Svidler's performance frankly makes one think there might be something in this notion of drug-testing in chess.

And Carlsen hasn't been much better - what on EARTH was he doing?! Apart from apparently not having seen Topalov's topical exchange sacrifice before in spite of (one hopes) preparing this opening, he then gives up a piece for more or less nothing and loses straightaway.

rdh,

What are you insinuating?

Are you saying Svidler and/or Carlsen are on drugs? Performance-diminishing drugs at that? Do you actually read what you write, ever?

Chess players have bad days at the chessboard. You know, kinda like you at the keyboard...

Perhaps they should intentionally level the playing field by mandatory administration of drugs. Get all the players stoned first and then see how well they do--a test of one's ability to focus despite intoxication. Plus the short-term memory loss might cut down on the number of games that are basically twenty-move-deep opening preparation. It'd be fun!

And they say Americans don't get irony. How wrong can they be?

How does Anand win after 61.Rd1?

"And they say Americans don't get irony. How wrong can they be?"

Zing!

"Perhaps they should intentionally level the playing field by mandatory administration of drugs. Get all the players stoned first [...]"

The first sentence is more correct without the word 'should' . They are playing in Netherlands, you see.

Nice backpedal. And that is not irony...

At least you are an expert at *something*.

And Who says I'm American?

Devils Advocate, get a sense of humour...

Don't know what Carlsen was doing- that was pretty poor. Karjakin didn't do the youngsters' cause much good either- going down at a rate of knots. To lose as white after playing 60 odd moves at breakneck speed isn't too clever...

Don't know what to make of Anand- he has fought back with a couple of wins after his defeats. Defeats seem to knock the stuffing out of him, both psychologically and in terms of results. Having fixed 1 out of 2 isn't bad, but based on the Chessvibes video from the previous round, you sense he isn't that interested. Compared to greats like Karpov and Kasparov, who seem to fight harder after defeats, he hasn't done too well in the past, so maybe this is a slight improvement.

He does have an easy looking finish and 2.5/3 would give him +4, which is not a bad score (should be good enough for outright 2nd). He'll be disappointed, but given that he only got 6 whites and had to face his two biggest rivals as black, it would be a performance anyone outside the top 2 would be pleased with.

How does Anand win after 61.Rd1?

Posted by: truffaut at January 24, 2007 10:28

I was asking myself the same thing. I'd have tried 61...Qg7 and then to b2 to grab the a pawn. If 62.Rd2 then Qa1 (the queen may even be immune on b2 for a while) hits h1 and a2 and something has to give. I guess that white will try to set up a fortress, but black would have all teh chances. Someone with a silicon beast will tell me where I've gone wrong here...

The knight appears to be too short range a piece for this ending.

Just think Karjakin played much too fast.

Use of some special certain drugs would probably make everyone's brains go faster. The question is by how much?

Let's see how it affected our candidate on whom this drug was tested*:
ELO(Jul_2006) = 2813;
ELO(Jan_2005) = 2757;

But the ELO scale is non-linear... so let us make some rough assumptions that:
1) brain activity is proportional to number of points scored against opponents of a fixed strength in a large number of games
2) average rating of opponents for someone at that level is 2700

Now expected scores for a player rated 2813 would be 65% and for a player rated 2757 would be 58%

This thesis on brain research concludes that brain activity can increase by roughly 7% even for that 0.1% of the poppulation that already uses 99.9% of their brain.. by the use of the new wonder drug ____(Danailov - please type name here) .. .and as for the remaining 99.9%..

* Name withheld for confidentiality
** Please consult your physician before use

What colour does Topalov have against Kramnik please?

here come the trolls... Its open season against poor Topalov, but gawd forbid that he question somebody spending almost more time in the lavatory than at the board..

Does anybody here know if:

1. Topalov or team Topalov's ever provided a log of Kramnik moves, time spent and bathroom trips versus top line of whatever type of software they believe he is using as well as time and difficulty setting they used to create the line?

2. Topalov ever stated what Kramnik's official reasons/excuses were for going to the bathroom?

3. Going to the bathroom or away from the board a lot is typical Kramnik behavior, present at other tournaments, such as Corus?

4. If the reasons/excuses given by Kramnik (medical condition, likes to think in a private settings) were true at other tournaments where he played well? And especially if he played poorly at the tournament(s), did he still go to the bathroom a lot?

Providing the answers to these questions would seem to me to be actual "questioning" of Kramnik's actions. The approach chosen by Team Danailov has alternated between goading and foaming at the mouth.

Back to the tournament, this seems like prima proof of the fact that certain GMs just don't play as aggressively as others in non-title tournaments. Svidler and Kramnik have been content with early draws, even in positions with plenty of opportunities. Topalov is seeking to win as many games as possible and so are some of the other youngsters. Anand...well, let's just say he is demonstrating why he is so good at finishing second.

If they had only asked why Kramnik was very often in the lavatory, nobody would have mind. That was a very legitimate question.

But then, without any proof at all, there came the stories about "80% of his moves matches Fritz", "There was internet connection in the lavatory" and "He cheated, even in the rapids.".

Topailov asks us to believe that Kramnik more than 10 times an hour

1. Goes to the lavatory
2. Climbs on the toilet seat
3. Tears down the ceiling
4. Plugs in a device (although there were strict searches before the games) in a cable that has no internet jack
5. Gets some quick hints from a KGB man
6. Unplugs the device, restores the ceiling without a trace
7. Plays the awfully strong move of Fritz/KGB

I'm also wondering why he kept going to the lavatory that often, but the theory that he was secretly smoking cigarettes seems far more plausible to me than the theory above.

rdh--

We Americans prefer "explained" irony.

Topalov has played wonderful chess, as usual. It must be really irritating to some people.

Oscar--

You don't have it quite right. The KGB men were chess retards giving Kramnik substandard moves. That is why Topalov was able to play better chess than Kramnik at Elista.

Yes, even Topalov haters would have to admit that Topalov really and truly is the only one consistently playing any real chess.

"Nice backpedal. And that is not irony..."
What does he have to backpedal from, your lack of comprehension?

"At least you are an expert at *something*."
Meh, at least he is an IM, expert enough. :)

"And Who says I'm American?"
Would you prefer he simply called you retarded?

Nobody is irritated by the inspiring play of the chessplayer Topalov, I guess. He sets a positive example by trying every single game.

Unfortunately the person Topalov seems to lack some important human qualities. Which is indeed really irritating to some people.

Who? Topalov? Oh, you mean Topailov! 'The entity' has also played considerably higher percentage of comp moves than other participants. So I guess that is bound to be 'wonderful chess'... Too bad the entity smeared its own face with insults towards Kramnik - specially when themselves seem much more suspicous in that sense - so I don't give a 'scheisse' for his/their 'chess' anymore.

"Anand...well, let's just say he is demonstrating why he is so good at finishing second."

Yes,

just like he did in 2004, right ?

Ooops Loek van Wely throws away an otherwise well deserved victory over Aronian with 38.Rh5?? Ok there was timetrouble but this allowed Aronian to play one of his cheap tactics as he once called them and equalize.

Carlsen making it very easy for Topalov today. I doubt whether he prepared the sacrifice but 24...R8c1 followed by Rc4 was necessary to prevent white from freeing his rook so easily.

"Back to the tournament, this seems like prima proof of the fact that certain GMs just don't play as aggressively as others in non-title tournaments."
What are "title" tournaments? To my knowledge there have been only two "title" tournaments in history, if that term is meant to describe tournaments which lead to WC titles. Given that the protagonists of the first tournament are not playing here, which is "prima" obvious, and quite a fe who did play in the second arent either, I dont understand this comment at all. Exactly which GMs dont play aggressively?

Corus, Linares, and Dortmund, with no WCC implications, are the equivalent of "exhibition" tournaments. It is wonderful that Fischer, Kasparov, and Topalov always seemed to bring their "a" game to such events.

But it is hardly surprising many other prefer to save their innovations and energy for WCC-linked events. Bringing back the old zonal-interzonal-candidates structure would be the best way to encourage "fighting chess."

Let's finish with this "Topailov"/"entity" business. It really is quite childish.

As computers are now stronger than humans, its not surprising that the only human playing strong moves has a 'considerably higher percentage of comp moves than other participants'. By the quality of their chess, they sure as hell aren't using them, that's obvious!

Why are people imitating such a childishly insulting spelling as "Topailov"? So funny Mr. Grinhard.

Topalov is a great and fighting player.

"Topalov has played wonderful chess, as usual. It must be really irritating to some people."

Probably.
For the record, I am not one of them. I wrote my previous post more in jest since even a lot of people seem to feel something is wrong somewhere (Khalifman included)... I am curious as to what made Topalov's strength shoot up so suddenly. Did he start doing something differently, or he just started working harder on openings or did he get inspiration/enlightenment or...? Has anyone ever asked him in an interview as to how he suddenly became so strong??

If you look at the other players like Kramnik or Kasparov or Anand their very special talent was identified from the start.... Topalov was never spoken of in the same breath as those guys till very recently.. and now he is beating them all (even beat Gary in their last game, remember..)

I agree with you about the zonal-interzonal-candidates structure (with modifications), Greg.
However, Fischer and Kasparov did pretty well in these WCC-linked events, too, despite not 'saving' themselves for them (Curacao 1962, when Fischer was 19, being the sole exception). And Kramnik did not do very well in such events, failing 3 times before 2000, as well as 2 failures in FIDE KO Championships.
Topalov is not yet at the Fischer/Kasparov level, but he sure is the 'Kasparov' of this tournament. If he can keep this up, he may well get there.

GSCA (Linares, Corus, Bilbao and Mtel Sofia organizers) announcement on www.chessvibes.com is interesting. Just note the condition that the top 4 ranked players must participate in all 4 or none. It is another way of Danailov (oraganizer of Mtel Sofia) trying to disrupt Kramnik's plans, who would like to skip Sofia tournament where the environment could be very hostile for him (Kramnik).

"I am curious as to what made Topalov's strength shoot up so suddenly. Did he start doing something differently, or he just started working harder on openings or did he get inspiration/enlightenment or...?"

If you go to chess metrics, you'd see that Kasparov too had a performance jump in 1988-1990 of about 50 points, at age 25-27 ; Anand in 1997-1999 (at age 28-30), Korchnoi in 1977-1980 (at age 57)... It's not extraordinary to gain 50 rating points at age 30, especially when you stop to be at the wrong end of Kasparov brilliancies at every tournament.

"I am curious as to what made Topalov's strength shoot up so suddenly. Did he start doing something differently, or he just started working harder on openings or did he get inspiration/enlightenment or...?"

Interesting. The question that has always been bothering me was why Toplaov's strength dropped temporarily after ~ 1996.

To this Mikhail Golubev gave a convincing explanation on the chesspro.ru forum. Unfortunately, my Russian is not good enough to translate it quickly.

The latest Yuri Vasiliev article on chesspro is funny. Maybe Russianbear would wish to translate it; it is partially in response to the Khalifman’s attack against Topalov that russianbear found worth the effort to translate.

StringTheory: I totally agree with you. I have been writing about this for quite sometime now.

Topalov's sudden rise is suspicious. An article from Chessbase: "Goichberg said the older methods of cheating were easier to spot, but there are signs to indicate when someone may be using a computer program.............Another signal is if a player shows a significant improvement over a short period of time, something that is rare among adult players".

His team wanted to throw the garbage on Kramnik because he was probably deprived of this external support at Elista, which he manages to get in other places including Sofia. Otherwise, why would they wanted to have the follow-up World Championship match in Bulgaria out of all the places. Why can't it be a neutral venue?
Anand was asked to play at the World Trade Center, New York against Kasparov and Kramnik as a second. It took two Ks to beat the then young Vishy.
To me, Topalov's team didn't trust Kramnik because they were genuinely scared of him being able to get assistance which they couldn't get in the first place. From another perspective, it is certainly not a good sign to make two many bathroom trips anyway. So Kramnik also has to be blamed.

If they are truly good, why couldn't they play well when it comes to Rapids? I think, for the good of chess and to get TV publicity and make the sport really appealing to the mass, reduce the time limit by at least 1/2. In cricket for e.g., puritans complained a big deal against the faster version of the game (which still takes 8 hours)when it was first introduced, but such complaints were quickly put aside. The faster version called "One Day Cricket" is so appealing to the general public and is watched by billions around the globe. They have World Championships only for the faster version. The same holds good for Rapid Chess too.

The Rapids (not Blitz) will also greatly reduce, if not eliminate, the external influence (illegal use of computers, sign language etc.) and people won't have time for seeking help either.

To me, it appears that the so called chess champions- Topalov, Kramnik play poli'tricks' than genuine chess. Whenever the top players can't play well under tighter time control, one needs to take a closer look at their chess.

- Gans

To those who are not fully introduced to Topa's life as a chess player. Till 2005 Topa has never had a coach to work with him but despite this he is in top 10 of the world and 2700+ Elo rated player for almost 10 years. As soon as Topa and Silvio started to work with Cheparinov results were obvious - better openings, various opening lines and a good preparation in common. Thats obvious - Topa is more constant player at the moment but he has always been a very, very good one.

Gibraltar with Adams and Korchnoj is going on right now. Hikaru is there too.

rdh,
as a Brit, you are quite familiar with irony when it comes to Americans.

Thanks Vasil Mihailov. What you've written is the first normal explanation of this that I've seen anywhere.. ie, one not dealing with use of Fritz, transmitters, chemicals, coded messages sent from someone in the audience, etc..

I actually suspected that it might have something to do with working with Cheparinov (don't like Danailov enough to give him any credit :) but I wasn't aware that Topa had never worked with anyone till then... still all I am saying is that his rise has been sensational and he seems to have gone from just a very good player (like: Svidler, Leko, Moro,.. etc) to a being in a class of his own.. the unofficial WC champion for me

Topa has always been a very good and talanted player but he needed to be constant. Actually, working with Cheparinov both players got benefits of that.

Topalov is the one who plays the best chess.
This is obvious enough but how about the much hated Danailov ?

Isn't remarkable that he can bring $2 mil to the table ? Not only a big mouth but also an effective business-man too. A rare sight in the kirsanian-- wishful thinking prone-- world of chess.

More power to these guys. That's the way thing should go : real games and real money.

"At least you are an expert at *something*."
Meh, at least he is an IM, expert enough. :)

International Moron?

Now I see....

Thanks for clearing that up, Mondo.

Vasil Mihailov: "Till 2005 Topa has never had a coach to work with him"

Cheparinov's assistance seems to be a major turn in Topa's career, but aren't you exaggerating a bit? First of all he's long had Danailov, a not too bad IM as a trainer, but already in his childhood Topalov had a good chess educational background:

"[W]hat contributed to Rousse's [Topalov's hometown] club the most was the teaching system created by International Masters Petko Atanasov and Ivo Donev. As briefly mentioned earlier, they were the trainers of GM Veselin Topalov, whose talent exceeded everybody's expectations by entering the top 5 (and hopefully becoming a World Champion one day). In 1988 Topalov became the World Champion for 12 and younger (master at the time) and left Rousse's team in search for greater glory in international tournaments for men..."

Quoted from the site http://www.creativechess.com/Lessons/lessons.htm

Read Khalifman's remarks. The translation is good. The stuff regarding Topalov's facial expression and the alleged use of drugs would be pretty funny if it wasn't for the sad realization that we see just the opening salvo of what's yet to come from there... Of course, one can throw a stink about it, if emulating those other guys who pick on every word and act like raped, but I think the time has come to take the high road and not look back.

D.

here come the trolls... Its open season against poor Topalov, but gawd forbid that he question somebody spending almost more time in the lavatory than at the board..

--Posted by: d at January 24, 2007 10:55

Here, here.

Topalov has played wonderful chess, as usual. It must be really irritating to some people.

--Posted by: raindeer at January 24, 2007 11:28

Yes, this is what I expected at Elista: the typical powerhouse Topalov treatment. Instead his play was marred by all of those god-awful ??-blunders.

Now Topalov is playing without making those terrible blunders and what is the result? Undefeated +5 after 10 rounds, +5 =5 -0, an outstanding performance thus far.

I hope he wipes out Svidler on Friday and clinches first.

Title tournaments are

a) round-robin tournaments in which championship is at stake: Hague, San Luis, Mexico
b) round-robin tournaments in which the winner will get to play the champion: Curacao, Zurich, Dortmund 2002
c) tournaments that are part of WCC cycle: Interzonals, World Cup
d) for the point I am making, match-format candidates and championship cycles are also title tournaments

The GMs who aren't playing aggressively in Corus 2007, and the two names that come to mind for me are Kramnik and Svidler have done well when the title was on the line (the former in his matches against Kasparov and Topalov, the latter finishing tied for second in San Luis). Here, their games end early in interesting positions, which still have a lot of possibility. I look at how Svidler and Kramnik's game end and I think, you are not in a losing position, you have some initiative, you are 20 moves into the game...*sigh*.

Come to think of it, Kramnik having not so many draws in Elista was due to him playing Topalov, who rejected early draws and made mistakes as games went on, not to any change in style or aggressiveness. And I don't remember Svidler's play in San Luis at all, which tells me it probably wasn't very memorable (+1.5). So maybe their A game would still only get them a +1.5 or so in this format.

And to give my 2 cents to the discussion of Topalov's fast rise:
Once I asked Topalov (must have been 1999-2000) what it takes to be the best in chess? what he needs to do to become the best? At that time he was lingering at rank 7-10 and was not winning tournaments the way he had been doing in 1996 when he reached #4 in the world.

He said "I need to work much harder. It takes 8-10 hours a day of preparation. It is a very hard work. And you know I often want to do other things - go out, have fun"

"How much hours a day you spend in preparation now?" - was my next question.
"About 4 and I need to get my desire back"

Doesn't he want to be the best, I asked him then.

"Well yes, but 10 hours ... and it is not guaranteed that will take me there"

In 2004 he sounded like a man "with desire". With Cheparinov on board and working 8-10 hours a day, don't be so amused of his rise. I truly believe that he works harder than the others and he has bigger desire to be the best.

Kasparov retirement just catalyzed the process of “freeing the spirit from the bottle”.

@stringtheory

I think Topalov became so strong because he is not afraid to lose. Losing is how you learn. Capablanca said that he learned more from his handful of losses than anything else.

Most of the top players (Leko, Kramnik, Svidler, etc.) are afraid to lose. That's why they play short draws against each other, because they are -both- afraid of losing.

But when you are afraid of losing, you are also afraid of improving! And because Topalov plays out the double-edged positions and nearly equal endgames, he learns when he loses them. And as a result, he improves! The others do not improve because they are afraid to lose.

Think of the Leko-Kasparov game from Linares 2005, when Leko was down a pawn in an attacking position against Kasparov's Najdorf. He bailed out with a quick draw. Just imagine how much he would have learned if he had continued his attack, win or lose. But no, Leko was afraid of losing so he took the quick draw. This fear of losing is exactly why Leko will never be #1 and Toplaov is.

R10 updated added to the main item. You may now return to the regularly schedule slander.

Yes, Topalov has certainly had trainers before, but he himself has attributed his recent success to the formation of 'team Topalov', to Danailov taking over every aspect of his life, and to Cheparinov dedicating himself to opening preparation on his behalf. I can believe it too. Short's greatest success - his run to the Candidates final and victory over there over Karpov (or was that the semi-final; anyway you know what I mean) - was achieved after the formation of a similar team led by Kavalek, who famously declared that he used to tell Nigel 'when it was time to piss'.

Either tiring of this treatment, or being naturally a graceless breadhead (your call) Short of course fell out with Kavalek over money, and found himself being slaughtered by Kasparov, but during that period he played the best chess of his life.

Much the same as Michelle Smith used to say, of course (if anyone remembers her). But still.

And Topalov of course was Kasparov's bunny, which Kramnik never was. It's natural too that his rating would improve relative to Kramnik's once Gazza retired.

Topalov's had a following wind in this tournament, but he's played very well for sure. It's a shame he revealed himself as such an utter knob at Elista, but there it is. Until he grows up and apologises he'll always be like Alekhine - fine player but regrettably a racist cretin. (or in Topalov's case, paranoid raver). And indeed the same goes for Danailov - undoubtedly he has energies which could be doing the chess world some good. Instead, his main achievements are persuading Ponomariov not to play Kasparov, almost wrecking Elista and making himself and his charge a laughing stock in the eyes of much of the world.

Topalov's rise in chess is one thing, Accusing Kramnik of cheating is a whole different ball of wax.

That is what people are upset with him/Danilov about... Not his play.

Egad - it seems I owe Svidler an apology. Shipov's site (the Russian comes out scrambled on my machine) had him blundering horribly and losing. But presumably the corrupt text must have been pointing out that this could have happened (maybe it was how he lost to Kramnik in this line previously?) and that in fact a draw was agreed earlier.

In 2000, Kasparov and the arbiter handled the bathroom situation so discretely and professionally that the chess public wasn't even aware that there had been a problem until it came out six years later. They were professionals acting with dignity. Contrast those who contaminate every Daily Dirt thread shouting "Bathroom! Bathroom! Bathroom!"

A number of Russians (including Kasparov) made or repeated allegations that Topalov had been cheating. Kramnik never did. To (hopefully) protect all parties from unsubstantiated allegations that had marred San Luis, Kramnik, Topalov, and Kirsan agreed on anti-cheating measures at Elista. Professional, dignified.

Following Topalov/Danailov's absurd post-Elista allegations, Team Kramnik has responded once, saying the allegations were beneath comment.

I agree with Dimi that Khalifman's absurd allegations against Topalov should also be treated with silent contempt.

Mig, I thought Kempinski played this same exchange sacrifice last year? I suppose if I wasn't so lazy I could get out Megabase and TWIC and check, but a normally reliable poster said so.

The Rook Anti-Defamation League would like to have a word with Mr. Topalov.

Damn, that's too funny, Mig. :-)

Yuriy,

round-robin tournaments in which the winner will get to play the champion also include Candidates 1950 (Budapest), Candidates 1956 (Amsterdam), and Candidates 1959 (Bled-Zagreb-Belgrade).

Dortmund 2002 was not a round robin. It was an obscenity.

In the only way that success could be defined at San Luis, that of coming first, Svidler was not at all successful. He never seriously challenged for first place.

Corus, Linares, and Dortmund, with no WCC implications, are the equivalent of "exhibition" tournaments. It is wonderful that Fischer, Kasparov, and Topalov always seemed to bring their "a" game to such events.

--Posted by: greg koster at January 24, 2007 12:04

Yes, Fischer, Kasparov, and Topalov play like true World Champions, like Alekhine did. They would simply not allow you to take 1/2-point away from them.

Not in my DB of the Mega and the last year or two of TWIC. Everyone played 10.Nd2 except in that 1929 game. Maybe it's missing that exact game, happened before. But Topalov also said it hadn't been played at a decent level before. Maybe Kempinski played it somewhere out of the databases or it was just something quite similar. It's a recently popular line.

In 1996, or thereabouts, Kasparov said that he considers Topalov his likely successor. Then they played a demonstration match in Sofia, which Kasparov won with a margin. I might be slightly off on the years, but anyway, then Topalov virtually disappeared from the picture. I didn't care about chess either.

People's lives do not follow a linear ascension. There are so many other factors involved.

D.

gmnotyet said :
Yes, Fischer, Kasparov, and Topalov play like true World Champions, like Alekhine did. They would simply not allow you to take 1/2-point away from them.

I agree 100%. Topalov games sometimes remind me of Fischer. The opponent is playing proper moves, nothing seems to be wrong ... but ... suddenly he is losing ...

I cannot blame older accusations of cheating (although of course he is definitely NOT cheating) : the guy is playing in his own league, almost like a computer. We are lucky that we can watch him : he never gives the game up !!

Chris,

I was not trying to attempt to list every round robin candidates final in history, just give a few examples.

The first stage of Dortmund 2002 was a two-group round-robin. I don't like how they scheduled it either, but that's irrelevant.

In San Luis it was hard for anybody to challenge Topalov for the first slot. Being second to Roger Federer often indicates playing phenomental tennis. Svidler coming in second at San Luis is one of his top results to date and was above where most people expected him to finish.

Looking at earlier videos Carlsen seems to be late quite often.

Against Topalov he even looked sleepy !

I have noticed earlier pictures eg. from the Tal memorial where he looked tired early in a game.

No more Childrens Channel in the evenings at the hotel room Carlsen, please!

why do people care how a certain player is off the board? if Topa is an a-hole, fine he's an a-hole. u wouldnt get an arguement from me on that. but on the board he is the best current player. his games are more exciting to watch. he fights for wins, even with black. he doesnt have short draws, etc.

people who dont mind that players dont even try to win (short draws) i compare to the little girl next door who likes an actor cuz he's cute, not becuase he's a good actor.

@george:

Yes, Topalov is clearly the hardest working man in chess. And then everyone wonders why he does so well, like it's some kind of mystery.

Being a Kramnik fan, I am dissapointed at his lack of 'interest' in this tournament as exhibited by his play.

Topalov, in spite of all his personality shortcomings, has played well to this point and deserves to be lauded for that.

If anything, this makes it clearer, based on recent history, that Topalov is a better tournament player and Kramnik the better match player, and that makes sense: To win tournaments, you must take on a certain amount of risk, whereas match play calls for tempered, careful play.

Good luck to all.

"I agree 100%. Topalov games sometimes remind me of Fischer. The opponent is playing proper moves, nothing seems to be wrong ... but ... suddenly he is losing ..."

Am I the only one who completely disagrees? The games of Topalov to me usually have more than a few errors on his opponents part, the style is nothing like Bobby's and I can't recall many of "nothing seems to be wrong to sudden Topalov-brought on catastrophe" moments.

@Mark:

I have said for many years that it is borderline criminal that Kramnik receives a World Champion's appearance fee for this crap, e.g., a 17-move draw against the lowly-rated Motylev.

They should just stop inviting Kramnik to tournaments since all he cares about is WC matches.

gmnotyet--(when are you going to change your handle to gmatlast?)

World championship match victories over top ranked players Kasparov and Topalov, six years apart, is "true world champion" material. And I suppose you'd have to call Botvinnik a "true world champion" as well, even though he hardly played at all aside from his WCC matches.

Tournament victories over somewhat lesser lights are exciting. (See Bent Larsen or the early Robert Fischer.) But few people remember the top-rated player of 1907, 1927, 1947, or 1967; and the 1993-2005 FIDE champions are similarly non-descript. Topalov needs to grab himself a long-match title before history will regard him as a "true world champion."

@Yuriy Kleyner:

I was not talking about Topalov's style but his fighting spirit.

Fischer, Kasparov, Alekhine, and Topalov are similar in that they all fight in almost every game as if their life depended on it.

Looks like the Topa Mania started again. Ouch.
Suggestion to Mig: Have you ever thought about writing an article about the speed the games are played today? We know that Anand always played fast (even in losing positions), but today's players are All playing very fast. 20 moves in 30 minutes isn't an exception. The only old school guy seems to be Shirov. He plays like in the eighties and is much slower than the others.
Surprsing enough that today's game van Wely - Aronian ended in a time trouble shoot-out before the first time control.

JC,

If player A is an a-hole, that doesn't affect most of us and our response may/should be limited to simply disliking the guy.
If player B conducts a smear campaign against another GM or makes baseless accusations of cheating against somebody, that stains the game of chess, has slanderous effect on other player's career and affects how future tournaments will be conducted.
If player C makes disparaging remarks about members of a certain race or physically assaults other people, I believe that is immoral and we should care; our response should go beyond simple like/dislike.

The "best current player" was beaten by Kramnik in a match, with the odds of "one more white to Topalov" and delivered a dismal 2645 performance in Essent. Let's wait for more before we anoint him with this title.

It seems too obvious to be said, but I really do wonder whether some of the dimmer posters realise it at all. All this Kramnik-only-draws stuff arises from a fundamentally different approach to the game. Kramnik believes, like many GMs and particularly many of the Russian school, in playing correctly, in seeking the truth. With Black, he considers that the Petroff is the most correct opening, so that's what he plays. If it allows White to draw, well so what? White should be trying to demonstrate his edge.

Topalov's approach is different: he wants to win every game and he doesn't care (apart from practical considerations) whether his play is correct or not.

By and large the stronger the player the more able they are to appreciate Kramnik's approach rather than Topalov's. For anyone below mid-ranking GM strength there's really no point in trying to play 'correctly' because you are so far from being able to do so it's ridiculous. Of course that's no reason why weaker players should enjoy Kramnik's play - de gustibus non est disputandum, as they say in Bulgaria - but at least they should try and understand and respect his motives. Dissing the play of the best chess player presently around isn't big or clever (for example this scared-to-lose stuff merely tells one immediately that the speaker has no idea about the game).

If it is true that Black can neutralise 1 e4 easily with the Petroff, that would be a very fundamental discovery about chess. We ought to be witnessing a fascinating battle around that theme: Kramnik has been playing the Petroff more or less exclusively for some years now, and White players have had every opportunity to show their ideas. To a certain extent we are, but in this tournament we're not, either because no-one has any fresh ideas for White at this level, or more likely because they calculate that it makes more sense simply to get by Kramnik and show any ideas they have when they have more chance of success. You will not see short draws from Kramnik with White, or at least only when his play goes wrong and someone equalises completely as Carlsen did. You could see that wasn't his plan - it's obvious from the post mortem video how frustrated he was.

Oooh, a new Kasparovsaid. (Dimi's above about Topalov being Kasparov's successor.) I don't recall such a statement and it would surprise me if he said that. Topalov is only ten years his junior and Garry didn't do much successor talk back then, especially not about his peers. I can remember a few statements about Kramnik having clear world championship potential. I've been wrong on these before, but I do like to source as many Kasparovsaids as I can. One hears the most outlandish things.

Kasparov did make a few "worthy successor" comments about Topalov's results and style after he retired. I'd be interested to see anything from the 90's.

rdh, you can't blame fans for liking what they like. It's not as simple as saying that if you don't enjoy Kramnik's play it's because you don't understand it, or his motivations. Knowing that Kramnik plays black to draw and white for safe advantage doesn't mean you can't find that approach boring and say so. Fans speak from the heart and don't have an obligation to see everything through the eyes of others. If Tal had played like Petrosian he wouldn't have been a legend no matter how much he smoked, drank, and wrote. Everyone appreciates things on their own level and that appreciation is valid on that level.

Kudos on the Topalov post above, btw.

Mig, I distinctly remember an interview with Kasparov in a Bulgarian newspaper (do not think just a journalist rephrasing it) in which Kasparov said something like this: "For awhile I considered Topalov to be my likely successor..." "...but he is not doing so well lately".

I mean, it's not really important, least I have a desire to lie, but this happenned sometime in 1996-99.If it is really an issue, I'm sure you can ask the big one, I'm sure he can easily confirm/refute that (considering his memory capacity).

D.

gmnotyet,

have you considered the tag of georgealready? After all, it was his post and not your comment that I was arguing with in the post to which you are responding.

rdh,

I am not sure there is such a Russian school or that Kramnik is a truth seeker...an explanation of Kramnik's excellent technical skills and aversion to risk make his style a natural fit for him and puts an Ocham's razor through any sort of complex psychological motivation.

Mig, I am confident Kasparov said after Topalov won Novgorod(?) in 1996 that there had previously been only three contenders for his crown (Anand and Kramnik but I can't think who else - Ivanchuk) but that Topalov had now joined the club.

OK, I will spoil you. He was quoted in New in Chess 3/96, page 14, as saying that there were only five players he could see as serious contenders, the above three plus Karpov and Kamsky. And that with the chess he is now playing Topalov has joined the club. That was Amsterdam, I see, not Novgorod. So OK, I was confident but I was wrong. Not bad, though.

I don't blame anyone for liking what they like - I thought I said that? But this Kramnik-is-a-scared-little-weenie stuff is pathetic. He didn't beat the great Kasparov - something Topalov could never, ever, have done - by being scared to lose.

At least people should make an effort to appreciate what they're seeing. If they don't they just stamp themselves as fools.

The "best current player" was beaten by Kramnik in a match, with the odds of "one more white to Topalov"

--Posted by: Yuriy Kleyner at January 24, 2007 15:28

There they go again, the Kramnik supporters calling Elista an "odds" match because Kramnik won by only the slimmest possible margin, 3-2 in classical.

If Kramnik had won decisively, say 4-1 or 6-0, we wouldn't be hearing about any of this odds match nonsense, would we?

Anything to make Kramnik's narrow victory seem more decisive than it really was.

Yah, not bad. I know that one, but the distinction between contender and successor is a clear one. He was complimenting their level. Only when tykes like Radjabov came up did Garry really start to talk about the inevitable and use words like successor.

I'll dig up he actual numbers some time but I remember doing a poll in 2000 (probably pre-London) asking readers to vote on "who will be the dominant player from 2000-2010". I believe Kasparov got the largest share, followed by Anand and probably Kramnik. Radjabov was in there too, I think. I doubt Topalov's name came up.

Yuriy - obviously there are many Russian schools. But this notion of correctness and of a draw being a good result with Black is perceived by most western chess literature as being commoner in Russia than here; one associates Timman and Larsen in their day with being the antipodes of it (and even more so Miles). Kramnik's 'I can't play moves that hurt my eyes' and 'a painter simply paints' comments were getting at the same sort of thing, I think. Of course it's an over-simplification, but I do think there's a fundamental truth there.

rdh, nobody is disputing the enormous and proven quality of someone like Kramnik. He can play lazily like now (just married, I see) or be very dangerous when pressed against the wall. It's just that his style can only be appreciated by the true students of the game. And that is not a minor thing if you consider that a sport is an entertainment and very few are in the elite group to actually appreciate what is going on to the fullest. This ancient debate occurs in most areas -- "the purists" vs. "the popular". The growth, if that's the intention, favors the second group...

D.

@Dimi:

I appreciate Kramnik's style. I just do not like how he phones in his Black games, like today's 17-move draw against Motylev.

Kramnik gives 100% when he has White. Why can't he do the same with the Black pieces?

I am not asking him to play in a risky fashion but Kramnik acts like playing Black is such a huge handicap that a draw is a great outcome.

rdh--

Nice post at 15:29.

Dimi--

When the play of the world champion, one of the more accurate players in chess history is "boring" to legions of players, maybe it's time to make a change, as they do in every other sport.

Introducing a new opening setup or two into the mix would bring back the freshness and excitement of 19th century chess. No rules would change, no chessbook or game collection would be rendered obsolete, and games would once again start on Move One rather than on Move Thirty.

If we'd been playing "random" chess for 400 years, how many people would now vote for restricting the game to just one opening setup and ultimately achieving draw-rates of 75% or so in world championship play?

Yes, I'd also credit Kramnik's style at least as much to risk-aversion as to a search for truth. I've noticed a tendency in players to retroactively formulate a "chess philosophy" that explains why the playing style that comes naturally to them is philosophically justified.

Note also that there isn't a single chess "truth." It's not like Shirov knowingly goes for inferior situations; he just goes for unclear situations where he has a better feel for the "truth." Kramnik, on the other hand, prefers less complex situations where his grasp of the "truth" of the position is better.

I wonder if some people have actually considered the idea that if a grandmaster thinks it is best for him to take a quick draw with black, and that grandmaster is a 3 time reigning world champion, maybe he knows what he is doing. It seems to me that it is rather presumptuous to criticize such decisions by Kramnik.

About Topa's progress - PART II
For those who think that Danailov helped TOpa as a coach till 2005 you must consider that chess skills of Silvio are much lower than his current elo of 2400+, trust me! Silvio is a dull player, helpless as a trainer but a good businessman. For so called "chess proffesionals" the above statement is as true as the sunrise every morning from the east. A president of any country would never be involved to participate in event which is organized by man with no respect. Keep in mind that the president of Bulgaria, who supports the re-match of Elista is a member of the communist party in Bulgaria /for those who seek politics in chess/ and connected to Russia as mush as you want.
Secondly I want to remember that TOpa has always been a sharp player, a risky one and he could hardly stop pushing in his game. This fact cost him losts of losses. Remember Topa-Leko match 2004 I think. Its cool that now he can control this animal chasing instinct in him and when its a draw position, its a draw - no more risks and fault pushes.

It's not presumptious to criticize Kramnik if you don't like his style. It's a statement of preference so you are arguing at cross-purposes. You're telling people who like Christina Aguilera that they shouldn't say Strauss is boring. People don't have to couch issues of preference with "I think" or "to me" because this is obvious, or should be. Bothering to debate these necessarily simplistic criticisms is the stupid part.

DaneDude: No more Childrens Channel in the evenings at the hotel room Carlsen, please!

I surely hope nobody pushes these kids to do that. They probably need some development outside of the chess openings in order to be well rounded individuals. Because not all them look that way…

We used to play tons of chess when we were kids. I bought two chess sets in my son's school recently, hoping to get them interested instead of that Pokemon thing. But when the teenage years arrived, most of our game was reduced to trying to push the rook on the f-line.

Also -- I know we're mixing topics here left and right, but can someone expand on what does Khalifman mean exactly when he refers to Carlsen lacking a "school". Does it mean that this super-talent never got the tutelage and nourishment during his chess development from a major coach? Something like Botvinik schooling Karpov, Kasparov, etc. How could he develop so far and so fast without a some schooling then? Talent alone?

D.

Mig, I don't mind Christina Aguilera people saying Strauss is boring. What I find a little strange, however is when people say something like

[I think] Kramnik should have played on.

or

[I think] Kramnik should be more agressive with black.

My response to that is: oh yeah? Well, KRAMNIK thinks Kramnik should have taken a draw. And KRAMNIK thinks the way Kramnik plays with black is fine. And since Kramnik is the 3 time reigning world champion, Kramnik knows best what is good for him - at least as far as chess-related decisions are concerned.

Well, I am of the opinion that Kasparov is the greatest chess player of our time, that he chose his peer, himself, and that Kramnik is todays worlds best match player.
The planet will see more people playing chess. And those people will be Borg. And resistance
will be futile.
Now that is irony!

Funny you should say that, Dimi. I'm not sure what you're responding to, but last night I talked with Garry about a book of Capablanca writings he's reading. (Something like "Capablanca in his own words" in Russian. A large compilation of excerpts and articles.) In one of them Capa talks about the importance of a well-rounded education for success in chess. Very interesting stuff I hope to track down in English or Spanish.

Khalifman's comments echo many I've heard the senior class (over 35, say) of Soviet/Russian players say about the new generation of youngsters. That they lack a firm basis of positional understanding and technique that was deeply impressed on players coming up in the semi-mythical Soviet school by generations of trainers. Part of it is systematic, in my understanding, and other aspects are content. I.e. work ethic and then the broad range of types of positions any aspiring young candidate was expected to master in the middlegame and endgame. Garry often refers to a mistake as a "lack of chess culture" or something like that.

Talent and the huge amount of preparation that can be done with computers can substitute for a lot of that and accelerates development tremendously. But it can also leave a lot of holes behind, so the theory goes. Carlsen was well-coached early by Agdestein, no doubt. And there is also a healthy dose of prejudice toward the Soviet/Russian side in such comments, which is only natural. Still, there is the feeling that super-tots like Carlsen are tossed into the arena asap for fame and fortune at the cost of seasoning that would allow for steadier, more well-rounded growth in the long run. This new generation is much more about playing almost constantly and a computer-influenced lack of dogma. Soon there won't be any others to compare them to, so it's hard to compare directly.

Imagine Kasparov having been unleashed on the world as a 12-year-old. I'm sure he would have jumped up the ranks very quickly and gotten a ton of press and invitations. But would he have had the grounding to deal with Karpov later without those extra four years with Botvinnik and tough sessions with coaches? Fischer is the counter-example, I suppose, of someone who raised his game to the top level by pure trial in combat and individual study.

Talking about Danailov's approch to computer assistance, if you analyze today's Topa game with a machine (I did with Shredder) you will discover that ALL of Topa's moves from 14.Qxc3 to 26.h4 are also preferred by the the machine. 100% correspondence. On the other hand Carlsen's moves are mostly not even on top three position.

Fischer had Jack Collins even when he was about 16, already playing at the interzonal. He also read a great amount of Russian chess literature.

I think this lonely fighter image is mostly mythical about certain players. The way I see it, geniuses and lesser talents find what they need; when they need a coach they find them, and when they need to work alone they are not afraid to do so.

Is it true that Kasparov offered to train Carlsen, and Magnus declined saying that he doesn't want to go the Russian way?

I don't think Collins was exactly in Botvinnik's league, with all respect to the man. Very different story.

Train Carlsen? Oh, the Barden thing. With a full-time political career and his book coming out in several languages all over this year Garry's not exactly putting out a coaching shingle. To my knowledge they had one brief session and I'm probably not even supposed to talk about that. Any offer would have been to provide coaches or the occasional joint analysis. Maybe Yuri is getting bored with the Kosintseva sisters...

To me it seems like Kramnik's win over Topalov in Elista was a fluke. Topalov is clearly the best player in the world at the moment. He must've been rattled by the way the first two games of that match went. Had he been a little more fortunate and won the second game and/or drawn the first one (both of which he normally should have) I am sure that he would've defeated Kramnik by a margin of about two points.

Fluke? Let's get something straight. At the board, Kramnik defeated Topalov 6-5, despite having one fewer Whites. In the rapids portion, Kramnik defeated Topalov to win the title. Do we hear a theme here? Yes, the theme is this:

Kramnik defeated Topalov.

So get over it.

People have been talking about schools in chess and the "truth" of the game like the game is some philosohy form and not a finite (albeit huge) problem.
The Russian school was the best until about 15 years ago. Then computers emerged that played better than humans. Using computers is the natural way of preparation today - they are just better. The goal of chess is to win and in this sense computers play most "correct" chess of all that we know today.
In any case, chess is more or less a game of memorizing patterns. So it is not a big surprise when players who dominate are players who spend the most time memorizing positions and opening. Why is Topalov so much better than the rest today? No big surprise - he uses computers in his opening preparation to set up traps for his opponents, has great memory to remember all that, and then after reaching a position out of the opening a computer has shown to be superior, he has enough chess talent and technique to finish off the game.

The "best current player" was beaten by Kramnik in a match, with the odds of "one more white to Topalov"

--Posted by: Yuriy Kleyner at January 24, 2007 15:28

There they go again, the Kramnik supporters calling Elista an "odds" match because Kramnik won by only the slimmest possible margin, 3-2 in classical.

If Kramnik had won decisively, say 4-1 or 6-0, we wouldn't be hearing about any of this odds match nonsense, would we?

Anything to make Kramnik's narrow victory seem more decisive than it really was.

Posted by: gmnotyet at January 24, 2007 15:57

Firstly, Mr. gmnotyet, remind yourself the chess voting public did not give Kramnik a chance in hell of winning that match. So your 'sour grapes' is completely understandable.

Secondly, as the record stood, he defeated Topalov at the board during the classical match. Had the forfeited game been played instead of +1 for your boy Topalov, Kramnik may have won outright by +2.

Thirdly, even given the immense pressure placed upon the defending CHAMPION (who beat Kasparov, I remind you) by your boy Topalov, he STILL managed to defeat your boy in rapid games.

A champion is a Champion if he wins by a landslide or by the thinnest of margins. Your Boy Toplaov had to use forces outside of the chessboard to garner the tying point in the match just to force it into OT.

There are no Kramnik apologists, but there are plenty Toplaov whiners it seems still unable to wash the sour grapes taste from their palettes.

:)

I want to see most is the match between Kasparov vs Topalov in 20 games.

ComputoJon:
Topalov lost a match that went wrong for him from the very beginning and continued that way. A few things:
1. Kramnik did not have one less white - he did not show up for a game and lost. You can't decide which games of a match you show up for especially after your opponenet has already spent the energy to prepare for them.
2. Topalov was no less pchycologically disturbed than Kramnik after all that happened. He was a victim of his manager Danailov, who I agree is scum. Topalov should not asociate with such people and have a normal manager like say Kramnik's.
3. The fact the he lost the rapids means nothing since this is a CLASSICAL chess match.

Topalov is a fine player - a class above the field at present. If he plays another match against Kramnik I am willing to bet lots of money that he would win.

and just for the record - I do agree that Topalov's team played dirty at Elista. It was despicable.
However, when talking about chess strength, you can't deny the world's number 1.
Topalov has been consistently playing better than Kramnik over the last two years. That's why I said Kramnik's win at Elista was fluky and illogical. Topalov should normally win 3 out of 4 such matches.

For me the real WC and best player in the world is Shirov. He defeated Kramnik head to head, and of course we know that Kramnik was stronger than Kasparov whom he beat in their only match.

Aslo, Shirov has a true champion's style; he plays extremely well in matches but doesn't care much about tournaments. He knows what's important.

For me, the real WC is Michal Krasenkow. He is Polish, for one thing.

I think I read Kasparov's interview where one of the questions was whether he was asked to train Carlsen. Kasparov said that he was asked to look at some games, he did and said the kid will turn out alright. And that was it.

This is what I remembered from chesspro.ru ( I think).

http://russiachess.org/content/view/97/38/

has a little different version of what I think is the same interview, that may have been recorded by multiple people:

-Garry, they said you were going to help Magnus.
-What do you mean "help"? They asked me, so I came and spent some time with him. He sees the variations and sees the board.

-Will he be the world champion?
-Hard to say. He will be a contender. I think he is more solid than Karyakin.

Miguel at January 24, 2007 19:14: "Topalov is a fine player - a class above the field at present. If he plays another match against Kramnik I am willing to bet lots of money that he would win."

I think some people already lost a lot of money after the first match.

Dimi, 'school' in English in this context does not mean literally school, as in an educational establishment. It means a group of people coming together, perhaps quite loosely, with a common aim, usually artistic. Thus in painting one speaks of the Flemish school, or in literature the Bloomsbury school. So I think what Khalifman is getting at is not so much a question of formal education as informal, growing up surrounded by (more than one) really strong players, having strong rivals in ones junior years to discuss ideas with, being able to watch and learn from very experienced and strong players from a young age, and so on.

I agree with those who say that Kramnik's win was not massively convincing. I don't agree that what happened was Danailov's fault and not Topalov's. Nor do I think it is true though that the shenanigans disturbed Topalov. I think Topalov probably was genuinely disturbed and even perhaps allowed absurd suspicions to get to him (something his team should have tried to calm down, and perhaps did but failed), but that had happened before the handbags. For Kramnik to keep his composure and go on playing well in the circumstances was a massive achievement, especially for someone like him, who I judge would not be able to feed off it in the way that Korchnoi, or in a different field McEnroe, could.

Having said that, it's childish to point at the ratings and say that Topalov has a higher rating so he must be the favourite in a match. We know that Kramnik's rating is lowered by the fact he doesn't push with Black. One thing that did happen in the match is that Kramnik was outprepared quite often. That might happen again, but it might not. Also, Kramnik was playing a new opening which he obviously had a slight lack of feel for, which was why he reacted so badly to Topalov's novelty in game nine. That might not happen again either. And, as Kramnik pointed out, Topalov lost because of his character weaknesses; he overpressed sometimes, he was too impatient in quiet positions and his nerves let him down. These aren't new weaknesses. Whether Topalov could address them in a rematch would be fascinating. The sad thing is that thanks in part to Topalov's ludicrous behaviour and his failure to grasp how unacceptably he's behaved, we're probably not going to get the chance to find out.

Mig wrote: "Carlsen was well-coached early by Agdestein, no doubt."
---

The impression I got from Agdestein's Carlsen biography, «Wonderboy», was that Agdestein's coaching consisted primarily of picking out and lending him chess books, in addition to a handful of once-a-week analysis sessions.

One example of his coaching mentioned in the book. Agdestein happens to drop by the local chess club, spots Carlsen playing a game, notices that Carlsen mishandles a rook ending, casually mentions that he should take a look at Muller & Lamprecht's «Fundamental Chess Endings».

Mig - Chessbase give the details of the Kempinski game. Incredible for Carlsen not to be prepared for this. This isn't 1907, after all.

"For me the real WC and best player in the world is Shirov."

It's extremely modest of him to play below his strength at Corus, then.

*** MATCH VS. TOURNAMENT SKILLS ***

This era of Kramnik & Topalov has bolstered the theory that the skills needed to win matches are much different than the skills needed to win tournaments.
The FIDE rating is nice, but it is a little over-rated.

*** CORRECT MOVES MAYBE NOT THE BEST ***

As another poster wrote, the two players also highlight the differences between...
(KK) the Kramnik philosophy of seeking moves that are correct in minimizing the weaknesses in one's own position
-vs-
(TT) the Topalov philosophy of seeking planned complications that are difficult to refute over the board even tho they can be refuted during home analysis.

*** CORUS ANY LESS PROOF THAN MEXICO? ***

Tournaments are many. Suppose Topalov continues to win this tournament by a large margin (a full point or more). And maybe Topa wins another.

Those victories will naturally give people reason to post doubting remarks about the claim that the Mexico 2007 tournament winner is somehow more deserving of being considered the new WCChamp more than is Topalov. Mexico's only reply is to point to paperwork signed by Kirsan and Mexico. Mere paperwork.

*** IRONIC BENEFIT TO TOPALOV ***

Topailov's formal $2 million challenge for a re-match with Kramnik was a long shot. Topailov made the challenge anyway because it sets the stage for Topalov to issue another challenge right after Mexico 2007.

Ironically, his being excluded from Mexico 2007 gives Topalov a big advantage in his quest be finally become the WCChamp.
Topalov will have to defeat one opponent. Kramnik will have to defeat 7 simultaneously to retain.

Gene Milener
http://CastleLong.com/

rdh: The sad thing is that thanks in part to Topalov's ludicrous behaviour and his failure to grasp how unacceptably he's behaved, we're probably not going to get the chance to find out.

rdh, c'mon man, you're no lawyer, you don't think like one. Kramnik should kiss Danailov's hand for making him rich! For 250 Euro a game in Corus, no wonder Kramnik doesn't want to make more than 5 moves... Kramnik may not want to play Topalov again, but his wife will make him. Mark my words.

D.

Ernest, yes, Shirov is modest, he has a nice character. Isn't it wondeful to have such a champion!

Gene_M, despite being a Shirov fan, I also adhere to Karmnik's phylosophy of stryving to play only corrct games. I'm getting better at it lately, especially since I found out that the shorter my games the more correct they are.　Me and my buddy have now played ~1000 10-move games and I have selected among them 20 "perfect" games - my moves from move 6 until move 10 are 100% top Fritz moves. Would you like to have a look? I wouldn't mind posting them for everybody to enjoy them.

BTW, Gene, I find the end of your post quite diturbing. You seem to suggest that winning a tournament (i.e. defeating 7 simultaneously) is more difficult than winning a long match (defeating one opponent), even if that one opponent has defeated 7 other simulatenously.

"gmnotyet--(when are you going to change your handle to gmatlast?)"

Shouldn't that be "gmneverwillbe?" I suspect this is the same troll who posts as "notyetagm" (neverwillbeagm) on chessgames.com.

To return to actual chess, Karjakin's play against Anand was really bad. To mention just a few moments:
(1) Bxb5 looks wrong instead of say Rd7
(2) His b3 was even stranger considering that he could have played h5 himself (idea g6 with serious back rank problems for black)

"DaneDude: No more Childrens Channel in the evenings at the hotel room Carlsen, please!

I surely hope nobody pushes these kids to do that. They probably need some development outside of the chess openings in order to be well rounded individuals. Because not all them look that way…
"

Admitted, this was a silly comment. I had just also earlier noticed that he looked tired and uninterested early in a couple of games.

Thinking a little about it, I surely don't envy these youngsters their huge talents with all the implications. But I guess this goes for other things as well, not only chess.

I agree on some of the young super-talents not looking well rounded yet. But this is of course just an impression, as I have never been near any of them. And how many of us would, today, consider ourselves as having been well rounded in our middle teens ?

As someone else points out, the relation between Agdestein and Carlsen would probably not be considered as a teacher-student relation with Russian chess standards.

I don't know the nature of his work with the Danish GM Peter Heine Nielsen. He has been playing a lot the last couple of years I think. Perhaps too much ?

rdh, this is with regard to your comment on playing styles and how Kramnik's style is deemed boring by the majority because they dont have sufficient playing strength to understand it. Since you're British, and appear to have had a classical eduation, I would like to draw a parallel with English literature. First consider Milton's poetry, which is perhaps the culmination of a harmonious style, where everything flows together smoothly, every phrase and syllable forms a cohesive whole, and the overall impression is of a beautifully constructed symphony. This is true not only of his famous long poems like Paradise Lost, but also of shorter poems like Lycidas, or smaller fragments and sonnets. Consider now the poetry of John Donne, where the style is completely different, with seemingly random and irrational deviations from the metre and an overall stylistic convention seems to be absent. However when you as a reader delve deeper and actually understand the construction and decipher the elaborate makeup, your breath is swept away by the true beauty of the poetry, and consequently the genius of its author. Admittedly this is a tough task, and not always rewarding, partly because the references are so obscure, and partly because Donne doesnt always suceed, but when everything comes together, it's as if a vista has opened before your eyes, and you can only marvel at the wit and genius of the man. As a reader you dont have to be able to write at the level of Milton and Donne to appreciate the work of either, and certainly you can have an individual stylistic preference which nobody else can dictate, but is the result of something resonating inside you.
Parallels are fraught with difficulties, but Kramnik's play to me is similar to Milton's; harmonious, everything fits together perfectly, a gentle accumulation of advantages which is an inexorable tide against even the strongest players when everything comes together. To me the greatest exponent of the "Donne style" in Chess is Tal. He understood the harmonious style but rebelled against it, and often achieved a level of creativity which less gifted players can only marvel at. To me, as an individual, the achievements of Tal in Chess overshadowed those of everyone else, not just because he chose a sort of metaphysical path, but displayed mind boggling brilliance along the way. That's just my stylistic preference; I appreciate the Petrosians and the Smyslovs, but I am left speechless by the Tals and Kasparovs. That I prefer Topalov's play to Kramnik's has nothing to do with "not understanding" Kramnik's play. I sometimes dont understand either's but that's not the point.

d, I admire your analogy. Personally I feel there is something rather more of the flashy about Topalov’s play (or indeed Tal’s) than about Donne’s poetry, and that probably it rewards less analysis rather than more, but still.

But of course some people will prefer one style and one another – if anyone says that Kramnik’s style is boring to them, how can anyone else disagree? It’s this nonsense about Kramnik being scared, or owing some duty to fans or sponsors not to play the Petroff (or worse still to play out these terribly equal positions his White opponents have been heading for), or a poor ambassador for the game, or whatever, that annoys me. Of course I ought to recognise that there are fools in every walk of life and more so on the internet than most other contexts, and that they are best ignored, but somehow, like Terence Reese, ‘I can generally be trapped into expressing an opinion’.

This last is also a drawback of Kramnik’s as a politician: Topalov is much better at trotting out banal but crowd-pleasing remarks. The more I see of him the more forcefully he reminds me of the late and loathsome Princess Diana. Ribbons for Bulgarian nurses, indeed. It truly wouldn’t surprise me to see him on the board of a landmine charity and visiting AIDS children in hospital any time now – if Danailov thinks it would be a good idea, of course.

I think Topalov's progression can be explained by training and preparing extensively with computer programs like Fritz over the past years. It explains his improved and computer like accuracy and tactics and his sharp and refreshing opening ideas.

Apart from that he has always been a very strong and tactical player that goes out to win every game.

Kramnik has similar experience with computers ao from his matches with Fritz and in his case it has led to an improvement in his more positional style of play. I am certain the strong opening novelty Qf1! in his game with Anand was developed with Fritz or more probably Rybka.

If Kramnik wants to win tournaments like Corus he has to put more effort into his games with black and not take days off with easy draws with white.

But who says he wants to win? The guy's just married :)

rdh: […] this nonsense about Kramnik being scared, or owing some duty to fans or sponsors not to play the Petroff […]

This is not necessarily true. If the great virtuoso, eagerly anticipated by many, comes to the stage, ends up pulling a short kletzmer tune for 5 minutes then walks away -- there will be a number of unhappy people.

Don't underestimate the little people. Those hopeless cases are the ones who create traffic, keep buying books and subscribing to chess newsletters. If it was left only to the cognoscenti, the field would shrink...

D.

Catpower, according to Kramnik in the press conference a3 was the novelty rather than Qf1 ( a fairly standard manoeuvre, surely?).

Dimi: chess is not a solo performance, nor is it only an art. Requiring the participants to play to the gallery is the death of any sport - that way wrestling lies.

rdh, certainly, I fully concede that the analogy is not completely applicable, but I'm glad you appreciate my point. About being a good or poor ambassador for the game, I cant speak for others, but to me its not about playing style so much as the "sporting style". Kramnik is a great Chess player, great enough to wear the mantle of a Chess king, but not a sporting king. If a World Chess Champion is simply about creating a harmonious masterpiece every now and then, certainly, he's more than demonstrated his champion status. But if its also about success within a sporting context, with its associated considerations of stamina, staying power, courage in competition, and simply winning more often than not, Kramnik falls some way short.

Dane Dude wrote: "I don't know the nature of his work with the Danish GM Peter Heine Nielsen. He has been playing a lot the last couple of years I think. Perhaps too much ?"

I agree. And it is too bad for Carlsen, that he has to play Linares next month, and btw also a candidates match against Aronian later this spring.

After two winless tournaments he would need a break or to play in a sub-elite tournament, where he could gather some confidence.

Let me see if I understand this correctly.

Topalov hires a guy Chiparinov who sits around with a computer all day looking for exchange sacs in the opponents previous games.

He finds one and runs the computer on it.

hands it to Topalov who was sleeping the entire time. Topalov plays Chiparinov's find and everyone says Topalov is a genius.

If there is any genius in Topalov it is his willingness to do as Kasparov did. Which is to hire a full time player to run computer programs looking for sacrifices in their openings.

The sac against Carlsen was easy. Even the computer shows the sac to be favoring Topalov and that is with best complex play by Magnus. Of course Magnus never saw it so he does not play the computer best moves and goes down quickly.

Where is the old days when Fischer without a computer found all his own moves. I just do not see what Topalov did as showing any great playing by Topalov. Sure the moves were wonderful. But it was all home preparation and memorization. Where is the inspiration of Tal or the genius of Fischer. Players who never used a computer.

This is why Topalov could not beat Kramnik. His computer jocks could not find any big gasping holes in the chess lines that Kramnik was using. Kramnik plays carefully and smart. Kramnik is much more a chess player than Topalov.

I am also dismayed by the correlation between Topalov's play and the computers. How come Topalov collapsed so much recently against Polgar and others.

I am personally shocked that people speak words of support for a person like Topalov after his terrible behavior at Elista. Not me. I remember the type person Topalov has shown himself to be and I will not support him or his behavior again.

I did go into Elista supporting him. But I soon saw the truth with Danailov and their behavior. He will not get my support back.

I will only support people who display class like Kramnik, Anand, Magnus, Judit and many others.

I believe when we support people with behavior problems like Topalov and Danailov then we are hurting chess. I will not support people who disrupt chess as a sport. I do not support Kirsan either.

I consider my support to be precious. I dont pass it out lightly. I reserve my support for those who display they deserve support. I reserve it for those who are good for chess.

Frank H, so Topalov was sleeping when Cheparinov was finding moves for him? The entire time, you are saying? My god! Good that you told me, I'll give him no more precious support either. There aren't many guys left like Kramnik who would work on their moves on their own, hiding in the toilets if necessary to be alone.

Frank H,

If it was that easy, there was no need for Topalov. Cheparinov could have played the moves himself. Indeed, you could have. That it hasn't been this easy shows that there is a component to chess besides punching moves into Deep Fritz.

Sab, I see of course that your prefer cheap remarks to discussion, but nonetheless, if you choose to read interviews with Topalov you will see that he himself has described many times how he sleeps while Cheparinov works, and how he has more energy these days because of it, and this has helped him. Kramnik's seconds, by contrast (like Kasparov's) have always stressed that their boss produces most of the ideas and their role is to check them (see the chap interviewed on chesscafe, whose name escapes me for the moment - is it Nalbandian? - and also comments by Bareev in the past). Of course these are fine distinctions in what is basically the same process, but from all one can tell Topalov is less responsible for his own opening ideas than the other two. Which would only reflect the general opinion that Topalov's trumps are energy and hard work rather than a deep intuitive understanding of the game (deep by the standards we're talking about, that is). Contrast Kramnik's amateurish effort at computer preparation in Brissago. (in fact, another reason which might well have been mentioned to explain Topalov's present rise is in the ever-increasing use and importance of computers. It's clear that Kramnik is not good at the purely routine work involved - he's said so - and that Topalov by contrast has no inhibitions and is willing to throw himself into using the things in whatever way it takes to give himself the best chance of winning. The more important computer preparation becomes, therefore, the more strongly Topalov will perform.)

d, I strongly disagree with your analysis of what identifies a champion. The qualities you identify are precisely what go to make a highly rated player who falls short of being a champion. Being a champion in any sport is being about being able to rise to the occasion when it counts. In this Kramnik, since 2000 at least, has been supreme. Courage in competition he has in bucketloads - it took great courage to play the way he did against Kasparov in 2000, again to beat Leko in the last game when everything seemed lost and again to pull himself together and continue against Topalov both after the disgraceful lost point, and further when all seemed lost again after game nine. Physical stamina he doesn't have for sure - I don't see this as a supreme quality in a champion. It leads to becoming perennial winner of the Order of Merit but never winning a major (yes, Colin Montgomerie, I mean you).

rdh,

Cheap remarks, and loathsome too, are yours against a person expressing support for the Bulgarian nurses in Libya. A public figure in a sport that has caught Libyan attention could perhaps really help them. Or maybe you have applied your IM-ly legal brain and found them guilty.

Not at all, gg, from what little I have read they've been treated appallingly, as you would expect of course from a place like Libya. If it turns out that Topalov has been supporting their cause for a long time, or that he's discussed with the campaign for their release whether it would be helpful for him to wear this ribbon (for one day only, wasn't it?) then of course I would applaud that. I suspect however that it's a publicity stunt designed like much of what he does to win the applause of the masses.

I always have my slight doubts about these campaigns about citizens suffering injustice abroad, though. After all, I don't suppose either you or I has studied the evidence much beyond what newspapers choose to report. There's always a bit of a whiff of racism (or nationalism) about them - your justice isn't as good as our justice; that sort of thing.

rdh,

I don't have to read Topalov's interviews, I believe you (plus, just like you I am more of a writer than a reader). BTW, this must be a typo:

"...Topalov's trumps are energy and hard work..."

right? You probably meant "energy as a result of good sleep", didn't you?

gg,

rdh is trying hard to defend Kramnik as a player, and does so to the point of becoming ridiculous as when he says that it took courage to trade Qs (come up with the Berlin defense) against Kasparov--yeah sure. But perhaps he confuses this with Topalov playing (and winning) with the Sozin against Kasparov's Najdorf at Topa's first Olympiad.

Anyway, I know the feeling.

Defending Kramnik as a chess player is as difficult as defending Topalov as a person in relation with his cheating allegations. There is some ( 10% or less) truth in both such stances but not enough to make a sound argument.

rdh,

im not a GM, and i doubt 99.9% of posters here are. the point of appreciating the beauty of a short draw with black makes no sense at all.

we as amateurs and fans enjoy watching chess being played out.
personalities and off the board antics aside... what would u rather watch Svidler v Kram, or Svidler v Topa?
Svid v Kram would likely be a 20 move draw just barely (if at all) out of book.
Svid v Topa would involve actual effort by Topa to win, not just to neutralize, probably exchange sacs to gain attacking chances, etc, etc.
what fan would actually say, "that was an awesome game to watch" when the players played 20 book moves without deviating and agreeing to draw when they both see that the other has memorized the same opening with the opposite color???
i have no problem with lableing Kram the champ, he won the match, he deserves it.
but to admire a the style of a super GM whos goal is to neutralize as black and draw over a super GM whos style is to be aggressive and go for thw win i just dont get.

Ovidiu: "Defending Kramnik as a chess player is as difficult as defending Topalov as a person".

Kramnik the chess player doesn't need to be defended, His results speak for themselves. Kramnik is the best player of his (post Kasparov) generation.

When I was taking multicalculus in undergrad, I had a horrible professor who, everybody in the class felt, failed to explain the material to his students. I had to rely on memorization and study guides written by others. I worked hard on memorization and formulas/approaches designed by others.

It is certainly possible to work hard in chess while not working hard on designing new ideas or understanding theory.

Trading queens by itself is neither courageous nor uncourageous, Ovidiu. You don't seem like an idiot; why do you persist in such crass comments?

The courage involved was in backing Kramnik's own judgment against the world, which at the time pretty much held that the Berlin was an inferior defence which gave White excellent prospects and Black a cramped game with no compensation. Karpov, for example, referred to it as 'obsolete' in 1988.

I wasn't speaking about Topalov - he has courage too in a way; what he doesn't yet have is steel. But if we're going to compare these things, let's remember Kramnik's game in 1996 against Kasparov where he met Kasparov's own innovation in the Meran with a speculative piece sacrifice for two pawns and went on to win.

Neither am I a GM, JC. I don't get any great thrill out of a short draw either. The Petroff produces battles as interesting as any opening - if White has ambition. When he doesn't, I agree it's dull. My only point is that people should try to understand what they're watching and why. And Topalov's style is great. If only he hadn't behaved so absolutely unspeakably in Elista and even more unforgivably since, I'd enjoy his games just fine.

Well done rdh, your talking the most sense on this blog...

Quick question,

How do draw offers work at super GM level? If I understood him correctly, rdh said in an earlier thread that the person who made the last move was always the one to make the offer. Is that true?

The attitude "I don't like how X(normally Kramnik and Leko) plays" seems to me rather childish. If someone wants to improve in chess, it is necessary to understand and learn from both. Kramnik is probably the most sensitive evaluator of positions ,at least in positions that hover about equality. When he has energy, in many positions that most GMs would consider equal, he manages to push them home or at least make the opponent feel uncomfortable. In other positions, he takes a position most people feel is significantly worse (Berlin defense) and holds it. Since he plays these "equal positions" from both sides, of course he makes draws. But I rarely see him agreeing in a truly sharp or unbalanced position. Of course, many people, such as myself regretably, have no ambition to improve. But I think that Kramnik and Topalov perfectly illustrate the richness of chess and to appreciate that, we must see the beauty of both of their styles.

Same as any level, Yuriy. You make your move, offer the draw, and then press the clock. So if the opponent accepts, the last move is made by the player who made the offer.

Of course you can’t always rely on this – if one player is trying to win rook and pawn against rook and decides to stop trying he may break the accepted etiquette and simply offer a draw while it’s his move (never while it’s his opponent’s move, unless perhaps the players know one another well). And I suppose the same may go for some very obviously drawn position reached earlier in the game.

Yuriy, I understand now. Silvio is the equivalent of your professor who cannot teach well; that's why when Topi had only him to help him, he didn't do so well. Cheparinov is like your smarter classmates, who despite the bad professor were managing to figure out approaches. He works hard while Topi is soudly asleep (rdh, is he snoring too; I wouldn't be surprised from such a rude person). Once he wakes up, though, Topi starts memorizing the ideas generated by Cheparinov. Of course, being not very smart himself, Topi has to work very hard, just like Yuriy did to assimilate the ideas his peers.

--It was, of course, not Kramnik but Kasparov who swapped off the queens in the London 2000 Berlin Defense games.

--Would the Topalov fan club prefer that Topalov stopped playing the Berlin?

--Kramnik's 2000 strategy with black reminds me of Topalov's 2006 strategy with white: step off the beaten track, play lines regarded as "inferior", and challenge the opponent to figure it out over the board.

Wow, sab, your knowledge of my calculus class as well as relative intelligence of everybody involved in it is amazing. Now if only one could say the same about your understanding of the fact that "working hard" is not the same as "designing new theoretical approaches".

You know, I never even said that Topalov does/does not memorize the ideas of others. I merely said that if he does, he doesn't work hard.

rdh,

So is the etiquette broken at the Corus level? I keep finding comments like "players agreed on a draw" which of course means nothing since one of them has to offer the draw first.

Come, Greg, that first point is a bit unworthy. White's Qxd8+ is regarded as his only serious try against the Berlin itself, and certainly on move eight.

I don't follow you, Yuriy. One of them offers, the other accepts. Then they've agreed. Reports don't normally go into who offered and who accepted.

The English phrase you've quoted doesn't imply that anything different happened from what I've described as the normal etiquette (in fact I think it's more than etiquette; it's actually in the rules).

Sorry, rdh, let me try to explain (and I didn't mean that they vary from the etiquette). When they say "players agreed on a draw" it gives equal involvement on the idea to both plaeyrs. There is even some sort of a consensus-based negotiation implied. Whereas in reality of course one guy decided to offer the draw and the other one decides whether he wants to go home with half a point in hand or if he thinks the position promises something more.

"Trading queens by itself is neither courageous nor uncourageous, Ovidiu. You do seem like an idiot; why do you persist in such crass comments?"

I fixed your typo rdh. You misspelled do.

rdh--

I understand that white must swap queens in the Berlin, but I had in mind the "point" behind Ovidiu's comment: If someone must be "blamed" for the Berlin queen swap, should it be white or black?

If it's black's job to equalize, then isn't white "to blame" for playing 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 allowing the Petroff? Or for playing the Ruy, allowing 3...Nf6 and the subsequent queen trade?

And when the offer is accepted, they agree that splitting the point is best for both of them. IE agreed to draw...

If the Berlin is so boring, and Kramnik is so stupid... Why did Garry insist on playing the ruy after he knew the Berlin was being played?

He had nothing better prepared?

Is in the rules indeed, rdh. Offering a draw when it is not your move is "disturbing the opponent".
I have had to point this out to people (when they do it the third, fourth.... time).

Kramnik beat Kasparov.
Kramnik beat Leko.
Kramnik beat Topolov.
Kramnik is the unified world champion.
Like it or not.
Enough said.

"Posted by: greg koster at January 25, 2007 14:13
Is in the rules indeed, rdh. Offering a draw when it is not your move is "disturbing the opponent"."

Well, you can only offer a draw after you made a move, therefore it's never your move when you máke the offer.

freitag,

Your argument is with Charley, not me.

If I hear that two countries agreed to a peace treaty, I imagine the two of them discussed the idea, and decided it was best for both of sides. I do not imagine that one of them proposed the idea and the other agreed to it. If I thought the latter, I would certainly consider the country who proposed the peace treaty to be more in favor of ending the war, especially if it does so repeatedly. The term "agreed to draw" to me conjures to mind an idea of the two GMs talking the game over, looking at the board together and agreeing that the game was drawn in theory. Imagine reading "Aronian offered to split the point after 18 moves, and Svidler accepted" and you will get a different feeling.

Imo it was truly poor match strategy by Kasparov to continue to try and crack the Berlin against Kramnik. I think this was basically the reason he lost the match. Mig I would be interested to hear Kasparov's take on that. Why didn't he switch to 1.d4 and see if he could find holes there?

I think we can all agree that by sitting down at the board and allowing "1. e4" Kramnik was to blame for the Berlin.

On a serious note, if you play "1. e4" and your opponent chooses "e5" I can't really think of anybody doing anything but "Nf3" on this level of chess. Which allows Black to choose between Petroff and Ruy Lopez (one hardly sees the Italian or the Scotch anymore). So modern Super GM opening book essentially allows Black to choose either Petroff or Berlin as long as opponent plays "1. e4".

Yuriy Kleyner said: "Which allows Black to choose between Petroff and Ruy Lopez (one hardly sees the Italian or the Scotch anymore)."

Which is really too bad... You would think that with all the opening work (with a good engine) going on behind the scenes, someone would be able to find some interesting and less-well-trodden lines in some of the more romantic openings... (King's Gambit anyone?)

CatpoWer

PGN files suggest that out of the 8 games in the 2000 match where Kasparov had white, 1. d4 was tried 3 times. That of course is little excuse for Kasparov going for Berlin again with nothing new to offer.

Knowing Kasparov's tendency to meticulously prepair for his opponents, to what can we attribute this failure? Well, how about to the fact that Kramnik was known for Petroff, not Berlin, prior to this match. Mark's excellent TWIC describes the utilization of Berlin Defense in the first game of the match as "relatively rare".

Game 3 saw Kasparov get pretty good position with Berlin. Game 9 and 11 saw Kramnik deviate from the old line first, once flat out of Berlin and once into innovation on move 9. Perhaps Kasparov had something prepared but Kramnik thwarted his plans? Or was there simply not enough time to prepare something for the Berlin now, in the middle of the match? Game 13 was a short draw which Kasparov said he needed after a tough battle the day before (sometimes it pays to press advantage).

Games 5, 7 and 15 were closed openings.

Frank H., I wish it was that easy -- have someone prepare lines for you and you just play. Hey, you and I could try that, right?

I’m sure that the role of Cheparinov in helping Topalov and how that enhances his own carreer hasn't escaped on any of them. I do not know what the deal is, but there must be something.

Two consecutive pieces by Yurii Vasiliev from Chesspro.ru dealt heavily with Topalov and Danailov. The one about the 'sad eyes' was written in a jocular way, but definitely bordering with insulting. In the Bulgarian forums bunch of guys got into a discussion and asked their Russian wives (where available) to read it and get the nuances. I did the same with my wife (half-Russian, journalist and Slavic philolog