|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 77 OF 77 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Oct-06-05 | | Eyal: <RubinsteinAK: He will simply throw down the gauntlet, knowing fully that Topalov will certainly not get permission from FIDE to put his title on the line> In principle, FIDE seems willing to have a "unification" match; see http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.... It's just a matter of sponsorship, and - assuming you're right about Kramnik - of Topalov's (or any other winner's) agreeement |
|
| Oct-06-05 | | VishyFan: <Eyal> never did anybody term that as a "unification" match as u're mentioning.... the exact words were "In principle Kramnik can play a match with San Luis winner, if he(San Luis winner) agrees"..... |
|
| Oct-06-05 | | Eyal: <VishyFan> Actually, that's exactly why I put "unification" in quotes. But the general idea is implied, isn't it? Otherwise, why should there be such a match? |
|
| Oct-06-05 | | VishyFan: but <Eyal> the current chess politics is not in a situation where we can "imply" whatever we want to...., we gotta be mind -readers to do that..... :D |
|
| Oct-06-05 | | Eyal: <VishyFan> Well, from the politicians’ point of view, the “current chess politics” may actually call for talking by implication and not straightforwardly; and from our point of view, we simply have no choice but to try and understand those implications – not whatever we want to, but by figuring out reasonably what is probable |
|
Oct-06-05
 | | OhioChessFan: Kasim: "Anyone seen the Hydra operators?" |
|
| Oct-06-05 | | cheski: <Helloween: 32...g5 33.Rxh6 gxf4 34.Qh1 f3+ 35.Kxf3 Ke8 36.Rxe6 Rb8 37.Qh7 Kd8 38.Qg8+ Kd7 39.Qf7 Kd8 40.Rg6 Qd7 41.Rg8+ Kc7 42.Rxb8 Kxb8 43.g5 + 7.72 according to Fritz.> <Helloween>:Thanks for putting that up. I can see it now, but only after lengthy study. That must be a very powerful programme to come up with the whole sequence so fast. Do you think that it was dubious to go for the Rook exchange earlier, after holding off for so long? That opened the way for White to get his Rook and eventually his Queen on the h-file. Do you think Kazim could have played something different on move 26...Rxa1? He thought for almost 10 mins the move before and then played move 26 instantly. And I see it took Kazim only 5 mins and 18 seconds to find 32...Bg5. Aren't they clever, all of them! |
|
| Oct-06-05 | | RubinsteinAK: <badest> To answer why Kramnik isn't in San Luis, you need to put yourself in his shoes. Kramnik has beaten the strongest player in the world in a match by defeating Kasparov in 2000. Not long after in Prague, FIDE agrees to terms of a reunification of the title, because they know that Kramnik has a legitimate claim to the title "World Champion." FIDE realized that no one really bought into the idea that their "knock-out" format for determining the "FIDE World Champion" was yielding up the strongest player in the world. Then, keeping with this agreement, Kramnik play Peter Leko and it's a drawn match, but Kramnik retained the title. He played this match with the understanding that the winner would play the winner of a match between Kasparov and some worth challenger, and most everyone expect Kasparov to win and then there would be a rematch between Kramnik and Kasparov and the winner would be title the FIDE World Champion and the schizm in the chess world would be healed. Well...things didn't go according to plan. FIDE could not get a match off the ground, but then decides to scrap that Prague agreement and just hold their own tournament, this time dropping the ridiculous knock-out format, and actually holding a classical-type tournament. FIDE cleverly invites Kramnik and Kasparov, so as to cover their bases, knowing full well that they have put Kramnik in a tough spot. So, Kramnik has kept his part of the entire agreement and is continuing to keep it. To play at San Luis would in some way give the impression that Kramnik condones FIDE's lack of integrity in keeping their agreements. I really think you will see Kramnik speak out after this tournament and make it known that FIDE has finally provided him a worthy opponent and he will publicly solict sponsorship for a match. Keep one thing squarely in mind...in match play, Kramnik is extremely good. His ability to formulate game plans and execute them within the context of match play is very impressive. Play over the games from the World Championship match from 2000. He managed to defang Kasparov time and again, trading queens off early, bringing out the Berlin defense, which up to that point had (maybe) never been played in a World Championship. People forget the shock when he unveiled the Berlin in 2000. Look at the super-GM tournaments since then. You will see a much higher incidence of the Berlin defense after that match. This was due to Kramnik. |
|
| Oct-06-05 | | csmath: Most of people keep on repeating the "facts" of Prague Agreement even though they don't really know much about that agreement. As far as Kramnik is concerned that agreement was dead before this tournament was announced, at least with respect to what Kramnik said in the press. We do not know what Kramnik stands for since he is modifying his responses according to his benefits. What we know is that he has no plans to organize any cycle for the challenge of his "title," he has not done that in the past either, except for the ad hoc misorganized Dortmund supertournament. For that reason and for all practical purposes his "title" is now defunct and we shall get the real world champion after San Luis, that will be the winner of San Luis, and that winner has no reason whatsoever to offer any more priviledges to Kramnik than there were in the past. Enough of freeloading. For Lautier and the rest of Kramnik dependents would be a good idea to remove themselves from making a further mess since they have proven themselves of not being able to do nothing more than to serve their patron. |
|
| Oct-06-05 | | Ulhumbrus: 20...Nxg4 opens the h file for White. 20...Nh5 instead takes one step towards Nf4. |
|
| Oct-06-05 | | Ulhumbrus: The double exchange of pawns on b4 relinquishes Black's territorial advantage on the queen side. |
|
| Oct-06-05 | | Ulhumbrus: 23 ...Bf6 obstructs the f-file. Kasimdzhanov has relinquished or made irrelevant all of his positional assets one by one and given an important positional asset to Topalov, the h file. Thus he has passed the advantage to Topalov. It does not take much to turn a possibly winning positional advantage into a lost game. |
|
| Oct-06-05 | | Alekhinelover: <RubinsteinAK>It's true that Kramnik was the best in 2000. But he has been declining since then. Remember he refused to give Kasparov a rematch, which is indicative of his inconfidence. He is nowhere near his best form right now. I doubt he could produce such a fantastic form as Topalov does now. Let's see who will win the match between Kramnik and this championship winner should the match is held. I wouldn't bet for Kramnik even if the opponent is not Topalov(if he doesn't win it for an very unlikely reason). |
|
| Nov-02-05 | | patzer2: At first glance, it appears the losing move for Kasim was 32...bg5. However, I think GM Shipov is more accurate in his analysis at http://www.chesspro.ru/events/sanlu... in asserting that 28...Nd4?! (better was 28...Qe7 =) and 30...d5!? (better is 30...Be7!=).were the real culprits. |
|
| Dec-21-05 | | AdrianP: Kasimdzhanov could have salvaged a draw as late as move 58, with 58. ...Rc1! according to Karsten Mueller http://www.chesscafe.com/mueller/mu... |
|
| Dec-21-05 | | acirce: <Oct-05-05 acirce: How is this... 56..Rxg4 57.f6 Rg1 58.Rxg7 Rc1 59.Rxg5 Rc4+ 60.Kd3 Rc5 trying to tie White up a bit. Probably futile.> Guess not if Müller's right. Interesting. |
|
| Feb-28-06 | | alexandrovm: white's king at the end of the game was really incredible, nice calculation by Topalov. |
|
| May-20-06 | | spirit: 73.Kh5! aesthetically pleasing... |
|
| Jul-09-06 | | notyetagm: From the lastest Chess Life magazine in an article by GM Andy Soltis: <In the key seventh-round game that gave Veselin Topalov his insurmountable lead in last year’s FIDE world championship, he missed a fairly simple win in a queen and rook attacking position.> Could someone please point this out to me? I do not feel like wading through 77 pages of kibitzing to find this simple win that Topalov missed. Thanks. |
|
Jul-09-06
 | | Peligroso Patzer: <notyetagm: From the lastest Chess Life magazine in an article by GM Andy Soltis:
<In the key seventh-round game that gave Veselin Topalov his insurmountable lead in last year’s FIDE world championship, he missed a fairly simple win in a queen and rook attacking position.> Could someone please point this out to me? I do not feel like wading through 77 pages of kibitzing to find this simple win that Topalov missed. Thanks.> GM Soltis claims that 37. Qh5! would have been winning, but his article does not give supporting variations. I have looked at the position with Fritz's help, and it is not at all clear to me (us) that 37. Qh5 would actually have led to a "fairly simple win", as claimed by GM Soltis. If a clear win is really there after 37. Qh5, I would also welcome some clarification. |
|
| Jan-26-07 | | positionalgenius: an incredible game from topalov. My all-time favorite game from him. |
|
Mar-22-09
| | Peligroso Patzer: Here are a couple of classic examples of King maneuvers similar to Topalov’s 73. Kh5! in this game: 39. Kf6! In Capablanca vs Tartakower, 1924, and 36. Kd4 followed by 37. Ke3 in W Schlage vs Reti, 1928. BTW, 73. Kh5! in this game was a necessary finesse. If 73. Kxg5?, Black has a number of moves to draw, the most thematic of which would probably be 73. … Re1. |
|
| Jun-01-15 | | SpiritedReposte: That is an instructive rook ending. The rook on the 7th rank restraining the enemy king, a passed pawn on f6 and a supporting king free from harassing checks. Achieve those and victory can't be far away. |
|
Jan-16-19
| | OhioChessFan: I have no memory of this from 13 years ago, but in a quick review, I can't believe how many people didn't agree White was winning for the last 30 moves or so. I know <stephenw> was calling it a win for White while most the crowd thought it was a draw. |
|
| Jan-17-19 | | SChesshevsky: White's definitely better for the last 30 or so but whether actually winning is a question. At 30...d5, white has the better pawns, safer king, and seemingly all the play but probably not winning. 40...Kg8, white looks even better. Pretty much all the same plusses but a pawn up and with much more pressure. Was there a knockout blow white missed around here? 50...Rb3 White a lot better. Pawn up with better structure and better king. But blacks rook is active which might give drawing chances though any inaccuracy could be fatal. 60...Ra1 Blacks likely busted. White has protected passed pawn on 6th, better rook and blacks blockading king has to watch the pawn and worry about mate threats. Black does have a passed pawn but without a lot of protection. When was white winning? Meaning when a clear line or idea is apparent. I'm guessing could be somewhere shortly after move 50...Rb3. Wondering if any way black can save it from there? |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 77 OF 77 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
