One of our frequent evergreen discussions in chess, and in this blog, is about the existence, or lack thereof, of luck in chess. I've come down on the side of calling it "good fortune" at worst, and not considering any win or loss undeserved. Players make mistakes, and as the saying goes, the player who makes the next-to-last mistake wins. Nobody in the world, if ever since Tal, understands this and uses this truth to his advantage better than Veselin Topalov. He has an uncanny ability to create complications that put his opponents under terrible pressure regardless of the objective soundness of his moves. He is a brilliant speculator, running right up to the edge and sometimes over it and yet proving again and again that he can outplay his opponents in the positions he creates. Topalov is proving it once again in Linares, where he has three wins, two of which came out of positions that would likely be called losing, or at least much worse, in the cold light of computer-assisted analysis.
And you know what? Great! Despite the computer dominance in preparation (and head-to-head play), chess is a human game and Topalov shows us this just about every time he sits down to play, god bless him. I'm not saying he intentionally plays into inferior positions at all, only that what a computer or post-mortem analysis reveals as inferior IS NOT ALWAYS INFERIOR AT THE BOARD. Watching live with a computer running blinds you to the reality that chess is very hard and that Topalov is a master of creating positions that are much harder for his opponent than for him. This, of course, is a preamble in defense of his wins against Grischuk and Vallejo in Linares last week, and even his first draw with Aronian. (His earlier win against Gashimov was much less fraught even if Black likely could have drawn with best defense.)
In both wins Topalov sacrificed and in both cases his opponent defended well for a while only to eventually succumb to the relentless pressure on the board and the clock. This is not Topalov being lucky. This is Topalov being Topalov. He finds the moves that create maximum complexity and difficulty. He doesn't live in the world of "what if." What if Grischuk had played ..Kh7? What if Vallejo hadn't left himself 50 seconds for the final ten moves of the first time control? Irrelevant. You may as well be saying that, well golly-gee, Topalov would be in real trouble if all of his opponents played like super-computers. No doubt true, and it's to his credit that he hasn't allowed that fact to affect his style, since training with computers can cow even the wildest imagination. (Kasparov once warned of this, saying that it takes energy not to feel "humiliated" when working with programs.) The young Mikhail Tal had to deal with this sort of thing, too, but those criticizing his "unsound" winning sacrifices weren't armed with 64-bit, quad-core truth machines.
Topalov's +3 score not only puts him in command in Linares, but it also puts him in position to retake the #1 ranking from Carlsen just in time for his world championship match with Anand in April. And that makes for much better press releases. As some wag in the comments pointed out, if Topalov had a poor showing in Linares they might have ended up with a situation uncomfortably similar to the Kramnik-Anand match Topalov and/or his manager Danailov ridiculed as a sideshow between the #5 and #6 in the world. Not going to happen now, not that it matters. To connect these threads, I'm hearing a lot of "yeah, but this stuff won't work against Anand." Perhaps not, though it's something of an ideal matchup since Anand is one of the all-time great tactical defenders. Mostly though, it all just sounds like sour grapes and hating from Topalov's detractors, most of whom can trace their antipathy back to his behavior during and after his world championship match loss to Kramnik in 2006. I shared many of those feelings, but let's not let them get in the way of his fabulous chess. Winning matters.
Grischuk bounced back today thanks to his opponent Gashimov risking the Benoni once too often. Apparently he at least occasionally shares his countryman Radjabov's attitude toward the openings with black, that getting positionally horrific positions is all right as long as you are guaranteed eventual tactical chances. In round 5 Gashimov was in deep trouble against Vallejo in a Benoni; just about every reputable line looks very good for White these days. But the Spaniard shattered like a dropped Lladró figurine at the first sign of black counterplay and Gashimov cashed in. It didn't work for him in the eighth round as it was Grischuk finding the tactics first and winning a pretty game.
Gelfand's Petroff is proving as invulnerable as Kramnik's these days. Other than the boredom often produced, it's increasingly hard to criticize the Israeli's switch to the Russian Defense from his Najdorf now that he's back in the top ten at the ripe age of 41. Gashimov tried something new but got the same old stale equality. Today it was Vallejo's turn to try to avoid being sucked into the initiative black hole that is the Petroff. A nominally better endgame wasn't nearly enough for him to make progress. King's Gambit or bust!
Gelfand would have come much closer to his first win had he played 39.Kg4! in his rook endgame against Grischuk instead of allowing ..h5. Black has to make a series of only moves to avoid getting mated. The mate threat of Raa8 forces 39..f6 40.Raa8 and now 40..Rf2 is the only move. 41.exf6 gxf6 42.Kf5 and 42..Rfe2 is forced. White nabs the f-pawn and keeps the pressure on. Aronian is also winless, if also as lossless as a FLAC file. He came close to changing one of those stats over the weekend. He had to scramble to hold a position with two rooks against Vallejo's queen in the 7th round. Aronian managed to set up a blockade position and the Spaniard eventually had to concede he couldn't make progress. Then on Sunday, Topalov was a tactical shot away from reaching +4, which he almost surely would have done had he found 34.Rxe4!! against the Armenian. The geometry is easy for a computer, but it's not easy to visualize that the black king is forced to the back rank after 34..Qxe4 35.Qc3+ since 35..Kxg6 36.Bc2 picks up the queen. 35..Kg8 36.Qc7 and the mate threat gets the rook back with a protected passed d-pawn that should make for an easy win. A narrow escape for Aronian, who has looked quite shaky in Linares despite stretches of brilliant play.
Topalov has a full-point lead with two rounds remaining, so his game with black against Grischuk on Tuesday will be for all the marbles. I'll be back on Chess.FM with GM Ben Finegold for the big show. Monday is an off day. Gotta mention we're wrapping up Linares with Alex Yermolinsky on the mic in the final round. Really looking forward to that. FCC violations, here we come!
"I'm hearing a lot of "yeah, but this stuff won't work against Anand." "
Besides other aspects - Topalov himself may play differently in the match, in any case he will probably play different openings - there is one important difference: Anand hardly ever gets into serious time trouble. Grischuk often does, Vallejo did, Kamsky lost his match against Topalov due to time trouble more than anything else.
At least in Grischuk's case, it is not just "Topalov the Creator" but an eternal weakness of the opponent - if Grischuk could work on his time management (and devote more attention to chess relative to poker) he might be part of the very elite [currently defined as top5]? Yes, Topalov knew about Grischuk's weakness and handily benefitted ... .
¨Kamsky lost his match against Topalov due to time trouble more than anything else.¨
Kamsky:
¨he(Topalov)is a great tactician he keeps posing me problems , he really actually deserved to win this match...¨
Anand about Grishuk´s time trouble :
¨If I have only five minutes left on the clock, I start to get nervous. For Grischuk time trouble only begins, when he has five seconds left. Before that he carefully writes the moves on his scoresheet, including minutes and seconds spent by each player – all that with unbelievable calm. Maybe he needs the thrill. At any rate he is an excellent blitz player. One must never underestimate him in time trouble.¨
Fair enough Manu, but this doesn't invalidate my points:
- Kamsky was a fair and modest match loser (unlike Topalov against Kramnik ...). And maybe it was more consolation to him saying "I lost to a stronger player" than "I lost because of my poor time management". Topalov _was_ the stronger player if ELO means anything, that difference is less to irrelevant between Anand and Topalov. And the very fact that Kamsky made such a statement (which question did he answer?) indicates that he "made the best of the situation" and maybe that Topalov "didn't impress in the match".
- About Grischuk: Yes he has the habit to enter time trouble, yes he often does well under such pressure, yes he is an excellent blitz player. Still a common habit is not necessarily a good habit, sometimes you pay the prize for it.
"Topalov's +3 score not only puts him in command in Linares, but it also puts him in position to retake the #1 ranking from Carlsen just in time for his world championship match with Anand in April."
A +3 at the end of the tournament would leave Topalov with a live rating of 2812.2 and a #2 ranking position.
Nice one Mig. There have been a few following in the footsteps of Tal (or at least his shadow, I mean how can you imitate genius?) over the years, But Topalov seems to be the only one capable of taking it to the highest level. Sadly Shirov and Morozevich seem to have fallen short and don't appear to be able to mount a serious challenge any more. Walking the tightrope successfully and consistently as Topalov does against the world's elite is pretty amazing..
I have nothing against Topalov (I like just about every player in the top 20) and I don't think this stuff will work vs. Anand. On the other hand, it only takes a couple of wins from Topalov to prove us wrong.
"To connect these threads, I'm hearing a lot of "yeah, but this stuff won't work against Anand." Perhaps not, though it's something of an idea matchup since Anand is one of the all-time great tactical defenders. Mostly though, it all just sounds like sour grapes and hating from Topalov's detractors, most of whom can trace their antipathy back to his behavior during and after his world championship match loss to Kramnik in 2006. I shared many of those feelings, but let's not let them get in the way of his fabulous chess. Winning matters."
I don't know what you're talking about. I don't dislike Topalov and don't know anything about 2006. Anand is the World Champion, has beaten Kramnik, is the best player since Kasparov, and this is why I think he'll win. Winning matters.
Fantastic write-up, Mig. You are simply the best in wrapping things up in an informative, sane, and entertaining way.
"A +3 at the end of the tournament would leave Topalov with a live rating of 2812.2 and a #2 ranking position."
Topalov is already #1 on the live ratings site (http://chess.liverating.org/):
Topalov – 2814.7
Carlsen – 2812.9
Jim, the point is that we're not yet at the end of the tournament. Liverating.org was last updated on feb 19, so the last two rounds (draws) were not counted. Because Topalov has the highest rating in Linares, he drops a few points when he 'only' draws. If he ends up with a +3 score (=if he draws the remaining games), he'll end up with a live rating of 2812.2, which is slightly below Carlsen.
"There have been a few following in the footsteps of Tal (or at least his shadow, I mean how can you imitate genius?) over the years, But Topalov seems to be the only one capable of taking it to the highest level."
I'd say the style he's played in this Linares - and for most of his career before his late blossoming - still doesn't quite succeed at the highest level. It's almost a coin flip that's he's +3 rather than -1, which is fine for a one-off event but not a recipe for consistency at the top. The real difference with his late blossoming was that he started to combine his natural game with becoming almost as well prepared as Kasparov used to be (plus computers have been a godsend for the more purely tactical players). It makes an enormous difference if you play aggressive chess from a better position where you already know which lines to look for. I'm sure that's the Topalov we'll see against Anand - less entertaining but much more dangerous.
Excellent point Mig!
I was a fan of Topalov for just the reason you cited until his match with Kramnik (who I am NOT a fan of, because I believe he cowardly avoided a rematch with Kasparov, knowing he got lucky once and could never beat him again). When he and his manager Danailov made ridiculous accusations of cheating to the point of tearing apart bathrooms (a.k.a. trying to copy the Soviets at the Fischer-Spassky match X-raying chairs), that turned me off of being a fan.
But I think you are right on target about Topalov playing enterprising chess. I've posted derisively about Topalov getting lucky and winning losing positions and drawing winning positions because I'd rather not see him win, but I do agree that he's one of the most interesting players to watch.
It was Kasparov who shunned a rematch with Kramnik, not agreeing to play for the rematch spot. As for Kramnik's "luck," Kramnik had no problems in playing Kasparov his entire career, and you don't go undefeated for 15 games because of luck.
The biggest star of Linares 2010 is actually you, Mig. Apart from the humor and the many pointed comments, you transcribe complicated chess games in easy understandable language. The games and the play become meaningful even for a patzer like me. John Saunders is also a great writer, but you are really the top!
I just made a $100,- donation in gratitude for this great chess blog, and I encourage all the other users to follow my example.
"Despite the computer dominance in preparation (and head-to-head play), chess is a human game and Topalov shows us this just about every time he sits down to play, god bless him."
True, but it is sort of strange that we are talking about the same guy who was once accused of getting external help because most of his moves were the same as that of some chess engine.
Respectfully, you need to do your homework Lobster. What you are saying just isn't true.
Kasparov was more than willing to participate in any serious qualification process (i.e., he signed the Prague agreement), but FIDE failed to put together anything other than knockout style tournaments a.k.a. Las Vegas 1999, which are hardly serious (I mean do you seriously accept Khalifman and Kasimjanov as being in the same class as World Champions?).
And yes, Kasparov did lose the first 15 game match. But you need to do some homework here also. Look into Kasparov's personal situation at the time (divorce, lawsuits, etc.). That's not an excuse, just pertinent facts that contributed to Kramnik's "luck". That and the fact that he had worked on Kasparov's prep team for his match vs. Anand in 1995 and had inside knowledge of Kasparov's match preparations.
Kramnik did everything he could to duck serious opponents, including Kasparov, in the mean time (Leko? Really?!). It wasn't until after Kasparov retired in 2005 that he began to act according to the Prague agreement and play serious opponents (Topalov, who he barely beat in tie-break blitz games in 2006, and Anand in 2008, who he lost to; and bear in mind that Kasparov trashed Anand back in 1995).
I can't put my hands on the exact link right the moment, but Chessbase ran an article that showed a study demonstrating that most of the top five rated GM's play "computer" moves something like 78% of the time (I think this was in interview with Kramnik). So Topalov playing mostly computer moves is not news or even unusual. Any top five GM does. That's what makes them that good.
Now I'm certainly not an Topalov apologist (I don't care for his manager or the fact that he keeps letting Danailov act the way he does), but I don't think he's cheating. If he is, he certainly is willing to totally ignore computer "advice" at times and play some lousy moves that ought to get him in trouble.
That's why I think Mig hit the proverbial nail on the 'ol head in this post.
Respectfully, you need to do your homework Lobster. What you are saying just isn't true.
Kasparov was more than willing to participate in any serious qualification process (i.e., he signed the Prague agreement), but FIDE failed to put together anything other than knockout style tournaments a.k.a. Las Vegas 1999, which are hardly serious (I mean do you seriously accept Khalifman and Kasimjanov as being in the same class as World Champions?).
***
Yes and Yes. Winning matters.
1. Steinitz
2. Lasker
3. Capablanca
4. Alekhine
5. Euwe
4. Alekhine
6. Botvinnik
7. Smyslov
6. Botvinnik
8. Tal
6. Botvinnik
9. Petrosian
10. Spassky
11. Fischer
12. Karpov
13. Kasparov
12. Karpov
14. Khalifman
15. Anand
16. Ponomariov
17. Kazimzhinov
18. Topalov
19. Kramnik
15. Anand
For the record -- you will see that during the period of KO and related pre-unification events...2 of the super-GMs (Anand and Topalov) won the title. Two others (Shirov and Ivanchuk) made the finals.
As for this talk about Khalifman -- I suggest you read his book of best games (published during his reign). Also, the player to knock him out in the KO series the year BEFORE (when Karpov won) and the year AFTER (when Anand won) his title reign was ... Anand. Otherwise, he might well have been a repeater.
Why all this chatter about exhibition matches between Kasparov and Kramnik? Kramnik became world champion during the unification match with world champion Topalov. He then lost the title in the Mexico City tourney and for good in the match vs. Anand. His title reign was brief (thank god).
Topalov # 18 will regain his title in a very short while....which will do a great deal to validate the official line of 19 champions (i.e. you cannot regain what you didn't already have).
###
"Mostly though, it all just sounds like sour grapes and hating from Topalov's detractors, most of whom can trace their antipathy back to his behavior during and after his world championship match loss to Kramnik in 2006."
All of them, I should think. Before then he acted like a bit of a prat from time to time, but no more than that, as far as I remember.
"I shared many of those feelings, but let's not let them get in the way of his fabulous chess. Winning matters."
Strange view. Some things are unforgivable, and Topalov's behaviour definitely falls into that category, not necessarily at the time, but certainly since.
"Mostly though, it all just sounds like sour grapes and hating from Topalov's detractors, "
I think i should receive some credit or at least a share of the copyright of that particular concept.
:)
"most of whom can trace their antipathy back to his behavior during and after his world championship match loss to Kramnik in 2006"
Someone on the Chesspro forum linked to a biography of Topalov there which seems to have been written in 2004: http://tinyurl.com/yfxv7r4 (translated by Google)
It opens: "There are few modern chess grandmasters who enjoy universal sympathy among fans. The Bulgarian grandmaster is among them." It's a shame he so utterly sabotaged his image.
The text is also interesting for describing Topalov's meteoric rise, then how he faded away (seeming to get weighed down by studying chess), and now how he seems to be finding a balance between theoretical knowledge and his natural game. Quite prophetic in hindsight!
You are high chesspride. The reason Khalifman and Kasimjanov don't count isn't because they're bad chessplayers, its because they didn't take the title from the reigning champion in a match. Something Kramnik did and from the greatest champion of all time at that.
Drop it, chesspride. The knock-out idea for determining WC was a failed experiment, a footnote in history.
Mig wrote:
"In both wins Topalov sacrificed and in both cases his opponent defended well for a while only to eventually succumb to the relentless pressure on the board and the clock. This is not Topalov being lucky. This is Topalov being Topalov."
and then:
"Then on Sunday, Topalov was a tactical shot away from reaching +4, which he almost surely would have done had he found 34.Rxe4!! [...] A narrow escape for Aronian."
Let me see if I understand.
When Topalov wins from a bad postion, it's not a "narrow escape" nor is it "being lucky" that his opponent didn't win "which he almost surely would have done had he found" a certain move. Rather, it's "Topalov being Topalov," and Topalov gets much of the credit.
But when Topalov doesn't win, the opponent doesn't get the same credit.
It appears to me that many Topalov fans have a double standard in this regard. Mig, could you please explain why I'm mistaken?
Someone on the Chesspro forum linked to a biography of Topalov there which seems to have been written in 2004: http://tinyurl.com/yfxv7r4 (translated by Google)
It opens: "There are few modern chess grandmasters who enjoy universal sympathy among fans. The Bulgarian grandmaster is among them." It's a shame he so utterly sabotaged his image.
The text is also interesting for describing Topalov's meteoric rise, then how he faded away (seeming to get weighed down by studying chess), and now how he seems to be finding a balance between theoretical knowledge and his natural game. Quite prophetic in hindsight!
***
Topalov deserves praise for taking on the private title crowd -- his match vs. Kramnik was one of rules vs. privilege.
It was a shame that the claims of the "private title" Kramnik won out (temporarily) in the unification tiebreaks.
As I have told the members of our local club -- if you go to the restroom 30-40 times in one of your games, you will most certainly be forfeited by this TD.
###
Well , is not so hard to understand , for starters it was Topalov the one pressuring at the board in the 3 mentioned games and it was him who had the clock advantage in those games too ...
In all the three games he forced his opponents to lose the game at some point , he just happened to miss the killing shot in the last one.
I remind you that although some of the positions were bad for Topa at some point according to engines , those positions happened under an extreme time trouble from his outplayed opponents.
So yes , one can say that Aronian got "lucky" that a player like Topa missed the win with so much time on the clock and after outplaying him nicely.
Do you really believe that Paco or Sasha felt that they were outplaying Topa on those games?
They were just rabbits in Topalov's headlights...
Which reminds me that sometimes the rabbit can get lucky too , check this out:
http://www.spike.com/video/rabbit-in-your/2681521
Tomorrow Grishuk will be out for blood , will be an amazing game me thinks.
You are high chesspride. The reason Khalifman and Kasimjanov don't count isn't because they're bad chessplayers, its because they didn't take the title from the reigning champion in a match. Something Kramnik did and from the greatest champion of all time at that.
***
Botvinnik didn't take the title in a match with his predecessor -- he won it in a tournament.
Karpov didn't take the title in a match with his predecessor -- he won it via forfeit (vs. Fischer) and then again in 93 after a forfeit of the reigning champion (Kasparov). In 93, he did win substitute championship (vs. Timman).
Khalifman didn't win the the title via a match with his predecessor -- in part because the GM community allowed their anti-Karpov bias to cloud their judgment about the title process. They didn't like the Karpov-Anand final from the first KO process (i.e. direct play against the titleholder in the finals).
So...they were all smiles when FIDE said the titleholder must play from the first round...thus giving ANY winner a credibility gap (just as you say).
That is not Khalifman's fault. Read his interviews in 1999 -- he clearly says that he is not the strongest in the world (though he is plenty strong)....but he clearly is THE world champion. If you hold a world championship and someone wins, they ARE the world champion.
And thank god for him. Had there been a direct title match and if he had beaten Karpov (very possible), then he would shine more brightly.
But consider your own private title nightmare -- Leko holds on and wins vs. Kramnik. Can anyone say World Champion Leko without laughing?
Can anyone dare say Leko would be more legit (strength-wise) than Khalifman? No....
And...to put this in perspective...after the unification:
ANAND WON THE TITLE WITHOUT TAKING IT IN A MATCH VS. HIS DIRECT PREDECESSOR.
The fact that they played a year later is irrelevant.
Topalov is (and always be) the 18th champion of the world.
Chesspride:
1) Are you Lobster? I don't recall you being invited to the party... lol. But jump on in, the water's fine.
2) You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I disagree.
3) You can regurgitate the FIDE "line of champs" all you want, but I believe it's junk (it's FIDE after all).
4) See my original post for the Kramnik-Kasparov issue. I believe that Kramnik cowardly and deliberately ducked a rematch with Garry Kimovich because he knew he couldn't do it again, and I'll take that opinion to the grave. Too bad we'll never know who would have won such a rematch, but I believe we do know WHY we'll never know!
The identical arguments have been made hundreds, if not thousands of times in this blog and others. There hasn't been a new thought uttered on these topics in years. Give it a rest, guys.
I'm with Koster on that one, with the addendum that the same can be said for at least three dozen other "topics".
"Do you really believe that Paco or Sasha felt that they were outplaying Topa on those games?
They were just rabbits in Topalov's headlights..."
Nicely put.
"Do you really believe that Paco or Sasha felt that they were outplaying Topa on those games?"
Take the Vallejo game. If in that game it was going back forth, first Topalov having the advantage, then Vallejo, then Topalov, then yes, you would have a point. Although Topalov did a great job of complicating the position against Vallejo, but he never had any significant advantage against him. How could that ever constitute Topalov outplaying Vallejo? Seems like they played pretty equally to me. Both side made second-best moves, as is typical in murky positions, but Vallejo doesn't get any credit. That's my point.
) See my original post for the Kramnik-Kasparov issue. I believe that Kramnik cowardly and deliberately ducked a rematch with Garry Kimovich because he knew he couldn't do it again, and I'll take that opinion to the grave. Too bad we'll never know who would have won such a rematch, but I believe we do know WHY we'll never know!
***
Irrelevant to the issue, as the match was an exhibition outside the FIDE title cycle.
You might just as well say that I ducked a boxing match with Muhammad Ali.
I figured it had to be one of those evergreen topics but since I wasn't around back then I was curious what people would say.
When talking about chess, at least, Topalov makes a lot more sense than most of his fans (true of most chess players, I guess!). Here Vasiliev probably might as well have hit him over the head with a mallet instead of asking:
"The fact that you didn't see Re4 isn't so terrible, it's not so easy to spot, but why didn't you take the pawn on a7 and win an elementary endgame with two connected passed pawns?
Veselin shakes his head as though trying to drive away a bad dream, makes a funny grimace as if to say why are you asking me about something that's absolutely impossible to explain? And then he wipes the smile from his face and says with great conviction in his voice:
- I've got no reason to complain about fortune. Against Grischuk and Vallejo I should have picked up zero. And I got two. I've still been very lucky!"
http://chesspro.ru/_events/2010/linares6.html
In the same report Vasiliev appears to be the first to break the news about Rxe4 to Aronian (he hadn't seen it). Aronian was generally upset that when he needed to win he'd let Topalov get in the attack with h5.
Interesting thing is that Topa missed Qc7 trick against Aronian. In his toiletgate match against Kramnik he also missed a winning tactics involving a Qc7 in game one or two, if my memory does not fail me. Apparently he has a problem with Qc7 pattern!
hmm..nice creation! Replaced a vowel and a consonant? haha
For the guess department. Does Topalov have any of his seconds playing in here in Linares?
Surely Botvinnik and Karpov are exceptional cases brought about by unfortunate circumstance (death and insanity respectively) that necessitated a "reboot" if you will. Surely Botvinnik proved himself a worthy champion at least. One difference between them and Khalifman is that there was no way for them to play their predecessor. If our two choices for who determines who plays for the world championship are either FIDE or the reigning world champion, give me the player. Both choices are imperfect (in the case of FIDE incompetence and horrifying corruption and in the case of players the tendency to duck threats) but I'd rather see players in charge over beaurocrats. P.S. I don't laugh at the very idea of World Champion Leko. As for for hypothetical champion Leko being more legitimate than Khalifman, yes, he would be, since he would have defeated the world champion in a match.
Surely Botvinnik and Karpov are exceptional cases brought about by unfortunate circumstance (death and insanity respectively) that necessitated a "reboot" if you will. Surely Botvinnik proved himself a worthy champion at least. One difference between them and Khalifman is that there was no way for them to play their predecessor. If our two choices for who determines who plays for the world championship are either FIDE or the reigning world champion, give me the player
*****
Sorry, but this debate has been won -- by FIDE.
The players of the world are united in one thing, that the title cycle belongs to and is run by FIDE.
The private title is dead. That is not just my opinion. It is dead on the basis of 1) Anand winning his title defense vs. Kramnik, and 2) the vast majority of players desiring and approving of unification.
PS I'd take Khalifman over Leko by score of +2 in a 20 game match. Don't come back with ratings and expectancies -- Leko's rating is somewhat inflated by the fact that he plays in more super-events.
Thx , but please make up your mind about me , or you'll end up in the same irony department as your compatriot and it is not a nice spectacle .
:)
The players of the world are united by chess. FIDE is not chess, they think they are which has led to many problems. The title is where it should be, with the player who defeated the last champion.
As for Leko vs. Khalifman, I'd like to see the match, then we wouldn't have to argue about who's better. For what it's worth, sounds like super-event organizers have cast their vote for Leko.
Topalov after his draw with Aronian, missing a win, to La Marca:
"I relaxed too much; my opponent had played so badly before time trouble that I thought I would win with anything. But he complicated the game and I didn't manage to realize my advantage."
"I've been lucky and I have more points than I deserve. It's also the case that I'm very relaxed here because although I want to win Linares my priority is my world title match with Anand in April."
"Although I've played in a practical fashion when my opponent has little time remain to make their moves, the best way to win is always to make the best moves."
The paper also calls him the "#1 on the rating list," either a case of watching the live list very closely or, more likely, their usual weak grasp of reality. As addicted to the live list as I am as well, we do have an official list for something, after all. Even if Carlsen's first stay at the top spot only lasts two months these days, they are his due.
Worth noting, as I didn't in the item, that if Grischuk beats Topalov he'll tie him on points and also have the better tiebreaks (most wins).
That were almost exactly Topalov's words to Leontxo , maybe that's a transcription of the brief interview he gave after the game with Aronian.
I wouldnt want to defend against Grishuk tomorrow.
chesspride: "Sorry, but this debate has been won -- by FIDE."
Heh-heh. That's a good one!
FIDE says it, so it must be true.
" but Vallejo doesn't get any credit. That's my point."
I wouldn't be so sure about that , in his interview after the game with Aronian , Topalov praised Paco's play , at that moment Paco draw a won game due to time trouble ( again ) .
Many people (included me ) commented on Vallejo's courage when he decided to avoid castling in his game with Topa and even chessbase called him the "tragic hero" of the tournament.
But of course winning matters most (almost all the time) and the guy could use a bit more of luck in this event.
Outstanding observation, as usual, Mig! And eloquent, too. Brings to mind a couple of my favourite aphorisms.
"There are two kinds of sacrifices: sound ones and mine." Mikhail Tal
"The difference between the right word and almost the right word is the same as the difference between lightning and the lightning bug."
Mark Twain
Yours truly did a spin on the words of Clemens and came up with this applicable phrase:
"In the game of chess the difference between the right move and almost the right move is the same as the difference between fire and the firefly."
John Charles Gold
I believe that the genius of Veselin Topalov is the direct result of his ability to turn up the heat on his adversary using the time pressure caused by positions of extreme complexity.
Respectfully, you need to do your homework Lobster. What you are saying just isn't true.
Kasparov was more than willing to participate in any serious qualification process (i.e., he signed the Prague agreement), but FIDE failed to put together anything other than knockout style tournaments a.k.a. Las Vegas 1999, which are hardly serious (I mean do you seriously accept Khalifman and Kasimjanov as being in the same class as World Champions?).
KASPAROV WAS WILLING TO PARTICIPATE IN A SWERIOUS QUALIFICATION PROCESS, BUT DID NOT!
And yes, Kasparov did lose the first 15 game match. But you need to do some homework here also. Look into Kasparov's personal situation at the time (divorce, lawsuits, etc.). That's not an excuse, just pertinent facts that contributed to Kramnik's "luck". That and the fact that he had worked on Kasparov's prep team for his match vs. Anand in 1995 and had inside knowledge of Kasparov's match preparations.
WHAT OF KASPAROV'S FAILURE TO DOMINATE KRAMNIK IN THE DECADE BEFORE THE MATCH? THERE SCORES AGAINST EACH OTHER WERE VIRTUALLY EVEN. DON'T CONFUSE KRAMNIK WITH SHIROV. NOTHING IN KRAMNIK'S PAST MADE HIM FEAR KASPAROV.
Kramnik did everything he could to duck serious opponents, including Kasparov, in the mean time (Leko? Really?!).
HOW? KRAMNIK AGREED TO PLAY WHOEVER QUALIFIED, AND DUCKED NO QUALIFIER.
It wasn't until after Kasparov retired in 2005 that he began to act according to the Prague agreement and play serious opponents (Topalov, who he barely beat in tie-break blitz games in 2006,
YOU CONVENIENTLY FORGET KRAMNIK LED THE CLASSIC PART OF THAT MATCH. GOOD-SPORT TOPALOV HAD HIM FORFEITED FOR ONE GAME. MOST OF THE CHESS WORLD WANTED KRAMNIK TO WITHDRAW FROM THAT MATCH AT THE TIME. KRAMNIK DID NOT.
and Anand in 2008, who he lost to; and bear in mind that Kasparov trashed Anand back in 1995).
GEE, KASPAROV THRASED -- I HOPE YOU MEAN THRASED -- A DECADE AND A HALF BEFORE THE KRAMNIK MATCH. AND WHAT IS THAT SUPPOSED TO PROVE?
I wonder what the time limit is on these issues that people get so excited about. Will Kasparov's (non) matches be discussed in 1, 2, 5 years? Perhaps we must wait until the older generation are no longer top 10ers.
Until then, can I advise anyone concerned to spare themselves any thinking on the issue and simply consult the older threads. Here's to a great round today! Predictions:
Gelfand will draw after posing Aronian no serious threats.
Grischuk will get a great position v Topalov and lose in time pressure.
Gashimov will play a main line v Vallejo and draw.
1995 private match won't count. Any body can trash any body else in private matches.
Here is my case for Anand, I posted earlier in the message board!
Anand played in whatever formats, whenever given a chance, never ducked, and proved himself champion in all those formats. His consistent blitz, rapid, advanced chess, 960 performances are endorsements to his overall classical chess skills. I'll explain how. What would be a higher rated's immediate reaction when sensed foul play in ninja tournament game? He would challenge his opponent for a blitz game!! Anand won the world championship tournament when people were ready to discount him if the results were otherwise. Anand won the only proper championship match he played - official match, great playing conditions, conducted with many precautions taken against foul play (in and out of the hall) - against one of the great Kramnik whom Kasparov was unable to prevail. Like Kasparov, Anand too played in a era of transformation from a non-computer to a computer era, but Anand never had any undue computer advantage over others for his skills to be discounted. His speed is matchless. Even Nakamura who tries to emulate him couldn't really match him. Anand plays computer precision chess. His middle game calculations are deeper than others and his resourceful play in end games have no match either. His opening preparations are no less than other greats. So far I have never heard of anyone beating one or more higher rated grandmasters in less than 15 mins in a classical game, which Anand did when he was a teen I believe. It was an unique achievement. He is more than forty now and he is playing even greater chess against young and never seen before competition.
Anand is the greatest chess player ever seen!
"Anand is the greatest chess player ever seen!"
Gimme a break.. everybody knows it's Tal :-)
After Rybka's 18. c5 Grischuk's position looks really promising. The black queenside seems to get shredded to pieces by force, and the possible end games look almost won (with a supported passed pawn) - though black has some tricks that would probably save the day. Quite a turn around as before black's last few moves the position hadn't seemed very interesting at all.
"So far I have never heard of anyone beating one or more higher rated grandmasters in less than 15 mins in a classical game, which Anand did when he was a teen I believe."
You believe? What's does your uncertainty relate to? Opponent? Date of the game? Minutes spent?
What's the record for staying away from the board for the greatest part of the time (relatively, of course) the opponent spent thinking? Against a higher rated grandmaster, obviously. Or for number of cups of coffee drunk during a win? Or for least time spent on moves 20 to 40 in 40+ move win?
"His middle game calculations are deeper than others and his resourceful play in end games have no match either."
How do we compare the deepness of middle game calculations? Or even worse: how do we compare various players' "resourceful play" in end games?
Many useless metrics in the above, I think...
Gimme a break ... everybody knows it's Fischer :-)
wait, wait, I meant Kasparov! Dang it.
I've personally never heard about Anand's wonderful endgame play, for example (as compared to others). If there's any links to sources on that, I'd be interested to see them.
Norwegians are the new Germans 8-)=
I have read here before that Anand is the best endgame player of the current world top - I think it was a post from PircAlert
You believe? What's does your uncertainty relate to? Opponent? Date of the game? Minutes spent?
Sorry to disappoint you, frogbert! It is related to none of that. It related to Anand's age which I was unsure.
You will have to dig into "The Hindu" Indian Newspaper archive. Don't know if we have an online report of that. It was from when the GM category tournaments were introduced in India. Could be from Goodricke, Sakthi Finance, Jamshedpur or some other tournament. It has to be before he played matches against Kamsky. His opponents were Russian GMs.
wasn't it anand-mestel?
"It is related to none of that. It related to Anand's age which I was unsure."
If you knew the date of the game, I could tell you Anand's age.
Anyway - since you're NOT uncertain about opponent and date of the game, then I suppose you could tell us which exact game you're referring to as a "unique achievement" then ...
1984, 25 moves, white spent 25 min.s
But where's the link?!? ;o)
"1984, 25 moves, white spent 25 min.s"
Must be a different game. PircAlert said 15 minutes, and was explicitly NOT uncertain about minutes spent.
"1984, 25 moves, white spent 25 min.s"
Must be a different game. PircAlert said 15 minutes, and was explicitly NOT uncertain about minutes spent.
j nielsen,
25 min?? That is a lot of time! ;) May be not Mestel, he is British GM I guees. It must be around that time 1983 or 1984. As far as I can remember it was in Indian tournament(s) and the opponents were Russian GMs. Names could start with a "T". And 15 min or less. His opponents took 1 hour or 1 hour 15 min and the game was over like in 1.5 hours if I remember correctly. I'm trying to search the games database now.
Topalov looks to be going down on this one , i don t have engine but it looks like there is no hope for black there.
Hmmm, Grischuk (in slight time trouble) just played 34.Qc6 giving away some of his advantage. Maybe after the game someone will comment [again] that it was all planned by Topalov, and worked fine against a weak player such as the world #6?
Yep, I'm sure we've seen this time trouble scenario somewhere before :) 2:12 for 3 more moves for Grischuk. Looks like 35. Nf2 wasn't great, but then neither was Topalov's ...Rd2 - though obviously it created very concrete threats for time trouble.
Looks like he's thrown away the win to a repetition, when simply Qc4 instead of Qc3 would have made the time trouble and given him time to think :(
Thomas, I thought Qc6 was okay, but anticipated that ...f5 would then be met by Qc1, when the critical line Rbb3 Nc5 Rbc3 Nxd3 Rxc1 Nxc1 Qa3 leaves white having to untangle pieces, but with 2 minors and a rook for the queen at any cost. Other tries just leave the material imbalance as is and shore up the potential blitz-vulnerable holes in white's position. I am surprised at the speed with which Nf2 was played.
Hotep,
Maliq
Correction, still time to play Qc4 :)
Grischuk is lucky though - time control (and another hour on the clock) came just at the right moment, now he can think about avoiding a move repetition.
Qc4 can still be considered. Qxe3 is not a serious attempt to win, since perpetual would be easy after Qf7.
Hotep,
Maliq
Qxe3 might be a serious attempt to lose
To be fair this might just be an example of his usual calmness in time trouble (even if not in this tournament!). He just saw he could make the time control by repeating - if he'd had to make another move I'm sure he'd have played Qc4.
Looks very tough, but perhaps not impossible, to make progress now. Rybka's bishop to f3 then d1 looks plausible to free the queen. Topalov also has attacking chances, though.
The justification of Qf4 is nice - ...Rb4's met by e4, attacking the another rook with the queen.
Correct, in a hypothetical situation Grischuk might have played 40.Qc4 - this could have occurred if both hadn't "lost a tempo" in the opening (Bf8-e7 and Bc1-g5 rather than f8-b4-e7 and c1-d2-g5).
Now I don't want to play Devil's advocate, but if Grischuk loses thread in a second time trouble phase (this has happened before ...) "someone" will possibly comment that he should have appreciated Topalov's supremacy and should have accepted his generous silent draw offer.
ok guys, I don't find Anand games 1983 and prior online. Let me know if you know of a site.
Maybe you fail to see the huge difference in domination terms between the two games ...
It is Topalov the one being outplayed in this one IMO.
Ok, it's all down to the wheel of fate and whether Grischuk sees 43. e4 and the ideas behind it now. Rybka's line is crushing for white(+2.14, but surely a totally won endgame).
Is 43.Rc1 a draw here?
For example, 43...Rxf2 44.Rc7 Rxg2+ 45.Kf1 Rbf2+ 46.Ke1 Rxf4 47.Rxe7+ Kh3 48.exf4 and a-pawn any good for win??
Grischuk's plan B seems fine too - white has lots of ways to win and suddenly gets very active minor pieces (after something like 44. Nd3). Topalov's again playing quite carelessly (moves 42 & 43 seem to be "inaccurate"), though as Thomas says if Grischuk does end up in time trouble and blunder there'll be no shortage of people to proclaim the wisdom of Topalov's Linares tactics :)
Maybe the first game was psychological domination by Topalov throughout, or domination in the second time trouble phase.
But you have to find a big improvement for white to stay alive if Grischuk had played the right king move on move 27 (27.-Kh7 rather than 27.-Kg7?) - according to various annotators (titled players) and engines Topalov would have been simply lost.
mishanp, are you watching at Chessok? "The other Rybka" (somewhat different settings!?) at the Chessdom live coverage preferred Grischuk's 43.Bf3, and considered 43.Bd5 still a little bit stronger.
If Topalov manages to save this game (R+N+B vs Q) Anand should be very very scared. It is because either a) the gods are behind Topalov, or b) he sees things far more beyond the engines :-)
I'm looking at both - chessbomb's good for showing a few lines, but chessok has the deeper analysis. It looks like 45. Bd5 should have won brutally (with Ne5 and all kinds of threats to the black king to follow), but Grischuk's decision is much more practical - time shouldn't really be an issue now.
Grishuk has to break his head now if at all he has win. Exposed king will easily be a target for perp. I felt this was unnecessary. May be Grishuk will prove me wrong.
Famous last words, I know :)
This is GM Zagrebelny at Chesspro after 47. gxf4:
"What exactly can you play here? There's absolutely nothing for black to latch onto. Opposing such a numerous group of hooligans is totally impossible, even if you're thrice a king! Or queen. They'll start from the little things: gang up on one pawn, then take another..."
Regardless of whether one is a Topalov detractor, or just a chess fan looking forward to a tense fight for tournament victory in the remaining rounds: go you mighty hooligans!! ,:)
The russian was clearly cheating , he had and ace in the hole.
:(
After their first game that's got to be an incredibly satisfying victory for Grischuk. As Nigel Short might say, there is a God, and he's not Bulgarian!*
* well not every day, at least :)
Wow, Grisch. It ain't easy to beat Topalov.
Mig, very nice job of jinxing Topa.
Great predictions from myelf except that Topalov didn't wriggle out. (pats self on back)
Moving on to the WCh match: Both Anand and Topalov have their own god - or is Topalov an atheist?
Moving back: Did some people question Grischuk's Linares invitation??
Moving on to tomorrow's final round: Key games will be Topalov-Gelfand and Vallejo-Grischuk. If Topalov and Grischuk win, several tiebreaks will be equal: mini-match, number of wins and Sonneborn-Berger. Would the (Shanghai/Bilbao invitation) difference be that Grischuk then has one win with black?
But actually both might be invited: Carlsen won both Nanjing and Corus, and the Grand Slam organizers said that "one of his spots" would go to the best non-winning performance in any of the GS tournaments. So far this should be Kramnik (2nd at Corus), maybe a convenient scenario for one of the Grand Slam organizers "if Grischuk eliminates him"!!?
gm bauer comments on chessdom were jokes.the guy probably using a pc, still didn't understand a think from this titanic battle(grish -topy)'a long battle ahead'(move 47).the game was over at 56 without an obvious mistake on topy's play.he was giving a lot of drawish variations when the position(r+b+k-against Q) was clear +- and imposible for a human player to hold(probably hard even for rybka).even earlyer he was confused:he gave 20..rb8 when rb8 was played at 21st move..i wonder if a gm or a patzer with a pc was commenting the game!
Grischuk cheated. Just ask Topalov.
"Both Anand and Topalov have their own god - or is Topalov an atheist?" Now that Fortuna's abandoned Topalov it's all down to Sophia. Hopefully Anand can rustle up some Hindu deities to compete...
Don't bother with searching further.
My entire point is that such a win, whether it happened exactly as you say or not, is completely irrlevant in any comparison between Anand and other great chess players; it's simply not significant whether you take 15, 20 or 25 minutes to beat a player (gm or not) that plays a bad game and loses in 20-25 moves and 1,5 hours.
If Kramnik or Kasparov never did that (I don't have a clue whether they did or not), why would that be, do you think? Because they couldn't, if they would've played fast (and hence somewhat recklessly) in their teens? Or because their trainers had told them to spend their time wisely, even when clearly better or winning?
I thought it was well known that Anand played a bit TOO fast in his early days of international matching, and that he had to "learn" to spend his time more wisely. Of course, even when he started to take more time for his games, he still was a very fast player - and has remained so throughout his career.
But still: "fastest win" (in terms of OWN thinking time spent) against a GM is so not any criteria or measure of how great a player you are. I'm surprised anyone even considers it worth mentioning - now. Of course, back when Anand wasn't even a GM yet, I can understand it got some headlines - but in a comparison between World Champions it simply means nothing.
It is significant. I'll prove it to you. Why would you or some one consider Fisher's 6-0 wins any greater than Anand 3.5-0.5 win over Shirov. Shirov could have easily been a better player than any of Fischer's opponent. It is just that Anand already won it he settled for a draw in the inconsequential final game. Who is better then? Why would the performance comes into play for comparison? In both the cases, your objective is to win a match and you achieved it. Why then do the statisticians look at the victory margin?
In times when people needed an adjournment and needed another day to complete a game, finishing a GM in 15 min have to mean a lot, especially when no other world champions have done so. It shows like you can beat 2 world champions in a simul, except that the 2 champions won't agree to sit to go through the humiliation!
Unofficial private matches count for nothing. I'm sure that everybody will agree!
Mestel, Lloyds Bank 1984-85, game actually played after New Year, was Anand's first GM win. No need to search earlier than that.
I hadn't seen the comments above before posting myself earlier, but to address a few.
@Jeffrey, if you can point out a single crushing tactical shot that any of Topalov's opponents missed in Linares, please do so. Comparing the steady slide of Grischuk and Vallejo against Topalov under huge pressure to Topalov missing a forced win from a superior position is strange. Topalov might have been fortunate that his opponents didn't play the best defense, but nothing near the instant death Aronian avoided when Topalov missed Rxe4. No doubt Aronian gets credit for complicating things, but there's a big difference between your opponent needing to find a dozen good defensive moves and failing and your opponent missing a tactical shot that wins instantly.
Many thanks to Bobby Fiske for the kind words and the generous donation (he wasn't kidding about the $100, and in a recession! Or is that over?). I try to write what I would like to read. My narrative approach takes more time for writer and reader than photo galleries and quickie analysis, but it's nice that a few people actually enjoy reading, too. I'd blog anyway, of course, but the two or three donations that come in every year or so do cheer me up.
Yes, I jinxed Topalov quite well! Now I guess it's Grischuk's turn after starring in my headline. Vallejo will now come out like a Pamplona bull and rip him to pieces.
Sorry for the misinfo on Topalov's rating, if it's indeed the case that +3 wouldn't put him as #1 on the live list, which is what I had had in mind since the tournament started. My guestimation had him at 2813 with +3. Corrected that in the item.
¨Yes, I jinxed Topalov quite well! Now I guess it's Grischuk's turn after starring in my headline. Vallejo will now come out like a Pamplona bull and rip him to pieces.¨
Oh, you are trying to de-jinx Sasha and pass the curse to Paco , very clever .I will use one of my daughter´s barbies to perform some vodoo on Grishuk , that will hurt him surely or at least induct him to quit the cigarette.
On Topalov-Grischuk (their first game) and Topalov-Vallejo:
Topalov-Grischuk may well count as a "steady slide under huge pressure", this doesn't take away that 27.-Kh7! by Grischuk would have been an instant death - funnily (by now), the analysis by Dennis Monokroussos ends with a position where Grischuk has rook, bishop and knight for the queen.
In Topalov-Vallejo, the Spaniard created complications which should have favored black mostly himself, so I wouldn't give Topalov that much credit for "relentless attacking play". Then he missed -Qb4 (a rather simple and logical move) three times in a row, before blundering a whole rook.
Combine this with Topalov-Aronian, and I think Topa cannot really complain about 2.5/3 out of these games ... . Even against Aronian it makes some sense that their mini-match was drawn, because Topalov was in real danger in the first game - not saying that he didn't defend brilliantly.
Whatever else you can say about Topalov-Grischuk I don't think "steady slide" can ever cover it - it was more like a demented roller coaster. 26...Qf2 and it's already Topalov struggling to survive. 27...Kh7 should win, though ...Kg7 wasn't yet terminal. 28...f6 should lose almost instantly to 29. Qc1, but after 29. g5 black's fine again. 31...Qg3 should win for Grishcuk, 32...Ng4 and he'd still be on top. Of course it's a different thing to have to face the challenges at the board and under pressure, but I think in both this game and the Vallejo game Topalov's opponent was actually more likely to come out on top. It wasn't controlled aggression from Topalov but letting things get just a bit out of hand (he called them both "crazy games").
The really remarkable thing was that he actually won both games, when drawing would have been an achievement. Vallejo's position should have been almost impossible to lose but he seemed to collapse psychologically. Shipov commented that if you put some Spanish player in the seat opposite and they made exactly the same moves Vallejo would have won or at least drawn easily.
Kudos to Topalov and it's definitely made the tournament much more fun, but I don't think it's accurate to say this is Topalov being Topalov. He hasn't played such loose chess in a very long while.
"...but I don't think it's accurate to say this is Topalov being Topalov. He hasn't played such loose chess in a very long while."
Exactly. Thanks for saying this. Saying that this is the real Topalov is not anything Topalov would appreciate at all, I'm quite sure.
This is why Fischer will be remembered as the greatest chess player ever imho (with apologies to Morphy,Capa,and Kasparov). He played EVERY move as if it were for the perfection of the game. He had the heart of a samurai with the IQ of an astrophysicist. The price it cost him was great but the line between genius and insanity is a fine one indeed. But are we all better off that he lived and played?
I visited this page first time to get info on people search and found it Very Good Job of acknowledgment and a marvelous source of info......... Thanks Admin! http://www.reverse-phone-look-up.net
Coach Factory recommended you to buy Coach Kristin Bags, the one which can fully display women's elegance and nobleness.coach factory stores embodied both strength of style and features, as well as what else are you able to request only one bag?