[Preview: Make or break time for Kramnik. If he doesn't win today his leveling the match goes from being an extreme outside chance to being only a mathematical possibility. Meran or no Meran? Sticking with the plan that got you here or adapting to the situation and playing some risk control? That is, in that Meran it might be 45% chance of a win for White, 40% chance of a win for Black, with almost no chance of a draw. Even if you want to give more credit to Anand's deeper prep in that line and flip those numbers, or more, it's still a very risky line. And Kramnik and his team have now had a week to work on it. If you can play something more solid with, say, a 15% chance of white win, and a 1% chance of black win, in this match situation that probably makes more sense. That is, draws are almost as good as wins for Anand at this point so reducing losing chances is the key. On the other hand, he's had success by taking Kramnik out of his comfort zone of squeeze play, so good cases for both methods. Kasparov kept playing the Sicilian despite a big lead over Short, for example.
Theories abounding that Anand missed a win in game 7. Scary. Certainly he could have played on with chances at several moments. I assume he saw that but decided there was no reason to risk at all if he couldn't be 100% sure. 33.Rc2 was basically a draw offer. Kd1 or Kd3 would have continued the game with better chances for White. Kasparov looked at 30.Kd2 with chances as well, though it seems to boil down to a draw after some difficult moves by Black. What percentage of this result so far is Anand good vs Kramnik bad? 70-30?]
Kramnik finally got some pressure on Anand, but it wasn't nearly enough. Kramnik's methodical patience went beyond the point of virtue in this one, it seemed. Instead of the Meran from games 3 and 5 (told ya), we got a line of the QG that Kramnik and Anand have battled in several times before. Just about every top player of the past 20 years has played these 4..dxc4 5.e4 Bb4 6.Bg5 c5 Ragozin lines, often with both colors. Kramnik declined to head into the wild 7.e5 lines, which have been doing well for Black lately. There's even a game from this year by one of Anand's seconds, Wojtaszek. Kramnik went for 9.Bb5+ instead of Bb2 or Bxf6. This gave Anand the chance to bust out yet another novelty, 10..Bxb5, played immediately, which sank Kramnik into a 30 minute think on his next two moves.
Interestingly, Kramnik eschewed what GM Christiansen on Chess.FM thought was the natural reply, 11.Nb3. Perhaps Kramnik simply wanted to avoid the heart of Anand's prep. Someone on the ICC suggested the remarkable 11..Ba4 as a possible reply. Kramnik didn't get much with what he did play, however. As in the Meran games, Anand got the open g-file for his rook and his king stuck in the center. Kramnik looked to be building up patiently with moves like Kh1 and g3 and we expected him to swap off and play in the center while Anand's rook was out of the picture on g6. Instead of Rf3-d3 White dawdled with Nc3 and Kg2, giving Black time to get his rook back into the game. Larry showed us some interesting lines in which White tries to play for mate by pushing his h-pawn or even walking his king up to h6, but it was always too slow. Lunging with g4 wouldn't have changed much either. The white king is more vulnerable than Black's. If Black has a moment he plays ..Rd3 and ..Nd4 with a check on c6 coming.
The score is 5.5-2.5 and Anand can end the match with a white win on Sunday. I rather expect he'll play for a tiny edge and offer a draw the moment it looks at all dangerous for him. For Kramnik's part, he obviously has to throw the sink, the fridge, and the coffeepot at Anand from here on out if he has any hope at all. But I don't really expect him to go crazy. He did play the Benoni against Leko with his back against the wall in 2004, but losing Sunday to finish -4 would surely feel worse than drawing out peacefully.
Kramnik's second in London and Brissago, Evgeny Bareev, is in Bonn this week to work on an article for New In Chess. He came on Chess.FM to talk with us and Macauley Peterson, who is there for the ICC. Interesting stuff. He said it was over in no uncertain terms, adding that Kramnik's prep looked inferior and agreeing with me that it was foolhardy to go back into the Meran in game 5 without a killer blow up his sleeve. I believe ICC members will be able to listen to the replay of it. Is nobody slapping up same day raw press conference audio anymore? I know ChessVibes puts up video later, which is handy, and Macauley has all sorts of good video stuff at the ICC site. But for a while you could get the audio right after the presser.
No Meran. Too risky. I predict a Budapest Gambit.
I would argue that the result is 99% Anand good and 1% Kramnik bad.
I think the reason Kramnik made errors was because he was caught completely unprepared in every game that he lost. The pattern is unmistakable: (1) Anand surprises Kramnik; (2) Kramink spends a lot of energy and time to find the correct responses; (3) Kramnik makes a bad move as a result of being tired and of being short on time. These three stages are causally connected. If Kramnik was making bad moves from the get go, then I would have given more weight to the "Kramnik bad" side. But that didn't happen. Kramnik found some fantastic moves in the beginning, so he is clearly playing well. The problem is that he just doesn't seem to be able to keep up with Anand past move 35. And I think the reason Kramnik hasn't been able to keep up with Anand is a direct result of (1) Anand's very clever match strategy, (2) Anand's excellent preparation, and (2) Anand's ability to keep the pressure on Kramnik by continuously finding strong moves once he is out of preparation.
I am shocked that Kramnik's team has utterly failed in the match preparation department - it is as if he studied for the wrong exam. I hope the Kramnik team reveals what went wrong after the match.
I think it is 80AnandGood/20KramnikBad. Kramnik, if you just look at his side of things, is not playing unusually bad. In previous matches we've seen lately, players like Topalov, Leko and Kramnik have all played bad moves with great frequency. In fact, what separates this match from the others is not that Kramnik is playing bad moves, it is just that Anand is not (so far) reciprocating in any way.
Anand is playing great. Unusually great from the standards we have seen lately. Not flawless since he may have missed one win (but only at a point which he didn't need anyway).
If Kaspy really is better than all these young whippersnappers, as he clearly wants us to believe, why doesn't he contribute some analysis to demonstrate conclusively whether Anand had a win in G7?
Congratulations, Mr. Kramnik, that was a very fine draw yesterday. You did it, like only you can do it.
Today we'll use a different approach.
Imagine, you are the champion of the world.
Imagine, you have to defend your title, against a strong challenger.
Imagine, you gain, by means of good play and also a good measure luck, a big lead early on.
All the world is at your doorsteps, shaking your hand, padding your back, telling you you are best player on the planet.
But the match is not over yet. All the odds are with you, but there is one possibility that worries you.
You are confidant you won't lose a single game with white.
And you are quite confidant he won't win three consecutive whites in a row. Quite. He won't, won't he?
Imagine, what will happen if he wins just this one game today.
You know, you can never be sure about the outcome of one game.
And in all your black victories so far, there were moments where he could have got an edge.
What if he manages to get his edge this time, what if today is his turn to be lucky?
Imagine, how all the handshakers and backpadders will react. They will realize, that he just needs to do two more times what he did today.
They will see that he just needs to win with white, and that he can do it. They will be worried. They will fear for you.
The tone of their voices will change. You will have to defend yourself. You will have to explain what you were thinking. How you could have lost.
There will be doubts. You will be the one cornered and frightened.
Now, Mr Kramnik, comes the good part: You don't need to be this guy.
Instead, you can be the other one. The challenger, the rebel, the rogue attacker, the one who defies all odds, who steals the fire from the gods, and the crown from the king.
Now go out and fight!
Sokolov should play 1.e4 today.
Sokolov who? Kramnik's grandfather?? :)
I would say, Anand good 95% : Kramnik bad 5%.
Here is my reasoning.
Game 6. Even GMs (with computer's help??) were suggesting Ne5 was not that good after Rfd8.
Game 2. The end game calculation is so complicated not much analysis is coming out. Game 3. Some GM's concluded it was a win or draw for white.
Game 5. Anand entering the same variation previously judged by GMs as a draw or lost position for black.
Game 7. Declining draw offer and pressing for win in equal position while being on the driver seat.
Incredible precision moves from Anand as never seen before in WCh??
Tactical Anand plus Positional Anand is indeed a mighty, mighty force to reckon with!!
Kramnik did his best. As for Anand, the best is yet to come!!!
Sorry for a diversion! And for bringing up one of my pet subjects, i.e., the privileges of a World Champion and Draw Odds in a World Championship Match.
Whoever wins the current WC match, there is no doubt that he will be the Absolute world match Champion. And as a World Match Champion, he would be absolutely deserving one very huge privilege, i.e., he would be spared the rigors of qualifying through a grueling and uncertain Cycle. This is indeed a great privilege, but thoroughly deserved.
But, I still hanker for one very minute privilege for the World Champion. In the future World Championship Matches, and I am really afraid that there may be none, the World Champion should be given the "DRAW ODDS' in the ARMAGEDDON Blitz Game.
The reason I say so, is - imagine if in a future match two Draw Specialists (such as Kramnik and Leko) meet, and all the twelve regular games at Classical time control, all four Rapid games and the two Blitz games end in DRAW, and the Challenger thereafter draws the Black Colour for the Armageddon game, draws that game and thus wrests the title. Wouldn't it be a travesty of justice if a Challenger defeats a World champion in a Title Match, without actually beating him in a single game. As if the Champion forfeited the match.
I agree, that such a possibility is remote, but it is indeed theoretically possible. We can only pray and wish that we may be spared such a monstrosity.
I would say its a disaster for Kramnik simply because he has been unable to put any pressure on Anand at all. It must be unprecedented that a player goes through an entire match without being =+. I sincerely hope he plays for a win today.
Btw- Chessbase's coverage is going from bad to worse. They have IM Malcolm Pein annotating! Is Pein trying to replace Kevin Bacon in the Six Degrees of Separation? I see him on Chesscube, on TWIC and Chessbase, all with the same commentary. And Chessbase continues its sad obsession with females - the g/6 report bolstering Ovdiu's theory.
Chessbase serves the needs of the great majority of chess fans who like game scores and analysis, and also like pictures of girls, but do not like pictures of Anand and Kramnik.
There havent been analysis on Chessfluff.com since Marin.
Mig, about Vishy missing a win: What is the line, and was it cooked by a GM or a bot ?
On chessvibes.com GM Erwin l'Ami gave:
"L'Ami thinks he has found a win for White: 33. Kd1 Kf7 (33... Rc4 34. Kc2 Kf7 (34... Rxa4 35. Kxc3 and 36.Kd3 is bad) 35. Kd3 Rc8 36. Rxc3 Rxc3+ 37. Kxc3) 34. Kc2 Nc5 35. Rf1+! Kg6 (35... Kg8) 36. Rf8! Rxf8 37. Bxf8 Nxa4 38. Be7!"
In Capablance-Lasker match Lasker never was +=
After this match, we're going to have to call a black pawn formation f7/e6/f6 "The Anand." Add a Rook on g8 and bishop on b7 and you get "The Full Anand."
>After this match, we're going to have to call a >black pawn formation f7/e6/f6 "The Anand."
if with anyone, it is associated with Rubinstein and his variation in the French-D.
Kramnik bad 80%
Anand good 20%
The essential is that Anand is superior to the Kramnik of 2008.
Despite Anand's better opening prep he hasn't sprung any winning TNs, or even TNs that create large advantage.
The move h3!? in game six, or Bb7 in game two and four didn't change the usual opening evaluation of +=.
Strange move 17...Rd3
Kramnik has some pull. It's nothing major, but IMO the score would have been very different if he managed to steer the game to such positions right from the start.
Poor Kramnik probably had to use one hand to grasp the other, Dr. Strangelove style, and force it to play 17. Rf2, so antithetical to his being is such a move, when Qf2 is legal.
And now, 20.Kh1 or 20.Nd5, which move?
Will be another draw soon. Poooor Kramnik.
Getting sharper now, respect for Vishy to play the Vienna when 3 points ahead!
lol 20.Kh1 of course.
Rybka says both moves (Nd5 and Kh1) are +0,15 but the position it reaches after Nd5 shows a completely wrecked pawn structure for black.
Now what is the plan for white? While black can triple on d column after Kg7, Kh8, Rd8.
Moves 20-24 I don't see the machines predicting any of these King moves, by either side.
h4-5-6 maybe
80% Anand good
20% Kramnik bad
can Kramnik go for broke with 33.g4
Hi guys,
I was wondering on why Kramnik could not use his h pawn to support queen. I was picturing white pawn being on h6 would provide that either black is checkmated or has to move out if its confines.
Am I missing something?
SJ
Why didn't kramnik just play h4?
Looks like Dennis Monokroussos hinted at possible answer to my question and may expand on it later.
SJ
Why go for broke when you can peter out to a draw and remain 3 down? It sure was nice of Kramnik to help Anand out of his positional difficulties after Rd3. We haven't seen chess this gutless since Kasparov's 11-move draw offer in '00. Maybe he's advising Kramnik and not Anand.
I paid for the entire 12 games on Foidos. This is not going to last 12 games. I want my money back!
This was the first game in the match where Kramnik had a better attack than Anand. But it wasn't a whole lot better, and I would say he played the position a bit passively. Kramnik must know it's about over now. He would need 3 wins in 4 games, without a loss, just to force tie-breaks. One of those games would need to come as Black, and he has never beaten Anand with Black.
Another pretty easy draw. Anand again got in a novelty, and Kramnik was nowhere close to winning this game.
I'm beginning to think that Anand will win this thing.
Kramnik finally giving up the ghost. Anand may well finish with a win.
Yeah, there would be no miracle this match. Sadly Kramnik doesn't have it anymore. He had some pressure throughout the game and several opportunities to make it difficult for Anand (e.g. Na4 instead of Kh1, or f5 instead of e5, but he was too hesitant to do something until his advantage petered out. Even in final position he could have tried kh3 or something instead of a lame draw offer
excellent game by Kramnik today, he never waved in postponing (preparing) any break until Anand regrouped enough so as to become pointless to try it.
Think the other GMs have lost their fear/respect for Kramnik?
Only fools lose respect for a great player after their defeat in a single event. That attitude would be very unwise next time they meet the 'defeated one' over the board... But I understand real weak players pondering on silly and irrelevant stuff like this.
Go Anand! Great that now there will be no discussions if Anand ever was a World Champion.
"Think the other GMs have lost their fear/respect for Kramnik?"
Even with the most recent games, he's still #6 on the Live Ratings list, which means he is still a stronger player than almost everyone else. He just happens to be playing against one of the few who is better.
Remember, Kramnik beat Kasparov by +2 in 2000, but Kasparov continued to be the #1 player for several years after that. I'm not suggesting Kramnik will do that, but he isn't washed up just because he loses one match.
Kramnik just 14 points from falling out of the top ten. It's not hard these days, with the youthful competiiton.
Mr. X I am just repeating comments from a 2700 GM who said "Kramnik's aura of invincibility is gone. Players will think twice now when he offers a draw..."
You troll.
I guess that '2700' is not weak, but he is still a fool.
And which 2700 GM would that be?
Incidentally did people here GM Bareev's comments on Chess.FM? He was quite scathing in his deadpan way. "Kramnik has collapsed" was his answer. He also hinted that the team of seconds weren't up to the mark. Wonder why Bareev wasn't a second this time.
Mr. X - sorry my apology, guess I'm the troll this time. A little investigation shows me the person I quoted was not even a GM, just a chat room fool who pretends to be. My mistake. Sorry.
tja
I agree (for once, I think) with jaideepblue: Chessbase's fixation on women is pathetic. Did these nerds never grow up?
Susan Polgar, after 10.Bxf6 said: "Black can either play 10...Bxb5, 10...Bxc3+ or 10...gxf6. I think Bxb5 may surprise Kramnik the most :) It may not be the best move but the surprise element sometimes is very important as we have seen in the match so far." Practically predicting Anand's novelty.
On chessdom.com GM Dimitrov said, after 10...Bxb5 was played: "An opening surprise. 10... Bxc3+ 11.bxc3 gxf6 12.Bxd7+ Nxd7 13.O-O a6 is considered to be almost forced.)"
Did anyone follow Susan Polgar's commentary live? Given her track record in this match I'm willing to bet that she added her comments on 10.Bxf6 after 10...Bxb5 was played. Why doesn't she place her comments after the new move, explaining the reason it was made. She doesn't need to impress patzers with her predictive powers, and she is hurting her reputation this way.
Kramnik has been outprepared and outplayed( in time trouble ) in this match. Anand is also playing very efficently and accurately. Kramnik is demoralised knowing that this match is gone from his grasp. But it would be foolish to assume that Kramniks level of play will go down in future matches. Those who assume that could be in for a nasty shock.
"But it would be foolish to assume that Kramniks level of play will go down in future matches. Those who assume that could be in for a nasty shock."
what future matches? he now has to qualify from the world cup or the grand prix and i can't see him doing either given that he never managed to qualify for the world championship even when he was at his peak. Kramnik as a world championship contender is history.
"She doesn't need to impress patzers with her predictive powers, and she is hurting her reputation this way."
What reputation? She drives it further into the muck each time she logs onto her hideously self-adoring website. But at least we know that in the department of fraudulent hindsight-editing she's heavily influenced by Alekhine.
Kramnik might not be having a future match.I don't think he will be motivated to take part in any qualification cycle and even if he takes part I don't think he will be able to win it.
what was Anand's plan after 18..Qd4 if 19.Nb5 ?
[19..Qd8 20.e5 Rd7 21.Nd6+ Kf8 22.Ne4 +/-]
I was following Susan Polgar's commentary as it was happening, and I can assure you she discussed that possible move by Anand and noted that it would be the biggest surprise although not the best move before the move was played.
>> Kramnik might not be having a future match.I don't think he will be motivated to take part in any qualification cycle and even if he takes part I don't think he will be able to win it.
That would be like Botvinnik, who never qualified in any candidates. When finally forced out of WCC match/rematch by Petrosian, he never bothered playing the next interzonal/candidates cycle.
I was also following Susan Polgar's blog live, along with about 4 other sites. She made plenty of analytical comments before the actual moves were made, including the one you asked about. I realize that there are many questionable aspects of her behavior in chess politics, but that does not take away from her knowledge of the game.
Speaking of Polgars -- what's happened to Judit? I know she's had kids, but has she completely retired?
Mig just pointed out a couple of days ago that she's playing in a blitz event...
The word "eschewed" seems to come up in chess context about 100 times more often than in other contexts. I think it's because all those early Alekhine books use fancy words, and they've somehow seeped into the sub-culture.
If Anand finishes with a win he will also cross 2800..
Anyway, I guess he'll have done wonderfully well even if he finishes undefeated. Before Kramnik beat Kasparov undefeated in 2000, when was the last time a WC match was won without dropping a game? I think even Nigel Short managed a win? Must be at least 25 years ago?
Which qualification? Kramnik should have signed up for the FIDE Grand Prix, which he failed to do. Now he'll have to play and win the World Cup to qualify. The same, btw., is true for the loser of Anand vs. Topalov (or both of them, in the unlikely event that Kamsky becomes champ).
a little bit more than 25 years ago - Lasker-Capablanca 1921.
I think Lasker-Capablanca, unless it is Alekhine-Bogoljubov.
Really??!
Then, I'd rather Anand play two safe draws.. only twice in 85+ years someone wins a WC match without dropping a game! I guess this should compare to Steffi Graf's 6-0, 6-0 win at the French about two decades ago?
2800 sounds nothing compared to winning without dropping a game.. Anyway with all the Elo inflation of our times.. Almost like the 10k in test cricket.. where even the Pontings are reaching these days :P
Nice to know (and impressive) that she guessed the novelty before it was played, and seemed almost to be rooting for it. The issue is not her knowledge of chess but her honesty. I've seen her retroactive edits several times in earlier games, all aimed at making certain moves look inevitable. They are accompanied by her recommendation to the players to play them, long after they have done so. I don't think she sets out to lie. But she obviously doesn't care if parts of her "LIVE" commentary, are actually non-live, and happen to be somewhat self-serving. That meets Harry Frankfurt's definition of bullsh*t.
I think "to eschew" is particularly relevant to chess thinking. There is no common substitute that doesn't seem to imply reason or cause. Decline, avoid, reject, rebuff, shun, snub, etc. all seem to flavor the choice of one thing over another. I'll go for "abstain" on occasion for similar reasons.
We talked about the undefeated WCh match a couple of times this week on Chess.FM. Kramnik-Kasparov, Capablanca-Lasker, Lasker-Marshall. Cute that two people who shut out someone then had it happen to them, at least if Anand finishes cleanly. But this match is so short that it's hard to make comparisons. Kramnik's style is such that not losing to him over four whites doesn't really blow me away. (Though beating him twice with black must merit special attention.) Surviving eight straight blacks against Kasparov undefeated is one of the greatest achievements in chess history.
Garry will probably have a short piece on the match for the next New In Chess. He joked, "what do I have in common with Leonid Yudasin?"
IMO this is not the same player - Kramnik - who contested the match with Topalov. It's not about novelties or preperation there seems to be a problem with his chess judgement. In retrospect maybe there were indications back when he lost to Carlsen with the white pieces.
For example Anand stated himself that his h3 move was not prepared it was an idea he had OTB during the game!! Yet it seemed to have a significant effect leading to a an unecessary pawn sacrifice bt Kramnik which lost the game. It would be quite unsurprising if 2 draws and the end of the match followed. While Anand, the World Champion, deserves every credit for retaining his title. somehow it seems a poor match almost a mismatch. I cannot imagine Anand Toplaov (if it ever happens) being anything like this. I hope it does happen as I am sure that would be a great match. Perhaps I am wrong but this is the first WC match I have followed where the winner has never been in any trouble or looked like he might lose a game.
"Surviving eight straight blacks against Kasparov undefeated is one of the greatest achievements in chess history." i bet Karpov survived many more blacks in the first match.
"Surviving eight straight blacks against Kasparov undefeated is one of the greatest achievements in chess history." What about Kasparov's own achievement in making this such a difficult thing to do.
Now that Anand has cemented his place in history as
the 15th World Chess Champion, a rematch between
him and Kasparov would be epic.
"I cannot imagine Anand Toplaov (if it ever happens) being anything like this. I hope it does happen as I am sure that would be a great match. Perhaps I am wrong but this is the first WC match I have followed where the winner has never been in any trouble or looked like he might lose a game."
When one dominates another in a match like this, it does not mean that Kramnik has played very badly and Anand has done nothing. In a evenly contested match, both players make mistake. In Kramnik vs Topalov, both of them made blunders and returned favors and Kramnik ended up the stronger amidst all other chaos. Anand along with his fine preparation is playing some great chess with very little or any mistakes. When anyone plays like that, all matches are going to be one sided. If Anand plays the same in a match against Topalov, you might call it again boring. Only difference might be Topalov with do a lot of sac sac move go for mate and end up losing against a solid defense, where as Kramnik is much more intelligent than that.
To your comment "I cannot imagine Anand Topalov beind anything like this", its funny, it was a similar statement people (need not have been from you) were saying earlier about Anand Kramnik and that no one can ever think of a more evenly contested match. The fact is that Anand has lifted his game of chess to a very high level of precision, that any opponent who is a currently active chess player will be any match to him.
i bet Karpov survived many more blacks in the first match.
Astute comparison for a chimp, except that Karpov blew a 5-game lead and couldn't finish off his opponent after nearly 50 games, whereas Kramnik brought home the title and held it for eight years. Plus Kasparov's chess had evolved a wee bit between '83 and '00 when he faced Kramnik. But hey Jean, don't let me interrupt your drive to convince yourself that Kramnik never existed.
h3 was not an OTB novelty. check the press conference. anand clearly says that he prepared it at home.
"Astute comparison for a chimp, except that Karpov blew a 5-game lead and couldn't finish off his opponent after nearly 50 games, whereas Kramnik brought home the title and held it for eight years. Plus Kasparov's chess had evolved a wee bit between '83 and '00 when he faced Kramnik."
first of all thanks for the insult. Mig's forum is one of the nicest places to discuss chess and its sad to see people polluting it like that but i guess thats internet. as for your comparision Kasparov-Kramnik was 16 games match while Kasparov-Karpov 1 was "unlimited" so Karpov had a much, much harder job and he even managed to get to 5:0 so..
Ah, the ritualistic flinging of the monkey poo. Must be a WC or high-level tournament taking place... alway brings out the primates. : )
mig wrote:
"Surviving eight straight blacks against Kasparov undefeated is one of the greatest achievements in chess history."
bah. duh. weren't many (if not all) of these were games in which Kaspy allowed Kramnik to play the Berlin and knocked his head against it?
It's a question of form: I believe that anybody above 2750 is capable of destroying anyone else over 2750 in a 12-game match.
Having said that, I'm glad that Anand is the one in good form.
Would be nice to see Anand - Topalov (Kamsky) as at least a 16-game match.
Btw what was the answer for the previous round's GOTD question? the one on which WC wrote a book...?
Given Anand's form since 2006 I don't see how he cannot be the favorite in any match. Topalov, in particular, would likely be crushed; he's a tournament fiend, whose results against the top 4-6 are not comparable to his results against the next 20 in the rankings.
Anand seems to have developed Kasparov-like superiority to the rest of the top 20:
Corus 2007-8 missed first by a total of a point and a half.
Linares 07-08: Tournament wins.
Mexico City 2007: Tournament win.
Kramnik Match: currently scoring above 65%.
Bilbao is an exception, but an explainable one.
That's about the results you'd have expected from Kasparov if he had stayed.
I doubt that the rating makes any difference. (I.e. anyone above Elo x is capable of destroying anyone else over Elo x in a 12-game match.)
Not that it's probable, of course, and you would have to define "destroy".
The longer the match, the less the possibility of destruction, naturally.
But maybe Kramnik is quite happy that the match is only for 12 games.
I think its too soon to talk about Anand playing on a higher level and being way above the rest. The Live ratings for Anand and Topalov are very close so lets see what happens. Anand deserves all the credit for winning this match but comparisons with Kasparov are premature (and give Anands age probably impossible) Kasparov never had a tournament performance as poor as Bilbao and he demonstrated a sustained dominence over many years. Anand is the best chess player in the world right now - period. Its too early to say how big the gap is and the brutal truth is that no one has managed to stay ahead of the pack for long. It doesnt matter too much for Anand - he has made his mark on chess and confirmed his legacy in chess history even if he never won another game in his life! (provided he draws the next 2 of course!)
"as for your comparision Kasparov-Kramnik was 16 games match while Kasparov-Karpov 1 was "unlimited" so Karpov had a much, much harder job and he even managed to get to 5:0 so.."
Karpov got to 5-0 at game 27, followed by 21 straight games without a match-ending victory. THAT is an astonishing achievement in reverse. Kramnik won in '00 against the greatest player who ever lived without dropping a single game with Black; Karpov could not convert in 21 games against a young challenger fading at 5-0. No comparison and no trouble at all for the insult, which is yours for free as long as you attempt to dismiss or negate the achievements of a world chess champion.
Its surprising that the stellar team Kramnik assembled is not able to churn any useful novelties till now. Atleast in the white side they should have able to find some new ideas. I assume that most of the time was probably spent before the match preparing for 1.E4. The strategy for white was to go for slow grind positions, apperently that did not work out.
Anyways there is no players in the world right now who deserves crown other than Anand. A truly universal style player. I think he is the pioneer in using the Computer in the most useful manner to prepare novelties and analyze. I am sure the current and future players have something to learn from him in this area.
Untill Carlsen is ready, let Anand bask in the glory!
Fans tend to bounce off the walls and make vastly exaggerated
statements when excited. A couple of disconnected points, reflections
on the previous posting.
Kramnik is a hugely talented player, but has reached a certain "modus
operandi" that might have worked wonders in the past, but has become
somewhat stale and predictable.
The most impressive thing that I heard in the pre-match interviews was
the complete analysis of Kramnik's style that Anand performed. I think
this is paying handsome dividends in this match and makes it look
almost too easy.
Anand and Topalov have a fairly comparable score in "classic" Chess
format.
Topalov's history-making blunders in Elista 2006 probably have the
same effect on him as Anand's previous failures -- nothing but to
mobilize him.
The huge issue for Topalov in Elista 2006 was that he underestimated
Kramnik. Quite arrogantly so. Also, his relative lack of experience in
match format made him too unsteady at the critical junctures. This was
the "margin" then. And the last time Kramnik won with Black was more
Topalov's self-annihilation than anything else.
Anand being threatened to be "walked over" by Kramnik and the endless
line that Kramnik is unbeatable in match format, therefore only he can
be the true Champion" -- you know all the standard lines
from the Kramnik clan. That and the relative arrogance
of Volodya in so many interviews must have motivated Vishi to truly
sit on his butt and prepare for a huge fight. Which he seems to be
winning in an undisputed manner.
So, what will happen in the future, -- who knows -- by Q2 Magnus may
be at the top and this match long forgotten...
But I am truly glad for Chess that the Kramnik distraction will be
over. This was huge. Having Kramnik again at center stage, "owner of
the title" was unthinkable. Anyone else, but him...
D.
Kramnik said in his press conference after game 2 that he was prepared for Anand to open 1.d4 after Leko had surprised him.
However I think he and his team completely underestimated the extent of Anand's and his team's preparation. Many have already voiced the opinion that Kramnik may have primarily focused on Anand opening 1.e4. I think that is true.
As a response to Kramnik's 1.d4 I think they may have focused more on Queen's Indian and Slav (not necessarily the supper sharp variations).
Today's game is another illustration of the depth of Anand's opening preparation. It is in this phase of the game that Anand got the advantage in a big way and made it work for him by playing accurately and aggresively.
I have watched him play Kasparov in NY. I thought that he was not ready temperament wise to battle Kasparov. Over the years he has learnt to improve himself in all aspects of his game. Kudos to him.
Warren
Dimi:
"I am truly glad for Chess that the Kramnik distraction will be over. This was huge. Having Kramnik again at center stage, "owner of the title" was unthinkable. Anyone else, but him..."
Hear, Hear.
Exactly my sentiments, Dimi, WELL SAID
>The huge issue for Topalov in Elista 2006 was >that he underestimated Kramnik. Quite arrogantly >so.
He estimated Kramnik quite well but he never estimated himself.
Kramnik did not play at Elista much better than here at Bonn, he played the same kind of lacking incisiveness and energy games, but Topalov was so overdriven that he simply destroy himself, Kramnik was needed only for making some normal moves and collect the results.
Had Topa had more calmer nerves, had he been more self controlled and objective about himself, the score at Elista would have been something as 4-0 in his favour.
We are witnessing amazing turn-arounds from die-hard Kramnik supporters, aren't we? !!!
One thing I noticed in Anand's games is he can play both sharp and slow positions well. He can play like Kasparov or he can play like Kramnik (or Karpov) also. Universal style!!
My questions now:
1. Will Kramnik complain that a 12-game match isn't long enough to determine the true champion (in the line of Steinitz)?
2. Do people think he was simply unprepared across the board, or he might have just targeted different areas (i.e. 1.e4)
3. Where is Russianbear?
LOL listen to these guys. The chessplayer they hate the most is on the losing end of one of the most one-sided matches in history, yet they keep hammering away. The guy they wanted dead and buried for defeating Kasparov is being swallowed by the earth, but it's not enough. They'll have forgotten Anand's name long before they finish stoning the ex-champion's corpse and negating all previous victories from the record.
Dimi:
"the Kramnik distraction will be over. This was huge. Having Kramnik again at center stage, "owner of the title" was unthinkable. Anyone else, but him..."
Krish:
"Exactly my sentiments, Dimi, WELL SAID...we are witnessing amazing turn-arounds from die-hard Kramnik supporters, aren't we? !!!"
Ovidiu:
"Kramnik did not play at Elista much better than here at Bonn...had Topa had more calmer nerves, had he been more self controlled and objective about himself, the score at Elista would have been something as 4-0 in his favour."
Can't you guys just relax and be happy for Anand? You never did explain your bizarre and lusty hatred for Kramnik, a lust which extended to canonizing the sociopath Topalov and the lying cheating bully Kasparov. After all, your animus was focused and centred on matches Kramnik won, so now that he's finished, why not just forget about him? To call a world chess champion a "distraction" is a masterpiece of denial. You've done very well, kids. Time to sit back and smell the Anand roses until Carlsen takes it away.
Just FYI, switching from 1. e4 to 1. d4 isn't as hard as it might seem. After all, Anand has 20 years or so of elite defense against 1. .. d4.
.
>[...]Kramnik brought home the title and held it for eight years.
You gotta be kidding about the "held" part.
>The guy they wanted dead and buried for defeating Kasparov[...]
Not for defeating him but for not giving him a rematch although GK was clearly the dominant player. Instead he played Leko and GK had to "qualify" against someone like Kasimdzhanov - what a joke !
Clubfoot, when will you ever understand that Kramnik is not hated for beating Kasparov, but for what he did after beating Kasparov. You know very well what that was, it has been explained often enough.
There is nothing bizarre about the hatred towards Kramnik; it is a natural outcome of Kramnik's indefensible actions and well deserved. Kasparov said it at the time: "and this will haunt Kramnik as he searches for future respect".
Actually, of course, you do understand, but you who accuses others of lying (plus your continual barrage of gratuitous personal attacks on many) deliberately choose to 'misunderstand'.
I add my concurrance to Dimi's post. WELL SAID.
The result of this match will be one of the most beneficial results to Chess in its entire history.
Clubfoot, time to take your medication (you need it more than ever now), stop being in denial and move on.
Kramnik Central will have no power on this forum from now on, certainly one beneficial result of Kramnik's demise.
Clubfoot:"Time to sit back and smell the Anand roses until Carlsen takes it away."
Clubfoot, why don't you just relax and be happy for (40-yr old over-the-hill) Anand instead of watering down his great play in this match against another great player at his peak (i.e. 33-year old Krmanik). Just give Anand his due.
Mind you, 30-35 years old is generally regarded as when a player is at his peak chess playing strength. Just imagine if this match had taken place just 5 years ago. I dread to think of the psychological effect the slaughter would have had on Kramnik.
Darn, all that recrimination and nobody picked up the Kasparov/Yudasin gauntlet?
Anyway, I'm hardly one to trumpet Kramnik's multitude of virtues. He played the perfect match in 2000 and will deservedly go down in history for that accomplishment. He was/is also one of the strongest players in the world during an incredibly competitive period. Because he beat Kasparov many criticize him for not also dominating like Kasparov and Karpov did. Okay, fine, he's not Kasparov or Karpov. Worse things can be said about someone and I've probably said most of them.
Take Kramnik's defeat as instant karma if it makes you feel better. But now of all times is the time to be courteous. If you can't be generous in victory you truly have poverty of the soul.
Kramnik's story won't be the most fascinating one ever told in chess. He was a tremendous talent who became perhaps a little too conservative to make full use of it. He showed little aptitude for match play but quickly became one of the world's dominant players. By chance he got a title shot and he rose to the occasion and beat the world's greatest player in his prime by playing the greatest match anyone could play. He later drew two matches against top players by showing true grit, if not superior chess. He suffered health problems that slowed him down on occasion. Then he lost a match to a better player who was better prepared and in better form.
Will there be another chapter? Will Kramnik lose motivation now that the last crutch has been kicked out from under him, or will the opposite happen? Will he fall out of the top ten? I'm hoping he might be freed from the self-imposed pressure about this title and that tradition and just go out and kick some butt. If he does, he'll be in the top ten for another decade.
Mig, why are you jumping the gun? Kramnik hasn't lost the match yet.
"You never did explain your bizarre and lusty hatred for Kramnik, a lust which extended to canonizing the sociopath Topalov and the lying cheating bully Kasparov."
seems that the Kramnik fans are finaly losing their nerves.
Nicely done Jean--you managed to demonstrate the truth in both Clubfoot's and Mig's posts.
I completely agree with Mig. I seriously don't understand all the hatred against Kramnik (I am not a particular fan of him either). He won the Steinitz-crown against Kasparov and kept it for 7 or 8 years (depending on whether you accept the Mexico tournament as a classical world championship event). Now, the torch will be passed to Anand as #15.
Yes, it's true that Kasparov deserved a re-match, but so did Capablanca against Aljechin. Yes, he didn't dominate like Karpov or Kasparov did, but neither did Petrosjan. The one thing he DID DO was to keep up the important Steinitzian line of chess world champions during a time of every more silly knockout and tourney championships that will all be forgotten in 10 years from now. (or is there still someone who thinks that Khalifman, Pono or even Topalov were true world champions?) For this maitaining of the great chess heritage during stormy times, Kramnik deserves our gratefulness and respect. Let's hope future world champions will be truthful to this heritage as well!
As long as Kramnik reigned as match champion there was always the threat that a string of successes beginning with Kasparov, Leko and Topalov and extending through Anand, Kamsky/Topalov, and Carlsen might begin to rival Kasparov's championship match record.
It's ironic that only as Kramnik is being beaten soundly can Team Kasparov fully acknowledge his greatness; could one imagine Kasparov jokingly lumping himself together with Yudasin as scoring -2 in a Kramnik match....before this week?
As their great rival goes down in flames, Team Kasparov is showing a great deal of class indeed.
True fans of one player or the other are either celebrating an impending-victory or bemoaning a catastrophe. As for the rest....what Mig said about poverty of soul.
Ahhh, saturday morning coffee and fresh vitriol!
Life is good.
I resolved never to post again on this blog because it was such a waste of time, but I cant resist picking up on Mig´s "throwing down of the gauntlet". Wasn´t Yudasin the only other person to lose to Kramnik in a classical match excluding friendly matches? Its 3 losses (Bareev, Kamsky and Shirov), 2 draws (Leko and Topalov) and 2 wins (Kasparov and Yudasin) up to now. Will be -4 +2 =2 soon I think.
What´s my prize?
Kramnik lost to Gelfand not Bareev.
Don't despair, d-tal.
This blog is the liveliest around, warts and all. I do enjoy reading all the posts here because amidst all the insults and illogicalities, very useful nuggets of information abound.
More broadly, the postings here also give a glimpse into the mental processes of chess fans (and players) and of the pros/cons of freedom of speech. Long live Mig's blog.
Dear MIG,you are really patetic ! You defended always Kramnik againts Kasparov and Topalov and and now have to recognize that this guy was cheater all the time. It's tough for you,I know. But you can try to be a man for a moment and not slave like always. The truth is,that Kramnik was very negative for chess and never clasifed for any match,all the matches was gifts to him : First from Kasparov,and than from Ilyumzhinov&Zhukov. You and your Chessbase friends tryed very hard to destroy Topalov but the guy is winning tournaments and is Number one of the world. And now,all the true about Kramnik is out: Patetic player just like you,patetic Journalist. Think about this SLAVE !
"Just like you."
Given Kramnik's recent showing, Mig probably IS a better chessplayer. But then again, Kramnik's probably a better journalist, although both should expect strong competition from Mr. ass, (if I may address him by his last name).
But I'm having problems with the last sentence.
If he's inviting Mig to think about "this slave," which slave does he want Mig to think about? Spartacus? Nat Turner? "Jim" in Huckleberry Finn?
And if he's calling Mig a "slave" then what or who is Mig a slave to? Not fashion, certainly.
It's true that the warlike anti-Kramnik bias was rooted in his defeat of Kasparov and oxygenated by the dreadful fear that Kramnik would pass with his title through another chess generation as Kasparov did before him. But another Ali didn't show up to defeat Ali, and the broken engine of chess politics concurrent with the rise of the machinists created a dead certainty that we'd never see Kasparov's like again. He held the title 15 years; I bet no one in future, not even Carlsen, will be able to hang on for more than five.
So Kramnik's near-superhuman defeat of Kasparov also won him the infantile contempt of a sector of the chess world (Kasparov in the lead like a chess Oprah) who refused to evolve, as well as another group who placed wildly unrealistic expectations on the new champion. Mig pointed out that his conservative style may have held the line on his potential, which in a way is a tremendous compliment because it was still enough to retain against Leko and defeat Topalov.
Kramnik's number was probably up if Kasparov had entered Dortmund, but he took advantage of his reprieve and hung on to make a strong show of it. I'll never forget his legendary nerves, especially the sight of him laughing as he arrived onstage to face a glowering Topalov in the tiebreaks.
And for the haters, not to worry about Kramnik Central. It will be remain here with Tal Central, Fischer Central, Steinitz Central and all the others, since Kramnik has earned his place in the Grand Central Station of champions (this could be imagined as a bunch of guys gathered on the ground floor gazing up at Kasparov standing alone on the mezzanine).
I don't think the conservative style ever limited Kramnik's potential. That's the style that brought him the success in 2000, 2006 and 2007. Kramnik almost never lost in those times. Actually in 2008 we're seeing a different player, and I wonder what is his problem.
Kramnik's classical games:
2006 (28 games): 9 wins, 2 losses, 17 draws
2007 (44 games): 13 wins, 1 loss, 30 draws
2008 (36 games so far): 5 wins, 8 losses, 23 draws
I am constantly amazed at the rabid fanboyism of people here. Far more pleasurable than seeing their chosen champion do well seems to be "sticking it to" the fans of their champion's opponent. The chess isn't an end in itself, but simply ammunition in a war of vitriol.
Kramnik and Anand are just men, playing a game. Chances are they don't know you, and if they did, they probably wouldn't like you. Maybe some perspective is in order...
Mig mentioned that the members of ICC will be able to replay the last chessfm show with Mig(round 8). I wanted to hear the part with GM Bareev, the interview.
Does anyone know how to hear the interview?
Thanks.
"Wasn´t Yudasin the only other person to lose to Kramnik in a classical match excluding friendly matches? Its 3 losses (Bareev, Kamsky and Shirov), 2 draws (Leko and Topalov) and 2 wins (Kasparov and Yudasin) up to now. Will be -4 +2 =2 soon I think.
What´s my prize?"
No prize for d_tal. But only a mission, which he is not free to decline. Whenever Kramnik is mentioned d_tal is forever doomed to post a negative comment containing at least one factual inaccuracy. (Posting the SAME negative comment is permissible and even encouraged.) If in some sad future Kramnik is no longer be spoken of, d_tal will be grudgingly allowed to indulge in other means of self-gratification.
Speaking of vitriol, the word "hate" has become the favorite word of a
few guys here. Can we drop it out of the vocabulary? "Hate" is a very
strong word that has no place on a Chess blog. It and shows the
emotional (and intellectual) immaturity of those who abuse it. Please
temper your emotions.
And no need to attack Kasparov at every other sentence to explain
Kramnik's woes today. It's silly. I understand how the thought of GK
helps some people channel their frustration, but love him or hate him
he has much tougher obstacles than Kramnik these days. His are in the
Real World.
I have the right to express my satisfaction with the outcome of this
WC Match and to state that I prefer Anand as a more worthy
Champion. This is not "hatred". It is not "hatred" to state that I
want to see Kramnik play again at the top level, but on a level
playing field when it comes to the WC Title and stop being treated
like a mythical figure with special rights on the Title due to some
major result that he achieved 8 years ago, but never repeated because
he masterfully weaseled out of another attempt even... That's all.
D.
No special rights for Kramnik. Just the common sense necessity for the match champion to defend his status in a match.
For special rights see:
--Botvinnik's interminable rematches,
--Karpov's 1986 rematch,
--Karpov's air-drop into 1998 FIDE WCC,
--Kasparov's air-drop into Prague-era WCC non-matches, and
--Topalov's air-drop into the upcoming Kamsky match.
Your last post was not hating, Dimi, just stale, repetitious, and, at this stage, pointless.
Greg Koster: "Your last post was not hating, Dimi, just stale, repetitious, and, at this stage, pointless."
And this is exactly what I mean...
I hate the UEP site.
I think it was designed by the same people who built the Iraq police academy. (Remember the story that the building was so shoddy that it leaked raw sewage from the ceiling of recruits' bedrooms.)
I think chessbase's articles really showed us a window into this world championship. They had some out of work starlet sharing the spotlight yesterday, with a doctoral candidate physicist (who're both female and pretty. Oh my.). Today they have an extreme freak-athlete: a professional Stair climber. Whooooaaaa. EXTREEEEME.
Bareev and journalist-friend honestly found that playing poker online was more interesting than the championship. Maybe they imagined they were playing poker online with hotties.
On sunday, who do you think they'll have as special guest? A bearded lady? A cameo by Stefan Petzner, Joerg Haider's grieving lover? That will bring the paparazzi in!!!
Anything is possible, with UEP promotions!
So,it was just one big lie?The big match expert Kramnik now really showed why he wants to play matches!750 000 euros!Not so bad for such a play!And the good thing is he even doesn´t need to play all the games!I propose that all the money goes to Anand- he deserves it and Kramnik even pays money back to the sponsors.Kramnik is not stupid.He made a lot of money selling his non-existing virtual title.Stupid are the people who blindly believed in him.And now the truth is clear:an average GM already for many years made millions playing for a draw in nearly every game!
Shamenik!
Dear Mr.Koster,
Having in mind your comments,it's obvious that you are big fan of MIG and Kramnik. So,it's point less to discuss with you anything.However,you are not very inteligent if can't understand who or what slave is MIG. There is a people who are slaves by soul my friend,just like your idol MIG.
Kramnik had no special privilegios,according to you ??!! Come on boy ,give me a break !
Refresh my memory please: From which cycle Kramnik classified for his matches vs Kasparov and Topalov ? Why, if he was such a big player and great Champion he did't play in WCC in San Luis 2005 ,just like everybody else after Kasparov's retiremant ? Answer to this two simple questions,please.
Vishy fans will enjoy this game collection of all the games of the KO events he took part.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1014365
One thing I do not understand.How can a player,who´s score in matches is negative to call himself a match Champion???In his official matches Kramnik lost to Kamsky,Gelfand,Shirov and Anand(maybe tommorow).One draw with Leko.And he beat Yudasin,Kasparov and Topalov(quite an obscure match)So it is +3,1= and -4 in total.Most of the top players have a better match score,Shirov,Kamsky not to mention Anand.So guys,what is now happening in Bonn is just very logical.
>I think chessbase's articles really showed us a window into this world championship...Bareev and journalist-friend honestly found that playing poker online was more interesting than the championship.
perhaps but GM Bareev also makes deep observations and very funny jokes, and chessbase is quick to publish them (perhaps in order to make known to the masses that the strong chess players also have a high IQ)
" Evgeny Bareev did give us his assessment of the game. After 22 moves he predicted it would be a draw. Really? "Yes, because Anand is wearing a yellow sweater," Evgeny told us. "When he wears a blue sweater he wins, with the yellow one he draws." And we simpletons are using Fritz to try to evaluate the moves."
Mr. ass,
"Having in mind your comments,it's obvious that you are big fan of MIG..." Sometimes I wish Susan ran this blog to promptly delete this sort of vicious slander.
Mr. Walker,
"One thing I do not understand. How can a player,who´s score in matches is negative to call himself a match Champion???" The same way an infant who falls hundreds of times but finally learns to walk can call himself a better walker than an old man who's walked all his life but has fallen and doesn't get up.
Theorist,
Guilty as charged.
more than anything Bareev's attitude seems to indicate that even the Kramnik camp already accepted the inevatibility of Anand's victory.
If Anand does not lose a game here, he would have won the WC title in all 3 formats without having lost a single game in each of these types of formats!
The Kramnik Bashing in here is unbelievable.
No matter if Kramniks looses theis match -3 or -4 he is still a great champion.
Anand is offcause not 3 or 4 full points better than Kramnik, Anand would be the first to admit that. Kramnik and team have been totally outprepared. Period. Plus Anand has not made any mistakes and has played like Rybka 3 in all the tense positions. If you dont believe this, let Rybka run through the games. I am not suggesting anything here, only that Anand has been playing supberly without any mistakes and that he and Team have been clever and lucky that all their preperation worked so welll. Kramniks worst problem is not the one loss with black, but the two losses with white.
i hope that Anand will beat Toplaov in the upcomming match.
Its all ok.
Anand lost to Kasparov who was beaten by Kramnik who was beaten by Anand so its ok.
Kramnik lost to Anand who lost to Kasparov who was beaten by Kramnik so its ok.
Kasparov beat Anand who beat Kramnik who beat Kasparov so its ok.
I'm ok. you'r ok.
...Anand of course not better than Kramnik
...Kramnik only outprepared
...Anand playing like Rybka 3, not suggesting "anything"
...Anand lucky
You’ve got to love it. Revisionists are already at work.
Anyway, my prediction: Kramnik will cash in (sweet deal he has!) and walk for good. His two fundamental paradigms (1. he is such a great match player and tournaments mean nothing 2. black pieces for making draw only, special opening repertoire tuned for match play) have been annihilated. Amazingly the scheme has worked for eight years but you can't fool the world forever - eventually the truth is revealed. There is no more basis for Kramniks presence in the world of chess. Hopefully this will manifest itself in a diminishing presence of Kramnik's acid-tongued following in this blog !
"Kramnik and team have been totally outprepared."
Preparation is a great part of today's game and a good case can be made that Kramnik, to his shame, has been out-prepared in his last three matches. Kramnik fans who gloried in his superior preparation in 2000 cannot now "complain" about his inferior prep in 2008.
And Kramnik fans who claimed he was +2 over Kasparov, at least in October 2000 when it really counted, cannot now deny that Anand is +3 over Kramnik today, a day or a few days before it really counts.
I sure ain't complaining about the prep. But I have questions:
"Amazingly the scheme has worked for eight years but you can't fool the world forever"
What exactly was deceitful about Kramnik's chess during the 8-year period?
"eventually the truth is revealed."
What is the truth?
"There is no more basis for Kramniks presence in the world of chess."
What was the original basis on which you agreed to allow Kramnik into the world of chess?
A WOUNDED BULL WILL ATTACK FIERCELY. Hope Kramnik's at last chance in the position 6-3 will turn him like that, it will be very interesting game.
I think Kramnik's problem has been exactly what I predicted - never bet on a newly-wed in a contest which requires a year's intense focus.
Or, in other words, he's been outprepared, and Anand wanted it more.
All these people talking about Kramnik's conservative style letting him down have it the wrong way round. If anything, it's been his romantic streak. I said he'd lose this match with White, and he has. I really can't understand how no-one has told him that he's absolutely crazy to be taking on Anand's Semi-Slav, and as for playing the Nimzo, words fail me. It's hard to think of an opening which suits him less. Some people are knight guys and some people are bishop guys, and he's a bishop guy. If he'd stuck to 6 Qc2 against the SS, and the QGD or classical Slav, we'd have seen a far different match.
"What is the truth?"
You are either a winning player or you aren't. Doesn't depend on the format (tournament vs. match play). No need to vilify Topalov's and Anand's accomplishments in San Luis and Mexico as Kramnik has eagerly done on every occasion.
It's favorable to try to play for a win with black pieces. No need to make boring Petroff short draws or play anti chess with black all the time.
There is no place for laziness - at that level you better work on theory and come up with novelties. Ability for ad hoc grinding of technical positions is just not enough anymore. There is no such thing as "correct chess".
"What exactly was deceitful about Kramnik's chess during the 8-year period?"
See above. Plus the fact that Kramnik never earned the right to challenge the world champion, in fact even failed to qualify (Cazorla 1998). Plus his refusal to play GK for a rematch.
"What was the original basis on which you agreed to allow Kramnik into the world of chess?"
Not me, but Kramnik who has made a career out of a very narrow perspective (match play (every four years or so) is all that matters, alleged "Steinitz tradition", "I beat Kasparov"). Now everything has collapsed. Big time.
I do agree with the point that Kramnik didn't really lose in conservative positions. I guess Kramnik had stuck to the Meran line because he was always good in it and it would probably seem like too much a concession to him to give it up just because he faced Anand.
And while there may be some truth in the whole "Kramnik is a bishop guy" thing, I doubt he thinks of himself that way. I do not think I agree the Nimzo-Indian doesn't suit his style, just because black is likely to give up the two bishops there. I think Kramnik was still upset about losing two games with white in game 6 and he could have lost even if he didn't play the Nimzo-Indian.
I've advocated 6. Qc2 myself for Kramnik for game 5, so I definitely agree on that one. I do think Kramnik's openings were questionable (especially repeating the sharp line in game 5, but also not playing the Catalan in game 8) but it seems even Kramnik fans have to admit that if the current score holds, Kramnik will have been defeated by a better player. The match could have been very different if Kramnik made different decisions about the openings, but it seems to me Anand was likely to win regardless.
I assume in your original piece "Wojtaszek. Kramnik went for 9.Bb5+ instead of Bb2 or Bxf6"
You mean Bd2 not Bb2. Of course Bb2 is not impossible but Bd2 is a move often played here :)
not only*
"See above. Plus the fact that Kramnik never earned the right to challenge the world champion, in fact even failed to qualify (Cazorla 1998). Plus his refusal to play GK for a rematch."
You would think now that Kramnik is about to lose the match, this whole nonsense would stop. Kramnik did earn the right to challenge the world champion. By 2000, he was the only top player who had a respectable score against Kasparov, was coming off some huge 80+ game unbeaten streak, was #2 player in the world in rating, and he had won Linares and Dortmund that year. Kasparov thought Kramnik had the right to challenge him and so did the sponsors. Shirov may have felt differently, but the BGN match took place about 2.5 years after the Kramnik-Shirov match, and Shirov's own right had already expired by then. This was acknowledged not just by Kasparov and Kramnik, but also by Shirov himself when he suggested Kamsky (who defeated Shirov in the final of the 2007 world cup) should be disqualified by FIDE leading up the the Kamsky-Topalov match, thus giving Kamsky much less time to organize the match compared to what Kramnik had given him for the Kasparov match.
"Not me, but Kramnik who has made a career out of a very narrow perspective (match play (every four years or so) is all that matters, alleged "Steinitz tradition", "I beat Kasparov"). Now everything has collapsed. Big time"
First of all, the "perspective" is the Chess World Championship as it has been understood for 120+ years, so it is hardly "narrow". I doubt Kramnik feels badly about his career at this point, as he had achieved the greatest thing one can ever achieve in the sport of chess - became the world champion - and the real champ, at that. And he has done it not once, but 3 times. So I doubt he will feel too depressed about how his career has gone if he fails to put together a miraculous comeback in the remianing games against Anand. In fact, knowing Kramnik, he will probably be as content with his 3 titles as Kasparov was with his 6.
Did anyone else see that this is the first game where Kramnik did not wear a tie? I am wondering whether that means that psychologically Kramnik has thrown in the towel?
"and the real champ, at that.."
what a load of crap
He failed at EVERY ATTEMPT to qualify as a challenger, EVERY SINGLE TIME, and then got a shot at the WC due to the stupidity of Kasparaov, and then lucked out ONCE with his Berlin which Kasparaov was foolish enough to break his head against. It is widely recognized that a major contributory factor for Kramnik's ill-begotten WCC was the fact that Kasparov insisted on psyching himsef. And after that, Kramnik had the GALL to BS the whole world by explaining why he was dodging a challenge from Kasparov by saying the "proper procedure" was for Kaspy to qualify!!
And yet did not stop himself from writing in a clause for a direct shot at the title even if he didnt win Mexico!! And he talked about his 'conscience' that the proper procedure should be followed in the case of Kasparaov, who almost unarguably IS the greatest player in Chess.
What a stinking hypocrite !! And still he is being referred to as "the real champ" !!!!! The only difference between that statement and a bucket of BS is the bucket !!!!
Ok even after that how did he 'defend' his lousy status as WC? By having Leko qualify through a knockout...if the finals had to be a match, what about the "tradition" of candidate MATCHES !!!
Even then, Leko was leading him until he drew the match and thus 'retained' the title! Topy was beating him hands down, but psyched himself and foolishly overpressed again and again and lost.
And still a "real champ" ha ha ha "and arguably the greatest match player" ha ha ha..As I said only the bucket is missing. A stinking self-serving hypocrite who lucked out and hit the jackpot of the WC title and tried to hold on to it ...that is the kind of champ I will describe him as.
He is just no good BS-er, and despite agreeing in writing Mexico winner will be the undisputed champion, dishonestly and arrogantly said "I have 'loaned' my title to Anand! !!!!
It doesn't matter who defeated this guy...Anand or whoever...I couldn't care less...but let us hope the coming few days will provide no ugly surprises, and rejoice at the upcoming exorocisation of chess, looooong overdue !!!!
One can understand how Kramnik fans are lazy, arrogant, over-educated snots, Kasparov fans are bullying, hypocritical, double-talking jerks, and Topalov fans are small-minded, pathetic, paranoid losers.
But how does Anand attract a fan like Kris?
Its sad to see people bashing up Kramnik or Anand just because they are a "fan" of the other. Specifically, Its sad to see Anand's fans bashing anybody else. Anand himself has been such a gentleman and has never said anything derogatory about anyone else. He has had to bear the blunt of so many "arbitrary" rules during the past decade or so - arbitrary "challengers", new rules for champions, new rules for deciding challengers etc. He has kept quiet and just "played" during all these years - making his chess talk. I think he is a worthy champion in every sense of the term.
please kindly stop referring to me as "Anand fan"....I am not...in any sense of the word..I am just discussing Kramnik, NOT Anand !!! As I already indicated, even if Topy or Leko had won in their matches, I would have been very happy.
The simple fact is that perhaps this match is the first one where a large number of people think if one of the contestants (no prize for guessing who) wins, it would be BAD for chess...so my discussions have NOTHING to do with me being an Anand fan.
The Kramnik haters are an odd bunch. I mean Kasparov in his first match with Karpov lost 4 games in the first twelve. Kasparov clearly should have quit chess in disgrace after such a performance. Congratulations again to Anand on becoming the 15th World Champion. It is fitting and closes off the KKA era neatly.
"You are either a winning player or you aren't."
Aren't all chess grandmasters a bit of both? And didn't Kramnik defeat Kasparov in a world title match without dropping a game, which would -- kinda sorta -- make him a winning player?
"It's favorable to try to play for a win with black pieces. No need to make boring Petroff short draws or play anti chess with black all the time."
Kramnik hasn't won a game with Black since 2000? And there's "no need" to avoid losing when playing Black? Is this Hyper-Hypermodern theory?
"There is no place for laziness"
How is Kramnik's style lazier than, say, a wild attacking style which attempts to get out of the book quickly every time? Is it possible that you're calling it "lazy" because it doesn't excite you personally?
"There is no such thing as "correct chess"
Then why have you just spelled out the sort of chess you deem incorrect and even deceitful? And why condemn Kramnik's style which won him the World Championship?
"Plus the fact that Kramnik never earned the right to challenge the world champion"
Wow, do you really wish to get into that again on this blog? You'll lose quicker than Kramnik's Meran.
"Not me, but Kramnik who has made a career out of a very narrow perspective (match play (every four years or so)"
Kramnik hasn't played in a tournament since 2000?
"Now everything has collapsed. Big time."
You mean collapsed as in 1993? The chess title wasn't unified with Kramnik-Topalov 2006? It seemed that Anand is next in a long line of world champions but if, as you insist, "everything has collapsed", how exactly is it broken?
I had the impression that Kramnik caught Kasparov at a bad time in 2000. I saw it much more as an ill-prepared Kasparov losing rather than an excellent Kramnik winning.
Kasparov was at his peak in the 1990s when he was building his rating towards 2851. This meant he had to be consistently operating above 2850.
However, by the time of the 2000 match with Kramnik, other distractions and guilt was already preying on Kasparov’s mind or conscience arising from, inter alia -
1) Certain quarters calling into question the legitimacy of his continuing hold on the World Champion Title considering the lack of a title defence after more than 3 years;
2) His inability to find a sponsor for a World Championship match with Shirov;
3) The fact that Shirov was not paid for his match with Kramnik that was supposed to be a qualifier for a World Championship match with Kasparov;
4) His guilt over his decision to split with FIDE contributing to the chaotic situation surrounding the World Champion Title;
5) The failure of his PCA body which he had banked on as a continuing platform for an alternative (to FIDE) World Championship Cycle;
6) His heavy involvement in arranging the World Championship match with Kramnik which must have been a great drain on Kasparov’s energy and adversely impacting any technical preparation for the actual match; and lastly but not least
7) His increasing involvement with Russian opposition politics.
Kasparov’s rating had plateaued by then and was starting to drop at the turn of the century. Arguably, the dropping rating meant that he was operating at below 2850.
Kramnik did not display anything really special in his match with Kasparov. To paraphrase Mig, Kramnik greatest achievement seeming only to be remaining unbeaten against Kasparov over 16 consecutive games. Of course, winning 2 Whites in the process.
Furthermore, I do not recall anything of the combative, enterprising chess or sacrificial play that Kasparov was famous for, in that match, or even any discussion in this respect. To my mind, it was really all about a low-energy Kasparov losing to a very solid Kramnik who was well-prepared to just set up a barricade and who managed to take advantage of two moments of weaknesses in Kasparov’s play. In soccer parlance, Kramnik’s match strategy was just to park a bus in front of goal and hope to score a lucky goal in a counter-attack. Well, whaddayuknow, it worked.
Post-match, Kasparov was too big (or too proud) a man to give any extraneous excuses for his loss. He readily acknowledged that Kramnik played better in the match (which of course is undeniable as the score shows) and thus deserved his victory.
All Kasparov then asked of Kramnik was a rematch. That he (Kramnik) gives him (Kasparov) the same opportunity that he (Kasparov) had given him (Kramnik) for a World Title Match without having to go through any qualification cycle.
It was Kramnik’s wimpy response to this under-the-circumstances reasonable request by Kasparov, and other excuses for avoiding a rematch that started off major anti-Kramnik sentiment.
Kramnik’s place in chess history is already cemented with his World Championship victory over Kasparov, and the World Champion accolade that came with it, disputed or not. The jury is however still out on how great a player he is. He shall be judged by history based on the quality of his best games, best tournament results and matches, contribution to theory, etc. That by definition is judgmental and the two sides can argue until the cows come home for all it is worth.
Kramnik’s style of play will not be held against him as Capa, Botvinnik,Smyslov, Petrosian, Fischer, and Karpov all had similar styles based largely on solidity and accumulation of small advantages to win close contests. The aforementioned are considered all-time greats.
On the flip side we have at least a World Champion (Euwe) who I do not believe is generally regarded as a great player.
edfong:
"All Kasparov then asked of Kramnik was a rematch. That he (Kramnik) gives him (Kasparov) the same opportunity that he (Kasparov) had given him (Kramnik) for a World Title Match without having to go through any qualification cycle.
It was Kramnik’s wimpy response to this under-the-circumstances reasonable request by Kasparov, and other excuses for avoiding a rematch that started off major anti-Kramnik sentiment."
Yes.
There are many other points too in this regard, see my earlier post. In particular, he did not shy from ensuring for himself the very same chances that he denied Kasparov. That sure shows his negotiating skills but reeked of falsity whenever he raised "in principle" arguments, after denying Kasparaov.
Krishna11, people like you are charitably called "stupid losers". I mean Anand is, I guarantee you thanking whatever God he prays to that Kramnik agreed to the match so that he, Anand, could have a final shot at immortality. sh**ing on Kramnik is sh**ing on Anand. With this win Anand moves himself from the pathetic lottery winners pile aka Fide lottery winners
Ruslan Ponomariov
Alexander Khalifman
Rustam Kasimdzhanov
Veselin Topalov
to the Legends of the Game pile where Capablanca, and Alekhine, Tal, Karpov, Kasparov, Kramnik sit.
So shut your mouth and show respect for the greatness of chess and the true champions whom your man Anand now joins.
One last post for the night.
Mondo, first try to UNDERSTAND the point of my posts before you respond :)
Why so much hate towards Kramnik guys? edfong makes sense but some of the other posts are just rediculous. Looks like this is a chance for some people to settle some personal grudges.
I am a a fan of both players and I just love this match. Every player has his week points and strengths, there isnt any point in digging dirt every time.
"...this whole nonsense would stop. Kramnik did earn the right to challenge the world champion. By 2000, he was the only top player who had a respectable score against Kasparov, was coming off some huge 80+ game unbeaten streak, was #2 player in the world in rating, and he had won Linares and Dortmund that year. Kasparov thought Kramnik had the right to challenge him and so did the sponsors." - Russianbear.
RB is starting the non-sense all over again. What did Kramnik's respectable score prove in this Bonn match? Ok, when did the unbeaten streak become a criteria for championship qualification? When 60 rating points is nothing, what good is #2 rating? It is like going and changing the goal post when you can't score?? I know many times RB has argued that it was to Anand the offer was made (and Anand refused it.) If Kramnik had the right to challenge why would the offer go to Anand first. Something wrong right there. Again if Kramnik had the right, why a Shirov-Kramnik qualifier? Did not Kramnik have a respectable score then? From champion pick to a sponsor pick or a champion-sponsor combined pick?? We don't have that in 100 years of Steinitz tradition. Disqualified!!
Lets face it. From 1993-2007, all are dubious champions!! I think Khalif has equal score against Kramnik. So Kramnik is equally dubious champion if not more!
Kramnik was given a chance to accept the other side champions. He ridiculed it. He is now paying for it.
Amidst all these kramnik/anand bashing, lets not forget topalov's stments - "only a shadow of the once great player" abt Anand and "not interested in a match between #5 and #6" abt this WC :P This man is crazy!
I consider this as unification under FIDE banner. What Anand will achieve here is something greater than personal glory. He is one man who will play any type of format, without hesistation. Not to say that his predecesors were not complete in that sense, they had some sort of reservation against particular systems, due to the inherent unfairness as perceived by them. But for Anand, he plays as long he enjoys it, much like Tal.
I also feel that excessive Kramnik bashing here and personal attacks is silly to say the least. Kramnik is a great player, and one has to lose at some point. Also, i think there is nothing bad about losing to a good player like Anand is his best form ever. Kramnik had such a form himself when he beat Garry. Its unfortunate for him that the circumstances prevailing at that time led to questions about the 'legitimacy', and his subsequent performances didn't help to answer those questions. In a way, his contribution to chess is enormous and its natural that now we get to see a new Champion.
Lets enjoy the games these great players will play in coming times.!
pathetic lottery winners ???
If you care to look at the link i have posted in this page, you will find that Anand could not beat Khalifman in two mini-matches ( won only in the rapids with him. ) they played.
For chess fans, it seems, a player is either No.1 or he is nobody.
Mondo, how many of GM level moves you really understand ??
Dear Mr. Koster,
You are patetic,just like your idol MIG. I asked you two simple questions and you was not able to respond,because you have no arguments, my friend.
Anyway,I will give you third chance : Tell me please,what is the right of your other idol Mr.Kramnik to play a match vs World Champion? Did he classified for it ? Why Mr. Kramnik confirmed his participation to WCC in Mexico only after the FIDE President guaranteed him the rematch againts the winner ?
Can you answer to this questions,please? If you can't, you can ask MIG,he will help you for sure.
@Smartass
What makes you think that people are going to respond when you dont seem to be cultured enough in the way you talk to ppl ?
I mean, arguments is fine and understandable but think about what i'm trying to say when you have the nerve to come and attack the owner of this blog in his very space? This surely is pathetic..
I would say that the title was in dispute between 2000-2005, certainly after 2003 or thereabout.
This blog's posters are ample proof that there was no undisputed champion post-2000. You can argue endlessly about whether Kramnik deserved his chance or not.
But the very fact that there are people 8 years down the line arguing about it says that there was no undisputed champion after 2000.
By 2003-4, Kramnik has not played a match defending his "title" and so I'd say his claim was eroded by the efflux of time. The Leko match was not accepted by many top players as coming out of a credible qualification format either.
The last Fide champion of that KO-era, Kasimdzanov won in a poor format against a field where many top players were absent. So his claims were always (very) doubtful.
Post the Kramnik-Topalov match, there is really no dispute as to who is the champion. You can certainly say that the format of reunification was messy and imperfect. That's entirely true but it's a different matter from claiming that the claim of the title-holder is disputed.
San Luis happened and then Elista happened with the participants of both including all the credible contenders (post Kasparov's retirement). Implicitly and explicitly (given that they signed contracts) that means the title claims made for San Luis and Elista were accepted by all the credible contenders.
By Mexico, all that you could argue was that the format was imperfect. True - but it was definitely accepted by all the credible contenders and that is a big deal given what has happened in chess since 1993.
So Kramnik was definitely, undisputed champion after the Elista match and until Mexico. Anand has definitely been undisputed champion post-Mexico.
"Tell me please, what is the right of your other idol Mr.Kramnik to play a match vs World Champion? Did he classified for it? Why Mr. Kramnik confirmed his participation to WCC in Mexico only after the FIDE President guaranteed him the rematch againts the winner?"
Well, since you said "please:"
My idol, Kramnik, and his fans believe that regardless of what bizarre events FIDE decides to call "world championships" a match-title can only be won or lost in a match; that A can prove he's better than B only by defeating B in a long match, not by winning a game here and there again C, D, and E.
Under this theory, San Luis was a qualifier for the 2006 Kramnik match and Mexico City was a qualifier for the 2008 Kramnik match. To appease the Mexican sponsors and go along with the FIDE program, Kramnik agreed to play in the 2007 "qualifier" for his own match, to call the Mexico City winner "champion," and to submerge his own WCC claims until the 2008 match.
One good thing about an Anand victory would be that it would simplify the bookkeeping. Kramnik is the 14th WC and Anand the 15th, and whether you'd date Anand's accession from 2007 or 2008 is really not important.
[I'm sure you communicate far better in my language than I in yours, but, since you use it so often, the word is spelled "pathetic."]
Sorry my friend,but you are really stupid.
You have no idea at all what's going on. Please,just shut up and try to learn something.
And please, don't bother me anymore,to discuss with you is really boring and point less.