Today is the first round of this mighty event. This is the third edition of the Sofia, Bulgaria, supertournament. The field this year isn't as shiny as the last few, but it's still a strong and interesting double round-robin. Topalov is the clear favorite as the top-rated player and also playing at home with big local support. He and his manager Danailov are founders and organizers of the event as well. Topalov is the only winner this event has ever had and he will be looking for a big result here to perhaps take back the world #1 rating he lost to Anand on the current list.
Then we have the other Azerbaijani. No, not that other Azerbaijani, the other one. Shakhriyar Mamedyarov is actually ahead of his more famous countryman Teimour Radjabov on the rating list these days, and of course Kasparov isn't on it at all anymore. Mamedyarov hasn't shown much at the supertournament level so far, although he did finish ahead of an exhausted Topalov at Essent last year.
Next we have England's Mickey Adams, who really doesn't need an introduction. He's been a solid top-tenner for a decade now, with the occasional brief hiatus. He also has a good score against Topalov over the years. USA's Gata Kamsky has played very little since nearly becoming the shock winner of this event last year. He was ahead most of the way only to be overhauled by a trademark Topalov surge.
Then we have the relative outsiders, the ones without giant ratings or long elite track records. Romania's Liviu-Dieter Nisipeanu is still best known for his FIDE KO semifinal appearance in 1999 in Vegas. He's floated in the top 20 since but will need to outperform to keep his head above water here. Less consistent is the long-time Indian #2, Krishnan Sasikiran, who has recently been fighting for that spot with Harikrishna. He just dropped a bunch of points and will have to show new consistency in this, the strongest event he's ever played in.
I'm live with GM Larry Christiansen on ICC Chess.FM. More soon.
Hello from Sofia. Mamedyarov looked surprised with Gata's Slav hybrid. Sasikiran's second Psakhis is worried as he's watching the game on the screen. Nothing else for now.
Macauley will be seen on chessdom.com video later tonight. Also live text commentary by GM Vladimir Dimitrov on chessdom.
Gata´s shock and awe strategy didn´t work very much...
Did any of the games end?
Gata managed to get himself a horrible position after an incomprehensible 12th move and and 2 moves later chucked in an unsound piece sac to get a dead lost position after 14 moves hmmm. 1-0 is only a few minutes away. Nispeanu played the scandanavian Q-d6 line and showed that its viable at the top level getting a super solid position should be a draw although toppy has the 2 bishops. Adams had nothing much except a better bishop but did his spider man routine and just sacee the exchange for a pawn to get some chances and saskiran gave back the exchange for a Q+P wnding which looks drawn
1-0 in Mamedyarov-Kamsky dont know whether kamsk lost on time or resigned any way horrible game by him. Adams -saskira Q+4 v Q + 4 dead drawn. Toppy v Nispeanu black is fine very active may even be better looks like a draw
thanks Andy.
Nispeanu is definitely better against topalov who may have to fight for the draw although material is level at the moment (move 42) Nispeanu's pieces are mega active he might snare a pawn
whoa after 15 minute think toppy has horribly blundered a piece and is completely lost!! Super GM on play chess just said - seems not easy to beat Nispeanu this time without assistance. topalov will surely resign immediately
ok Mamy-Kamsky 1-0 Toppy- Nispy 0-1! Adams- sasky 1/2-1/2 Nice - shape of things to come?
Aha - karma. Excellent. That'll teach Tops and his gang to dish out signed copies of his Toilet War rubbish for the spectators.
Nice game by Nisipeanu - enjoyed the ...Qd7..Ne8-..c7 regrouping.
Sofia rules exposes Topalov's lack of late middle game skill. Almost every game I remember him losing he loses in this stage.
Sofia rules exposes Topalov's lack of late middle game skill. Almost every game I remember him losing he loses in this stage.
That's obvious, because he usually wins long before this stage.
Topa's g3 against the scandinavian is not so good I guess.
Kamsky lost on time just as he was, miraculously, back in the game again. Mamedyarov's first win in a supertournament.
If this counts as a supertournament. It's not exactly Linares or Corus this time.
Anyone who's rating starts with "27", that means that they lack nothing in chess. They may have some parts of their game stronger than others, but nowhere are they truly LACKING. It's impossible to reach that level and really lack anything in chess.
Maybe someone else can explain it but I have seen kamsky play really bad stuff before in the opening and stage miracle recoveries but it seems as though he is not super serious about chess and sometimes he just wings it. I guess everyone has an off day but allowing Nxe6 when he has to recapture with the f pawn I can only think he just forgot this when playing Nbd7..
My nephew's rating is 274!
"That's obvious, because he usually wins long before this stage."
Yes, most of Topalov's wins and advantage is seized through opening (out-preparation?). However, survive to this stage and he is very likely to lose the edge and the game.
Joshua, good correction. Topalov's skills at every stage of the game are far above all of us patzers posting on here. However, that does not change the fact that he makes more and worse errors at this stage than you would expect a 2700 level player to make.
YK sez: "Yes, most of Topalov's wins and advantage is seized through opening (out-preparation?). However, survive to this stage and he is very likely to lose the edge and the game."
What utter and complete balderdash. Pathetic drivel, typical of a Topalov hating clouded judgement.
What utter and complete balderdash. Pathetic drivel, typical of a Topalov loving clouded judgement.
The world's second ranked player doesnt know how to play the middlegame and endgame? Yeah right.
I think the proposition is that he doesn't know how to play the late middlegame quite as well as other top-ten players, d_tal, which is not quite the same thing. I would have thought it was pretty clear that that was one of his weaknesses and opening preparation one of his strengths, both relatively speaking of course.
Actually it seems to me that his main weakness is overpressing - certainly in this game - and that this is probably psychologically bound up with strutting around the place proclaiming himself the great fighter and boasting about Sofia rules.
rdh, read YK's comment, he said no such thing.. I agree with you that he overpresses sometimes, but he also gets a lot of wins that way.
rdh, it's pointless to argue with a person who doesn't understand basic English. What I actually said is that by the time late middlegame arrives Topalov's doping wears off and he forgets how rooks move.
oh here we go again, descending to the technique of personal insults in the hope of diverting attention from the points. Well done YK, you just enhanced your reputation for pettiness. I would wager a not incosiderable sum of money that my English is better than yours by any objective criteria.
d, in your time on this board I have at times found myself agreeing with you and at times totally disagreeing. However, I have never seen you make any points and as others have pointed out, you are the first to resort to insults and bombast. I made a statement about Topalov: "lack of late middle game skills". To this, your points are "balderdash," "drivel," and "pathetic". And you interpret the statement as meaning Topalov doesn't know how to play middlegame and endgame, which is an astounding leap of logic as rdh correctly points out. If you wonder why every conversation you have on this board turns into personal insults, it's because aside from them and pompous rhetoric asserting your own or your favorite GM's superiority in understanding of English, chess, literature, etc., you bring little else to the table.
hey YK, here's what you orginally said: "Yes, most of Topalov's wins and advantage is seized through opening (out-preparation?). However, survive to this stage and he is very likely to lose the edge and the game."
The middlegame and endgame follow the opening right? So if most of Topalov's wins are seized through "out-preparation", it follows that he is not as skilled as his opponents in the middlegame and endgame. With me so far? So here's a lesson in English for you, the sentence "However, survive to this stage and he is very likely to lose the edge and the game" would most definitely imply that he is almost universally worse than all his opponents in the consequent phases. This is evident in your use of the phrase "very likely", and also implicitly in your use of the word "survive". The implication is, if Topalov doesnt gain an opening win, he hangs on by his teeth to the middlegame and engame, and "very often" loses whatever edge he might have gained, and then the game. This is complete and utter rubbish, as I pointed out. Topalov is more skilled than the vast majority of chess players in the middlegame and endgame, as evidenced by his standing as the World number 2, and his numerous victories over many outstanding Chess players. Can you remember how he started his amazing streak in Linares? He won against Kasparov in the endgame, also he kept on playing against Vallejo (if my memory serves me right) in a completely level position as black and just outplayed him. Just two examples out of many, and there are of course also examples where he has collapsed with an edge out of the opening. But to go from that to your interpretation that should he come out of the opening anything short of an assured victory he is "very likely to lose the edge and the game." is just ridiculous. It annoys me no end when people who lack the sufficient skill to achieve a single IM norm, of which you undoubtedly are a prime example, feel expert enough to make sweeping pronouncements of the top 10 in the world, the likes of Topalov and Kramnik. Dont subsequently get annoyed if somebody ridicules you, for that is a deserving response.
As for my contribution to this board, that's subjective old son. You're not the first and last judge of what constitutes usefelness. And again, lets discuss what's on the table, your tactic of resorting to ill conceived saracasm, rhetoric and bombast is quite evident in your responses so far in this thread.
"The middlegame and endgame follow the opening right? So if most of Topalov's wins are seized through "out-preparation", it follows that he is not as skilled as his opponents in the middlegame and endgame."
No, it doesn't. If I am better than you than at opening it does not at all follow that I am worse than you at middlegame and endgame.
""However, survive to this stage and he is very likely to lose the edge and the game" would most definitely imply that he is almost universally worse than all his opponents in the consequent phases."
Again, no it doesn't. That's another leap in logic. "This stage" was stated in earlier in the thread to refer to "late middle game skill". And in the very next paragraph of the very post you are responding to I state: "Topalov's skills at every stage of the game are far above all of us patzers posting on here. However, that does not change the fact that he makes more and worse errors at this stage than you would expect a 2700 level player to make." Perhaps instead of "very likely" it would have been more accurate to write out: "much more likely than you would expect based on his level of play in other situations, and I am only talking about against other 2700, he could probably school every single 2500/2600 etc.". But this is a blog and we are not writing dissertations here.
"implicitly in your use of the word "survive""
I am talking about the GM playing Topalov surviving. It should be sufficiently clear that it's not Topalov who has to survive when I just said he seizes advantage through opening.
"Can you remember how he started his amazing streak in Linares?"
Yes. He beat Kasparov in Garry's emotional last game as a chess player after having accumulated a record of -9+1=12 in classical chess against Kasparov over the previous 12 years. And Vallejo Pons, while certainly better than me and you, is hardly the level of player who can give us a good measure of how strong a player Topalov is.
Kramnik-Topalov Elista, games 1&2, Topalov-Svidler at Corus, Topalov-Morozevich and Topalov-Carlsen at Linares, Topalov-Nisipianu and Topalov-Adams from MTel. In each one Topalov is slightly better, or has positional edge going into late middlegame. And each one he misplays the transition, or does not see the opponent's counterplay or plays the exchanges that lead to inferior position or pawn structure in endgame. If you disagree, look over the analysis at Chessbase or Chesspro. And while there also review Topalov crediting several of his wins over the past year to Cheparinov's innovations, two games at Corus come to mind.
"As for my contribution to this board, that's subjective old son."
Of course. But in this case the subjective opinions are largely of one mind.
ok son, feel free to have the last word. Also, have a nice day.
Yuriy,
In general you tend to ruin perfectly good p*ssing matches by interjecting relevant examples and reasoned arguments. Your paragraph beginning "Kramnik-Topalov Elista games 1&2" was nicely done.