Ole! I think we need to set up a fund to bribe Nakamura into wearing that San Sebastian champion's txapela to his next tournament. And/or his next date. There are a few more final pics in the Donostia Flickr set, randomly mixed in with the rest.
Definitely, more tournaments should include headgear for the winners. And maybe a big dunce cap for the losers. That would provide some fighting chess at the bottom of the crosstable in the final round.
No... that'd be so mean to karpov!
Winning a tournament is good, but producing a beautiful game is better. Our records indicate that there is "Fire on the Board" at the Canadian Open. Check out Shirov-Ganguly 1-0 at www.monroi.com .
Winning a tournament pays the bills and puts food on the table.
"Winning a tournament is good, but producing a beautiful game is better."
In most cases, one goes along with the other (even for Kramnik in Dortmund). Of course yogibear's remark is correct for most 'average' professionals - but for top players presumably appearance fees take care of bills and food, prize money merely allows them to have a nice bottle of wine or champagne on top of it.
BTW, thanks Chess Auditor for mentioning this game. Maybe a Canadian and/or Shirov fan will criticize Mig because [unlike Chessbase ,:)] he does not cover the Canadian Open. I won't do so, it is perfectably understandable that he focused on San Sebastian.
I just noticed that the Chessbase site in German had an interview with Kramnik after Dortmund (http://www.chessbase.de/nachrichten.asp?newsid=9281), and it's also translated in Spanish (http://www.chessbase.com/espanola/newsdetail2.asp?id=7334). Not having it on the English site really shows that they're not really on the ball at the moment, rather than somehow singling out Nakamura and his tournaments for shabby treatment.
An excerpt (in Google's translation):
"- This kind of aggressive chess, with many attacks are often not actually see very often in your games.
- That is true, but I have also played similar games in the tournament and Amber in the duel vs Azerbaijan. Rest of the World in Baku. I do not understand very well how this change could happen in my style. I played as used to play when I was younger and I risked more. I'm very happy with the quality of my game."
"Winning a tournament is good, but producing a beautiful game is better.
- In most cases, one goes along with the other (even for Kramnik in Dortmund)."
I disagree that beautiful games have anything to do with winning a tournament. The vast majority of wins aren't especially aesthetically pleasing. I quite like Nakamura's win against Vallejo in the Scandinavian Defence, for example (almost pushing black off the board), but generally his wins weren't too memorable - though it was a fine sporting performance.
Kramnik's second win against Naiditsch, on the other hand, strikes me as being about as close as chess gets to beauty. Subtle pawn sacrifices, sacrificing the exchange, an imbalance of forces (rooks against the rook and knight), the geometric dance of the white queen around the board and then the subtle (though deadly) finishing touches of Nb3 and e6. It's funny in chess as what ends as a masterpiece could so easily have been spoiled by either player (it was always tottering on the edge of a draw by perpetual check). The win against Carlsen was almost as good, though perhaps Qc7 was too large a blunder, despite allowing the attractive finish (Qxf5 was a finesse instead of the more brutal axb4).
Of course there's a large element of subjectivity in this. With the Canadian games I find Adams' win much more appealing than Shirov's tactical slaughter (though I realise many, maybe most, would disagree). Adams does that thing Karpov used to do of marking time and slowly turning the screw however much his position seems to cry out for him to launch an all-out sacrificial attack.
Thx mishamp , i just read it , Kramnik says some poisonous things about Garry , helped by the interviewer i must say.
Like that Garry retired at a peak to make his comeback more interesting (like seing on other stports says Kramnik) ,
or in one part the interviewer says that Garry´s trip into politics didn´t went so well ...
, and some other provocative stuff by Kramnik including the ¨ i always knew he will comeback , but i thought it would be for something serious not a nostagic match like this¨.
Anyway , i don´t understand what can possibly be the problem with Garry plying a little match with Karpov , but apparently those two had a lot to comment.
Chessbase is, historically and maybe still at present, primarily a German (language) site - so one might have to learn German to make full use of its content ,:). Similarly, I would be grateful if some Russian sites had coverage in English, but don't blame them if they don't. Presently, I have to rely (primarily) on mishanp to point out interesting stuff ,:) and subsequently on his excerpts and/or on Google or Babelfish translations ... .
Another interesting quote from the Kramnik interview, preceding the one by mishanp:
[My free translation]:
Q "One could really see you enjoyed playing combinations"
Kramnik: "Yes it was fun. All my wins in Dortmund were by tactical means. Normally my style is more strategic, but peculiarly ["kurioserweise"] I had several chances for direct mating attacks."
I thought we saw some signs of Kramnik changing his style a bit (he said so after the match loss against Anand), but either I am wrong (at least he didn't do so on purpose) or Vlad doesn't tell the whole story as it might help future opponents.
Anyway, this is consistent with what I wrote before: Kramnik 'simply' chooses what he considers the best move (or rather plan) in a given position. If this leads to a mating attack - fine. If this leads to a positional squeeze - fine. If this leads to a draw - also fine.
From the comments I've heard, it seems that the Canadian Open is a well-run and fun tournament, especially so for Shirov's opponents: not only do they get to play one of the great players of our time, but they also get a free dinner out of deal -- perhaps he's making amends for beating up on them so badly ;-)
As far as the Kasparov-Karpov match is concerned, it is newsworthy, and both Kramnik and the interviewer Dagobert Kohlmeyer are entitled to have their opinions. Manu's quotes were a bit selective. Kramnik states that the match will be "interesting for chess fans", but that - his legitimate opinion - "rapid and blitz chess is more of a show" (compared to their legendary matchs at classical time control).
And in any case, Kasparov said much more poisonous things about Kramnik (for example in his New in Chess columns) ... .
Shirov drew against Xue Zhao and IM Edward Porper and probably still had dinner with them (no evidence to the contrary). Anyway, a nice gesture - comparable to Ivanchuk playing simuls against amateurs during a major tournament (was it MTel?).
I only wonder why Shirov chooses steak every evening, doesn't Edmonton also have Italian, Chinese, Indian ... restaurants? ,:)
Yes Thomas, we have probably as wide a variety of restaurants in Edmonton as most cities our size (approx. 1 million people), but Alberta beef is among the best in the world. Perhaps Shirov is just taking advantage of the opportunity?
As to the tournament itself, it does seem to be quite well run and there have been a number of very entertaining games.
My only participation was getting pummelled by Adams in the simul. I liken it to getting throttled by a python and just when you're gasping for breath, the python whips out a sledge hammer and cudgels you to death.
Manu, you have to remember that Kasparov's retirement was in the many ways the final word in an argument with Kramnik i.e. by retiring Kasparov created the myth that he had to leave chess because Kramnik wouldn't give him a rematch. Of course if he'd stay around he'd have had every chance to do what Topalov and Anand did - but maybe somewhere in his mind there was the thought that if he lost to Kramnik again he wouldn't be able to dismiss the first loss as just a blip in his career.
In any case (and whatever you think of the rights and wrongs of the rematch issue - I don't want to get into that argument!) you can understand that it's not just a neutral topic for Kramnik.
I know (you know that i think different on that subject ) , what thrilled me was that Kramnik took every oportunity to dismiss Kasparov career as a politician .
In my opinion he is paying back Putin some favours , Kasparov career as a politician is not a failure and is not ended yet.
But we are here to fight (and share , discuss, etc , but mostly fight) so i leave you with my 50cents (im listening a lot of rap lately) on the interview:
Kramnik is clearly Putin´s pawn.
In Edmonton 2005, Shirov watched his white pieces short-circuit against this youngster:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1349033
...and their rematch happens today at 4 pm EDT. Bluvshtein will be hoping Shirov orders the raw porterhouse to relieve the swelling from an encore smackdown.
Excellent word play Clubfoot! You ascended to the level of Migdom!
Pure nonsense about Putin, Manu. Unless he's an expert in the Catalan...
Yes, it seems that Kramnik is politically leaning towards Putin. So what? His political opinion (which I do not share) is rather irrelevant conerning the chess player Kramnik, just like his religion, sexual orientation, ... . He keeps a rather low profile on political matters, he certainly isn't involved in human rights violations or killing of critical journalists, he is not responsible for a question/opinion of the interviewer (even if Manu tries to make us think so).
And what should he say about the Kasparov-Karpov match? "It's the greatest match of the decade, far more important than any of my own matches!" Come on, let's get real ... .
The full version of the interview with Kramnik that was hinted at on Chesspro is here: http://news.sport-express.ru/2009-07-15/311161/ (sorry, it's a bit long to translate)
Lots for you there, Manu. You'll like:
"I've known Anand and Topalov for many years. And I don't have the slightest doubt who's the strongest. Anand, of course. But if the match takes place in Bulgaria then I don't have any doubts again that Topalov will win. If the match is on neutral territory then I'd rate the chances as 60:40 in favour of Anand".
Plus what's surely a joke about maybe retiring when he's 40 and going into business... or politics :) (For what it's worth the actual comments about Kasparov are in no way critical, he just says that he thought Kasparov left to return like Tyson or Jordan, but that he thought he'd return for a more serious and significant project)
Going into business or politics maybe a joke, but he has said several times that he won't keep playing after 40. As much I wish he won't do that, he seems quite insisting.
As much as I wish he WILL do that, i.e. won't retire! Sigh... sorry.
" (even if Manu tries to make us think so)."
Maybe you didn't get it because i wasn't talking to you , but i m not trying to persuade anyone , just giving my opinion.
All im saying is that being silent about Putin's regime must worth something , specially if you help him by criticizing the opposition.
Why would someone choose to put his grain of sand on Kasparov 's eye instead of Putin ' s?
And i don't get why Kramnik is saying that Kasparov " returns" , Garry is not returning to chess , he is playing some blitz and rapid like he always said that he would do after retirement.
And please ,if he says that he thought Kaparov would be returning for something important is like saying that this event is not .. which is an (unnecessary) insult after all.
Kramnik blamed Topalov for accusing him about cheating in Elista and now he is hinting the same accusations against Topa , is that incoherence or what?
¨I've known Anand and Topalov for many years. And I don't have the slightest doubt who's the strongest. Anand, of course. But if the match takes place in Bulgaria then I don't have any doubts again that Topalov will win.¨
This statement is a nice gift for Topa , Kramnik needs a new manager now...
Manu, Manu, Manu... everyone and their dog saw how Danailov and Topalov conducted themselves in Elista. They used every possible dirty trick (blatant lies, absurd claims and so on) to try and rescue a losing situation. Anand would have to be crazy to agree to play in Bulgaria where Danailov would have free reign to do whatever he likes. Don't you think?
For the record... the next paragraph:
"Under normal conditions the odds will be in Anand's favour. And just because of this, more likely than not, there won't be normal conditions. The problems for Anand in this match will be, it seems to me, in the realm of psychology and the non-chess circumstances ["extra-chess situation"!?]. If you're talking about the struggle on the board, then Anand can deal with Topalov. But it's not clear that the fundamental struggle will take place at the chess board..."
Kramnik Predicts Topalov Would Beat Anand...in Bulgaria
Says Kramnik, nothing could be scarier,
For Vishy than to play a chess match in Bulgaria.
That Top would cheat was not implied,
Such a claim would be a lie!
Vlad did not claim or try to prove,
That S-Dan would leave the hall (and consult his cellphone) between each move.
Nor did Vlad suggest that Danailov
Would distract Vishy, or throw his game off,
By making claims both rude and heinous,
Of Vishy hiding Rybka in his anus.
Home cooking is all that Vlady meant,
Fresh moussaka, heaven sent,
And halva and pita and Melnik wine
Would help Veselin play moves very fine.
Plus, in Sofia they act more sensibly,
Than to offer Top and S-Dan a single room because they're one entity.
As a work of literature that's up there with Mandelshtam's poem on Stalin, from which you clearly borrowed the metrical structure :)
I know its hard to understand if you are an american but kasparov is a nobody in russian politics. He spends most his time in america (smart move) trying to persuade american's he is somebody. So when putin inevitably falls... maybe american powers will say something. Its a strange strategy but most russians know Kasparov only for chess and nothing else.
Very nice greg !, you need to find a creative way to deal with your frustration .
I am not American , and it is very interesting what you wrote because if nobody knows Kasparov´s work in his own country , then it is very clear that Russia is a dictatorship with a tight control on people´s access to information.
Any other player in the world would say something like ¨it is good to see the 2 K´s playing again¨ , anyone but Kramnik who is in good relationship with Putin who is a known murderer ...
Everywhere you look, there is more and more manu-ronic nastiness.
"Any other player in the world would say something like ¨it is good to see the 2 K´s playing again¨ , anyone but Kramnik who is in good relationship with Putin who is a known murderer ..."
That's sublimely ridiculous, Manu. Forget that you don't even know if Kramnik's ever met Putin, or anything about Russia... but to go from Kramnik saying it's good to see Kasparov playing but it's a shame he doesn't play a more serious match - to accusing Kramnik of being an accessory to murder - is a little much, don't you think? Just a tad over the top? Though maybe we can all join in - I accuse Maradona of all the death's caused by your country's military dictatorship! Hey, this could be fun...
Hummm i thought you would know better:
¨ Forget that you don't even know if Kramnik's ever met Putin, or anything about Russia... ¨
Putin congratulated Kramnik in person after Elista (ceremony and all), and it was @there one of the first times Kramnik said that it would be unfair to play Topalov again , specially to other potential chalengers .
If you knew a little better on history you would know that Maradona is a lot more similar to Kasparov , always spoked and acted against dictatorship, even when he was 17 years old when the 78 World Cup took place.
¨to accusing Kramnik of being an accessory to murder ¨
I never said that , please don´t start putting words in my mouth that i didnt said.
I just wonder why is it that Kramnik chooses to diminish the work of Kasparov rather than to spèak against the murderer who runs his own country (who he indeed meet at least once).
Specially if you consider that the event includes Karpov who visited Garry when he was in prison and who one might think he liked.
Seeing that Kasparov is a quite insignificant figure in Russian politics, I would think people simply don't have much of a reason to care about what he and his organizations are doing for the same reason that nobody cares about small "oppositional" groups in other countries.
Kramnik is characteristically realistic and down-to-earth politically, and from what I can tell, despite being a millionaire he has opinions quite typical of ordinary Russians.
Here is an illustrative interview I liked very much, the political part starts towards the end. http://www.kramnik.com/eng/interviews/getinterview.aspx?id=178
Well ok he didnt congratulated in person offitially it was through the minister of sport or something , i retract that , but the point is still the same.
"Putin congratulated Kramnik in person after Elista (ceremony and all),"
This is news to me, or at least I don't remember it -- source please?
Ok you already corrected yourself, thanks.
And here you have a nice picture of Putin in a meeting with Ilyumzhinov and in the article is written how Putin called Kramnik about Dortmud but the phone was busy, yeah sure.
Don't be a spoil sport with Maradona, Manu, you've never let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory before! Otherwise you'd have to answer little questions like: what favours exactly is Putin supposed to have done for Kramnik? (surely you're not just making things up!???)
By the way, you can Google photos of Putin giving Kramnik a medal - you can also Google Tony Blair and David Beckham, though I'm not sure I'd blame the latter for invading Iraq.
The link is missing ... . Anyway, even if Putin congratulated Kramnik on his successes in chess, so what? Should Kramnik refuse the congrats, decline to shake his hand or refuse to pick up the phone?
Chess is an important sport in ex-Soviet countries. Similarly, the Armenian president had travelled to Dresden to support the national chess team during the Olympiad's last round. Western European (maybe also South American) government leaders do the same if their national teams play the soccer World Cup final.
And the fact that Kramnik is not a 'resistance hero' does not make him an associate to a murderer (Manu didn't say so literally, but clearly wants to convey such an impression).
I'm having a few doubts about Maradona becoming my idol for opposing dictatorial-like regimes that control the media and have blood on their hands, Manu... "I believe in Chávez, I am Chavista. Everything Fidel does, everything Chávez does, for me is the best."
Ah, thanks mishanp, http://www.daylife.com/photo/08NO58K2kL3rG/Vladimir_Kramnik had a nice picture :)
And similarly Stanishev has met and congratulated Topalov - but so what about it?
I knew you will come with his relationship with Castro , but you have to understand Chavez and Castro are not widely perceived as dictators in our continent and Maradona is from the side that agrees with them (he has a tatoo of Che Guevara in one leg ).
But you are missing one little detail : Castro and Chavez are not argentinian , a very different situation with Kramnik and Putin.
And besides this is not a conspiracy theory , i just wonder what reasons he can have to criticize Kasparov for his quest against a known dictator.
Maybe he did receive some kind of support from Putin´s side , at least it wasnt the president of Bulgaria the one who met Kirsan during Elista...
@Thomas : this is the link
http://www.chessbase.com/ESPANOLA/newsdetail2.asp?id=4482
@GregK - BRAVO!
Here's the second San Sebastian playoff blitz game that didn't survive the relay. Pono had to win and so went down in flames to avoid the draw, but Black had things under control all the way it seems. Thanks to David Llada for the score.
[Event "Donostia Chess Festival"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Ponomariov, Ruslan"]
[Black "Nakamura, Hikaru"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "D19"]
[PlyCount "88"]
[EventDate "2009.07.19"]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 dxc4 5. a4 Bf5 6. e3 e6 7. Bxc4 Nbd7 8. O-O
Bb4 9. Qe2 Bg6 10. e4 O-O 11. Bd3 Bh5 12. Bf4 c5 13. e5 Bxc3 14. bxc3 Nd5 15.
Bd2 cxd4 16. cxd4 Nb8 17. h3 Nc6 18. g4 Bg6 19. Bb5 Rc8 20. Rfc1 Nde7 21. Kg2
Nxd4 22. Nxd4 Qxd4 23. Qe3 Qxe3 24. Bxe3 a6 25. Bf1 Bc2 26. Kg3 Nd5 27. Bd2 Rc7
28. a5 Rd8 29. Ra2 Rdc8 30. Rb2 h6 31. f4 Nc3 32. Kh2 Ne4 33. Be3 Ba4 34. Rxc7
Rxc7 35. Bg2 Rc2 36. Rxb7 Re2 37. Bb6 Bc6 38. Rc7 Bd5 39. Kg1 Re1+ 40. Kh2 Re2
41. Rc8+ Kh7 42. Rc1 Nd2 43. Rg1 Nf3+ 44. Kg3 Nxg1 0-1
Maradona was/is a brilliant football player, but - well - not exactly a role model off the football field. Michael Jackson was brilliant in music, and (even before his untimely death) a tragic figure concerning other things in life. The closest chess equivalent would be Bobby Fischer. Now, while Kramnik's private life is "comparatively boring", we might as well focus on his chess.
Just like some South Americans might not consider Castro and Chavez as dictators, some Russians might say or think the same about Putin. Or at least, they consider him the lesser evil in the present situation compared to whatever alternatives might exist. In the interview acirce mentioned, Kramnik criticized Kasparov for not proposing any alternatives - and he only did so when he was directly asked.
And Manu, you still have to state when and how Putin helped Kramnik so Vlad is now in his debt. As far as the meeting between Putin and Kirsan during the Elista match is concerned, it rather hurt Kramnik ... Danailov took advantage of Kirsan's absence to start a scandal which yielded Topalov a free point in the match.
The missing link is ... Alexander Zhukov. He is central to any conspiracy theory linking Kramnik to Putin, and he is meant when Kramnik is described as politically well connected.
Putin is Kirsan's boss, so you don't need much speculation on how Putin can influence chess politics.
I repeat , there is no conspiracy theory, just looking at the picture where a known murderer congratulate Kramnik and remembering that one employe of this dictator (named Kirsan) changed the cycle every time to open doors for Kramnik.
On the other hand we have the greatest player of all times who started his career on politics facing this murderer and denouncing him to the world ...
But he gets criticized by Kramnik , why would that be?
"And here you have a nice picture of Putin in a meeting with Ilyumzhinov and in the article is written how Putin called Kramnik about Dortmud but the phone was busy, yeah sure." (says Manu yesterday)
"I repeat , there is no conspiracy theory, just looking at the picture where a known murderer congratulate Kramnik and remembering that one employe of this dictator (named Kirsan) changed the cycle every time to open doors for Kramnik."
(says Manu today)
Definitely no conspiracy theory in Manu's mind.
1) I'm on Maradona's side on Castro and Chávez, but won't go too far off-topic here (at least the Kramnik discussion is about chess). Thomas' point is pertinent though and enough to counter Manu's argument. Another example could be Obama.. I never thought highly about the Obama cult, but given that it's quite natural people would support him after eight years with Bush and considering his great skills as a populist, I don't generally think people who do support him are bad guys or that anyone who meets with him without denouncing the Afghanistan occupation or the air strikes in Pakistan is immoral.
2) It's possible Putin could influence chess politics via Kirsan but it's another thing altogether to suggest that he actually has or even wants to. Even so, FIDE is not a dictatorship and Kirsan's word is not law.
3) That the World Championship cycle was changed to open doors for Kramnik specifically is wild speculation at best and doesn't fit in very well with the known facts. And what does "every time" mean? Not even you can argue that the cycle change that gave Topalov a match against the World Cup winner out of nowhere was meant to favour Kramnik can you?
¨Thomas' point is pertinent though and enough to counter Manu's argument.¨
No is not , you are speculating with the results of a crime to figure if there was offense or not .
It doesnt matter if the bullet got you , if i shooted at you then i intended to murder you ...
¨It's possible Putin could influence chess politics via Kirsan but it's another thing altogether to suggest that he actually has or even wants to.¨
Sure its another thing , and of course he wants to , the guy(as demonstarted in all the links above) really cares about chess and is a criminal...
Wouldn´t be the first time a dictator wants his country to excel at sports...
¨Even so, FIDE is not a dictatorship and Kirsan's word is not law.¨
Maybe we are not talking about the same FIDE or even the same planet.
"¨Even so, FIDE is not a dictatorship and Kirsan's word is not law.¨
Maybe we are not talking about the same FIDE or even the same planet."
You should probably be glad that Kirsan does not rule FIDE with an iron fist, because from what I heard he voted against giving Topalov that match against the World Cup winner.
But you can't have it both ways. Either Kirsan decides everything or he doesn't.
What you say is helping my point actually , if its true , i dont know what is what you heard and you don´t use you own name on this ..., but i can believe you.
¨ You should probably be glad that Kirsan does not rule FIDE with an iron fist ¨
Actually , i would give FIDE as a gift to him if he promise to leave his people alone , i am more worried about the children that lives in a country filled with chess palaces.
We deserve what is happening to us , we created Kramnik when we allowed the match with Alexei to be replaced by the 3´rd option available , but the people that lives in Kalmykia deserves better IMHO.
Just on acirce's (11:52AM) point #3: So far, it is known that, due to changes in the WCh cycle, spots were created for Topalov and Kamsky [of course, on planet Manu everything that favors Topalov is perfectly fine]. There are two possibilities to get Kramnik in:
1) as an organizer wildcard - but if this was the idea, then why did FIDE decline the UEP bid?
2) via a rating spot. If he gets one, he will deserve it. Well, if Kirsan somehow got replaced by Manu or Danailov, they might decide that Dortmund was a fake tournament which shouldn't be rated ... .
We are trying to save the expession ¨planet¨ for Chucky , if you don´t mind , please use another phrase for your nonsense.
Strictly speaking, Anand was favoured too, compared to how it looked before the cycle changed.
If they wanted to include Kramnik they could have just done so right away. It wouldn't have looked more odd than giving a spot to the Kamsky-Topalov loser...in fact as Kramnik pointed out, if the cycle had to change at all, giving one spot to the Kamsky-Topalov loser and NOT to the loser of the last World Championship match didn't make much sense.
And indeed if the grand plan all along was to get him in as the UEP wildcard (to make it less "obvious", presumably, although to a whole lot of conspiratorially inclined people it was "obvious" anyway...) then, as Thomas says, the negotiations would not have fallen through, in fact they would probably already have taken place. Add to all this that nobody even knows that he would have been their wildcard!
Exactly these things were what I had in mind by "doesn't fit in very well with the known facts".
¨in fact as Kramnik pointed out, if the cycle had to change at all, giving one spot to the Kamsky-Topalov loser and NOT to the loser of the last World Championship match didn't make much sense.¨
Thing is that the match in Bonn was a gift in itself , how many of that Kramnik needs?
I know the answer! , always one more than the other guy , right?
That argument doesn't make much sense either, since Topalov had already got a gift when he was allowed to play the World Cup winner, and that didn't stop FIDE from giving him another. Thus, again, including Kramnik would not have been any worse than including the Kamsky-Topalov loser.
Topalov is the one single player who has been given the most favours by FIDE the last few years - how about you condemn all these _known_ favours instead of harping about mostly imaginary or speculated favours given to Kramnik?
Who is "we"? And I think the expression sometimes also referred to Shirov.
But you are right, I should apologize to both Ivanchuk and Shirov for linking them (albeit indirectly) with your nonsense.
Kirsan's not so subtle hint made it clear that Kramnik was the intended recipient for the organizer's spot.
I don't know if Kramnik actively uses his connections. As the biggest federation's favourite son, he probably can just lean back and enjoy whatever privilege comes his way. And if he feels being treated unfairly, an occasional remark to Zhukov will go a long way. Probably all the way to Kalmykia.
Slightly more on topic: The Kasparov-Karpov match is more interesting for its political dimension than for the chess. Kramnik is in a squeeze here - as much as he prefers to not commit himself with public statements, whatever he says about the match will be interpreted pro or contra Kasparov's cause.
"whatever he says about the match will be interpreted pro or contra Kasparov's cause."
Only by Manu :)
The idea of FIDE having supported Kramnik in every way possible just has the tiny flaw that Kramnik won the title outside of FIDE's auspices, and then resisted their attempts to cheapen the title with knockouts/tournaments instead of matches. And of course Topalov was Kirsan's man... But never mind. If you repeat a lie enough times someone might believe you.
Yeah, I don't know if any other top player so openly supported Kirsan in the last Presidential Election? ("I deeply respect the present head of the World Chess Federation, Kirsan Ilyumzhinov. I think that his contribution to chess is enormous, and I hope that this time he will win again.")
¨ The Kasparov-Karpov match is more interesting for its political dimension than for the chess. ¨
I agree with that ,i wonder what is the evaluation of the Russian goverment on Karpov ´s latest actions .
Visiting Garry in prison was a big gesture from his part ,Garry´s detention (and its reasons)reached a whole new public with that.
¨If you repeat a lie enough times someone might believe you. ¨
Well, it depends on the lie , Kramnik´s supremacy in matches didn´t lasted that long. :)
Ah, yes, that's a Maradona-like quote from Topalov:
http://www.chessfidelity.com/elections.php?txt_id=95
Go on, Manu, give us Kramnik saying anything so uncritically complimentary of Putin (did you actually read his opinion before keeping asking us why he doesn't uncritically support Kasparov?).
If that was a lie, Manu, then you're calling Topalov a liar :) From the same interview: "Vladimir Kramnik is particularly good in match battles".
¨particularly good¨ is not equal to supremacy , mishamp.
You are getting a little childish with that sort of comment , you dont have to atack Topa everytime you cant defend Kramnik ..
I also like other players like Shirov or Chucky and i don´t necesarilly agree with all that they say...
About the quote , Topalov expressed his disapointment on Kirsan on several interviews, and it is very clear that Topa is not Kirsan´s protegee at all.
And besides , i could be an Anand fan for the sake of argument , stop pointing to the Bulgarian camp every time Kramnik is acused of something...
Leave them alone , they have a WCH match to prepare unlike you know who :) .
Just because Topalov got more privileges, doesn't mean Kramnik got none.
I don't think FIDE supported Kramnik in every way possible. But in recent years he can't complain, except for his-privilege-is-bigger-than-mine.
Oh come on, Manu. You claim Ilyumzhinov was anti-Topalov and pro-Kramnik in Elista... and paint Ilyumzhinov as a dictator (or dictator's lackey) building chess cities while children starve... [hey, I'm with you!] and then you don't think Topalov giving his full support to Ilyumzhinov just before the match is relevant. You must admit that's a teeny weeny bit funny :)
"I don't know if Kramnik actively uses his connections. As the biggest federation's favourite son ..."
Is this even true? If the Russian federation exclusively supported (only cared about) Kramnik, why did they accept Karjakin amongst them? He explicitly explained switching federations from Ukraine to Russia, saying that this would increase his chances to become world champion. So this 'favourite son' business may well be just another myth!?
I believe Kirsan helped Kramnik by allowing him to continue with his private area and you believe he helped Topa by giving him that point , in any case it doesn´t matter we are not talking about Elista here .
If Topalov supported Kirsan before the match he certainly paid the price for doing it IMO .
But like Bartleby said the fact that another person got privileges doesn´t mean that Kramnik didn´t.
Think of me as a Carlsen or Anand fan , what do i care if FIDE once ruled in favour of Topa if they always include Kramnik in their favours?
"If Topalov supported Kirsan before the match he certainly paid the price for doing it IMO."
So if I've got this right... Kramnik got the room agreed upon in the match contract and Topalov got a free point? Yes, I can see Topalov paid a very high price.
"But like Bartleby said the fact that another person got privileges doesn´t mean that Kramnik didn´t."
No, it doesn't, but he didn't. Never mind.
"Think of me as a Carlsen or Anand fan , what do i care if FIDE once ruled in favour of Topa if they always include Kramnik in their favours?"
Think of me as the man on the moon. It'd make as much sense. Oh, and they don't. But again, never mind :)
Karjakin was always really Russian anyway. They just started to correct the mistake they made by giving Crimea away to begin with :)
¨Think of me as the man on the moon.¨
I didn´t know russians ever landed there , did they?
:)
I'm not Russian. Though I meant to say the man IN the moon, so it was even more nonsensical than intended :)
As this thread has become a mixed one anyway [only the very first comment dealing with hats ,:)], an update on the Canadian Open: final round still ongoing. None of the three top seeds (Shirov, Adams, Ni Hua) will win the tournament, presently Bluvshtein is on top.
Who is the moron? Manu is in first place. Thomas is a close second. Maybe it's Luke?
Who is the stupidest?
And who is the angriest? Manu?
It's a toughie, but I can tell you who's the most bored, and it's none of the three.
I didn't include you in the moron contest, because you don't qualify. But, yes, you are very boring.
You just insulted the person who was trying to help you to insult me ...
Good to have you back. Now that you've worn out your brain on more trite comments, how about a nice extended holiday? I'm sure we could do a collection among DD readers to pay for your long-haul tickets.
I know ¨Stooges¨ is already taken but you two should definitely make a band , the connection is uncanny.
Kramnik also says in the interview that he was not invited to the Pearl Spring tournament.
From http://thefreedictionary.com/Moron :
The first definition is what you probably mean, but second is "a city in Argentina, to the west of Buenos Aires". So who might be the moron? ,:)
I stand corrected. The following people are not morons: Thomas, Luke, chesshire cat.
That statement is making you look a lot smarter than before .
What up with the attitude by CB at the end of their video article of Naka's victories over Pono? Their arrogance is palpable.
Yes, how dare they reply with some humour to the bizarre and unjustified allegations made against them...
I like Chessbase and check it every day. Their photos are usually pretty good, not just of the players, but also the local countryside and people. However, sometimes they are a bit sloppy with the captions under the photographs. For example, Nakamura is shown at the board at the start of one of the normal tournament games, yet the caption under the photograph reads:
"In predatory pose: Hikaru Nakamura before the second game of the tiebreak"
Yes, I guess they forgot he played three games that day - but any excuse to include Sophie Millet is fine by me :) And surely the FIDE ethics committee should have something to say about that shirt & tie!?