< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 69 OF 69 ·
|Oct-10-05|| ||Montreal1666: How did this end in a draw?|
|Oct-10-05|| ||csmath: Topalov plays just marvellous attack, where there was not to be seen. |
By 34th move of black white is already somewhat dangerourly approaching black castling.
34. ... Re8?
35. e6! ... Nh7
this should have decided the game.
White has the winning advantage.
This is not precise, with 40. e7! white would have simply finished the game, there was no defence.
40. e7 ... Re8
41. Bxd3 ... Nd5
42. Rc8! ... Nf6
White ends up with a bishop more and the rest is technical.
Topa blew the game after
45. ... Qb6
for some reason he just couldn't see the intention of black to park the queen on f2. Desperation attack and Topa blunders
A lot of people were talking on ICC that this is now still Topa's game. My engine went into deep analysis and in about 3 minutes we found a dead draw. Moro played exactly the line I found with a computer.
This was a very exciting game and Topa shows again he can generate attack out of nowhere but also blunder in the end.
|Oct-10-05|| ||thomaspaine: <csmath> Thanks for these analysis. I always enjoy reading them (especially liked the one on the Topa-Kasim game!). Which engine do you use, btw? Also, give the ply so others know how deep to search in their engines.|
|Oct-10-05|| ||csmath: Couple of them, but for analysis I used Deep Shredder 9.|
|Oct-10-05|| ||An Englishman: Good Evening: Ultimately, it was a great swindle by Mr. Marshall, er, Mr. Morozevich. However, the next time he's in a must-win situation as Black against a player likely to play 1.d4, I think he'll need a sharper defense against the "anti-Nimzo" 3.Nf3.|
|Oct-10-05|| ||alexandrovm: what at crazy knight!|
|Oct-10-05|| ||offramp: <HammerTime: Ok, this game must be interesting unlike last one against Anand. Moro... will go all out to beat Topa...I did my prediction. Now who will win? Dont ask me. But there is no draw. Trust me.>|
<HammerTime: I suggest Topalov move his Q to c2 or else he loses this game for the very 1st time, trust me.>
<HammerTime: alex is going to win this and Topa is going to lose, trust me>
I trusted Hammertime and lost a hell of a lot of money at Betsson.
|Oct-10-05|| ||Mateo: <csmath: Topalov plays just marvellous attack, where there was not to be seen.> I had a look to the game live, so I do not agree with this assessment. I think that Topalov had a small advantage until he played 27. f4?!. After this move, Moro had just an equal or slightly better game with 28... Qc1 and 29... Rac8 but he played two moves leading nowhere on move 30 and 31, giving again a small advantage to Topalov. Then he blundered with 34... Re8?, instead of 34... Qb8 . I just stopped to see the game after move 38, thinking Topalov had a completely won game, and I am amazed Moro got a draw.|
|Oct-10-05|| ||csmath: <<but he played two moves leading nowhere on move 30 and 31>>|
Both of these moves are perfectly logical and human. I am assuming you are judging them based on the computer move 30. a4 which is really just a waiting move. I can tell you that the position is too complex to make a judgment that this move is better. For example
30. ... a4
31. e6 ... fxe6
32. fxe6 ... Bxe6
33. Rb7 ... Rd7
34. Ne4 ... Kh8
35. Rd7 ... Nxd7
and probably a draw by repetition though I shuld not assume the players would play any particular line a computer can come up with.
The position at the move 30 is not clear at all. The true mistake was 34. ... Re8?
Without that Moro probably still had a way to defend himself from attack.
|Oct-10-05|| ||csmath: In either case, this was a great game, with Topa conducting marvellous attck, and Moro defending himself quite resourcefully. The outcome of the game is fair. Given the fact that both made a serious error once, Moro with 34. ... Re8 giving a winning edge to Topa , and Topa with 46. Rc2 giving back a draw to Moro.
A draw is a fair outcome.|
|Oct-10-05|| ||AlexanderMorphy: Topalov really should have done better and actually have won this game...why didn't he play Qe7 earlier?|
|Oct-10-05|| ||pikoro: <sharpnova> I am not analyzing with programs. 46.Qb5 indeed looks good. However Black can still go back and immobilize the rook.
If 45. Bd5, Qb6 46. Re7 wins.
Even after 45. Ba2, Qb6 46. Bd5 was possible, "fixing it".
The worst was losing the exchange of the powerful rook on 7 for the weak Knight.
Topa is indeed a very talented player but far from an immortal.
|Oct-10-05|| ||LIFE Master AJ: <all>
If you go to the ChessBase website, (http://www.chessbase.com); their have a story of all the rounds, (round-by-round). You can download the games in PGN format ... or just replay the games.
I have not yet (this morning - 0710) had a chance to deeply examine this game nor even read the story. But after 39.Qe5!, Fritz 8.0 is evaluating this as a clear win for White.
|Oct-10-05|| ||Mateo: <csmath> I agree with you on the fact that 34... Re8 was a blunder.|
About Moro's 30 et 31 moves, I am not judging them on computer analysis, but on what I see on the board after the 29th move by Moro, and what I see after his 31th move. Until his 29th he improved in a very fine way the position of his pieces, but after that, it seems to me that move 30 and 31 do not improve his position. It just leads nowhere.
What you proposed, basing, I suppose, on a computer, 30... a4, seems interesting, and I agree with you to say it is very complicated.
|Oct-10-05|| ||Mateo: I cannot find a way to win for white after 54. Kg3. For instance, 54... Rc3 55. Kh4 Ra3 56. Kh5 Rg3 57. Bc6 Rc3 58. Bd7 Rg3 59. Be6 (last attempt) Rg2 60. f8Q Kf8 61. Kh6 Rg3 62. h4 Ke7 63. Bf7 Kf6 64. h5 a4 65. Kh7 a3. It is a draw. 66. Kg8 (66. h6?? Rg6 ) a2 67. Ba2 Rg6, draw.|
|Oct-10-05|| ||Mateo: I don't see neither a way to win after 56. Kf1. For instance 56... Rd6 57. g3 (what else?) hg 58. Kg2 Kf8 59. Kg3 Rg6 60. Kh4 Rg7 61. Kh5 Rg3 62. Kh4 (62. h4?? Kg7 ) Rg7 and draw.|
This ending is a problem like position. Very aesthetic!
|Oct-10-05|| ||ARTIN: I don't know what he was thinking when he played Rc2?? . He definetely had planned Rxd2 at this point. But I mean why not the obvious Qc5 which doesn't take any risks (of miscalculating)?|
|Oct-11-05|| ||LIFE Master AJ: 46.Rc2 was definitely wrong, <Artin> Qc5 looked like an easy win, although I did not use the computer to check it. (beware - the box often finds things humans routinely miss)|
|Oct-11-05|| ||aw1988: <LMAJ> Qc5 does indeed win; it was analysed during the game. Morozevich is a fighter.|
|Oct-12-05|| ||Paul123: Oct-09-05
Hanada wrote "I do not understand Anand's play, I must say, and some other kibitzers have commented that he is pulling in his reigns and gliding home instead of dive bombing for greatness. I agree. If you want to be champion then you must have the constitution to go as far as need be and I do not see this from Anand. I also find this sad because he is probably the best chess player on the planet right now."
I donít think he is the best player on the planet. (Unless he wins this tournament.....) I too admire Anand's play, and I'm a fan, but this tournament is for all the marbles (IMO) the winner is the WC! No butts, no excuses, no explanations. Here is Anand' shot... he either man's up and gets it done or he is second best. That's the way I see it and hopefully the rest of the world will too.
Kramnik gets one shot to play the winner or forfeits his claim.
That too should (and hopefully) will be the public consensus.
|Oct-13-05|| ||Saruman: I am very dissappointed that Topalov missed 40.e7! as <csmath>gave below, actually I saw Rc8 but then I got stuck and missed Qxf6.|
|Oct-16-05|| ||LIFE Master AJ: <Paul123> Good post, and I have to agree with everything you said. |
No question Anand is a great player, I too am a fan. BUT!!!! Topalov has played better, especially in this tournament.
Congrats to GM V. Topalov, the new world champion. (I predict Kramnik will get back on his bicycle and run, I am predicting a Kramnik-Topalov match will never happen.)
|Jan-02-06|| ||Whitehat1963: Exciting for a QG!|
|Jan-07-06|| ||madlydeeply: neil macdonald, in a book I just read, compared Kasparov, Kramnik, and Anand in the 90s to Capablanca, Alekhine, and Lasker in the twenties. He said that Kramnik is like capablanca, kasparov like alekhine, ok, but then he said that Anand is like lasker, good at defending from compromised positions, (now i'm paraphrasing), play with lasker's "coffeehouse" style, get in a complicated defensive position. Is this a good way to describe Anand?|
|Oct-14-06|| ||Whitehat1963: I'd rather watch these two draw than see Kramnik beat Leko, or vice-versa, any day of the week.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 69 OF 69 ·