Danailov summarized the past WCC on the way out of the airport.
“We were under a lot of pressure, the hosts made everything to win the title. Expect a whole book on the events in Elista where the scandal with the toilet will be explained in details”

this will be fun!!! I subscribe for a free copy

an "a la Morphy" game (home prep ?) played yesterday at the European Club Cup that was held in Austria

rd. 7

GM Mamedyarov ELO 2728 - GM Jakovenko ELO 2671

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Bb7 5.Bg2 Be7 6.0-0 0-0 7.d5 exd5 8.Nh4 c6 9.cxd5 Nxd5 10.Nf5 Nc7
11.e4 d5 12.Re1 dxe4 13.Nc3 Bc8 14.Nxe7 Qxe7
15.Nxe4 Ne6 16.Qh5 Nd7 17.Bg5 f6 18.Bf4 Nxf4
19.gxf4 Qb4 20.Rad1 Rb8 21.Nd6 Nc5 22.Bxc6 Be6
23.Bd5 ! [1-0]

Ovidiu,
1) Where is Morphy style here?
2) Why do you give Bd5 an explanation mark when it's an obvious move?
3) Would black have played 19)...g6 instead of the bad 19)...Qb4, wouldn't have it given them good drawing chances?
4) Again, where is Morphy style since I can't see a single sacrifice?
5) Basically after Qb4 every move seems to be winning. Even a3 is winning.
6) But after 20)Rad1, Rb8 is clearly worth ?? because it brings the position from += to a big +-.
7) Did Morphy play d4?
8) What is doing this game in this post?

On the other hand...

... isn't it in some weird and sick way even nice of Topalov to keep bitching about? That way you don't have to "let bygones be bygone" ;o)

On chessbase you can see a little video of Kramnik after the match. In russian, of course. Of course, it's better to be russian to watch it... but Kramnik is such a wise, calm person ... he's really sympathic. No insults, nothing agressive towards his opponent's despictable team behavior...

Till the end he did focus on the title, and he was right. Taking off any crown from Topalov head was clearly the worse thing he could do to him.

Please everybody welcome our beloved Topalov in the land of the nobodys. Now, Veseline, you fully deserve the right to play some blitz games with Leko (but take care, his first move may be his fist in your nose).

Silvio Danailov: “FIDE regulations allow every world champion that has lost the title to challenge the title holder. The total prize fund is 1,5 million dolars. We will find this money and will request the game to take place in Sofia. We will offer an exact date, 3rd of March 2007.”

this will be funny, too. Will Kramnik be allowed to have a toilet or will he be tied to the chair?

Oh my, a loosing player going on tilt. Never thought that happens in chess as well. Someone with an open heart please wrestle this guy from the table. He's now prone to raise preflop with 7 2 offsuit! ;o)

Woooooooooooow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.veselintopalov.net/article/match-kramnik-topalov-in-march-2007

Do you think Topalov's protest backfired against him?

Read my blog and vote on

http://chesskibitzer.blogspot.com/

I had said that the tie-break in Elista (rapid, blitz, armageddon) was perhaps not ideal, but no one has suggested a better one.

Greg Koster proposed (echoing someone else's suggestion): "A single armageddon tie-break game at classical time controls. White must win. The players "bid" for the black pieces. The player willing to accept the fewest minutes on his clock with black gets to play black."

Sorry I missed this idea. Frankly, I have no idea if this is better than the current method, since no chess championship I'm aware of breaks its ties this way. One obvious drawback is that, just like any other armageddon, it's a a game with an artificial rule that changes the whole strategy (i.e., both players aren't playing to win). In the current rules, armageddon is only a last resort, and in fact it wasn't needed in Elista. The championship was decided with real chess games, albeit at faster time controls.

Charles Milton Ling suggested retaining the quaint old tradition that the champion keeps his title if the match is tied. Sorry, that idea's a dinosaur. No other sport except boxing allows a championship match to end without a decisive result, and boxing is hardly the sport chess should seek to emulate. (In any case, draws in boxing are FAR less common than in chess.)

Ovidiu,

It is a nice miniature no doubt but black countered white's unusual opening very well up until move 20... Rb8? And I have to agree with Ruslan that Mamedyarov's style can not be compared with Morphy.

It's easy to criticize tie-break formats. They are ALL BAD. The job is to pick the one that's least bad.

Topanailov as usual:
Topalov and Danailov say oppsite thoughts, and Topalov says something different from what we said before (now he says he Kramnik's absence did not disturb him).
And they expect changes in FIDE WC regulations soon (rematch?). I bet, they already know what changes to expect.
Does Danailov expect to compensate losses from cancelled match with Rajabov by selling the book to every Bulgarian?
http://www.veselintopalov.net/article/veselin-topalov-is-in-bulgaria

Tie breaks:

I agree with Marc that the Champion keeping his title in the event of a tie is an absolute no-no. The Champion must have BEATEN his opponent. Otherwise he is only a co-Champion (like if you tie for your National Title in a tournament and there is no play-off).

I am very much against the armageddon. As Marc says, it is artificial and changes the whole strategy of a game.
There must be colour equalisation.

I think the World Championship is too important to be messed around with by an inadequate tiebreak. Therefore in suggesting the following, I think the practical principle should be adopted that if the tiebreak may take too long to be held at the original venue, then the playing of it be transferred to a private residence in the same city, or to FIDE headquarters.

If this principle is adopted, then I suggest the following:
(1) Two further Classical games.
(2) If still tied, two more Classical games. [This is what they did in the 1980 Korchnoi - Polygayevsky Candidates Match.]
(3) If still tied, best of 6 Rapid games.
(4) If still tied, then best of two more Rapid games indefinitely until a decisive result is obtained.

What do others think? I think this is a good topic for discussion.

Is Veselin Topalov mature enough to become WCC and if not now at 31 then when ?

This failure against Kramnik may trigger a life crisis for Topalov. It may be for the better if Topa fires "Danailov the father" and grows up to become a self responsible adult.

Sooner or later all people have to do this big step and begin to live their own lives.

http://experts.about.com/e/v/ve/Veselin_Topalov.htm

In Bulgaria Topalov was a chess prodigy of sorts, but not like Kasparov. His talent developed in a different way and rhythm. He had no state support. But when he was about 12 years old Danailov, his actual trainer and companion, spoke to Topalov's family and got permission to personally train him.

Danailov took Topalov to his apartment and told him "From now on, you live here and this will become your new home. I am not just your trainer, but I am also your mother and your father. I am your cook. I am the one who will wash your clothes. I am the one who will pay your bills and expenses to tournaments. All I want from you is to think only about chess!''

Topalov developed very quickly under Danailov's guidance . He became a super star in the chessworld by the time he was 19. This relationship has remained just as strong until today. Topalov does not have a girlfriend or any real friends in the classical meaning of it. He has only his chess, but he would not change his universe for any other.

And he has Danailov. Danailov is paid, I am told, 50 percent of everything that Topalov wins.

Chris B.

If we've got a private residence available just have them play classical chess until someone a) wins or b) drops dead.

The more pertinent question is what to do if there's just one day available to break a match tie.

Ovidiu--

Nice link. Quite enlightening.

I find it very difficult to trust Spraggett on that. Or on anything else.

acirce--

What's with Spraggett?

Well, if that article Ovidiu links to tells the real story about Topalov I actually feel sorry for the guy. He just may be a very good chess player who has absolutely no idea what's going on in the world around him (did anyone say Fischer?).
For every day that goes Danailov just seems to be more and more of a scumbag

Greg,

Karpov and Kasparov just about did drop dead in 1984/5. You have to draw the line somewhere.

I think if they only allow one day for tie-breaks in a WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP, then this is pathetic organisation. Relatively minor organisational issues should not override being able to decide the WC title properly.

If, nonetheless, one day is the best they can do, then best of 10 five-minute games should be inserted before the armageddon.

Greg, based on what I hear about him from inside Canadian chess circles he doesn't seem like the most trustworthy person in the world. (Ask Charbonneau.) Of course, it's still only one man's account regardless.

I like the idea of bidding for black/time, of course it changes tactics, but its better than rapids or blitz. And of course black only playing for a draw is not too much a stretch from how it works today...

Q

Chris B,

I like it. Perhaps you could add a couple of G/60' + 20" mini-matches after the classical tiebrakers, but otherwise it's okay. Maybe something like a best-of-four rapid followed by a best-of-four (or six) blitz would be good enough if you add these extra layers; I'll bet you could do all of that plus an armageddon game in one day if you had to.

Rob Villeneuve, What part of my post did you not understand? I pretty clearly conceeded that IF he were here today and had access to all of our modern opening and endgame theory he would be great, but he is not, and the CM rating is based on Morphy's 1800's strenght then and is clearly overrated based on his overall play compared to today's 2700's. LEARN TO READ OR SHUT YOUR YAP.

2716 based on what he knew THEN is a gross overrating and doesn't take into account that very few players then were very good. It is easy to look great when you play fish.

Koster, your comment about Sontas putting more thought into it doesn't make it right or we would be able to compare all sports between eras using his formulas, which clearly no one has done in a way that is universally accepted yet.

Besides, you have no idea how much time I have put into thinking his work is crap, so another bad assumption. I also refer you to the famous Mark Twain quote: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." Statistics can and have been manipulated for the statistician’s cause as long as stats have been around.

If the world of chess (be sure to include non-Americans, please) cannot accept a champion keeping his title after a draw, so be it.

I will, however, say once more that I do not consider chess a sport. If bowling didn't make it to the Olympics....

To KCotreau

To tell someone with capital letters to "learn to read or shut your yap", is very rude. Maybe you're a fan of Danailov?

This is what Fischer had to say about Morphy. You may understand why i prefer to believe a 2800 over you:

" A popularly held theory about Paul Morphy is that if he returned to the chess world today and played our best contemporary players, he would come out the loser. Nothing is further from the truth. In a set match, Morphy would beat anybody alive today...Morphy was perhaps the most accurate chess player who ever lived. He had complete sight of the board and never blundered, in spite of the fact that he played quite rapidly, rarely taking more than five minutes to decide a move (His opponents, in thos days before chess clocks, often took hours.) Perhaps his only weakness was in closed games like the Dutch Defence. But even then, he was usually victorious because of his resourcefulness'

So you think Morphy would lose and Fischer tought Morphy would win. Fine, you're intitled to your opinion but we may disagree (and Sonas also) and you don't have to be rude about it.

KCotreau,

I don't think Sonas is trying to manipulate the data to make Morphy look good; Lasker and Steinitz both wound up with ratings far greater than Morphy's and far greater than what they would get today, with the knowledge they had then. Sonas's rating system maintains the same average rating for the top twenty, which is why these old-time ratings seem so incredible:

http://db.chessmetrics.com/Documents/AboutSystem.htm
http://db.chessmetrics.com/CM2/Formulas.asp?Params=

He himself says, "Of course, a rating always indicates the level of dominance of a particular player against contemporary peers; it says nothing about whether the player is stronger/weaker in their actual technical chess skill than a player far removed from them in time." He already acknowledges what you're saying about how CM ratings don't allow one to compare players of different eras. It's not his fault people misuse his numbers.

So, I don't think Sonas is saying "Morphy's rating is four points less than Shirov's." It's more like, "Morphy was 110 points stronger than his contemporaries." I disagree with the assumption that Morphy would be 2700 today or 1800 today; I personally think he'd be somewhere in between, but I have no idea what his real strength is, since he's not playing against modern players and never will.

I am curious how Arpad Elo ranked Morphy in his original book.

And Charles: I fully agree with your sentiments (both of them).

Rob, first, I considered your original tone rude, so if you think that I am rude, I consider that you deserve that.

Second, considering that Fischer said exactly (I am taking you at your word with regards to how you wrote it) what I said, you still can't read. If English is your first language, you really need a remedial course in reading for content. He never said that 1800's Morphy would win today according to what you said ("He actually believed that all Morphy would have to do would be to study a bit of theory and he could have beaten anyone in his times"), but as you stated with some study, he would be great. That is exactly what I said ("He could have been that strong had he been born today since he had the talent no doubt, but with what they knew about chess then, not a chance he would fare well against today's 2700's with the knowledge he had at the time") so you are still clueless.

Daniel, to be fair, I don't think that Sontas actually manipulates the data either, but I also don't think that can really compare players between generations for all the reasons I have stated in the above posts. I guess one of the problems is that it is widely believed and appears that he is not comparing just players within their era, not as you described. I would say that is it partially his fault in how the data is presented since it is not 100% clear. When you list all the players in one list, it automatically creates a false impression.

I would ask people again to closely read what I said, because I also never said that Morphy was an 1800, but rather many of his opponents probably were about that rating based on some of the games I have read through over the years from that era...There were a lot of weakies back then since there was so little to study.

to Kcotreau

I'll forget about the ad hominems ("shut your yap", "clueless" and "remedial course for reading") since maybe you're having a bad day.

What part of the Fischer quote did you not get? As opposed to what I had said earlier, I did not find the reference to Morphy's openings by Fischer. The only thing I was able to find is what I quoted in my last message and that you seemed not to have read (you prefer to quote my previous message) The following is very interesting:

"In a set match, Morphy would beat anybody alive today"

That's the 1852 Morphy

That's a quote from the 60s.

So Fischer was just saying that he thought Morphy, from 1852, would beat him, Tal, Keres, Botvinnink, Reshevsky, Petrosian, etc.

not too shabby.

Kasparov in his golden 1999-2000 period, played so well he reached 2852 of rating. In 100 years, there might just be 20 players with that rating and someone will deny that Kasparov could have held his own against them, saying there's absolutely no way he could have been that strong.

Yes, it's very hard to imagine someone from the past could have been very strong. Makes it easier to imagine yourself, as a 2100 player, beating everyone from that era. Maybe there weren't that many good players, but is it so hard to believe there could be some?

As for insulting people about English not being their first language, I did not know you were a bigot too.

To Daniel: Arpad Elo evaluated Morphy as a 2690 rated player. You can take that anyway you want but again if you read his books, the number are mathematically justified and he did it in many papers.

Live free or die (or so they say in your neck of the woods)

Daniel:
G/60' + 20". Interesting suggestion, well worth thinking about.
I think I would prefer, on entering a faster time control, to have a 6-game mini-match before having 2-game mini matches.
And I would prefer avoiding blitz and especially armageddons altogether, if possible. I would only have if you really cannot get a result after many rapids.
You would, of course, have to allow 4-5 days for the classical tie-breakers to start with.

Charles Milton Ling:
I don't quite understand why you prefer an indecisive result if you don't have to have one. I prefer to call someone a Champion because he is a sole winner, as opposed to an equal best.
(I am not an American.)

Chris, it's not a crusade of mine, I just don't see a reason to change the old system. But if it *is* changed, I won't cry my eyes out...

Charles,
Fair enough. I just didn't like the old system in the first place. The challenger was always playing under an unfair handicap right throughout the match. It never seemed fair to me that Botvinnik retained his title against Bronstein and Smyslov in 1951 and 1954 on the basis of drawn matches.

Surely Lasker defended his title on at least three occasions without losing (until he eventually lost of course, but that comes to everyone). He played Janowski at least once, Steinitz twice and Schlechter for a start.

rdh,
I understand Lasker's title record to be:
Won the title from Steinitz in 1894.
Defended it against Steinitz in 1896/7.
Defended it against Marshall in 1907.
Defended it against Tarrasch in 1908.
Defended it against Janowski in 1909 or 1910 (not sure which it was; I think only one Janowsky match was actually for the title).
Defended it against Schlechter in 1910.
Lost it to Capablanca in 1921.

All the defences up to and including the Tarrasch one, Lasker won. They were to a set number of wins, so the 'Champions advantage' didn't apply.
Lasker beat Janowski; I'm not sure what the conditions were.
The Schlechter match was for the best of 10 games and was drawn. So here Lasker retained his title on the basis of the 'Champion's advantage'.

ChrisB, I was replying to someone else who said that no-one else had defended three times unbeaten except Kasparov. And I suppose at one time Alekhine had won three unbeaten - OK he lost to Euwe but Kramnik may lose his next match.

Personally I have no problem with the champion retaining his title and think this preferable to rapids, despite last week's great day.

Thanks for the details though, I thought he'd played Tarrasch, although I'd forgotten Marshall.

Wonder if the Steinitz rematch was contractual or voluntary?

Re old players, by the way, I see Korchnoi had a 2713 performance at the ECC at the age of – what is it now, 75?

Wonder how those with higher ELOs than that today – Mamdeyarov, say – will fare in fifty-odd years time against the kids of that era?

The topic of ratings is very interesting when we talk about Fischer and Kasparov. We all know that we pick up points from winning (gaining more against stronger opponents) and lose points by losing (losing more against weaker opponents). If we consider that Fischer and Kasparov's ratings were head-and-heels above any of their contemporaries, it stands to reason that both might have actually been under-rated because they couldn't pick up any points from beating those people! On the other hand, they could have lost many points by losing a single game against any of the weaker players.

Without question, one of the driving factors in Garry's rating was the fact that there were other players over 2700 who he could pad his rating with, but as the distance between he and everyone else grew (after he'd crossed the 2800 barrier, Karpov was second-best for years despite a huge gap), he could no longer gain points. Had he continued to play, Fischer would have without doubt run into the same issue.

In this respect, Topalov's rating is not as impressive because he was able to pad his rating on the strength of only a few tournament results. There simply isn't the distance between him and his contemporaries that Garry and Bobby had.

rdh, I'm about 95% sure the Steinitz rematch was contractual.

Seems to me there's plenty of cases of 3 successful win/defends of title:

(a) Steinitz beat Zukertort in 1886; then beat Chigorin in 1889; then beat Gunsberg in 1890; then beat Chigorin again in 1892.

(b) Alekhine beat Capablanca in 1927; then beat Bogoljubov in 1929; then beat Bogoljubov again in 1934.

(c) Botvinnik won title in the 1948 WC Tournament; then defended in 1951 against Bronstein with a draw; then defended in 1954 against Smyslov with a draw.

(d) Karpov effectively won the title by beating Korchnoi in 1974 (it wasn't his fault that Fischer resigned the title); then beat Korchnoi again in 1978; then beat Korchnoi again in 1981.

I'll give you Steinitz (I assume the title was on the line in those matches) but I'm not having Botters or Karpov - each only survived two actual matches, whether it was their fault or not.

Would be a good trivia question: what do Steinitz, Lasker, Kasparov and Kramnik have in common that no other World Champions do?

rdh:

About the thing that Stienitz, Lasker, Kasparov and Kramnik have in common: the only thing I could could think of - all of them had a stretch where they have beaten 3 different people (or at least, beaten with draw odds) in The World championship matches without losing the title in between.

As I was looking for the answer to rdh's trivia question, I came up with one myself. It is related to world championship matches (classical, Steinitz to Kramnik line, of course).

What do Chigorin, Lasker, Alekhine, Botvinnik, Petrosian, Kasparov and Kramnik have in common?

Trivia time! Here's one from me:

(a) There was just one player at the AVRO 1938 tournament who subsequently played all the others again at least once. Who was he?

(b) There was just one player at the AVRO 1938 tournament who subsequently played none of the others again except the player in (a) above. Who was he?

You've got me with your one, Russianbear.

rdh, yes, Steinitz's title was on the line in those 3 matches.

Without trawling through databases those have to be (a) Euwe and (b) Fine.

Probably both wrong.

Struggling on russianbear's.

Russianbear

HELP!

Or maybe (b) is Flohr? You'd think he'd have played the other Russians somewhere though (didn't he wind up in Russia during the war?)

rdh, did I get yours correctly?

Has everyone given up on mine? Come on, people!

Chigorin, Lasker, Alekhine, Botvinnik, Petrosian, Kasparov and Kramnik all have this in common. Think! Chigorin is on the list and Steinitz is not. Chigorin could be a major hint here, I thought...

Ok I will give you a small hint: Kramnik did not make this list until the Topalov match. In fact, his making the list is based on matches versus Leko and Topalov, not the one with Kasparov.

It should be easy now. Chigorin played in 2 WC matches, but lost both. So you know it doesn't have anything to do with winning matches. Chigorin has only done so much worthy of trivia :) And now you have the Kramnik hint - it should be easy.

A Russian plays two matches with a non-Russian?

Nah, I am not that smart, greg. Besides, we would have some difficulty telling Russians from non Russians. If you meant Russian by blood, then it is not obvious what Petrosian, Botvinnik and Kasparov are doing on the list, let alone Lasker. If you meant Russian (Soviet) by citizenship, then Lasker was neither Russian nor Soviet citizen (I don't think). No - it doesn't have anything to do with countries or nationalitites.

Total guess:

They have all won the first game in two separate World Championship matches?

I know its true for Kramnik and Botvinnik!

Note: after I checked the stats, I realised that Petrosian does not belong on the list. Sorry

So it is Chigorin, Lasker, Alekhine, Botvinnik, Kasparov and Kramnik. A very select company. Even Petrosian didn't make it, upon closer examination

Russianbear, yes you did. Though the clues were higher up the thread, rather!

Spud's try looks awfully good to me.
It's true for Chigorin, Lasker, Alekhine, and Kasparov, too. And not true for Petrosian.

rdh, no luck there so far.

Perhaps the fact that both (a) and (b) happened helps a little bit.

Yes, Spud got it!. Nice job.

Well I suppose Capa played at AVRO, didn't he? And died fairly shortly thereafter. So maybe (b) is him?

I'm not sure I can actually list the participants. Botvinnik, Euwe, Keres, Capa, Alekhine, Flohr, Fine and, er, somebody else. Was it Reshevsky already?

I think you're going to have to tell us!

rdh, yes, those 8 (including Reshevsky) are correct.
(b) is not Capa.

Does Russianbear (or anybody else) want to have a go??

OK, well Botvinnik, Keres and Euwe were all in Amsterdam, so by elimination (b) must be Alekhine.

And who did Alekhine play during the war - well, I was pretty sure he played Keres. So I'm going to shoot - not my first shot, I concede - for (a) Keres and (b) Alekhine.

Just a guess:

a) Keres

b) Alekhine

Yep, correct rdh and Russianbear. Congrats. Probably I had given too much of the game away by this stage.

Proof:

(A) Keres in fact played them all again at least twice, viz. (among other results):
Botvinnik, Reshevsky and Euwe 5 times at the 1948 World Championship Tournament;
Alekhine twice at Salzburg 1942;
Flohr at Margate 1939, and USSR Championship 1947;
Capablanca at Margate 1939, and 1939 Olympiad.
Fine twice in USSR-USA match 1946.

(B) I know of no occasion in which Alekhine played any of them except Keres ever again (guess you'll have to trust me on this).
Alekhine and Capablanca (together with Keres) did both go to the 1939 Olympiad, but avoided playing each other there.

(C) Proof that the answer to (b) can be no one but Alekhine:
Capablanca played Flohr at Margate 1939. [Capa was a good try; this is the only game that prevents him also being an answer.];
Fine played Reshevsky and Euwe at New York 1951;
Botvinnik, Reshevsky and Euwe played each other at the 1948 World Championship Tournament.