< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 33 OF 34 ·
|Feb-26-09|| ||didiablito: Nobody explained Kramnik's toilet visits...
Neither gave an example what a 'conclusive' evidence would be...
A "conclusive evidence" on Kramnik's immaculate toilet visits would be much appreciated ;)
|Feb-26-09|| ||percyblakeney: <It was as messy a game as Kamsky could have hoped for needing a win to level the match. He had his chances but again didn't give himself enough time to find them when it counted most. Topalov, always the gambler, once again rolled a seven and outplayed his opponent in complications. After some pawn sacrifices Kamsky handled very well, the Bulgarian made the penultimate mistake in a razor-sharp position and won the game and the match. It's almost irrelevant to say that had Kamsky found 31..b4 he would have won the game. Or that the amazing queen sacs with 32..Bd3 or 32..Be4 probably hold the draw. The real mistake came with 25..Ba4, which is a perfectly reasonable move, but one that took him around half an hour to play. (..Bc8 and ..Kf7!?! were computer options.) That left him with less than 15 minutes to play as many moves. Topalov is the world's best at maintaining complications and he did so here, despite risking a loss.|
After a couple of blunders with seconds left Kamsky reached time control and had all day to contemplate his rook-down position. He actually made a few more moves after a long think, more to clear his head than to actually test his chances for a draw. In the press conference Topalov said he'd gone in planning to avoid taking any big risks today! Kamsky sounded relaxed, even relieved, despite the painful conclusion today. He certainly didn't sound like someone who was contemplating a second retirement, which is of course good news.>
|Feb-26-09|| ||Jack Kerouac: That sound you might hear is Gata's constricting throat. Self-induced.|
|Feb-26-09|| ||Petrosianic: <Nobody explained Kramnik's toilet visits...>|
Come to think of it, you haven't proven to me that you haven't comitted any axe murders in the last 30 days. Is there any reason why you should?
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. You might get more mileage if you argued that Kramnik was trying to spook Topalov into thinking he was using one (which is quite possible, and would be unsporting if true).
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?
|Feb-26-09|| ||amadeus: For soap-opera fans:
<15.10.2006 - Topalov back in Bulgaria, seeks rematch>
<17.10.2006 - Kramnik will not play Topalov in March>
<14.12.2006 - Kramnik to play in Mexican World Championship>
<15.12.2006 - Danailov, Topalov challenge Kramnik>
<1?.12.2006 - Ilyumzhinov: Kramnik will play in Mexico>
<05.01.2007 - ACP World Cup: Kirsan speaks his mind>
<15.01.2007 - Danailov: bank guarantee for Kramnik challenge rejected>
<21.01.2007 - Danailov's two million dollar bank guarantee>
<25.01.2007 - The Topalov-Kramnik challenge match – will it happen?>
<28.01.2007 - FIDE rejects Topalov's challenge bid>
And a plus:
<03.03.2007 - FIDE decides on World Championship format>
<Proposals A & B>
<24.06.2007 - Veselin Topalov and the new FIDE world championship cycle>
<27.11.2008 - FIDE decides on a new Candidates format>
to be continued...
|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...|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 33 OF 34 ·