< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 31 OF 31 ·
|Apr-30-10|| ||HeMateMe: Under Sofia rules, if you punch someone in the mouth, instead of signalling the arbiter, is that the same thing as offering a draw?|
|Apr-30-10|| ||Richard Taylor: That was an interesting game. The new variants on the previous game are interesting. Topalov was able to equalize quite easily so that shows he can but he needs a win. |
It seems he needs to switch into a 'new' (for him) opening (King;s Gambit or similar or come up with something startling the "main lines". Short indicated that kibitzers et al overestimate opening prep - that may be true.
I suppose Topalov feels o.k. as he is only one point down, so one policy is to keep cool as he didn't this game and wait for an error.
|Apr-30-10|| ||Mr. Bojangles: <I think Topa gets his 2800 rating by killing average GMs in tournament play, but he may have some problems facing one, very strong player over and over. > |
This is so untrue and unfair.
Topalov got his rating points by playing the strongest players in the strongest tournaments.
Since he joined the 2800 club in 2005, look at his head-to-head scores against all the best players.
And he doesn't do a Chucky (who until recently) got a lot of his points in B and C tournaments.
|Apr-30-10|| ||A Karpov Fan: it is true Topalov is more adept at punishing tornament tail-enders than taking out the very best players like Anand, Kasparov, Karpov, Carlsen, Kramnik etc consistently.|
His match with Kamsky was much tougher than the ratings would have us believe as well.
|Apr-30-10|| ||peyote: <<HeMateMe>: Under Sofia rules, if you punch someone in the mouth, instead of signalling the arbiter, is that the same thing as offering a draw?> I believe that is called the Mike Tyson Gambit|
|Apr-30-10|| ||Jim Bartle: peyote: you pathetic, ignorant fool! The Tyson Gambit is biting an ear, not punching in the mouth.|
|Apr-30-10|| ||timothee3331: The comments are very unfair to Topalov
You say that he won against tail-enders
Let's have a look
Mtel 2005: the tail-enders are Kramnik, Adams, he got a smashing victory against Anand and another one against Ponomariov while he only scored two draws against Judit, who is very gifted but a bit weaker
Mtel 2006: five victories against Kamsky'n'Kamsky, Bacrot, Anand, Ponomariov, you know the tail-enders who are regular top 10 members
Bilbao 2008:he beats the "tail-enders" Anand, Ivanchuk and Carlsen,etc..
Do you want me to continue the collection of patzers he has beaten or will you admit he only plays top-class tournaments with the strongest opponents ??
|Apr-30-10|| ||HeMateMe: What i was referring to was "in a relative sense". of course someone rated 2800 is extremely good at chess. I just think that Anand may be a better match player. I think match chess better suits his style and temperment.|
|Apr-30-10|| ||timothee3331: And I think people should pay more respect to Vesko; In the past five years he has won in 2005 Linares ex-aequo, Sofia , San Luis , in 2006 Wikj Aan Zee ex-aequo, Sofia, in 2007 Wijk aan Zee ex aequo, Sofia, Liga de Campeones, in 2008 Nanjing and Bilbao, in 2010 Linares, has come second in Linares 2006, Sofia 2008 and 2009, Dortmund 2005, Nanjing 2009, etc..etc...|
|Apr-30-10|| ||timothee3331: Excuse me if I sounded a bit aggressive ! Of course for the moment Anand is playing excellently. Topalov made bad mistakes and opening choices but really both play very well. Today was very interesting, Anand victories were superb, and Topalov's one saw deep preparation.|
|Apr-30-10|| ||Mr. Bojangles: < I think match chess better suits his style and temperment.>|
So does tournament chess.
|Apr-30-10|| ||HeMateMe: We'll maybe we are splitting hairs; one of them is ranked No. 2, the other No. 4. We'll see if Topalov can turn things around.|
|Apr-30-10|| ||timothee3331: There's a terrible problem for the world of chess: there is a World n°1 and a world champion; For instance, Petrosian won maybe 5 tournaments in his life. I think something should be done. Of course the WC cycle was very prestigious but on the other hand, during the Kramnik years, the only one to shine was Kasparov even if he wasn't the champ, he won every tournament he played in.|
|Apr-30-10|| ||vanytchouck: I don't see this as a problem.
This kind of duality can also be seen in many sports:
In Tennis or in Golf, you can be #1 without winning any Grand Slam tournament.
You can even be f1 world champion without winning a sngle grand prix!
You can be the owner of the world record (even the ten best ever performances of the year) without being world champion or olympic champion.
The #1 awards every day performances in all the tournaments while the world championship (a legitimate one) awards a succes in a specific process.
So the #1 is the "best player" in the average and the world champion is the player who manage to be the best the very right moment.
Petrossian is a very good example :
You said that he has won very few tournaments in his career?
Anyway, in 1962, he did win the candidate tournament (ahead of Kortchnoy, Tal, Fischer,Keres and Geller!) and then managed to beat Botvinnik.
He was the best when it was needed. And that Spassky needed two attempts to take the crown out of him has showed how legitimate was his title.
|Apr-30-10|| ||HeMateMe: Its not a problem at all. A chess champion should be able to win a match, against one opponent.|
|Apr-30-10|| ||VinnyRoo2002: I guess it depends on the sport. In baseball, basketball, football, or hockey, you have to win a playoff series to be determined the champion. You could have the best record over the regular season, but if you don't outperform your opponent over a condensed number of games, you are considered to have finished behind them in the final results.|
Personally, I think a world champion should have to be able to perform at optimal levels when the pressure is greatest. That's not to say tournament chess does not provide this pressure, but in my opinion, it is greatly reduced compared to a match scenario. If Anand keeps winning matches and losing tournaments, I have no problem calling him the world champion AND the best in the world. I know many disagree as I recall this discussion a little while back in the Kramnik forum.
|Apr-30-10|| ||A Karpov Fan: the point is Topalov is a smash and grab player. This works much better in a tournament where everybody has many opponenets to prepare for, some on bad form and some not. But one on one with the best Topalov is at a disadvantage because with enough preparation it is possible to keep him in positions he does not play as well. He is not a universal player like Anand, and here we see him suffer for it.|
|May-01-10|| ||shreyaslathi: < kingcrusher > ur videos really gr8, keep them coming.|
|May-01-10|| ||anjyplayer: On Move 32 exchanging rooks might have favored Topalov.|
|May-01-10|| ||Albertan: I have analyzed this game with the assistance of Deep Rybka 3, Chessbase 10, and Chessbase Megadatabase 2010 and posted this analysis to my blog athttp://albertan1956.blogspot.com/ using the program Chessviewer Deluxe. This is game 52 in the Chessviewer Deluxe game index. Deep Rybka 3 was used in analysis mode for 2 hours to allow for its comments and evaluation. I hope you drop by my blog and play through this analysis.|
|May-01-10|| ||Ulhumbrus: A correction to my previous post: "forsing " should read "forcing". Topalov said at the press conference that 22...f6! was a very strong move and that he had overlooked it. Anand said that 22....f6 was very important as it threatened ...Bf7. Anand said that he played the move ...g4 so as to make counterplay with his Rook and Knight possible. Perhaps this means partly that Anand wanted to fix White's g3 pawn as a potential target for counter-attack.|
|May-01-10|| ||Ulhumbrus: An alternative to 26...Bb4 is 26...e5 threatening to win a pawn on f4 after 27...exf4 as well as 27...Nd4+ forking White's King and KB. On 27 f5 Nd4+ 28 Bxd4 exd4 Black has equalized already. On 27 fxe5 Bxe5 28 Bxe5 Nxe5 Black can probably draw. However on 26...e5 27 Rf1! Nd4+? 28 Bxd4 exd4 29 Kd3 keeps some advantage as the blockaded d4 pawn obstructs Black's KB. On 27 Rf1 Bc5 28 fxe5 Nd4+ 29 Bxd4 Bxd4 White has won a pawn but with opposite coloured bishops it may be insufficient to win. On 27 Rf1 Rh8! White may have no way to make progress, as on fxe5 Black avoids opening the f file by ...Bxe5.|
|May-01-10|| ||Ulhumbrus: <chesstoplay: < Ulhumbrus: > Some ideas on part of your post:
< On 40...Kf5 41 Bc2+ Nxc2 42 Rxc2 Rd3! attacks the g3 pawn. >|
< Bc2 + > is inaccurate here, a position and tempo changer.
Be2 keeps the Rook at c3 plus the King up with the move if N x B.
< On 40...Kf5 41 Rc5 Ke4 42 Rxh5 > R x h5 is an error here
< Nf3+ 44 Bxf3 > , then Black plays KxB and the g3 pawn is lost.
< Ke4 > is practically losing to Re5 + as Kd3 is forced.
The positional change with tempo now allows White Rxh5 and 1-0.
You have very good ideas! Your post made me stop and think.>
On 40...Kf5 41 Rc5+ Ke4 42 Re5+ is indeed much better than 42 Rxh5 as Black has not played the move ...Nf3+ yet and so White's bishop keeps Black's King out of f3.
This suggests that if Black is to play ...Kf5 he has prepare it first by 40....b6! preventing the move Rc5 and so delaying the arrival of White's Rook on e5 for long enough for Black to play ....Nf3.
On 40...b6 suppose that White attempts to play the Rook to e5 via c8. On 40...b6 41 Rc8 Kf5 42 Rh8 Ke4 43 Rxh5 and now the move 44 Re5 will arrive too late as Black has gained the tempo necessary to play the move 43...Nf3+ first.
On 40...b6 White should not of course wait for Black's King to arrive on e4. He can play Kf2 so as to answer the move ...Ke4 with the check Re3+ and then the move ...Ke4 will be bad, as the K has to withdraw after which White's Rook gets to e5.
|May-01-10|| ||kingscrusher: I have video annotated this game in 3 parts:
|May-01-10|| ||kooley782: Hey all
Click here to view my comments on this game on my website: http://edsnotofthisworld.wordpress....
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 31 OF 31 ·