chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing
Michael Adams vs Veselin Topalov
FIDE World Championship Tournament (2005), San Luis ARG, rd 11, Oct-10
Sicilian Defense: Scheveningen. Classical Variation (B84)  ·  1/2-1/2

ANALYSIS [x]

FEN COPIED

explore this opening
find similar games 44 more Adams/Topalov games
PGN: download | view | print Help: general | java-troubleshooting

TIP: You can get computer analysis by clicking the "ENGINE" button below the game.

PGN Viewer:  What is this?
For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.
PREMIUM MEMBERS CAN REQUEST COMPUTER ANALYSIS [more info]

A COMPUTER ANNOTATED SCORE OF THIS GAME IS AVAILABLE.  [CLICK HERE]

Michael Adams vs Veselin Topalov (2005)
Photograph copyright © 2005 World Chess Championship Press.  Used with permission.


Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 39 OF 40 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Oct-12-05  MTal: Ulhumbrus, imagine a scenatio where the game ends in k+n vs k. Can one make a claim that the person holding significant material advantage (more than the advantage that adams had) "brilliantly outplayed" the person with the k only??? Again, material is means, not a goal, and if it does not get you closer to the goal, then how did you outplay the other? what if in a weak position I sac a queen to get perpetual -- you have the material advantage, but who outplayed whom?
Oct-12-05
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: 40...Kg7 41 Qe5+ Kh6 42 Re7 threatening 43 Qf4+. I don't see a good defense here.

42...Rxc2? 43 Qf4+ g5 44 Re6+

42...Kg5 43 h4+ Kg4 44 Kh2 (threatening Qe2+; if 44...Rxc2 Qg3+ wins)

Oct-12-05  csmath: <40...Kg7 41 Qe5+ Kh6 42 Re7 threatening 43 Qf4+. I don't see a good defense here. 42...Rxc2? 43 Qf4+ g5 44 Re6+

42...Kg5 43 h4+ Kg4 44 Kh2 (threatening Qe2+; if 44...Rxc2 Qg3+ wins)>

41. Qe5 ... Kh6

42. Re7?

loses outright because of

42. ... Qf2

Now not only you did not mate me, you are actually losing. You gotta come up with something better. I see that Euripides at least uses some engine, he should be able to come up with something better.

Oct-12-05  euripides: <csmath> No, I don't use an engine and I analyse by eye from the position in the game.
Oct-12-05  csmath: Well OK then, trust me on the word, there is no win here after busting bishop on d5. I do use engine and it is a hell of a lot better than 99% of kibitzers here.

Oct-12-05  euripides: <csmath> if you're basing your assertion on an engine then why don't you say so in the first place ? There is no reason why anyone should believe unsupported assertions. Especially when combine with the general rubbish you write about the position including the extraordinary claim about the relation between Rxd5 and Re5.

I had wondered why there was such a difference between the quality of the lines you sometimes produce and your loudmouthed and ignorant comments on the positions. Now I know.

Oct-12-05
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: <I do use engine and it is a hell of a lot better than 99% of kibitzers here.>

Then why don't you give actual variations instead of bellowing "WHITE MUST NOT TRADE QUEENS" (Kasim-Anand) or "Perhaps it is unclear to you" and similar dreck? Obviously this position is better analyzed by machine than by all but the strongest humans.


Oct-12-05  csmath: Keypusher and Euripides, I suggest that both of you get yourself a decent program for analyses, then you won't have a need to get ballistic when you mess up your arguments. :-))
Oct-12-05
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: <csmath>, thanks for the bust to 42 Re7.

I have Fritz 8 at home. So tonight I'll be able to analyze the position. You, unfortunately, will forever remain a twit.

Oct-12-05  euripides: <csmath> we're not here to show off our engines; we're here to try to understand the position. People who make unsupported claims do not help anyone do that - whether or not they have some engine running in the background. If you are basing your claims on the results of an engine then you should say so.
Oct-12-05  euripides: <ULhumbrus> reading one of my posts I realise it was ambiguous. I meant you were obviously interested in finding out the truth of the position - unlike some others here :-)
Oct-12-05  Ulhumbrus: One variation I gave contained a typing error. The variation I gave should have read (following 36 Ree2 a5 37 Qe1 Kg7) 38 Rxd5 exd5 39 Re7+ Kf8 40 Re8+ Kf7 41 Qe6+ Kg7 (and not Kf7 as in the message posted) 42 Qe5+ Kh6 43 h4 Rxc2 44 Qe5 Qf2 45 Qg7+ Kh6 46 Qxh7+ Kg4 47 Qxg6+ Kf4 48 Qg5 mate.
Oct-12-05  csmath: <<The variation I gave should have read (following 36 Ree2 a5 37 Qe1 Kg7) 38 Rxd5 exd5 39 Re7+ Kf8 40 Re8+ Kf7 41 Qe6+ Kg7 (and not Kf7 as in the message posted) 42 Qe5+ Kh6 43 h4 Rxc2 44 Qe5 Qf2 45 Qg7+ Kh6 46 Qxh7+ Kg4 47 Qxg6+ Kf4 48 Qg5 mate.>>

40. ... Kf7?

is not the move for black. Black would play a correct move

40. ... Kg7

and there is no mate here.
That has already been refuted here in the thread. There is no mate and there is no win after 38. Rxd5.

Oct-12-05  Ezzy: <Ulhumbrus> This has been an enjoyable debate. After the evidence so far, here is the way I see it.

Yasser Seirawn doesn't think Adams has anything in the position after blacks 35th move.

Topalov states that "it was a fair draw".

All the chess engines can not find a winning continuation for white.

No kibitzer has demonstrated a winning line for white.

I am sincerely not looking for 'brownie points' here, but I must stand by my original disagreement with you that "Adams did not brilliantly outplay Topalov".

I think it is fair to say that Adam's had some good, interesting, well thought out Ideas in the game. But to say "Adam's brilliantly outplayed Topalov in that game is just a bit of an overstatement. Adams couldn't find a win, and Topalov had created serious threats of his own to restrict whites movements. It was great play by both players.

Oct-12-05  Ezzy: <keypusher
<csmath> - You, unfortunately, will forever remain a twit.>
The only reason that I can find that you abuse <csmath> in this way, is because he refuted your line. <csmath> is enjoying these championships as we all are, and he writes passionately about the way he views games. If he wants to write "AND WHITE SHOULD NOT EXCHAMGE QUEENS" what in heavens name is wrong with that. If <csmath> leaves himself open to discussion, then write a post and discuss it with him.

But I think <keypusher> you are one of those characters who don't like complementing anyones work, and would even more hate it if you had to say you were wrong.

But you do seem quite pompus anyway, after I read your post on the Topalov - Svidler game page 8 . This was when only premium members were allowed into the game - <keypusher: Yes, quite glad to be without the rabble to-day>

Your $22 dollars has certainly put you on some pompus pedestal. Perhaps you just see us as the rabble.

<euripides- I had wondered why there was such a difference between the quality of the lines you sometimes produce and your loudmouthed and ignorant comments on the positions. Now I know.> Your abuse is worse than <csmath> making a loud passionate comment on the games. If you disagree with something, then put a sensible comment to that post you disagree with, and see if you can find an answer, don't just abuse them for their content of post.

Try to separate the difference between someone being passionate about these world championship chessgames, and being loudmouthed. Because in your last 2 posts it was you < euripides> who was being loudmouthed.

Oct-12-05  condorcet: <Ezzy> i find it funny that you are defending <csmath>, of all people, against allegedly abusive and loudmouthed and pompous critics. it's bizarre!! have you ever seen anything he's written?? abusive and pompous is a perfect description of <csmath>. all he does is call people retards, and now that he has a chess program, posting computer analysis as if it's his own. he never posted any analysis before the last week or so. and his life seems to revolve around attacking kramnik and insinuating other posters are homosexual.

<keypusher> and <euripides> actually contribute something besides insults. like so many people they were just sick and tired of <csmath>'s constant smug and abusive attitude.

Oct-12-05  csmath: Condorcet?
And to make this post you needed to open a new account here? What are you afraid of that you cannot use your previous login? You are anonymous to me anyway.
Oct-12-05  csmath: Let's return to the game.

The claim has been made that there is a winning advantage for the white in the position before Adams' 36th move.

I think we have not see any evidence to back this claim up with some more convincing analyses, with or without engines.

Some people here are going ballistic when their errors are pointed out, which is understandable but does not need this kind of outbursts.

So once again, I am assuming that somebody reasonable enough is ready to demonstrate this winning advantage. You can even open a new account every time you make an error, who cares. Let's see. I am not saying there is or there is no winning advantage but whoever claims there is should be able to back it up. Few ideas demonstrated here have failed. Any more?

Oct-12-05  tpstardefender: <csmath> I think there's winning advantage for white here; it's actually fairly easy to spot the winning strategy. But since I'm preparing for my match, I unfortunately can't give away any of my analysis. Maybe after my match. Sorry:)
Oct-12-05  condorcet: i didn't have a previous login. i look at this site regularly, but not really any reason to register. i just found ezzy's statements very funny. your incredible offensiveness draws responses not only from reasonable and respectable regulars like <keypusher> <euripides> <aw1988> <iron maiden> etc, but also from people who have never registered or posted!!!
Oct-12-05  csmath: <i didn't have a previous login.>

I doubt that. The vitriol in your post suggests something more personal.

<i look at this site regularly, but not really any reason to register. i just found ezzy's statements very funny. your incredible offensiveness draws responses not only from reasonable and respectable regulars like keypusher euripides aw1988 iron maiden etc, but also from people who have never registered or posted!!!>

As far as offensiveness of posts goes, you started on a high ground no doubt. Keep it up.

Oct-12-05  csmath: <I think there's winning advantage for white here; it's actually fairly easy to spot the winning strategy. But since I'm preparing for my match, I unfortunately can't give away any of my analysis. Maybe after my match. Sorry:)>

OK, Anatoly. Good luck. :-)

Oct-13-05  condorcet: <I doubt that. The vitriol in your post suggests something more personal.> you can doubt it all you want, but it's true. my characterization of you is accurate. i noticed you didn't even try to deny it. it isn't personal; you are just that smug and abrasive. surely you've noticed many others express similar opinions about you. what does your constant vitriol suggest?--that you have personal problems with many players and kibitzers? it's funny--you're constantly abusive and insulting to others, but can't stand to be called on it.
Oct-13-05  csmath: A suggestion for you: go reread few posts you made in this thread in this "conversation" and think about it. I have no further need for any exchange with you, meaning you will join my ignore list, as your posts are as meaningless to me as your opinions about me. I am not your pupil that I would need to defend myself from your insults. Where did you get that idea? You are no representative of anything except your own character, obviously an attractive one.

This thread was supposed to be about this game before some people started to turn it into personal arguments whatever the reasons.

Oct-13-05  Ezzy: <condorcet> I personally am not interested in what problems <csmath> has with other kibitzers.

I started an interesting debate with <Ulhumbrus> about a chess game. <csmath> made an enthusiastic contribution to the discussion, and in no way deserved any of the abuse that he received. As far as I can see, he hasn't abused anyone on this page. All the abuse is being directed at him. Now if that is a result of past battles, well it is none of my business. These pages are for analysing and talking about the game. That's what we are doing.

<keypusher and euripides actually contribute something besides insults> All the evidence suggests that <Keypusher and euripides> were being insulting without provocation, obviously trying to rekindle some past battles.

<like so many people they were just sick and tired of <csmath>'s constant smug and abusive attitude.> But they are just resorting to the same abuse game. They who have not sinned, cast the first stone.

Anyway that's enough of that. I am going for a game of chess - What else!

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 40)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 39 OF 40 ·  Later Kibitzing>

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
  3. No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
  6. No trolling.
  7. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

Blow the Whistle

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.


NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific game only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

This game is type: CLASSICAL. Please report incorrect or missing information by submitting a correction slip to help us improve the quality of our content.

Featured in the Following Game Collections[what is this?]
FIDE World Championship 2005, San Luis
from # Greatest Tournaments 2005 by Qindarka
Airy Topalov Altane
from King Castles and Other Architectonic Wonders by Gypsy
great defense by topalov
from keypusher's bookmarked games by keypusher
A draw is better than a loss.
from The Defense and Counter-attack weapon by addiction to chess
Round 11: Adams 4, Topalov 8 1/2
from 2005 FIDE World Chess Championship by Penguincw
Round 11, Game 1 (Monday, October 10)
from WCC Index [FIDE 2005 World Championship] by iron maiden
Game 11
from World Chess Championship 2005 by Topzilla
What's behind the green door?
by fredthebear
Schwartz's favorite games
by Schwartz
Other games
by AuDo
Weak colored square. From Ezzy.
from WannaBe's favorite games by WannaBe
san luis 2005
from SimonBrazil's favorite games by SimonBrazil
Gadmes with photographs
by Penguincw
Very exciting game by the new World Champion.
from Notable Games 2005 by cu8sfan
Sicilian Defense: Scheveningen. Classical Variation (B85) 1/2-
from Photo Album of Fredthebear by fredthebear

Home | About | Login | Logout | F.A.Q. | Profile | Preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | New Kibitzing | Chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | Privacy Notice | Contact Us

Copyright 2001-2021, Chessgames Services LLC