|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jul-30-06 | | Rocafella: <alicefujimori> There are no favouritisms anyway, I'm not really a die-hard Kramnik supporter like others. I see what you mean, but a game of chess is contested by two players. Gelfand is just as much to blame as Kramink is. Who knows, maybe Gelfand offered the draw? Kramink is not one to decline such offers. Also, the position has many complications, and to play these out may be detrimental to both players, in terms of tiredness and concentration. These games are prone to blunders as a lot of thinking is involved and neither play would want to lose to a blunder. It is like in the Kasprov vs Deep Junior match, the game was drawn as there were many complications, but this was slightly different, as a computer was involved. |
|
| Jul-30-06 | | alicefujimori: <Rocafella>Kramnik offered the draw because he played the last move. I'm not blaming Gelfand nor Kramnik here, but you have to realize that Kramnik was the first one to play a novelty and a new idea in that game. So we can assume that it has being analyzed by Kramnik beforehand. Gelfand responded exactly like how he played against Korchnoi in Korchnoi vs Gelfand, 2005. That game also ended in a draw. So faced with a new move and plan and in a position where it is probably equal, it is understandable why Gelfand accepted the draw. So I can't see how he could be blamed for that. On the other hand, Kramnik was the one who played a new move and plan and the resulting position was probably analyzed by Kramnik beforehand. Yet he was the one that offered the draw. So as you can see, Gelfand is not "just as much to blame" as Kramnik in this case. But in all fairness, Kramnik probably knew from his pre-game prep that this position does not offer him enough advantage to press for a win, so that's maybe why he offered the draw early on. That's definitely a possibility that we cannot doubt too. |
|
| Jul-30-06 | | Rocafella: <alicefujimori> If that is the case with Korchnoi vs Gelfand, 2005 then it means that there isn't much life left in the position? I wasn't sayin Gelfand did offer the draw, I simply said it to display the number of different factors there could be to take into consideration. But if Kramnik prepared the novelty and then offered the draw, then maybe this time the Drawnik supporters could be right. I mean isn't a novelty played so there is an undisputable advantage in the position? And then isn't this supposed to be converted into a win? Even if it's playe djust for future reference, Kramnik wil have seen there's not much for white here, so why else did he play it. If not I can't see the point in the novelty. I am starting to think this was a stupid move from Kramnik's side. |
|
| Jul-30-06 | | madlydeeply: One doesn't need to have an incredible rating and deep chess knowledge to be disappointed by this game. We fans want to see the best chess players mix it up, this game was just beginning when it was abandoned. From a more macro point of view...the notion that Kramnik is hiding his ideas in preparation is a bit flawed...why doesn't he use different openings then? WHy would he reveal his match plans in this tournament? Unfortunately this line of reasoning can only lead to more "chicken" factor...he has a limited amount of lines he feels comfortable in...so he uses them in a tournament but only halfway so he doesn't reveal anything? I think this line of reasoning is flawed. Now, I believe that Topalov used his tournaments as training...long fights were he investigated the limits of his strength and chess vision...using openings he obviously isn't going to use in the match (because he lost games therefore they are flawed). This doesn't make me a Kramnik "basher", I was upset at this game not Kramnik's ability. In fact, that man beat Kasparov, he is the Champion, and Topalov's form in these past tournaments did not look good enough to beat Kramnik...because he lost games early and that will be completely disastrous in a match against Kramnik. Topalov is going to have to change his style a bit for this match...and that is something all champions are capable of: Kasparov changed his style during the match with Karpov. Fishcer changed his style using queen pawn openings with Spassky. Botvinnik and Lasker both adjusted their style to the opponent. And so on. SO, if Topalov is capable of making these changes to his game, he has a shot at being champion. But now Kramnik is champion and that is an honor that is completely deserved. I do not doubt Kramnik's ability but I am disappointed in this game. |
|
| Jul-30-06 | | madlydeeply: As a matter of fact, I don't think the Meran is going to show up in the match. The use of the Meran in this game is an obvious feint. I am sure that Kramnik knows that Topalov has prepared for the Meran backwards and forwards. And the Berlin. I don't think I've ever anticipated any sporting event like i have this upcoming WC match! BRING IT ON!!!!! |
|
| Jul-30-06 | | Rocafella: <madlydeeply> I agree about the line of reasoning. When I actually realised it was a novelty, it sorta makes me think it was a cowardly draw. I just think that, even though people are used to it by Kramnik, when other people do it, there isn't as much fuss. Instead there should be more. People don't want more players to be turning into Kramnik. I cannot say, we, so I say people, as I do not mind Kramink's draws. |
|
| Jul-30-06 | | ganstaman: These players are all trying to win tournaments. When will everyone realize that the correct tournament move is not always the same as the correct game move? Yes, it may be boring for us, or at least not as exciting as it could have been. But these players are playing for themselves, not for us. If they feel that drawing here gives them the best chances, why should they play on? |
|
| Jul-31-06 | | Dionyseus: Is Kramnik trying to get his upcoming match against Topalov cancelled? |
|
| Jul-31-06 | | SnoopDogg: At least Kramnik is back to playing the Semi-Slav and somewhat more complicated positions like he used to do in the 90's. |
|
| Jul-31-06 | | square dance: <Is Kramnik trying to get his upcoming match against Topalov cancelled?> no, he's just trying to elicit such clever posts from the likes of you... |
|
| Jul-31-06 | | acirce: <People don't want more players to be turning into Kramnik.> Yes, Kramnik invented the short draw. |
|
| Jul-31-06 | | ColonelCrockett: I too do not think the Meran will show itself in the Topalov-Kramnik Match. This is in my opinion a feint, Kramnik intends to show Topalov he knows who's watching. Kramnik is in my opinion tapping back into his former self (for a time I thought he was on the fast track to retirement but it seems that is where Topalov has been going. however, could it be that topalov is faking as well? I mean, some of his games seem so obviously mistaken. Will he take a dive early in the match just to pull it out in the later rounds? That's what i predict, the early games of the match will be a Kramnik crush and then as the match goes on Topalov's form will shine through. I'm looking forward to seeing this match because at different times i have predicted the excellent perforamnce of both men. Good luck to them both! |
|
| Jul-31-06 | | alicefujimori: <ColonelCrockett>As we all know about Kramnik, he always prepare openings that his opponent feels least comfortable in. (If I remember correctly, he also confirmed this in one of his interviews.) So the chances that the Meran or the Semi-Slav to come up in the match naturally wouldn't be high because as we all know, Topalov loves complicated, double edged positions and Meran produces those positions. |
|
| Jul-31-06 | | KingG: <alicefujimori> I wouldn't be so sure. Kramnik is one of the leading world experts on the Semi-Slav(or he was a few years ago anyway), and Topalov's record against the Semi-Slav since 1994(roughly when he started playing top competition) isn't particularly impressive(+4 -4 =13). It includes this loss to Kramnik: Topalov vs Kramnik, 1997 And this recent loss to Vellejo-Pons: Topalov vs Vallejo-Pons, 2006 Topalov seems to be quite dangerous against the QID at the moment, so i think the Semi-Slav would be an excellent choice. Alternatively, he could go for a more positional game and play the Queen's Gambit instead. |
|
| Jul-31-06 | | alicefujimori: <KingG>Sure. I'm not doubting that there are chances that Kramnik might use it in the upcoming match (you'll probably love it if that happens), but I don't think the chances are all that high. But again, Kramnik might suprise all of us in the upcoming match if he have prepared to hit Topalov straight on in complicated, double edged positions. :) |
|
| Aug-01-06 | | Snarminoxx: Pathetic...says it all. |
|
| Aug-01-06 | | Tactical: What do you say we rename the tournament Snuffasson |
|
| Aug-08-06 | | patzer2: In retrospect, with Kramnik winning the tournament undefeated and on tie breaks, this draw offer in a balanced but difficult position against a tough opponent doesn't seem to have been such a bad idea. |
|
| Aug-09-06 | | notyetagm: <patzer2: In retrospect, with Kramnik winning the tournament undefeated and on tie breaks, this draw offer in a balanced but difficult position against a tough opponent doesn't seem to have been such a bad idea.> Of course the decision looks good -now- but it would not look like such a good idea if Jobava had not lost in 15 moves like a patzer and drawn his White game with Kramnik, would it? |
|
| Aug-09-06 | | patzer2: As I recall, one other opponent tried to press Gelfand too hard in a "superior position" and lost in another game in this tournament. I don't think it would have been good for Kramnik to play such a strategy here. If Kramnik's objective was to draw with Black in this game, and his opponent was receptive, I'm fine with it. Black stands slightly better, but is a long way from anything approaching a forced win at the point of the draw. As for his 15-move win in round 6, it appears to me in retrospect to have been the result of a brilliant piece sacrifice conceived over the board. I see no poor reflection on either Kramnik or his opponent for such a fine victory. |
|
| Oct-23-06 | | Bufon: From http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/200... "Yesterday, a lot of chess fans were upset that GM Vladimir Kramnik offered a draw on move 19 and GM Boris Gelfand immediately accepted the offer at the Dortmund super tournament in Germany. Many said that this is a serious problem and all invitational events should have the "no draw" offer rule. I disagree. Many players do play fighting chess. There are a few who are known for short draws. There is a very simple problem to fix this. DO NOT INVITE non-fighting players back! Why reward the non-fighting players by inviting them back again and again? Let's reward the players who fight by giving them more invitations Simple, isn't it? I am sure they will get the message very quickly. I never asked my colleagues to play fighting chess at the recent NY City Mayor's Cup. They did it automatically. Let's pinpoint those who make "quick draws" and let's leave others alone" http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/200... |
|
| Oct-23-06 | | Lt. Col. Majid: <From http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/200...
"Yesterday, a lot of chess fans were upset that GM Vladimir Kramnik offered a draw on move 19 and GM Boris Gelfand immediately accepted the offer at the Dortmund super tournament in Germany. Many said that this is a serious problem and all invitational events should have the "no draw" offer rule. I disagree. Many players do play fighting chess. There are a few who are known for short draws. There is a very simple problem to fix this. DO NOT INVITE non-fighting players back! Why reward the non-fighting players by inviting them back again and again? Let's reward the players who fight by giving them more invitations Simple, isn't it? I am sure they will get the message very quickly. I never asked my colleagues to play fighting chess at the recent NY City Mayor's Cup. They did it automatically. Let's pinpoint those who make "quick draws" and let's leave others alone" http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/200... >
What is the big deal with Susan's views on the draw issue? I have no problem at all with Susan or her comments per se, but u have been going on and on and on about her views like a poodle as if her views are gospel. She is merely offering an opinion ... and anyone's opinion is just as valid as her's, even yours ...yes even yours. |
|
| Oct-23-06 | | Bufon: I share many of her opinions, that i why i post some of his things. And what about you?? you seem to consider Kramnik view of chess as it if were from God itself :-) |
|
| Oct-23-06 | | Lt. Col. Majid: <Bufon: And what about you?? you seem to consider Kramnik view of chess as it if were from God itself :-) Nah. I admire Kramnik a great deal but I don't take his views as gospel:-) |
|
Oct-23-06
 | | chancho: "Kramnik's destiny get's crushed" that's a silly title for a games collection, considering what Kramnik did to Topalov at Elista. Maybe someone should come up with a new game collection called: Topalov's destiny to get crushed. Nah, that's kinda silly. :) |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
