If there's such a thing as momentum in a match, you'd have to say Topalov has it. He just held with black two games in a row and sprang a fierce novelty in the last game. But in baseball they say that momentum is tomorrow's starting pitcher, which in chess would equate to your next opening. All the momentum in the world can crash on a nice piece of prep or a time-trouble blunder. Topalov might well believe he'll break through eventually in one of these queenless Slavs, playing with good chances and with little risk of losing. He has three whites left, so no need to panic and perhaps run into an entirely new Anand surprise. Unfortunately, this is very reminiscent of what Kasparov thought about Kramnik's Berlin in 2000. "These positions are so good for White! Even if they aren't my style, I'm sure I'll break through eventually." Well, he did, but it was in Astana 2001 instead of London 2000. Topalov won't much care if he beats Anand's Slav at Corus next year if he can't do it in Sofia this week.
The main thing for Anand is that he knows he is playing very good chess and doesn't have to fear any type of position. The lead can weigh heavily and I don't think Kasparov is the only one who thinks Vishy needs to win another game to avoid tiebreaks or worse. Topalov is the most dangerous player in the world and he showed us why in game seven. But Anand is the World Champion and he also showed us why. So I'll put the psyche crap and prognosti-guesses on ice and just hope we continue to get such wonderful chess. In a just world, if they're tied at 12 they'll just extend it another eight classical games. Official site here.
How come you find time to keep updating,even after becoming a father?
Well, I've been a father for nearly two years, but I get your point. Mostly it's by staying up until, let's see, 2:52am at the moment, so I can work. While working I take the occasional break to eat cereal and, while eating cereal, in this case stale-ish Trix left over from filling plastic Easter eggs with it for the kids, I post here. Roughly. And I don't really sleep much. Having my wife's mother here for a few weeks is a big help with the newborn, of course. She's picking up what would otherwise be my shift in the overnight soothing and changing dept.
Thanks for keeping this blog updated.I enjoy your "daily dirt on chess", a lot,especially during the big tournaments like this.
Inhouse mother in law, there's one big reason for keeping up blogging.
Anybody in favor of 1e4 today?
I am looking forward to today's game.After yesterdays novelty,which was unleashed by the Topalov team,and its deft handling Anand,one wonders whats in store from topas camp.Whatever the opening,topalov will have to work hard to get past Anand.If d4,then its slav for sure.Its working for Anand.Why to change?
Danailov and Sergiev are rather letting us down when it comes to crazy, paranoid statements, so I couldn't resist translating part of an article from the Bulgarian daily newspaper, "24 Hours". I wasn't 100% sure how to translate some sentences, though most of the absurdities are from the original. http://www.24chasa.bg/Article.asp?ArticleId=467221
---
Topalov returns chess to the Cold War
Veselin Topalov is a historical hero of world chess, regardless of how his match with Vishwanathan Anand ends. The Bulgarian super-grandmaster and his claims for the title have returned us to the years of the Cold War. At that time chess was a powerful ideological weapon both for the Soviets and the West. Before the match between Boris Spassky and Robert Fischer in Reykjavik the Soviet press described the American as a Yeti with a large head and size 45 shoes. Today the same is happening with Topalov, despite FIDE's motto being "We are one family".
The Bulgarian is a tank, crushing its way on, while his manager, Silvio Danailov, is almost a demon. Those are new variations of the anti-Vesco comments. The Russians don't want to recognise the right of anyone from outside their school to seize the world chess crown.
Just like they don't want to admit that they didn't invent the Cyrillic alphabet.
The new cold breeze had already arrived when Topalov became the champion in Argentina, while no-one in Moscow acknowledged it. Garry Kasparov and the players from his professional body considered him the man of the FIDE president Kirsan Ilyumzhinov. They still wonder how Vesco got the right to contest the title with Anand. After the final Pyrrhic victory of Vladimir Kramnik in Elista, however, the line of the classic Russian chess school became orphaned. It became clear that the toilet war had exhausted the new unified champion. The way he crashed in Bonn against Anand was already self-evident two years previously in Elista. But then the Russian school turned to Anand and together with Kramnik they named him a great successor of Kasparov. The Indian was described as being a positional player with perfect technique, in contrast to Topalov's crude tactics. However, Anand is a representative of a nation of a billion people and can be swallowed up by the Russians [sic, I think!]. Last year they even supported Gata Kamsky, who was playing for the USA, as he is their successor. A special Russian television crew even followed his performance.
The battle for FIDE is bad luck for Topalov.
The struggle between the current president, Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, and the favourite of Garry Kasparov - Anatoly Karpov, has turned Vesco into a pawn that must be sacrificed. From the front line in Russia every day they belch fire on the challenger. Kasparov himself at the start of the match in Sofia went to Budapest to lobby for Karpov. After the fifth game he declared that his other successor - the Norwegian genius Magnus Carlsen, is ready to become world champion, but he'd been denied a title match. Ilyumzhinov was forced to justify himself by saying that he was neither for Topalov nor Anand and that it is just a bloody battle. The Bulgarian organisers were diplomatic and invited Karpov today to Sofia. But it seems logical that Vesko can't be calm, trailing 2:3 after the fifth game.
Now there is nothing left other than to drive like a tank in all the games to the end of the match.
Tsanko Tsanev
the Catalan was also working wonders until recently, it may be a Slav again but not again that kramnikian ending
On another, unrelated, note - here's Sutovsky impressively singing about Azerbaijan after the President's Cup in Baku! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5QYp1fAA7Q
thanks again for all the translation mishanp! Too bad that I'm not in a position to check what is original, and what is your perso nal sens of humour
++
Just like they don't want to admit that they didn't invent the Cyrillic alphabet.
++
this one I find really very funny
On game 8... Topalov does seem to be getting stronger and has the initiative now after doing so well with black twice in a row. On the other hand, Kramnik notably drew the two blacks in a row after the forfeit in Elista only to go on and lose with white in the next game! For what it's worth, Shipov's going for a win for Topalov today.
Yep, that was my favourite moment :)
Before I went to Sofia I looked at the "In Your Pocket" guide to Sofia, which has a "Guide to Bulgarian lifestyle, bars, clubs and discos". The first 7 points are: http://www.inyourpocket.com/bulgaria/sofia
"1. Try not to stare at women that are accompanied by their boyfriends, no matter how beautiful they are, it might be taken as an insult.
2. Try to avoid conflict if you notice Bulgarian people stare at your wife/girlfriend, or at yourself, usually they will be just curious. Don’t forget some 19 years ago the majority of people didn’t even meet foreigners from beyond the iron
curtain, so you are still new and exciting. Bravo! 3. Don’t try to act overly macho, particularly in more provincial towns or cities. Unless of course you are Mike Tyson.
4. When in a bar do not shout or insult the waiters or other staff members, it may be taken very deeply.
5. If you feel that someone is in some way being threatening or intimidating to you, it is often best to befriend them. In many cases locals feel threatened by foreigners and try to show themselves as tough but when you act as equals and friends they will often almost immediately drop this façade.
6. If however a conflict situation rises, leave immediately. Do not stay around and add on to the fire. Bulgarians are very social and family driven and under a common goal a big group of people is summoned very fast.
7. Good icebreakers are compliments on the country: The food, the football, the women, the inventions created by Bulgarians such as the Cyrillic alphabet and so on. As additional benefit you might get an interesting story or two. Make them talk, they love it."
p.s. if the translation's wrong it's not my personal sense of humour - just that I don't really know Bulgarian! (but it's similar to Russian, and I'm reading a Bulgarian grammar...)
mishanp, the translation is generally correct – this is not an easy piece to translate cause the sentences don’t follow each other logically and I don't quite follow what the author is trying to say. Of course, there are many circles Worldwide who have their heads still stuck in the back of the Cold War and such loose conspiracy talk does draw some interest. Unlike most headlines in those newspapers, which I find very humorous, this one is not so…
D.
I know my share of people with their heads up in something, I've lived in drenthe (medieval part of holland).
But guys like topailov are probably more mundain then me, so they should not feed the trolls with talk about inventing the cyrillic
Agreed about the article, though I think the problem is that the conspiracy theory is actually the official version being promoted by Danailov and co. e.g. http://tinyurl.com/38ajf9w
So you can't really blame journalists who presumably know very little about chess from reproducing an even more garbled and wacky version of it.
Well done for getting into the press room in Sofia, by the way!
A couple of comments on these "guidelines" -- being fairly Cosmopolitan myself, I've seen that we're made form the same fiber plus some small cultural nuances, which are rapidly disappearing.
>1. Try not to stare at women that are accompanied by their boyfriends, no matter how beautiful they are, it might be taken as an insult.
This is generally true everywhere.
>2. Try to avoid conflict if you notice Bulgarian people stare at your wife/girlfriend, or at yourself, usually they will be just curious.
This is true everywhere.
>Don’t forget some 19 years ago the majority of people didn’t even meet foreigners from beyond the iron
curtain, so you are still new and exciting. Bravo!
Complete nonsense. Foreigners were somewhat interesting up until around 1980. The country has always had a steady influx of Western tourists to muse at… Today between 12-20% of the locals reside permanently abroad and more than 50-60% have travelled, including many of the older folks to see their offspring to all points of the Globe. So, seeing a foreigner will hardly get anybody teary eyed with excitement.. MishaNP, did you yourself feel being treated “special” as foreigner?
>Don’t try to act overly macho, particularly in more provincial towns or cities. Unless of course you are Mike Tyson.
This is a general advice true everywhere -- in provincial areas it is not a good idea to challenge the locals... Be it Bulgaria, Italy, Argentina, Texas, you name it...
>4. When in a bar do not shout or insult the waiters or other staff members, it may be taken very deeply.
Show me a place in the World where that isn't true...
>5. If you feel that someone is in some way being threatening or intimidating to you, it is often best to befriend them.
This is entirely a tactical decision and the decision making is subjected to the same criteria everywhere -- if you cvan't beat the,m ,join them (for the moment)...
>In many cases locals feel threatened by foreigners and try to show themselves as tough but when you act as equals and friends they will often almost immediately drop this façade.
Provincial types act the same everywhere -- at my local gun range in the USA the hillbillies act the same too. A mix of friendliness, curiosity and a distinct desire to impress.
>6. If however a conflict situation rises, leave immediately. Do not stay around and add on to the fire. Bulgarians are very social and family driven and under a common goal a big group of people is summoned very fast.
This is changing like everywhere else -- people are becoming more disassociated.
>7. Good icebreakers are compliments on the country: The food, the football, the women, the inventions created by Bulgarians such as the Cyrillic alphabet and so on. As additional benefit you might get an interesting story or two. Make them talk, they love it.
This works everywhere, particularly when dealing with Southern types -- the French love to be glorified, the Spaniards love similar compliments -- all of them like to be reminded that they invented everything, including sex.
Good translations!!
D.
I'll go for the dissenting view. I don't think Topolov has the initiative.
Anand has lost one game (by memory lapse) and won two in classical style. He holds black comfortably and last night he walks into Topolov's preparation and, tho its close, he holds the game.
Now tonight is a crucial game. Topolov with white needs to prove he can outplay Anand - and Anand needs to show (again) that he can hold with the Slav.
If Topolov wins then its even - if Anand draws then its his initiative. Of course as it goes on the more desperate (and dangerous) Topolov becomes, but Anand doesn't seem to me to need to be too worried.
Good stuff as always, mishanp. Having spent a lot of time in the past five years reading the formerly Iron Curtain press, I generally credit that sort of thing to older writers who came up in the journalism traditions of the Party. They are still writing for people of that generation and they still have substantial readership, if less every year. They usually read very much like the old Party papers (if less literary and with more sex and profanity and ads), even including some barely-altered key phrases that used to be used to describe ideological foes. The other distinctive features are a complete lack of irony or awareness (or care) about how such articles look to outsiders. That is, non-Party faithful, which today means non-jingos and/or simply foreigners. The main theme is almost always always us against the world. Another common theme is how the other guys are mentally damaged in some way. I remember having a lot of trouble figuring that out, thinking it was a sort of metaphor. But no, they really spend a lot of time saying the opposition (to whatever) are crazy.
The pan-Slavic relationship vs the political one is an interesting investigation as well, vis-a-vis Bulgaria and Russia, and the attitudes of Bulgarians toward Russians. You find extremes in both directions in my experience. But I'll stop before the natives pull rank on me.
So, back to chess. Can the poor Bulgarian underdog who is playing in his home town with his manager as part of the organization possibly survive with the white pieces?
I only really posted the "guidelines" because I remembered the bit about inventing Cyrillic, though you could apply some of it to the way the organisers treated Anand. Personally I didn't have any problems in Sofia - I think fair-haired foreigners perhaps are treated slightly differently (usually for the better, occasionally for the worse), but the same happens in e.g. Southern Italy. I recommend China if you really want to be treated as a freak of nature for being European!
On the bus back I was talking to a Bulgarian who left for the US in 1989 and only just returned 20 years later - he made the familiar Eastern European lament that the society's been transformed in that time, with the sense of community being replaced by selfishness and a focus on money. So yes, it's becoming just like everywhere else :)
aren't points 1 and 2 above contradictory to each other? you can't stare at bulgarian people's spouses but its fine if they stare at your spouse!
Great to see last game, now I expect more novelties. Will be watching commentary especially keeping an eye on Susan Polgar and the curreent champion Alexandra Kosteniuk commenting here http://games.chessdom.com/topalov-anand-game-8-live
I don't want to continue dragging things off-topic, but Glukhovsky had some interesting comments on Soviet chess journalism in section 2 of his long interview at Crestbook (mainly about how terrible it was!): http://www.crestbook.com/?q=node/1158
Though Shipov, for instance, disagreed (and made the point about the set phrases not having disappeared): http://kasparovchess.crestbook.com/viewtopic.php?pid=346262#p346262
Of course those guidelines are at least partly in jest, but I wonder about the first one:
">1. Try not to stare at women that are accompanied by their boyfriends, no matter how beautiful they are, it might be taken as an insult.
This is generally true everywhere."
Agreed - but is it then OK to stare at a woman who is not accompanied by her boyfriend? As a foreigner, there is no way to know if she has one (who may have gone to the toilet but will return) or not - except maybe through the way she behaves herself?!
@Simmillion: Do you know the Dutch equivalent "The Undutchables"? I know it only from hearsay and don't remember many details, one chapter is about how to behave in public transport. Special advice for Germans might be "don't start arguing about the 1974 soccer WCh final" .... (says a German expat living in NL).
>The pan-Slavic relationship vs the political one is an interesting investigation as well, vis-a-vis Bulgaria and Russia, and the attitudes of Bulgarians toward Russians. You find extremes in both directions in my experience. But I'll stop before the natives pull rank on me.
-------
Indeed, the regional relationship to Russia is exceedingly complex and inconsistent, often very contradictory even on an inter-personal level. Depending on my mood on any given day and I can love the Russians, or feel greatly annoyed by them. Historically, they are the Christian, Slavic liberators in the region on one end with countless monuments still well cared for, yet the Imperial dominators and Stalinists on the other end. The Russian question was debated a lot on all kinds of forums 15-20 years ago and some fiery debates occurred frequently at the family dinner table with some pretty diametrically opposed views. That kind of debate went slowly out of fashion as things mixed up pretty well. It is a complex Byzanthene mix of emotions exemplified by Danailov apparently having just fine time with Karpov these days regardless of any past rhetoric, neither side seems to notice it, it’s like a family talk by now. They’re the guys who you love to have a drink with on one side then they’re perfectly capable to screw you up on the other hand (like holding the gas pump and play the volume to send messages). There is a strata of the B-g society that adores the Russians to an extent that makes no sense. Still, another strata sided two wars with the Germans. But for the record I disassociate myself entirely from any remarks involving Russia in the context of the WC match against Anand from India. I prefer to stick with the pleasant and constructive – looking at the Cyrillic discussions on Chesspro.ru under the game commentary is an example of harmony and some especially good wits.
D.
For me its hearsay also, but my friends told me its anti-dutch-propaganda, made by expats and self haters. What's there to say 'bout us dutch? Charming, friendly, open minded -you seem quite educated, so you wont be living in drenthe- inventors of many good things except sex. Since 1988 it is allowed -maybe not yet for germans- to talk about 74. And since some dutch guys brought - gonna bring- bayern munchen the titel, there are even dutch fans of the rekordmeister.
I would not disagree with the allusion to a "Tank (T80?)". Topa is indeed playing very aggressively. But just like a tank, he can get stranded in the marshes of positional maneuvering.
Although I don't really care for the crap before the match, gotta give credit where credit is due...the guy can play! I'd rather have him an Anand go at it again next year than either Carlsen or Kramnik.
That being said, today, it is lights out for you Topa.
Topa is boring Anand and everyone else with this same old schtick. With white, he is like a stand-up comedian who is no longer funny.
amen, jaideepblue
18. a5 threatens Bb6 at a later time. Also possible is Rb1 and b4. Topalov's play is more open here. Anand needs to develop his pieces.
Indeed. Anand can draw these positions with his pieces on the first 3 ranks. So Topolov needs to make his point with white but keeps trying to beat Anand in classical style ie on Anand's turf. Very unfunny.
I can understand his thinking. If he switches variations, he admits psychological defeat. And if he finally manages to crack it, it will be a major victory. He repeated the Catalan until he managed to staunch the flow. Looks like his strategy is not to back down. This game is a pretty crucial point in the match.
endgame almost round the corner. This is the way we used to play when I was 5 year old - going exchanging one after other, reducing to few pieces in about a minute.
I guess but avioding psychological defeat and winning games are different things. Anand played on Topolov's turf in game 1 and lost due to an error but after that he changed! Its only a psychological defeat if you think of it that way rather than finding ways to get your opponent to play on your ground.
Anand's play is actually quite brilliant here. Rf8 and f5 were not even on the periphery of my mind when Topalov played Bb6. All of a sudden, Black's game looks freer - with the bishops off the board, and Black's pawn moving to f4, Black's white-colored bishop becomes active. Not for nothing is Vishy ranked 2800 points above me :)
22..f4? Why not exchange the bishops? Anyone?
Yes, but that is just pointless in a short match, and this is game 8!
Can't resist posting this brilliant Short quote from around move 18-19:
"I understand Toppy's strategy perfectly well, even if I don't necessarily agree with it. He is not a terribly sophisticated person, to be honest. Football seems to be his main cultural interest. One should therefore not be too surprised if his match strategy should also be similarly lacking in finesse. He basically wants to hit his opponent on the head with a hamster."
Anand seems to have blundered with 22...f4.
Shipov said the same. Maybe Anand's mixed up his home preparation again!?
22..f4 was played almost immediately by Anand. Wonder how he plans to counter Ne4 followed by Nd6+? Forcing the exchange of rooks on c1 doesnt seem compelling enough as a strategy.
Brilliant!!! Surely an early contender for quote of the match :)
I'm not saying that his strategy is good or bad! I just think it looks like he decided to be "stubborn" before the match, i.e. that he would not shy away from certain openings etc. I think the question is whether this will pay off. And to answer that question, today's game is pretty important...
Black's g-file pawn is toast. And White's bishop escapes to c1. Unless Anand is seeing deeper than anybody else, 22..f4 seems a disaster, yes...
I am saying it is bad... Even if he wins today it is one in 3, and there is still no guarantee for the next games.
Chancing on maybe getting a psycological advantage seems to be pretty bad strategy to me.
another memorable quote, Alexandra Kosteniuk at chessdom :
"25... Kc6 Black is in a very difficult position. To tell you the truth, although the match of such players are always awaiting with big interest and enthusiasm, the strategy for this kind of matches nowadays are rather uninteresting. Players, like Anand or Topalov, or even Kramnik are trying to minimize their risk and play positions with a small plus for White and try to hold a draw in boring and slightly worse endgames."
If Anand does hold this game as well, Topalov has to question his strategy of war by attrition.
as per Missy Kostenuik's commentary at Chessdom it looks like Anand is on his way to losing this game. Is she paid for commenting partially !?
Talking of quotes - Shipov's already included Pushkin and the Communist Manifesto in his comments today :) When he mentions "the window into Europe" it's from "The Bronze Horseman", where Peter the Great stands on some marshland and imagines building St. Petersburg to open Russia to the "West".
You don't need to be partial to Topalov to say Anand's in a very difficult position today. It's odd as if he'd played ...f4 after exchanging bishops the rook ending seems quite a comfortable draw (says Shipov). Maybe hard to be sure at the board, but then Anand had plenty of time to think. He might well survive in this position, but it's pretty ugly.
Topalov has not managed the post-f4 phase of the game with precision. It seems that he was in a very good position to steadely increase his advantage, but he has done the opposite. 28.Bc3 looks like an inaccuracy.
Slight advantage for white, but I think Anand will draw this. They'll end up with Bishops of opposite color.
Yep, he's overlooked a whole series of good-looking moves. e.g. 26. Rd4, 26. g3 or 27. Bb4. Looking odds-on for a drawn opposite-coloured bishop ending with an extra pawn for Topalov.
If Topalov wins the match, he should go out and buy some suits that actually fit!
So Anand pulls (yet another) rabbit out of his hat. He has exchanged off his dark bishop for White's knight. So maybe ..f4 had purpose after all :) (helped by Topalov being afraid to win :))
Anand played 29..Bf5 almost immediately, and has left the table. Looks like he has this under control.
The first appearance of Kasparov on Shipov's commentary today is to confirm that 28. Bb4 was clearly stronger than 28. Bc3.
Surely Topalov still has quite decent winning chances.
It's a clear draw - ever heard of different coloured Bishops?
29. -, Bf5 30. R*d6+ (30. e*d6, g6 and how to win?), Kc7 followed by 31. -, Rd8.
26.Rd4 looked especially strong to me, but maybe it was difficult to find?
That's opposite coloured Bishops, the official term.
Still, a relatively easy draw for the WChamp, I expect.
I guess both players are exhausted after yesterday. Stamina playing a role for the first time in the match, but Topa hasn't shown his "plus 5" if he fails to win this.
You might well be right. You can imagine that after a game like yesterday's you just want to rest - but then you have to prepare for today... Both players have been making strange decisions in this game.
Is 30...g6 a blunder?
Topalov plays Rxd6. Wonder if exd6 would have been stronger - create a passed pawn and pick up Black's f pawn with Bf5.
Topalov plays Rxd6. Wonder if exd6 would have been stronger - create a passed pawn and pick up Black's f pawn with Be5.
Anand is playing like an imbecile today. His g6 is again a mistake.
Seems to be at least an inaccuracy - it amazed Shipov. The thing is white wasn't really threatening to take on g7 as then black wins the pawn on g2. Now Topalov can get an extra pawn with rooks on the board, keeping some winning chances. Both players seem to be taking some potentially important decisions very quickly, despite having plenty of time.
Wow, I can´t believe people are insulting the players here, showing disrespect for no reason whatsoever. Good they´re not the majority. Doesn´t fit well with the overall mood of the site which is very good and friendly IMO.
Mistake? Maybe so. I do envy all the people who can decide those things by a mere glance!
@chessplayer: how so? Anand will exchange rooks and it's over.
..g6 may be preparing the way for ..h5, which ensconces the Black bishop on f5 pretty comfortably.
A wonderful tidbit by Shipov (who is btw, the best of free commentators: he's knowledgeable, correct in evaluation, precise in analysis and quite funny regularly - http://www.chessnc.com/en/online/):
"
30.h4
Veselin tries to surround the pawn f4 preventing the move g7-g5. But this is dances on the handkerchief the attempt to picture things which have been lost.
"
Rd8 draw.
Anand is going to be 2 pawns down. I'm a patzer, but isn't he in serious trouble?
I love Shipov, but his on-line commentary is something of a nightmare to translate live! He often comes up with almost untranslatable flights of fancy.
Now the position's drawn if all opposite-coloured bishop endings are drawn (that was spectre that was haunting Europe in Shipov's phrase) - but Topalov should be able to torture Anand for a long time now. Vishy will be very annoyed with himself if a couple of careless moves let an easy draw slip.
Anand played this way for no good reason at all. Why choose to put oneself in these difficulties unprovoked? He actually emerged from the early opening more comfortable than he had in the previous two games with black, and yet, he finds himself in a more dire situation. I do not understand this approach at all. True, when playing with the lead it is not necessary to take crazy risks, but why play the game without the possibility of winning and only hoping to hold on for a draw?!
Hotep,
Maliq
Anand seems to be the right player to defend this kind of position, though. I don´t see him losing.
So here the main ideas appear to be putting the bishop on g5 controlling the path of the passed pawn, but black responds putting his own bishop on a4. What would be next? Manouvers with the kings? trying to break on the kingside?
At the live video webpage, _http://www.anand-topalov.com/en/live.html , there is LOTS of commentary in Bulgarian; but very LITTLE in English.
Needs better balance.
That's a match, and that's probably how you have to play against Topalov, who is very good at sharp positions. Anand just has superior understanding in endings, and he is quite a good defender; although, before the match, I would not put him into "one of the best" category in defending chronically bad non-tactical positions. But anyway, he's just much better at this than Topalov.
Shipov and Kasparov:
"Kasparov was initially sceptical of black's defensive possibilities in this ending. But analysing together a means of defence emerged for black...
34...Kd7 35.Ke3 Bc2!
A cultured manoeuvre. Black is ready to switch the role of defending the d7 square from the king to the bishop. Garry and I found this approach in analysis before looking at the feed from the game.
36.Kd4 Looks dangerous. But it's very unlikely that it is.
36...Ke8! Exactly! The white king can't get to f6."
Cant see any suffering for anand - looks a trivial draw to me.......... No engine and just a quick glance at the position.
I'll shut up now - I'm out of my league :-)
"his [Shipov's] on-line commentary is something of a nightmare to translate live!"
How is the "continuous" official translation at http://www.chessnc.com/en/online/ ?
BTW, this (Chess Network Company) is FIDE's new exclusive commercial partner, with the "mysterious" CNC logo all over the FIDE webpages.
Shipov added after 36. Kd4:
"[We were more worried by the line 36.Be5 with the king going to h6. And then we found:
36...Ke8 37.Kf4 Kf7!? 38.Kg5 Ba4 39.Kh6 Kg8 and if immediately 40.h5 gxh5 41.Kxh5 - the idea being to play Kg5-h6, g2-g4-g5, Be5-g7!! and g5-g6, breaking through with the king to e7. So at that point black would again switch the roles of the pieces -
41...Kf7 42.Kh6 Bc2! - the king goes to g7 and there's a stand-off. Would it be possible to break the line of defence with manoeuvres and zugzwangs? A question for a more leisurely analysis...]
It obviously gives you a good idea of what he's saying, though at the same time it's a bit painful to read as almost every sentence cries out for a little editing! Shipov changing things must be a bit tricky for them - I see the lines he added above haven't been translated yet.
looks like a draw to me. If white king goes to h6. black can put his bishop on e8 protecting h5 square.
I use Google translate to get his up-to-date commentary. (Chessnc lags a bit.) It translates his name as GM Sergey Thorns or GM Sergey Spikes.
I never realised how suitable his name was to his love of the Hedgehog! :) Vishy has lots of time now to decide if the e5 pawn sac gives him an impenetrable fortress.
whats anand thinking..theres only one place to go for the king
No kidding - 40...Kf6 :D Trying to have some fun on another long day at the office?
I am surprised Anand didn't play 40...e5. The 22 and 30th moves by Anand were inferior but it was not surprising as Anand has in the past chosen an inferior position if he could see a way to defend it easily as opposed to better moves leading to unclear positions (games against Grischuk in Mexico WC is one of many such examples). In that context, he should have played e5 but didn't.
Kapalik
hm ... but there could be zugzwang when
black had Kg8 Be8. White has Kh6, B on a1-h8 diagonal and it's black to move, he would have to abandon the e8-h5 diagonal.
41...e5 was also possible, and it was a tough decision. Shipov had decided it didn't work, but then changed his mind. But Vishy didn't go for it... Apparently Kasparov thinks b3 at some point might limit black's bishop and give Topalov winning chances. Another overly quick decision!? Or has Vishy simply seem further than the rest of us?
A crucial moment after 42. Bc6 I think.
Audible commentary from the live site (English:GM Zurab Azmaiparashvili?) I think just now said, after 42. Kf4-g5, that...
He saw no "serious" way for Anand to hold this position (as White plans Kh6).
Can Anand really save this? If then, must be by some miracle...
Well, the delay in translation gives me some time to think by myself? ,:)
BTW (question to Mig?): Are Shipov and Kasparov watching and discussing the game together, with Shipov doing all the typing?
Shipov: 44...Be8 Correct. Anand, as always, chose the simplest and most economical path to his goal. He's going to survive.
Though maybe if Topalov's hamster is particularly hungry!??
BTW, Polgar missed Anand's errors in moves 22 and 30. Kosteniuk has been better and more informative in Chessdom. Shipov is the best but he posts only in Russian. Why doesn't he do it in English as well, he used to write in ENglish a lot in his KasparovChess days.
Kapalik
Shipov, Anand, those patzers, what do they know.. In any event, this endgame is extremely interesting.
Vishy suffering a bit here. Seems like there are some winning chances for white.
It has to be a test of Anand's temperament and stamina than skill. He has defended worse positions before and he also has ample time. It is only a question of how well he can handle pressure and the stress of two consecutive tiring and long matches.
Kapalik
Unrelatedly, did you notice how un-charismatic those guys are in the post-game press conference? It's bizarre. They speak in a monotone (especially Topalov), don't smile, use the driest language possible, etc.
(And before you say "They're the world's strongest chess players, who care how charismatic they are?", I personally agree, but in terms of making an impression on the non-chess-playing world and being ambassadors for the game, it'd be nice if they were more animated, similar to Kasparov).
I seriously doubt if Anand is trying to make a mockery of 'Sofia' rules. i.e. given whatever a situation, a player could defend and make moves to draw the game; a win/loss is not the only result. The way Anand has been playing its either that or he is 'playing' with Topalov for the title just by tiring him out!
Yes only thing is it was always difficult to catch kasparov after defeat.
With my limited understanding, I dont see how black can save this. If white plays this out without any technical blunders, white should win.
Anand needs to be precise and make a number of only moves and ensure certain invariants are maintained while Topa can afford inaccurate and sub-optimal play and still keep pressing.
Incorrect.
The game has been declsred a draw by Mama Polgar !
The Russians do not provide chess freebies for the world.
Yep, it's fascinating. Even Shipov again had a moment of doubt, though it seems black should be able to get the bishop to the b1-h7 diagonal and the king to d7 - in which case everything holds.
I'm following commentary by Shipov as well as S.Polgar. My minor complaint with Susan is how she always has to describe everything from her experience as well. There are times when her experience as a player and as someone who competed in world championship is valuable. Sometimes she should also realize that the game at hand is more important.
"Even Shipov again had a moment of doubt ..."
What?? He is human after all!!?? ,:)
Can black play h5-h4 forcing White to take K*h4 and then Kf7-g6?
Does anybody know why they write the moves down after making it? It is not as though they wont be able to access the moves at the end of the game.
It's mandatory, unless you're on the final 3 minutes (well, this part depends on increment and tournament regulations). If you have to make a claim, it's important to have both scoresheets to check.
I think Anand won't have much trouble, he's made a life on such endgames. Although it's never easy...
Anand is extremely circumspect in press conferences, but I have an impression he is the opposite in person. I think most other players including Kramnik, Topalov, Kasparov are more 'themselves' in press conferences.
Does anyone more knowledgable than me know if white has a viable plan in marching his king over to b6, and then sacking his pawn with d7 in order to pick up black's a and b pawns?
Doesn't anand simply have to move bishop to and fro on the e8-a4 diagonal? If Topa brings King over to Q-side Anand simply sticks bishop on c7 and King on d7?
Polgar's main aim seems to be self-promotion/publicity. The game is incidental :)
If "Big Momma" Polgar says its a draw then it should be draw because there is nobody as big an optimistic supporter of Topa (not even "ass-buddy" Danailov) as Momma Polgar!
* Bishop on c6 (not c7)
Kosteniuk finds plan for White!
http://live.chessdom.com/anand-topalov-2010-g8.html
51.Kxh4 Kg6 now Black can just move his bishop and wait, it's unclear how can white improve his position. White can move his King to e5 and try to play g4 and f4, but Black will just move Bd7-c8 then White will try to play Kd4 with the idea of playing Kc5-b6-c7. If White's king will reach the square c7 then Black can end up in zugzwang and will need to give the pawn on b7 and after f4-f5, white will create the second passed pawn and will win. Now at least it's clear what is the plan for White.
But she continued "if white tries to transfer his king to the queen side, black can always move his king to d7". In other words: the white king cannot play on both wings simultaneously ... . (I think this also answers TALent's question)
Shipov's humor (even if badly translated):
"Now Topalov doesnt have real chances. But he is sure to play his aria till the naked kings. .. though, its incomprehensible how the bishops can be exchanged here!"
> If White's king will reach the square c7 then Black can end up in zugzwang
Agreed, but that is the problem for White. He cannot get to c7 without Black impeding progress with his King.
Bishops can be exchanged by putting them next to those "naked" kings!
These games are worth the $3million dollar prize and WCC !@
What are the remaining time controles ? Anand is getting him self into time trouble if this goes 100+
Is Anand thinking for such a long time in this position? Now it seems easier for Anand to defend. Topalov has to think and make plans to create some chances for a win if there are any.
Is there an increment after every move at this stage?
Anand just resigned?
What? Anand resigned? Amazing, was he in zugzwang? I can´t believe it. The victory came unexpectedly.
Official site claims Anand has resigned...I don't get it.
1-0???!!!
Really?! Is that a transmission error?
Official site is giving 1-0. Maybe Anand took a toilet break which was too long.
No, the position is lost after ..Bc6. A bit early to resign, but he was probably mad at himself. Damn.
This is fishy!
Must be our two friends Zug and Zwang.
Doesn't white still have work to do here in order to win. Surely...is this for real?
I also thought there was a mistake in the official site. But they´re not sitting at the table and a triple repetition has not been claimed, so... did Anand resigned in a position that could be held?
a nervous breakdown from Anand ?
I also thought there was a mistake on the official site, but they´re not sitting at the board and a triple repetition has not been claimed so... did Anand resign in a position that could be held?
He has resigned. Bc6 was a slip as he resigned quite immediately in a few moves. press conf will give us more info.
I went out and came back to... 1:0. Shipov: 45...Bc6?? Anand makes the decisive mistake at just the point when the draw had become obvious!
The position cannot be held. Bc6 was a blunder. Ba4 was one way to hold instead.
Well, Topalov´s strategy to play on and pressing worked very well here. I feel happy for him, but I´m not clear about the final position. I´ll try to study it deeply.
Possibly. Kasparov resigned a drawn position against Deep Blue in their 97 rematch. It happens.
the position cannot be held. after exchanging the gxh pawns the white K gets to f6. he saw it as did Topalov so he resigned
Monokroussos says that after g4, White will win by pushing to g6 and bringing his king over.
"Must be our two friends Zug and Zwang"
Haha! Very funny. Wow, that was a sudden end to the game. Would have liked to see them play a few more moves.
Why is Bc6 a mistake?
A sad day for chess. I hope Vishy strikes back in the next game and finally claims to the win in the match.
No, he's lost in the final position, surely. f4-f5 follows, and with two passed pawns White wins.
It's not obvious to me what Black should have done instead. Shipov was saying I think that he needed to take the king to stop the d-pawn and defend with the bishop on the kingside, but I don't immediately see why it's different.
Ovidiu, he felt pity for Topalov grovelling for a win for the last 7 games, so he thought lets give Topa some oxygen before taking it away later, haha. :-) :-)
Why is it a sad day for chess? It was a great game by Topalov.
From Chessdom.com
".....52.Kg4 Bb5 53.Kf4 So, I understand that this kind of endgame is not the most exciting ones and I can even feel that some people are about to leave their screens, but let's us try to see a brighter side. First of all, computers are not great helpers here, meaning that you can not evaluate this kind of positions using your software. It's not about concrete moves here but rather plans. But on the other hand this position has its evaluation it's either won for White or it's a draw and every move is very important. That's why Anand is spending quite a few time on every move. It's very unpleasent situation for Black, because White is not risking anything, he is just playing, moving his pieces from one side to another. While Black needs to calculate all these long lines in order to find a set-up which will bring him the desired result. So White is going to put his King to e5 now, then will try to push his pawns to g4 and f4, then will go to b6 and then to c7.
53... Kf7 Anand decided to let White move his king to g5 and we are back to the position that we have already discussed ....
54.Kg5 Bc6 55.Kh6 Kg8 56.g4 the most terrible thing that White can continue torturing his opponent for a long time, he can move his pieces from one side to another. He can always switch from the plan with the king on h6 to the king on e5 while time is running against Anand.
That is why Anand resigns. He decided to give up probably he just didn't see how to defend and prefered not to continue this game. It seems that the plan g5, Bg7, g6 is too strong and Anand didn't see how to defend. Thank you for following with me GM Alexandra Kosteniuk, see you for more live coverage on Chessdom.com! 1-0 "
Ahh...I see...on Bc6 the bishop cannot protect h7 pawn...so King has to go to g8...yup it's lost. Anand in big trouble now. Topalov turn to be in the driver's seat.
The sad thing is that it seems completely clear that Anand has been aware of White's winning plan for a while, and simply prevented it. Now he allowed it just like that because of some blackout or Fingerfehler or whatever. Chess is cruel...
Agreed Mondo. It's turning into a great match. Very dramatic!
Oh, of course - at the moment f5 is played Black has ....h6+, and with the bishop on c2 White can't get his pawn to f6 since it's pinned. Blimey. Vishy can't have missed that. It must have been a lapse in concentration. He's never been the best at defending technical endgames.
Oy vey. Be sad enough if Topalov wins this match anyway, but if he does so after two such random wins....
Yep, it seems that g+f pawns are powerful enough, as black has almost no moves.
Bc6 looks like a mistake, Kf7 being better, precisely to prevent white´s plan in the actual game.
Chessok gives the following variation:
(56... Bd7 57. Bd4 Be8 58. Bf6 Bd7 59. Bg7 Bc6 60. f4 Bd7 61. g5 Bc6 62. g6 hxg6 63. Kxg6 Bb5 64. Kf6 Bd7 65. Ke7 Bb5 66. d7 {White has a decisive advantage} - Either d pawn will queen or lose the bishop!
B-c6 was the blunder; Black should have played B-d3 instead and then later he can always defend with K-e8.
Topalov won the game based on manouevring instead of attacking style game as is his wont. What Anand will open with after the rest day for game 9 will be telling.
Clearly the momentum has shifted with today's game in Topalov's favor.
"...Oy vey. Be sad enough if Topalov wins this match anyway, but if he does so after two such random wins...."
------------------------
Random wins? What does it mean? Be a good sport, man!
"Anand just resigned!! Shocking! I know that the position is bad but what is the rush to resign immediately?" -- Susan Polgar
(on http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/)
OK, I see Shipov says that g4-g5, Bg7 giving zugzwang with the bishop on e8, and then g6 breaking through to e7 with the king, is the way to do it. That works, certainly. Perhaps Black can still draw against pawns on d6 and f6.
GM Harikrishna on ICC commentary showed the winning plan for white after the Bc6 blunder.
B on g7. push g pawn, and f4. exchange hxg6 and kxg6. black king stays put until then defending h pawn. Then white king creaps in with Kf6 and zugzwang.
Shipov gave the draw as:
"54...Ke8 55.f4 Kd7 56.g4 Bd3 57.f5 exf5 58.gxf5 h6+! 59.Kg6 Bc2 - and black simply stands on the spot and laughs!"
In hindsight you could almost see the result coming - Vishy kept making things difficult for himself by rejecting simpler moves, even though he then found strong plans. With 53...Kf7, for instance, Shipov mentioned at the time that black didn't have to allow the white king to advance, though Shipov was glad that Anand was going to demonstrate the defence he'd suggested...
Shipov needs to focus on the games instead of the players , Lol.
Sound of the drums
Beatin' in my heart
The thunder of guns
Tore me apart
You've been - Topastruck
Said yeah, it's alright
We're doing fine
Yeah, it's alright
We're doing fine
So fine
Thunderstruck, yeah, yeah, yeah,
Topastruck, thunderstruck, Topastruck
Oh come on people. Topalov levels the match and inmediately the haters start saying "it´ll be sad if he wins" and "he was lucky to win, Anand´s wins were brilliant whreas Topalov´s were random". What I saw was Topalov playing a fine endgame, pressing very hard to win, as he did yesterday when he play really well, too. If it was Anand on the white side today, people would be saying "Oh look he´s also better in technical endgames, he´s playing like Kramnik, he outplayed Topalov so badly it´s painful to watch" etc.
I´m happy the match is leveled now. We have 5 incredible games waiting for us.
he could have played Bd3, the switch the King to d2.
I think that will hold. The bishop protect white's pawns form advancing onto b1-h7 diagonal.
Oh well, the match is very very exciting now.
Topalov definitely has a strong edge now.
Great comment, Manu: Focus on the games instead of the players!
:-)
Agreed. If he had not been aware of the plan then he would not have managed his King and Bishop the way he did earlier. This had more to do with lapse in concentration due to the pressure of the situation.
Clearly rebound by Topalov. I did not think he would chose the line he went with today. Persistence and patience (I did not credit him with such a quality) paid for him and his team!
Here is hoping Anand comes back as he did following his loss in game 1.
Shipov on Bc6 blunder:
"What? It’s terrible! Anand blunders at the moment where a draw was obvious! /Here is a draw 54. ..Ke8 55.f4 Kd7 56.g4 Bd3 57.f5 exf5 58.gxf5 h6+! 59.Kg6 Bc2 – and Black just stands still and laughs!/ "
Anand played poorly today, allowed too much pressure..strange preparation, he deviated first with 13..Rc8 and then he boxed himself in with f6/Ke8/Rf8
Hmm, Kosteniuk seems to be the only one who doesn't mark 54.-Bc6 as a terrible blunder in a drawn position. Is she weaker than, for example, FM Monokroussos? Later she even added that "Topalov ... outplayed his opponent".
Or is it all done on purpose, to make it look like a brilliant victory from Topalov - never mind objective assessment of the position?
Later Kosteniuk even added that "Topalov ... outplayed his opponent". Hmm, is she the only one who doesn't spot 54.-Bc6 as a terrible blunder in a drawn position? Is she weaker than, for example, FM Monokroussos (no offense to him, of course!)?
Or is this done on purpose? The game has to be "sold" (to the Chessdom clientele) as a brilliant victory for Topalov!?
Anand not seeing the conscequence of Bc6 is as odd as Topalov not registering Nxh6 on the other game.
Unlucky oversight..
It's a good game by Topalov. I enjoyed very much watching the endgame
Shipov's summary:
"And so, my worst fears have come true. The world champion no longer has the energy to keep his concentration over the course of a whole game. It started just after the opening when he made a strange oversight on his 22nd move and condemned himself to a tough defence. But then Vishy held on stubbornly and, essentially, escaped. But at that moment when he just had to make simple moves (also understandable for a master) and create an impenetrable fortress he, as they say, switched off and allowed the only possible attacking idea of his opponent. A tragedy for Anand!"
Sorry for double-posting, apparently my comment was stuck in a queue for a while ...
B-c6 is the blunder; B-d3 or K-e8 instead of B-c6 will hold with careful play. My notes are without an engine. I will run later with Stockfish and see.
Topalov did not outplay Anand. I think that is promotional hyperbole; Anand in this game had self-destructed
The two wins for Topalov were because of fatal blunders from Anand. However, the two Anand wins were because Topalov was either outplayed (game 2) or missed a very strong sacrifice (game 4). If we restrict ourselves to these facts, Anand is the better player and deserves to win the match. But, chess, like life, is not fair.
@Anand in this game had self-destructed
Right, there wasn't anything remarkable about Topalov play. He kept pressing without bothering whether he had enough or not.
Nothing remarkable, the Ne4-Nd6+ "combination" after f4 was joke, a 1900 ELO player would have seen it, but why Anand allowed it ? why blocking your own bishop instead of B:e3 first then f4.
Poor play overall from Anand, maybe a bad day and nothing more, but maybe be nervousness/emotions and if so he is indeed in trouble.
We should give Topalov credit here. Yes it is a blunder, but it is not easy to push Anand so he commits blunder, and Topalov did it.
"True, when playing with the lead it is not necessary to take crazy risks, but why play the game without the possibility of winning and only hoping to hold on for a draw?!"
spot on. This approach has proved costly now. Are we going to see 1.e4 for G9 and 11 at least? And may be a grunfeld again for G10 or 12?
So what you're saying is, Topalov wins because he's lucky, but Anand wins because he's better. Have fun shaping those facts to fit your theory.
Kosteniuk has Susan Polgar for company, her final comments:
"Anand just resigned!! Shocking! I know that the position is bad but what is the rush to resign immediately? Why not play a little longer to see if Topalov can find the right plan. There is no harm in that.
1-0
As I said earlier, it is not an easy draw but with proper defense, I still believe Anand can hold. But that means that just about every single move has to be accurate. As I also said earlier, do not trust your computer evaluation when it comes to endgame unless it is 6 pieces or less. I have to go back to see where Anand made the mistake.
A brilliant display of endgame techniques by Topalov [sic]."
It might be tempting to make nasty comments on women's chess, but I rather think Kosteniuk and Polgar have something else in common: Topalov fans cannot come up with a factual, objective assessment of what happened in the game. [This is understandable as far as Manu is concerned, but experts should be experts ...]
"Anand just has superior understanding in endings, and he is quite a good defender; although, before the match, I would not put him into "one of the best" category in defending chronically bad non-tactical positions. But anyway, he's just much better at this than Topalov."
hmmm apparently not. Anyway Topalov missed very strong continuations in the middle game to go into the ending. Full marks to Topalov who kept the pressure on until Anand cracked thoroughly deserved if unpopular victory. Will Anand persist with this slav variation - probably not 4 more classical games to come!
ke8 bd3 idea holds i believe. Is there a white plan... bc6 to get f3 is a chepo only if the white K was on f5,g5 and his king on f7... I beleive he got his move orders confused.. from a previous position..seems like he sleepwalked
Just further evidence that Polgar's comments are next to useless.
From ChessVibes:
",Anand blundered on move 54 and could resign just two moves later. At the press conference Anand wasn’t sure if he could hold the ending even if he hadn’t blundered, and was critical about his play much earlier in the game. However, analysis shows the draw was actually in reach."
Two things come to mind on how Anand sees today's game and games so far:
1. Could fatigue/irritation with the Sofia rules potential affect Anand's concentration? I say this because of Anand's statement that even he did not blunder he may not have held the game
2. He is critical of his play - so going into the games following rest day and after, Anand is going to ready for renewing match with vigour.
Of course Topalov outplayed Anand, this was slow torture. Finally, and after yesterday's considerable pressure as well, Anand cracked. If you think that putting a player, even like Anand, under such tremendous pressure for two consecutive games is not outplaying him, in preparation and over the board, then you are simply mistaken because your bias will not let you ever give credit to Topalov for anything.
I mean, come on guys. Don't be such poor sports. When Topalov makes mistakes like in games 2 and 4, it is all Anand's strategic and tactical brilliance - but when Topalov creates these incredibly interesting minefields where one has to defend precisely forever and finally pushes his opponent over the edge it's just a fluke?
This hatred for Topalov is getting boring. I never expected chess fans to become like soccer fanatics, rooting for one's team no matter what and never give ANY credit to the opponent.
P.S. May I also suggest that if, as it seems, Anand is indeed getting tired while Topalov is stepping up his play, and also with the Catalan problem for Topalov seemingly solved, be prepared for more inaccuracies like 22...f4 and more frustration. I love Anand, but this time he really has to show if what he is made of is enough to stop the guy everybody loves to hate here.
Overall, a truly great match with incredible fighting. I guess most of you preferred the days of Kramnik-Leko and their disgusting short draws (pun on supposed absurdity of Sofia rules intended)!!!
My sympathies.
@At the press conference Anand..was critical about his play much earlier in the game.
He is objective, the issue is not this silly "Bc6-blunder" , his whole game was poor starting with the opening preparation (he was the first to deviate only to have to enter into awkward box-f6/Be7/Ke8/Rf8), then f4 ? . It was as if he played off-hand, superficial, without concentration.
Ovidiu,
My comment on Topalov not outplaying Anand is related to the fact that Anand had blundered. Had Topalov won yesterday I would have indeed credited Topalov's preparation and actual play OTB.
Here is a portion of my earlier comment: "..This had more to do with lapse in concentration due to the pressure of the situation."
It is precisely because Topalov had exploited inaccuracies by Anand that the game in it's form had evolved with constant pressure.
I'm a fan of Anand because of who he his, what he does and how he plays chess. I can enjoy and appreciate good chess even when Anand loses for I learned to play and enjoy chess before I became of his.
".. thoroughly deserved if unpopular victory"
deserved, sure. But I don't know if popular/unpopular is the right word, but, aren't all victories popular-among/liked-by the supporters of the victor and unpopular-among/disliked-by those who root for the one who lost?
"The two wins for Topalov were because of fatal blunders from Anand. However, the two Anand wins were because Topalov was either outplayed (game 2) or missed a very strong sacrifice (game 4). If we restrict ourselves to these facts, Anand is the better player and deserves to win the match. But, chess, like life, is not fair."
No, because if you are making fatal blunders in a WCC match maybe you are NOT the better player, and maybe you do NOT deserve to win, even if you are outplaying your opponent in other games. I mean these blunders should be part of the assessment of a WCC too, shouldn't they?
Well done by Topalov. How many of us would have given up and accepted the draw? It's really good to see fighting spirit rewarded. Reminds us that Rybka notwithstanding, chess is at its heart a sporting event, not an engineering design competition or a mathematics conference.
Now Anand needs to come back in game 9 and kick his ass!
correction: I meant to say at the end: "before I became a fan of his"
Of course Topalov outplayed Anand, this was slow torture. Finally, and after yesterday's considerable pressure as well, Anand cracked. If you think that putting a player, even like Anand, under such tremendous pressure for two consecutive games is not outplaying him, in preparation and over the board, then you are simply mistaken because your bias will not let you ever give credit to Topalov for anything.
I mean, come on guys. Don't be such poor sports. When Topalov makes mistakes like in games 2 and 4, it is all Anand's strategic and tactical brilliance - but when Topalov creates these incredibly interesting minefields where one has to defend precisely forever and finally pushes his opponent over the edge it's just a fluke?
*********
Completely agreed! Putting the opponent under relentless pressure for a long period of time is as deserving as a brutal attack that finishes a game. Kudos to Topalov for the fight back!
I hope Anand will emerge from the rest day with a better plan.
The blunders should also be accounted for. Absolutely. Clearly establishes the psychological mettle of a player. I'm a big fan of Ivanchuk, but I wonder if I would get to see him in a title match.
Among all the current players, I believe from Chess IQ standpoint he is a notch above others, including Anand, Topalov, and Kramnik.
From a pressure handling point of view, he has not really committed to establishing himself.
Kramnik won three games against Topalov in Elista 2006 (not counting the rapids). ALL of those wins came after stupid blunders from Topalov. Topalov's two wins were "normal" (except that Kramnik played far below his usual level in game 9).
If Topalov has now become a beneficiary of blunders, rather than the blunderer himself, good for him.
Wow. Mig should put the psychic thing on ice everygame; he's a genius! Dead on the money!
An unsuspected yet not undeserved end. Topalov was the one pressing throughout most of the last two games. Real chess is like that: Players get tired, and get more prone to blunders. It wasn't an out-of-the-blue blunder. Anand had to defend a position which was clearly worse and which may have been lost all along. We know from other commentators that it most likely was holdable, but at the board he didn't know that. It takes a special toughness to play well under such bleak skies. Anand showed he's not Kramnik after all.
@The blunders should also be accounted for... establishes the psychological mettle of a player.
He played fast critical moves as 21..Bg5 and 22..f4, it may be nerves from Anand. If that's so he is busted. The shift of "initiative" to Topalov in the last games may have played a role.
Finally the Slav paid of for the Bulgarians! After Danailov hired a team of experts who spend months with the Slav, Topalov succeeded finally to win in his 3rd attempt.
Well deserved!
Now the tension is back in the match. This can turn into a classic event after all.
I think there is an "unfair" expectation that this match will also begin and end the way Anand-Kramnik went, where Anand had an unassailable lead and could win with some comfort.
I'm enjoying what has become a truly fighting chess match between Anand and Topalov; I hope this continues. I do not doubt Anand. I'm hoping Anand wins the next and beyond.
What a tremendous achievement that would be - winning and defending his title and in the process besting two of the best with contrasting styles. Anand will truly cement his reputation as a universal player - unlike many of his peers - in playing style as well as in playing formats.
So many of the comments here seem to say that Anand blunder was a fluke and not really the result of Topalov's play. That simply is a ridiculous opinion to hold. Topalov was applying pressure on Anand's position throughout the game. This coming from a game where Topalov as Black held the initiative was enough psychological pressure that resulted in Anand's superficial play today. If your opponent blunders, it is most likely a result of his/her feeling outplayed. Yes, Anand's wins in game 2 and especially in game 4 are very fine and aesthetically satisfying. Topalov's wins in game 1 and this 8th game are perhaps not as satisfying, but they are wins nonetheless. It's also important to understand that, from game 5, Topalov has staged a real comeback and has seemed to have solved whatever problems he was having with the Catalan, and since game 5, Anand has failed to keep pace with Topalov's resurgence. Hopefully, after the break tomorrow, Anand will find renewed energy to cope with Topalov's seizing of the initiative in this match and take the match into rapid play.
From game 5, Topalov has staged a real comeback...Anand has failed to keep pace with Topalov's resurgence.
Fortunately for Anand, now that Topalov has regained confidence he will start to play carelessly again, just as he did after the easy G1 win.
Whatever the result of the next game, Anand will, I think go back to Grunfeld his next game as black. I am sure he has prepared more than what he showed in Game 1. I mean if he decided to play that in Game 1, that probably was his main opening choice. He just avoided it to gain some stability after his loss.
Tomorrow is no rest day for the two of them. Anand's team will be focused in preparing to getting back the lead and Topalov's team will be all efforts to hold a draw next to come back with 2 whites in 3 games.
Well if it does go to the rapid play off, there is no denial that Anand clearly has the edge. So an Anand win the next game, will seal the match for him.
Ovidiu,
Are you saying that any wins Anand has going forward will have nothing to do with his skills as a chess player?
;) t-i-c
From Malcolm Pein at TWIC:
Game eight: After surviving playing black twice in a row Veselin Topalov gets the opportunity to go on the offensive in game 8. Topalov and Anand yet again play the Slav Variation Anand used successfully in games 3 and 5. Anand was the first to deviate with 13...Rc8. Topalov was the first in with a novelty, 18.a5. Anand didn't seem to play the best and got a miserable looking position, almost lost if not losing. However Topalov played oddlyand allowed Anand into a bishops of opposite colour endgame. Anand got a completely drawn position and then played 54...Bc6??? which lost almost instantly and he resigned a couple of moves later. In contrast to game 7 both players played poorly. Anand's opening was bad, Topalov didn't press very well and certainly didn't cause Anand's shocking blunder at the end. All very odd.
A couple of observations:
1. Hindsight is 20/20. None of the chess masters on any of the sites I was following flagged Bc6 as an error when it was played. These observers were neither tired nor tense, so attributing Anands play to fatigue or nervousness is a bit rich.
2. This win for Topalov can prove a blessing in disguise. For the last 3 games, Anand has been letting Topalov dictate terms, allowing a defensive mindset to envelope his style of play. Hopefully he will revert to more natural play soon.
@..are you saying
yes, with perfect play on both side there are no wins, only draws....someone has to go astray
Shipov on chessnc pointed out Bc6 immediately! He even discussed white's plan for that long before in his analysis.
The fact that
(a) nobody caught Bc6 as an error except during post-mortem
(b) every super GM (including the womens champion) was touting queenside play for White
is very very curious. Is this because there is such a big gap in understanding between the elite and the merely super, or is it because you really have to be at the board to see in depth?
Regardless, the game probably tells us to take online commentary as a game is progressing with a pinch of salt.
Pyada - thanks, I did not know that! I stand corrected.
GM Harikrishna oc ICC had mentioned this possible error long before Bc6 was played (almost 1/2 hr before) and mentioned that black should avoid this situation. Look at chessvibes analysis and the same is told (crediting the anaylisis to Harikrishna). Look into move 40. in the analysis and the analysis reaches a transposition of the game.
No its not that nobody noticed this error. On ICC the moment Bc6 was played the commentators said it was lost for black as this was already analyzed before.
Exactly. It wasn't rocket science. Again, that whole winning plan had been noticed eons ago, so it was obvious that Anand had to do something that didn't allow it. ..Bc6 did.
This is what "team Anand" wrote on the game - at http://chess-tigers.com/ , my turn and chance to translate from German:
"Objectively Topalov's win was certainly not undeserved, but the way it occurred in the end still has to be called lucky. ... With the novelty 18.a5 the Bulgarian scored a psychological win in the opening battle. To make things worse, Anand played 22.-f4, missing or underestimating the white knight appearing on d6. Thereafter the Indian had to fight for survival. However he did so convincingly as usual, of course also benefiting from the fact that the Topalov missed the best continuation over and over again. The Bulgarian couldn't squeeze out more than an opposite-colored bishop ending with an extra pawn, and it seemed that the draw was a mere formality ("in trockenen Tüchern"). But on move 54 the champion made a terrible blunder, and suddenly all his work was in vain."
Relatively balanced IMHO ... .
Thank you Harish. I had just been following Kosteniuk on chessdom and Polgar, and neither of them seemed overly excited with Bc6. And I was under the impression that Shipov analysis offering a drawing line was post-mortem.
Would it be fair to say that nobody spotted g4 as winning for White? Or did Harikrishna catch that?
Anand
"Hindsight is 20/20. None of the chess masters on any of the sites I was following flagged Bc6 as an error when it was played. These observers were neither tired nor tense, so attributing Anands play to fatigue or nervousness is a bit rich."
Every commentator I heard (Speelman, Benjamin, Harzvi)while the game was in progress knew instantly that ...Bc6 was a blunder.
Thanks boz. I am following the wrong sites then :D
Europe Echecs has the press conf briefing after this game
http://www.anand-topalov.com/en/gallery.html
Anand mentions that Kg8 (and later corrects himself) that Bc6 was the blunder. But he also mentions it is not clear if he could have defended anyway as he mentions white will have two passed. Move 40. analysis on chessvibes suggest that it is a draw with correct play.
But I can also share Chess-Tiger's more provocative comments on the previous game, entitled "Outprepared, nonetheless close to victory". So far so good, it followed
"At the press conference the challenger praised his friend and second Cheparinov for the excellent preparation. With his attitude ["Imponiergehabe", how to translate this best?] and fast play the challenger wanted to demonstrate 'I have the better team'. The world champion, modest as always and resting in himself, knows that his team is more efficient - which he doesn't have to point out all the time during the match, but certainly after the WCh battle."
This statement might haunt them at some stage, personally I hope they are or turn out to be right ... .
Yes Harikrishna exactly had this plan of g4-g5 and exchanging for the h7 pawn and clearing the kings path to f6 as the winning plan. He mentioned this long before and said if black avoids this plan, he will hold the draw :). and this is exactly but black failed to do.
But yes, neither Susan nor Shipov had got it.
@boz - Speelman, Benjamin ahd Harzvi all knew instantly because all three were commenting on ICC and Harkrishna mentioned it to them and they clearly mentioned several times that if not for him they would not have realized it. So it was tough to see.
Shame on you!
Repeating myself: Don't trust women ,:) - or rather, don't trust analyses from sites which are biased in favor of Topalov and want to make the game look like a brilliant victory for their hero.
"Outprepared, nonetheless close to victory"
that coming from patzers would be perfectly understandable. But coming from one of the teams sitting on +1 with 5 games left is less than impressive. Perhaps the jubilant mood after calmly diffusing the explosive preparation contributed to it. But tiny things like this in the mindset add up and make a difference IMHO.
I've been keeping an eye on Bulgarian TV, who have a lot of short reports on-line on the event - though until now there's probably been nothing worth posting a link to except to admire the photogenic host and the "looking at each other but not the camera" interviewing style... but here's Topalov after today's game:
http://bnt.bg/bg/sport/view/27958/topalov_pobedi_vishvanatan_anand_v_osmata_partija
Unfortunately I can't really follow spoken Bulgarian, but maybe Dimi or someone else could check if Topalov had something interesting to say? Otherwise it's an interesting example of what vampire TV might look like :)
All the reports are here: http://bnt.bg/bg/sport/articles/31/svetovno_pyrvenstvo_po_shahmat
They have good video of the game and sometimes the press conferences, though all in Bulgarian...
"But yes, neither Susan nor Shipov had got it."
Shipov gave the plan (and the whole line) in his (and Kasparov's) notes on move 36. Then he spotted the blunder immediately.
I posted it previously:
"We were more worried by the line 36.Be5 with the king going to h6. And then we found:
36...Ke8 37.Kf4 Kf7!? 38.Kg5 Ba4 39.Kh6 Kg8 and if immediately 40.h5 gxh5 41.Kxh5 - the idea being to play Kg5-h6, g2-g4-g5, Be5-g7!! and g5-g6, breaking through with the king to e7. So at that point black would again switch the roles of the pieces -
41...Kf7 42.Kh6 Bc2! - the king goes to g7 and there's a stand-off. Would it be possible to break the line of defence with manoeuvres and zugzwangs? A question for a more leisurely analysis..."
Thomas, I don't know about Susan Polgar who I don't follow anymore because of her boring self-promotion, but if you are implying that Chessdom and Chessbomb are biased in favor of Topalov you don't know what you are talking about. And Kosteniuk? She has nothing but admiration for Anand: "A very nice and polite person" and "Anand is an extremely nice person. I know him and his wife quite well, and meet them quite often at tournaments, and it's always a pleasure to see them."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZCNLWWjka0
Whereas the "Team Anand" statements you provide with a double negative at first and a complete reversal next are somehow unbiased:
"Objectively Topalov's win was certainly not undeserved, but the way it occurred in the end still has to be called lucky."
This is disingenuous self-serving mental gymnastics, for if the double negative "not undeserved" means deserved, then it couldn't have been lucky, but never mind.
Any other conspiracy theories from your "objective" front Thomas?
Used to have a lot of respect of the comments here. Quite disappointed now. Go back and look at the posts just after Anand resigned. Nobody had a clue what happened. By itself it was not so bad. Not everybody is Shipov of course. But what followed – "obvious blunder", "lucky win, jokes about women GM’s etc. was pathetic.
Both interviews are the same -- the essential points are these:
--> When did you feel that you were winning?
First I must say that I did not play well today and I could have won much more convincingly, but still it is important to finally get that full point. But when I got to H6 it felt like the victory is easy.
--> Did you feel any signs of tiredness in your opponent?
Yes, but this is normal as I myself feel tired. The games are heavy -- particularly the last 3 games were very long and tiresome. Tomorrow is a rest day so that I hope we can recuperate so that we can continue the last 4 games in the same style.
--> The day after tomorrow you'll sit at the board without that burden of being a point down.
Yes, but [skeptically] the success has to be developed/built on, so it doesn't matter. When the opponent plays weakly, or is under stress, one has to take advantage of that.
I think its correct to say it was sort of an obvious blunder. Main reason being, If Anand was not aware of the particular winning plan for white, he would have lost much earlier. He made sure he evaded that plan for quite a while and then fell for it. That is what is curious. In the press conf. also he mentions that the move loses immediately.
For me I regard it as a obvious blunder, not because I saw it, but once you know the winning idea and what black has to be aware of, i can see it is an obvious blunder.
So for Anand has lost two games due to two moves Kf7 in G1 and Bc6 here. Topalov on the other hand hasnt managed such single move blunders (note ...Rad8 was not "the" blunder as chessbase reports that black was already lost by then) but has managed more overall inaccuracies.
I am sure Anand will come back strong just like G2.
kerts, I agree with you. When Topalov makes mistakes and loses it's all because of Anand's strategic and tactical brilliance, but when Topalov wins, it's a fluke or simply luck, even if "not undeserved", whatever THAT means.
It is telling that Anand still doesn't know whether he could have hold. He didn't really think so while playing. Also, first he said Bg8 was the blunder and only later that it was Bc6. How often do you find Anand confused like that? And he was very critical of his earlier play, correctly understanding that he shouldn't have ended up defending such positions anyway.
Seeing that he gave up the way he did leaving everyone speechless, completely demoralised and having had enough of this relentless pressure two games in a row speaks volumes about how "lucky" results are achieved at the highest levels of competitive chess.
Let people insist on calling it luck. Thankfully Anand himself understands his problems lie elsewhere.
Kudos Kerts, agree 100%
Lots of pitiful patzer talk; let them play in WC and see how much pressure they can handle.
by the way Both Anand and Topalov have really played fantastic Chess...very high level....errors are normal.
Handling lots of pressure is part of being a Champ;
The Champion is the one who handles the most!
Yes, shocking patzer talk - how dare Topalov say on Bulgarian TV that he didn't play very well today (thanks for the translation, Dimi).
Seriously, I think there was a total over-reaction from Topalov fans. Almost no-one was failing to give Topalov credit for keeping the pressure up and taking his chance, but it's also nonsense to say it was a brilliant game, or that e.g. Anand's blunder today was comparable to Topalov's in game 4 (as Kasparov said, that game was remarkable in that apparently strong, logical moves lost by force).
Note the fact that Topalov has won two games after strange blunders from Anand in no way means that Topalov's not capable of winning brilliant games as well. It's just that's not the way it's panned out (as Acirce mentioned, in Elista it was Kramnik who tended to win "randomly").
Shipov's video post-mortem didn't really add anything too new. He mentioned Anand had a couple of earlier chances to get an easier game in the opening, and then again he criticised ...f4 (as did Anand after the game), calling it "very strange", twice! Then he said Anand began to defend very well while Topalov let a few chances slip. Just after the time control he analysed the pawn sac with ...e5 but concluded that although the fortress does seem to hold it was much more practical to play Kf7 as Anand did (some of the fortress lines look totally lost for black at first glance).
About the decisive blunder - Shipov points out that Anand could have left his king where it was and played ...Bc6 the move before (so perhaps Anand was just losing track). His only explanation for the blunder was that Anand must have been absolutely exhausted as he said the lines were trivial for a player of Anand's level.
Anand is on the back foot now to some degree. Two of his Catalans have been defused with fighting, challenging play, and his strategy of very passive but difficult-to-beat positions with Black has suffered a setback today. Topalov has had three good games in a row after initially absorbing some punishment. I would argue that he has more or less successfully adapted to Anand's "Plan B" (Plan A-play super-sharp lines. Jettisoned after Game 1).
I'm intrigued as to how the two camps will approach these last four games. If Anand's final error can be partly attributed to tiredness due to his exertions, then surely it would be a risky business to repeat that Slav variation yet again and perhaps see the same happen again, especially since the Topalov camp will have been forensically scanning the variation since it first appeared and he may well have to deal with yet another new approach to it OTB. And yet to play a sharper line runs the risk of getting blown away by a novelty or due to a memory lapse.
Topalov's play has been consistent in that he has repeated lines, clearly having faith in them. I think he will not change his strategy now, so the question is how Anand will proceed. Perhaps he has sharp e4 stuff prepared? Are we going to see the deployment of some once-in-a-lifetime killer weapon? Or will he despite the reversals put his faith in his previous approach?
Topalov now has to be the bookmakers favourite to win. Going by past results, Anand has not held up well toward the finish. But who knows, Anand is capable of anything.
Every game on the home-straight will be critical. One more win for either side may wrap it up. It's going to be very tense. I suspect the best games of this match are yet to come and this has already been a great match. Probably one of the greatest ever.
Instead of a Topalov-Kramnik or Anand-Carlsen I would love to see another Anand-Topalov again in 2012. These two guys are a perfect fit for each other.
I think to a certain extent the pressure is also on Topalov to win another game as they know he has very little chance in the tie breaks. At this moment neither wants to go to tie breaks but Anand will obviously feel easier there. I also dont believe that the novelties in the catalan are exhausted. So Anand might still stick to it. Or rather if he plays 1.d4 it will be a catalan, or else he will play 1.e4.
"if you are implying that Chessdom and Chessbomb are biased in favor of Topalov you don't know what you are talking about"
Then, for example GM Rogers also doesn't know what he's talking about, as he wrote at uschess.org:
"Chessdom www.chessdom.com, the Balkan site which has consistently been breaking news about the match – albeit consistently with a pro-Topalov spin – ..."
And even if Kosteniuk likes Anand as a person, she can still be biased against him as a player - or she knows what Chessdom paying her for live commentary is expecting. At the very least, it's odd that neither Kosteniuk nor Polgar even mention that, and where Anand went wrong in the end - it may only be debatable whether 54.-Bc6 deserves one or two question marks.
As to Chesstigers, of course they aren't neutral - their director Hans-Walter Schmitt is on Anand's team. "Not undeserved" doesn't sound too odd IMO (at least in the German original), and "lucky" just referred to the _way_ the game ended with a win for Topalov.
Maybe a football/soccer comparison helps: If a team attacks for the whole game, it may deserve to win the game. If they score only in the last minute, it can still be lucky. Of course there are differences between football and chess:
- In football, the initiative can change from one minute to another (in chess, once you have a passive position you are often stuck defending)
- A football match ends after 90 minutes, a chess game is open-ended.
Regarding the other quote ("Outprepared, nonetheless close to victory"), this is quite consistent with how game 7 was described elsewhere. BTW, I don't know who actually writes their reports. Maybe GM Bischoff and IM Zude who also do game commentary at their site (and live at their training center), maybe Hans-Walter Schmitt himself (ELO 2130 and inactive).
I agree with chesshire that it is not likely Topalov will change his overall strategy since he has successfully turned the match around now, even though his Slav is probably exhausted and giving minimal advantage.
He probably won't have to anyway because I think it will be Anand who will change his strategy, and in my opinion he has to go for sharper play. I mean, yes, he did well for a while playing ultra-positional chess with White and passively with Black but it's not really him. Whatever psychological advantage he got by playing like Kramnik AND the Catalan - and he did win two games - it is now time to stop trying being Kramnik and become Anand again.
I think it was Illescas at chess.fm who pointed out that fans tend to oversimplify the two players' strengths and weaknesses. For example, Topalov has some fantastic endgame wins in his credit. Anand is definitely the player who can beat anyone in sharp play, including Topalov whom he has beaten many times in such fashion, and considering that Topalov has played a lot of small inaccuracies consistently, maybe that's the way to go.
Mind you, I don't mean all-out chaos chess like Morozevich's or with big early material imbalances, but sharper variations nevertheless.
I also have to agree that the best games of this already great match are coming. Brace yourselves and grab the popcorn!
Thomas, maybe it hasn't crossed your mind that Rogers might be the biased source. After Elista, a lot of people can hardly hide their animosity towards team Topalov, and maybe for good reason. But this is a different situation and a different match.
For whatever it's worth, I can tell you, I've been following Chessdom, Chessbase, ICC, Shipov and others, and Chessdom has NOT being the least biased towards Topalov. As a matter of fact, IM Alexander Ipatov who is at Chessbomb (a Chessdom site with computer analysis) EVERYDAY is unmistakenly rooting for Anand, going as far as leaving for an hour or so at the middle of game 7 when Topalov was pressing hard and out of the blue predicting an Anand win based on nothing other than his awe of him. He was actually called on that from some Topalov fans.
So to suggest that Kosteniuk "knows what Chessdom paying her for live commentary is expecting" when Ipatov who is there everyday can feel free to support Anand is absolute nonsense. If you are going to engage in conspiracy theories you should at least try to verify instead of talking out of your arse because these are serious serious allegations and Kosteniuk is also the Women's World Champion. Follow the next game on Chessdom and Chessbomb and see for yourself that this is all nonsense.
If anything, the bias on most sites is clearly for Anand. I don't see any complains from most people here because they root for Anand. That's fine. For the most part, I do too. But at least please drop those claims to impartiality and objectivity. All this is clearly distracting us from the games themselves.
@ considering that Topalov has played a lot of small inaccuracies consistently..
Anand has played himself a couple of 1-move errors (Kf7 ?-N:f6! +- after 26 min of thought in G1, Nd2?!(Qh3!)-Bb4! -/+ in the previous game, and f4?-Ne4! +/- in this one).
If he goes for sharp open play Topalov will reciprocate it will be like gambling, an "who errs big last" contest ..but it will be a show :)
Despite Kasparov's comments to the contrary, I don't see what the big deal is about 25.Qh3 in Game 7. The engines were not impressed.
"Hmm, is she the only one who doesn't spot 54.-Bc6 as a terrible blunder in a drawn position? Is she weaker than, for example, FM Monokroussos (no offense to him, of course!)?
Or is this done on purpose? The game has to be "sold" (to the Chessdom clientele) as a brilliant victory for Topalov!?"
Yes Thomas, it is all done on purpose. Your intelectual capacity and objectivness are indeed amazing.
What happened to you? Did Danailov or some other nasty Bulgarian punch you in the face and stole your school lunch?
It is interesting to compare the nature of the comments on this message board with the nature of the comments from the players in the post-game press conference.
In the post-game press conference, both Topalov and Anand were very professional, objective, and cool headed in describing today's events. Some of the posters on this message board on the other hand...
@Iceberg
If you were listening to chess.fm, you would have heard Ronen going "Anand played Bc6! I can't believe it. Noooo!"
Followed by Speelman going "What, no - that can't be right."
With Joel Benjamin contributing the immediate judgment that it must have been a Fingerfehler.
But then they had also spent the last forty minutes explaining exactly what was going on, what Topalov was playing for and how Anand could shut it down - with the bishop providing Anand with the safety valve he needed to avoid Zugzwang.
But then - Bc6. It happens, and we'll see if Anand can pick up his game, after having "wasted" two whites that could have put him clearly ahead. Topalov didn't waste his white, but came close several times - which he also refers to in his evaluation of his effort.
Topalov with momentum now, and Anand will have to reach for the nuggets in his armory if my prediction is going to come true.
Topalov playing on past the point of draw is achieving his purpose - taking energy out of Anand (and himself, as he said today.)
Fun coming!
Chessdom published a prematch interview with Topalov with an intro along the lines of 'While Anand has been hiding from the media (and we respect his right to do so), Topalov has been busy giving interviews...'.
This wouldn't have been so bad had Anand not been in a minibus or recovering from his cross-country adventure at the time.
Seems like pro-Topalov spin to me.
Seems like pro-Topalov spin to me.
You're quite right. Pro-Topalov spin by Topalov himself indeed, unless you're suggesting that the interview was fictional.
Anand has been very media-shy all his life. I don't see a particular Topalov spin here, but even if it were, follow Chessdom next game and tell me if the site is biased in its coverage of the games. Not to mention that suggesting that Kosteniuk is supposedly being paid to be a mouthpiece for team Toplaov is a little over the top if not outright insulting.
Speaking of insults, n the other hand, I would think that a comment like the following might be kinda, shall we say, overly unpolite, to say the least in describing Game 4?
"Those watching the video said that Topalov offered a very limp handshake upon resigning on move 32, but to be fair it's hard to reach across the board when you've just had your head shoved up your rectum like that. Takes a lot of yoga."
Didn't see anyone objecting to this, as it seems too many impartial and objective people here found it a display of good taste and good-natured humour!
Yeah. Indeed!
@ kazzak,
Thanks! I should tune in to chess.fm from now on: your description reads like a football commentary, and that kind of enthusiasm from the experts is what the game needs!
Manu | March 10, 2010 8:08 AM |
And finally ...
What you were all waiting for...
Danailov for president!!!!
This days:
http://danailov-for-president.com/
I have to say Topalov's strategy to unilaterally follow the Sophia no-draw rules is starting to pay off. As a match strategy, I have to say it's a great strategy. Anand seems to dismiss it by not approaching the arbiter even in a technically drawn position like 3 move repetitions to taunt Topa. I somehow think Topa really wants to play until there's absolutely no more life left in the game. I think his stance on having to go through the arbiter for technically drawn positions annoyed Anand and now it likely affected his mental state to cause the Bc6 slip up.
It takes more than pure Chess skills to win at World Championship. Right now, Topalov's non-chess strategy is working better for him and I don't see anything wrong or unethical with that strategy. Anand just have to change his thinking not to get annoyed by it if he wants to sail through the remaining 4 games without further loss...
U shut up
I think folks miss the point -- yes, Topalov pressed hard in game 8.
But the blunder (i.e. Bc6) was not just a result of the pressure from game 8.
It was a side-effect of tiredness/pressure from game 7!
Topalov could have won game 7 straight out...but instead...the effect carries over and he wins game 8 instead.
Over the two game stretch...the 1.5 / 2 pts scored are very well deserved (but reversed).
In game 8 with white the higher rated Topalov played creative and aggressive chess to defeat the lower rated Anand who played passive and uninspired chess.
Often in the game Anand was way behind on the clock as well.
So Anand saddled himself with a feeble position and time deficit and lost.
Such is chess.
Some of the commentators on this need to get a grip.
"Topalov could have won game 7 straight out"
Anand was not worse at any point in Game 7. Topalov at most had a draw and in the end he was worse and it was Anand who missed the win. Topalov was just pressing to see if Anand would make a mistake, he just did not. Today's game however was a different story.
I don't think anyone has said this yet, so I will. If you look back at the great WC matches of the past, from the K/K matches back, you won't see very many of these blunders in the ending. And you know why? Because those WCs all had the luxury of adjournments and a much slower schedule. 40 moves in 5 hours and they were done for the day and could go back and analyze the games with their whole team. The "Harikrishna line", as we were calling it on the ICC, would then have been analyzed to death on both sides and move 42 would never habe been played - it would have been drawn without resumption.
Today it's all much more physical, much more like a real fight. Yes, they have always been saying it, and it's always been true, but now it's REALLY true. You are sitting there staring at the other guy for six hours or more, fighting him off and under constant stress, and when that's done, you come back the next day and do it again. It's no wonder when the endgames don't go as neatly as they did on the adjournment day in the days of yore. All of Lasker's philosophy about chess being not an art or a science but a combat sport becomes doubly or triply true. And eventually somebody slips. You don't, or shouldn't, I don't think, ask whether the one who didn't slip "deserved" it or not. As for me, I just watch and are glad these guys are willing to go through this, taking the chance of making a mistake in front of the whole world.
Intelligent comment.
Excellent point about the adjournment. Thanks for bringing it up. I also completely agree with you that a win is a win is a win - as long as it was got by "fair play." In the current match the play has been fair, and so the wins are totally legit.
But... I like to differentiate between a win in which one player makes a blunder after being almost equal, and a win in which one player slowly builds up an advantage till it becomes decisive, e.g., it allows a crushing attack.
I'm not the only one who makes this distinction and chess is not the only game in which it is made. Even if Nadal becomes No. 1 (as he has in the past), I still consider Federer to be more "skilled" than Nadal because of Federer's effortless and elegant style.
The two games that Topalov won fall in the first category, whereas the two games Anand won fall into the second category.
Winning matters. But the style of winning also matters.
Cannot agree more. great point.
"Topalov could have won game 7 straight out"
Anand was not worse at any point in Game 7. Topalov at most had a draw and in the end he was worse and it was Anand who missed the win. Topalov was just pressing to see if Anand would make a mistake, he just did not. Today's game however was a different story.
****
Topalov's Bf8 after Anand's Kh1 was not the most pressing move.
Black could definitely have played better and converted -- you are confusing "clear win" with "could easily have won straight out". They are very different comments.
Topalov's play in game 7 was a psychological shock to Anand...and it is likely that Bf8 kept him from converting.
I suppose the proof will be if they repeat the line in game 9. I rather doubt that Anand will do so...but that Topalov would be very happy to do so.
A win is a win and extra points are not awarded by the way a player wins. Losing because of one's own blunders can be just as devastating, if not more so, than being consistently outplayed in a game. With the latter, you can explain your loss and learn from it, but losing because of a blunder in an even position is awful and can pose issues of lingering self-doubt to a player.
great point.
agreed
Not so great point, as the adjournements started to be avoided for a reason, and it wasn't only the organizer's money. Do you know about "Little Fish" (sorry, Google Translator here :D) and its little friends. Unless you want them to complete the match, adjournements are strictly forbidden.
@being -outplayed in a game -you can explain your loss -but losing because of a blunder -can pose issues of self-doubt
I don't think, and neither did Anand at the press conference, that the 'Bc6'-slip is the key moment of this game. It is only the immediate (and the easy to understand) cause and thus the tempting to accept as explanation.
The problem was not 'Bc6' the problem was that his play as a whole was poor. In a well known, prepared, position Anand failed this time to solve the opening problems after Topa's 18.a5N, and failed to be alarmed by that and be more careful. He reacted by playing fast and even missed simple tactivs (f4/Ne4).
Something is wrong with Anand, a lapse of his general mindset, maybe the culprit is his age and energy, maybe he lost confidence when faced with Topalov's "resurgence".
Rogers' analysis of the endgame :
http://main.uschess.org/content/view/10376/588
I think it's allowable to switch on the brain while reading Theodulf's comment.
He is not arguing that adjournments should be reinstated, but that the higher quality of endgames in top games played when moves were sealed is due to the night of analysis with seconds that happened after move 40+
Today, players have to go on, often after just having made time control, and games can continue well past 70 moves. That is extremely taxing, and can result in sub-par performances in the endgame.
And that was Theodulf's point. A good one. It even strengthens the case for Topalov insisting on playing on, not accepting short draws, as he is gambling that he has better stamina.
And it also raises a point re. all who clamor for a return to the 24-game format of old. 12 top level games without adjournment are probably as taxing as 18 top level games were with the possibility to adjourn.
It's not my idea to divert, but what he's complaining for just can't return. To say players are much more tired is not having read any book about old tournaments when they were absolutely exhausted after the whole series of games and adjournaments, which often lead to huge blunders in the last rounds. A match is something different and there every game takes a lot of energy. Players with better stamina always find a way to take advantage from that, with any format you could throw in. Sure i agree with you in the return to a 24 game format. Hope maybe Karpov could help with that.
On subject, we'll have to wait and see, but i think Anand is more dangerous if Topalov attacks more. Maybe yesterday he was tired, or just happened to make a mistake. He's human after all. But I guess he will change something on the openings since the match isn't going in his favour.
"If anything, the bias on most sites is clearly for Anand [or rather against Topalov?]."
You may be right, maybe this has to due with Elista, but methinks also with the current match:
- Danailov's role: We all know he is Topalov's manager, it is a bit unclear how he is involved in the match organization. Does he play a role, or is he only speaking, or claiming to speak on behalf of the organizers?
- Sofia rule controversy. I am not referring to the rule per se, but to noise which Danailov made ("Anand is an old, conservative, lazy player who likes short draws." "Anand shows disrespect to the city of Sofia.") and to the way it is celebrated during the match.
- the organizers' handling of 'Volcanogate'.
Nuff said on this ... .
As to Chessdom being biased, I think they are - at least in their journalistic coverage - and I am not the only one. Tassie Devil referred to the _introduction_ of the Topalov interview (written by Chessdom), not to the actual interview. Anyways, it's my opinion or impression, "you don't know what you're talking about" is a non-argument. The issue might be if and how their journalistic coverage affects style and quality of live commentary by some, arguably not all their experts.
On Kosteniuk's and Polgar's commentary, I still think it's odd that they don't even notice or mention Anand's fatal mistake when the draw was objectively within reach. "Anand cracked under pressure" makes sense (54.-Bc6 wasn't quite an unforced error), maybe "Topalov showed fine endgame technique" also makes sense, but this wouldn't have been enough to win the game.
Kosteniuk and Polgar can choose between three insults, allegations or insinuations (3a, b, c applying only to Kosteniuk), one of them must be true:
1) They are weak players who didn't understand the ending (but many other commentators did).
2) They didn't take their job seriously and didn't bother to look at actual variations (with or without an engine).
3) They are biased.
3a) Kosteniuk is by herself biased
3b) Kosteniuk thinks she pleases Chessdom by writing what she wrote
3c) Kosteniuk got hints or instructions from Chessdom - maybe also in response to feedback on Ipatov's commentary the day before.
Or what would be a fourth option?
4th option ...you are biased Thomas!
How about "everyone makes mistakes"?
a 4th option is that you're constantly looking for faults in others. seek and you shall find.
Well your talking mostly crap: "the draw was objectively reached" Topalov and Anand in the press conference after the game did not know if black could survive. Its not advanced chess they dont have firebird or rybka they do not have the luxury of moving the pieces around and analysing with all the time in the world. Its such rubbish for all these armchair gm's and computer buffs to drivel on about how drawn the position was. The 2nd and 3rd highest rated players in the world did not see the draw playing over the board thats the real world of chess. anand overlooking Ne4 was far more of an oversight than Bc6. Anand never solved his opening problems and was worse the entire game. Denis M even preferred black after f5 - there you go respected FM nearly IM talking complete nonsense about the position!!
The only detectable bias anywhere is here on this site where rapid pro Anand anti Topalov nuts abound. From the opening move of the match it has been conducted perfectly with no complaints from either side. I dont think Topalov has played his best but perhaps Anand is getting tired. The stress and tension must be incredible now with 4 games to go
Topalov treats chess as more of a sport than Anand. Stamina is a factor in these matches, especially when opponents are almost equally matched. Fischer toned up at the gym before playing Spassky and Kasparov had a robust physique...both Fischer and Kasparov overcame their predecessors and I think their superior stamina played some part. It's incredible that kasparov survived the stress of being 5-0 down and the building tension game after game...that kind of pressure has gotta hit someone physically and it helps to be in good shape.
Maybe Topalov's approach needs better recognition.
I'm also upset by Kosteniuk. Very lazy job. She didn't even notice that the end position was lost for black.
Andy,
From the names on this blog it is obvious that a number of people who post are of Indian origin. Rabid pro-Anand vibes should therefore be expected. Fan support is a good thing. People taking sides makes it interesting. Besides Anand fighting Topalov, there have to be Anand fans fighting Topalov fans. Adds to the drama.
I wouldn't be so sure that either Anand or Topalov didn't know. In a match you don't admit your true thoughts in public; certainly you wouldn't expect Anand to say anything other than that the position was still difficult, etc. Study Karpov's public observations, such as they were, during and after the Kasparov matches.
Anand knew ...Bc6 was a terrible blunder as soon as he played it; that's for sure. You're right that overlooking Ne4, if that's what happened, wasn't a great sign either, though.
If you quote me, I kindly ask you to be accurate: I didn't write "the draw was reached", I wrote "the draw was within reach - meaning that it required a few more accurate moves including -h6+! in the line mentioned at various sites.
And "objective" just refers to what would have happened with best play from both sides. Anything else falls in the subjective domain:
- "I was tired"
- "I was under pressure for the whole game"
- [hypothetically] "I have a headache"
Regarding the press conference, I agree with rdh that we cannot expect too much, indeed for two reasons:
1) Minutes after the game, the players are still under emotions and adrenaline.
2) They know the other side is listening.
IF the players knew what was going on, would you expect Anand to say "I blundered because I am terribly tired"? Would you expect Topalov to say "of course it was drawn, I could only hope for a blunder from Anand"?
On the live commentaries, I merely conclude that I can trust some more than others - along with Iceberg early on in the post-game discussion ("I am following the wrong sites then"). And for whichever reason, those on what I consider pro-Topalov sites are less trustworthy.
In the meantime, Susan Polgar saw the light, at least a little bit:
"Update: I just looked at the end again to see where Anand went wrong. I believe that 54...Bc6 was not accurate. I like 54...Bd3 better."
Hmm, what about the straightforward "Bc6 is losing, Bd3 - or most other moves - is drawn"??
And Kosteniuk actually has one fair point, related to Theodulf's comment: "time is running against Anand". Why? Because he would only get 15 extra minutes on move 60, with a 30 second increment - eventually, he may have to rely solely on the increment. Topalov was far ahead on the clock and in no losing danger whatsoever.
Not saying this is good or bad, right or wrong, fair or not - simply saying "that's the way it is".
Adjournments are gone for good - which I personally regret a bit (once upon a time I learnt a lot from analyzing adjourned team games with my friends and teammates), but slower time controls also for later (endgame) stages of the game could be reintroduced. Though I wonder whether players would look forward to 10 hours or more (3:00PM - 1:00AM) in one session .... .
Of course there are other differences with 'historic' WCh games. For example, the players often took extra semi-restdays with a short draw, and this was not ruled out and not criticized (at least not as severely as nowadays): Among 48 games in the first Kasparov-Karpov match, 26 were drawn in 25 moves or less ... .
A couple notes - (1) To clear up any ambiguity, no, I am not hoping for adjournments to be brought back nor do I lament their passing. Computers aside, the consultation-game aspect of the adjournment session was never particularly admirable in my view, and it almost makes me think that a lot of WC games should be given asterisks(*) after move 40, and credit given to the seconds in the footnotes ..
But, like any change in the format of the game, it changes what is demanded of the players and it changes the characteristics of the game itself. It elevates the value of that style of chess which we called "Lasker-chess" and which is also Topalov's style. In the old days they said that "Lasker plays bad moves on purpose" - nowadays, when people are more used to it, they say "Topalov is willing to make sacrifices to get initiative and pressure and induce mistakes from the opponent." This is how Topalov has gotten the tournament scores he has gotten. Actually, yesterday morning at about 8 AM EDT I was musing to myself that, while this certainly works against 2750s, it probably wouldn't prove to be enough against another top-5 player. I still don't know if it'll be enough to win the match, but it'll be exciting to watch. Meanwhile, people who want to see technically flawless chess can go watch Rybka play Stockfish all day if they like :-)
(2) In the "battle of the commentators/websites" - this isn't intended to be a naked plug for the ICC, but I will say just a word about the chess.fm / chessclub.com format. In the case of GM analysis of complex positions I tend to think that the more GMs the better. GMs Har-zvi, Benjamin, and Speelman are all very clever people - I won't, and don't have to, venture an opinion as to whether they are individually better as analysts than some of the other persons who are mentioned - but when they are all looking at the same analysis board, one of them coming up with an idea and the others trying to beat it, they are even better in concert. But that's not all. You also have a whole slew of "vocal" titled players typing (not "vocal" but "typical"??? hmm) in the game board and the analysis board, or messaging comments to the analysts. Yesterday in addition to GM Harikrishna I noted Yermo and Australian GM Smerdon, and five or six Russians whose names I didn't write down, and then you have to count in some dozens of other titled players, some of whom were using their own comps, who would have quickly announced it if they had come up with something exciting. With parallel GM/IM/FM/comp processing at this level, you get a pretty good product.
Kramnik delivered a marvellous putdown on his DVD along these lines; "on looking at his games I discovered that it was the same old Topalov....of course, such play can be effective against let's say 2700 players, but still I felt that if I could prepare well and get into good shape I should win this match".
It's not just Kosteniuk and Polgar; Bauer was also rubbish on chessdom. I think they're just offering something different; very superficial reflections for those who want that sort of thing. Shipov actually gives one; he's the only sensible place to follow it.
Having said that I do agree that chessdom have been surprisingly (given their general Topa- fanboy status) objective about the games. Although as I recall they were calling up Topa's winning chances in game 7 long after it became Anand who was trying to win, still, it's a difficult game.
One thing I'm not understanding is why this ...h6+ is even essential. Say White did get f5/gxf5/f6 in, what then? I don't see how he could win even after that, on reflection. Anyone?
then Kh6-Kg7 and after b4 zugawang move (say that Anand has his bishop ideally in Be6) either f7-f8Q push if the bishop leaves and the f7-g8 squared unguarded, or deflection of K with d7+ K:d7 and then f7 and Anand has to give the bishop to prevent f8Q
I had in mind the positon
B(Ke8,Be6, a6,b7,h7)
W(Kg7,Be5,a5,b2,d6,f6)
now b4, Be6 has to move, say Bc4, then d7+ K:d7, f7 wins
I don't regret the abolition of the adjournment, but I am deeply distressed by the increased time control given as the game approaches its proscribed finish. This love of speed does no favor to the player whose strength is in the Ending. As a result we get fewer endgame specialist. The Kramniks of the world may become an extinct breed.
As always, the average fan-girl becomes hysterical when one of the players wins or loses, fearing doom for her favorite.
Just 5 days ago, the match was "over" for Topalov according to them. Now, it is the opposite. The truth is that with only a few games left and the score tied, anything could happen.
I understand that White wins if he can get his king to g7, Ovidiu, but why can't Black stop that by keeping his king on f7? Then if White tries on the queenside Black has to swop to have his king on d7.
Not so clear, Lobster, that quicker time controls don't favour the endgame specialist. It depends whether you think defending or pressing is harder, and whether you think playing quickly is easier if you specialise in that part of the game or if you don't.
Nonsense, Irv - almost no-one said Topalov had lost the match then, just as almost no-one's claiming it's in the bag for him now. If all you've got to offer this blog's derision for fellow posters then at the very least you could try to make it accurate or funny.
Nonsense, Irv - almost no-one said Topalov had lost the match then, just as almost no-one's claiming it's in the bag for him now. If all you've got to offer this blog is derision for fellow contributors then at the very least you could try to make it funny or accurate.
Yes,anything could happen.I think Anand will stick with Catalan and Slav.Objectively speaking,both still can stand the test.But,the question is can he still get a winning position using Catalan.If yes,go for it.
Your plan seems correct, but there is no zugzwang as long as black keeps his h-pawn. However,
1) I think white can first win the h-pawn by force
2) Anyway, there is no need for a zugzwang. White can play f7 and d7 immediately. In your position: 1.f7+ Bf7: 2.d7+ Ke7 3.d8=Q+ Kd8: 4.Kf7:, or even 1.d7+ first. So white would also be winning if his pawn had already been on b4.
What rdh may have had in mind (I, the weaker player initially thought the same) is that such an opposite-colored bishop ending is drawn when there are no other pawns on the board, because then winning the bishop for two pawns doesn't win the game. I think it would also be a draw if only the a-pawns remained - white is left with the wrong bishop and the black king can run to a8 in time.
BTW, I find it amusing how bloggers on Susan Polgar's site are praising her live commentary and picking at Kosteniuk ... . Critical comments on Polgar herself would probably be moderated and aren't published (in the past, I sometimes tried to post some mild and polite criticism - it never appeared on the screen ...).
"One thing I'm not understanding is why this ...h6+ is even essential. Say White did get f5/gxf5/f6 in, what then? I don't see how he could win even after that, on reflection. Anyone?"
Shipov did not say it was essential, he just offered a line that leads to an easy draw because the white king cannot make active moves or he will lose the f-pawn.
I guess the game is also drawn without the h pawn and the white pawns on d6 and f6 with the black king on e6; white is not able to move Kg6 because of the bishop on the diagonal.
@..Then if White tries on the queenside Black has to swop to have his king on d7...
but does it help ? White plays the same manouver symmetrically on the q-side Kc5-Kb6 thereatening eithe Kc7 or picking up the b7 pawn just as he did with the h7 pawn. The Black bishop (presumably in Bd5 after white plays Kc5-Kb6) can't guard both against the f7 push and the b7-pawn because zugzwang (a b4 or Be5-Bh2 after Bd5).
but you are right that it would be draw with only the the f6 and d6 pawns on the board, so it is actually this switch to Q-side after f6 which wins !
actually you are right rdh, it's draw even without h6, if Topav switches to Q-side, Kc6 would stop de invasion and there is no zugzwang
Beautifully lucid comments, Theodulf. I agree with all of them.
Or for that matter even ...Kc8 in your 'zugzwang' position with the bishop on d5 (or anywhere else, for that matter), Ovidiu. The best White could get would be the drawn ending with a and b-pawns, I think.
Freitag,I don't even understand why this h6+ helps; all White has to do is Kf6, move the bishop, Ke5 and f6 anyway.
Irv, apart from mishapn's point, you can't deny that a blunder like this is a massive event in a match. Most players can stand to be outplayed - it doesn't affect their faith in their own powers; everyone knows that occasionally you can lose. But to blunder like this - that's harder to recover from. Unless you're very strong, you start to question yourself.
In reply to someone higher up complaining about me calling Topa's wins 'random'; if you can't see the difference between a win of this kind and a win like game 4, there's no help for you. I would tend to doubt whether you know anything about the game.
Spraggett explains some of the points I tried to make perfectly:
"Anand also seemed to not fully appreciate that his position was completely drawable at the point where [he] blundered. He expressed real doubts. Anand probably had difficulty in analyzing correctly at several points during the game.
This kind of dis-orientation is characteristic of an athlete who is out of his comfort zone and beginning to feel psychological and physical exhaustion. It is normal under highly stressful competitive circumstances. It is a good thing that tomorrow is a rest day!"
Seeing Anand - one of the very best players ever - so confused, yet having so many armchair advanced chess warriors - benefiting from silicon and multiple GM commentary - picking on, say, Kosteniuk for not estimating the position correctly is ridiculous. However, it makes Shipov undoubtedly the analysis champion of this match.
Here is the best edited video of the post-game conference, a must-see:
http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/wch-g8-topalov-beats-anand-levels-score/#more-24905
P.S. Thomas, after your "don't trust women" and "it might be tempting to make nasty comments on women's chess" and "or is this done on purpose? The game has to be "sold (to the Chessdom clientele) as a brilliant victory for Topalov!?" comments and further insulting Kosteniuk with "or she knows what Chessdom paying her for live commentary is expecting", your subsequent efforts to save face with bullet point style argumentation ("one of them must be true"!) and backpedaling are indeed touching but ineffective. For all your pretenses to intelligent commentary, it might help thinking before typing!
rdh writes:
"Irv, apart from mishapn's point, you can't deny that a blunder like this is a massive event in a match"
Yes, it was a big blunder for somebody of Anand's caliber. But it doesn't merit the hysterical responses, with so many of you pissing your panties in fear of your favorite player's 'impending doom'.
"In reply to someone higher up complaining about me calling Topa's wins 'random'; if you can't see the difference between a win of this kind and a win like game 4, there's no help for you. I would tend to doubt whether you know anything about the game."
There are no random wins or losses in chess. Do not be so stupid as to argue this. you win or lose based on your own VOLUNTARY moves. your results directly reflect your decisions at the board. If anand (or topalov, anyone) plays a perfect game for 50 moves, achieving a winining position and then hangs the queen, losing the game, it is pretty stupid to call the winner "lucky". What happened is quite simple: in hanging the queeen, the loser made a move that, by itself, is much worse than all the opponent's erros put together. So, the loss is deserved. The alternative is to consider than all wins are "lucky" because they were achieved by exploiting opponent's mistakes.There is nothing "random" about chess. In fact, the lack of a "luck factor" is what makes the game so interesting to many players.
Very good observations by Spragett and very relevant for you to bring it up.
In the same vein Topalov had struggled to find the best continuations yesterday (had he found the best moves this match may not continued as long as it did), but after may be move 40 or so the position could not be lost for white and you have to give credit to Topalov for pressing and probing.
I mentioned elsewhere yesterday that even though I'm a fan of Anand, i feel that this game is definitely a credit to Topalov for not changing his course. He maintained his faith in the opening and conitunued to pose problems for Anand to solve. By sticking to his primary preparation in earning the equalizing point.
@ In fact, the lack of a "luck factor" is what makes the game so interesting to many players.
That's not what the famous mathematician Emile Borel thought. According to him chess is exactly as backgammon : through experience players learn in fact probabilistic strategies. Strategies which they later play instantly (human chess is not essentially about forced wins and making computations), these strategies they refine further through added experiences (Bayesian probabilistic learning) but they are never exact knowledge, they merely play moves which they have learnt that will increase their chances to win.
But there is no certainity in the end, "space advantage", " a rook for a pawn", " a (defended by a pawn) knight deep into enemy camp", "a bishop pair in open position" etc. increase your chances but do not make it certain, it's not science and strict-determinism.
In reply to rdh, all one has to do is read Spraggett's comment, Shipov's conclusion that it could only have been exhaustion that caused the blunder and to see the above video of the post-game press conference. Let me repost:
http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/wch-g8-topalov-beats-anand-levels-score/#more-24905
This is not "random". World Champions and consistently top-3 players for 20 years are not weak players who spoil nice games or vigorous defensive efforts with careless instantly-losing blunders out of the blue. It might happen in a tournament once every 5 or 10 years, like say Karpov famously dropping once a queen. But this is different.
The key to understanding this is the unpromising or outright bad positions Anand has been getting for the last 3 games and his thankless task to defend accurately under tremendous pressure for two games in a row, with the last one while having serious doubts for hours whether it could even be saved. The pressure is colossal and that's what caused what Anand himself described as very poor play in g8.
That's why even Ian Rogers now is suggesting that it's time for Anand to change his strategy. Since g5 Topalov is building momentum, solving all his problems with the Catalan and applying more and more pressure with the Slav. The second third of this match has been all Topalov and thankfully, like I pointed earlier, Anand himself understands it has nothing to do with randomness or "luck" and that his problems lie elsewhere.
I expect corrective shifts in Anand's strategy and the best games of the match to follow. This is a truly great match.
"Freitag,I don't even understand why this h6+ helps; all White has to do is Kf6, move the bishop, Ke5 and f6 anyway."
After f6 Bg6 or Bc4 should make the draw obvious.
Ovidiu wrote:
"@ In fact, the lack of a "luck factor" is what makes the game so interesting to many players.
That's not what the famous mathematician Emile Borel thought...[]"
Ovidiu,
it doesn't take a mathematician to realize that all the possible moves on any given position are there for a player to make. He is not being forced to make any particular move, as opposed to games like backgammon, where the roll of the dice forces you to play a certain way, and not the way you would like.
if a player, for any reason (lack of talent, lack of knoweledge, whatever) chooses the wrong move, it is NOT random. It is his responsibility. After all, EVERY SINGLE move was there, in the open. All he had to do was find it and make it (I think this is essentially what Tartakower said - or was it Tarrash?).
"He is not being forced to make any particular move, as opposed to games like backgammon, where the roll of the dice forces you to play a certain way, and not the way you would like."
You did not get Borel's point Irv. Nobody forces you to play any move in backgammon, you play/choose those which the rezultant position (you think) is less likely to get punished be the dice roll.
In chess the role of "dice", the uncertainity factor, is taken by the impossibility of full calaculation (to end, to the checkmate) so each playes aims to get positions which are "better" (say, space advantage).
If you are an amateur and you play against an experienced backgammon player and you will lose most of the games, albeit (obviously here because of the dice) none of his individual victories could have not been certain beforehand. It is probability and he has learn what maximizes his chances (over many tries/games, it's statistics, he can lose any game any time if he has really bad luck).
Ovidiu,
where can I find that Borel quote on backgammon versus chess ?
The level of luck in backgammn is significant. A world class player will win against and intermediate player somewhere between 55 and 65 % of the matches depending on match length. I doubt a genius of Borels caliber has said what you quote.
Even against a complete beginner and even a not very bright one, the world class player will not excpect to win over 80%.
"Seeing Anand - one of the very best players ever - so confused, yet having so many armchair advanced chess warriors - benefiting from silicon and multiple GM commentary - picking on, say, Kosteniuk for not estimating the position correctly is ridiculous."
I give you one thing. She might not have marked Bc6 as a bad move because Anand is a top player and not in time trouble and so you don't expect him to play such a blunder. This is also what I was thinking. BUT one can ask why she didn't ask herself after the game why Anand resigned. She came up with the psychological explanation, that Anand resigned because Topalov would torture him a long time and that he might better save his energy for the next game. Interesting theory but this is more esoterics.
She was better in the beginning of this endgame with uneven bishops where she said it would be not easy for black.
The only commentator who was right in the end was Seirawan on playchess.com who said there are "good chances" for white to win.
Be sure to see the BBC article on Kirsam Ilyum.
Investigating his alien abduction claims, asking if he is not sane, and questioning his ability to rule - I suggest this is a move in the FIDE Election chessgame.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8662822.stm
tjallen
" It might be tempting to make nasty comments on women's chess, but I rather think Kosteniuk and Polgar have something else in common: Topalov fans cannot come up with a factual, objective assessment of what happened in the game. [This is understandable as far as Manu is concerned, but experts should be experts ...]"
Please refer to me as Artist formerly known as Manu.
:)
I get Borel's point - and he is wrong. Plain and simple, Ovidiu.
In chess, all the possible moves (good and bad) are available to you whenever it is your turn. In backgamon, because of the dice, only a subset of possible moves is available to you. That's a radical difference, where it is no longer your skill alone dictating your play, but the luck of the dice: you get good rolls, you can make the move you want; you get a bad roll, you can't make the move you want.
Borel didn't know what he was talking about. If you want to look at this ptroblem in a totally different way, just imagine a day where computers have solved the game of chess. Put two computers to play. The outcome will be the same all the time, even though the game and its rules have not changed. At that momment, "uncertainty' is not a factor in the outcome. That would not be the case in backgammmon (even if computers had solved the game, too). A player could fall in a losing position because of the dice. As simple as that.
Chess is not a game of luck. Neither is tic-tac-toe. Backgammon is tic-tac-toe with the dice telling you what move to make.
It was Tartakower, but closer to "The blunders are all on the board waiting to be discovered."
After all, EVERY SINGLE move was there, in the open. All he had to do was find it and make it (I think this is essentially what Tartakower said - or was it Tarrash?).
Thanks, tjallen. Very nice.
"It is not enough to be a good player; you must also play well." - Tartakower
Another endearing quote from ST that makes good company with yesterday's game and discussion.
"The two wins for Topalov were because of fatal blunders from Anand. However, the two Anand wins were because Topalov was either outplayed (game 2) or missed a very strong sacrifice (game 4). If we restrict ourselves to these facts, Anand is the better player and deserves to win the match. But, chess, like life, is not fair."
This reminds me of the comment made by Karpov, in obvious exasperation, about the comments and analysis that occurred during his matched with Kasparov. It went something along the lines of:
"Kasparov either wins [by playing a stellar attack] or he loses [by overpressing on the attack]. I (Karpov) merely show up for the games.
It is often silly to create a narrative on the basis of a single game, and it is just as silly to pick and choose elements from a game so that it will reinforce an existing narrative.
Yes, blunders and mistakes count, and ought not be simply dismissed. A Match, in particular, valorizes being difficult to beat (whereas in a tournament, the winner is the player who best manages risk, to accrue the highest plus score). So, a propensity to blunder, or a failure to save difficult positions, is a major liability.
After the Gruenfeld debacle, Anand has opted to not play dynamically as Black. Yes, he's managed to draw 2 out of 3 games with the Slav, but I think that it is a mistake to play defenses where he has no practical winning chances. The mindset is simply to play to avoid the loss, and that often leads, ironically, to passive play.
Certainly, with his play as Black, and his choice of cramped Defenses, he has in no way demonstrated superiority over Topalov.
Hopefully, in Game 10, Anand will shift to a different defense, or at least shift to a different, sharper, variation of the Slav. But for his next White, Anand should play 1. e4.
The Silver Lining for Anand fans is that the next 4 games will probably be much more interesting than they otherwise might have been, now that Anand and Topalov are tied up again.
Thank you, phx!
The last one is specially witty :-)
@Borel didn't know what he was talking about..
I only mentioned Borel because he was famous yet his approach, theory, is rarely mentioned.
Those who want to pursue the subject can look for E.Borel (1921) "On Games that involve Chance and the Skill of the Players", albeit chess was not his main interest, but conflict of interests and zero-sum games in general.
"A player could fall in a losing position because of the dice. As simple as that..Chess is not a game of luck."
may be, but I would say that typically(most often) the endgames with bishops of opposite colours are draw despite one player being one (even 2 somtimes) pawns down. Thus I am justified to chose that route to escape to a draw. Yet not all are, only usually, thus I say that I have good chances to hold, and hopefully not bad luck to hit an exception form the "rule".
Ovidiu writes:
"may be, but I would say that typically(most often) the endgames with bishops of opposite colours are draw despite one player being one (even 2 somtimes) pawns down. Thus I am justified to chose that route to escape to a draw. Yet not all are, only usually, thus I say that I have good chances to hold, and hopefully not bad luck to hit an exception form the "rule"."
I'm glad you post this example. It proves my point: you may not know the outcome of your ending - but it's an outcome that will never vary with best play by both sides. There is not a luck factor - just skill. If your ending turns out to be one of the losing ones involving bishops of opposite color, it was due to your previous bad play, not luck.
One other thing: If I were Anand, and I were having to take doping tests in Sofia, while contesting a match vs. a Bulgarian opponent, I might be a bit concerned about the possibility of tampering with the samples to create a false positive. I mean, it's not as if the Bulgarian intelligence services would ever engage in skullduggary.
If Anand were to be flagged as having taken PEDs, it would be extremely controversial, and many folks simply would not believe that the doping tests were credible. As long as Topalov has a meaningful chance of winning the match by legitimate means, Danailov has scant incentive to create another Toiletgate. However, once the match is lost, Danailov has no incentive not to (although, it might be embarrassing for the Bulgarian PM).
There was a Doping Test that was rumored to take place after Game 8. Perhaps this was a distraction to Anand?
In all probability, there will be one more Doping Test, probably just before, or else just after, the Tie-Break games. In either case, it is likely that Anand will have departed from Bulgaria before the test results have been released. I don't think that he and his team will stay in Bulgaria any longer than they have to. For if Anand's Lab tests are positive for PEDs, he might face Draconian criminal charges from the Bulgarian state, and might be indefintely detained.
@ I might be a bit concerned about the possibility of tampering with the samples to create a false positive...
there are independent labs, a dozen or so accredited by WADA in Europe, I don't think that the samples are sent to (and done by) a single lab but by few simultaneously...but that's just guessing, one needs to know the regulations, one would expect that both players have been concerned of such thing and asked this
http://www.fide.com/fide/fide-anti-doping-regulations.html
FIDE shall send Doping Control Samples for analysis only to WADA-accredited laboratories.
Upon receipt of an A-Sample Adverse Analytical Finding, the Medical Commission (or the organization who conducted the Doping test shall..notify the Competitor of the Competitor’s right to promptly request the analysis of the B-Sample..notify the Competitor of the right of the Competitor and/or the Competitor’s representative to attend the B-Sample opening and analysis
but of course all these will not help if Anand gets something added to his food, or vaporized in the air of his hotel room so he will inhale it..so it may happen, and it will be another WCCh scandal
A variation on the Tartakower quotation: "It is not enough to be the better player; you must also play better". I think it was also Tartkower who said "A game of chess is won by the player who makes the second last mistake".
I can spell "Tartakower"; I just can't proof read very well, I guess.
This is of course a distinct possibility, that evil Danailov will tamper with the doping test samples if the match goes south for Topalov, and as Ovidiu rightly observed, adding something to his food or vaporized in the hotel so he might inhale it should not be counted out. It is certainly easy for the notorious Bulgarian intelligence services.
I would hasten to add that maybe it is high time we consider petitioning Obama to add Bulgaria to the axis of evil and adding Danailov to the list of chess terrorists who are a clear and present danger to the civilized world of unbiased and objective free people.
On a lighter note, recent studies suggest that the best way to persuade children to eat their food would be showing them pictures of boogeyman Danailov, even though recently psychologists cautioned that this might be extremely traumatic for little children and almost akin to psychological torture.
Finally, rumors that Danailov and Illumzhinov have recently formed an unholly alliance with scary green aliens to force all chess players in the free world to play torturous endless games under Sofia rules through elaborate mind control techniques have not been substantiated yet.
chessbase has a interesting comment in its latest report , something similar to what some posted on this blog.
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6309
"In contrast to game seven both players played poorly. Anand's opening was bad, Topalov didn't press very well and certainly didn't cause Anand's shocking blunder at the end. All very odd."
> MP Andre Lebedev is not just asking whether Mr
> Ilyumzhinov is fit to govern.
> He is also concerned that, if he was abducted, he
> may have revealed details about his job and state
> secrets.
LOL
That is one of the worst and most biased analisys i ever read , What happened with Giri?!
IMHO This match is about playing better on your opponent´s territory ,and Topalov is pushing Vishy away from the openings proposed by his team, waiting for Anand to return to a game 1 scenario.
One of the best and more exciting matches of our history , me thinks.
Whether there is "luck" in chess depends entirely on what you are willing to call "luck". If you start off by saying up front that you are not going to call anything involving board vision, decision-making, preparation, mental processes, and so forth, as "luck", but only external physical processes like die-rolling, then of course there's not much luck in chess.
On the other hand .... you are sitting there, staring at a position with the clock ticking down. Then an idea comes to you of a move that might win the game. Is this idea certain to come to you? Is it determined that, because of your work and preparation, you will see this move at this time? A second before the idea came to you, were you sure you would see it? Was your seeing it under your control? Haven't there been many times when you urged yourself vehemently to see something, but it didn't appear until after your hand left the piece? Wasn't there some possibility that the neuron in charge of pointing out Nxg4! to you might have been asleep or otherwise occupied for a critical few seconds? If the move actually wins the game for you, do you never say something like "LUCKILY, I saw Nxg4! at the last minute" or "Luckily, it turned out that at the end of the line he can't recapture because the pawn is pinned." Of course if you say that "those things aren't what I mean by luck" then who can argue with that.
But then suppose somebody comes along and says, "I don't know what you mean by 'luck' in backgammon. Why didn't you just shake the dice in such a way as to throw a six? It's just a matter of calculating how the dice are going to act after you move them in such and such a way." If you answer that it's not possible to calculate how dice are going to behave with that level of precision, what happens if someday a robot appears that can throw a six at will? Is this completely unlike being unable to calculate the line to its conclusion?
I don't think these matters are as philosophically simple as is sometimes apparently believed...
Pein's chessbase analysis is the most objective.
I would add to it only that in fact Topalov played only slightly worse than he usually does but, this time, Anand did not give him a chance.
Anand misplayed the opening (though it was a familiar, prepared, set up), then missed tactics (f4/Ne4) in the sort of middle game which followed (though they were 1900 ELO level tactics), and (perhaps in desperation that nothing worked) he outright blundered a drawn engame (drawn even without the h6+ tricky tactics and drawn even without the h7-pawn, as 'rhd' has shown here).
Hey, Theodulf,
what if number 8 is nothing but a zero with a tight belt?
What if we are just characters in somebody's dream?
what if...reality is not real at all?
:-)
Philosophy isn't for everywone :-)
Is "AfkaM" acceptable?
Irv's comments notwithstanding, I would like to convey my appreciation to Theodulf (why do I want to write 'Theowulf??') for his insightful comments. A few more lucid posts, and I may have to impart upon him my handle.
Just an observation!
CO
Sure.
:)
Hear hear!
4:4 with 4 more to go. Both players having shown some great, fighting chess, with 2 wins each. Will Topalov ride on the momentum of the last few games. Will Anand turn it around and go back to the form he showed in 2-4. It couldn't be any better at this stage of the match for pure tension. Can't wait for G9. Go Anand!
I agree rajeshv. I'm hoping for more games where even very highly rated commentators aren't sure what exactly is going on. Mark of a good game that.
Anand won 2 games out of first 4 games against Topalov's 1. Topalov won one game out of middle 4 games against Anand's 0. It's Anand's turn to win 1 more game than Topalov in the last 4...
I believe he'll rise up to the challenge. Topa has the last game White advantange with a rest day to prepare for it...
I still think the odds are 55/45 in Anand's favor...
Great point. I would add that a 12 game match without adjournaments and with Topalov not accepting short draws is like playing a 24 game match in the old days!
Irv wrote:
There are no random wins or losses in chess. Do not be so stupid as to argue this. you win or lose based on your own VOLUNTARY moves. your results directly reflect your decisions at the board. If anand (or topalov, anyone) plays a perfect game for 50 moves, achieving a winining position and then hangs the queen, losing the game, it is pretty stupid to call the winner "lucky". What happened is quite simple: in hanging the queeen, the loser made a move that, by itself, is much worse than all the opponent's erros put together. So, the loss is deserved. The alternative is to consider than all wins are "lucky" because they were achieved by exploiting opponent's mistakes.There is nothing "random" about chess. In fact, the lack of a "luck factor" is what makes the game so interesting to many players.
***
I find this to be an empty comment...insofar as it is obvious that:
A 50-move game where A outplays B...only to bludner the Q at the end...is a spoiled game. A cannot show anyone his string of good moves, and B will be embarrassed to show it to anyone. It is a spoiled game.
A game where A outplays B and cashes in the full point in a clear way...is a good game. It may appear in A's book of best games.
A game where A and B trade advantages -- first A winning, then B winning, then A winning and then B playing a nice winning shot winning the game...is a good game. It might end up in either player's book of best games...as losses sometimes do.
Example 1 is a case where B got lucky. Nobody brags up that they "deserved to win" because the winning side dropped a piece. A us unlucky to have made such a blunder. B is lucky to win...and unlucky..as he cannot reprint the game or show anyone (makes a face).
Irv cannot really believe that there is no difference in example 1 vs. 2 and 3.
We haven't had one of those "lucky wins" in this match...because game 1 was a dud out of the opening and game 8 was a case where the pressing side (Topalov) really was pressing hard and at the end the losing side (Anand) blundered away the draw. Now if TOPALOV had put his bishop en prise and lost, that would clearly be UNLUCKY for him (and lucky for Anand).
I believe the quotation goes something like this: "A game of chess is won by the player who makes the next to last mistake". The second last mistake would mean the second of the last mistakes, whatever that could mean.
"Lasker chess" -- I don't believe Lasker purposely made "bad moves", but he did play moves that were geared to cause his opponent the most difficulty, such as entering into technical endgames vs. Janowsky. Lasker did not play bad moves, he just steered the play into a type of game he felt his opponent would have the most difficulty with. If that meant playing a less-than-best move, so be it. But a "less than best move" does not mean "bad move".
It seems as if many here are using "unlucky" and "lucky" as a figure of speech and then relating it literally to the game of chess. If it is being used to say something like "Topalov was lucky Anand blundered," then I can see the cliche. However, IMO that is the only way "luck" can be applied to chess.
Here's hoping that the 9th game finds both Anand and Topalov in good form and we are treated to an exciting game.
You were told to shut up for a reason, guess what that was ??? so u shut up
Lasker :
"Steinitz and Chigorin had an unrivaled insight into the nature of chess. Whereas the popularizers think of chess as being amenable to order, logic, exactitude, calculation, foresight and other comparable qualities, Steinitz and Cchigorin agreed on one thing: that chess can be, and often is, as irrational as life itself.It is full of disorder, imperfection, blunders, inexactitudes, fortuitous happenings, and unforeseen consequences.
But whereas Steinitz strove with all his might to impose order on the irrational, Chigorin went to the other extreme. Let us surrender to the irrational, he said in effect. Steinitz tried to banish the unforeseen. Chigorin took delight in it. Steinitz sought order, system, logic, balance, broad basic postulates; Chigorin wanted surprise, change, novelty, glitter, the lightning stroke from a clear sky."
Your hate is messing with your fingers ,and u clicked the wrong reply button.
But im sure you´ll do much better next time.
:D
"Kramnik delivered a marvellous putdown on his DVD along these lines; "on looking at his games I discovered that it was the same old Topalov....of course, such play can be effective against let's say 2700 players, but still I felt that if I could prepare well and get into good shape I should win this match"."
That's funny, because he won the match with exactly the kind of "luck" that Topalov is having against Anand, that you describe. Topalov didn't overly impress off the board in Elista (although I don't subscribe to the common view that he should be hung drawn and quartered for some gamesmanship over which he probably had little control), but on the board, even though he lost, somewhat paradoxically perhaps, I came away with the impression that his Chess playing reputation had been enhanced.. Before the match I had the sneaking suspicion that Kramnik would blow him off the board, based on the kinds of observations you allude to, but Kramnik showed conclusively that he needed a large slice of luck to withstand Topalov's supposedly coffeehouse play. He was 1 move away from a crushing lose in G1 but of course Topalov didn't see the winner and eventually lost. Same happened in a couple of other games. Kramnik is a great player, but not as great as he thinks himself to be and certainly looked very vulnerable in the first few games. Anand well and truly burst his bubble. In that match Topalov showed that he is capable of posing sophisticated and long lasting problems with his opening play, and only his blundering let him down.
"The only commentator who was right in the end was Seirawan on playchess.com who said there are "good chances" for white to win."
That's right. He actually showed the winning idea a long time before Anand blundered. It was quite shocking to see it on the board.
Be a little nice to the chess.fm crew, which went through white's threats in detail, and how black had to safeguard against them.
At one point Benjamin even commented that the top players writing comments into the channels were "only now beginning to comment on the lines we have been discussing for the past half hour. Maybe you should turn up the volume on those headsets, guys."
They couldn't believe it when Anand played Bc6.
Thank goodness for some intelligent comment on luck in chess from Theodulf (and Ovidiu). Irv, would I be right in thinking that you are a very weak player? In my experience, as I said before, noone who has played the game at a decent level thinks there is no luck in chess in the absolute, strident, form of that proposition which you are putting forward. The fact that Borel saw this in spite of not being a player (assuming that's true) only goes to demonstrate what a genius he was.
My previous experience hasn't encompassed people with your curious obsession with panties, so I'm afraid I haven't got a theory about that, but my preliminary suspicion is that this is also linked to unintelligent views about luck in chess.
The truth is often expressed in the proposition that there is no bad luck in chess, only good luck. It's always your fault when you blunder. It's not always your good play when your opponent blunders.
Jonathan Rowson observes in one of his books that 'a blunder is never just a blunder'. It's obviously true that exhaustion plays a role, and given Anand's journey to the match, it wouldn't be a great surprise if he were more tired than usual. I suspect also one blunders more frequently, in some deep sense, on one's opponent's turf. Topalov blundered a lot in Elista.
In fact, the general pre-match view that Anand is the better player but Topalov will win because of the Bulgaria looks like being proved correct at this point.
Still, the best observation in this area is Donner's. 'The most attractive thing about chess is that it is largely a matter of luck.' If you don't understand the truth hidden in that, you don't understand anything about the game.
"My previous experience hasn't encompassed people with your curious obsession with panties, so I'm afraid I haven't got a theory about that,.."
Hahahahahaha!
rdh asked:
"Irv, would I be right in thinking that you are a very weak player?"
I happen to be a master, as some people here know who I am.
But even if I were a 1600 player, my position is quite simple and right: given that every possible move is available to either player at every turn, it's hard to justfy the use of the word "luck' in chess. I'm afraid that the way it is being used here by a few people is more like the usual excuse: "I played better; you're just a lucky patzer who won only because I blundered in a winning position"
My standard answer to that all these years has been the same - and invariably had the same effect of making the sore loser quiet:
"You're right; I was lucky I was playing you. Any other player would have beaten me in that position, I will admit".
"In fact, the general pre-match view that Anand is the better player but Topalov will win because of the Bulgaria looks like being proved correct at this point."
What?
What does 'master' mean? As I recall this term is used in the US to describe very weak players, is it not?
Anyway, your sole interest in the matter seems to be point-scoring when you win a game, so no wonder your views are so ill-considered.
Sorry, chesshire cat, I meant to say 'Bulgaria factor'.
Nice try, rdh :-)
Once again, there is no luck in chess. But if it makes you feel better, I'll say it: you didn't really lose all those games, rdh. You were meant to be a top player. But your opponents became very lucky when facing you. Otherwise you would have won all those games you lost. I sympathize with you.
You can say it as many times as you like, Irv; it won't make it true, or even arguable.
You seem obsessed with this idea of people talking about luck when they lose, for some reason probably connected with the panties thing. Top players never speak of luck when they lose, but they do when they win. Look at Shirov's games books, for example, or indeed Anand's own annotations to games in New in Chess.
No banana for you, rdh.
Repeat with me: "there is no luck in chess. I deserve my wins and I deserve my losses."
That said, I must admit: you're a much, much better player than your results indicate. Bad luck, I guess...
On a technical note, after Topalov's win no-one actually used the word "luck" until:
renookie | May 4, 2010 1:09 PM | Reply
Oh come on people. Topalov levels the match and inmediately the haters start saying "it´ll be sad if he wins" and "he was lucky to win, Anand´s wins were brilliant whreas Topalov´s were random".
The Topalov "backlash" has mainly involved putting words in people's mouths (straw man arguments). On the subject of "random" - in normal colloquial usage (as used by rdh) it applies very well to the two games Topalov's won (not that he can't win brilliantly as well, he just hasn't). Responding with a philosophical argument on how there's technically nothing "random" in chess completely misses the point.
rdh: "my preliminary suspicion is that this is also linked to unintelligent views about luck in chess."
"Still, the best observation in this area is Donner's. 'The most attractive thing about chess is that it is largely a matter of luck.' If you don't understand the truth hidden in that, you don't understand anything about the game."
"Anyway, your sole interest in the matter seems to be point-scoring when you win a game, so no wonder your views are so ill-considered."
"Irv, would I be right in thinking that you are a very weak player?"
It is truly funny how people who take themselves and their supposed intelligence so seriously while underestimating everyone else never realize they are actually embarrassing themselves, especially when losing the argument and resorting to "arguing from authority" fallacies and ad hominems.
"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."
Mark Twain
mishanp, I thought you were busy following the Bulgarian press looking for further proof they are paranoid, irrational neanderthals who have the audacity to -hear, hear!- root for their countryman. Not to mention the counting of toilet visits or the decibel measuring of the applauses!
Btw, The "Topalov backlash" has mainly involved people getting fed up with all this Topalov hatred and absolutely hypocritical pretense to objectivity and impartiality. One feels you guys are almost disappointed there haven't been any shenanigans or problems to justify YOUR paranoia, resorting instead to straw man "issues" like the missed handshake and the limp handshake and the power outage and whatever.
On game 4:
mig: "Those watching the video said that Topalov offered a very limp handshake upon resigning on move 32, but to be fair it's hard to reach across the board when you've just had your head shoved up your rectum like that. Takes a lot of yoga."
mishanp: "I didn't think there was anything particularly odd about Topalov's resignation, though great write-up, Mig :)"
Enough said.
On the yoga comment - it would have been just as funny if the players' roles were reversed. It's not a personal attack on Topalov.
As for, "Topalov hatred and absolutely hypocritical pretense to objectivity and impartiality"... a majority of people have been absolutely open about hoping Anand wins. Topalov and his teams' behaviour in Elista was disgraceful and rather than apologising they're still repeating the same nonsense. Then before this match they accuse Anand and Aruna of disrespect and then compound that with their hostility when the volcano upset travel plans. No need to invent any issues (did anyone seriously claim the power outage was a trick!?).
I still don't see any "hatred" of Topalov - and most like his chess - but I'm sure you can accept there's nothing unusual in a majority of people who otherwise wouldn't have a firm favourite choosing to root for the world champion?
"On the yoga comment - it would have been just as funny if the players' roles were reversed. It's not a personal attack on Topalov."
Yeah, right!
P.S. I was not talking about fans choosing to root for Anand, I was talking about chess journalists and commentators giving us Soviet style commentary, including tasteless jokes and paranoid suspicions while pretending to be impartial and objective. Yeah, pretend you don't see the obvious difference between fans and coverage!
It shouldn't be the Bulgarian press you should be scanning to find where the completely irrational coverage appears. Your own insistence on toilet visits and applause-intensity measurings, not to speak of what you pretend to find "funny", speaks volumes.
Keep it up. A Pulitzer cannot be far behind!
"Tasteless joke" - ok, let's say I'll give you that one. "what you pretend to find funny" - at the very least it's funny that you presume to know what I find funny, or what I pretend to find funny... but not much of an argument.
But I'm interested in the "Soviet style commentary" and paranoid suspicions in the coverage of non-Bulgarian journalists. Can you provide some links? Better still point out clearly false or paranoid statements coming from the Anand camp and picked up by the media. As it happens I've been following the Russian press (which I guess is where you'd tell me to look?) and haven't noticed any rampant craziness.
As for the "reports" from the venue - there wasn't much point in me adding what others could see on-line, whereas what's visible if you see the full stage, the sounds and distractions during the game etc. might add something, though obviously only an insignificant footnote. On "toilet visits" - I just mentioned in passing in the first game that Topalov had gone more often (you're surely not going to accuse me of being the one to make toilets an issue...). People picked up on it so I felt "honour bound" to keep a count in the next two games :)
""what you pretend to find funny" - at the very least it's funny that you presume to know what I find funny, or what I pretend to find funny... but not much of an argument."
I don't presume anything. You said:
"On the yoga comment - it would have been just as funny if the players' roles were reversed."
Deciding to insist on defending this exchange with mig, you had go from not minding a juvenile kind of trash talk to actually stating outright that you find this indeed funny. Which you did. Not my fault!
"you're surely not going to accuse me of being the one to make toilets an issue..."
Funny, because you did! I didn't see anyone else talking about toilet visits in THIS match. Check your calendar. It seems this is the year 2010, not 2006. Who would have thought!
"Better still point out clearly false or paranoid statements coming from the Anand camp and picked up by the media"
Another misdirection. I never talked about team Anand making clearly false or paranoid statements. I was talking about chess journalists' coverage, and you misdirect first to fans having the right to root for anyone (duh!) and now team Anand. In some circles this might be called intellectual bankruptcy, but never mind.
Come on mishanp, admit it: Evil Danailov let you guys down. No shenanigans and Topalov seems to have a clear shot at winning this fair and square. Thus all the crap about handshakes etc. Meanwhile, the really impartial fans are enjoying a truly great match. I know, why concentrate on chess when one can count toilet visits or how to classify a handshake! Way to go man!
"Deciding to insist on defending this exchange with mig, you had go from not minding a juvenile kind of trash talk to actually stating outright that you find this indeed funny."
Huh? My only previous comment was to making the point that I didn't notice the handshake being "limp". How is that saying I didn't find Mig's comment funny?
"I didn't see anyone else talking about toilet visits in THIS match."
Erm, check out the pre-match press conference with Danailov, Sergiev and co. - toilet arrangements were one of the main points.
"Another misdirection. I never talked about team Anand making clearly false or paranoid statements. I was talking about chess journalists' coverage..."
Sure, but I can talk about them. Don't you think it would be even worse if you found journalists apparently doing what you claim but doing it while following a script provided by Anand and his manager? As for misdirection - where are the links to the articles you claim?
"No shenanigans". True, except for the shenanigans :)
"Meanwhile, the really impartial fans are enjoying a truly great match." I don't know about you ("the impartial fan"), but I've loved this match so far.
LOL. Theater of the absurd. Please take a deep breath and read again:
[mishanp:] "what you pretend to find funny" - at the very least it's funny that you presume to know what I find funny, or what I pretend to find funny... but not much of an argument."
[me:] I don't presume anything. You said (mishanp):
"On the yoga comment - it would have been just as funny if the players' roles were reversed."
Deciding to insist on defending this exchange with mig, you had go from not minding a juvenile kind of trash talk to actually stating outright that you find this indeed funny. Which you did. Not my fault!
[End of repost of my previous comment]
Meaning I don't have to PRESUME what you find funny - which would give me not much of an argument according to you - since I KNOW what you find funny, because, ummmm, you were kind enough to tell us!
Get it now?
"Huh? My only previous comment was to making the point that I didn't notice the handshake being "limp". How is that saying I didn't find Mig's comment funny?"
LOL. What are you talking about? Maybe you need a rest. Who said you didn't find Mig's comment funny? You said you DID find it funny. I pointed that out to support my assertion that I don't have to PRESUME what you find funny when I KNOW what you find funny. What's the matter with you?
"Erm, check out the pre-match press conference with Danailov, Sergiev and co. - toilet arrangements were one of the main points."
What does this have to do with counting toilet VISITS? Are toilet arrangements between the two camps relevant to having you count the number of toilet VISITS? LOL. This is getting ridiculous!
"Don't you think it would be even worse if you found journalists apparently doing what you claim but doing it while following a script provided by Anand and his manager? "
Non-issue. It would be, but nobody claimed so. It was just a cheap attempt at misdirection and I called you on it. And you did it twice! So let me repost the part of my comment you omitted:
"Another misdirection. I never talked about team Anand making clearly false or paranoid statements. I was talking about chess journalists' coverage, and you misdirect first to fans having the right to root for anyone (duh!) and now team Anand. In some circles this might be called intellectual bankruptcy, but never mind."
As for evidence, the preview of the match by Ian Rogers, the chess tigers articles someone mentioned and quoted above and of course most commentary on the missed handshake would be a good start for someone scanning too much of the Bulgarian press but needing a reality check. Yeah, pretend now that most sites are NOT in favor of Anand!
Anyway, mishanp, I leave it to people to read our little exchange and draw their own conclusions. Your reading misapprehension and misdirections are kinda boring, sorry to say. Very low debating level.
Better luck next time!
That was the most garbled post I've ever read on here - well done :)
If you say I'm "pretending to find something funny", then yes, oddly enough, that means you're somehow capable of actually knowing what I find funny or not - regardless of my actual comments. Sorry.
Anyway, as to your actual "evidence" - the fact that Danailov disagreed hardly made Rogers' article anything but objective. I was at the venue for the "handshake" incident and as I said before it really was a disgraceful show of rudeness from Topalov to his opponent. The issue wasn't the actual handshake but one player completely ignoring the other in a stupid piece of "psychological warfare" (Topalov's explanation of the Sofia Rules thing before the match).
Objectivity doesn't involve painting both sides in an equally good light regardless of their actions.
"that means you're somehow capable of actually knowing what I find funny or not - regardless of my actual comments. Sorry."
LOL. Talikng about garbled posts and then writing that is truly hilarious!
Let me repeat. Please pay close attention. Here it goes:
When someone states he finds something funny, then others DO know that this person finds that something funny.
Let me repeat:
When someone states he finds something funny, then others DO know that this person finds that something funny.
Did you not write this?
"On the yoga comment - it would have been just as funny if the players' roles were reversed."
So I know you found Mig's comment funny. Sorry.
LOL. Keep it up!
P.S. Objectivity involves overcoming one's own bias. Honestly, can you claim you have done that? Because if you haven't, and others haven't as well, then my case stands. I don't care about the Bulgarian press because they have a horse in this race. But guys like Rogers and you and Mig should at least TRY to be objective. If that's too much to ask for, then at least don't pretend you are impartial and objective. It's really that simple.
I found it funny. I said I found it funny. You said I "pretended" to find it funny now. Your point?
I used the same psychic powers you used to draw the conclusion I consider myself to be an impartial fan even though I never stated that!
"Meanwhile, the really impartial fans are enjoying a truly great match." I don't know about you ("the impartial fan"), but I've loved this match so far.
Your point?
And why don't you instead address the whole point of this exchange here, being the issue of objectivity:
"Objectivity involves overcoming one's own bias. Honestly, can you claim you have done that? Because if you haven't, and others haven't as well, then my case stands. I don't care about the Bulgarian press because they have a horse in this race. But guys like Rogers and you and Mig should at least TRY to be objective. If that's too much to ask for, then at least don't pretend you are impartial and objective. It's really that simple."
This should answer some of your questions:
http://www.wordreference.com/definition/demagogy
tfj, I see where you are coming from but this is an exercise in futility.
In final analysis, comparing chess to other professional sports, the problem is not just FIDE but also the way it is marketed and the utter unprofessionalism of most chess "journalists" as well. For a sport that supposedly engages some of the brightest minds, the whole state of affairs is depressing. Thank god the match itself has been fantastic, but it feels as if it will be ages before people like Illumzhinov and Danailov disappear and chess sites and journalists will provide high quality objective commentary and analysis like in other professional sports. Unless of course one includes wrestling.
Of course we do have Shipov, but I do object to what sometimes feels like trying a little too hard to impress people with his intellectualism. I guess I'm just a grumpy old man!
"Objectivity involves overcoming one's own bias. Honestly, can you claim you have done that? Because if you haven't, and others haven't as well, then my case stands. I don't care about the Bulgarian press because they have a horse in this race. But guys like Rogers and you and Mig should at least TRY to be objective. If that's too much to ask for, then at least don't pretend you are impartial and objective. It's really that simple."
A few points:
I'm just a guy posting opinions on someone else's blog - I don't need to be impartial or objective... but nevertheless I generally try to be. My opinions are what I believe and you're free to dispute them and I'll try to defend them. Saying "you're not objective" gets us nowhere. I find it extremely odd to suggest that professional journalists, Bulgarian or otherwise, are under less of an obligation to try and be objective than I am.
Anyway, my opinion - and I apologise if you don't like it - is that Topalov, Danailov and the organisers have actually had a much better press than they deserve. Foreign journalists and chess observers haven't heaped enough criticism on them - I think everyone's just become a bit weary of continually having to condemn their behaviour.
Rather than taking a step back from what happened in Elista they've become more rabid in their anti-Kramnik & anti-Russia statements - I suppose at best it's just rampant paranoia, but much of it is also slanderous or libellous. Even Anand being from India hasn't interfered with the absurd party line.
Then of course we've had them attacking Aruna and Anand - accusing them of disrespect and almost of deliberately manipulating the volcano situation (actually I think you could leave out the "almost" there). Plus the calculated snub over the Sofia rules.
Anyway, that's what I think. Convince me of the good nature of Danailov if you think it can objectively be proven. I'm all ears.
Note... I still admire Topalov's chess, but forgive me for rooting for the other guy.
I've had quite a few lucky wins. Miscalculated my combo, there was no mate - but a totally different win I had not considered at all.
I hav ealso had lucky draws. I have yet to have an unlucky loss.
Pandora beads
Pandora beads wholesale
Discount pandora beads
Discount pandora jewelry
I visited this page first time and found it Very Good Job of acknowledgment and a marvelous source of info.........Thanks Admin! http://www.bestphonelookup.com