Greengard's ChessNinja.com

Kamsky-Topalov g3-4: Even at the Half

| Permalink | 75 comments

A bit swamped with work, some of it even related to chess. Kamsky again showed his mettle in defending another sharp Grunfeld in game three. Topalov has a deep bag of tricks, but so far Kamsky is besting him in the opening battle -- his impractical turn trying to refute the Black setup in game two notwithstanding. In today's fourth game Topalov startled us by returning to 1..e5 instead of his trusty Najdorf. It's one thing if you have a surprise up your sleeve, such as game two's 4..Bc5. But Topalov has never been a slow, maneuvering player and only plays the Lopez on very rare occasions. (Against Sicilian-basher Polgar, for example.) Kamsky, on the other hand, speaks the Spanish as a native language and loves a slow grind so much you'd think he was dancing a rumba. So Topalov's choice of a classical Zaitsev mystified GMs Benjamin and Har-Zvi on Chess.FM during our 7-hour Candidates/Linares marathon. And it's always nice for commentators when the result backs up the conventional wisdom! All-star ICC kibitzer Hikaru Nakamura (joined on occasion by Fabiano Caruana) also wondered why Topalov would play something so clearly in favor of Kamsky's style and not his own.

I wondered whether or not Topalov was avoiding his Najdorf because it can be vulnerable to explosive novelties. If he feels he's the stronger player he might have decided not to match his team versus Kamsky's team, always a risk in a sharp Sicilian. One of the things that makes Topalov so great is his utter confidence in being better prepared and better able to deal with complications, so this seems a little strange. How else to explain it? The same goes for the theory of avoiding the Sicilian because he's ahead in the match. Topalov has been playing the Caro-Kann with some frequency of late, but that also fits into the category of something Kamsky would feel at home with.

Mind-reading aside, the bottom line is Topalov was convincingly outplayed by Kamsky in game four and the American leveled the match with a very powerful performance. White poked and prodded in classic Spanish-torture style, then gambited a pawn to get strong play on the queenside and center. Finally it was Kamsky's turn to harvest pawns. Topalov didn't go down easy. We were impressed with how much of a fight he made of it down material and with the inferior minor piece. Kamsky didn't go for the flashiest wins but he never seemed in doubt of getting the job done. There was a lot of rooting for the nutso computer line 43.Bxf8 Rxd2 44.Qc1!!, which does seem to win quickly, but Kamsky (like just about any human would) missed 44..Rxf8 45.Rxf6 Rfd8 46.Ngf1! R2d6 47.Nf5! winning. Kamsky later showed his precision by taking on d5 with the pawn on move 54, which looked dangerous at first because of 54..Qf6. White kept it all under control, however, the point being that with the king on h3 instead of h2 there was no bishop fork on d6 later.

We'll know what Topalov has in mind soon because Kamsky comes back with the white pieces on Monday. (They always do this so each player has a chance to have white after a rest day.) GM Ian Rogers is on the scene and already has a great piece up for CLO on today's game. Now that he and ICC Chess.FM's Macauley Peterson are there they are even going to have English during the press conferences instead of just Bulgarian and Russian. Nice of them. His video reports are on the ICC Blog.


Mig says "maneuvering"
TWIC says "manoevering"
It all spells "Kamsky"

Good work Gata. Hopefully you win this match against an opponent who should not even be playing.

Great game. Just like when I feel that somebody my level gains nothing from watching the pieces move back and forth, comes along one like this where I found myself hanging on Shipov's every word.

Agreed , i was hoping to see a Najdorf or any sicilian for that matters , even a Paulsen or at least some Italian bystander in the playing room.
It was clear to me that today he should not repeat anything from game 2 , because it was like saying : i made you analise all this , now i will go the other way.
But everything seems so obviuos for weak players like me, he sure had his reasons.
Kudos to Kamsky , great game.

Vintage Gata!

Note that Kamsky has two great Najdorf experts in his team: Sutovsky and Najer, who both play the sharpest lines with both colors all the time. The third guy, Volokitin, is another sharp 1.e4 player who sometimes plays the Najdorf with Black as well.

This looks like the perfect anti-Najdorf squad. I'm not surprised that Topalov is hesitating to play his pet line.

>> Mig says "maneuvering"
>> TWIC says "manoevering"
>> It all spells "Kamsky"

Let's call the whole thing off?

>> why Topalov would play something so clearly in favor of Kamsky's style and not his own

You should see the press conference, when Macauley asked this question he almost got shot down by Kamsky.
(A bit strange, I suppose he feels it is not appropriate to ask such questions when the match is still in progress, but still...)

from http://main.uschess.org/content/view/9155/517

"Sutovsky was rather peeved on the first day when he was searched for metallic objects along with Kamsky when they entered through the players’ entrance but Topalov’s manager Silvio Danailov was able to waltz through and begin using his mobile phone in the playing hall before the game.

Two hours later, Sutovsky finally convinced the organizers to allow the installation of a mobile phone jammer, as agreed months earlier. By the next day Danailov was being searched on entry like his counterpart."

... and Topalov lost game 4.

Just saying ;)

The main line Zaitsev would have suited Topalov's style nicely, and it's the line that Rybka currently evaluates as the best defense to 1.e4.

So this was a predictable surprise, and one that Kamsky dealt with nicely.

Okay, okay! It's so easy to see Topalov and his svengali, Danilov as the bad guys, and maybe they are. But Topalov is the top rated player in the world right now, and I thought Kamsky never stood a chance. Then today's game occurs! Wow! It reminds us how Kamasky is such a powerful match player. He gives Anand fits. Can Gata actually pull this off? It would be a devastating setback for Topalov, who is making a real run at the world championship, and has good chances to defeat Anand in a match, imo.

People, especially those who haven't been following top chess for more than a decade, need to remember that Kamsky was top five in the world for a good while. Right there with Anand, Ivanchuk, Topalov, and Kramnik (and behind Kasparov and Karpov, as everyone was for so long). His nervous system may be a small plus in match play, but basically he's just an incredibly strong chessplayer. Since his return in 2006 he has been handicapped by rust, mostly gone now, a relatively woeful opening repertoire, and time trouble (a classic rust symptom).

The continuing opening issues are due to both the long layoff and the fact that Kamsky has refused to completely sacrifice his family life for full-time chess preparation. That is, he works as much as he wants to, not as much as he can. The chance to challenge for the world championship has altered that equation a bit, as you might imagine. Win or lose this match with Topalov, if he keeps up a similar work regime for a while I'd expect him to be back in the top ten if he has the opportunities. Or, again win or lose, he may just decide to go back to the more relaxed way things were, which is still top 20. Or hey, there's always the bar exam!

Yes, we talked about the presence of Najer on the air today when we were trying to figure out Topalov's 1..e5. He's probably earned his keep just by hanging around. He gets bashed in his Najdorf on occasion but his knowledge is second to few.

My hunch is that Topalov went for the closed Ruy Lopez because Kamsky has avoided the main line 9.h3 since coming back but played 9.d4 (or in the Marshall order 7...0-0 8.d4 transposing after 8...d6 9.c3) for which the Bulgarian was probably well equipped.

I wouldn´t make too much out of Danailov being allowed to use his cell in game one. He´s involved in the organisation and having run big events in Sofia before for good reason.

We bash Danailov a lot around here, and he has quirks that seem to make it easy.

But I've seen other examples of this certain type, sometimes called in American financial circles, a "rainmaker" - a guy who makes things happen. Sometimes their personalities are distasteful - they are irritating, boisterous, their motor is going 110% all the time, they phone and bug people, they set things up, bring people together in meetings, and generally act as a ramrod to get things done.

Just like a movie is this image that Sutovsky has presented; while Sutovsky stands in the line for the metal detector, Danailov breezes in, sweeps past all security, and is chatting on his phone in a place where he knows phones are disallowed. What a character! And who dares stop him?! He gets things done!



Yes, and for a while Kamsky was seen as the next all -time great the same way Carlsen is seen now. I mean he won the Soviet junior championship at the age of 12 and didn't he also play an exhibition match with Kasparov in New York? (after his defection)

In any case it's a great match so far! And now tied, just the kind of situation you want-more fighting ahead! Y'know what you say about the Sicilian makes sense, Mig, but I'm still surprised T isn't going for it. The Sicilian has served him well. What can be worse than ending up in defensive positions he normally avoids like in the Lopez we just saw? What can he have in mind for the next Grünfeld, I wonder, so far posed Kamsky no probs...(or how about a quick switch to 1.e4?)

There is only so much you can be expected to have prepared for such a short match - which does not speak well for Topalov, given that he cannot be very happy with the way things have gone opening-wise so far. I don't think Topalov will play 1..c5 unless he desperately has to win. And I don't think he'll switch to 1.e4. But maybe he _has_ to change something, even if it means working 23 hours a day.

"so far posed Kamsky no probs..."
Maybe that's the wrong words - Topalov did pose problems, but Kamsky managed to solve them over the board (or in his own home preparation?). So I would say it is at least as much [team] Kamsky's success or achievement as it is [team] Topalov's "failure".

About the article (Ian Rogers on USCF) quoted by "trolling hmmm?": Maybe it helps to add another (earlier) quote:
"Sutovsky also commented that the organization “do not even try to pretend they are neutral” – a comment which became more understandable when one entered the press room before the game to see a “How Topalov was Robbed in Elista” documentary about the 2006 world title match between Topalov and Vladimir Kramnik running on the video screen."
(Yes, it's an American source, not necessarily unbiased - but I assume the facts given are correct).

Stefan Loeffler pointed out that Danailov is involved in the organization, but for me that's no excuse - actually it makes things worse or more questionable. Should the same person be part of the organization (supposedly neutral) AND manager of one player (by definition at least somewhat biased)? It doesn't work saying "from 3:00-4:00PM I am organizer, from 4:00-5:00PM I am manager, ...". And it doesn't matter why Danailov felt the urgent need to use his cell phone, and if it had any influence on the match (most probably it hadn't).
I would say Topalov fans should be particularly interested to avoid any suspicions. For Kamsky fans it may even be an advantage - an excuse if he loses in the end or an additional boost if he wins. Similarly, some Kramnik fans may claim (and have a certain point) that his victory in Elista was more convincing because it was obtained "against the odds".

Thomas, you have a very sick obsession with Danailov that has been
flaring for a awhile now. Every thread, every topic, all comes down to
Danailov. Always bitching, always moaning, always insinuating, blah,
blah... Disgusting.


The Bulgarian organisers are absolutely determined to have no scandals on their watch and have instituted security so onerous that even accredited press photographers are banned from taking their 'electronic devices' into the playing hall after the first five minutes. That's why you don't see any photos or video during the game except from the official feed.

Dimi, maybe posts like yours do not really deserve the favor of a reply, I will comment anyway:
"Every thread, every topic, all comes down to
Please explain (just to give one example) the role of Danailov in my comments on Anand-Aronian.

For the rest, my latest post contained facts and quotes ... and at least there are a few other people around who are (also!?) "obsessed by/with Danailov" - in a different way, everything he says and does is great and beyond any criticism.

Thomas, you can't stop yourself from blabbering about when it concerns
Danailov, you're sucked in. It's an obsession that goes deep -- you'll
rummage through every garbage source to bring that tired old schlager
about "Danailov's Phone"... What part of Gata's "50 min a move" loss
was due to Danailov's phone? How could there be pigs out there who
still see Danailov's phone in 4 games of average quality, many misses
and some obvious blunders? Where's Danailov's phone in that scenario?
Other than in the heads of a few jokers.

Don't comment if you can, but you can't.


"you'll rummage through every garbage source..."

You might want to check Mig's blog, Dimi :)

"GM Ian Rogers is on the scene and already has a great piece up for CLO on today's game."

¨Please explain (just to give one example) the role of Danailov in my comments on Anand-Aronian.¨
That´s a little childish, my friend .
Dimi is right about you and Danailov , you are using every oportunity to diminish him or insinuate he is cheating.

That comment that the organization "do not even try to pretend they
are neutral" is true, but silly. And it is totally stupid to even
seize on it and relay it. Say, the game was organized in New York --
would you have asked the organizers to remove all US flags from the
area, to never speak anything about the USA, their player, his
history, previous matches, etc?!? Or, it is always more fun to throw
jabs and snipe at the lesser countries? I'm not bothered if the Corus
organizers root for Van Vely, for example. Good, if Chess is to have
global reach we need to encourage that. A little national passion is
Ok and as Topalov admitted, home Court may be a hindrance too. Anyway,
this is all too obvious for 95% of the people out there except a few
Chess guys who tend to frequently miss the obvious.


Well Dimi, I have to reply because you start (wrongly) accusing and insulting not only me but also quite a few other people or institutions.

"every garbage source" - as mishanp already pointed out, apparently you consider Ian Rogers and/or the US Chess Federation a garbage source, no comment .... .
"What part of Gata's "50 min a move" loss was due to Danailov's phone?" - 0%, more precisely 0.000000%, and I never said anything else. Don't confuse me with "trolling hmmm?" [see also below]
"4 games of average quality, many misses and some obvious blunders?". Now this is an insult to both players, both Kamsky and Topalov. Only game 2 was in some respects even below average (for 2700+ players - and this was mostly Kamsky's fault or responsibility), I think the others were of high quality. The fact that both players sometimes missed the best (computer) continuation is rather a good sign, and COULD YOU PLEASE POINT OUT THE OBVIOUS BLUNDERS? [emphasis added, maybe you will answer my specific question, maybe not ...]

And - this also goes to Manu - "I am not a pig", I did NOT accuse Danailov (or Topalov) of cheating. If you can find a specific quote suggesting otherwise, I will gladly explain or retract it. But most likely you confuse me with some other posters.
On the other hand: Yes I do criticize Danailov (when he deserves it in my opinion), yes I do "diminish" him [Manu's word] - with respect to the 120% glorious picture both of you (and some others) paint of him ... .

Anyone who still regurgitates that tired old "Danailov's Phone" insinuation is an idiot. At the face of the facts.


And your follow-up comment also makes little if any sense to me. First of all, Ian Rogers (citing Sutovsky) was referring to the playing venue, not the entire city [Sofia or, under different circumstances, New York]. Inside the venue, things were OK with respect to flags ,:) - pictures on the official homepage show four flags: Bulgarian, US, FIDE and the Olympic flag (!!?).
The USCF article gives three examples where the organizers were biased:
1) the video in the press room. Actually this is pro-Topalov and anti-Kramnik - Kramnik has nothing to do with the present match, unless one believes Danailov's accusations that he or his friends tried to prevent the match from happening (no independent evidence available, put it that way)
2) the books "Topalov's 250 best games" and "Kamsky's 150 best games". This may be considered silly, so I didn't mention it .... though the official homepage is unintentionally comic saying "Fans of the ancient game may find curious facts inside the Kamsky book."
3) different treatment of Sutovsky and Danailov with respect to security controls and use of cell phones - corrected now, but the American side had to insist ... .
At the very least, Danailov's behavior was a deliberate provocation - even if his phone call(s) were extremeley urgent, there was no need to make them inside the playing hall. Or (along the lines of tjallen's post) he may have some sort of cellphone addiction !? Just as some smokers may automatically light a cigarette in places where it is not allowed - but they are usually corrected, maybe fined for doing so ... .

With regard to Van Wely at Corus, he may get some preferential treatment before the tournament: being invited in the first place though it is not 'justified' by his ELO rating, maybe getting a comparatively high appearance fee, ... . But inside the venue and during the tournament he and his team are treated like any other participant.

This is just a repetition of your earlier statement, NOT in any way a reply to my post - guess I have to give up.

Thomas, now you make me laugh... Do you realize just ho mind-bogglingly petty all this is? Has the possibility of you being ridiculous ever crossed your mind?


Hey , cool down ladies, we are having a hell of a match.
Topalov is being neutralized from game one ,Kamsky has shown that he has the intention to go all the way and reach Anand, both players are playing very ¨human¨ chess ,games are fought and fun , what can posibly be the problem?
Oh yes , the USCF article ¨defending¨ their player ...
I guess it is less expensive to insult other ´s people organization than to organize a match yourself.
Thomas ,pls don´t quote my poor use of the English language, or i will ¨diminish¨ you... :)

It was really quite simple for Danailov to avoid being suspected. All he had to do as an organizer was to enforce the rules agreed upon by both parties, and as a manager to make sure he would not personally violate any of those rules. The fact that he failed on both account does not necessarily mean that he is cheating. He could also be downright incompetent and irresponsible. Or, and that is more likely, he could be knowingly creating a slander atmosphere in case he would have to resort to a toilet-gate novelty (with a "you started it” line of defense).

Or maybe he wanted to tease guys like you..

Danailov is no stupid. He is not going to manuffacture another scandal this time for the simple fact that if he did he and his client would be completelly ortracized by chess organizers. He is getting the benefit of the doubt once and only once and he knows that. As for the match I would say Kamsky has a slight favoritism at this point but Topa is known for performing better at the second half of the tournaments and matchs he plays.

I have long suspected that Danailov exists for the sole purpose of amusing internet bloggers.

I've long suspected that Danailov IS most internet chess bloggers. Or he pays them $5 a day for the amusement they provide us... Speaking of which, where can I sign up?

Manu, this makes much more sense! Concerning the games, I agree with you (and it seems we both disagree with Dimi). I just wonder (and this may or may not be an English language issue) if "neutralize" is the right word.
Comparing things with football (soccer): This could leave the impression that Kamsky was defending with 11 players, waiting for a single counter or else being happy with a 0-0 result. If anyone could be accused of such a strategy, I readily concede that it would be Kramnik (in his matches against Kasparov and Topalov). But Kamsky was counterattacking in his two black games, patiently imposing his own style in game 4 and, in some ways, even trying to copy Topalov in game 2 [which was not a wise decision ,:)].
Else, I think I never accused you of poor English - at the most I may have said "I don't understand, maybe because of language issues".

Concerning your second point
"I guess it is less expensive to insult other ´s people organization than to organize a match yourself."
Yep, that's the weak point (and I am ready to concede it) - the choice was indeed between a match in Sofia or no match. But technically it is not "the USCF defending their player", but Ian Rogers reporting for the USCF, quoting Sutovsky who defended his player. Complicated it is ... the point I want to make is that Sutovsky has the right to give his opinion, even if he and Kamsky also suffered from lack of support in the USA. I am an outsider, but to me it seems to be true that Americans are supporting Kamsky with words, but not with money. Now I may attract criticism, but maybe also agreement from other people ... .

>Thomas: But technically it is not "the USCF defending their player",
>but Ian Rogers reporting for the USCF, quoting Sutovsky who defended
>his player. Complicated it is ...

Remarkably complicated indeed! Thomas you're a comedian.


P.S. Of course, it has to be understood that complaints of this kind
are part of the off the board game too. Unfortunately so, but that's
the way it goes. If Topalov wins there will be an outburst of these.

Just imagine the match was between Topalov and Leko, Ian Rogers quoted Leko's manager Carsten Hensel, and the story appeared on the USCF website.
And BTW, Topalov and Danailov have no experience whatsoever about off the board games. I just wonder why that video (the Bulgarian version of what happened in Elista) was shown in the Sofia press room ... .

>I just wonder why that video (the Bulgarian version of what happened
>in Elista) was shown in the Sofia press room ... .

Are you serious with that question?

Hey, they can show a XXX movie in Chinese if they want. Will that
affect Kamski in any way? How is that affecting the neutrality in any
way if Kamski shows a movie bitching about Karpov, Short and whoever
else? It wouldn't matter at all is the answer. These are the
histories of the players and they can relate them as long as they
desire. Why are obvious things so hard for you to grasp, Thomas?


This match is eveerything that the Boon match was not!! No yawn draws, but exciting fights, with tension as to who will win! FIDE was right to give the World Cup woinner a match against the Champ --- They just forgot to call Topalov the Champ!!

SofiaRules, FIDE didn't forget to call Topalov the champ -- this man is the champion of nothing, save for his own cult following. He was rightly defeated in a match by Kramnik despite trying hard to induce its disruption and benefiting from this, and Anand is now the holder of the crown. Truly, Topalov has done nothing to merit this match against Kamsky, save for complain about having lost his title loudly enough that FIDE said "Here!" The match should have been directly organized between Anand and Kamsky, with neither Kramnik nor Topalov having a valid reason for being seated at the table this time around. The rules were changed to benefit two players, and do not mistake favoritism for recognition of merit.



"Are you serious with that question?"

Apparently you didn't realize, but sometimes two of my sentences are related to each other, particularly consecutive ones in the same paragraph. I was clearly sarcastic when I wrote that "Topalov and Danailov have no experience whatsoever about off the board games".

Showing a movie about Elista and Toiletgate is not illegal or immoral, but was it necessary ... to present their biased view on a controversial issue reagrding a previous WCh cycle?

BTW, I agree with everything in Guillaume's post, but only with the first sentence ("Danailov is no stupid"), not the second and third one in Ed's reply. I think Danailov knows well that he would get away with another scandal [not necessarily implying that he is about to create one] - after all, the chess world needs him, his influence, his money. In that respect he is comparable to Ilyumzhinov - disclaimer: only in that respect.

I can add that it would be perfectly OK if the Sofia organizers showed a movie about natural and cultural beauties of Bulgaria. And it would not be necessary to show an American national park for every Bulgarian one (I guess the USA would win that competition) and an American cathedral for every Bulgarian one (here Bulgaria would probably win).
I bring this up because the San Luis WCh did not only have an excellent venue but also beautiful surroundings (both of course 'hearsay' as far as I am concerned). Did it boost tourism in the area? Manu (and maybe Mig) might know - I am simply and seriously curious.


After you've finished tormenting poor Thomas maybe you could answer a few questions yourself:

"What part of [Topalov's Elista] loss was due to [the mysterious cable]? How could there be pigs out there who still see [the mysterious cable] in [a match] of average quality, many misses and some obvious blunders? Where's [the mysterious cable] in that scenario? Other than in the heads of a few jokers. Don't comment if you can, but you can't."


1) Danailov's phone.
--All the security demands of a vigilant Team Kamsky have been met. (The Danailov cellphone episode took place several hours BEFORE a game.) So anyone who now says "Topalov is cheating in a cheating-proofed venue but I don't know how" is little better than Danailov at Elista.

2) “How Topalov was Robbed in Elista.”
--Tackiness and stupidity which which doesn't bother Kamsky and which entertains the locals is a sponsorial prerogative. Stop whining.

3) "I can add that it would be perfectly OK if the Sofia organizers showed a movie about natural and cultural beauties of Bulgaria."
--"How Topalov was Robbed in Elista" IS a cultural beauty of Bulgaria.

"1) Danailov's phone.
"--All the security demands of a vigilant Team Kamsky have been met. (The Danailov cellphone episode took place several hours BEFORE a game.)"

According to Sutovsky they didn't install the screen that was used in Bonn and written into the contract, but that's by the by and Kamsky & co. seem happy enough to get on with the chess.

"So anyone who now says "Topalov is cheating in a cheating-proofed venue but I don't know how" is little better than Danailov at Elista."

That's the comical thing, though. No-one on this thread accused Topalov of cheating, certainly not Thomas.

I love Dimi's debating technique, by the way:

1) Say something stupid,
2) Wait for someone to respond,
3) Mock that person for talking about something stupid.

oh wow, a French Tarrasch! Site shows Topalov as white, but Mig says above that Kamsky has the white pieces on Monday. Shed any light on this anyone?

One thing's for sure: Topalov plays the white pieces - confirmed by the live video on the official site which shows a French position on the board [so it is not by mistake a re-broadcast of an earlier game ,:)].
But Mig is not the only one who suggested something else. Even chessdom still states "colors after game 4 are not reversed and Kamsky will play white", and the game Topalov-Kamsky is one mouseclick away.
Is it a mistake by the players?? Will an arbiter soon intervene telling the players that they have to start over again with colors reversed? ,:)
I am not interpreting anything into this, other than that it is puzzling ... .

Thomas, today I see your name 5 times out of 6 on the "recent comments". Is that a record? :)


I have stated several times in the past that I am convinced that no
cheating took place in Elista. I believe that they were genuine in
their fear of cheating when a guy leaves after each move and the match
is not going well. You see the same thing hapenning right now with
Mamedyarov in Aeroflot

Should they show these Elista movies? In my opinion, no, as the
subject whouls be closed. But even if they do, THIS SHOULD HAVE

Similarly, if Kramnik was showing in Bonn 24 hours movies of the evil
Danailov & Co., that should not have ahd any impact on Anand.

Thomas' silly attempt to drag the Love affair between Topalov and
Kramnik into the context of unfair game conditions for Kamski is
stupid. There is no doubt that the Love affair Danailov - Chessbase
continues in full swing at the moment and I will absolutely not be
surprised when I see from Chessbase a little innuendo here & there
about this and that that looks "suspicious". And its going to get
worse if Topalov wins this match, but I will make an effort to ignore


Would have been 6 out of 6 but for yours and Dimi's post.

"I believe that they were genuine in their fear of cheating when a guy leaves after each move and the match is not going well."

Kramnik had been known to enjoy walking about since at least 2000 when Kasparov asked that the bathrooms be monitored. So why did Danailov initially agree to leave the bathrooms unmonitored? (After all, anyone cheating in a bathroom could do a very thorough job in an entirely unsuspicious three trips or even less over a seven-hour game.) Two possibililties:

a) Danailov knew that a mid-match demand for bathroom inspection would have more disruption-potential (in case the match was going badly for his client), or
b) Danailov trusted Kramnik and the Russians.

Kramnik's play in the early going was nothing special. In the first four games:
--VT blundered in a drawn position;
--VK allowed (and VT missed) a two-move crush; and
--VK passed up a probably winning continuation and got only a draw.

So how did the bathroom tapes come into play?
Two possibilities:
a) DANAILOV ASKED to see the bathroom tapes. Why? Kramnik's walking about was nothing new and Kramnik's play was decidedly un-computerlike. Fishing for a provocation? or
b) MATCH OFFICIALS OFFERED TO DANAILOV the Vlad-walking-about tapes. (Instead of summoning both managers.) Why? Because the match officials had no conception of procedural fairness? Or because they favored Team Topalov?

And no matter whether you think Danailov initially acted in good faith, (it's possible, I suppose) his and Topalov's subsequent clowning (toy toilets, accusations of assistance by chess-retarded FSB agents, etc. etc.) was indefensible.

Some months ago Silvio said something encouraging about letting bygones be bygones. But someone with Silvio's influence could and should have quashed the showing of the "Topalov was Robbed" movie if he was sincere about burying the sordid past. More likely Silvio put the film together.

Let it go Greg , its in the past , like your idol.

It is in the past and we'd all love to forget about it, but Danailov and Topalov won't let us forget. Topalov in a recent NIC again slandered Kramnik's character. Completely uncalled for, he didn't even need to refer to Kramnik at all...he just went out of his way to include Kramnik so he could take a cheap shot a la Kasparov once again showing that he (Topalov) just doesn't understand how obnoxious and unethical their behaviour was...and continues to be. Let it go, Topalov, it's in the past. Time to grow up now.

Dimi, you are right, the movie shouldn't have much of an effect on Kamsky.

Still it is an extremely tacky piece of propaganda if the movie is based on the same information as the book which is full of innuendo, misleading statements, false choices, non-sequiter logic and in some cases outright lies.

Picture, if you will ;-), the Kamsky-Topalov match taking place in America where in the press room a film on "How Topalov Behaved Unethically and Broke the Rules to Win His First Game". I imagine you'd be frothing over your keyboard, and complaining that this is an attempt to unsettle Topalov.

Do you really doubt that Danailov wouldn't stoop (or in his case, reach up) to anything different. I hope FIDE views the film to determine if Danailov has breached his "probation"...not that I expect FIDE to actually be consistent with its own rules.

Well, showing the movie (a one-sided view of the Elista scandal) could leave a message to both parties of the Sofia match: "If there is another scandal, we the organizers will (again) support Topalov and Danailov". This wouldn't be surprising, given that Danailov is both organizer and manager ... and it has to be taken into account when assessing Dimi's claim that it's completely irrelevant for the present match.

The entire point, of course, is that it is Danailov and co. who, with "How Topalov Got Robbed," show they cannot resist wallowing again and again in the sty they created.

Maybe they are teasing Kramnik , or they feel that they have the right to tell their side of the story.
They had the book , now the movie , who knows whats next? Black and white toilet paper perhaps?
I'd love to have the tshirt.

"Well, showing the movie (a one-sided view of the Elista scandal)"
Thomas , every movie is a one-sided view of a story ...
BTW anyone has the toilet book in PDF? , here in Argentina is not easy to find.

"Maybe they are teasing Kramnik...They had the book, now the movie, who knows whats next? Black and white toilet paper perhaps? I'd love to have the tshirt."

Where there's no defense, all that's left is to grin, play the fool, and plead "we were just kidding."

You are mixing my behavoiur with theirs, i dont have a share of their money , im just a "fan" , Greg.
I can take this as lightly as i want , unlike you.

Kind of like how you can't resist sniping at Kasparov for every real and imagined ill wind in chess I guess.

" Thomas , every movie is a one-sided view of a story ..."
Yes, and that's exactly the reason why there was no need to show the movie in the press room. Of course they have the right to present their side of the story, and actually I may have no right to criticize the movie because I haven't seen it. However, the title is suggestive enough - even if there is an alternative but VERY unlikely possibility: "How Topalov was robbed in Elista" _could_ also mean "How Danailov robbed Topalov of his reputation by creating the Elista scandal".

BTW, are there any truly independent and fully objective accounts of what happened in Elista? That's, among other sources, the role of various Internet sources - you and others thnik/state/argue that Chessbase was biased, I dare to say the same (or rather the opposite) about Chessdom ... this leaves quite a few other ones including Dailydirt.

I dont know if Chessdom was online at that time , Thomas.
For what i read there were plenty of people offering ropes to hang Topa in here.
But if you are 41 years old you should know by now that ¨truly independent and fully objective accounts of what happened¨ are something seldom seen in this world.

And about chessbase being biased , take a look at the thumbnail for yesterdays game article (English version).
Maybe was GM Marin the one who won against Kamsky ...

I also don't know (and didn't check) if Chessdom was already online during the Elista match, but they would most probably be biased if they bring up the topic today ... .
I fully agree with you that there are few if any "truly independent and fully objective sources" on anything even slighly controversial - the best thing one can do is to consult several sources (BTW, this also applies to game analyses, see below).
On Chessbase, I think your comment about Marin's picture is rather ridiculous - particularly as you like his game analysis (one of your comments in another thread). It may simply be that everyone already knows what Topalov looks like, his picture has appeared many times on many places including Chessbase: If you scroll further down on the same page, you will find five(!) pictures of Topalov (once together with Ivanchuk) and one of Danailov .... .
On Marin's analysis, his quote on 35. - Nb4? (or ??) "In difficult positions, all moves are bad" is a famous quote from Dr. Tarrasch." is nice, but wrong in the present situation. Some (but not all) other sources pointed out that 35. - f5! (maybe even !!) would have equalized immediately. I wrote myself that such a move is 'easy' for a computer, but rather difficult to find over the board - for weak players as me, but even for much stronger ones.
And finally a funny quote from Ian Rogers' report on USCF: "just after Sutovsky refuted a dumb journalist's suggestion of 35...Nb4?? with 36.Nxb4 axb4 37.Rxd4!, Kamsky reached out and played...
All for now, just had a few minutes to scan the recent few dozen comments and write an own one, I may be back later this evening (European timezone).

"All for now, just had a few minutes to scan the recent few dozen comments and write an own one, I may be back later this evening (European timezone)."
Cripes, this is getting creepy.

I like Marin analisys , but the article is about round 5 !, not about him .
Don´t lose objectivity Thomas , that is an insult .
I wonder what chessbase is going to do if Topa becomes WCH ...

Manu you are a joke.

" like Marin analisys , but the article is about round 5 !, not about him .
Don´t lose objectivity Thomas , that is an insult .
I wonder what chessbase is going to do if Topa becomes WCH ..."

Talk about objectivity. You are the worst of the lot.

That's why i have you , to keep me in the good path and point my mistakes.

Manu, maybe you were joking rather than "being a joke". But I took you seriously, and actually I admire your creativity in finding something bad in everything Chessbase publishes about Topalov - even if you like the content, there is always (literally) a thumbnail to criticize.

I concede that I was wrong about the five pictures of Topalov yesterday - this was not the frontpage, but the first page that appears when one puts "Topalov" in the search box ... the message is the same though: plenty of Topalov pictures available, and Chessbase does not refuse to add some to the overall collection.

BTW (now I am mixing up threads): I doubt if Mamedyarov in the long term will like his thumbnail picture on the actual frontpage. Maybe implications are that this is his last picture for a while - if he will be banned from major events, officially by FIDE (which is unlikely) or by silent consensus of organizers (which is possible).

Maybe I claim the last post in a thread once again, but at least my second paragraph appears warranted to me (read: I am ready to correct any mistakes I make).

Hmm. How serious are you about having the final post? :)

I will take over one more time .... just before this thread disappears from the front page ,:)

No way Jose.

Twitter Updates

    Follow me on Twitter



    About this Entry

    This page contains a single entry by Mig published on February 21, 2009 4:33 PM.

    Linares 09 r2: Amazing Aronian was the previous entry in this blog.

    Linares 09 r3: 4 / 2 is the next entry in this blog.

    Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.