chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

🏆
MATCH STANDINGS
Topalov - Kamsky Match

Veselin Topalov4.5/7(+3 -1 =3)[games]
Gata Kamsky2.5/7(+1 -3 =3)[games]

TOPALOV vs KAMSKY
Sofia, Bulgaria, Feb. 17-27 2009

 page 1 of 1; 7 games  PGN Download 
Game  ResultMoves YearEvent/LocaleOpening
1. Topalov vs Kamsky ½-½352009Topalov - Kamsky MatchD86 Grunfeld, Exchange
2. Kamsky vs Topalov 0-1322009Topalov - Kamsky MatchC65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense
3. Topalov vs Kamsky ½-½372009Topalov - Kamsky MatchD81 Grunfeld, Russian Variation
4. Kamsky vs Topalov 1-0732009Topalov - Kamsky MatchC92 Ruy Lopez, Closed
5. Topalov vs Kamsky 1-0552009Topalov - Kamsky MatchC07 French, Tarrasch
6. Kamsky vs Topalov ½-½432009Topalov - Kamsky MatchB12 Caro-Kann Defense
7. Topalov vs Kamsky 1-0452009Topalov - Kamsky MatchC07 French, Tarrasch
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2)  
 

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 99 OF 99 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Mar-04-09  MeatGrinder: <Petrosianic: The person who got screwed under the 2700 Rule was not Topalov, it was Radjabov. He had previously issued a challenge under that rule, and had it accepted. Topalov had no right, but was given one anyway. Radjabov had a right, and had it taken away without compensation. If they'd stuck to the letter of the law, Topalov would have gone back to Square 1, and it probably would have been Radjabov-Kamsky for the shot at Anand.>

Did Radjabov put over a million dollars in Escrow, which was one of the requirements for the 2700 Rule challenge? No. There were just talks about a possible match.. And as Danailov put it, without the money in the bank and contracts signed, it's all just talk. So Radjabov had no rights taken away from him. Topalov on the other hand had secured the money required for the challenge but FIDE didn't like the bank for whatever reason. Also by your logic Topalov or FIDE could have declined Kramnik's challenge any time and cut him from the WC cycle completely. But the reality was that Topalov was pressured by all possible means to accept the match both by FIDE, Kramink and German/Russian media. On top of that he had to agree to many of Kramnik's terms, like the match tiebreaks to be decided in rapid play. Yes, the "classical world champion" insisted on the WCC to be decided in rapid games in case of draw in the regular games, while Topalov insisted on more classical games to be played. Anyway, Topalov definitely made a big compromise by agreeing to play the match in Elista and it was Kramnik who was granted a big privilege/gift once again. But that doesn't seem to bother you and the rest of the Kramnik/"classical title" defenders that much. And although I don't agree with Topalov getting seeded directly in the match with Kamsky, I believe he was indeed due some compensation.

Mar-04-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  Petrosianic: <Did Radjabov put over a million dollars in Escrow, which was one of the requirements for the 2700 Rule challenge? No.>

Unclear. This article

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail...

claims that they signed a "memorandum", but it isn't clear exactly what that means.

In any case, we can't have it both ways. We can't claim on the one hand that the 2700 Rule gave Topalov the right to a match even without a contract being signed, yet it did not give Radjabov any rights because he didn't sign a contract. That would be inconsistent reasoning. Radjabov did in fact challenge under the 2700 Rule before Topalov, so he was first in line for any rights that came from that rule, if there were any (actually there weren't).

Mar-04-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  acirce: Well, there was never anything to stop a match from happening if the World Champion agreed to the terms. And I always thought they did sign a contract. Gasanov says in this interview, made by <ahmadov> by the way, that...

<After Topalovís loss, we needed to negotiate with Kramnikís team to revitalize the contract to organize Kramnik-Radjabov match, but the Azerbaijan chess federation did not do that.> http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail...

Mar-04-09  MeatGrinder: I know about the memorandum but it was just a preliminary agreement with many ifs. It was not an official challenge. There was no money, no venue, no date. Topalov side made an official (all by the rules) concrete offer: he put 2 million dollars in escrow and offered venue and date. There is a big difference.
Mar-04-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  Petrosianic: Well, I don't want to cry over Radjabov's rights too much. My real point is that Topalov had none, and so Makropoulos's rationale for gifting him a shot at Kamsky is incorrect.

For all his complaints about being victimized, Topalov has actually been the recipient of some pretty heavy-duty special priviliges, of the kind normally given only to people like Karpov and Fischer. But it seems to be standard procedure for Danailov to try to paint his priviliges as hardships, and complain about them. Before this match, for example, he was talking about what a hardship it was to have to play on one's home turf (!).

http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp...

Mar-04-09  MeatGrinder: <Topalov has actually been the recipient of some pretty heavy-duty special priviliges, of the kind normally given only to people like Karpov and Fischer>

LOL, except for the match with Kamsky what other priviliges has Topalov been granted? Do I need to list the gifts Kramnik has received over the last 10 years?

Ok, I agree about Danailov home turf hardship spinoff, but then there is also some truth in it.

Mar-04-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  Jim Bartle: "LOL, except for the match with Kamsky what other priviliges has Topalov been granted?"

The famous line, "Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?" comes to mind.

Mar-04-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  Petrosianic: <LOL, except for the match with Kamsky what other priviliges has Topalov been granted? Do I need to list the gifts Kramnik has received over the last 10 years?>

Even if that were the only one, it would be pretty big. But there's also nearly breaking up the 2006 match with improper public charges and getting a slap on the wrist (though it looks like Shak is about to get away with a similar offense without even the slap).

Accusing the FIDE President, in print, of complicity in a cheating scheme, while maybe not that outrageous given Kirsan's (ahem) sterling character, is still not the kind of thing that just anybody could get away with.

Getting to keep the Game 5 forfeit by threatening a walkout was not only a privilige, but a shock to many people. The night beforehand, a lot of his fans were saying that a fighter like Topalov wouldn't even want a free point handed to him.

I don't see any need to stick up for Kramnik. Except for the reunification match, which was signed in 2002, and which the whole chess world had wanted since 1993, I don't see the need to defend any priviliges he got. Actually, when you compare Kramnik to someone like Susan Polgar, who simply had her title taken away from her, you'd have to add Kramnik to the priviliged list also.

Mar-04-09  WhiteRook48: Anand will probably smash Topalov later in the year.
Mar-08-09  Dredge Rivers: Why, why, why! Why did such a good person like Kamsky have to lose to the likes of Mr. Roboto and his insufferable manager! WHY! WHY! WHY!
Mar-08-09  SniperOnG7: Don't worry, there's Anand still. And if Topalov gets past the World Champ, one can only admit that Mr. Roboto is pretty decent at chess.
Mar-08-09  grebenarov: <Dredge Rivers: Why, why, why! Why did such a good person like Kamsky have to lose to the likes of Mr. Roboto and his insufferable manager! WHY! WHY! WHY!>

You ask Nigel Short if Kamsky is a good person. In one interview he says Kamsky is like a "ex gang member who only recently is trying to clear his name off".

I am just saying what I read

Mar-10-09  Dredge Rivers: <grebenarov>

1. The next time I care what Nigel Short thinks will be the first.

2. At least Kamsky broke free of his father. When Topalov does the same with his own Svengali, I'll respect him as a person. Until then, I shall continue to dislike him, thank you very much.

<SniperOnG7>

I never said that Topalov was anything less that a great chessplayer. He is. I do not, however, have to like him.

Mar-11-09  sillybilly47: Fischer was the best ever. He would have busted up Karpov.
Mar-14-09  SniperOnG7: <Dredge Rivers> Indeed, you do not have to like him. I don't either, to be honest. My previous post materialized from the quesiton that I ask myself in regards to Topalov: why are such great chess talent and skills wasted on this personality. Reading my previous post again, you will find it obvious that I support Anand fully in the upcoming match.
Mar-15-09  WhiteRook48: he does horrible with Black (Kamsky)
Mar-18-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  Eyal: Svidler on the match, in an interview to Europe Echecs:

<It was actually a very close match. It was a bit surprising for me that Topalov beat Kamsky basically on confidence. We all expected Topalov, if he were to win, to crush Kamsky in the openings, and I personally felt that if Kamsky survives the opening phase then he is not really such an underdog. I respect him very much as a chess player. He is very tenacious, he can play long games - he doesnít care about long games - which is important against Topalov, because Topalov likes and can handle long games himself, so in general stamina is important against him. I felt that if somehow openings were removed from the equation, I thought it would be a very even match.

But for whatever reason - and I have seen some snippets of interviews and remarks by Sutovsky who felt that Gata was in terrible shape chesswise - it looked like Kamsky didn't trust himself. He is always in time trouble, but if you get into time troubles like this in a world championship match it probably means that you are triple checking everything. You donít trust your decisions, you feel you need to check and recheck and recheck everything. In game one when facing this novelty - and I was very surprised that this was a novelty for him, because this is a critical line and he should have checked everything - after running into something unpleasant he spent an hour at the board and he played a move which could possibly be the best move in the position - he even had winning chances - and I thought, this is interesting!

And then game two happened, and game two you really cannot explain. The guy plays a rare line of the Spanish, and for me Topalov's decision to play the Spanish against Kamsky to me looked like madness, because Topalov is a born Sicilian player, and Kamsky isn't. If you have Sicilian as an option, why would you choose not to play the Sicilian against Kamsky? Especially for someone like Topalov, who has years of experience with the Sicilian, and who is now probably one of the best Sicilian players in the world, with both colours, why would he want to play closed positions against Kamsky, who is very good at closed positions, I will never know. But he plays the Spanish, and then instead of taking a break and reconsidering, he takes risks and loses badly. It looks like the match is over, because this is a huge loss. But then he does well in game three and he wins game four - Spanish again.

And then the time troubles return. Even after losing the fifth and drawing the sixth Kamsky was very close to winning the seventh, with black. But time management and - Sutovsky was probably correct in saying - terrible form is what decided the match. I think Topalov deserved to win it because he was the more confident player. Plus two in seven games looks like a rout, like a crushing victory, but it was basically a very even match with two games completely ruined by time trouble. We all thought Topalov was the favourite, but how he won was a bit surprising. I expected him to win most of his white games, which he didn't. The two he did win, one he won in time trouble after two blunders in a row, and game seven he was lost. So he won them not because he was white but because he was more confident, less in time trouble and not the last one to blunder.> (http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail...)

Mar-18-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  Jim Bartle: Very interesting, sharp comments from Svidler.
Mar-18-09  Open Defence: very accurate assessment I think
Mar-22-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  whiteshark: Indeed a good wrap-up.
Apr-10-09  Dredge Rivers: Not good enough!

TOPALOV SUCKS!!

May-28-09  bharatiy: Nice prediction from Fischl, on the spot!! http://members.aon.at/sfischl/topal...
Sep-18-09  theodor: <botevist: <PinnedPiece: <Nigel Short: Who cares if Topalov-kamsky takes place? Does anybody remember why this match is supposed to happen?> Once again, a succinct reason why this match is being played? (and without rancor, please)?> To provide a challenger for the WC match with Anand.

And obviously GM Short also cares, as is evident from his trollish comment.> I have already post that (in bulgarian mass media) they where to be played two semifinals: anand-kramnik and topalov-kamski; then, without any explanation, anand and kramnik played for the title! or have I hallucinations, nor bg media where wrong!

Sep-18-09  theodor: <Dredge Rivers: <grebenarov>

1. The next time I care what Nigel Short thinks will be the first.

2. At least Kamsky broke free of his father. When Topalov does the same with his own Svengali, I'll respect him as a person. Until then, I shall continue to dislike him, thank you very much.

<SniperOnG7>

I never said that Topalov was anything less that a great chessplayer. He is. I do not, however, have to like him.> hi, yesterday I went to repare my car and, while wating I read an intervew of topa; once, when topa was yang, meeting silvio, took an invitation to go to spane; they travelled by the old car of danailov, then, eventually topa won nearly all events. can you draw away such a person, even if not 100% correct(I've heard from a serious journalist, that SD where stealing topa). so, dont blame topa; a great bulgarian drama specialist(sarchedjiev) said: we must help talanted people, the others will arrange by themselvs!

May-06-11  Wyatt Gwyon: The politics in chess are worse than boxing.
Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 99)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 99 OF 99 ·  Later Kibitzing>
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No posting personal information of members.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.


NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific tournament and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!


home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | advertising | contact us
Copyright 2001-2017, Chessgames Services LLC