Anand's turn with the white pieces today after a complete catastrophe in yesterday's game one. Six different world championship matches have started with an exchange of wins in the first two games, but you have to go back to the second Tal-Botvinnik match in 61 for the last example. Live today at 8am ET. Not to be a snob, but it would be nice if they had someone with native-level English for the English pages of an official site of a world championship match. I'd give dollar for indefinite article or two.
Kasparov thought Anand was crazy for playing that Grunfeld line in the first game. Not only is it very dangerous, he said, but Black doesn't get real chances in compensation for the risks.
Update: Just like I said, every 50 years like clockwork the loser in game one strikes back in game two. After a crushing loss in game one world champion Vishy Anand bounced back with white in a Catalan to even the match heading into the rest day. He made steady progress on the queenside and Topalov, who seemed to come out of the opening in good shape, never found a plan and watched his pushed queenside pawns get picked off. Ironically, the extra pawn Anand gambited in the opening was still on the board on e3 when Topalov resigned the hopeless rook endgame. All the blather about Anand being discombobulated by the brutal loss in the first game can now be summarily defenestrated. Match on!
Maybe I misunderstood the seriousness of Topalov's use of "no draw" rules in this match? You have to go back to 1958 for three decisive games in a row to start a match, but all three were wins by Botvinnik over Smyslov, so a different kettle of borscht there. (They had a remarkably golden-age stretch of eight consecutive decisive games in their first match in 1954.) But these days we don't even have the space on the calendar to equal the first Steinitz-Chigorin match in 1889. The first 16 games were decisive before they drew the final game of the match.
Monday is an off day, then Anand will have to decide whether or not he goes back to the Grunfeld.
"Kasparov thought Anand was crazy"
A little craziness never hurt anyone. I hope Topalov gets nightmares of a crazy psycho Anand.
Wow, I hate the Grunfeld too. Kasparov and I are practically soul mates!
Oh boy, Kaspy is really funny. Thus now we have in Anand a 40 years old WChamp who plays unreasonably risky, and does it so for not even worthy achieveing goals-postions, to begin with.
Is there any worse ?
A little sleuthing - well, practically none - took me to why Ronnie Coleman, the body builder, was suddenly on stage during the WCC.
Yesterday, he opened a body building gym together with the Bulgarian PM, and today he will be participating in a championship which is being staged in Sofia.
Brawns and Brains, you have to hand it to the Bulgarians, they do cover all the bases.
Can we freely speculate that this was the real reason why it was so incredibly difficult to postpone the start of Game 1?
Judging by bulk, it appears the PM is an afficionado.
http://paper.standartnews.com/en/article.php?d=2010-04-25&article=32890
Ah, I'm on to something here. Perusing the article dealing with Topalov's win, in the same stellar publication, I'm struck by the not too subtle allusion in the headline.
Topalov Muscles out Anand in Game One
Legendary bodybuilder Ronnie Coleman and PM Boyko Borissov brought luck to the Bulgarian Grandmaster
http://paper.standartnews.com/en/article.php?d=2010-04-25&article=32890
1. e4 today?
"That Grünfeld line" or Grünfeld as such?
1.e4 c6 0-1
Hopefully Anand dusts himself off and comes out swinging!
Anand should use white and aim for a sterile, "exchanging everything", game and to secure a draw "at will" today.
The objective now is (should be) to regain his own pace and sense of controling the game AND to defuse Topalov's momentum, NOT to press foolishly immediately after a crushing defeat and risk a "0-2 match over".
Topalov's "+1" is, of course, nothing yet , there are be many chances left to equalize.. especially so against Topalov, aguy can't help himself but play for win even against all reasons.
A Catalan has appeared! Perhaps Volodya decided to SMS some lines to his old rival?
it will be all theory for 20 or so moves, the game hasn't started yet despite the appearances
Anyone with knowledge of the line got any comments? thanks
Is 13. Ba5 a serious novelty?
13. Ba5 Gulko-Shulman USA Ch 2008
A pawn down for better/faster development. but there is no real weakness in black's position (yet).
Interesting. maybe Anand will play for slow squeeze.
Pretty sure Anand is still in his prep, but he is taking it much slower than yesterday, painful lesson learned.
Interesting. Anand has no history in the Catalan - is that right? So he's in his prep and Topolov wouldn't be? And going for the slow squeeze is no Topolov's syle.
> And going for the slow squeeze is no Topolov's syle.
I think that is Anand's strategy in this game.
Although, i am no expert in opening theory, but many lines in queen's gambit also has black's bishop stuck at c8 without having to offer a pawn. wonder
what the real difference between this line and other lines.
anyhow, better game for us spectators than yesterday, having enough time to ponder on the position, think on my own the potential weakness/strength on each side and check computer eval, blog comments :-).
Long think by Anand on move 15. Looks like the battle of opening preparation for the match has been won squarely by Topalov so far. I honestly didn't think Anand would get blown away like that in Game 1. In fact I thought that Anand would be too strong for Topalov with his blend of subtlety, tactics and intuitive positional understanding and an opponent against whom Topalov would not be able to post sufficiently sophisticated and long term problems. But if he sleep walks into exactly the kind of position that Topalov loves, and without precise hope prep to back him up, good night sweet prince.
WOW Qa3, what a move, the last move I would ever play. It's either extremely good or extremely bad, in either case, most interesting..
now a pawn down and the queen side pawn structure is wrecked. Anand took a long time for the Qa3 move,
evaluating the risks.
Home page "Internal server error", quelle surprise
"I am speechless. 15. Qa3 is a shockingly bad move. White has no winning chances whatsoever after this. Black wasn't threatening anything, so why exchange off the queens, ruin your pawn formation and make things easy for Black all at one go? And this dubious decision has come VERY early in the game." -- Nigel Short
space
Surely Short is being over the top here - this can't be far out of Anand's preparations.
Short is prone to OTT comments.
> space
i am not sure that is enough for the pawn and wrecked pawn structure. Just hope Anand knows what he is doing, and quick. Topalov now has a chance to activate his b on b2.
As long as it's even one move out of it, why not?
b7
At move 20, Anand's position isn't looking that bad?! So I don't know if Short saw all this
Then let's invite him to the Dirt! Hehe.
I can't believe we're out of Anand's prep so obviously he believes that White's compensation is sufficient.
And there are weaknesses in Black's game- rotten black squared bishop, poor coordination, weaknesses aroung d6/c6/c7...will be very interesting to see if Anand can exploit them.
btw... how?
How exactly could Topalov benefit from the wrecked pawn structure? He needs to play Ba7-e7!!?
I also think that Anand has compensation for the pawn - whether it's (more than) enough remains to be seen. No need for Sofia rules to make the game continue for quite some time ... .
> btw... how?
don't understand your question. how what?
how can white squeeze? or how can black re-org his pieces? I dont' have the answer to either question :-) i just see that given enough time black can reorg his pieces, example, Topalov just clear the b1 square for his bishop.
Topalov is playing computer perfect moves so far. I find it fishy. 1st choice moves all the way.
yup, very good play so far by Topalov while under-pressure (if he is not cheating, that's it).
> How exactly could Topalov benefit from the wrecked pawn structure?
That will be a liability when the endgame approaches (which is one possible direction of this slow strategic game). Also, now that the b1 square is vacated, Topa can put his bishop on the very active d6 square.
Those black bishops on adjacent diagonals appear to be ominous. Be ware, Anand ...
Well, he did not play 16..Nc5, which was clearly favoured by Rybka and some strong humans (including Short). It wouldn't have allowed White to set up this little bind, even though I also am very skeptical about his prospects to make more than a draw even now...
21.f4?! ..I do not understand this, maybe Anand is owned by Freud's "death-instinct"
These conspiracy things get tiring. There's nothing so far that a good amateur couldn't figure out and you wouldn't rely on a computer for advice in these positions.
Anand is playing strange stuff. f4 now. I don't understand any of it. Is topalov going to win again? I am completely baffled.
how does he plan to activate b7? he cannot ... not anytime soon
now with 21 f4, Anand further disrupts the long term health of his pawn structure ...
But at the same time it limits Black's bishop. This is a very interesting game. Black has material in exchange for pressure on his position, Anand must think Top not comfortable in such positions.
> how does he plan to activate b7?
by putting it on b7 he already activates it, as compare to being dead meat on c8. now it participates in the defense of the h1-a8 diagonal. It also cleared the way for black to connect his rooks, which made Bb1 possible.
There is chance of Anand getting into time trouble in pressure to win.
Good! Now in the 4th game we are going to see 1e4
Beginning to understand f4. It makes the game complex. Anand is beginning to show some fight.
at last, White invades !!
If Anand does outplay Topalov here than Qa3?!/!? will become Qa3!!
now Topalov is being Topalov with h4 ... :-)
like fish meets water
Roamingwind, your board seems to be upside down!
Things are warming up after N-e3. All in all, a genuine struggle today
http://www.flickr.com/photos/49601223@N05/4551151376/
funny both guys have the same uncommon "gandhi's second monkey" posture..too noisy there perhaps?!
I know ... I am just not good at typing. sorry.
btw, now with the weak Ne6 from Black, looks like White can regain the pawn with advantage.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4007/4551151376_a6a2043c00_o.jpg
Well, what do you know.
Aren't there predecessors for offering a queen exchange and allowing doubled pawns in return for some positional compensation (space advantage, weakened squares in the opponent's camp, control of open lines, ...)? I vaguely remember an entire article on this, could have been NewinChess or the German magazine "Schach". Another story is whether it's good or bad in the given situation.
In general, I think engines are of relatively little help in positions as in the current game - which may be part of Anand's strategy because Topalov might feel uncomfortable. NOT because he would have engine assistance during the game, but because he is stronger in concrete tactical positions. Cf. Kramnik's approach against Kasparov (often including an early queen exchange).
How bad is Azmai's drivel on the official site? Pathetic.
To me, in spite of the loss of queens, this is a complex and difficult position to play. Perhaps its equal, but there is quite some play left in my opinion.
Now white is definitely better, whew !! :-)
He can work on picking up the loose black a pawn and e pawn. Still, there is a lot of play left.
Maybe Black can dispute control of the c file and combine this with transfering the knight to d5 and the king to f6. The a5 pawn is not long for this world though. Hmmm......
As an amateur, I think White has good prospects to win after his 28th move, given that the Black 'a' pawn cannot be defended, and White can push their 'a' pawns for a touchdown...
I try to avoid untoward criticisms, but given that they are rambling and indulging in mindless platitudes on what after all is the official broadcast channel from the organisers, I think I am allowed to opine that Antoaneta and Azmai are demonstrating conclusively that they are mediocre players in addition to being very poor commentators.
Yeah, now White is better of course. ..Ne3 must count as a blunder.
A bit strange despite everything. I understand he got impatient and all that, but those ideas with ..Ba7 and ..Rxd3 aren't even close to working. So he just gave back the pawn for nothing.
It was (and is) nothing less and nothing more than a queenless middlegame ... . BTW, did Short comment again on the game? If Anand's strategy included waiting for Topalov losing patience, it seemingly worked out (25.-Ne3?!).
"It was (and is) nothing less and nothing more than a queenless middlegame ... ."
Huh? What did I say?
yeah. all Anand needs to do is putting his rook on b3 (i think)
How's 28..RxN 29.PXR Ba7 , if white shifts R then e7+
Mig sez "Not to be a snob, but it would be nice if they had someone with native-level English for the English pages of an official site of a world championship match."
I don't think this is a snobbism, even myself for whom English is a second language, I 'd like to see 'proper' English used in official commentaries. But NOT hire NASTY NIGEL for this, please!!!
"BTW, did Short comment again on the game?"
Sure, a lot. His last comment suggests that Topalov must have missed 30.d4 for White if 27.Rxb6 Rxd3 (starting with that makes more sense) 28.exd3 Ba7 29.Rb1 Ba7+.
But as Anand showed, White had 27.Bf3 anyway.
Sorry, 29..e2+
hm ... wonder why he is taking so long on this move.
Just play it safe and move the freaking rook to b3 !!
He is running low on time.
I have a sinking feeling that Anand is heading for time trouble. And if Topalov stands by what he said about Sofia rules, Anand may not be able to take a draw in a superior position.
I forgot (or considered it redundant) to start by "I agree with you". This also means that I disagree with Nigel Short as well as the (verbalized Rybka?) evaluation on chessok: "Looks like without queens white can't play for the winning already".
Oops, this was of course a reply to d_tal (10:54AM)
I think Anand has played a very classy game up to now. He understands the position in depth, and is spending time on the many tricky lines right now; I don't think he will get into serious game losing time trouble.
I think Vishy is going to win now. Not exactly Topalov's speciality to defend positions like this..
Yes, it was hard to understand initially what Anand was upto but it's now becoming clear. Anand is outplaying Topalov in this 'queenless middlegame'. I hope he wins.
now black's a pawn will be gone. note that black can not take white's a pawn due to the bishop fork on c6.
I think this is going to be 1-0. Anand played a really amazing Kramnik-like game. I think Vlady could very well be helping him. Together with morozevich, and Bill Clinton. This is my new theory.
"Not exactly Topalov's speciality to defend positions like this.."
Yes, maybe now he would like to have Kramnik sitting on his chair??
Morozevich may have helped with yesterday's game, what is Bill Clinton's (and Putin's) contribution?
Anand now has 6 moves in 10 minutes ...
For the Chess world is now clear, why Anand preparated Queen change 15. Qa3!! After another 15 moves we see why he tried to push Topalov in this hole, without queen.
Btw, top marks to the organisers for the live video feed and the move relay, which so far has been very smooth and in sync.
34. a3! Is also a taktical move. If Topalov want to win this pawn, he hast to play Ra2. And as soon there happens a change, the another pawn on a line goes to become a QUEEN, easier.
Except that the 'live' video and the 'live' moves seem to have nothing to do with each other. When the board shows it is Anand's move, the video shows Topalov making a move and vice versa. Any idea which one is more current?
Hmmm... try reloading? The moves and video are in sync for me.
I can´t see the video, just listen to the audio with a black screen. Do you know how to solve this problem?
Just nonsense, a vague idea about the fight between good and evil, BC always being on the good side... About moro, i agree, but i think it is very important to loose in a spectacular way!
You have to right-click on the video and then choose Zoom - Full Screen (as mentioned in the Chessbomb live coverage)
renookie, in the beginning I tried opening the video using "open in a new window" and that didn't work. just clicking on it worked.
The one comment from Stefanova I was able to understand : "connected passed pawns - hopeless"
Methinks this is won for Anand now; very, VERY classy game. The current World Champion has a truly universal style.
1-0. Nice game by Anand.
Boom goes the dynamite. Topa better hope he has a slew of novelties as he won't be outplaying Anand over the board.
Short is a gas bag. Why not let Anand complete a line he clearly prepared? It's not like Short did any better with his lone chance at a WC.
Durek was Facebooking and caused his comp to crash. By the time it was rebooted, it was too late :)
Great stuff..Anand can finish this in time to root for the Chennai Super Kings!
1-0! Just as I predicted in the comments yesterday. Balls of steel, Anand! In Bonn and Mexico, he never had to come from behind, like earlier World Champions did (Fischer, Kasparov...). Now he shows he can do that too!
I am rooting for Mumbai Indians ;-)
Thank you very much Thomas and rajeshv for the advice. Better luck for Topalov next game!
Finally!
Topalov fell apart in the later middlegame, I expected better resistance than that. Kudos to Vishy. This match is looking good so far!!
LoL - tried accessing Chessdom this is the error message I got:
502 Bad Gateway
Agreed. Attention seeking "gas" seems to come out of him far too often.
so what hapnd to the active b7?
it's all over.
Nice long "old man" style game :-)
I think it all started with
22 ...a4 that allows white to invade on c6.
Topalov went astray in a good postion with 24..h5 and 25..Ne3...It seems that he lost the sense of danger after he solved well the opening phase.
Anand merely capitalized these mistakes, he did not force them. This wasn't any great squeeze or a great game.
Wow now there's a lesson in how to play chess. Its one thing to enjoy a great tactical battle but tonight was a great example of accumulation of small advantages.
Balls of steel, indeed! And his detractors can forget about the timber he purportedly put on. It's nothing but baby fat. And people harping on the age difference, may please listen. Age is just a number. Anand in his mind and heart is definitely the younger guy. Go Vishy, go!!!
This loss is clearly the result of a glitch in Topalov's internet connection. Danailov sent 16....Nc5, but Topalov's concealed device didn't receive it.
Perhaps Anand is cheating by scrambling all signals within 100 miles of the playing hall? If that's the case, Topalov's only chance is to secretly offer the Indian GM a booty of 700 pounds of fresh curry in exchange for the match. The action away from the board tends to be more interesting that the computer-generated moves on it.
you have to take the move in the context of the position at that point. Topalov made mistakes latter on in the game, which shows Anand's
strategy for the game was correct (forcing Topalov to play positional chess at the cost on one pawn and weak structure).
That does not mean putting the bishop on b7 was not a good move.
Objectively true, but this was a case of playing the man as well as the board. Anand got an ok position after Topalov's N7f6 but then just hung back enough to allow Topalov to embark on his fatal plan.
Computers may not like the game, but as a human spectacle, it was fascinating.
Awesome. One can enjoy a tactical feast but to watch one player outplay another at this level by accumulating small advantages - a great lesson in chess. So what now? I guess Anand will avoid the Grunfeld, and Topolov the Catalan if at all possible. Aside from the memory lapse the choice of the Grunfeld looks odder when is clear that as white at least he intends to play in classical style.
press conf not being broadcast? is it somewhere?
Yeah, Topalov can't play such positions for long.
He can if he forces himself (and he can even very well as in this game, he was at least equal if not better by move 24) only for that period when he still sees himself as in trouble and in clear need to be careful and defend ...and then loses self-control and patience and starts 'active' playing
Someone reported that Topalov was complaining to Danilov that he could not see the pieces on the board well because his nose got in the way.
b7 basically pinned the knight on d5 ... kept 2 pieces passive while anand squeezed ... b7 was an error the comps will not point out
Hilarious! :-)
I wonder if the internet will develop a successful Squelch control, like on ham radio or shortwave, to filter out all the noise. On chessbomb, I couldn't even make any stupid comments, because everyone else was busy making stupid comments!
There is an investigation in London by the local bookmakers that Anand threw the first game so he could put a few quid down with better odds on the match.
>b7 basically pinned the knight on d5 ... kept 2
> pieces passive while anand squeezed ... b7 was an > error the comps will not point out
then i and you differ in our evaluation of the position. to me it allows a) the two rooks to connect, b) black's rook to move to d8, which enable, c) moving the king bishop to b8 (as opposed to being dead meat on a2, which further protects c7 from white's rook invasion, c) it helps support the long diagonal and d5 square. Those are good things to do, reorg the pieces to defend key squares.
>> Anand should use white and aim for a sterile, "exchanging everything", game and to secure a draw "at will" today.
>> WOW Qa3, what a move, the last move I would ever play.
>> "I am speechless. 15. Qa3 is a shockingly bad move. White has no winning chances whatsoever after this. Black wasn't threatening anything, so why exchange off the queens, ruin your pawn formation and make things easy for Black all at one go? And this dubious decision has come VERY early in the game." -- Nigel Short
>> 21.f4?! ..I do not understand this, maybe Anand is owned by Freud's "death-instinct"
>> now with 21 f4, Anand further disrupts the long term health of his pawn structure ...
ROFL.
topa next move to move the rook out of b file loses the g1-a8 diag ... thats potent look again ... comp evaluation only based on peices on board and coverage of squares ... does not take into acc passivity of squares covered ... ovr n out
dee4, you will note that I did not say the move was bad. Try to read carefully, eh?
Did one already find out who is on both players' teams ? Any secret seconds ? Carlsparov secretly seconding for Vish ?
"He can if he forces himself (and he can even very well as in this game, he was at least equal if not better by move 24) only for that period when he still sees himself as in trouble and in clear need to be careful and defend..."
Ovidiu said something which makes sense only for him and another 200 Bulgarians who have Internet connection.
BTW, Short had company for his evaluation of Qa3, Susan Polgar wrote:
"15.Qa3 I do not understand Anand here. Is this home preparation? Why would he trade Queen and free up space for Black when he is a pawn down? Yes, Anand still has some compensation for the pawn. But this surely cannot be what Anand was hoping for with his first White of the match."
As the game continued, it turned out that it wasn't SUCH a bad move and white kept a "playable" position. Methinks chesshire cat is wrong: it was neither extremely good nor extremely bad, but at least it gave Topalov chances to go wrong. Veselin took his chances and Vishy said "thank you".
Maybe we can reach the following shocking conclusions:
- Anand is a bit stronger than Short and Polgar
- While both players speak Spanish, Anand is more fluent in Catalan. What does this mean for possible future Ruy Lopez's in the match?
BTW, Topalov is again #2 in the live rating list ... .
> comp evaluation only based on peices on board and > coverage of squares ... does not take into acc
> passivity of squares covered ... ovr n out
not only that is comp evaluation. it was also my evaluation :-) (which does not mean anything, i know) just to indicate that, to me, it is a normal way for rearranging the pieces in such position.
it is precisely because of the "passivity of the squares covered" that Topalov reorg the pieces like that. Anand offered a pawn, Topalov took it knowing that it will enable Anand to have quicker development, Anand further disrupts his queen side structure to have more space and mobility. It's a give-and-take exchange. that entire portion of the game is to see whether Anand's bet/strategy/risk is worth it.
A great game for Anand which sums up why many of us are picking Anand to win. He's more flexible than Topalov, can play almost equally well in quiet, manuevering positions (like today) or the tactical slugfests that Topalov excels in. Topalov's best hope is that he has enough opening innovations to be significantly better out of the opening, with positions to his liking. In even positions, I just don't see him beating Anand.
However one looks at it, it's a superb start to the match with both players showing what they do best. Should be a great match overall.
I understood that your comment was (meant to be) nonsense, so was my response.
More nonsense: Now I understand why team Anand was watching "Lord of the Rings" on the way to Sofia!
I think its obvious that Kramnik is moonlighting as a second for Vishy safe from his Paris home :D
much deserving win by Anand..but he is still not out of the woods..his Grunfeld was busted. Guess we will see Queen's gambit in game 3.
Asim
Developer of PGNReader for mobile
http://asimpereira.tripod.com
Great win by Anand. The match is now on an even footing. Can he find a way to be out-bombed as black? If he doesn't, the match is Topa's 'cause Topa will hold some of today's types of positions even if their not his cup of tea.
Annotating by result is a dangerous thing.
Nice to have Ovidiu back, is it not?
"Anand should use white and aim for a sterile, "exchanging everything", game and to secure a draw "at will" today.
The objective now is (should be) to regain his own pace and sense of controling the game AND to defuse Topalov's momentum, NOT to press foolishly immediately after a crushing defeat and risk a "0-2 match over"."
Lovely to see he hasn't lost his incisive instincts about chess...
..both players showing what they do best...
that's hardly the case, up to now they have shown what they do worst..Anand forgetting lines (or mixing up the order) in memorized home preparation and Topalov ruining his position rather than do slow-manouvering play
The best format for replaying with analysis is undoubtedly to be found on the Chessvibes website, which is really convenient for playing through the moves with clickable analysis by the side of the board, which never goes out of sight.
Mark Crowther / Malcolm Pein of TWIC, if you happen to see this comment, many thanks for your dependable and excellent coverage of current affairs in Chess, and especially this WC. If I may make a constructive suggestion, the formatting of your pages at TWIC aren't the most user friendly. In the game page for example, the board disappears when you have to scroll down for the clickable moves. This can be easily fixed by putting the moves in a fixed height container element for the clickable code as in Chessvibes. The css syntax for this is very simple; one possibility is to declare the following to contain the analysis:
where "w" and "h" are the fixed dimensions for the container element. Hope you don't get offended by this suggestion and thanks for your continuous great work.
Oh man, the code disappeared, Here we go again without the angle brackets:
div style="width:540px; height:430px; overflow:auto; padding:4px;"
It only shows that Anand views things differently than Ovidiu. Whenever you air your views, there is always a chance that you will be proved wrong. Can't fault Ovidiu about it.
sorry again, meant to write:
div style="width:"w" px; height:"h" px; overflow:auto;
Shades of Lasker-Capa, St. Pete 1914. Go Vishy!
Well Thomas, I'll leave the assessment of the move to theoreticians, but for shock value and guts I'll give it a "very good". It also gets a "very good" cos it's a case of a GM showing me something completely unsuspected in a position :). And I was not the only one surprised.
It probably helped put Topalov off his stride, or got him out of his prep. About the Ruy, Anand's German is a little dodgy, so he might have problems with the Berlin...(although I hear they have "odd" accents too, so maybe not...)
i hope anand screamed "lightweight baby!" after the game, in honor of ronnie coleman.
A better test of the Qa3 move is whether or not Anand would have played the same move against Kramnik.
Svidler on ICC mentioned that Qa3 was very good practical decision, he was analysing without computers, so he was spot on than Short and Susan. Does anyone have link to russian GMs live comments
".. it was neither extremely good nor extremely bad, but at least it gave Topalov chances to go wrong. Veselin took his chances and Vishy said "thank you".
yes, it was an objectively bad move, and also a bad move against..Karpov or Kramnik.
But Anand seems to have got the point that against Topalov you should give him chances to self-destruct. I suspect that we are going to see more such "Queen-less" games in this match where Anand waits and just manouvers back and forth and Topalov wrecks his position in his search for a 'dynamic' play.
Now I'm Vishyful as to my prediction about the outcome not being unrealistic at all.
Having Short on ignore doesn't help when people keep pasting his rants into pages all over the internets. :-)
Whereas the first game was a case of "I've studied this complicated position -- oops," the second game looked like a case of one player seeming to have a deeper understanding of chess itself. We've all been on both sides of the "oops" scenario, but it's hard to outdistance yourself from a peer purely strategically. From a sporting standpoint, it's all even, but I like Anand's spot a lot more now than before game one.
I don't remember that he said that! I remember he was looking at 16..Nc5 and trying to figure out what could possibly be Vishy's idea.. Other strong players say the same thing: that White is fighting for a draw only. Short had 16..Nc5 in mind too: "certainly a better move for Black, after which he would have been firmly on top".
Anish Giri on Chessbase has mixed feelings, depending on if he looks at it practically or objectively: "15.Qa3?! As I said, later it worked out well for Anand. At the time I doubted the objective evaluation of the move, but after seeing the whole game I was wondering – maybe it was pure genius, from a psychological point of view!? [...] 16...N7f6?! logical, but the more logical 16...Nc5! was the move. I think White would have to fight for the draw, and I am curious what Anand wanted to play here and what Topalov was afraid of."
Anish Giri on Chessbase :
".. 24.Rxc6 h5?! A strange, impulsive and weakening move
.. 25...Ne3? Now the real mistake comes. I think Topalov got tired of making moves without any idea. He wanted to force things."
This is what I have been talking about. Topalov does like this every time he is given a chance (i.e. when the game doesn't have a clear big goal on which he he can focus his energy).
Perhaps the 'paradigmatic' example this flaw of Topalov is the 2nd rapid game at Elista-WCh where he self destructed in such kind of game/position for no apparent reason.
I made it to Sofia just in time to watch the game - it was all a bit surreal to enter the hall and immediately see Danailov chatting and smiling away...
They don't have any sort of commentary in the venue (unless I complete missed it, and if you don't count all the loud "whispering"!), so it's probably the worst place in the world to actually know what's going on - but at least you get some real satisfaction when you do work out some of the tactics.
It was really hard to tell exactly when either player left their home prep. My impression at least was that Anand had misplayed things and was close to just being a pawn down - oddly I'd also decided on Qa3 before Anand played it, but only on the principle that nothing else seemed to work and at least without queens it would be technically tough for Topalov to win. Then after that although I saw it said above that Topalov's tricks weren't close to working it certainly looked as though they might - and Anand used a lot of time making sure (could he have won the a pawn earlier instead of retreating to b3?).
I think the turning point was Bf3 - Anand played that with a flourish and left the stage (right). Then came back but soon went stage left to make some coffee (it's funny as you can see them taking refreshments - and the video feed as they walk to the toilet, which Topalov did pretty often...). Anyway, Anand seemed to have everything worked out there and knew he was winning the b pawn and would have all the winning chances.
I felt a bit sorry for Topalov at the end. You could see he was desperately trying to find something that worked, but also didn't want to lose on time. So they just blitzed out the last moves - and Anand kept playing instantly to force Topalov to resign to avoid looking silly. There was a nice round of applause at the end, but it ended a bit abruptly - I'm guessing it dragged on more yesterday!
No sign of "Toilet War" on the book stall - I was hoping to get a copy...
"the second game looked like a case of one player seeming to have a deeper understanding of chess itself".
Finally someone sees it! :D
It amuses me no end when 'experts' - all the longs and Shorts of the chess world - doing live commentary (live commentary, mind you; not post match in-depth analysis) criticizing a Vishy Anand move and making him look stupid. A move like Qa3 may look bad objectively - against a Rybka 3, for example. But what about respecting Vishy's judgment of Topalov's mind? That he might relax after the queens go off the board or that complacency or lack of enough understanding of chess nuances would lead to positional blunders like h5 and Nf3? Why not just sit back and enjoy the Vishy Anand show, rather than having to eat one's own words later on..
"Why not just sit back and enjoy the Vishy Anand show, rather than having to eat one's own words later on.."
Well, in Short's case (as you were referring to him), he is being paid to comment, so it wouldn't look so good if he simply "sat back" -- or just gave us the most trivial comments. He is expected to speak his mind, even if he might embarrass himself in the process.
Moreover, nothing happened in this game that made him have to eat his words apart from "...no winning chances whatsoever". But even that is only if you interpret it literally. Everyone who says so is aware that there is always at least a small chance that there will be a blunder.
As various others already pointed out, there is certainly a difference between the "objective" assessment of 15.Qa3 and its psychological effect in the given situation. Believe it or not (it's easy to say or claim in hindsight), I also at least considered that move so it didn't come as a real surprise to me. Maybe because I vaguely remember some predecessors - still have to find out which game(s) I have in mind, maybe with help from others ... .
On language issues: from the one interview I heard, I would say Anand's German is "not bad" for a non-native speaker. It's a matter of taste, but I would say it isn't worse than Naiditsch's (an ex-Soviet living in Germany since the age of 11 or so).
But of course it doesn't mean much or anything for the match, after what happened to Anand yesterday in an Indian defense .... .
I think the Bulgarians are bad hosts, To try to piss off an easy going guy like Anand with stupid objections and silly 'Soifia" rules is bad sportsmanship. Instant Karma's going to get them!!
"There was a nice round of applause at the end, but it ended a bit abruptly "
I'm surprised there was surprise at all! Well some Bulgarians are sporting it seems.
"There was a nice round of applause at the end, but it ended a bit abruptly "
I'm surprised there was applause at all! Well some Bulgarians are sporting it seems.
...But what about respecting Vishy's judgment of Topalov's mind?
There wasn't any comment "pro" or "aginst" on that, Short, Polgar etc. commented the move itself ('objectively') and forget that positions are 'good' or 'bad' function of the style (strenghts and weaknesses, whether they are "your kind" of positions).
Strange is that even the players themselves often forget about that, like Kramnik going for the sharp Meran against Anand (twice !) while he isn't a tactical player, or Topalav today playing the positional Catalan, and not palying the KID or Benoni against Anand whi is experienced with 1.d4, and so on.
Also Topa-apologists (Topologists?) are barking up the wrong tree by dissing Qa3. By that logic, their man is more chump than champ to lose to second-best moves.
Let me clarify something once and for all: NOTHING about Susan Polgar's commentary is live. She is utterly shameless about going back and adding evaluations and analysis with perfect hindsight. I have seen her add 'predictions' 30 minutes after the moves in question have been made. (And one of those 'suggestions' will actually be followed, of course, unless it turned out to be a bad move.) All in the service of projecting an all-knowing image to her perhaps more naive audience (compared with other chess sites). If you read it, don't think of it as live commentary, but as her fantasy about what a cleverer version of herself would write if she were observing the match.
Or there were also some foreigners watching the game? At least mishanp himself is not Bulgarian, and whenever I am watching live at Corus I hear (whispering in) several other languages besides Dutch ... .
There were non-Bulgarians, but the applause was from Bulgarians as well. As a spectator the venue was very welcoming - though some sort of commentary for those watching in the hall would be nice.
I don't even bother to look at Susan Polgar's live comments. They're so superficial I'm not even sure I would do much worse.
Fundamentally, competitive chess is about reaching positions you know how to play better than your opponents. When we speak about the objective value of moves, we often forget this insight.
"All the blather about Anand being discombobulated by the brutal loss in the first game can now be summarily defenestrated."
Blather, brutal, discombobulated, and defenestrated in one sentence. Colorful language. I like it.
"Anand will have to decide whether or not he goes back to the Grunfeld."
It's going to be a Gruenfeld. He's crazy, remember? I think Anand wanted to make a point in the first game which he obviously couldn't. I think he will try again in game 3.
What is Ovidiu trying to say?
That Topa is so smart a player that if not for 'beating' himself no one would ever be able to beat him otherwise?
Nonsense.
Ovidiu, once Anand dragged Topa out of his home prep he forced Topa into mistakes by getting into a deep position that either Topa was incapable of thinking through or impatient enough not to want to think through.
And Ovidiu, impatience at this level comes from an inability to comprehend deep positional chess.
So spare us the apologies on behalf of Topa this, Topa that.
He might still make a match out of it. Anand has to drag Topa out of his home prep to win this from here on.
Jack, don't argue with Ovidiu. There is a saying in English, "You can never win an argument with an idiot because he will pull the argument down to 'his level' and then beat you with experience"
Susan Polgar's live comments are silly. Every move that rybka dislikes she is like "I don't like this move, move X was better" move X beeing the comp move. Pointless comments.
Let's not over-hype Topa's opening preparation. It's just that Anand blundered with Kf7 otherwise after Bd7 the position is still equal.
@ Ovidiu, impatience at this level comes from an inability to comprehend deep positional chess.
It comes from personality (temperament, tempo, style, etc.) and personality itself has unchangeable-biological-gentic roots (likely an over-active thyroid in the case of Topalov). Some poeple like rock some other melancholic blues, and no deeper "understanding" of music will change that.
Or try to get a man being interested, and not losing patience in caring for toddlers, or a woman in playing FPS shooter video games online.
Topalov dynamic-aggressive style doesn't fit well this kind of positions (of passive manouvering for control and for maintaing the balance). He needs a clear plan, a clear goal, to pound it hard to achieve it.
Topalov's aggressive-dynamic-decisive- style is
of the the same class ,for instance, to that of
R. Nezhmetdinov. And his main weakness to be exploited, as Anand did today, is also the same.
Yuri Averbakh :
"If Nezhmetdinov had the attack he could kill anybody, including Tal. But my score against him was something like 8½–½ because I did not give him any possibility for an active game. In such cases he would immediately start to spoil his position because he was looking for complications."
Hopeful for a result like Anand - Kamsky (1994 PCA finals) where Anand lost the first game unexpectedly (on time of all things!) and the commentary after game one suggested that he was in serious trouble if he was losing on time. But, he came back to win games 3, 9, and 11 and comfortably take the match 6.5 - 4.5.
Aingle Pack: You were right about the 'idiot' thing :-) But still I'll argue with Ovidiu just one more time :-)
Ovidiu: So you are essentially saying that Topa is a very one-dimensional player who can win only if he has a 'goal' (as if winning WCC is not a goal!). It's like Topa telling Anand "I will beat you if you will let me do it my way."
So why would any player want to give the opponent their way? It holds true for the other player too.
If you are not versatile you have no business sitting at that table.
If I were Anand, I'd stay away from the Gruenfeld. At the very least, if he can't resist "playing with fire", pick a better variation.
Tip of the cap to Ovidiu; some knowledgeable and insightful comments there.
Isn't the Catalan just the Gruenfeld with an extra move? :)
Short has so many chips on his shoulder he could start a carpentry shop and never run out of material. I don't think he's capable of objective analysis even about his own games.
Didn't follow Polgar's commentary, but enjoyed listening to the ICC discussions.
What was happening at the official site defies description.
Wish I'd followed the chessbomb/chessdom commentary. I understand that went to pieces when Topalov's game fell apart.
"Does anyone have link to russian GMs live comments?"
http://online.crestbook.com/antop10-02.htm
Shipov's comments are amazingly good for live analysis:
"15.Qa3 Praise the chess gods, we've left the worn tracks. Moreover, Vishy's made a move that you really won't think up in a minute... The novelty of the season! It's rare to find a queen exchange on white's initiative in this sort of position. I remember something analogous at the end of the Kasparov-Smyslov candidates' match, I think, the 9th game... Garry also exchanged queens in a similar manner, and even doubled his pawns - and then won convincingly."
or later:
"17.Nce5 The only way of holding black in check. However, it's not deep. And white still hasn't made any real threats. Such is the general philosophy of this Catalan variation: white openly stifles black, disturbs him, doesn't allow him to develop - and he himself, essentially, doesn't attack anything. Just waits for a mistake - a bold, unconsidered move. In general it's a psychological still life. For normal people it's extremely hard to sit at the board for a long time and endure such deprivation. You desperately want to escape from its clutches! And this natural desire - is the most serious threat to yourself!"
This describes exactly what I was thinking at one point today:
"24.Rxc6 Also aiming for the b6 pawn. I know myself a clear effect of watching the games of great players: When one of them makes a move it seems that everything is great with his position. Then when the other makes a move it seems as though everything's excellent for him. And that the first has problems - and so on. From move to move your internal impression of the position (of course, about equal) sways from side to side like the pendulum of a 19th-century grandfather clock. A normal spectator's instinct".
Or the summary at the end:
"Today the world champion exacted convincing revenge. He didn't only recover after the crushing in the first game, but also showed himself to be a subtle psychologist. He managed to get an opening variation which didn't suit his opponent's character. In order to defend accurately and for a long time you need the sang froid and philosophic approach to life of Anand, and not the raging temperament and energy of Topalov. And Veselin couldn't withstand it! For a while, to a certain point everything was ok - about even - and then the challenger rushed into quick and active play, which totally undermined his position. Vishy confidently converted his advantage and tied the match score at: 1-1."
Hey mishanp, how many times did Topalov visit the toilet and how many times did Anand do the same?
Well, I just spent some time going through Chessdom's commentary, and there's nothing wrong with that. Restitution is in order, compared to some of the comments above.
Very straightforward and sensible. They were confused by 21. f4, but so was Topalov.
http://live.chessdom.com/anand-topalov-2010-g2.html
@jaideepblue: "Isn't the Catalan just the Gruenfeld with an extra move? :)"
That was funny-- very good! Maybe Anand can sneak into the hall a few minutes early on Tuesday, play 0...g6, and hope that Topalov won't notice.
Well, it looks like 15. Qa3 is probably a throw away novelty--not likely to be repeated. I could even see giving it an evaluation of !?, even not taking into account the shock effect. Still, not likely to make the list of Top Ten novelties for 2010.
The closest analogy in a World Championship match is when Fischer played the Benoni in Game 3 of the 1972 match vs. Spassky, and then played 11...Nh5 (after some 9 minutes thought). Spassky naturally responded with 12. Bxh5, leaving Fischer with doubled h pawns, and a weakened pawn shield around his King. Yet, only a few moves later, Fischer was able to play 16...hxg4, repairing the pawn structure. The result was 0-1, and Fischer's first victory over Spassky.
Opening novelties can be effective even if they are objectively bad--unless they are obviously bad. Often it leads to better practical results to play a sharp, double-edged novelty--even if an existing line is objectively stronger.
It can certainly be argued that Anand may be relatively superior to Topalov in various areas of his game, but Topalov's rating now stands a tad higher than Anand's, and Topalov has a slight plus score against Anand at Classical time controls in serious games. Unless one of the players cracks, it will be a very close match.
Interestingly, if Anand hadn't blunderd in Game 1, I don't think that Short and the other commentators would hav been so quick to unequivocably criticize Anand's 15. Qa3.
Hopefully, the reciprocal wins by first Topalov, and then by Anand, will allow for a "Fresh start" to the match, after the Rest Day. It will be, in effect, 10 Game match, with most of the controversy and grievances from the circumstances of the delay already effectively resolved.
Of course, Danailov doesn't need much pretext to file a law suit, or embark on a whole new area of provocations.
In one respect, Anand was canny with his play in Game 2. If he did stand objectively worse at some point after (or before) 15. Qa3, that essentially deflected the psychological pressure of the "Sofia Rules" back onto Topalov. In the game position, Topalov might have been slightly better. In the match position, getting an easy (and quick) draw certainly suited Topalov. However, Over the Board Black faced seriuous challenges in finding the correct strategic plan, or understanding the key positional motifs. In a "normal" tournament game, Topalov might have invited a repetition by around move 30, or even offered a draw. But Danailov has effectively tied his hands, and Topalov does not have recourse to such options.
Consider: Anand (now that the match score is equalized), if he again finds himself with a small, but lasting advantage, can freely offer Topalov a draw, knowing that Topalov will be under much psychological pressure to adhere to his unilateral vows. Anand would have to be prepared to have his "bluff" called (if Topalov were to "eat crow", and accept the Draw Offer), but if the game is close to even, and the likelihood of a draw great under any event, the effect could be quite unpleasant. It would be like tormenting somebody who is obliged to adhere to a fast, by offering them a sumptuous feast.
Of course, Anand knows that if he gets the worse position, he may need to fight for the draw all of the way to Bare Kings. However, Topalov has always been a "Maximalist" in this respect: seeking to exploit the slightest advantage, whether manifest by the position on the chessboard, or the amount of time remaining on the clock even if the objective result was a draw, and even if the overwhelming probability, in practice, was that the game would end in a draw.
To me, it will be fascinating to see how Topalov and Anand respond when it comes time to accept the inevitability that the game will end a Draw. Will Anand tacitly conspire to 'chop wood' down to Bear Kings. Will Topalov be complicit in participating in an unforced (where there are roughly equal alternatives which would allow the game to continue) Repetition of Position? And will Topalov force the game to continue well past the point of decorum which would otherwise compel a player to accede to a Draw?
Grrr Roar
I haven't been following the Bulgarian news for a couple of days... but Danailov's still busy. Apparently Chessbase are breaking the law and risking being sued, again: http://tinyurl.com/364okng
Mishanp, did you see my prior question?
Shipov's live comments in English can be found here:
http://www.chessnc.com/en/online/
Unfortunately, the translator is obviously not a native speaker...
After each game Sergey also produces rather extensive video comments - alas, only in Russian. Here is the 2nd game 20-minute video:
http://www.crestbook.com/files/Sofia-2010-Game-2-Summary.wmv
@chessbase are breaking the law and risking being sued...
Germans breaking the rules ? Can't be true.
Wow! Qa3! Anand! Down goes the toilet weasel!
I think Topalov won the battle of the toilet visits, but maybe only by something like 5:3 (plus he seemed to have forgotten his watch at the start!?). I was expecting to see him a bit more rooted to the board, though when things were getting critical neither of them moved much (until Anand knew he was winning easily).
Good, this Hamburg gambit can distract Danialov for a while until Anand goes into the lead. And what on earth is a pretendentskiya match?
Can we call a moratorium on loose usage of the word "blunder"?
I keep hearing that Anand "blundered" with ...Kf7 in game 1. True, the position went from about equal to almost lost or truly lost in one move, but it took a deep knight sacrifice to prove that. He didn't leave a piece hanging or anything.
Now we have Topalov's ...h5 and ...Nd3 described as "positional blunders" by some here. Give me a break! Not every mistake is a "blunder."
Got crushed myself today in Game 1-like style. Hope to come back next time in Game 2-like revenge :)
Topalov did learn a thing about himself today.
@mishanp
As always, thanks for the translations. Hope you had a nice epic journey.
Mishanp - great to have your on-the-spot report. Your contributions are consistently the highlights of this blog - thanks.
@DOug: You're in the wrong place-- there's no room here for insightful, well-written commentary. :)
Seriously, excellent post all-around, especially as regards the ramifications of Topalov's self-imposed Sofia rules. It's a topsy-turvy world when the player with a small but almost certainly insufficient advantage can gain a psychological edge by offering a draw.
Why is it Danailov sending the warnings and not the organizers of the match? Are they not even pretending now that there is a difference between Topalov's team and the organizers?
Why are they singling out Chessbase when plenty of other sites are transmitting the moves live? Is it because of Danailov's grudge against Chessbase for the editorial position they *may* have taken (thought they denied it) on the toiletgate affair?
"pretendentskiya match" is candidates (or literally "pretenders") match. As to why they single out Chessbase (dubbed "Krambase" by some people close to Topailov): it is obviously related to Elista. I wonder if anyone else paid the organizers the requested 15,000 Euros for "permission" to transmit the moves live ... .
Thanks for that. Btw, is the press conference video up? Dying to hear what the two have to say about Qa3.
Also, was the info about who the seconds are (espec. Anand's) ever clarified? Perhaps Mishanp might know, since he's apparently there...?!
So, now you may end Silvio's buddy, ha?
I'll be there on Saturday to check the scene...
D.
Lovely comments, Mishanp. 'Look forward to more during the match!
The seconds usually don't come to the venue and sleep during the games. They work round the clock at other times.
I like the comparison of Anand's Qa3?!! to Fischer's ...Nh5?!!
Do you suppose Vishy and Toppy will share their day off with a few friendly rounds of Bulgarian wrestling?
"Interestingly, if Anand hadn't blunderd in Game 1, I don't think that Short and the other commentators would hav been so quick to unequivocably criticize Anand's 15. Qa3."
Fully agree. Its easiest to punch a man when he's down..
If Short is getting paid for his comments that's all the more reason to give his audience a more complete picture. Most kibitzers armed with engines know immediately that a Qa3 isn't the most "correct" move. A good commentator should be able to provide his audience with "practical" values of moves.
I doubt how useful to spectators these over-the-hill (Short/Kasparov) or never-been-there (Seraiwan/Polgar) commentators can be. Anand and Topalov have done some serious work in the last few months and, without being abreast of the latest, these guys flatter themselves by pretending they are still an authority in modern chess theory. And, when results fall in place, it even makes them look good! Maybe its worth the few extra bucks it takes to listen to someone like a Svidler.
..someone like a Svidler..who is a real and active super GM.
"Most kibitzers armed with engines know immediately that a Qa3 isn't the most "correct" move."
That's not true. Too many people seem to think you can blindly trust computer evaluations. You can't. And even apart from that, you seriously don't think it's more useful to see Nigel Short commenting on a move in words than to read "-0.32" on a computer screen?
"Why is it Danailov sending the warnings and not the organizers of the match? Are they not even pretending now that there is a difference between Topalov's team and the organizers?"
There IS a difference: You can be pretty sure that Danailov is not putting up any of his own money to fund the match! Otherwise, you can be pretty sure that there is some close consultation going on. Really, Danailov is a political force in the Chess world, especially so in Bulgaria. Topalov lost a game, his fans are disappointed and concerned, so it's time to gin up a new bogeyman. It's all a coded and ritualistic show of bravado, merely to send a signal out to both friend and foe that Danailov is strong, decisive. and on top of things. Topalov won't lose many games, but after every game that he loses, you can expect a new lawsuit to be threatened.
On the other hand, perhaps Danailov negotiated a cut of the proceeds from the selling of media rights? At any rate, if Chessbase has any subsidiary operations or assets in Bulgaria, this would be no joke.
At least in the West, it has been pretty much established that the moves of the game are mere facts which constitute news, and which can be reported upon, or even retransmitted in real time.
Given that, there is no viable business model to make much money off of the moves of the match games.
And the beat goes on....
Has anyone even denied that Danailov is part of the organization?
@.. At any rate, if Chessbase has any subsidiary operations or assets in Bulgaria, this would be no joke.
Both Bulgaria and Germany are in EU so it should be possible to punish Chessbase for their 'stealing'.
It makes sense to go after an company which can pay if sued, as opposed to hunt down a random blogger.
Chessbase would better heed the warning.
Mig, any comments from Garry on Game 2 and/or the psychology & plans going forward?
There is nothing wrong in Short's comments, he called it as he saw it. Of course, the slightly hyperbolic form might just be working the crowd, but still it presumably made for good entertainment.
Only I was surprised that an "old school" man like Short didn't like the psychological aspect of Q a3.
'Psychologically' even 2..e6/d5/ entering the Catalan was a serious mistake. It would have suited Topalaov to play the KID or Benoni, and even more so against Anand who hasn't played 1.d4 for most of his career
Garry said he left the room in shock after Anand played Qa3. He also said his message to Vishy afterward was "you can just give up a pawn in every game!" He's en route to Oslo, so not much time to look at the games now.
Many rhanks mishanp. I look forward to your comments on the blog almost as much as the main blog itself.
"Most kibitzers armed with engines know immediately that a Qa3 isn't the most "correct" move."
Hmm, as I suggested before, engine analyses weren't that helpful in this game, hence shouldn't be taken too seriously. Engines can reliably point out if
- a move leads to an inferior position or loses by force, and/or
- if there is another clearly stronger move.
Methinks neither was the case in the given game/position. Then all we can conclude that engines didn't like that move, maybe they don't like early queen exchanges, probably they don't like doubled pawns.
I asked for predecessor games, I think I found one myself in Anand-Wang Yue, Linares 2009
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1535930
What about 11.Ne3 (11.-Ne3: 12.Be3: Be3: 13.fe3: with ugly doubled pawns) here?
Similarities and differences according to Thomas:
- It was a queenless middlegame with a fairly similar structure (resulting from a Chebanenko Slav where white played 6.g3)
- Anand proceeded to win the game.
However:
- He was rather widely praised for the game (not sure if that included Short and Rybka), noone suggested that he only won with the help of the opponent.
- 11.Ne3 had a clear purpose, eliminating black's strong knight on d5 which kept his position together. Ironically, in yesterday's game -Ne3 _played by black (Topalov)_ had the same effect!
Quite possible that Anand remembered his own earlier game, either conciously or subconciously!?
Thanks for the kind words :) I'm only going to be in Bulgaria until Friday so I'll just be at the Tuesday and Wednesday games.
On seconds I only saw/recognised Schmitt and Aruna (sitting right at the back).
As expected computer & GM analysis showed that I had no idea what was going on before Qa3 (as apparently after Rd1 white's better), but at least the body language observation about Anand being very happy after Bf3 seems to have been right. http://topsport.ibox.bg/news/id_1929409172
Anand said that after playing that he had an advantage and the rest was easy - assuming "officer" is the Bulgarian for "bishop"!
Peter Doggers at Chessvibes has a slightly more comprehensive transcription of Anand's comments :)
“When I played f4 I thought I had compensation for the pawn, maybe, because he doesn’t get in …e5. But after Rc4 I don’t know about Ne3; somewhere there it began to slip away for Black. I played Bf3, I think Black is still sort of OK but after I take on b6 and come back, then I’m just much better already. After Rd4 I was quite happy to find this resource Rc7, Bb8, Rc5, because then I win the pawn and I keep all my pieces. I like to keep the knight on d3 as long as possible. And then it’s fairly straightforward.”
http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/wch-g2-anand-strikes-back-levels-score/
How should we interpret Sergiev's words in the same article - or rather the awkward and cryptic Google translation?
"President of the Chess Federation Stefan Sergiev was not surprised by the developments of yesterday's party.
"Normally that is equivalent to two played chess. We are only expecting easy wins," said Sergiev.
On seconds or rather team members: Chessvibes also identified Christian Bossert (also from Chesstigers) and computer expert Eric van Reem. The six chairs reserved for team Topalov weren't occupied. Peter Heine Nielsen and apparently Kasimdzhanov [hidden, but still spotted by Shipov(?) as mishanp mentioned on Chessvibes] were shown on pictures of Anand's road trip to Sofia.
The funniest comment was during Chessbomb's live coverage yesterday when Anand had ten minutes left on the clock: "Vishy has 600 seconds, which one do you mean?"
Google's often good but there it's totally garbled. I think Sergiev said:
"It's normal. Two equally matched chess players are playing. We can't expect only easy victories [for Topalov]".
For linguists I'd recommend Bulgarian, by the way. It's unique (I think) among Slavonic languages in that nouns don't decline, so it uses lots of prepositions and word order instead. That might mean it translates more easily into English than e.g. Russian, though perhaps Google Translate has been "trained" more in translating Russian.
Thanks Valchess, I read the English translation, and even allowing for the poor translation, how good is Shipov?? Amazing. Compare with the mindless and uninformed engine driven drivel of Azmai on the official site. Almost worth learning Russian just to follow Shipov for game analyis.
Thanks!
Sergei Shipov (born April 17, 1966 in Murom) is a Russian chess grandmaster with a peak FIDE rating of 2662 (#23 in the world on the January 1999 list).
Always a good commentator and interviewer, both oral and written, as he converses at a high level about chess and does not condescend to speak down to the novices (not his audience).
Sergei Shipov (born April 17, 1966 in Murom) is a Russian chess grandmaster with a peak FIDE rating of 2662 (#23 in the world on the January 1999 list). (Wiki)
Always a good commentator and interviewer, both oral and written, as he converses at a high level about chess and does not condescend to speak down to the novices (not his intended audience).
There's a great English interview with Shipov here, by a different Misha :) http://www.chesscafe.com/text/misha05.pdf
I agree with the comments above - as well as being able to really explain chess as it happens (with all the background knowledge that chess engines will never give you) he's a great literary stylist.
That English translation of his comments isn't too bad, but I wonder why it leaves out what Shipov said about Qa3!?
Hmmm, I think his comments on Qa3 were still there when I checked yesterday (can't be 120% sure but I guess else I would have noticed). What happened? Why were they deleted?
What were the comments?
OK, I see the comments you posted earlier. I remember seeing something similar in the English translation a short while ago when I went to the website.
Yeah applauding the chess champ & the contender for a good game is a shock, isn't it!
Esp. since we all know that all Bulgarians are cheaters, only 200 of them have Internet, they killed the Pope and their national sport is killing puppies...
"Garry said he left the room in shock after Anand played Qa3. He also said his message to Vishy afterward was "you can just give up a pawn in every game!" "
Mig, I dont believe that Kasparov said this
How do you have access to Kasparov?
Or did just your friend (whose name happens to be Garry) say this?
:o)
I dont think you have access to Kasparov!? Do you?!
@MK
You know nothing about either Mig or Kasparov or the relationship between them.
The following must be a news for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mig_Greengard
Now now... Let's be nice to the freshly minted troll. It obviously doesn't know anything about Mig.
Wait... does the thing realize that this is Mig's blog?
Smyslov-Reshevsky, 1948 (26.Qh4)
Rozentalis-Appel, 1993/4 (29.Qa3)
I asked Rozentalis to explain how he devised this conception and it's very instructive to hear his account: "... Playing 29.Qa3, I had in my mind the game Smyslov-Reshevsky ... (26.Qh4!)"
J.Rowson "The Seven Deadly Chess Sins"
Now now, just refer him to my new all-time favorite journalist, Manisha Mohite: http://j.mp/dzZ310
Thanks "whoever you are" - alexa on Chessvibes had mentioned the same predecessors and a corresponding article in NewInChess 1/2010.
Yep, all GMs are "standing on the shoulders of giants" - interesting that Rozentalis (*1963) knows his classics and remembers them during a game.