"Several years ago [the ethics commission of FIDE] tried to investigate his behaviour and then it suddenly turned out that many hours of his behaviour were missing because organisers they destroyed it.... It even becomes more suspicious... The reason they were destroyed because everyone would see that the members of my delegation were right and this is what I believe." ~ Veselin Topalov ~>

It's been eight long years since Elista, and Topa still clinging to this nonsense?

Topa missed a mate in three moves in one of those games!

This one!

If Vlad was cheating with an engine, (as Topa claimed) then surely Kramnik would not have fallen into a losing position like mate in three?!

Gosh we had a blast on this site. It was a great party in hell during and after the match here.

I'm looking at Topalov's Toilet War book, which I'd highly recommend for the game notes, if not for the commentary. Here's how Topalov describes the critical sequence:

<TOPALOV:

31. gxf8=Q+

At this point I was in an excellent mood, and my feeling was that the game would not last too long, but then I saw 31...Kxf8! 32. Qg6 Qe2 33. Qxg4 Bg5!!, and thereafter could find nothing to quell my fears. Of course, White had a draw if he wanted, but that was not the result I wanted from this fantastic game. Still looking for a win after 31...Kxf8!, I paid no attention at all to the possibility of 31...Bxf8, a move I had already dismissed as inferior.

31...Bxf8?

Apparently Kramnik could not find 33... Bg5!! in the line of the previous note, so he decided Black had better chances if he takes with the bishop. It is easy to miss such a move, as looking at the position it is hard to believe the black king can escape mate. For me Kramnik's mistake had also another meaning, very important for the whole match: it meant that Kramnik still made the simple blunders he had made in the past, especially in the year 2005.

Blunders as in the 2005 M-Tel Masters in Sofia, in his game with Black against Anand, where after thinking for more than half an hour Kramnik lost a piece, or in the game against me from the same tournament. There he first missed a two-move line that won a piece, and some moves later left his knight en prise. So I realized that after all this time my opponent still had the same weaknesses! These were the thoughts that crossed my mind, and despite their positive nature, they probably were, ironically, the reason I lost my concentration.

32. Qg6??

This I played rather quickly, as for me this move looked strong and very natural. As we both learned after the game, 32. Rxg4+! Bg7 33. Qc7! wins immediately. This means that with his last move Kramnik had simultaneously made two mistakes in his calculations. first he missed an easy win for White after 31...Bxf8, and secondly he could not find 33...Bg5!!, a move I have to say is not obvious.>

And this sequence, as much as any, gives you a picture of Topalov's mind, and why you really should read this book, "On the Edge in Elista", available on Kindle.

One thing that's immediately apparent is that Topalov is an excellent annotator. He doesn't just spout engine lines, he gives you an insight into what was going on in his mind, and why he played certain moves. This is exactly the kind of thing I want from an annotator. I can generate engine lines myself. Contrast this with Kasparov, who, in My Great Predecessors, sort of sniffed at this style of annotating, and said that back in the day annotators felt they had to tell a story. That's exactly right, they DO. Because nowadays everybody has an engine, so an annotator has to say things that people can't just generate for themselves.

Another thing that's apparent is that Topalov, though, in my opinion is basically "honest", meaning he believes what he says, has a very slanted way of looking at things. Kramnik's Bxf8?? proves that he's still the same old guy who makes simple mistakes, while Topalov's Qg6+?? is just a natural mistake, with no special significance attached. (Since Topalov feels that all 3 games he lost were due to such simple mistakes, maybe they are significant). In fact, throughout the whole book, Topalov's attitude is "I played much better than Kramnik... except for the blunders." That describes pretty much every game I ever lost, so I'm glad Topalov feels the same way. But at the same time, Topalov isn't completely unobjective, as he does admit that 33...Bg5!! is not easy to find.

TOPALOV: <Blunders as in the 2005 M-Tel Masters in Sofia, ... in the game against me... There he first missed a two-move line that won a piece, and some moves later left his knight en prise. So I realized that after all this time my opponent still had the same weaknesses! These were the thoughts that crossed my mind, and despite their positive nature, they probably were, ironically, the reason I lost my concentration.>

Kramnik vs Topalov, 2005

This game is a perfect example of his slanted thinking. This is a sloppy game at the end, where Topalov made the proverbial next-to-last mistake. In Topalov's mind, 31. Nc7?? and 34. Nc1?? prove that Kramnik is still the same old fish he always was. But 29...Qb7?? and 30... Qxb2?? don't prove anything about Topalov. Nor does the fact that in his very next move in this game, he threw away a sure win.

<TOPALOV:

40...Qf5!

No matter what the evaluation of this position, Black has already achieved one victory: matters will now be decided in the endgame, and this fact irritated me greatly.>