Greengard's ChessNinja.com

Hack by Popular Demand

| Permalink | 70 comments

I'm so busy these days that unless someone pins a note on my chest about something going on in the chess world I'm likely to miss it entirely. I used to be able to get up to speed by glancing through recent comments here, but nowadays most of them are still caught up in world championship fever and bickering. And apparently this means the 2005 San Luis tournament, or the Elista 2006 match. Whatever keeps you people off the streets, that's all I have to say.

The fly in the soup du jour is Topalov's latest interview, in the Times of India. (Slightly longer and more poorly written for your convenience here at Chessdom.) There's an old saying, "you are the slave of what you say and master of what you don't say." Or we can go with the ever-trusty Oscar Wilde and "Questions are never indiscreet. Answers sometimes are." Or go with the real classic, Publilius Syrus, who gave us "It is not every question that deserves an answer." This is perhaps better known today for being the foundation of Bill Clinton's legal defense.

The paragraph that has gotten the most attention is Topalov's response to Anand's revelation that he was aided by Kasparov, Kramnik, and Carlsen.

I do not think Anand should be very proud of this. Especially by the fact he accepted help from the first two. I have been among the chess elite for 15 years and perfectly remember how Kasparov treated Anand for years. And not long before the World Championship match in Bonn 2008, Anand had to stand the arrogant statements of his opponent in the press. I would never accept help from people who humiliated me for years even for free. But it seems Anand is different.

Yes, well, "different" is a bit passive aggressive -- be brave enough to call a chump a chump if that's what you think -- and I'm willing to chalk this up to the pettiness that comes of frustration. Interviews with the loser are rarely going to produce pleasantries and it's a little surprising they give them at all. Anand and Kasparov have been on good terms for years -- Kasparov's offering assistance is the only real proof needed. The wounds from Sofia are still fresh and I don't feel the need to make much of this unless Topalov plans on going Full Korchnoi and coming up a with a reason to hate everyone for competitive reasons. He's a fantastic player, a straight talker (to a fault, since he often doesn't think first), and he's going to be around at the top for at least another 4-5 years. So let the nationalistic and partisan passions die down a bit, guys. If he's still taking cracks at Anand a few months from now, we'll revisit the topic with the scorn turned up a few notches.

The rest of the interview is interesting, and I'm actually in favor of the sting at the end of the combination, where Topalov jabs Anand for not being able to put together any events in India. It's a valid topic, if not a valid conclusion, and one that the comments on the Times of India site address a few times. Aside from the simple fact that organizing tournaments is hard and not every elite player wants to get into that line of work, every country has its own challenges. Last time I checked, nobody is taking shots at Ivanchuk for not putting together a supertournament in Kiev.

Anand's high status in India (if not as high as many outsiders seem to think, judging from the media) doesn't negate those other factors. Maybe he just likes to play chess. Sure, you can call it apathy if you want to be critical, and I have also chastised Anand in the past because I think the WCh and other elite players should have some sense of duty toward promoting the sport beyond playing it well. (A debatable assertion, I know.) Maybe Topalov would be the same way if he hadn't hooked up with someone as ambitious as Danailov. Together, and only because they are together, they have achieved some very positive things in chess -- 2m euros for this match only being the most recent. The MTel, Bilbao, the Sofia Rules, these things represent more positive action in chess than Ilyumzhinov (to pick a name at random) has contributed in 15 years. I don't know how well they compensate for the Elista catastrophe, but as with all ambitious figures (Kasparov, Napoleon) you can only hope for more good than bad knowing at the start you're going to get both.

Speaking of achievements, I'm okay with the term "Sofia Rules" when they refer to those specific conditions and not just all anti-short-draw rules. But when it comes to patenting the concept, we have to be fair to the Corsicans and organizer Léo Battesti. We even used the term "Corsica Rules" for a while for the blessed policy of banning agreed draws, even though it was a rapid event. This is a little like people crediting Fischer with inventing shuffle chess instead of doing what he indubitably did do, which is popularize it at a high level with his codified Fischerandom version. That may even be the greater accomplishment, but it's still the Najdorf Defense and not the Fischer Defense or the Kasparov Defense.

Of course there is nothing new under the sun. Just as just about every world champion pops up with rule changes to rescue a dying game, banning the draw offer has a good pedigree. It's a modern problem, but the cure predates Corsica. No less a name than Mark Dvoretsky, long one of the world's top chess coaches and writers, seriously proposed banning the draw by mutual consent in the Russian periodical Chess Week back in 2003. As usual, GM Ian Rogers was ahead of the curve and on the ball, covering Dvoretsky's suggestion in a great column here (PDF). I don't doubt there are many even earlier examples of similar proposals -- as opposed to just whining about short draws, which has been going on since at least the 60s.

You'll be dazzled to find that this doubly segues perfectly into the next post on the ACP World Cup event I was completely surprised by. In it, Ivanchuk played on for a while with K+N vs K+N. The Ivanchuk Rules?


Who's to say that inspiring thousands (millions?) of Indian children to play chess is less of a contribution to the game than organizing an elite tournament would be?

Like Topalov, Fischer was a "straight talker" in his latter years, in the sense that he spoke what was on his mind. Being a "straight talker" is not the same as making sense.

mishanp found this for us in

In the final moves of the second game the spectators became witnesses to an unusual episode for games at this level: apart from kings the players had a knight each, but they - both the grandmasters, and the knights - kept manoeuvring for a few more moves, before a draw was
agreed. (...)

- And what happened in the final seconds?

Gurevich - When we were playing with a knight each I looked at him, and he looked at me. He said: "I want to take the knight". So I put it en prise and let him take it. After which he was satisfied and
resigned the match.

...And Vasily Ivanchuk meanwhile continued, detached, to walk around the Academy of Law, analysing in his head the games from the match that had just finished. He was still back there, playing. And night was approaching - and even in his sleep, if he managed to get to sleep
- he'd still be playing. That's how it is, chess. And chess players.

Great post! Funny, passionate and in-depth. That's Mig. Again and again and again.

Certainly it's very fair to credit Team Topalov for all the tournaments and matches they have arranged. Many kibitzers don’t acknowledge it. They take super tournaments for granted, and wishes Danailov to hell, (mainly) for emotional reasons.

It takes financially tough international times like now to realize, how dear such arrangements are. We need as many as we can get, and should be grateful for every high class show we get.

Tournaments provide super GM’s a living. We get high quality games to kibitz and to discuss endlessly thereafter on chessgames and so on.

Decreasing the tournament circuit is fatal to top level chess, it dries up the dwell, halters the development of opening theory etc. Credit to the Bulgarians for what they de facto have done!


"Topalov is a straight talker a bit passive aggressive"

Perhaps Mig should make up his mind on how exactly Topalov is, either a direct or a deflective talker.
As for what he said, he is right that Anand looks as having no self-respect, as sucking up, in his enthusiasm for being given attention and socializing with "the great".
For a 40 years old WCH this is pathetic. It is as if for him the real achievement is being told "good boy !" by Kasparov, rather than being belittled as "a coffeehouse player" with a tricky and fast but superficial style.

Hi Mig,

Thanks for your interesting article, always a pleasure to read them. With regards to Topalov, he is a sore loser to say the least. He will never become a world champion unless he addresses the issues that lie with himself like preparing for the matches even better and defeating opponents on the board and not by off-board tactics. Talking straight and making sense is a different thing than talking straight and making non-sense. As a player, it is your responsibility to show great credibility over and off the board and not by sulking at opponents and not taking defeat in right spirit. People can only become wise, if they accept their own mistakes and hope to overcome them. Putting responsibility on situations and other issues will only take them backwards. I was never a fan of Topalov nor ever will be, he lacks sportsmanship, which for me is integral part of a sportsman.


the most unbias post i've read in a long time. Talk about alot points jammed into one small well written piece. You managed to discuss a full variety of concepts only coming full circle at the end.

I don't see what is the connection between being a good chess player and organizing chess tournaments. Is it obvious that the top players are the best people to organize chess tournaments? Were Linares, Dortmund or Wijk aan Zee started by top players? How many World Champions have started tournaments that had a lasting impact? (Genuine question. I don't know the history.)

Kasparov called Anand a coffee house player at Linares in 1992. If self-respect means Anand should reject Kasparov's free offer of help 18 years later, I'm glad he doesn't have any. Who would he be hurting anyway, by rejecting the help? Your theories of 'good boy', 'getting attention' etc. are great for describing schoolyard social dynamics. You need to learn a bit about the adult version though.

@If self-respect means Anand should reject Kasparov's free offer of help 18 years later, I'm glad he doesn't have any.

Kasparov has always humiliated him as long as they were competing but Anand just sees it as a "normal" thing, a sports stratagem not a true belief :

from and intreview in 2005

Q/Anandaram : Anand Kasparov always tried to humiliate you. Why is that ?

A/Viswanathan Anand : Its normal to try and psyche your opponents. Thats simply comes with the territory.


In Swabia we have a saying:

'Id gscholta isch gnuag globt'
could be translated like
'not to scold is enough praise'

but at least I can quote Bobby Fiske:

"Great post! Funny, passionate and in-depth. That's Mig. Again and again and again."

"these things represent more positive action in chess than Ilyumzhinov (to pick a name at random) has contributed in 15 years"


I' m sure my neighbours, 100 meters away cold hear me.

Hi Ovidiu,

Please clarify, whether being a "good boy" hurts? Also, let me know, if forgiving one of his past misdeeds is not good enough? In this case, I'm talking of Kasparov who may have played psychological ploys with Anand. Anand himself has reiterated several times, his priority is to play chess and not hitting others with off board tactics. I'm fan of Anand, because of such impeccable behaviour.

Also, I have read several of your posts, I conclude from it that sometimes you seem very logical with your arguments but other times not sure why you like to target Anand. From my side, I do not like Topalov's comments on the match and his analysis on Anand with regards to taking help of other people, it is like hitting one below the belt after the bout.


@Anand himself has reiterated several times, his priority is to play chess and not hitting others with off board tactics.

"Those who decry war carry it by other means".

Already this story of Kasparov supporting Anand is an off-board attack against Topalov (as a person). Anand could (and should) have kept silent about it.

But he did not and now Topalov simply counters by (rightly) pointing out that this great and kind friendship is either a fake for the sake of portraying him as the isolated "bad guy" or (if honest) Anand's cost for having friends is forgiving, and forsakeing self-respect

(and, as a side note, that also it is not something which he would ever do, somehow I believe him given his tendecy towrad 'either/or', uncompromising, ways)

Hi Ovidiu,

I do not wish to carry forward further arguing as it is against my nature. Also, in my view being humble and of forgiving nature is a great virtue. I do not think aggressiveness comes by lambasting others. You have to show your aggressiveness on the board with your play and not by any other way. In my view, Topalov is a sore loser and he should inculcate sportsmanship habits, if he has to win over chess fans all across the world.


well, if u r a chesslover, then u should know the story of san luis...
topalov played the bet tournament of his life, he was the real champion for that, and the only thing which happende, was that he was accused by several people, from whom none was telling him directly into the face something, that he is a cheater....
when his match with kramnik came up, again this rumours were spread, espcially from chessbase, but also fro friends of kramnik....
nobody ever, said sorry, nobody was punished for it....

so how insulting must it have been, to pla the best chess of your life, just to be accused of some bs....
and that completly ridicoulos video from wijk, done by IM bräutigam for chessbase again...
so what topalov and danailov did in elista, was bad, really unnecessary, but understandable, if you would know the story about what happened before...

and still till know nobody said sorry for insultiing topalov, so how shall that guy feel about it?
i would understand if he still could not overcome that bad memories...
and for me personally, topalov was already chesschampion, after san luis, and he deserved that title much more then kramnik back then...
and nobody complained about when the match between them happened in russia, topalov played there...
and what did kramnik say about the game anand topalov just before ?
he would have never agreed to play in bulgaria, and that anand will loose, becuase of that, and so on...
think about that..

Hi ostap bender,

So are you implying that some one accuses you unfairly, you have the right to lambast/insult some other person who is not in any way responsible for it? Since, you are quoting the specific tournament which happened some fiver years ago, you must very well remember that Vishy Anand has never insulted Topalov or for that matter anyone else. So, do you still think, it is fair for Topalov to humiliate such a gentleman as Vishy Anand like this. As I have reiterated earlier, to me not only playing chess excellently matters but also behaving with high sportsmanship matters.

I simply felt that Topalov is hitting below the belt with his wayward comments on Anand.

I hope peace prevails amongst chess players. Players should not forget that it is not a war but simply a highly intelligent game that should be played on the board and not off it.

Peace to all.


well no, i did not write, that this is ok, but i wrote it is understandable, in general terms...
about topalov saying the things about anand, well he lost this big battle, and he just did not overcome it yet, definetly....
but i am also very sure that toplaov is the kind of guy who will say sorry about the things he said in that interview, and that he will be again friendly to anand...
but in general topalov presents himself very often much more as a true puplic sportsman, then many other chessprofessionals...
he is always giving interviews, always there for the media, staying with the sponsors also after the games... not only now, but in general..
if all prof. chessplayers would act like that, then the chess sponsoring could be already on a very different level...
and like mig wrote, it is amazing what danailov brought up on new tournaments, also about the WCC...
so i like them both a lot, anand and topalov...
they are different from each other but still i believe both of them are true guys...
for my feeling i could not write that about kramnik or kasparov...
also i do believe that kasparov chose to help anand, because the last professional game he played, he lost it, and to whom ? topalov...
and as we all know about k. he was never ever a guy who could take a loss as a sportsman...

"If he's still taking cracks at Anand a few months from now, we'll revisit the topic with the scorn turned up a few notches."

Oh right, Mig. You seem to be even more magnanimous than you are elequent today. I guess your point is that Topalov, doing Danailov's bidding or acting as independently as he is marginably able, has not been a complete dick for years, has not been a complete dick in his prior WC match, has not been a complete dick during the run-up to this match, and has not been a complete dick during this match. Hence being a complete dick in post-match interviews should not be condemned too quickly because the guy is just temporarily and understandably testy and this behavior will all pass over . . . . Just like those pigs in the sky.


Pin this note to your chess: When you publish "The Best of Mig" make sure to include this column. It is one of your best.

Agree with every point you made and laughed out loud at "going full Kortchnoi". It is refreshing to read both fair praise and constructive criticism of Anand, Topalov and Danailov. This is why the Dirt is the first thing I read every morning.

Your observation that "as with all ambitious figures you can only hope for more good than bad knowing at the start you are going to get both" is worth remembering when we put anyone on the pedestal. Your quote is in the vault and added to my repertoire.

Fatherhood agrees with you. Either you have finally gotten some sleep or you write well with your back to the wall. Keep up the great work.

Back onto the streets I go....(just kidding).

How do you say "sour grapes" in Bulgarian? Ain't karma a b*tch Veselin?!

I see Topalov compared to Kortchnoi for the second time in the last 2 weeks or so, I guess you simply cannot describe him more perfectly...

But if yo keep us off the streets, Mig, who will clean them?

It's rare to find contemporary chess jokes.

This one is from http://www.dnaindia.com/sport/report_the-king-viswanathan-anand-and-i_1383601

The great chess Grandmaster Mikhail Tal died, and Vishy Anand, who idolized him as a kid, heard his voice one day. "What's it like up there?" he inquired of Tal. "What do you want to hear first, the good news or the bad news?" Tal asked. "Tell me the good news first." "Well, it's really heaven here. There are tournaments all the time and I can play Steinitz, Alekhine, Lasker, Capablanca, Fisher, and all the greats." "Fantastic!" Anand said. "And what is the bad news?" "You have Black against Topalov on Tuesday."

Imagine a young Anand screaming "fill the gap" while banging moves on the board :)


not possible since Topalov can't make it into any form of a religion's heaven. Should have picked Kramnik or someone else.

That's an old one. My father's version was Do they play soccer in heaven? - Good news 'Yes', bad news 'you're left defender next Sunday'.

Mig said, "If he's still taking cracks at Anand a few months from now, we'll revisit the topic with the scorn turned up a few notches."

Get ready to turn up that dial. Topalov is still taking random pot shots at Kramnik in his NIC game notations. Why should he act any different when it comes to Anand? Topa really knows how to hold a grudge, warranted or not.

You built me up with your wishing hell
I didn't have to sell you
You threw your money in my pissing well
You do just what they tell you
REPENT, that's what I'm talking about
I shed the skin to feed the fake
REPENT, that's what I'm talking about
Whose mistake am I anyway?
Cut the head off
Grows back hard
I am the hydra
Now you'll see your star
Prick your finger it is done
The moon has now eclipsed the sun
The angel has spread its wings
The time has come for bitter things (chorus)
The time has come it is quite clear
Our Antichrist
Is almost here...
It is done

Hi Mig,

Thanks for your interesting article, always a pleasure to read them. With regards to Topalov, he is a sore loser to say the least. He will never become a world champion

Topalov was the 18th world champion

Anand was (and is again) the 15th world champion

Great post, Mig, you're making a habit of it! .... knowing the demands of small children I'm amazed where you get the time and energy.

I had a look at the link to GM Rogers article and his comments re draws and other matters. I have met him and despite GM Rogers being a trained meteorologist we never discussed the weather!

I take issue with his comments re the paucity of rule changes in chess: there have been far more than he lists. Just to pick a few apart from the more ancient ones like castling, en passant and Q move.

For example time control ie the introduction of the chess clock sometime in the 19thC. Apparently before the clock came in matches could be real tests of endurance! Then scoresheets became a necessity. Then adjourment rules came ... and went! Standardized boards and pieces, time increments etc etc.
Chess has never stood still but continues to evolve.
At the introduction of each change howls of protest by conservatives then gradual acquiesence....who wants to ban chess clocks now?

Even the chess tournament itself is fairly new phenomenon in the lifetime of modern chess. Originally round robin then the "revolutionary" Swiss system, no doubt greeted by howls of protest in some quarters.

The current draw debate should be seen within the context of chess's history of sometimes small, sometimes revolutionary change.

Dvoretzky's views as reported by GM Rogers are interesting (IIRC D was his trainer) but a more dramatic and permanent solution is called for .... in the spirit of our chess ancestors: for example in one fell swoop the Q went from being the weakest piece to the strongest .... no pussy-footing around in those days!

I propose that the outcome of a chess match is recorded as either a win or loss only.

From extensive game db's we now know that W has a palpable advantage: as we ascend the rating scale the preponderance of W/B wins increases markedly.

Therefore I propose that when neither side can make any progress (insufficient mating material, three-fold move repetition etc) at this point the side with the LEAST material can claim the win.

So insteading of heading for a draw the side with more material is obliged to try to win or, alternatively, sacrifice and put the pressure on the opponent to win.

Otherwise, in the event of material "equality" ( by an agreed rule as to conventional piece and pawn value) and when no further progress is possible, B is declared the winner.

That way you would win without taking any risks, just by defending equal or pawn-down positions. Instead of half a point, as now, you would get a full point, for taking all life out of the position with black. We would see a lot more Petroff.

Dear Mig,

It's well known who are you , poor Slave of Kasparov and Friedel.

¿Are you happy now ? You should be , the team Danailov&Topalov lost.

Anyway,don't cry too much for them. Danailov and Topalov are millionaires ,doing fantastic job for the world of chess,this is the reallity. Meanwhile,enjoy the moment. Carpe Diem,my friend !

P.S Why you did not published yet the Danailov interview from chessdom ?

Let me guess.. Probably your Boss did not give you permition yet .. right?
And please,stop repeting Elista 2006 like broken record. Try something else. Use your imagination,if you have any...

I don't know how Friedel finances all these stooges he allegedly has, I really don't.

Well done, Sharkman :) In a post with "stop repeating Elista 2006 like a broken record" you attack Mig for not publishing an interview where Danailov on the second line mentions: "our WC hero from Elista". Good work!

Seriously, I find it inconceivable that you actually want the world to see the interviews that Danailov and Topalov gave after the match. They're an embarrassment and can only damage the pair's reputation further, if that's physically possible.

Yes, he used his "imagination" for that one.

How can anyone take Danailov seriously?

"Topalov lost, but he was attacking and was creative during the whole match. Anand was only defending, nothing more. Brilliant defence, by the way! But maybe the fans expect different way of play from the Champion, a more inspiring one..."

So Anand was "only defending" when he was mating Topalov's ass? Or for that matter, failing to mate Topalov's ass in game 9? Does one characterize Anand's play in the end of game 11 as defensive?

I sincerely hope Anand wasn't trying to mate Topalov's ass.

" That way you would win without taking any risks, just by defending equal or pawn-down positions. Instead of half a point, as now, you would get a full point, for taking all life out of the position with black."

Meh! ... only if the opponent is fast asleep!
The opponent has the simple remedy of keeping in mind an unclear pawn or exchange sacrifice and suddenly B with the carefully constructed lifeless drawn position faces loss of the full point unless prepared to come out fighting.

HardyBerger wrote:

" I sincerely hope Anand wasn't trying to mate Topalov's ass."

Meh! ... twas written on the 9th stone long ago for Moses:

" You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's "

Does the K&K team for the FIDE election have a policy on this??

THAT would certainly have made it on to the Huffington Post sports page

If anything, Topalov's own assesment of Anand magnifies their differences. Anand has class, Topalov lacks any class whatsoever.

To be able to put aside pettiness is not easy. Anand has been able to look past the usual gamesmanship. I don't think Topalov has the capacity to grasp this. Very sad.

I find this a bit disturbing for chess reporting-->

Mig, new thread? :)

"During the Anand - Topalov WCC 2010, a message appeared on the official site stating, "Warning! It is absolutely prohibited the live broadcast of the moves or video during the game on other websites, media or software without the explicit permission of the organizers of the match. This prohibition is being violated by ChessBase"

A few weeks after the end of the championship Chessdom.com received news directly from a German source that the case is already presented in court. Regarding the moves copyright case and the recent exchange of media releases between teams Topalov and Anand, we contacted the manager of Veselin Topalov and one of the central figures behind the organization of the WCC - Silvio Danailov. He was disturbed by the fact that millions of euros were invested in the most watched online World chess championship in history, while Chessbase is putting themselves above the law and taking the moves without permission. Read on for full details: "

Chess moves, that is, basic games scores, are not protected by copyright. Period. Perhaps it would be better for chess, from a commercial perspective, if things were otherwise...hard to say.... But that is an academic question.

I am always amused by the pretenses of chessdom: "we contacted the manager of Veselin Topalov and one of the central figures behind the organization of the WCC - Silvio Danailov." What BS. Chessdom IS Danailov - his vanity project to ensure that there is one lone source on the web that portrays him in a positive light....

Najdorf is not a defence

This is old news ... AJ and Ovidiu found the earlier thread on this topic, March 2009 (Topalov-Kamsky match). Back then, Chessbase stopped live transmissions when the organizers threatened to sue them in court, now they were not impressed during the match - it seems that their own law experts assess the situation differently.

I wonder if other sites (notably ICC) really had a "commercial contract" with the match organizers - Peter Doggers from Chessvibes mentioned that they (tried to) charge 15,000 Euros for the right to transmit moves live, and/or use photos from the official website. Chessvibes opted against live transmission, TWIC had a 15-minute delay "out of respect to the organizers" - hmmm, they don't have such respect for other organizers?!

BTW, the end of the interview is even more odd:
Q As we mention the World Chess Championship, the last interview that we had a few days ago reached mainstream media in many countries including India. [he refers to the _Times of India_ interview, topic of this Dailydirt thread!]
Danailov: "with all my respect Mrs. Anand is not a manager, she is a secretary. ... About her reaction, it looks to me a little bit nervous, but what to do, the truth hurts sometimes."
There is truth, and there's Danailov's truth. There are laws, and there are Danailov's laws.

(With apologies to Robin Williams).
Every time you hear something new from Danailov or Topalov you are more convinced that Darwin never visited Bulgaria.

Again, let's try to leave 'Bulgaria' out of it. But yeah Danailov does sound like a caveman, talking about Aruna. (With apologies to actual cavemen.)

Kramnik on the Anand-Topalov match (in English for an Indian newspaper, though I initially found it in Bulgarian...): http://www.mid-day.com/sports/2010/may/240510-vladimir-kramnik-interview-sports-chess.htm

"I share a good personal equation with Vishy and I think that as a person he is very honourable. The World Champion is seen as the representative of the world of chess and it is imperative that he be strong, chess wise and also in conduct.

I genuinely think Vishy is a better chess player and would represent the chess world in a better way than his opponent. Topalov is strong but not on the same level as Vishy chess wise. Therefore, I saw no reason not to help."

I like this comment: "I was also trying to get some new ideas and in that sense, I was also working, although not as much as Vishy, obviously!"

For curiosity's sake - here's the interview in Bulgarian: http://moresport.actualno.com/news_300465.html

They give it the title: "Kramnik: Topalov can't represent chess to the world!", and the introduction:

"Veselin Topalov's great rival - Vladimir Kramnik, didn't let the chance slip to attack [lit. "sting", maybe "rub it in"] the Bulgarian after his dramatic loss to Vishwanathan Anand in the match for the world title which was played in Sofia. As we know, our grandmaster lost the battle with the Indian in the final 12th game. Kramnik, who beat Topalov in the scandalous match in Elista in 2006, declared that the Bulgarian grandmaster isn't on the level of Anand. He also boasts that he gave the Indian ideas which helped him to prevail against the Bulgarian.

In the interview from his house in Paris for the top Indian tabloid, "Mid-day", Kramnik also said that Vishy (editor's note: that's what the Russians call him) could have won much more convincingly. Kramnik, who dethroned Kasparov in 2000, even went as far as to openly insult Topalov, declaring that he didn't have the aura to represent chess to the world... "

Actually that is the difference between the Russians and the Bulgarians - while Topa & co give furious interviews to the press, Kramnik actually does something about it :)

Good morning Mr. Mig Greengard,

You are well known servant of Kasparov and Friedel.

¿Can you have a balls to publish this ,my friend ?

If I remember well,you were laughing on this during the match.. Tell me,who is laughing now ?


Or you need special permition from your boss ?

You're on a roll - this is really going to help Danailov's reputation :)

"First of all let me clarify one thing: with all my respect Mrs. Anand is not a manager, she is a secretary. Manager is a very serious profession, the manager promotes and popularises chess , looking for sponsorship money and organizing world class events. Basically what she is doing is pick up the phone, send emails, faxes, booking tickets, etc.

About her reaction, it looks to me a little bit nervous, but what to do, the truth hurts sometimes."

Of course apart from the insult what he lists Aruna doing is exactly what a manager normally does (while staying in the background). Danailov seems to be confusing "manager" with "event organiser"...

Aruna did a very good job before and throughtout the match, staying polite without giving an inch, shielding her client so he could keep his focus on chess.

We're all laughing. At you.

Not what I had in mind, but amusing to contemplate.

"Good Boy" image, "Forgiving" character, "Modesty" blah blah blah gets spoken about Anand as if he makes an effort to be all that.

Scratch Anand's community background & you will see that all of this and more is natural. Anand is an Iyer. Brahmins south of India are not known to be aggressive, or revenge minded. They are not known to be brash or violent or murderous in their thinking when insulted.

Unlike more Martial communities an eye-for-an-eye is alien to that community. No blood feuds either.

Thomas, while threats are not uncommon, actually initiating legal action seems to be a bit more uncommon. I don't think anybody has really followed through on threats before.

Midday is a rag not unlike the Daily Mirror. Take any such junk news with a grain of salt. I am pretty sure it was considerably...embellished.

Yep, the paper's unashamedly tabloid, though the guy who wrote that article seems to know what he's talking about... and to read this blog - e.g. here: http://www.mid-day.com/sports/2010/apr/270410-Viswanathan-Anand-Veselin-Topalov-World-Chess-Championship.htm

"However, when Anand played the 15th move (15.Qa3) against Veselin Topalov in the second game of the World Chess Championship 2010 at Sofia yesterday, "Garry" said he, "left the room in shock after Anand played Qa3." He also said his message to Vishy afterwards was "you can just give up a pawn in every game!" posted Mig Greencard, one of the most read and admired chess bloggers."

The Kramnik quotes sound too authentic to be made up.

Manisha Mohite was a chess player earlier and she is reliable. I don't think the interview is made up or embellished. Mid-day does have some reputable journalists and columnists.

Thanks for the info - and sorry for the "guy" & "he", Manisha!

For real rags you'll need to go to the Mumbai Mirror and generally anything from the Times stable. Mid-Day by comparison is a paragon of accuracy.

Agree.. Times is the trash bucket of Indian press

@jaideepblue you seem to love demonising and dismissing things with use of words "rags" etc. to describe papers.

Those papers have real people working for them.

Who the f*** do you think you are? Some saint? Some God decended on Earth?

Didn't Svidler advocate 15.Qa3 on ICC?

Anand himself attributed 15.Qa3? to once again mixing up his preparation.

Hi Mig. Maurice Ashley proposed the end of the draw offer back in March 2003: http://www.chess.co.uk/twic/twic436.html That puts him 3 months ahead of Rogers, and possibly ahead of Dvoretsky.

I remember Ashley's letter well, though I didn't realize it was so close to the Dvoretsky piece. But note there is a difference between move minimums, which, as is pointed out in Maurice's letter, have been around for a long time, and actually banning the mutually agreed draw.

I visited this page first time to get info on people search and found it Very Good Job of acknowledgment and a marvelous source of info.........Thanks Admin! http://www.reverse-phone-look-up.net

Twitter Updates

    Follow me on Twitter



    About this Entry

    This page contains a single entry by Mig published on May 29, 2010 12:28 AM.

    Kavalek Comes Back was the previous entry in this blog.

    Chess, Being Played is the next entry in this blog.

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