< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 354 OF 406 ·
|May-11-10|| ||strifeknot: Let's thank the Bulgarians for not pulling any of the disgraceful shenanigans they did in Elista.|
Of course, Topalov was never in a big hole the way he was against Kramnik. I wonder if Danailov and company would've resorted to some kind of psychological warfare if Anand had gone up by two or three games.
It was very trusting of Anand to play the match in Sofia.
|May-11-10|| ||yogi1986: Morphy's record was good but his opposition was appalling? That is a popular myth with little to no amount of truth to it. Morphy beat Andersson the author of the immortal and the evergreen games soundly in a match. Analysis of his games with players like Louis Paulsen (one of the most underrated and tragically forgotten players in chess history)and Harrawitz show very high grandmaster level chess where Morphy had to dig deep to convert. Louis Paulsen was playing the so called modern openings like the Sicillians in the mid 19th century.|
|May-11-10|| ||Shamot: to <ReneDescartes> : beautifully written piece of commentary! very nice and impressive!
thanks for sharing.|
|May-11-10|| ||sakii: Do we know all the seconds now
Anand - Nielsen, Kasim, Ganguly
Topalov - Chaperinov, ..
|May-11-10|| ||SetNoEscapeOn: Sort of a bizarre comment from Topalov about the 13th, don't you agree: "I didn't want a repetition because I lost the tie-break to Kramnik on the 13th." |
|May-11-10|| ||cjgone: Someone play something other than d-4 please! :D Not counting the one c-4 opening.|
|May-11-10|| ||samikd: So Anand had only 3 seconds ? (Kasim-Nielsen-Ganguly ) . I thought he said he had 5 ?|
|May-11-10|| ||Kaspablanca: Fischer was an empiric champion, he didnt have a coach or a second, Botvinik had the privilege to defend the title many times only a year after losing it, what would happen if the Karpov-Fischer match take place?
Shach matov hate to Kramnik is comparable to Hitler`s with jews:)|
|May-11-10|| ||blind.sacrifice: Post victory interviews thoroughly wasted by the ignorant interviewers who are only interested in black magic and lord of the rings but still worth a listen|
|May-11-10|| ||Akavall: <Sort of a bizarre comment from Topalov about the 13th, don't you agree: "I didn't want a repetition because I lost the tie-break to Kramnik on the 13th." >|
Hehe, I guess that explains why Danailov was so opposed to the postponement!
|May-11-10|| ||blind.sacrifice: <samikd> Also the Polish player Wojkashek (check spelling!). Same team as Bonn predictably - why change something that isn't broken|
|May-11-10|| ||slomarko: <Wojkashek> omg "Wojkashek"? it's Wojtaszek.|
|May-11-10|| ||blind.sacrifice: <slomarko> I did say check spelling if you read my comment. Even got first letters right!|
|May-12-10|| ||Bobwhoosta: <ReneDescartes, Everyone who made a "great post" comment>|
Thank you for that commentary, and thank you to the commenters on the commentary, as I would not have waltzed back a few pages to find it if it weren't for you...
Delightful, and delicious in its speculations. Also, spot on in its comparison. Lasker and Anand play the board and the man, neither play the fool.
|May-12-10|| ||apexin: great match, it is worth watching|
|May-12-10|| ||chancho: Anand post game interview:
<Q: Whatís the first reaction?>
<Anand: Basically Iím relieved. It was the toughest match of my life. He is a tough opponent. Till today, every single result was possible. So it is a great feeling.>
<Q: What exactly did the trick? There were no d4-like surprises from you this time.>
<Anand: To be honest, he surprised us with his preparation. He was different from his earlier games. His preparation was very good and deep. My team had worked and later they had to rework their strategy. It was hard work in every single game.>
<Q: How do you analyse the championship as a whole?>
<Anand: It was a topsy-turvy match. It could have gone either way. Iím happy that I emerged on the winning side. Both of us worked hard and we had to be on our toes every time. But we knew it would be very close. It eventually was very close.>
<Q: Is it the biggest career win?>
<Anand: At the moment, it seems so. I have had many great results but at this moment I cannot think of any other game that can be better than this. I will think over it once it sinks in.>
<Q: Topalov is known to be a great fighter and a difficult opponent. In that sense, is it the most difficult win?>
<Anand: I would say it is a very crucial win. It came my way and Iím very happy about it.>
|May-12-10|| ||MarbleSkull: Everett: Actually, I think Anand would mop the floor with Kramnik again. Didn't he reveal that he has something like 60% of Kramnik's games committed to memory? |
I don't know who Anand will defend his title against next, but if it's anyone besides Aronian (and maybe him, too), I see Anand keeping his title for a few more years. He wants it as long as he can hold it, and from this match that length looks promising.
|May-12-10|| ||Reisswolf: Do we finally know who were Anand's seconds? Or is he still keeping the information secret?|
|May-12-10|| ||Winter: Anand's second...
GM Nielsen, GM Ganguly, and GM Kasimdzhanov
|May-12-10|| ||vesivialvy93: <chancho> About Anand saying "....it was the toughest match of my life"
what about losing in 1995(vs Kasparov) and 1998(vs Karpov)...i don't understand why he's saying this one vs Topalov is the toughest, the only thing i can see here, is that in 95 and 98 , he clearly didn't work as hard as he should have , only because of a lack of confidences in the chances he had to beat Kasparov and Karpov 15 years ago|
|May-12-10|| ||VaselineTopLove: <bout Anand saying "....it was the toughest match of my life" what about losing in 1995(vs Kasparov) and 1998(vs Karpov)...i don't understand why he's saying this one vs Topalov is the toughest, the only thing i can see here, is that in 95 and 98 , he clearly didn't work as hard as he should have , only because of a lack of confidences in the chances he had to beat Kasparov and Karpov 15 years ago>|
What he means by tough here is that there's a lot of nervous tension and suspense in the air, towards the end games, which wasn't there in 1995, simply because Kasparov already had a commanding lead, and there was little suspense in the match.
As far as his match with Karpov is concerned, Anand knows the rules weren't fair and he's not going to worry about a tough match that had nothing to do with him per se even though he managed to equalize, but lost in the rapids.
|May-12-10|| ||SufferingBruin: I'm a huge fan of Anand. Leading up to this match he had one of his worst years, what, two years ago? And last year he wasn't exactly setting the world on fire. Add to that his age and you get a guy who by all rights should be on his last legs. And what does he do? He beats one of the highest rated players of the last five years, a player very much in his prime who was playing on home soil, backed by folks who are the chess equivalents of the Gambino family and who had the white pieces in the penultimate game.|
Amidst all of this, Anand still beat Veselin Topalov. I am very, very impressed with Viswanathan Anand.
But let's remember three things about Bobby Fischer before we put Anand a notch ahead on the all-time list:
1) Fischer didn't just beat people leading up to the most famous chess match ever played, he was crushing people. Let's also not forget number two which is...
2) winning the most famous chess match ever played and finally
3) the wealth of evidence from people who saw him play and studied his games suggest that Fischer wasn't just a great player, he was a phenomenon.
Bobby Fischer was a chess superstar. The game has had very few superstars. For the purpose of definition, let's call a superstar someone who, at some point in their career, established a level of play that was significantly ahead of their contemporaries and who also blew people away by the way they played. I think chess has had five superstars: Kasparov, Karpov, Fischer, Morphy and maybe Capablanca.
Anand does not meet superstar status and likely never will. Personally, I much prefer Anand to the megalomaniacal Kasparov, the creepy (at least earlier in his career) Karpov and the bat***t crazy Fischer. I want to put him on the top of the list. I can't do it, at least not yet.
|May-12-10|| ||shortsight: Probably toughest in the sense that the most effort put in, the number of games stretched to the endgame, no early draws. All these took a great toll of stamina, concentration. It sure looks very tough to me.|
|May-12-10|| ||Vorapsak: Topalov will now be known as Topalov Noresignov. :)|
|May-12-10|| ||SufferingBruin: <ReneDescartes> Great stuff.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 354 OF 406 ·