< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 40 OF 40 ·
|Oct-12-06|| ||Brown: This is strange, as technical draws avatar used to be acirce's, so it sometimes seems the same person is kibitzing to himself.|
|Oct-12-06|| ||technical draw: <Brown> LOL...I'll get a new avatar after the match.|
|Oct-12-06|| ||Libar: Susan Polgart analise:
"1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 Bf5 5.Nc3 e6 6.Nh4 Bg6 7.Nxg6 hxg6 (The players reversed colors in this position.)
8.g3 Nbd7 9.Bd2 Bb4 (This seems to be a new move. I cannot find any game with this move in my database.)
10.Qb3 Bxc3+ 11.Bxc3 Ne4 12.Bg2 Nxc3 13.Qxc3 f5 (Whether Topalov is Black or White, he still pushes his pawns. Black is doing fine here. Other more "normal" moves are 13...dxc4, 13...Nf6. I am not sure if I like this move all that much.)
14.O-O (I would have preferred to castle Queenside here as the h file is opened for Black. One of the possible moves now for Black is Nf6. It is a sensible move and Black can draw this game quite comfortably if he wants to. The Black Knight is better than the White Bishop in this position.)
14...Qe7 (Now, Black has the option can castle on either side but it would be safer to do it on the Kingside at some point. White's only play is basically to attack on the Queenside. Black can try to attack on the Kingside or just wait and see as his position is solid.)"
|Oct-12-06|| ||Bufon: <acirce: It's Kramnik who is insisting that the game should be played, it's FIDE and Topalov who are avoiding it>|
It was Kasparov who insisted that a rematch should have been played, it was Kramnik who avoided him for years.
Funny, isnt it?? He is paying what he did 6 years ago.
|Oct-12-06|| ||Bufon: <technical draw:It was Kramnik who avoided playing game 5>|
Is that simple.
|Oct-12-06|| ||Libar: Susan Polgart analise:
15.cxd5 (Now if Black takes back with exd5, White can try to do something on the Queenside with the eventual idea of b4-b5. If Black takes back with cxd5 then White would control the c file for now.)
15...exd5 (Black wants an unbalanced pawn structure. As I mentioned above, White's idea is simple. White has to attack on the Queenside with the idea of b4-b5 and putting the Rooks behind the c and b files.)
16.b4 (Now Black has to be careful in defending this position. Some people may think that this position is boring. I think this is a perfect position for White as he has very little risk trying to squeeze out a win by grinding his opponent. This is a dangerous position for Topalov as it requires a lot of patience.)
16...Nf6 (A logical move to defend the d5 pawn.)
17.Rfc1 (17.a4 or even 17.b5 right away is possible. But as we know, Kramnik likes to be cautious. GM Luke McShane explains: 0-0 b5 cb5 Qb3 Qd7 Rc5 )
17...Ne4 (If Black plays 17...a6, White will continue the minority attack with a4 with the idea of b5. My friend, the legendary IM Tony Saidy sent me this message: "...as one who played 1037 minority attacks and defended several, I point out a basic principle when facing the minority attack: play ...a6 and force white to trade the "a" Ps, opening the "a" file. The c6 P may be defensible in long run, but the a7 Pawn is a second weakness. (White traded the wrong pieces in this game to have a strong minority attack.) Horowitz learned this the hard way vs. Geller in one of the US-USSR matches. Another good defense is checkmate.")
18.Qb2 (To be honest, I would not be very comfortable to have this position as Black against players like Karpov, Kramnik, Kamsky or Topalov, etc. Black's option is kind of limited right now. He must be able to hold the minority attack on the Queenside. There is no winning shot for White. The idea is to create weakness for Black's pawn structure. GM Nigel Short adds: "It is better for White. Black is too slow in delivering checkmate on h2.")
18...O-O (GM Jon Levitt explains: "He wants ..Rf6 to defend c6 and ...g5...f4 xf2 for couterplay." An important note to state is Topalov is using nearly as much time as Kramnik. He knows this game is important. He cannot fool around by playing fast. This is a very critical position to hold. Frederic Friedel of ChessBase offers his opinion: "The only result that will not lead to debate and litigation is 1-0. If the game is drawn then they will play rapid chess tiebreak games tomorrow and if they are drawn blitz. and if they are drawn armageddon." Nigel Shorts adds his usual colorful statement: "World Championships used to have a little more gravitas. But now they are decided by rapid hand movements.")
19.b5 (Now the 2 main options for Black is to play 19...Rac8 or cxb5 which would create a weakness in the d5 pawn. I prefer Rac8.)
19...Rac8 20.bxc6 bxc6 (Taking back with the Rook would be a big mistake as the d5 pawn is extremely weak.)"
|Oct-12-06|| ||Libar: Susan Polgart analise:
21.Qe2 (With the idea of Qa6. Then White would double up his Rooks on the c file and pound on the c pawn.)
21...g5 (Black HAS TO create counter play on the Kingside. Otherwise, he is lost.)
22.Rab1 (Logical move, putting the Rook on the b file.)
22...Qd7 (Eventually, the idea for Black is to put the Rook on f6 to protect the c6 pawn and then g4. Black has to try to create counter play on the Kingside.)
23.Rc2 (The obvious plan of doubling the Rooks on the c file to attack Black's main weakness.)
23...Rf6 (Black is continuing the plan.)
24.Rbc1 g4 25.Rb2 (This position is somewhat equal. An interesting note about evaluation. Fritz gives this position equal. Fruit gives this position slightly better for White. Junior gives this a strong advantage for White.)
25...Rh6 26.Qa6 (White has to continue attacking the Queenside. Otherwise, Black can launch a dangerous attack on the Kingside. My thinking is 27...Nd6 now to stop Rb7. GM Larry Chritiansen ponders with 27...Ng5 but that would lose right away with Bxd5+. This is a position where Black cannot go crazy. Black must be very careful. Another alternative could be 27...Rc7 but I still prefer Nd6 a little better.)
26...Rc7 27.Rb8+ Kh7 28.Qa3 (Kramnik made this move instantly. Now, Black should play Rb7 to try to trade off one Rook. 29...Rb7 30.Ra8 Nd6 or 30...Rf6 and Black should hold.)
28...Rb7 (As expected.)
29.Qf8 (A natural move but I am not sure if it is the strongest. Another alternative is 30.Ra8. With 30.Qf8, Black would trade Rooks with 30...Rxb8 31.Qxb8 then 31...Qf7 and Black's position is fine.)
29...Rxb8 30.Qxb8 Qf7 31.Qc8 Qh5 32.Kf1 (Now the tide has turned. Black is fine now and White needs to be extremely careful. There is no direct win but Black can create an attack which White should be able to hold with proper play.)
32...Nd2+ 33.Ke1 Nc4 (Now if 34.Bf1 then Rf6 to protect the f5 pawn so the Queen can take h2. A possibility is to sacrifice an exchange with 33.Rxc4.)
34.Bf1 (Black has a choice between 34...Rf6 which I prefer or 34...Nb6. IM Ken Regan offers: "The way to continue the attack is 34...Rf6 35 Rb1!? Nd6 when both Pawn chains burn...")
34...Rf6 (As expected and the strongest move. IM Ken Regan says: "Now a real crossroads for White: take (either) on c4 or stoke the fire with 35.Rb1. The latter looks dangerous, so I predict 35.Bxc4. Here's a fantasy finale: 35 Bxc4 dxc4 36 Rxc4 Qxh2 37 Rc5 Qh1+ 38 Ke2 Qa1 39 Re5 Qxa2+ 40 Kf1 Qb1+ 41 Kg2 Qd1 42 Re8 Qf3+ 43 Kg1 Rh6 44 Rh8+ Kg6 45 Qe8+ Kg5 and it's a perpetual." GM McShane on the other hand says: "I think after Bxc4 dc4 Qa6 Qxh2 Qxc4 White preserves a healthy edge. White plays Kd2, Qe2/d3 and Rc5."
35.Bxc4 dxc4 (This looks like the game will head for a perpetual for Black. I expect Kramnik to be happy with a draw. This way, he can claim that he remains a World Champion no matter what happens in the playoff since he won 3 games to 2 over the board.)"
|Oct-12-06|| ||Libar: Susan Polgart analise:
36.Rxc4 Qch2 37.Ke2 Qh1 38.Rc5 (I see this as a draw soon by perpetual. Black can force a draw with 38...Qf3+ 39.Ke1 Qh1+ draw.)
38...Qb1 (Even though this is nothing, Topalov is trying to win instead of taking a perpetual. It will still be a draw.)
39.Qa6 Qb2+ 40.Kf1 (Topalov is trying but the position is still very much equal.)
40...Qb1+ 41.Ke2 Qb2+ 42.Kf1 (Repetition will be the likely scenario.)
42...Rh6 (What else can you expect from Topalov? He is trying even if it is a drawn position. Now White has ONLY one move 43.Qd3. Everything else loses for White almost instantly.)
43.Qd3 (Of course Kramnik would find this "only" move. Otherwise, it would be the blunder of the decade. Now I do not see how Black can win here. It is dead equal.)
43...g6 44.Qb3 Rh1+ 45.Kg2 Rh2+ 46.Kxh2 Qxf2+ (100% perpetual now if Topalov wants it.)
47.Kh1 Qf1+ 1/2 (Now Black can try 48.Kh2 Qh3+ 49.Kg1 Qxg3+ 50.Kf1 Qf3+ 51.Ke1 g3. I would have tried this. White's only way to force a draw is with 51.Kg1)
|Oct-12-06|| ||Libar: Play-off tomorrow. Who will win? Topalov, I think.|
|Oct-12-06|| ||Bufon: <RookFile: Too bad he sacrificed his reputation to avoid playing game 5>|
Too bad Kramnik sacrificed his reputation avoiding a rematch with Kasparov
|Oct-12-06|| ||Wild Bill: <samikd: FIDE is to have nothing to do with the organization or the administration of the match<
This is exactly the mentality that created the whole mess in 1993, because of which we are still suffering. I dont understand this anti-FIDE tirade. Isnt this match supposed to be a the UNIFICATION match ? If we revolt against FIDE, isnt the whole point lost ? Of course, FIDE is full of corrupt people, but the solution to that is to create a better FIDE, and ensure that people like Bessel Kok win the next time. And dont forget that these people, no matter how corrupt they are, came to power through elections . . . . Listening to some of the kibitzers you almost get the impression that Topalov-Danailov are innocent; its FIDE and not them who did the dirty stuff. Lets not remove our focus from who the real culprits are. Of course, FIDE could have handled thes situation better, and it is also possible that Makro and Azmai were conniving with Danailov to create the whole mess (even though its not certain). But nitpicking on whether they violated the contract is really missing the point . . . .>>|
Talking about FIDE as I did in the post you quote does not make me at all comfortable, but they are things that have to be said.
You raise some good points, so let me take them on.
<[D]ont forget that these people, no matter how corrupt they are, came to power through elections.> The present FIDE leadership won an undemocratic election in which each federation had one vote, regardless of how many active players it represented. In that environment, they will continue to win elections as they did the last one and by about the same margin they did the last one, whether the opposition is Bessel Kok, Yasser Seirawan or Abe Lincoln.
<Listening to some of the kibitzers you almost get the impression that Topalov-Danailov are innocent; its FIDE and not them who did the dirty stuff.> Danailov, and by extension Topalov, are not innocent in this matter. However, they could not have anticipated how badly the Appeals Committee handled it. Unless there was collusion -- and there is no direct evidence of any -- Team Topalov could not have counted on getting a free point out what was simply gamesmanship on their part.
<FIDE could have handled thes situation better, and it is also possible that Makro and Azmai were conniving with Danailov to create the whole mess (even though its not certain). But nitpicking on whether they violated the contract is really missing the point.> It is not missing the point; it is the point. At the very least, the Appeals Committee should not have made a decision to lock the toilets unilaterally. Kramnik and his people should have been informed what was happening and asked to participate in a solution. This should never have been a crisis.
Were this the only mistake FIDE has made in the last few years, there would be little to discuss. It is not. What happened to the prize fund in Las Vegas? Why was there so much trouble organizing this match or, for that matter, most of the other provisions of the Prague Agreement? Why are sponsors being scared away from chess?
And what is up with this 2700 rule? FIDE was founded with the idea of regulating the world championship so the champion would have to play a qualified challenger on a regular basis, not just a hand picked one or, more relevant to the matter, anybody who could show the champion enough money to support a prize fund. So we have gone full circle from the time that Nardus bought a match on behalf of Janowsky from Dr. Lasker to now, when the Azerbaijani Ministry of sport buys a match on behalf of Radjabov from Kirsan and FIDE.
What does this mean? It means the FIDE is now totally worthless.
|Oct-12-06|| ||Ron: <Wild Bill> I believe that around a day ago you replied to a post of mine that quoted Nigel Short. Sorry for the delay, hope this links helps:|
|Oct-12-06|| ||Wild Bill: <Ron>:
Muchas gracias, se˝or.
|Oct-12-06|| ||technical draw: ˝ ˝ ˝ Hey finally got the ˝ for Mac....Tks Wild Bill for reminding me.|
|Oct-12-06|| ||syracrophy: A little doubt: isn't supposed to be just to be 12 games to decide the World Championship?|
Thanks in advance
|Oct-12-06|| ||bardolotrist: This tie break thing is stupid. A 25 SD game deciding the world championship??? Give me a break.|
|Oct-12-06|| ||Pawn Ambush: <Libar: Susan Polgart analise>|
Thanks for that post Libar.
I knew the last 2 game would be drawn. If one of them had no title then that person would have taken a chance. Right now they're waiting for the other to make a mistake.
|Oct-12-06|| ||dramas79: Short quotes in the link posted by <Ron> that Anand (is one of the people quoted by Short) also feels that Kramnik was cheated. This is surprising as I think Anand id equally friendly with Kramnik and Topalov and one of his close friends and countrymate (of residence) Vallejo Pons is on Topalov's side|
|Oct-12-06|| ||Udayan Chawdhary: I have said it before and confirming it now. This probably is the one and the only WC where e4 has not been played as an opening.|
|Oct-13-06|| ||samikd: <Udayan> How about Capablanca-Alekhine ? ( I may be wrong, though)|
|Oct-13-06|| ||samikd: <The present FIDE leadership won an undemocratic election in which each federation had one vote>|
Its not <undemocratic>. Its the question of what kind of electoral system you like. All system have pros and cons. Lot of people have exactly the same complaint about the American electoral system, but that doesn't make the election of American president <undemocratic>. And by the way, let me just tell you that Bessel Kok in his pre-election interview firmly stated that he was not going to change this system even if he came to power. Because, the alternatives 'simply don't work'.
<In that environment, they will continue to win elections as they did the last one and by about the same margin they did the last one, whether the opposition is Bessel Kok, Yasser Seirawan or Abe Lincoln>
Again, the same argument is used in case of American electoral system, and it is argued Bush and the republicans, no matter how unpopular, will always win under the present system, just by securing the votes of ' You know whom'.
While those are all valid points, they do not make America <Not a democracy>
<However, they could not have anticipated how badly the Appeals Committee handled it. Unless there was collusion -- and there is no direct evidence of any -- Team Topalov could not have counted on getting a free point>
I dont think they anticipated it even with collusion ! Forgfeiting the match was Kramnik's decision, and there was no way the Appeals committee would anticipate that he would do so.
<<FIDE could have handled thes situation better, and it is also possible that Makro and Azmai were conniving with Danailov to create the whole mess (even though its not certain). But nitpicking on whether they violated the contract is really missing the point.> It is not missing the point; it is the point. At the very least, the Appeals Committee should not have made a decision to lock the toilets unilaterally. Kramnik and his people should have been informed what was happening and asked to participate in a solution. This should never have been a crisis.>
You misunderstood me. I agree that the appeals committee (and please don't forget the arbiter) handled it badly and that Makro and Azmai are possibly bad people. All I said was this 'badness' independent of whether a clause of the contact was violated, which is a legal issue and not at all clear
<What does this mean? It means the FIDE is now totally worthless.>
I did not try to support FIDE. I said that breaking away from FIDE is NOT the solution, as has been proved by the disastrous Kasparov-Short experience
<And what is up with this 2700 rule? FIDE was founded with the idea of regulating the world championship so the champion would have to play a qualified challenger on a regular basis, not just a hand picked one >
Yes, I hate the 2700 rule. But again, breaking away from FIDE is not the solution. Because in that case, the champion will ALWAYS handpick his opponent. And basically do ANYTHING HE WANTS TO ! No matter what he does and how deplorable it is, it will be be supported by a group of people who think that the inheritors of the 'Steinitz line' have the right to do anything, including murder and rape, and still be called the champion because 'he was the man who beat the ...' :) :)
|Oct-13-06|| ||square dance: <samikd> they played a french defense. i think it was the first game too. Capablanca vs Alekhine, 1927|
|Oct-13-06|| ||samikd: <square dance> thanks|
|Jan-30-07|| ||Trudodyr: A nice save by Topalov to take the match to tiebreaks.Alas,he lost them.|
|Mar-10-09|| ||WhiteRook48: crazy perpetual|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 40 OF 40 ·
Spot an error? Please
submit a correction slip
and help us eliminate database mistakes!
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
Please observe our posting guidelines:
- No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
- No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
- No personal attacks against other members.
- Nothing in violation of United States law.
- No posting personal information of members.
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 game and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or
this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.|
<This page contains Editor Notes. Click here to read them.>
This game is type: CLASSICAL (Disagree? Please submit a correction slip.)
your profile |
Premium Membership |
Kibitzer's Café |
Biographer's Bistro |
new kibitzing |
Tournament Index |
Player Directory |
World Chess Championships |
Opening Explorer |
Guess the Move |
Game Collections |
ChessBookie Game |
Chessgames Challenge |
privacy notice |
Copyright 2001-2017, Chessgames Services LLC