It's final four time in Khanty-Mansiysk. Karjakin ousted Alekseev in the only quarterfinal to go to tiebreaks, blasting the Russian champ's Najdorf in pretty style in the second game. Kamsky had already much the same to Ponomariov in their second classical game to go through. It was a remarkably one-sided game for this level of competition. Shirov took out Jakovenko 2-0 after winning the first game on the white side of a Marshall Gambit. They followed a game Jakovenko played against Wang Hao a few months ago up till move 21. Oddly, with that in mind, it seemed like Black was in trouble quickly against Shirov's a6 pawn grab. 21..Bh3, played by Smeets recently, looks a lot better. Strange. Shirov moved into the semis by winning the second game as well. Spain's favorite Latvian is putting on quite a show so far and I can already hear chess fans licking their chops at the prospect of a Shirov-Topalov match, however undeserving the Bulgarian might be of such privilege.
Carlsen and Cheparinov played an absolutely wild first game. Cheparinov played a sharp piece sacrifice that eventually boiled down to a R vs B+N endgame. It looked like a relatively easy win for Carlsen but Cheparinov kept finding tricks and eventually managed to reach an endgame with pawns versus a bishop and pawn. White went wrong early with the backwards move 54.Kd3 when Ke5 or just about anything else would have won with much less work. Instead, it should have been a draw with that mythical beast, best play. Amazingly, the three black pawns can hold the draw. If the c-pawn goes forward the g-pawn gives its life for the black king to gain just enough time to get back and get the c-pawn. Cool. The game should also have ended in a draw even with just two black pawns. This is tablebase territory and they show the players swapping mistakes several times in a row before the Bulgarian made the last blunder and lost. The last mistake was also an instructive one. 59..Ke4 holds the draw by crossing in front of the e-pawn to shoulder off the white king. The c-pawn is slow and both sides queen with a tablebase draw. Cheparinov won a pawn in the second game but couldn't make any progress in the four-rook endgame. It's definitely drawish, but allowing the kingside clamp couldn't have helped White's chances.
The semifinals are Carlsen-Kamsky and Shirov-Karjakin. [Update: Kamsky just drew game one in just 21 moves against Carlsen's Scotch Game.] There's actually a lot of good content at the official site, by the way. I just haven't had time to look at much of it. My old colleague Sergey Shipov, the best annotator in the business, is on the job and the official bulletins have long interviews with many of the players. Most of those are on this page in html, too.
I'm glad someone finally mentioned the good part of the official website. Shipov's analysis are exceptionally fun to read. He uses a lot of exclamation marks out of sheer joy and admiration of the players ideas. Much like Kasparov in 'My Great Predecessors". The comments are excellent, and his enthusiasm really shines through. The only bad part is that they arrive a bit late. On the other hand they are really worth waiting for.
[Event "World Cup"]
[Site "Khanty-Mansiysk RUS"]
[Date "2007.12.09"]
[Round "6.1"]
[White "Shirov, A."]
[Black "Karjakin, Sergey"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "B96"]
[WhiteElo "2739"]
[BlackElo "2694"]
[Annotator "Price,Richard"]
[PlyCount "54"]
[EventDate "2007.11.24"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6 7. f4 Nbd7 8. Qf3
Qc7 9. O-O-O b5 10. Bd3 Bb7 11. Rhe1 Qb6 12. Nb3 b4 13. Nb1 Be7 14. N1d2 Qc7
15. Qh3 e5 16. Nc4 O-O 17. Nba5 Bc8 18. Qg3 Re8 19. Kb1 Rb8 20. Rf1 exf4 21.
Bxf4 Rb5 22. Bxd6 $2 (22. Nxd6 $1 $18 Bxd6 23. Bxd6 Qxa5 24. Bc7 $3 Qa4 25. e5
Nxe5 26. b3 $3 Qa3 27. Bxb5 $3 Ne4 $1 28. Bxe5 $1 Nxg3 29. Bxe8 Nxf1 30. Ba4 h6
31. Bb2 Ne3 32. Rd8+ Kh7 33. Bxa3 bxa3 34. Rxc8) 22... Bxd6 23. Nxd6 Rxa5 24.
Rxf6 Nxf6 25. Nxe8 Qxg3 26. Nxf6+ gxf6 27. hxg3 Rg5 1/2-1/2
"It looked like a relatively easy win for Carlsen but Cheparinov kept finding tricks and eventually managed to reach an endgame with pawns versus a bishop and pawn."
Huh? To me it seemed like Cheparinov had slightly preferable chances in the beginning of the RvsB&N-endgame, but somehow messed it all up.
Of course Kamsky and Karjakin were happy with today's draws, but what a disappointment for us spectators were these uneventful games. Let's hope for some excitement tomorrow.
WHAT!?! The Shirov - Karjakin game uneventful?? You really must hate chess.... Or was it too much partying yesterday? Hehe.. Really know how that part kan affect the enthusiasm. How did Tal do it?
Great line, Morrowind. Looks like Black has to give up the exchange to avoid it. And those endings are terrible, so it looks like Shirov missed a win.
Regarding Carlsen-Cheparinov, those endgames are all slightly better for White unless Black can generate concrete threats. The g-pawn is strong (and eventually forced Black to give up his rook) and Black doesn't really have a way to generate threats of his own. That's typically true in minors versus rook. The pieces can gang up on enemy passers. With the g-pawn keeping the black king out of the game only White should have had winning chances, barring blunders of course.
Yep, Not ALL draws are "uneventful". Shirov amd Karjakin played down to a dead drawn Rook and P ending. Shirov got into a bit of time pressure trying to find a way to break through. Both players did long and accurate calculations, leading to an exciting flurry of tactics. They fought hard, making it to time control. They attritted their pieces, and spent nearly 3.5 hours at the Chesstable. Sure, Karjakin should be happy with the Draw result: He was defending with the Black pieces, and Shirov had a bit of a pull out of the opening. Karjakin made it through the tactical minefield unscathed, and he earned the advantage of the White pieces tomorrow. On the other hand, Shirov need not feel disappointed about having "wasted" his White, since he played the position out.
You do have a point about Carlsen-Kamsky. One can't really blame Kamsky, although it is true that he didn't play the sharpest lines as Black. Still, the burden was on Carlsen as White to strive for an advantage, and time after time he played the safer--rather than the sharper--move.
Perhaps he did succeed in surprising Kamsky, but he failed to demonstrate anything in the line that Kamsky chose.
Because of Carlsen's craven performance today, I would hope that Kamsky will provide the poetic justice of pressing hard with his turn with the White pieces tomorrow.
Korchnoi on Carlsen:
"Magnus Carlsen made good, even strong impression on me. It seemed to me that the main thing was not a chess aspect, but his extraordinary strong psychology and he uses psychological aspect of his mental power (something of that kind) over the board. I saw him playing a game against Shirov in the tournament where he did not shine out, and during the game it seemed that he should have struggle for a draw, he had a worse position, but he suddenly played an incredible combination. I thought that Shirov was really more psychologically vulnerable than other strongest grandmasters, the same thing felt Karlsen and he decided to risk: instead of playing for equalization, he posed such a problem for Shirov, which he did not manage to solve. However, speaking objectively, Shirov could have managed and could have won the game. However Karlsen decided that he could venture out with Shirov! Now he has one success after another, he takes great strides forward, and it seems even strange to me because he did not “glow” that much last year, I played with him in a tournament in Norway – nothing special. And now he beat down one after another in Khanty Mansyisk – well done! I’ll repeat that we speak not only about a chess genius, but about human mental power, not only a chess one. I’m not a psychologist, so it’s difficult for me to find an appropriate term. Young Carlsen is among such people."
The above interview was 2 years ago.
Korchnoi on Carlsen:
>".. I saw him playing a game against Shirov .. I thought that Shirov was really more psychologically vulnerable than other strongest grandmasters, the same thing felt Karlsen and he decided that he could venture out with Shirov">
'Chess is war over the board. The object is to crush the opponent's mind. I like the moment when I break a man's ego.' Fischer
Viktor's clarity and honesty is refreshing.
Your object is not, as in kung-fu, the physical destruction of your opponent but you go pointedly for ego-killing, for soul annhilation.
It is self evident that for humans the physical harm is not as important and frightening as the psychological obliteration.
Humans primarily think about "saving their souls" not they bodies, and not uncommonly (say wars) they would choose physical harm, even death, instead of compromising their dignity, values and beliefs.
Mig says "the prospect of a Shirov-Topalov match, however undeserving the Bulgarian might be of such privilege".
You seem to forget that Topalov had a right for a re-match against Kramnik which FIDE denied to him.
Which exact re-match FIDE was more than happy to give to Kramnik against Anand.
> "the prospect of a Shirov-Topalov match, however undeserving the Bulgarian might be of such privilege".>
you don't get what you deserve, you get what you are able to negociate...does Kramnik deserve to play Anand ?
I'm sure FIDE will throw in the loser of the Anand-Kramnik match against the winner of the Topalov-WCup for another round in the qualification system.
I already feel obliged to post resources :)
http://cup2007.fide.com/round.asp official site
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesslive other live at chessgames
http://www.chessdom.com/world-chess-cup-2007/kamsky-carlsen kamsky commented live
http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/twic.html#news693 pgn and other useful stuff
Big greeting from Spain to all Kamsky fans :)
You do wonder about people like rasi repeating the same tired old nonsense.
So how come the blog isn't rammed with Americans cheering Kamsky on to convert his extra exchange against Carlsen, then?
Who does the commentary on Chessdom?
GATA WINS! GATA WINS! GATA WINS! (Imagine Harry Caray's voice).
rdh,
many of us are still asleep! my wife is rooting for Carlsen, though. can't imagine why... lol.
Kamsky seemed to play superlative Chess in both games. Today he played a wonder.. Now he's showing the talent that destroyed (a young) Kramnik in 1994
Truly beautiful endgame technique by Kamsky. He's playing very solid chess.
Maybe some US news sources will actually start covering chess if Kamsky makes it to a match against Topalov. Or maybe that's just wishful thinking and he would have to win that match and play for the actual World Championship to get noticed.
A Kamsky-Topalov match wouldn't be news in the US. I doubt if even a Kamsky-Anand or Kamsky-Kramnik world championship match would dent the news much in the US.
According to the official website, Kamsky has beaten Carlsen and Karjakin and Shirov have drawn!
BTW, this is a big blow to Carlsen's plans for one day becoming World Champion. His age (at 18, he's not really a kid anymore) plus the 2/3 year lenght of the World Championship cycle means he won't be in a position to challenge again until he is about 21. Yes, that's still young; younger than most past world champions. So what's the problem?
The problem is that we can choose to see Carlsen in two different ways:
1. The wonderfully talented KID he has been for the last 10 years
2. The world-class GM veteran he has been for the last 5 years
I choose option No. 2.
It may seem silly and completely premature to consider this elimination as the end of Carlsen's WC aspirations. It is obviously not the case; however, it is reasonable to assume that young new, very strong players are always coming up now that computers offer world-class, ultra-cheap private training to any player in the world - the days of Fischer's are gone!. Will Carlsen be able to muster the strengh to maintain his quest for No. 1 or will he relax a bit and go the way Carjakin, Nakamura, Pono, Morozevich have gone? (by that I mean, incredibly talented young players who are still World Class, but who very few people consider serious candidates for winning the World Championship).
Carlsen finds himself, in my opinion, at a critical point in his career.
I'm sure FIDE will throw in the loser of the Anand-Kramnik match against the winner of the Topalov-WCup for another round in the qualification system.
Posted by: jaideepblue at December 10, 2007 01:33
...unless the loser is Anand
Not that the fact refutes your interesting thoughts, irv, but Carlsen is 17 years (and 10 days) old.
irv: "Will Carlsen be able to muster the strengh to maintain his quest for No. 1 or will he relax a bit and go the way Carjakin, Nakamura, Pono, Morozevich have gone?"
For a relaxed retiree, Karjakin's recent results (expected rating change +40) are quite remarkable. But maybe he will lose his last bit of ambition when he turns 18 next month.
Carlsen has gone from having "not yet" any WC aspirations (he's just a kid!) to "no longer" having any (he's not a kid much longer!).
Ridiculous. If you think any chess career is defined at the age of 17; if you think the chess world will have passed Carlsen by in three years (really? most people would say that Carlsen *defines* the chess world over the next three years); if you take this tournament that seriously to begin with: well, we're all in trouble...
Carlsen made his way to the Grand prix tournaments, which serve as a qualifier to the WC challenger match.
Relax, boys.
I never said Carlsen's career is over or that he will never become WC.
All I said is that Carlsen is a critical point in his chess career. How long does it take world-class players to give up their quest for the world championship?
Elvhest, Timman, Yusupov, Yudasin, Speelman, Georgiev, Bacrot, Beliavsky, Judith Polgar, etc., etc, were as accomplished as Carlsen is today (although at different ages). Eventually they faded away. That's how difficult chess at the top is.
Hopefully, Carlse will persevere and go as far as his incredible talent takes him. I wish him the best, while recognizing that his road is more difficult by the hour.
That's all, boys. Now relax and go back to your chairs.
A Kamsky-Anand wc match in 2009 would be the ultimate! Their last match was 1995 when Anand beat him in the PCA cycle. (Earlier Kamsky had defeated Anand in tiebreaks in the FIDE cycle)
Logically Kamsky is through. But good fight by Magnus. I think Karjakin missed great opportunity and will suffer the fire in the tiebreak
A Kamsky-Anand wc match in 2009 would be the ultimate!
Posted by: jaideepblue at December 10, 2007 10:19
FIDE wants to have a world championship match every year now?
2 games remain in SF ??
Actually there are several interesting possible matches:
Anand-Kamsky is one (given that they have some history)
Shirov-Topalov is great for competititve chess
Topalov-Anand also (just see their games lately)
Topalov-Kramnik for scandals
Shirov-Kramnik for also obvious reason
well now Shirov-Anand sadly will not be that interesting (Shirov is a constant "client" of Annad)
What I can see though, is that Krajakin will qualify (despite the fact that I would much prefer Shirov since I am his fan). People keep on underestimating him. We even heard that he was a rising star that has faded... At the age of 18 with rating 2730 :-)
Actually there are several interesting possible matches:
Anand-Kamsky is one (given that they have some history)
Shirov-Topalov is great for competititve chess
Topalov-Anand also (just see their games lately)
Topalov-Kramnik for scandals
Shirov-Kramnik for also obvious reason
well now Shirov-Anand sadly will not be that interesting (Shirov is a constant "client" of Annad)
What I can see though, is that Krajakin will qualify (despite the fact that I would much prefer Shirov since I am his fan). People keep on underestimating him. We even heard that he was a rising star that has faded... At the age of 18 with rating 2730 :-)
Well, though I am happy for Kamsky, the most exciting match for me is still Kramnik-Anand! Topalov has no reason to be there; he should have been in the world cup. It isn't fair for either Kamsky or the winner of Shirov-Karjakin to have to play Topalov for no apparent reason other than FIDE wackiness.
Great win by Kamsky today! Excellent match strategy and perfect execution.
As a Carlsen fan, I'm actually relieved that his run ended today. It's been a very good year for him, but I don't feel he is quite ready for the title matches yet. He can go home now and enjoy christmas, knowing he did all that could be asked of him and then some.
Hopefully, it will also put a temporary end to the people overanalysing him on this and other sites. He's just 17, and I really don't see what he's done to deserve being put under the microscope like he's been lately. He's still young and he's still learning. Just enjoy his games, and if you can't do that then enjoy the games of Shirov, Karjakin, Kramnik, Morozevich or any of the other players who've been showing fantastic chess this year.
Magnus ruptus. What a meltdown.. but he played anemically also the first game of the match. Uncharacteristic. Is he sick or something ?
I hope Shirov beats Karjakin. A Kamsky-Shirov match would be great. I am still stuck in the early 90s. Somehow I still rate the youngsters of that generation(Anand, Ivanchuk, Gelfand, Shirov, Kamsky) over the present crop(Radjabov, Karjakin, Carlsen). Irrational, I know!
Although some would say this is the "end" of Carlsen's run or that his aspirations will fade, I think this is exactly the kind of position that can define greatness. Coming so close and failing to reach a goal often inspires a competitor to go back, re-evaluate, train harder, and then prove what they can do. I remember a certain American doing just that sort of thing a few decades ago...
no, he is not sick
he was just beaten by someone who know more about chess then he does
"Magnus ruptus. What a meltdown.. but he played anemically also the first game of the match. Uncharacteristic. Is he sick or something ?"
According to the reports, he's been exhausted after playing nearly non-stop for two months. He had some very long and intense defensive games in the last two rounds, and if I were him, my head would be boiling from the strain.
I'm sure he's not the only tired soul in Khanty-Manyisk right now, but Kamsky handled it better and won deservedly.
Any talk of Carlsen losing his chances to be WC is silly. All you need to do is look at the age of Kamsky, Shirov, Anand, and Kramnik to see that Carlsen has many years of productive chess ahead of him.
Irv, if all you mean is that not winning a world championship dents your hopes of winning a world championship, it's difficult to argue. But also difficult to see why one would bother saying it in the first place.
I don't think Carlsen had any illusions about winning the tournament outright. Sure, he wanted to, but he's still feeling out the waters at the top levels. It is only one year ago (at Tal Memorial and Corus A) that he really started playing with the big boys, and only a few months since he's started beating some of them. Give him a few more years before writing him off--he still has four years before his chances at "youngest world champion in history" expire. If he's still driven to perform, give him 25 years before writing him off.
I doubt Kamsky can get much press here in the U.S. for one basic reason: his name. It's foriegn, hence most Americans won't be interested. If his name was Smith...Wilson...Jones...then maybe he could get some press. Or if he was writing for the Wall Street Journal like Mr K... But I don't seriously think I will ever see a mainstream media outlet spending time discussing "Gata Kamsky's chess success in Khanty-Mansiysk [another foreign name!]". I mean seriously...in AMERICA?!?!
Kamsky seems to have regained most of his form that he had when he cruised through the Candidates' Matches to qualify to play Karpov for the World Title in Elista. He doesn't play the sharpest opening lines, but he still strives to press for an advantage from move 1. He can play very accurately, and turn his opponent's small mistake into an advantage, and then he can ramp up the pressure.
Carlsen deserved to get eliminated. His opening choices were insipid in both games--like he was just trying to make it to the Tie-Break games.
It is likely that he is better off not having won the tournament. Ponomariov won the FIDE KO Champion, and became World Champion too early, when he was not really mature enough to accept the burden. Pono's career has suffered ever since...
Quote (Evan): I don't seriously think I will ever see a mainstream media outlet spending time discussing "Gata Kamsky's chess success in Khanty-Mansiysk [another foreign name!]". I mean seriously...in AMERICA?!?!
Well, a few years ago mainstream American media was agog over some beardless boy called "Fischer" -how's that for a foreign name? - playing in an outlandish foreign city called "Reykjavik".
Kamsky didn't cruise through the candidates matches. after despatching Kramnik 4.5 - 1.5, he ran into Anand and was soon 3.5-1.5 down. a great rally saw the scores level at 4-4 and then Kamsky displayed great nerves to win both rapid tiebreaks and proceed. next stop was Salov who was ruthlessly demolished and then it was Karpov in Elista.
Ovidiu wrote:
"Magnus ruptus."
ROTFLMAO!
"Magnus interruptus", too?
You're a breath of fresh air, Ovidiu, among all the chess sickos in this zoo/blog...
Just because nothing can be taken for granted on chess blogs: can we assume that "irv" and "ovidiu" are indeed different people?
"I doubt Kamsky can get much press here in the U.S. for one basic reason: his name. It's foriegn, hence most Americans won't be interested. If his name was Smith...Wilson...Jones...then maybe he could get some press"
Have to disagree. With that line of reasoning one would think that someone with a name like Obama wouldn't either, but he has Hilliary running to the "powder room" regularly.
I'm not sure it's Kamsky's name per se that might cause the block; simply that he's not really all that American to begin with.
Theorist,
I know what your saying, but he is an American citizen and that's American enough for any of us. It's not like he just snuck over the boarder and therefore his children's education and health care are paid for.
It's not the name or the fact that you're a native born citizen, it's the fact that chess just isn't popular in the U.S.
Okay, I'll accept that Obama is getting news, but he is also RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, not playing chess. And Fischer was also BOBBY..a pretty AMERICAN name. "Gata? Gotta what?" That's what MOST people think if they hear it. And if they see it, they probably aren't interested. I wish they were..and I wish he could get the press he deserves, but anyone who thinks he will doesn't have a firm grip on reality...
People with very foriegn names playing what is, for many Americans, a very foreign game, just won't get the coverage here in the states.
Also, I think it really WOULD make a difference if his name was more "American"...or if he had been born here. John Smith, born and raised in Boring Town, USA, playing an "exotic" game in an "exotic" location, and reaching the finals would have more of a chance at coverage than Gata Kamsky will.
Fox News aired a story when Kramnik beat Kasparov, I'm sure they'll air a whole segment when Kamsky beats Kramnik ;-)
Carlsen's major-league chess career is only just beginning. Obviously, it remains to be seen if he will reach the top, but you can't read much into one loss, particularly in the World Cup's "one blunder and you're done" format.
Kamsky's having a great run, but let's not overstate its significance. It was only six months ago that Boris Gelfand thoroughly outplayed him in the Candidates matches. We don't have enough evidence yet to suggest that Kamsky is again a Top-10 player.
The coverage in U.S. newspapers would have been anemic, no matter who was playing. Chess doesn't get much coverage to begin with, and this event is merely a qualifier to face Topalov, with the winner to face the Anand-Kramnik winner — assuming all of that even happens.
"Okay, I'll accept that Obama is getting news, but he is also RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, not playing chess."
That's my point, I reiterate, It's not the name or the fact that you're a native born citizen, it's the fact that chess just isn't popular in the U.S.
Regarding Fischer, it wasn't the sound of his name that got him publicity here in the U.S. It was his personality and character. He was independent and autonomous...a rebel if you will, and it was the early seventies preceeded by the 60's and we were in a cold war with the Soviets.
Perhaps you're right, chesstraveler. Certainly, it's difficult to define who or what is "American". A name may tell you something about someone's heritage, but not whether they're citizens or natives, nor whether they speak with an "foreign" accent, etc.
Perhaps it comes down to whether we feel a player (or whomoever) has their formative experiences in America or elsewhere. Kamsky came of age -- in chess terms, as well as others -- in Russia. Nakamura, who (as I understand it) was also born outside the US, nonetheless claims the US as the sole ground for his formative experiences. From the sort of publicity he's been getting over the years, it's clear that he's regarded simply as a "US chess player".
I think that very few of us can claim to have our most important formative experiences (education, language, friends, etc.) in two countries simultaneously. And my impression is that most such people tend to "pick" one strain as dominant over the other (without also denying the presence or validity of that other set of experiences).
I think Kamsky's a wonderful guy. I love it when he does well; I often root for him. Citizen or not, though, I suspect that he doesn't "feel" American to most Americans -- if they ever gave it much thought. Questions of "authenticity" are incredibly problematic in America -- probably more so than almost any other place in the world. (I myself am not American, but have lived in the country for over a decade; I am neither a total outsider nor yet much of an insider).
Kamsky seemed to play superlative Chess in both games. Today he played a wonder.. Now he's showing the talent that destroyed (a young) Kramnik in 1994
--Posted by: d_tal at December 10, 2007 08:59
Yes, the Kamsky we saw against Carlsen here must have been like the Kamsky that wiped out Kramnik 3-0 in 1994.
Looks like Kamsky's excellent showing at the 2007 World Blitz championship, an =3rd with Grischuk, has sparked a return to Kamsky's true form, where he was one of the Top 3 players in the world back in the 90's.
>Fox News aired a story when Kramnik beat Kasparov, I'm sure they'll air a whole segment when Kamsky beats Kramnik..>
If that happens he will get on CNN-live with Larry King. It will happen precisely because he isn't American. It is a golden opportunity to hammer the multiculti mantra.
With the US-flag in the background, he will be asked to speak in bad English, wear traditional Tatar dress, and condemn the Bush's admnistration war in Iraq.
My old colleague Sergey Shipov, the best annotator in the business, is on the job
-- Mig
Agreed. Shipov's annotations are -tremendously(!)- instructive.
I've been building up my chessgames.com game collections just from snippets of his analysis.
He should write a book of annotated instructive games like FM Steve Giddins for GAMBIT.
Well Theorist, I don't know what the specifics of your non-citizenry is--and I'm not asking for an explanation. Considering the way you express your point of view, if you ever wanted to become a citizen...welcome aboard. You've been here long enough to know that it's still a great place to live...no matter what the vast amount of news media's spew out constantly.
Damn Ovidiu,
I'm beginning to like you!
Well, 3 cheers for Carlsen and his great run. The kid is just
starting. If he continues his development with the same intensity, by
the time he reaches 21 he'll be an unstoppable force.
Mig: ...however undeserving the Bulgarian might be of such privilege.
Ok, now that's typical Mig... He loves to pull the chains of various
groups -- one should take a deep breath and move on. Nevertheless that
gives me a taste of the kind of poisonous remarks we'll be reading
about the incoming match in Sofia.
D.
Names in the zeitgest: Anand, Kramnik, Topalov, Ivanchuk, Kamsky, Shirov, Gelfand....
what youth revolution? :-) Party like the 90s folks!
No-one's adequately explained to me why Topalov is "deserving of his privilege". This isn't a straightforward "rematch clause" that he's been given (since he's not playing Kramnik), and I suspect that the "rematch clause" has only sporadically been either invoked or carried through in chess history.
And before anyone throws in Kramnik vs. Anand, let's not forget that Kramnik hasn't yet lost the classical-game title that will be up for grabs in that match (and anyone who thinks he has is deluding himself).
As far as I can see, Topalov lost a match to Kramnik, dragged chess through the mud with his deplorable antics during and after the match -- and has been rewarded by being put straight through to a "semi-final" world title match. It's not "anti-Topalov" to suggest this is absurd; simply common sense. I can't see how Topalov "deserves" anything other than opprobrium for his recent record.
Evan,
Perhaps you have not heard a sportscast lately?! I don't think a name has really anything to do with someone getting air time in the world's melting pot. We are more sensationalists than racists, imho.
Evan, don't tell me. You either have not graduated from college yet or graduated after the dumbing down and cheapening of the humanities: "All social phenomena can be explained in terms of race, class, and gender." That lens is big enough to color all that you see, but it is so superficial that you end up missing most of the world.
Chess players don't get much coverage in the U.S., period. Unless there is something utterly compelling about the story. The fiesty, colorful American Fischer taking on the Soviet chess empire virtually single-handedly was a pretty compelling story. It didn't matter a whit what his name was. It was a great story.
Kamsky is a US citizen, but his chess is a product of the Soviet chess school. He didn't come to the US until he'd already become a formidable player, twice winning the USSR juniors championship. His is not a story about an outsider threatening the Soviet domination of the chess world.
If Nakamura rockets into the top ten and gets close to qualifying for a WC match, we'll hear more about it. Would it be because his name is more of a traditional-sounding Johnson or Smith? No, because his chess was "Made in America."
It won't make nearly the splash of Fischer because the cold war days are over, the old Soviet chess school has been dispersed (but is still powerful), and Nakamura does not have the eccentric and compelling personality of Fischer.
Yes, of course the cold-war undertone of Fischer-Spassky had a lot to do with why the match was such big news.
But the other problem is that FIDE has dumbed down the world championship. Hardly a year goes by that they don't change the rules in some significant way. Every time they do it, the credibility of the title takes another hit. It seems like every winner—even obviously worthy ones, like Anand—is just the random beneficiary of whatever made-up system happens to prevail at the moment.
At this point, three major matches have to take place: Kramnik vs. Anand; Topalov vs. the World Cup winner; and then a match between the winners of those respective events. What is the probability that all of these matches will happen on time, without an intervening change to the rules?
Marc Shepherd, that is a very good question. FIDE (Kirsan) changes its mind so often that you never know what is going to happen.
Theorist: No-one's adequately explained to me why Topalov is "deserving of his privilege".
You can explain things to yourself if you think two moves ahead. Your
problem is that the FIDE moves are not covered by Rybka/Fritz and you
can't solve such puzzles. So read the following carefully!! :-)
Nobody has ever said that Topalov deserved this privilege any more
than Kramnik to have a "second chance". No, but when FIDE granted
Kranmik's ridiculous request for an insurance match in order to entice
him to fulfill his contract to participate in Mexico, it was obvious
that you can't have the winner of this World Cup wait 2(!!) years for
a chance to play the winner of Mexico/Kramnik. Do you follow? So, Ok,
now comes the typical FIDE move -- let's pacify Danailov/Topalov for
all that happened (denied rematch, no Mexico, etc) and kill two
rabbits with one bullet -- the winner of this Tournament gets to play
Topalov. Got it? Simple, yes?
D.
Would you really like to see Carlsen playing Danilov - oh I mean Topalov - in a match? I don't think he would be psychologically ready yet. But then maybe he could get Kamsky's father as a manager. What a match that would be!
Now there's my favorite comment yet (from Rich) - Rustam Kamsky (Gata's father) vs. Danailov. Gata vs. Vesselin would be interesting too, but could never compete with the former for fireworks.
Unfortunately, Rustam seems to have vanished these days ...
Wow, Kamsky took everone's favorite cromagnon to the woodshed like a red haired step child. Kamsky is incredible, we are not worthy....
Kamsky is as American as the Statue of Liberty!
VLF.
Karjakin will play Topalov
the statue of liberty is actually french :)
> Nakamura does not have the eccentric and compelling personality of Fischer.>
What a misfortune indeed, but has there been anyone matching Fischer's "total-recall" chess-attitude ?
Steiniz perhaps comes close enough to be worth considering for a second, but otherwise none.
It wasn't only, even mainly, the Cold War, it was that most people realized intuitively the phenomenon that Fischer was. He could have played ping-pong and he would have still stirred fascination.
Dan:
As a matter of fact, I have graduated from college and received a master's degree. How wonderful of you to make educational assumptions based on my opinions.
Perhaps you should go back to your cave.
Why is it that you people can't disagree without getting personal or confrontational. No wonder all of my non-chess playing friends make fun of chess players they see when they go to tournaments with me. Most of you have the social skills of semi-retarded neanderthals. Maybe if you all took this a little less seriously, you would have some perspective.
Kamsky won't get US press for two reasons at least.
1. He made it to the finals in an event that can only promise a match against the former world champ . . . This Fide orchestrated mess does not sell well in a brief "news" blip. Only those familiar with the International scene recognize how significant this is.
2. No one here in the states is working hard to promote Kamsky . . . or anyone for that matter. I hope the USCF sends out a press release.
It would be a sad state of affairs for Gata, as an adult, if Rustam was still around calling the shots and pulling all those insane antics of his. I believe it was because of his fathers influence that Gata lost those 8-9 years of chess--at which time he was as strong as Kramnik and Anand and better than Topolov. Granted, he passed the Bar and is licensed as an attorney, but his calling is chess. No, I'm glad he has become his own man.
Kamsky's story is big enough for getting some coverage, and it is a very American story. But chess is now so far out of the mainstream that it's not likely some major sports channel will bother to tell it.
By the way, big stories: How about Shirov winning and taking revenge for his stolen WC match at last?
Evan, my comments about the superficiality of the race/class/gender "analysis" were more about the superficiality of the race/class/gender "analysis" than about you.
And the "educational assumptions" were more about WHEN you got your education, not about any level you attained. The humanities have been debased to such a low level in the past 20 years that they offer little more than the race/class/gender hypothesis for virtually everything, even phenomena that can be much more plausibly explained by simple observation and without need for a biting cynicism and holier-than-thou judgementalism.
There's really no need to take my light-hearted, non-personal comments so personally. They weren't intended that way.
Evan,
I can't and won't speak for any of the others, but I was expressing some opinions. I don't believe that I was confrontational or became personal in any way, at least that wasn't my intent. If you still think so, then I have to consider the possibility that you are a little too sensitive.
''Why is it that you people can't disagree without getting personal or confrontational''.
Posted by: Evan at December 10, 2007 18:28
You diagnosed it correctly. A mixture of poor social skills, misplaced aggression and the lack of accountability from hiding behind a computer image- a lethal combination for appropriae social conduct.
Back to chess, i think a Kamsky-Shirov match is a tantalising prospect. Fire vs Ice, and both of them play the endgame rather well. And i look forward to an eventual Shirov-Topalov slugfest. The future is bright.
No, chesstraveler, my comments were directed toward Dan, who decided that because he didn't agree with my opinions, that I was uneducated. It seems that disagreements here always turn into insults. It just reinforces all the stereotypes about chess players.
And as far as the issue of Kamsky getting media coverage, I believe that it is less politics and more about the $$. There is no US money in chess, no advertisers interested in sponsoring chess in the US, so no media outlet who will cover a former Russian player playing in Russia.
My goodness, Evan, you ARE intent on misreading my comments, aren't you! And in a way that convinces you that that I'm out to get you. But I really am not.
You are obviously well-educated.
On another note...
The paradigm of post-modern education:
1. All can be explained in terms of race/class/gender;
2. When someone argues that a given phenomenon is better explained in other terms, be offended; and 3. Vigorously attack the one you perceive as giving offense.
This paradigm has had a virtual monopoly in a goodly chunk of the humanities and social sciences over the past 15 years or so.
Is it a wonder why I'm betting you got your degrees fairly recently?
"the statue of liberty is actually french :)"
I know Artyom, that was the point of my comment.
The VLF on the second line was clue..Vive la France!
Dan wrote: "The paradigm of post-modern education:
1. All can be explained in terms of race/class/gender;"
Isn't that exactly the sort of all-encompassing yet myopic over-generalization that you were complaining about in another poster? An absolutely preposterous characterization of modern academia (both utterly wrong and wrong-headed).
I'm betting you're someone whose academic aspirations were thwarted.
(And, by the way, you really were portraying one of the posters here as a dumb victim of a misguided education; if you don't think that's personal, I can point you in the direction of some good books that might help...).
Babson said "I know Artyom, that was the point of my comment. The VLF on the second line was clue..Vive la France!"
Vive la France! Indeed. Thanks for the clarification.
Nice to hear from you, Theorist!
Please read what I wrote and not be confused by what you THINK I may have written. I was giving an all-encompassing over-generalization of post-modern education, not modern academia in general. And I didn't portray any poster as a dumb victim of misguided education; instead, I called the post-modern education "dumbed down". [Do you disagree? Or is the post-modern education "same-ol'; same-ol'"? Or is it "smarted up"?]
It has only been in the past decade or two that large numbers of smart, well-educated people have been positing "race/class/gender/etc." as their knee-jerk first response to 'most any social phenomena. Before the 90s, it was only Marxists who thought that way. Now, that line of thought is rampant on campus.
And, no, my academic aspirations were not thwarted, but my PhD is in the sciences (with MS and BA in math), and not in the humanities or social sciences, which have deteriorated substantially in the past few decades.
"let's pacify Danailov/Topalov for
all that happened (denied rematch, no Mexico, etc) and kill two rabbits with one bullet -- the winner of this Tournament gets to play Topalov. Got it? Simple, yes?"
They were denied a rematch because there was no time for a rematch before other tournaments started, plus after that you ran into the 6-month window from the Mexico tournament. The only unusual thing was that FIDE actually followed its own rules for once. Danilov knew there was no time for a rematch as did anyone else who knew how to use a calendar. No doubt he did it so they could later say it was Kramnik's (or FIDE's) fault the rematch didn't go through.
And Dana/Topa were denied a place in Mexico because it was their loser-exclusion clause that was placed in the Elista contract. They figured they'd easily beat Kramnik (whose Elo was 67 points below Topalov and in a "different class altogether", as Topalov said), so they thought the loser would be Kramnik.
As we know, they fell into the trap they'd made for Kramnik, and then complained about how unfair it all was. So FIDE, for who know$ what rea$on, decided to seed Topalov to the head of the line even though he lost the match?? Is FIDE in the habit of pacifying the losers of a match now? If Kramnik didn't deserve his rematch clause (despite lots of precedent), how much more undeserving is the loser (Topalov) in being allowed to skip a qualifying event like the World Cup?
If Topalov was given this privilege, why not give the same privilege to those who failed to qualify for the Mexico tournament? They were excluded from Mexico too. Let's pacify one (or all) of them and kill two birds with stone. Heck, why not pacify Shirov and allow him to jump to the front of the line. He has a good reason. Or pacify Nigel Short. Poor man lost his match to Kasparov, and had a difficult time with Kamsky's dad. Nothing makes Topalov deserve his privilege any more than other GMs.
>The paradigm of post-modern education...
cultural marxism, Gramsci won
Putting aside for the moment the fact that Topalov should not be seeded into the semifinals, what really bothers me about this 'cycle' is that we will see at its end a match for the world championship that never allowed the best non-champ to participate. In other words, the loser of the match, Kramnik-Anand (and pretty much everyone agrees that these two are the best in the world right now) will not have had any chance at all to get into this next world championship match. A cycle that just passes the best player right by for no reason - how great is that?
Dan, your point is absurd. I won't even go into whether you're right or not about humanities and academics, because no one before you said anything about:
1. Humanities
2. Academia
3. Class
4. Gender
5. Post-modernism
Even the comments about Kamsky's foreign origins weren't really about race until you tried to make them such. No one tried to build a vast racist conspiracy theory - Evan just noted that Kamsky may seem more like a Russian than an American to the average American, who of course pays no serious attention to chess for a number of reasons.
You obviously have an axe to grind with somebody, but you're not going to find him here - maybe try a forum that has some connection with your hobby- horses? Of course, there you risk getting out-debated by the humanities snobs you loath.
ok, stunning first tie breaker between Karjakin and Shirov. Can somebody please tell me how long the break is before the next?
10 minutes, second already started.
Aaaagh! Still can't get official site and chesspro.ru aren't doing it. Anyone know anywhere that is???
thanks Nigel, am watching it. I think Shirov must have missed a win for sure in game 1, but tough with the time control. Extremely complex tactics.
rdh, offical's site's shortcomings are probably related to your browser/network settings. Works fine for me. Try TWIC, they have a list of links
If Shirov converts, he should give Ivanchuk a 10% tip for the TN.
Yes, Shirov had a completely won position in the first game. he is at present better in the second, but behind on the clock
shirov bringing it home now..!
Shirov very short of time, but two pawns up
Shirov-Kamsky final
great nerves from Shirov especially after messing up 1st game
oh well done old son, that was awesome! Can somebody pls tell me, is the final also same no. of games and same TC as the rest of the rounds?
Absolutely beautiful win by Shirov. Excellent endgame technique.
The average age of the world cup participants was 21 years, a few days ago, and now it is 33!
Another remarkable thing to mention is that grandmasters are getting younger, but world champions are getting older.
The enormous amount of information makes it easier for the professionals to make the difference against amateurs but gives an advantage to the 'older' (i.e. 30+) professionals because they have already spent more years studying.
I just woke up and I am not sure if I was dreaming. Today, December 11, 1995, I heard that the new World Chess Championship title will belong to one of these young guys: Anand, Kramnik, Topalov, Shirov and Kamsky. One of these young guys will succeed Karpov and Kasparov in the throne of the chess world ... Anand is the oldest with 25 years old, Shirov is 22, Kamsky is 20, Kramnik is 19 as well as Topalov; the latter being the one who defeated Kasparov in the Chess Olympiad last year. Despite the fact chess program aren't as strong as chess grandmasters, the beginning of a computer era in chess will influence future champions, who will have easier access to game databases and other training material. It has become evident that the new generation has arrived to take the top spots of the ranking list.
First, thank you to everyone who was able to see what I was trying to communicate. My statements were not a judgement on our society, merely an observation. "Gata Kamsky", unless he is playing hockey, probably would never get much air time in American media. I don't think it is about race or anything other than the fact that his name sounds foreign, so most viewers won't be interested - and that is what drives news in this country. Add to the mix the fact that he is play chess, and you just lost even more viewers. And when I say foriegn, I'm not just talking about nationality; I'm also referring to what people in American society are familiar with. I don't think we see much coverage of cricket, rugby or darts, despite the fact that these are very familiar games in other english speaking countries. They are just too foreign. Soccer suffers, still, I think from this to a degree, and hockey has only in recent decades overcome the hurdle.
Secondly, Dan, you made an assumption that I either had NOT graduated from college or that my education was inadequate in some way. However, you seem to make another assumption: a person's education is the only means by which he or she can develop an idea. I have discarded some of what I learned in college as useless crap, and I have done my own reading, studying and learning since both my undergrad and masters. I have also held on to some of the very good ideas I encountered in my formal education. I find that most intelligent people have done this. It is the people who swallow everything they are given, whether it be education or news programming, who I find to be ignorant (uninformed, and without original ideas). To believe that only a person's education can help them develop their ideas is taking a lot away from the human intellect, don't you think?
Have Shirov and Kamsky ever played a classical game against each other.
Dan, thanks for the response (even as you sign it under my name). It's garbled, but I think I get what you mean. The distinction between "post-modern education" and "modern academia" would be easier to understand if you could explain how your ideas of university education in the social sciences and humanities weren't somehow the same thing as "academia" (and if the phrase "post-modern education" meant anything -- the kind of neologism I would have thought you'd abhor).
I'm not sure what you think happened in 1990 (did "modern education" suddenly become "post-modern education", for instance?) I suspect you're confused: surely you know that the kind of po-mo things you seem unhappy about happened a long time before 1990.
Evan has written an eloquent response to your ideas about his education; I see no reason to add to them (for some reason, he too thinks that your suggestion that he's either too naive or too stupid to think for himself -- and must therefore uncritically absorb everything his "post-modern education" [sic.] gives him -- is offensive.)
Still, if we're to perpetuate the sorts of stereotypes you seem to thrive on: you're not the first scientist to have felt threatened by something in the humanities that they didn't understand, eh?
Shirov and Kamsky were great rivals as juniors in the former soviet union.
I have found Kamsky and Shirov playing about 17 classical games. Shirov has a large plus score 9-2, with 6 draws. They have played other games, as well. Blitz, rapid, and blindfold. The only 2 classical games I find where Kamsky has scored the full point on Shirov, were.....at the Alekhine Memorial and Dortmund, both in 1992. Accept my apology for any other games I have missed.
Yes, of course Jean - stupid me. I found 17 games and Shirov has a clear edge: +7=7-3.
I found these Kamsky's wins:
Shirov-Kamsky:0-1, Ivano Frankovsk, URS-ch U16, 1988
Shirov-Kamsky:0-1, Moscow, 1992
Kamsky-Shirov:1-0,Dortmund, 1992
Seems to me Kamsky-Shirov is completely unpredictable. Games from the 90s are Kamsky I. The strength of Kamsky II has been increasing with each event, and his play here is the highest yet. So, results with Shirov in the past couple of years are stale against Kamsky's (II) steady rise, and those of Kamsky I are impossible to interpret against today's players.
Pawnpusher, Darn that game I find in 1988, was a 47 move draw. Can't find that win you mentioned!..thanks...search continues:-)
Theorist, I didn't sign my last post using your name. It is a bug of some sort...I noticed someone else earlier had this same problem of the wrong name being appended on the post.
And thanks for the offer of book recommendations. Although I appreciate it, I don't think that'd be a good idea. We "semi-retarded Neanderthals" aren't even supposed to be able to read. If I were to "go back to my cave" with a book, my wife would probably think it was some sort of modern fire wood and burn it. Wait a minute! As a chess player, we should all "laugh at" my " social skills". Maybe they are so bad I wouldn't have a wife. Hmmm.... now there's food for thought!
Agree Vxqti, all the way. A really great story for the winner no matter who it is. Both players nixed their own advance in chess. Now they are getting a new life. Of course, I believe, for all us amateurs out here, having a guy like Kamsky who basically decided to have it both ways, young chess talent--quiting to get a college eduation, then getting back to chess, is the more unique event. Shirov basically screwed himself and could have played Kasparov, but declined. Either way, good for chess.
My score with Kamsky until 1988 (included) was +3-4=3. The rest can be taken from databases.
Cool! Alexei, congrats on your showing so far from a long time fan
Congratulations Alexei, you played two nice games What do you think that your chances are in the final? Do you consider yourself the favorite?
Congrats, Alexei. But please don't waste more opening preparation time on reading blog comments!
They have done their opening preparation before the tournament. The best thing they can do is relax and let their seconds work.
I noticed that Kamsky and Shirov both had something in store for white in the Najdorf poisoned pawn. It would be cool if one of them would dare to play it with black.
Was that the real Shirov commenting ?! I can't believe he's not in the jacuzzi after those games !
The 1994 game Shirov-Kamsky from Linares features the beautiful move Kh3 which appears in the front of Shirov's book Fire on Board.
"Gramsci won"! LOL!
But you may be a little early in calling it over...
Home preparation in the teens and '20s; an fiery attack in the '60s and '70s; what looked to be a winning position in the mid-'80s and '90s; but with a forceful counterattack in the center in the '00s, the holes in the position are becoming clearer each day.
Don't forget the major counterattack in 1933-1945.
;-)
Who will play white in the first game?
I am pretty sure it was The Man himself, Ahsan. GM Shirov is one of the very few Super-GMs who gives out information to us aficionados.
(I once asked him on ICC whether 47. ... Bh3!! was the only move to win in Topalov-Shirov, Linares 1998. He promptly answered that it wasn't, but winning with any other move would take much, much longer. In a different matter, he even gave me his e-mail address.)
Yes, Shirov has posted here before.
Very glad indeed that we get to see Kamsky vs. Shirov! Like Shirov, Kamsky has always been a real gentleman on ICC. It's been a treat to see him get better and better. Strangely enough, during those early comeback days, I'd never had so clearly a glimpse of how much raw talent top GMs have. Perhaps it was because he seemed to be using nothing but talent and technique to get by. In any case, it was unforgettably impressive.
I would be happy to see either Kamsky or Shirov win -- but who do we think would have the best chance against Topalov?
This is a fantastic matchup with a good story line.
Shirov was my #1 favorite pick on the top half and Kamsky was my #2 favorite on the bottom half (behind Carlsen).
[Disclaimer: No, I did not predict these guys would be in the finals, but I'm happy to see them there.]
Gotta go with Gata. Nothing against Alexei though since I'm currently going through FIRE ON BOARD PART II for the second time--love this book. Someone earlier mentioned Fire and Ice which is a perfect caption for this one. If it lives up to its billing, we should be in for some interesting chess. Good luck to both!
I am happy to see Shirov and Kamsky in the final instead of Karjakin or Carlsen (the young guys still have time to win these events). I have a doubt on the format of the final and I checked at the FIDE webpage; I am glad the match will be over four games instead of two like the previous world cup (well, it is not perfect -I would prefer six with more rest days) but at least is an improvement). Perhaps I was the only one who wasn't sure about the format of the final, but I will put the paragraph below (from FIDE):
"3. 7. 2. The final 7th round will be a match played over four (4) games and the winner of the World Cup will be the first player to score 2.5 or more points. A tie shall be broken according to article 3. 8. (according to 3.8, there is no difference tiebreaks in the finals with respect to the previous rounds) "
"I am pretty sure it was The Man himself, Ahsan. GM Shirov is one of the very few Super-GMs who gives out information to us aficionados.
(I once asked him on ICC whether 47. ... Bh3!! was the only move to win in Topalov-Shirov, Linares 1998. He promptly answered that it wasn't, but winning with any other move would take much, much longer. In a different matter, he even gave me his e-mail address.)"
Actually Knallo, Mark Dvoretsky showed in a column of Chesscafe (you can find it in the archives of that webpage) that in fact the famous 47 ... Bh3 was the only winning move in that game, something that Shirov didn't knew at the time according to Dvoretsky. But anyway, I will root for Shirov (despite the fact I like Gata too) in the final. Best wishes to both players...
Just think how strong those Soviet junior tournaments in the '80s must have been... many of today's top players, including the two World Cup finalists, come from that background.
Off-topic, but with the earlier focus here on Kamsky's American context, it's worth noting that 13-year old Ray Robson appears to have just nailed a norm-based IM title starting from scratch, in a mere 6 weeks! That's gotta be some kind of record.
At the end of October, Robson had zero norms; today he has three (plus an excellent shot at making a GM norm in the same event that he just locked up his final IM norm - with FIVE rounds to go!).
Robson is tied for 1st at a GM Invitational in Dallas, with 4.5/6; wins against GMs Panchanathan and Jun Zhao, and against IM's Boskovic and another IM (Bercys?) Coverage here: http://main.uschess.org/content/view/8068/141
Dear Daniel J. Andrews,
you got pretty long winded over there, so let me just distill for you.
Both Topalov and Kramnik "LOST" their WCC titles... Ok!! Both got some
privileges to challenge the title holder by jumping to the front of
the queue. Kramnik, as the winner of Elista got a better privilege.
BUT NONE OF THESE WERE BREAKS NEGOTIATED PRIOR TO ELISTA!! They came
as a result of arm wrestling after that... So, to bitch about Topalov,
but to smile gently on Kramnik is hypocrisy!! And idiocy too, because
had it not been for the unprecedented break Kramnik got, probably
Topalov wouldn't have gotten his break too. If want to blame it on
someone, blame it on FIDE, Zhukov, Kremlin and Hensel and only then on
Topalov/Danailov.
D.
Logically shirov is the favorite in the 4 game match with the higher rating. I think too that he would havee better chances againts Topalaov. Its been a great performance by Kamsky but there is still the doubt about his opening preperation. I would be happy to be proved wrong on this but whereas I can see Shirov stepping up to the plate for example against toppys Najdorf I just dont know what Kamsky has got in the tank - the memory of the performance against Gelfand still lingers. Still he has great nerves and chess understanding it should be really good chess contest with Shirov - I predict comfortable Shirov victory.
Dimi,
What does your continued bitterness for Kramnik have to do with this thread? You've become borish and boorish at the same time. Give it a rest.
I was not quite following FIDE stuff at that time, but why didn't they include Topalov into Mexico event instead of Kramnik and then decide the winner to play against Kramnik (already world champion at that time) for the WC title?
I could be more fair and meaningful in my opinion. FIDE sucks!
By the way, no one could imagine a World Cup finale more exciting that what we got know!
Shirov-Kamsky! WOW!
chesstraveller, please don't get personal with me. This is not your sorority and your appreciation is not what I am after. You have the tendency to discuss people, their popularity, likeability, etc. Let’s not go there because you’re fruit like the blog’s beauty queen…
D.
Some years Topalov would have been no match for Shirov, but since Computers starting to dominate circa 2005) he doesnt fear anything.
I still remember a Crushing Perenyi Attack by Shirov over Rybkalov on a WAZ a few years ago.
Anyway I hope the Man, get some manager help and DONT play in Elista, where the same guys who tried to kill Karol Wojtyla could easily prearrange the computer Cheat.
Why not to play in Spain? Shirov is Spaniard and Topalov live there even more.
My 0.2cents
ooops IM sorry I typed Elista When I was thinking in Sophia. (2 girls name here, hehe)
I just Hope Shirov doesn't play in Sophia if he win this Cup.
"Some years Topalov would have been no match for Shirov..." - Phothos.
I am not saying you are wrong, but Vienna 1996 saw Topalov in shared 1st place and Shirov in 5th, I believe.
Dimi,
For someone that gets negative with just about everyone and everything on this blog, and God help someone if they disagree with you, your request of not getting personal is hilarious, not to mention hypocritical. In your world I guess discussing "likeability" is a bad thing. Well, okay then, I don't like you and quite frankly...your a jerk! With your penchant for criticism and confrontation, that should make you feel better.
chesstraveller:...I don't like you and quite frankly...your a jerk
Ok, got it... It's true, I am terrible!! In that case, do not read me, stay away from me, get lost. Don't ever comment on my persona or act freakish. Please!
D.
"Some years Topalov would have been no match for Shirov..."
Neither was Kramnik "some years ago".
What's good for chess is
1) we have (or in the opinion of some) we'll have a single world champion
2) all the current candidates (kramnik, topalov, shirov, and kamsky) are big names, big fighters, and have contrasting styles. The next couple of years are going to be good for world championship chess. but then again, this is FIDE. who knows what will happen.
I am quite surprised by this final. Never thought in my wildest dreams that we would see Shirov-Kamsky in the final. I respect and admire Kamsky but will cheer for Shirov, whose style IMHO is more attractive.
I think Shirov is the clear favorite but of course in such a short match anything can happen. If he wins and faces Topalov I think the situation will be the opposite: Topa is clear favorite but it will be a short match of I believe 6 to 8 games so anything can happen. So if Shirov beats Topa and Kramnik beats Anand we will have Shirov-Kramnik again, which is coincidentally how this whole mess in the world chess champioship began back in 1998!
Dimi,
Congradulations! The first step to recovery is to recognize that you do indeed have a problem. I'm glad I could help. Good luck!
My crystal ball reads, Shirov wins against Kamsky. Then the ball becomes a bit cloudy.... Anand narrowly beats Kramnik and Topalov beats Shirov quite badly...then Anand v Topalov happens. At this point the crystal ball becomes opaque.
I stated earlier that I'm rooting for Kamsky but Shirov is playing as well as ever and should be considered the favorite. With Gata playing arguably his best chess since his return, this should be exciting. You can feel it in the air so to speak and the intoxication of this particular match has spilled over onto this blog. Hope it's a real battle royal and doesn't turn into a one sided affair for either player.
Everything that Dimi said in his post is true. But people like chesstraveler don't want to actually read and acknowledge what it says . They have no argument, so resort to personal attack. A typical stratagem.
Having said this, I do agree with much of Daniel J. Andrews' post.
The "trap" set by FIDE/Topalov for Kramnik was not acceptable (and they must have been horrified by Kramnik's good performance at the 2006 Olympiad!).
ANY system/arrangement that excludes any of the world's top 3 or 4 contenders is an idiocy. That includes Dortmund 2002 and Prague.
Why on earth can't we have a simple system like seeding Anand, Kramnik, Topalov and Ivanchuk into quarterfinal matches each to face 4 qualifiers? Much like 'A Fresh Start'.
Well, we know why, of course. High time Ilyumzhinov & Co were got rid of.
As it happens, we do, by sheer luck, have Anand, Kramnik and Topalov in "semi-finals" (though Anand and Kramnik should be in opposite halves of the draw). But the way Kramnik and Topalov got there is reprehensible.
So there is stuff to look forward to, if these matches are actually held.
Kamsky impressed me in the first half of the nineties. If he has indeed returned to that form, I would favour him over Shirov. Certainly, he has more potential to beat Topalov.
Damn...will this Kramnik/Topalov business never cease to pollute this blog?
"Everything that Dimi said in his post is true. But people like chesstraveler don't want to actually read and acknowledge what it says . They have no argument, so resort to personal attack. A typical stratagem."
-Posted by: Chris B at December 12, 2007 01:51
I suppose you're right, assuming you don't mind accepting grossly oversimplified and distorted arguments that suit a certain view of reality. The fact is, Topalov (previously) had an FIDE title whereas Kramnik had afterwards taken the unified title by defeating Topalov in a match. Toppy's only claim for being ripped off came from a ridiculous rule in which any 2700+ rated player could challenge for the title if he got together the money, which he did, albeit at a date which he knew full well would likely be rejected. On the other hand, Kramnik's case for leniency is based on legitimizing Mexico as a world championship through his participation as current world champion, such that FIDE could honor its prior commitments to the sponsor even after it had decided to revert to the match system. If you can't see the difference between these two situations (one guy = current world champion, could make FIDE look very bad by not playing, probably resulting in another schism, somewhat legitimate claim for special treatment since his title could be lost outside the match system ..... the other guy = former FIDE champion, already made chess look very bad due to dirtbag antics a few months ago, still firing off unfounded cheating accusations and conspiracy theories after the fact, very weak claim to special treatment based on a moronic pay-to-play rule), there's nothing left to talk about.
"Damn...will this Kramnik/Topalov business never cease to pollute this blog?"
Nope. The father of lies (i.e. Danilov) has fooled a small minority who keep trotting out contradictory arguments that were easily rebutted by those small inconvenient truths called "facts" long ago. Sigh. I should know better than to respond to such silliness.
Chris B,
You know that my complaint was that the Kramnik-Topolov crap adnauseam didn't need to be rehashed once again on a thread that didn't pertain to it. I'm well aware that lately you and Dimi have been running a mutual admiration society so obviously I'll take what you've entered into this with a large grain of salt.
Um, is it just me, or was there an item on the finals that's gone now?
stendec: Most intelligent people realize they have to trust _insert_random_religion_here_ ....ok....Makes perfect sense to me...
Meanwhile, back to the actual final going on. Any comments on the draw or is it just much more interesting to debate the same thing for the 12756th time:-(
Jeeeezz (am I intelligent, now?)
This forum has serious issues. That comment was posted in another thread but ended here. Looks like there are some problems with multi-tabbed browsers. Oh, and sometimes the front page still just display one story. So disregard that last post from me, please.
Very good, solid, play from Kamsky. He is the "moral winner" of today's game.
..
The best strategy is always to be very strong: first in general and then at the decisive point. There is no higher and simpler law of strategy than that of keeping one's forces concentrated.
If defense is the stronger form of war, yet has a negative object, it follows that it should be used only so long as weakness compels, and be abandoned as soon as we are strong enough to pursue a positive object. When one has used defensive measures successfully, a more favorable balance of strength is usually created; thus, the natural course in war is to begin defensively and end by attacking. It would therefore contradict the very idea of war to regard defense as its final purpose.
A sudden powerful transition to the offensive - the flashing sword of vengeance - is the greatest moment for the defense.
Clausewitz, On War
......
"This forum has serious issues"...
Seems like since around the time Mig got married, the "Daily Dirt" blog has become more like the "Weekly Dirt".
Not complaining (I'm grateful for the free content)... just observing.