< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 34 OF 34 ·
|Feb-26-09|| ||Petrosianic: Don't forget the "Topalov wants to play Kramnik" and the "Topalov Doesn't Want to Play Kramnik" articles that came out 7 days apart.|
|Feb-26-09|| ||Riverbeast: <You may not know this, but in the 1977 Korchnoi-Spassky Candidates Final, Spassky took to spending all of his time in his relaxation box, analyzing on the demonstration board, and only coming out to make his move. What could he have been doing in there? Was he waiting for a GM strength computer to be invented?>|
Another nonsensical point, completely irrelevant to the question at hand
|Feb-26-09|| ||Kaspablanca: There are still Topalov die hard fanatics that actually believed him!!, unbelieveable!!. One evidence that Kramnik didnt use a laptop can be that in the 2nd game Topalov actually overlooked a winning combination(or it was a mate in 3?, i dont remember) So, why Fritz or Rybka would allow Kramnik to be in a losing position?, another proof is that the match was decided in tie breaks, so if Kramnik used a laptop he would won the match at least by +2 or by +3. Dont let your fanatism for Topalov or your chauvinism to Bulgaria blind you.|
|Feb-26-09|| ||kamalakanta: <Riverbeast: <You may not know this, but in the 1977 Korchnoi-Spassky Candidates Final, Spassky took to spending all of his time in his relaxation box, analyzing on the demonstration board, and only coming out to make his move. What could he have been doing in there? Was he waiting for a GM strength computer to be invented?>|
Another nonsensical point, completely irrelevant to the question at hand>
In an interview with Susan Polgar during the 2008 Chess Olympiad, Spassky explains why he did it. He says Kortchnoi liked to annoy his opponents, and he was annoying Spassky. His only solution at that time was to be out of Kortchnoi's range, near the stage, where he could think about his moves looking at the demonstration board.
The interview can be seen here:
|Feb-26-09|| ||badest: <acirce: <Was it agreed before the Topalov-Kramnik match that after Elista there should be a rematch?>|
Nope. Topalov did have the same right as any other 2700+ player, though, to challenge him for a rematch. However, the rematch challenge came too late for the match to be played within the timeframe that the rules stipulated, so the right to get the match had expired. This was very well explained at the time, but understandably the Topalovians are still trying to cloud the issue.> This is nonsense and you know it. Danailov had the money in a major bank well before the deadline... then FIDE sat on their a$$es for a while before declaring that "they don't work with *that* bank" ... so the money had to be transfered to another bank... and by that time it was too late. But this is all history now... still you surely know the story ... why twist it.
|Feb-26-09|| ||benjinathan: <Riverbeast>
You didn't deal with this comment of <Petrosianic>: <This shouldn't be much of an issue. You only have to look at the games of that match to see that nobody was using a computer.>
Look at the games. Computers don't miss 4 move mates.
|Feb-26-09|| ||drkodos: "why Fritz or Rybka would allow Kramnik to be in a losing position?"|
This statement demonstrates a complete ignorance about computers and their shortcomings.
|Feb-26-09|| ||Landzhev: As I am reading the ongoing discussion here it seems to me that <Acirce> just clicks on the profiles of the Topalov fans (or anyone who has anything nice to say about Topalov) and if they happen to be Bulgarian, he goes - "Ah, I see. Sorry, but you're wrong". I do think that sometimes I also have veracious things to say about Topalov (which, surprisingly enough, happen to be positive:) but it's scary to admit them - because I'll just get accused of being Openly Bulgarian While On The Internet!|
|Feb-26-09|| ||Aspirador: <landzhev> A little Bulgar-bashing has always been a nice treat on this forum. And what do you guys want anyway: as of today, god is Bulgarian so you have no right to complain.|
|Feb-26-09|| ||slomarko: you have to understand <acirce>. he's a well know Topalov hater so Topa's victory today probably ruined his day.|
|Feb-26-09|| ||melianis: 31..Reb1?? 32.Qc7 Rc8? ...I could have made THOSE moves... but let's not forget the 4th game that was a beauty.|
|Feb-26-09|| ||melianis: Ah, time trouble...|
|Feb-27-09|| ||Ishaan: Anand vs. Topalov would be extremely exciting! Both are superbly attacking players.|
|Feb-27-09|| ||Ladolcevita: Congratulations to Topalov!!!
I knew he would win,because he is really devotional!
|Feb-27-09|| ||tpstar: 8. Nb3 is far more common than 8. Re1 Opening Explorer regaining the Pawn and White enjoys more space plus a Queenside Pawn majority, so I think the sharper 8. Re1 was prepared rather than bluffing. The usual Main Line is 8. Nb3 Nc6 9. Nbxd4 Nxd4 10. Nxd4 (keeping Queens on) a6, and now White could play 11. Re1 but the alternate continuation 11. Bb3 Qc7 12. Qf3 Bd6 13. h3 Opening Explorer scores great for White with few losses. So White might wait on Re1 and instead try 13 ... 0-0 14. Bg5 to weaken Black's Kingside, then 14 ... Nd7 15. c3 with a fine game Opening Explorer . This variation would have been much safer, given the match situation and Topalov's last game with White.|
I think people are not fully remembering Topalov's remarkable performance in San Luis 2005. During the first half, he should have lost to Leko and Svidler (both as Black) but outcalculated them in tense positions to reach +6. Had he lost those 2 games, everything would have changed. Yet this living-on-the-edge approach has also cost him, like Linares-Morelia 2006 when he got all kinds of abuse for losing to Vallejo Pons. Here he deserved to win, but so did Kamsky. =)
|Feb-27-09|| ||Jim Bartle: Interesting comment from chessbase analysis, on 28. Rec1:|
"Objectively speaking, it may be said that it leads White on the verge of defeat, but from psychologycal point of view it defines an approach that eventually won the game for White. In severe time trouble, it would be simply impossible for Kamsky to find his way through the highly irrational variations."
|Feb-27-09|| ||AnalyzeThis: In other words, some coffeehouse play occurred in this game and in this match. The quality of play was lower than previous Candidates matches.|
|Feb-27-09|| ||alicefujimori: It's funny how some people will never be satisfied. There's always something to complain about. When the match is 4 games long, they want it like in the past candidate matches (6 games). When you give them 8 game matches, they say the match is still too short and want 12 game matches. When it's 12 games long, they want 16. When it's 16, they want it 24...|
When Topalov risks losing to complicate the game to play on Kamsky's time troubles (a strategy that paid off), he is playing coffeehouse, low quality chess. When Kamsky trys to find the best moves every time and ended up in severe time trouble and loses, he is just self destructing. When Kramnik loses to Anand last year, he was simply ill or not determined enough. The list just goes on and on forever and ever...
|Feb-27-09|| ||geigermuller: <alicefujimori> totally agree with you, maybe it is the economic depression filtering into chessgames.com|
|Feb-27-09|| ||chancho: http://www.sofiaecho.com/2009/02/27...|
|Mar-01-09|| ||Hesam7: It would be interesting to see what Kamsky would play against 3.Nc3.|
|Mar-15-09|| ||patzer2: The amazing 31...b4!! is an amazing passed pawn combination that Kamsky missed.|
One possibility is 31...b4!! 32. d7 Reb8
33. d8=Q+ Rxd8 34. Bxd8 Rxd8 35. Qe7 Ra8 36. Qe5 b3 37. Qb2 Rd8 38. h3 Rd2 39. Rf1 h6 40. Rfe1 Qf4 41. Rf1 Bd3 42. Qa3 Bxf1 43. Rxf1 Qc4 44. Qf8+ Qg8 45. Qb4 Qd5 46. Re1 b2 .
|Mar-15-09|| ||WhiteRook48: maybe Kamsky took too much concentration on his one won game|
|Mar-21-09|| ||WhiteRook48: why did Topalov have to win??|
|Dec-06-09|| ||M.D. Wilson: Probably because he was better in this particular match. Good 'ol Tal-like objectivity.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 34 OF 34 ·