Amber Tournament (Rapid) (2009) (games of Veselin Topalov)

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

Kibitzing

🏆 Amber Tournament (Rapid) (2009)

Player: Veselin Topalov

page 1 of 1; 11 games

Game Result Moves Year Event/Locale Opening
1. Topalov vs Radjabov ½-½ 40 2009 Amber Tournament (Rapid) B30 Sicilian

2. Karjakin vs Topalov 1-0 46 2009 Amber Tournament (Rapid) C43 Petrov, Modern Attack

3. Topalov vs Wang Yue ½-½ 76 2009 Amber Tournament (Rapid) D18 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav, Dutch

4. Topalov vs Morozevich 1-0 43 2009 Amber Tournament (Rapid) C93 Ruy Lopez, Closed, Smyslov Defense

5. Kramnik vs Topalov ½-½ 54 2009 Amber Tournament (Rapid) D44 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav

6. Topalov vs Leko ½-½ 59 2009 Amber Tournament (Rapid) C90 Ruy Lopez, Closed

7. Ivanchuk vs Topalov ½-½ 32 2009 Amber Tournament (Rapid) C85 Ruy Lopez, Exchange Variation Doubly Deferred (DERLD)

8. Topalov vs Carlsen ½-½ 28 2009 Amber Tournament (Rapid) D37 Queen's Gambit Declined

9. Anand vs Topalov ½-½ 17 2009 Amber Tournament (Rapid) C65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense

10. Topalov vs Kamsky 0-1 30 2009 Amber Tournament (Rapid) B42 Sicilian, Kan

11. Aronian vs Topalov ½-½ 17 2009 Amber Tournament (Rapid) E10 Queen's Pawn Game

REFINE SEARCH: White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2) | Topalov wins | Topalov loses

TIP: You can make the above ads go away by registering a free account!

< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 60 OF 60 · Later Kibitzing>
Mar-26-09		Kaspablanca: vesivialvy: what blitz chess are you talking about?

Mar-26-09		KamikazeAttack: <KingG: Topalov isn't that successful at rapid, and isn't particularly good at blindfold either, so it's no surprise that he doesn't do so well here.> Topalov is quite good in Blindfold. He won it 3 times in the past.

Mar-26-09		Vakus: <AuN1> - no need to crush a conspiracy theory, just read the articles on that issue in ChessVibes, ChessBase, ChessPro. And even if Topalov could win that, a draw in rapid section would be well enough for Aronian's first place (check the tie-break)

Mar-26-09		karoaper: From Amberchess2009.com : Score after Round 11 Blindfold --------------- 1. Aronian 7 Carlsen 7 Kramnik 7 4. Anand 6� Morozevich 6� 6. Leko 5� Topalov 5� 8. Ivanchuk 5 Radjabov 5 10. Karjakin 4� 11. Wang Yue 3� 12. Kamsky 3 Rapid --------- 1. Anand 7 Aronian 7 Kamsky 7 4. Kramnik 6� 5. Carlsen 6 Karjakin 6 7. Topalov 5 8. Ivanchuk 4� Leko 4� Morozevich 4� 11. Radjabov 4 Wang Yue 4 Combined ---------- 1. Aronian 14 2. Anand 13� Kramnik 13� 4. Carlsen 13 5. Morozevich 11 6. Karjakin 10� Topalov 10� 8. Kamsky 10 Leko 10 10. Ivanchuk 9� 11. Radjabov 9 12. Wang Yue 7�

Mar-27-09		KamikazeAttack: Congrats to Aronian, the Houdini of our time. He is the Lord of the Manor as far as Amber is concerned now. 2 srt8 wins in all categories is very, very impressive indeed - excellent. However, old pros Anand and Kramnik continue to prove their mettle in their specialised categories. Anand - 5 rapid wins in 6 years. Kramnik - 3 BF wins in 3 years (Hat-trick).

Mar-27-09		vesivialvy93: kasablanca ....sorry , you're right , it's rapid chess , not blitz ...i need a good night sleep ;-)

Mar-27-09		percyblakeney: <why do they call Morozevich a blindfold expert?, what merits does he have that seperates him from for example Kramnik(who is not referred to as an expert)> <I think Kramnik is the ral expert> <there were only two exceptional results by Moro in blindfold, 2004 and 2006> I don't really agree with the comparison that is supposed to show that Kramnik is the blindfold expert of the two... Morozevich's +7 in 2002 was also a rather exceptional result considering that that was the first time he participated. Morozevich's blindfold scores: +7 +3 +6 +1 +8 +3 +2 +2. That's an average of +4. Kramnik's scores have been very slightly worse on average as can be seen above (but of course more or less just as excellent). I think both Kramnik and Morozevich are excellent blindfold players, but I would consider Morozevich as the expert of the two since Kramnik always has been top five in all disciplines. He has performed very strong results in classical, rapid and blitz the last decade. Morozevich hasn't been top five in anything else than blindfold and there he has for much of the time been #1, or at worst #2, so I think it would be strange not to see him as a blindfold expert. One could just look at his scores against Anand and Topalov, he is 12-1 against these strong blindfold players that both have an even score against Kramnik. He is 2-3 against Kramnik himself though, but that isn't too bad either.

Mar-27-09		anandrulez: http://members.aon.at/sfischl/blind... Blindfold performance of players from 2000-2008

Mar-27-09		square dance: maybe someone who was into that sort of thing could calculate their updated blindfold ratings. :-)

Mar-27-09		percyblakeney: <updated blindfold ratings> After Amber 2009 it should be Morozevich: 2860 in 88 games Kramnik: 2823 in 143 games

Mar-27-09		percyblakeney: The top five in rapid chess 2000-2009 should look like this (Fischl's stats plus Amber): Anand 2816 in 406 games Kasparov 2803 in 104 games Aronian 2781 in 119 games Kramnik 2767 in 209 games Ivanchuk 2764 in 332 games

Mar-27-09		DCP23: <percyblakeney: <updated blindfold ratings>> Thanks!

Mar-27-09		square dance: thanks pb.

Mar-27-09		percyblakeney: <DCP23> <square dance> You're welcome!

Mar-27-09		KamikazeAttack: <anandrulez: http://members.aon.at/sfischl/blind... Blindfold performance of players from 2000-2008 > I wonder if Bu would be invited to Amber next year.

Mar-28-09		ILikeFruits: this is... a man's... world... i said this... is a man's... world... but it... would be... nothing without... women or... girl...

Mar-28-09		cuendillar: it would.... be easier... to read if... you... wrote it... on one line... with ... no... dots...

Mar-28-09		Jim Bartle: I don't mind the dots or the one-word lines that much. What drive me nuts are the 400-word posts written in a single paragraph! I gave up reading "Remembrance of Things Past" just because there weren't any paragraph breaks.

Mar-28-09		khursh: - .... .- -. -.- ... / .--- .. -- / -... .- .-. - .-.. . -.-.-- http://www.omnicron.com/~ford/java/...

Mar-28-09		Vakus: .-.. . ...- --- -. / .- .-. --- -. .. .- -. / .. ... / - .... . / -.-. .... .- -- .--. .. --- -. :)

Mar-28-09		ILikeFruits: so many... dots...

Mar-28-09		I Like Fish: dots are there... to breathe in... air...

Mar-28-09		ILikeFruits: indeed...

Mar-30-09		ajile: <Vakus: <AuN1> - no need to crush a conspiracy theory, just read the articles on that issue in ChessVibes, ChessBase, ChessPro. And even if Topalov could win that, a draw in rapid section would be well enough for Aronian's first place (check the tie-break)> Yes there are a bunch of people talking about this conspiracy idea. Thing is why don't any of the chess websites (this one included) show all the prize money for all the places? I don't get it since most other sports clearly show how the prize money is divided. Why is chess different? And if we knew what the prizes were then we could better gauge how much money Topalov would lose by dropping a place in order to drop Kramnik out of the lead.

Apr-17-09		jussu: <ajile> - I have always been irritated when reading tennis news and finding that quite a proportion of the text is reserved to reports on how much money was at the stake. This is low, I want to read about the sport, not to browse in the sportsmen's wallets.

Jump to page # (enter # from 1 to 60)
search thread:
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 60 OF 60 · Later Kibitzing>

NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, is 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:

No obscene, racist, sexist, profane, raunchy, or disgusting language.
No spamming, advertising, duplicate or nonsense posts.
No malicious personal attacks, including cyber stalking, systematic antagonism, or gratuitous name-calling of any member Iincludinfgall Admin and Owners or any of their family, friends, associates, or business interests. If you think someone is an idiot, then provide evidence that their reasoning is invalid and/or idiotic, instead of just calling them an idiot. It's a subtle but important distinction, even in political discussions.
Nothing in violation of United States law.
No malicious posting of or linking to personal, private, and/or negative information (aka "doxing" or "doxxing") about any member, (including all Admin and Owners) or any of their family, friends, associates, or business interests. This includes all media: text, images, video, audio, or otherwise. Such actions will result in severe sanctions for any violators.
NO TROLLING. Admin and Owners know it when they see it, and sanctions for any trolls will be significant.
Any off-topic posts which distract from the primary topic of discussion are subject to removal.
The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by Moderators is expressly prohibited.
The use of "sock puppet" accounts in an attempt to undermine any side of a debate—or to create a false impression of consensus or support—is prohibited.
All decisions with respect to deleting posts, and any subsequent discipline, are final, and occur at the sole discretion of the Moderators, Admin, and Owners.
Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a Moderator.

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, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors. All Moderator actions taken are at the sole discretion of the Admin and Owners—who will strive to act fairly and consistently at all times.

Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!