Been a bit swamped with holiday plans, marches in Moscow, and, of course, taking care of baby. But there's been plenty of chess under the tree, or wherever you stick your presents.
Topalov has made his usual late move in the Pearl Spring tournament, winning his last two games against Svidler and Aronian. The win against Svidler's Grunfeld was yet another chapter in Topalov's long book of wonderful positional exchange sacrifices. But as Tal wrote about Petrosian, he consistently provides proof that rooks are actually not worth more than bishops and knights. Bu Xiangzhi kept pace with his second win over Movsesian. It was also a long-term exchange sac and the Chinese followed it up with some very precise calculation to bring home the point against Movsesian's desperate defense. Movsesian knows how to curry favor (kung pao favor?) with the organizers. Lose only to the local star!
The two leaders, both with 4/6, meet in today's 7th round, Bu Xiangzhi with white. Anyone out there know how much local coverage of this event is going on in China? On the TV news at all? I bet it will be if Bu beats Topalov, especially if he goes on to win the tournament, as would be likely at that point. Live here.
Meanwhile, 4071.64 miles (6552.50 km) away in Elista, Teimour Radjabov has taken the early lead in the third leg of the Grand Prix with a 3/4 score. Wins over Bacrot and Kasimjanov put him on top of Jakovenko, Grischuk, and Gashimov on +1. Bacrot bounced back at Leko's expense, but the Hungarian's pain is our pleasure thanks to the beautiful final move of the game. White to play and win in the diagram.
Leko is near the bottom of the crosstable on -1 thanks to another loss, to Grischuk, against a win over Cheparinov. Leko has really been all over the place this year. A good Corus, a disastrous Linares, victory in Dortmund, a mediocre Tal Memorial, and an excellent Olympiad before heading to Elista. I'm not sure if he's really trying to mix it up and be more aggressive or if he's just being pushed harder by the new generation. He had a tough defense against Bacrot's 17.g4!? pawn sac novelty. Usually giving up material against Leko is a very good way to lose. But this looks like a nice piece of prep by the Frenchman. Up until that brutal final move Leko must have thought it was his lucky day. Black is completely winning except for that tiny problem with the mate in 5.
Speaking of sacrifices, don't miss Radjabov's win over Kasimjanov's Dragon in round three. Classic Dragon-slaying with 19.Nf5+! Bacrot's miracle save against Mamedyarov is also worth a look. 40.Rd6+ would have wrapped things up for White. But Mamedyarov got grabby and Bacrot found a miracle save knight sac. Live here.
Topalov is again an exchange down against Bu .... . I readily acknowledge that he is a far better player than I am, but still I wonder how much compensation he has this time (if any).
Today one rook was worth a bishop + 1 pawn in Bu - Topalov.
In Ivanchuk - Aronian a passed pawn decided the game in favor of Aronian
and in Movsesian - Svidler a rook was worth less then an bishop and some pawns.
Qh7+ for winning diagram with white ?
Dunno, it seems Topa played a silly exchange sac, and Bu didn't cash in, in an easily winning Q+R+3P versus Q+B+3p ending.
I start to like Bacrot. He has this cool look all the time as if he has partied too much the day before, and sometimes he plays really good attacking chess. Downing Leko like that is not easy I suppose.
I THINK BACROT IS A PRETTY COOL GUY. EH PARTIES TOO MUCH TEH DAY BEFORE AND DOESN'T AFRAID OF ANYTHING.
I found the solution for the Bacrot-Leko game last night when they asked it on Chessbase. As for the Topalov game, Topy's exchange "sac" was nebulous at best, and blunderous at worst. I thought that maybe it was just a blunder...
Ah yes those time comsuming marches in Russia Mig by the Other Garry. It brings to mind the clone wars between yourself and Han Ree who, writing in the latest edition of New In Chess, cant resist referring to "Kasparov's valet the journalist Mig Greengard.." Ho ho ho. This tiff was apparently sparked by Ree complaining about Kasparov's "thuggish" political associates and Mig calling him a princess.....
Man that is one weird accident with Ivanchuk's chair breaking. Must be the one he's used to play so many games this year; he just wore it out!
I actually know of another player who has a theory that rooks and bishops are equal. It is based of a geometric analysis that both pieces have two vectors and thus the same geometric value. Of course I questioned him because we move up-down and side-side the board, so the rook should be better, but Topalov has perhaps made us re-evaluate the rook's true value. He sacrifices the exchange seemingly in every game... and these are not ...Rxc3 or Rxf6 sacrfices!
Larry Kaufman in his famous article about material imbalances has a very nice piece about the value of exchange. E.g. he finds out that 2 Bishops+pawn fully compensate for the exchange.
Of course a bishop can only occupy or control half of the squares on the board - IMHO this is the main reason for the common (textbook) belief that the rook is the stronger piece. That being said it depends on the specific situation on the board: a bishop controlling an entire diagonal may well be worth more than a passive rook who doesn't have an open line - particularly if the materially weaker side can create threats against the opponent's king.
Then, the bishop pair can 'compensate' for the inherent deficiency of a single bishop. To playjunior: Maybe Larry Kaufman refers to bishop pair against rook + knight? Here, full compensation for the exchange (or even more) may be the rule rather than the exception, even without an extra pawn.
Obviously, even Topalov does not sacrifice the exchange in every game ... and some of his sacrifices may not be wholly sound. But over the board, it is more important to create problems and/or confusion for the opponent ... especially if his sacifice was home preparation and/or the other player is in time trouble.
Against Bu, he may get the 'benefit of doubt' becaus of his legacy of exchange sacrifices - "it was not a blunder, he was sacrificing the exchange [i.e. losing it on purpose]". But for most other players, certainly for lower-rated ones, we would not hesitate to call it simply a blunder?
And while it was not at all easy for white to cash in, I think Topalov was objectively lost at some stage - before Bu played the tempting, but incorrect/inefficient pawn sacrifice f4-f5.
Their local coverage is fairly overwhelming, like on how getting him 3 dedicated seconds was instrumental to taking out his less than prudent opponents.
after causing havoc by avoiding the doping test at the olympiad it seems that now Ivanchuk has decided to show to the chinese their chairs are low quality garbage :P
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5097
It was an extremely subtle protest against Chairman Mao. One is driven to such extremes by heavy censorship.
(I got this info from an illicitly pulled Xmas cracker.)
Daaim wrote:
"I actually know of another player who has a theory that rooks and bishops are equal. It is based of a geometric analysis that both pieces have two vectors and thus the same geometric value. Of course I questioned him because we move up-down and side-side the board, so the rook should be better, but Topalov has perhaps made us re-evaluate the rook's true value"
Plain stupid.
Any player over 1600 knows that a single rook is stronger than a single bishop (yes, Virginia, there are exceptions, of course).
You can't even checkmate with a bishop!
6-men tables are available. Someone with some free time could tell us how many positions are won for the rook side and how many for the bishop side in KRP vs KBP.
"Any player over 1600 knows that a single rook is stronger than a single bishop (yes, Virginia, there are exceptions, of course)."
It's not about a single rook or a single bishop, "stupid" ... but about how the value of pieces can change in a given middlegame or even endgame position (with many other pieces on the board). And here, players rated, say, 1600-1800 will know the general rule (the rook is stronger), stronger players know that there are exceptions, and even stronger players find the exceptions in practical games.
I don't know whom you mean with 'Virginia' - in an earlier post (at 5:59AM), I had given one conceivable example where a bishop is stronger than a rook.
BTW, Topalov gets lots of credit for his frequent [strategic] exchange sacrifices. But he obviously does not have (sole) copyright for the idea as a whole - maybe he "reinvented the wheel" in the 21st century.
Results of a quick Internet search:
1) chessgames.com has a "collection of games mainly by Botvinnik, Petrosian and Gligoric which involve the exchange sacrifice."
2) Wikipedia quotes Tigran Petrosian: 'He was once responded (only half jokingly), when asked what was his favourite piece, as saying "The rook, because I can sacrifice it for minor pieces!"'
It was before my own time, but I remember reading that Petrosian was as famous for frequently sacrificing the exchange as Topalov is these days [even though their playing styles are quite different !!?]
Concerning Darien: Obviously in most KRP vs. KBP endings, the question is whether it's won with the rook or drawn. Everything else failing, the stronger side can in most cases sacrifice the rook for the pawn to obtain a draw - only when this is not possible (and the pawn promotes), the bishop side can win.
Mig , Nothing to write about Topa?
Give us something , :)
Yes, all of us wait for your comment, Mig! Please, make us glad! ;)
Very quietly here...
also, the more complete version of their chessnews is actually found on http://sports.sina.com.cn/chess/guoxiang/
In the Bacrot-Leko diagram, 1 Qh7 +-
1 ... Kxh7
2 hg Kg8
3 Rh8#
1 ... Kf8
2 Bb4+ Rfe7 (if B or Re to e7, Qh8 is mate)
3 hg+ Kf7 (if Bxg7, Qxg7#)
4 g8(Q)#
Wow. If Pyotr was crazy like the rest of the top 20, he could be world champion. 2700+ for the last five and a half years without even trying. In the long run I think it will still work out better for him this way. Excellent play!
Mig, please, explain us what the hell is gone. Why Topa won Nanjing a round to end? I cant understand. Topalov is just ordinary gm, isn't it?
Where are you Russianbear, Greg Koster and others?
Tell us uneducateds what hapen with Svidler? Tell us about cheating of Topa...:)))
I think Topo will demolish Kamsky this year.
Topalov was the second highest rated human of all time after Kasparov with his 2813 back in 2006. If he wins his last round game against Movsesian he will improve his record to 2814+ in the official January rating list.
He has come back form the disaster in Elista and has a good chance to become undisputed world champion finally in 2009- just Kamsky and Anand in the way. With his current for he can do it- even beat Anand in a match. The match against Kamsky is going to be very tough but it could warm him up nicely if he wins it.
Topalov is king in tournaments and he now needs to prove himself in matches.
Topalov was the second highest rated human of all time after Kasparov with his 2813 back in 2006. If he wins his last round game against Movsesian he will improve his record to 2814+ in the official January rating list.
He has come back form the disaster in Elista and has a good chance to become undisputed world champion finally in 2009- just Kamsky and Anand in the way. With his current for he can do it- even beat Anand in a match. The match against Kamsky is going to be very tough but it could warm him up nicely if he wins it.
Topalov is king in tournaments and he now needs to prove himself in matches.
Topalov will become strong in matches too , Elista was his first serious match.
It is still weird not having anything to read about this huge win here , is this how is going to be ?
Ok, but then dont complain about Topa like he is an invention of FIDE , or an ordinary chess player.
If you dont write about the world s number one rated player , who is winning the best tournaments in the world, then what?
Dont miss this historical opportunity to say some nice things about this great player.
Or at least you could comment how Svidler now really knows a lot more about the Grunfeld after some classes he received in China. :)
"Where are you Russianbear, Greg Koster and others?... Tell us about cheating of Topa...:)))"
Well if you insist.
The most sensible response to the Topalov cheating-at-San Luis allegations was that of Kramnik, who made no accusations but simply insisted that the 2006 match venue be cheating-proofed.
Hey Topalov-fans !
Just in case you forgot, Mig is writing in his free time (as all of us do), and he may have other commitments such as taking care of a baby - speaking from own second-hand experience, I recently became not father but uncle ... .
I can understand that you get all excited, and puzzled why some other people are silent - so here I am speaking up ,:). For the record, I like Topalov's play (though not the off-board behaviour by himself and his team), but I am not (or not yet) convinced that he is, or will be dominating the chess world the way Kasparov, Karpov and Fischer had done in the past.
Concerning Nanjing, I would say "let's not exaggerate" - while it is hard to argue with scoring percentages and ELO performance, I still think his tournament victory is less convincing than it looks (at least less convincing than some of his earlier victories, for example San Luis). He was lucky in the second game against Bu (as he admitted himself), and today Svidler was beating himself with a little help from his opponent - obviously, Topalov cannot be blamed for Svidler's poor form.
I already pointed out that, historically, Topalov is not the only one sacrificing exchanges [though here he is probably 'best' or 'most frequent' of the present generation]. Nor is he the only one with quick victories against the Grunfeld, and Svidler had similar losses before - both because the opening is risky and because his form is at times shaky!?
Chessgames.com includes
Ivanchuk-Svidler (Linares 2006, 1-0 25)
Van Wely-Svidler (Corus 2007, 1-0 22)
Harikrishna-Svidler (Dresden Olympiad 2008, 1-0 27)
... and Kramnik-Svidler (Dortmund 2004, given as 1-0 17 - but the game is incomplete in the database !!?)
So Svidler had his 'Grunfeld classes' before - once again, Topalov is not unique ... .
Is that all? Topalov is not unique?
Svidler had Grunfeld classes before?
There is no point in that , wouldnt be more easy to admit that he is the world number one for a reason?
@greg: Im from Argentina , i saw Topalov beating everyone and he wasnt helped at all .
I remember Leko burn in frustration saying : ¨He is not the champion yet , this tournament ( the one he was trying to win) is not a WCH, etc ¨.I thought he was a about to cry at any moment.
The guy is not a cheater , he is just the best player in the world right now.
Thomas may i ask whats your rating? coz you seem to write a lot of nonsense regularely.
Yes,Greg! Crush this bad Buulgarian man! Go!:)))
You have mental problems, my dear!
@Manu: I do not question that Topalov is a very strong player, rated #1 at the moment 'for a reason'. But - citing myself - "I am not (or not yet) convinced that he is, or will be dominating the chess world the way Kasparov, Karpov and Fischer had done in the past" [and this is what I am reading between the lines in posts by yourself and other Topalov fans, am I right?].
Incidentally, he has a rather mixed score against Carlsen - who is no doubt a serious WCh candidate, if not now then in 2-5 years.
Concerning Svidler and the Grunfeld, I just wanted to question your statement that he "now really knows A LOT [emphasis added] more about the Grunfeld" ... . He knew before that the opening is risky, that it can lead to quick and drastic losses - if things go wrong in this opening they can go really wrong (I am also speaking from own experience at my own level, see my next post). Yet he remained faithful to the Grunfeld in the past, also had his successes, and I doubt this will change because of his game against Topalov (what's the difference between three or four losses before move 30?).
Concerning Elo, of course 2800 is a magic boundary, 2813 may be the next one - but I disagree (here with r) that Topalov passing this limit (Kasparov's career best) would indicate that he is stronger than Kasparov ever was. IMHO it is pertinent to mention overall rating inflation once again ... .
Finally, I disagree with you that Topalov "wasn't helped at all" in San Luis - I do not mean cheating, but of course he had his seconds (during the tournament or at least while preparing for it). Nothing wrong with that, of course, but one difference between Topalov and Leko (for the record, not the only one) may be that Cheparinov is better than Leko's father-in-law/coach Arshak Petrosian [source: Gershon & Nor''s tournament book].
There were discussions before on this list if one should post under one's full name or not - some people prefer to keep it secret "for whichever reason". The same could apply to ratings ... .
That being said, it is no secret (I actually mentioned it before) that I am a 'modest' player presently rated 1937. My 'career best' was around 2100 - due to circumstances, I am presently playing mostly against weaker opposition and would have to score close to 100% to even conserve a higher rating.
I don't know which parts of my posts you consider nonsense - BTW, you wrote "you SEEM to write a lot of nonsense" so you are not sure about it after all? With some game assessments, I may be wrong - I can only comment on some recent examples from the Nanjing tournament:
1) About Topalov's early repetition draw against Movsesian, my main point was not if he had actual winning chances or not, I just thought (and think) that it was against the spirit of the Sofia rule ... promoted by Topalov himself.
2) Topalov's second game against Bu, I am not sure if he was objectively lost or not, I mentioned that he 'admitted himself' (in the press conference) that he was somewhat lucky to draw.
3) Today's game Svidler-Topalov: I probably should have added "IMHO" about 'Svidler mostly beating himself', anyone else willing to comment on that game?
For some other parts of my posts, I try to research facts (mostly from Internet sources, which happen to be readily available if your computer is switched on anyway) and commonly mention sources which I used - so here I would say my own rating is quite irrelevant.
BTW, aren't we all writing (some) nonsense in this blog? What I mean is: comments are mostly spontaneous, I don't know if anyone is writing down drafts of his posts, then taking a break, having a cup of coffee, revising his or her post before hitting the Submit button?
This may actually be another reason why Mig is still silent? He probably double- or triple-checks his writing before putting it on the site. Maybe he has not yet come to a conclusion about Bu-Topalov, would like to have Kasparov's opinion on it - but Garry is presently occupied with other things and does not answer the phone (or Mig does not want to or dare to call him).
And BTW, what's your rating Jean? ,:) If you are a strong(er) player, feel free to point out (and be more specific) about my nonsense - no hard feelings from my side, I would appreciate it as a learning experience !
"he will improve his record to 2814+ in the official January rating list."
Topalov should be 2796 in the January list, unless FIDE does another 180 degrees turn wrt following their own rules:
Pearl Spring is not any FIDE (organized) event and is not one of those events mentioned in the Handbook that don't have to "respect" the December 15th rating report deadline. Hence, it would just reignite rumours about strong connections from the Topa camp into the FIDE PB if Pearl Spring would be rated in the January list - it's not supposed to be, since the event finishes well after December 15th.
When Carlsen would've been official world number 2 if Aeroflot would've been rated for the July list this year, some FIDE official first told ChessVibes that Aeroflot (which ended June 19th) would be rated, but soon after the counter-message came, that it would NOT be rated, due to having missed the deadline of June 15th.
FIDE would look rather stupid if they for some reason would rate Nanjing now, while insisting on NOT rating Aeroflot back in June, despite several protests, for instance on chessbase.com.
Note however that Elista GP probably _will_ be rated on the January list, due to being a "FIDE event", i.e. part of a FIDE championship. This, even if Elista finishes even later.
There is some logic to these seemingly strange rules: There will always be a (very) limited number of FIDE events in the pipeline, and FIDE expects themself to have pretty good "control" of their own events with regards to result-reporting. And allowing some "external", but not all, events to be submitted after the deadline, would only create more lack of predictability and add to FIDE's perceived "murkyness".
I hope every Topalov fan will realize, and hence support the only right thing to do, which is to rate this event for the April list, where it technically belongs.
I see you Cap.
Good boy, now sit.
The references to Kasparov's peak rating of 2813 are not correct--this may have been his retirement rating. I think his published peak rating was 2851 (back in 1999, when we didn't have 30 GMs with ratings above 2700, as we do now). So Topalov still has a long way to go to match Kasparov.
Kasparov retired with a rating of 2812 and his peak rating was indeed 2851 (http://ratings.fide.com/id.phtml?event=4100018).
As for the notion of Topalov being better than Kasparov... When Topalov can better Kasparov's list of accomplishments from 1979 to 2005, then he'll be considered better than Kasparov. I won't hold my breath...
Topalov himself said that none of them (Anand,Kramnik,him) could be as great as Kasparov .
It is taped in a beautifull interview after Kasparov retired.I saw it on chessbase.
He said that right after winning the last game of Kasparov´s career.
FIDE should include this last event ,if not it would be an insult to the organizers (and sponsors) of the tournament , especially if the GP is included in the next list.
"but one difference between Topalov and Leko (for the record, not the only one) may be that Cheparinov is better than Leko's father-in-law/coach Arshak Petrosian"
So Topalov's successes are due to better prep, while all the other top players win only through sheer playing strength?? Kasparov did have rather good opening prep too. Was he also a weak player behind it all? All your arguments against his convincing success are fallacious. He plays brilliant games against Svidler and all you can say is that the Grunfeld is crap and anyone can beat it?? Svidler's knowledge of the opening is insufficient? As for Svidler "beating himself" in the Caro-Kann, no-one loses without mistakes, he was outplayed, end of story. As for T's early draw, it was at the end of a tourney where he had secured first prize through constant aggressive and ambitious play. He strives to win practically any game, any criticism of him here is wholly unfair.
And this "better than Kasparov" thing, it's not coming from Topalov.
Anand and Topalov are clearly the best 2 players this year- Anand has excuse of his title match but Topalov was the best this year by performance.
As I said before lets see if he proves himself in the matches next.
Thomas and others:
WHO CLAIMS TOPALOV WAS OR WILL BE BETTER THAN KASPAROV?
Easy to score points there but no-one disagrees!
I don't even imply that he is the second best player ever when I say he had the second highest rating ever after Kasparov. The 2813 in 2006 was his record I was referring to, not Kasparov's.
FROGBERT: I forgot about deadlines being so early- my mistake. But as his virtual rating is 2809, he is a safe bet for being 2800+ in April anyway just by not losing his match to Kamsky (isn't that his only event in the next period?).
Chesshire cat, you misunderstand me, maybe deliberately ... so I will address your comments one by one:
"So Topalov's successes are due to better prep, while all the other top players win only through sheer playing strength??"
I never said that Topalov's wins are _only_ opening preparation - and it would be even more ridiculous to say that other top players can 'survive' (within the top 10) based on sheer playing strength and do not have to rely on/bother with opening preparation.
Indeed I said this is not the only difference between Topalov and Leko, I will not elaborate on other ones to keep this post 'reasonably'(?) short.
All that being said, there Topalov's opening preparation IS probably better (deeper, more comprehensive) compared to most of his competitors. The same applies to Kasparov at the peak of his career. This is meant as a compliment, not a criticism - and included here partly because otherwise someone may attack me writing "So Topa's opening preparation is nothing special??"
And BTW, this particular comment from me was addressed at Manu stating that "Topalov wasn't helped at all" in San Luis - that (categoric) statement is simply wrong, and I am sometimes insisting on facts ... .
"the Grunfeld is crap and anyone can beat it??"
I called the Grunfeld 'risky', which is something else than 'crap'(consistently leading to worse positions or even losing by force). I mentioned that I play the opening myself - you, Jean or anyone else may consider this irrelevant because my rating and thus my understanding of chess is 'crap'. But I wouldn't make such statements about anything which was (and still is!) part of my own repertoire.
"As for Svidler "beating himself" in the Caro-Kann ..."
This is the most difficult one to address (and here my limited understanding of chess may become relevant). Yet, I would still argue that only Topalov's first win against Svidler, but not the second one, may make it into a (future) book of Topalov's best games - the second one was 'nothing really special' taken by itself (outside of the tournament context).
However, both games could enter into a book of Svidler's worst games?? [To my knowledge, Robert Huebner (known to be 'pathetically' critical about his own play) was the only one ever writing such a book: "Fuenfundfuenfzig feiste Fehler" or "55 horrible blunders" in my own English translation - needless to say that 'blunder' for him would rather be 'inaccuracy' for most of us].
"As for T's early draw, it was at the end of a tourney ..."
And this is the easiest one to refute, simply look at _when_ I wrote my earlier comment: It referred to his first game against Movsesian, not the one played today! And back then, Topalov was far away from securing first place and also hadn't yet shown [in Nanjing] much aggressive and ambitious play .... .
"And this "better than Kasparov" thing, it's not coming from Topalov."
Not from Topalov himself, but (implicitly or not) from some of his fans ... and as far as I know, here I am discussing with (among others) Manu, Sherman and r, not with Veselin ,:). Manu clarified in the meantime that this was not his point, but r considers (or would consider) it a major achievement if Topalov passes Kasparov's retirement rating.
If anything, Topalov's eventless draw against Movsesian today may indicate that he cares less about reaching >2812 than at least one of his fans? Otherwise, he may have chosen 1.e4 - most likely yielding a Sicilian on the board.
Summing up, Topalov is a remarkable player - but the Nanjing Tournament was not a major breakthrough (confirming some of his earlier achievements, nothing less but also nothing more). San Luis was a breakthrough, no questions asked ... . And BTW, he also had his weaker tournaments: for example in Corus 2008, he scored 6/13 for shared 9th place. This can happen given his risky style which can backfire, yet IMHO it is a fact worthwhile mentioning - be it only because this is one difference between Topalov and Kasparov (at the peak of Kasparov's career, finishing 2nd or 3rd in a strong tournament would already be considered a relative failure).
To all Topalov fans: You cannot have it both ways, complaining that everyone else is silent, and getting mad at those who do ... .
OK, this was a(nother) long post - but it is easy to come up with several one-sentence accusations, and requires more detail to come up with a response ... .
It certainly wasn't r that implied that 2813 was Kasparov's peak rating. The confusion arose from this paragraph of Thomas:
"Concerning Elo, of course 2800 is a magic boundary, 2813 may be the next one - but I disagree (here with r) that Topalov passing this limit (Kasparov's career best) would indicate that he is stronger than Kasparov ever was. IMHO it is pertinent to mention overall rating inflation once again ..."
This paragraph includes roughly 3 mistakes:
1) "2800 is a magic boundary"
In fact it isn't - it's a completely random number, in more than one sense. The meaning of a rating number changes from rating list to rating list, and not in the sense that some people think - that any number is worth less and less. Rating numbers are relative and are only implicitly defined by their relationship to the numbers of other players IN THE SAME rating list. (Not previous or future lists, and certainly not numbers 10 or 15 years ago.)
2) "2813 may be the next one - but I disagree (here with r) that Topalov passing this limit (Kasparov's career best)"
As was pointed out, 2813 is Topalov's career best, not Kasparov's. Trivial mistake.
3) "it is pertinent to mention overall rating inflation once again"
There has not been any notable "rating inflation" regarding the top 5 players since Kasparov had a rating of 2851 around 2000, or since Kasparov retired with a 2812 rating in 2005.
It's interesting to see that when Kasparov's rating dropped from 2851 to 2804 (at its lowest after 2851), then people explains with "Kasparov performing worse" or "being less motivated", but when Anand and Topalov raise their rating by 10-30 points in some LONGER period, then it's "inflation".
I don't have time to any thorough explanations about rating inflation now, I'll just state that it's a heavily misunderstood subject, and the term "rating inflation" is neither properly defined or agreed upon. The first requirement to be able to define rating inflation, though, is to understand what chess ratings are. Most people seem to fail to understand what chess ratings are, so...
"you misunderstand me, maybe deliberately"
Yes, Thomas, I have an agenda against you and will do anything to see you destroyed.
"you, Jean or anyone else may consider this irrelevant because my rating and thus my understanding of chess is 'crap'"
Did I mention your rating? No need to defend yourself from non-existent attacks.
It is nonsense to condemn Topalov draws, at beginning or end, as they happen so rarely and all the other games are full of fight.
This idea of "lucky wins", e.g. v Svidler, is also silly. A guy doesn't win tournaments and get a huge rating cos he is consistently lucky. He fights hard, plays well and puts his opponents under pressure. Why aren't other players so "lucky" against Svidler?
Anyhoo thats enogh on the subject, here's a toast to Topa-Kamsky, will be very interesting methinks.
As I was personally addressed (here I would not say 'attacked' or 'misunderstood'), some more comments from my side:
1) "2800 is a magic boundary"
I meant to be (slightly) ironic - here and at other occasions this is difficult to stress ... . I fully agree with you that the difference between 2799 and 2801 is as (in)significant as between 2779 and 2781. However, several people made quite some fuzz about Topalov crossing 2800 - so did the Chessdom site during the Dresden Olympiad (and subsequently they hardly mentioned his loss against Shirov, keeping him below 2800 for the time being).
The same applies to other 'magic' boundaries: You had mentioned that tournament organizers 'delayed' reporting results to FIDE and consequently, Nakamura stayed at 2704 while he should have dropped to 2696 - and this makes a difference in terms of tournament invitations.
Even at my own level, I was a bit 'pissed' when my rating dropped below 2000 - and believe it or not, at one occasion a 2000+ rating yielded me a tournament invitation (though of course no appearance fee ,:) ).
BTW, for rating prizes in opens the situation reverses - one may prefer a rating of 1996 to end up in the 1800-2000 group over 2004 to compete in the 2000-2200 group.
2) "2813 may be the next one - but I disagree (here with r) that Topalov passing this limit (Kasparov's career best)"
Yep, my fault, I misinterpreted r's first sentence:
"Topalov was the second highest rated human of all time after Kasparov with his 2813 back in 2006." [I thought 2813 referred to Kasparov and didn't double-check]
With a different sentence ("With his 2813 back in 2006, Topalov was the second highest rated human of all time after Kasparov."), this wouldn't have happened ,:)
BTW, this also closes the issue about Topalov passing Kasparov's retirement rating (coincidentally a rather similar 2812, with this coincidence contributing to some of the confusion ...).
3) Rating inflation
You are probably right that it didn't really occur over the last decade - though it did happen on longer timescales (just why it happened is another question).
This can, but shouldn't, go on forever .... but as there seem to be some new misunderstandings I will reply one more time. Maybe these misunderstandings are related to the fact that I am not a native English speaker, maybe because I cannot give all the details all the time .... .
"you misunderstand me, maybe deliberately"
I wrote 'maybe' because obviously I am not sure about it. Yet I found it striking how you picked bits and pieces of my previous posts (IMHO, often out of context) to 'attack' me - obviously my writing, not me personally. Just as an example (once again): "risky" (concerning the Grunfeld) clearly is not the same as "crap"
'Yes, Thomas, I have an agenda against you and will do anything to see you destroyed.'
Point partly addressed above - and in any case: 1) we do not even know each other personally, 2) after all, we are discussing a game, not matters of life and death [but of course you were joking anyway]
"you, Jean or anyone else may consider this irrelevant because my rating and thus my understanding of chess is 'crap'"
'Did I mention your rating? No need to defend yourself from non-existent attacks.'
Jean asked about my rating (and is therefore mentioned above), you didn't. And my statement was meant as an advance defence against a potential attack, in chess terms known as 'prophylaxis' .... .
'This idea of "lucky wins", e.g. v Svidler, is also silly.'
Again, "lucky wins" is your words, not mine ... . Maybe Topalov's second game against Svidler was a (relatively) 'easy' win, but I didn't call it lucky (i.e. undeserved). Possibly Topalov had a lucky draw against Bu, certainly Ivanchuk (in the first round) had a lucky draw against .... Svidler - when his opponent gave perpetual check, missing ("declining") a rather easy forced win. Of course Svidler didn't do this on purpose [another prophylactic defence from my side].
Thomas , you are not forced to address every little comment that someone might say about you .
It would be far more interesting (and easy to read) , if you make your posts a little shorter.
It is just an opinion, pls dont answer this , but in advertising there is a said "less is more".
The Kasparov vs. Topalov comparisons are silly. Kasparov was one of
the pinnacles of Chess. The longevity and manner of his domination may
remain unmatched for decades..
What is extremely rewarding for the Topalov fans is to see this hard
working, uncompromising and ultimately entertaining player reach the
top again. Done so in a convincing way. But minus the idiotic cheating
allegations that attempted to poison the environment around him and
plant the seeds of disrespect. This started long before Elista and at
times even seemed orchestrated.
Topalov fans should be moderate in their reactions though, these
things can swing and do so very quickly. For streaky players this is
almost given to see +/-20 performances. And who cares whether the
Nanjing event gets rated or not. So far the top notch in the ratings
has been very hostile to newcomers...
Anyway, 2008 was one good year for Chess and the "Rat" got slain.
Looking forward to an exciting 2009 of the "Ox", may it bring some
hard knocks on the Chessboard.
Happy Holidays,
D.
"I wrote 'maybe' because obviously I am not sure about it. Yet I found it striking how you picked bits and pieces of my previous posts (IMHO, often out of context) to 'attack' me - obviously my writing, not me personally"
The idea that I would or could "deliberately" misunderstand you is offensive, and it still stands-your latest post merely confirms it.
"Did I mention your rating? No need to defend yourself from non-existent attacks.."
is answered by
"my statement was meant as an advance defence against a potential attack"
since a "potential" attack is by definition non-existent, that proves my point rather nicely.
If an opponent "beating himself" can't be called a "lucky" win for the victor, then what can?
That's the very last post on that for me, so I'll just repeat, I have absolutely nothing personal against you or anyone else. If I pick bits and pieces from your posts, it's because I disagree with them, and if it occurs more often with you, it's because you have longer and more frequent posts with definite opinions, which often clash with mine. Merry Xmas.
P.S. Chess isn't a life or death issue-it's far more important than that (source unknown to me)
Btw, who will dominate chess in 2009, everyone (if anyone)? Any firm opinions? Anand, Carlsen, Topalov, Kramnik? How about a poll on that, Mig?
I say the champ stays on top this year at last :)
Point taken, Manu, so here is just a short quote from Dennis Monokroussos' Chess Mind site on Svidler-Topalov:
"Topalov is on a roll, but it does seem that Svidler's unintended generosity was more to blame than Topalov's strong play."
At least I am not the only one having that impression ...
Short (I'll try my best) and 'very final' comments from my side: Truly sorry if I was offensive, I did not mean to (in hindsight, I should have omitted "deliberately"). I do not consider your comments personally offensive either. Jean's was IMHO, though a far cry from some other stuff posted here ("mental problems", to give just one example) - and it may have unduly affected my overall 'blogging mood'.
That being said, the rest (or at leat most of it) stands: Yes, I do have some definite opinions [also on other things in life ...] which I like to defend, even if (or exactly when) I seem to be in the minority. By definition, "opinion" is something open to discussion and (dis)agreement.
Merry Christmas !
@ Dimi:
Agree with you , nice writing (especially the last pharagraphs).
Merry Xmas to all.
"Btw, who will dominate chess in 2009, everyone (if anyone)? Any firm opinions?"
For once, I do not have a firm opinion ,:) so I will pass on 2009 as 'too close to call'.
Concerning the following decade (2010-2020), I would say Carlsen or maybe, at least for the later part, someone not yet widely known to the overall chess public ... . That being said, for neither period (2009 or 2010-2020) anyone is likely to dominate the way Kasparov, Karpov and Fischer did in the past, those days are most likely over for good.
No one - no one will dominate chess in 2009. No one has dominated chess for a long time. There are different winners of top tournaments elo positions change hands and consequently the gap between the top player and rest at anyone time is not so significant
We apparently have seen the balance of power sift not only between nations, but between players. Everything is leveling given the accessibility of information. It's a good thing. Chess is reaching many places that it only dreamed of years ago. Now... only if FIDE can harness this wonderful trend.
If Topalov starts the year well beating Kamsky in a match- he might well dominate 2009 continuing where he left off 2008 tying up all the loose ends perhaps by becoming undisputed champion.
There is a gap opening up finally in that Topalov is virtual 2810, Anand 2790, then the rest are 2770 and lower- ie 40 points from Topalov to outside the top 2.
Let's see if Topalov can dominate 2009- he is the best bet if anyone will.
frogbert, have you ever compiled any stats on the ages of the world's top 10 over the years? Is it greatly diminishing? reason I ask is a slight surprise that the younger generation hasn't completely pushed Topalov & co off the list yet. How long can they stay on top? (for me, players like Top Anand Ivanchuck-the longer the better)
You heard it here first.
Kramnik-Anand was played with only a one-way screen between players and audience. Danailov is going to be afraid that Anand will ask for more substantial cheat-proofing when playing a WCC match with Topalov.....so Danailov will beat him to it and HE will ask for upgraded cheat-proofing. (Assuming Top beats Kamsky.)
Greg in case you didnt notice , Danailov is behind a lot of well sponsored tournaments in 3 continents , and Topalov has trashed the oposition in several well monitored events.
The idea of Topalov cheating has become the only hope for many of his enemies , is like the only way they have to deal with his succes.
You need more substantial proofs for your acusations.
Sorry 2 see idiots like MANU and DIMI still on theese boards. I for one will not be as long as these 2 clowns are here. Merry chrismas 2 the rest of you.
Mary Christmas to you too Rubinstein. May it bring you Peace and
Sanity. You can be cured, I see a miracle coming...
D.
Greg, drink your pills more regularly and your phantasmagorias may be will stop. I wish you a speedy recovery!
manu,
There's no proof of Topa-cheating, but there's been enough "smoke" to justify future opponents to take preventive measures in a WCC.
You need to stop smoking whatever you are smoking .
BTW , it seems to me that your definition of smoke might be a little biased .
I saw red smoke in Elista many times in history , and FIDE is currently ruled by a pseudo-russian dictator.
But still you really believe that Topalov cheates when he wins and play by himself when losing.
Maybe you are projecting in Topalov something that is making you mad in your personal life , maybe not.
But still , have a Merry Christmas dude.
And talking about Christmas , i wanted to send a big big hug to all the Kramniks fans in the world.
The really hot data just about this post should be open for all students, because they want thesis service and professional dissertation service or just thesis sentences.