In the immortal words of the Black Knight, it's only a flesh wound. Deadlines, heat, and visiting family do not an efficient bloggermeister make. No matter what Al Gore says, I'm keeping my air conditioner on until the dirty hippies pry the remote from my cool, dry fingers. I don't care if they tell me it's powered by the livers of baby harp seals.
So chess, yes, we've had some, thank you very much. Vishy Anand beat Veselin Topalov in straight sets in at the Leon Magistral, holding serve by winning both whites and drawing both blacks. As Kasimjanov said before the event, the other players would only have a chance if Anand had a bad day. Instead the world #1 had two good days and left Ponomariov and Topalov banging their rackets on the grass. Ponomariov was down 2-0 against Anand before he got his seat warm and two smooth draws put Vishy into the final. Only the Kasimjanov-Topalov semifinal saw both players win a game, and Topalov needed a little luck of the Bulgarish to make it through. This was the match to watch if you were looking for serious head-hunting.
In their first game Kasimjanov had a very pretty winning tactic he failed to see: 40..Nf4! and the white d-pawn is pinned, leaving Black up a full piece. Topalov would have deserved it for playing the Catalan with white. Instead he steadily outplayed Kasim in a wild mess and eventually took the full point. There is another cute tactic for Black that could have saved the draw: 57..Qxd2+! 58.Kxd2 Rxd6+ 59.Qxd6 Ne4+. A queen sac and a rook sac followed by a fork. Topalov's nice 63.Rxg4! finished things off. If Black takes the rook, d8Q wins no matter how Black recaptures. Kasimjanov also had good chances in the second game against Topalov's Modern Benoni, but the Bulgarian was just too precise in the again-wild complications. That left it 2-0, but the Uzbekistani made it interesting by winning game three with black with an all-or-nothing attack. Fritzy says 30.Qe1 might have saved the day, but I doubt it. Topalov's KID held in the fourth game to create the expected final match.
Despite the convincing score, it wasn't an easy ride for Anand in the final. Topalov had excellent play in the first game with white and I'm not sure why he rejected the immediate grab of the h-pawn with 25.Bxh6. It was clearly less favorable after the bishop evacuated to c5 instead of being stuck back on f8. Afterward Anand said he thought he was lost. In the second game Anand showed that while a knight on the rim may be dim, two knights on the rim are pretty kickass (I think Tarrasch said that). He put Topalov's Najdorf in a bind and crashed through on the queenside in classic style while keeping just enough defense together on the kingside. Black's attack certainly looked terrifying.
It was another Spanish, fittingly, in game three and Anand changed things up in the Anti-Marshall. He again defended well against Topalov's pressure to hold the draw. Boris Spassky, who was there as an honored guest and to give a lecture, opined after the game that Black could have even played for more. Needing only a draw in the final game with white to win the match, Vishy played a tame line against the Scheveningen with 7.Be2. But things got funky quickly and White gave up a knight for three pawns, something we're used to seeing in Sicilians with a sac on b5. It worked very well here, too; some very nice evaluation and/or preparation from Anand. A few tactical blows (21.Rxd7!) finished things off. That's Anand's seventh win in Leon and his third in a row.
You have to wonder how much further ahead of the pack Anand would be on the rating list were rapid games included in the formula. Doing so would have plusses and minuses and I know some of the top players enjoy not having to worry about their ratings when they play rapid chess. But there are so many rapid events these days, and it's so easy to tabulate everything quickly, that it really should be done. It's easy enough to split them into separate and combined lists, although that's a danger in and of itself. You don't want people to be able to pick and choose which rating they use when it's convenient. Perhaps counting rapid games as 1/3 or 1/4 would do it.
Hey Mig, how do you write such a great article? I hope Indian sports writers will learn something from you.
I second that! Great work, keep it up!
(The environmentalists are sending you a chess set carved of walrus ivory and spotted owl bones!)
There's a good reason why the rapid chess games aren't rated: the faster the time control, the poorer the quality of play. It's a good idea not to mix up the trivial (chess exhibition events, which take place in a day or two), with an event featuring classical time controls. What the chess world values is skill in Classical length games. FIDE could also start to rate FischerRandom games (which is a valid indication of Chess Middlegame skills), but I don't think even Kirsan would do such a thing.
Is there any current ratings list that ranks the top players **in Rapid Chess**?
There is littlefish's "Very Unofficial Rapid Chess Rating" which as of 13/06/2007 has on top
1. Anand
2. Ivanchuk
3. Leko
...
So Anand is classical and rapid king! (# 1!) You just can't play rapid with what your 10 seconds prepared.. Real chess skills needed!
Good piece MIG!
In a way it is good for Anand that Rapid and classical rating lists are not combined. Else, people will attribute his No.1 ranking to his total dominance in Rapid play. At least now people can see he is No. 1 in classical chess too.
Maybe, we should analyse Anand's moves in rapid games using Rybka to evaluate the quality of the moves. As he is so consistently winning/drawing, there is reason to believe that those moves may be near-best in the 'classical sense'.
Topalov's handling of the Najdorf is so different in this match. I don't know what to make of these pawn pitches(I can't believe them it seems black loses a pawn and keeps playing) and since I haven't actually played through many games recently, is this the normal thing these days?
Anand's dominance in Rapids is astounding. While it tells a lot about his abilities, it also says something about other top GMs who couldn't come close to Anand in Rapids.
Technical reasons: Rapids requires sound knowledge on Openings to achieve good positions later on. Anand's style is more intuitive in the middle game, without relying much on mechanical calculations (partly due to impatience) and it pays off in Rapids.
Other reasons: It is quite difficult to cheat in Rapids. Not much role for Seconds or managers either! Who knows what‘s been happening on the board over so many generations? In addition to the old methods of cheating such as sign language, body language, colored drinks at the table etc., technology and cell phones are killing the sport. The absence of seconds and/or inability to cheat could be the main reasons why other big names (including the retired ones) aren’t/weren’t so good in this form.
It is time for Chess to start implementing World Championship for chess in the form of Rapids and count towards rating as well. Plus, who cares if two players play with super-computer like accuracy for 6 hours or more? The match is between two humans. It’s a sport not mathematical contest or science. Plus, anything has to be time-bound. Why not <1 hour instead of 3-6 hours or more? That’s what spectators want and this is where the future is. That’s what they did with cricket. The old-fashioned Test cricket is now near obsolete. The One-day cricket has won the hearts of people and is now the most watched sport in the world.
- Gans
Even if classical chess didn't offer better technique and fewer eyebrow-raising moves, as a fan of chess, I would still much rather watch classical. It takes time for me to evaluate and analyze position, to fully take in the nuances of what's going on. The commentators can do a better job analyzing the position for me and I can hear some ideas from other people in chat. It's hard to imagine that a new fan would be drawn to a sport when he has less time to figure out what's going on/have it explained to him.
Fans of rapids seem to favor competition over aesthetics in chess--they are all about having guy A win. They don't realize that it's the aesthetic and intelligent aspect of chess that makes people favor it over other competitions.
It is actually also quite difficult to cheat in Classical chess, at the highest level anyway. But we've been over that before.
"Fans of rapids seem to favor competition over aesthetics in chess--they are all about having guy A win. They don't realize that it's the aesthetic and intelligent aspect of chess that makes people favor it over other competitions."
Well, it's only a sport and maybe an art but definitely not a science! Haven't you seen classical games being decided in horrible time scrambles?
"It is actually also quite difficult to cheat in Classical chess, at the highest level anyway."
That's a strange comment. I can't figure out why you think so. You would have a lot more time to interpret hand signals and visit toilets in classical chess..
"It takes time for me to evaluate and analyze position, to fully take in the nuances of what's going on."
Exactly my thoughts. I've always wondered why is it claimed that the quicker versions of chess are more exciting to the audience. When even the men at the stage keep blundering, how would a lowly spectator get anything out of their game?!
Except it's result, of course. If a quick result is all chess needs for publicity, we'd better bring the games into a cellar somewhere and after the event, announce round results in one minute intervals. Now this would be exciting, wouldn't it?
"Technical reasons: Rapids requires sound knowledge on Openings..."
I think the other super GMs also have a decent opening knowledge!
"...to achieve good positions later on. Anand's style is more intuitive in the middle game, without relying much on mechanical calculations (partly due to impatience) and it pays off in Rapids."
I think you've got this back to front. Anand's generally considered the fastest player around at calculating variations. He's better than the others at rapid chess for the same reason computers are much better than humans at rapid controls - he gets much closer to playing his optimum fully-calculated moves, rather than having to rely on intuition as other players must.
Or as Nigel Short put it (can't remember the exact quote):
While the rest of us super-GMs are looking at the position, trying to work out what's going on, Vishy is already eight moves down the main line.
>James,
So, is chess just only about brute calculations ? If so, it is no fun. You need only memory.
Chess players like to believe they are intelligent, not just 'calculators'.
It is so difficult to do face-recognition on computer, but humans do it so effortlessly. What is the algorithm used by humans for this ? Why is he not able to program his algorithm into the computer ?
"Well, it's only a sport and maybe an art but definitely not a science!"
It's not only a sport. I didn't say it was a science, but that word is misunderstood by the general public. It stems from the Latin word for knowledge and can be best described as a body of knowledge acquired through "scientific method". (I know, I know, I am defining science through a term that includes the word "scientific," but people generally have a more accurate understanding of what "scientific method" means than science). As such, study of chess openings, endgame techniques and best strategies certainly may be called a science. And there is also the aesthetic or artistic aspect. I don't like calling it an "art" or a "sport" or a "science," I think it's more accurate to say that it has aspects of each. And my point was that it's not the competitive sport-like aspect that separates chess from checkers or monopoly or poker, or whatever table game you want, but rather the aesthetic beauty and harmony of what happens on the board and the great intelligence and thinking ability that is demonstrated by the GMs.
"Haven't you seen classical games being decided in horrible time scrambles?"
Yes--and tennis matches decided by double faults and unforced errors, but it seems silly to change rules to increase the chances of those happening.
"That's a strange comment. I can't figure out why you think so. You would have a lot more time to interpret hand signals and visit toilets in classical chess.."
I didn't say impossible, I said quite difficult, and the reason I say quite difficult is because most of the theories of who cheated have as much evidence to support them as most harebrained conspiracy theorists. Cheating in a top-level chess tournament or world setting, with all the eyes on you is quite difficult.
"is chess just only about brute calculations"
No, there's a lot more to it than that - for example, you need to decide which moves are worth calculating and when to stop the calculation, and then be able to assess the resulting position correctly.
Also, other aspects, such as sporting and psychological considerations, need to be taken into account.
Anand is able to calculate far more quickly than other top GMs, which gives him a substantial edge over them in rapid play. In classical games, it seems the longer time limit allows his rivals to more or less "catch up" with him, so he is only slightly ahead.
It's curious that he doesn't have a bigger lead in rated games. Has anyone compared his rapid and classical games to determine how much more (if any) he "sees" in the extra time? Perhaps it would make a good article.
Don't forget guys, people make mistakes! So don't be that rough!
CMON you pahtetic losers...i am giving even odds to anyone who wants Kramnik buyt puts up more than his stupid mouth...10,000..you take your Kramnick BITCH and I get ANAND,,,,a site will hold our money you chicken bitches...talk is cheap
or you can be like Grteg Koster who lives in a VAN DOWN BY THE SIDE OFR THE RIVER AND CANT EVEN AFFORD A LOUSY 10,000 BET THAT HE KEEPS BITCHING ON..lol