<some of his moves at the end where dictated by his desire to "aesthetically" keep the knight on a6 so that there was a unified strategic theme to the game>

A fizzer? Anand *killed* him.>

NO way! Rubbish! Kramnik was out of form so we didn't really see anything spectacular - Anand made a fairly obvious sacrifice in one game and in another was quite sharp but there weren't enough games.

In contrast Topalov played some great games but stuffed them v Kramnik...but even when when Kramnik won in that match I sensed he wasn't in form either.

I am not for or against any player - I know Anand can play great chess but Kramnik can also.

Mostly the reasons for wins or loses overall are psychological (linked to the choice & preparation of openings and also psychological and other preparation done).

Thats simply pathetic. There was no news of Kramnik not being well during the Anand match. He was ill a few years before that, prior to his spectacular comeback. Then he himself said his was fine.

<Kramnik was out of form>

Another piece of misinformation. Kramnik was in excellent form, winning the super-strong Tal memorial before the match. Anand was the one in poor form, with his embarrassingly bad performance in Bilbao just a few days before the match (he came in LAST).

<In contrast Topalov played some great games>

Which ones ?

<but even when when Kramnik won in that match I sensed he wasn't in form either.>

that match was also short, and Kramnik won thanks to some <mysteriously> mediocre performance by Topalov. I was of course rooting for Kramnik and was delighted when he won (overcoming all the dirty psychological games), but from chess point of view the match was much more of a 'fizzer'.

<Anand can play great chess but Kramnik can also.>

Thanks for the scoop !

<Mostly the reasons for wins or loses overall are psychological (linked to the choice & preparation of openings and also psychological and other preparation done).

Also these matches are too short.>

Thanks for the scoop again !

If Kramnik was 'out of form' and 'sick' then a longer match wouldnt make any difference anyway, right ?

And how long do you want the matches to be ? Like Karpov-Kasparov, when the match was so long that Karpov fell ill and it had to be cancelled ? There is a reason the matches were shortened. It was mostly the players' idea, because they didn't want to play super-long matches and miss out on playing the highly paying supertournaments. The last so called 'long' match was Kasparov-Anand in 1995, and by no means was that match any higher quality than the shorter ones succeeding it.

<Kramnik was out of form - Another piece of misinformation. Kramnik was in excellent form, winning the super-strong Tal memorial before the match. Anand was the one in poor form, with his embarrassingly bad performance in Bilbao just a few days before the match (he came in LAST).>

Actually, Kramnik won the Tal Memorial in 2007, not 2008 – in 2008 he was really unimpressive in a consistent way, in all of the classical tournaments in which he participated – Corus, Dortmund (really embarrassing by his standards: a -1 score, ahead only of Van Wely), Tal Memorial, as well as the Olympiad where he played shortly after the match. On the other hand, Anand did very badly in Bilbao, but he also won Linares. Take a look at the yearly performance rating statistics (http://members.aon.at/sfischl/cl200...): Anand is no.2 with 2791, Kramnik is no.18 with 2725 (and a negative score). So it makes sense to say that in Anand's case Bilbao was probably just an "accident" related to the pre-match preparations, whereas Kramnik was consistently not in such a good form. In this sense, I sometimes think it's a bit of a pity that the match between them didn't take place in 2007, when both seemed pretty much in top form (see http://members.aon.at/sfischl/cl200...).

But all of the above shouldn't take away from Anand's achievement – WC matches have to take place at a certain point in time, and I think it's quite rare that they happen when both players are precisely at their top form and the height of their career. In order to become a world champion, you have to be better than your opponent <when it matters>, and that's certainly what Anand was in Bonn. In fact, it's true for 2007 as well – both players were very impressive during this year (Anand winning Linares and Mexico, Kramnik winning Dortmund and the Tal Memorial, all wins with dominating performances), but Anand was the one who won the most important tournament – the world championship.

<WC matches have to take place at a certain point in time, and I think it's quite rare that they happen when both players are precisely at their top form and the height of their career. >

Word.

click for larger view

Here's another crazy line from this critical position that demonstrates Black can probably hold on after <18...Nc7!> (in addition to 19.Bc4 b5! that I mentioned in a previous post):

Which ones ? >>

Topalov should have won games 1 and 2 I think it was, and in one other he won when he played brilliantly with two knights. That match was short also (the matches should be at least 24 games) - and it was too short, also Topalov's objections to Kramnik were stupid I agree - but he played some great chess and does all the time -so did /does Kramnik - that is my point,

You can choose to be hurtful and sarcastic, and favour Carlsen over Kramnik as is fashionable etc, if you want - you are clearly superior and brainier to me with your PhDs in Astrophsyics and Advanced Abstract Maths so on so I wont reply further. You are obviously a genius.

But it is illegal to make funny of challenged people.

I am not. I have never claimed that, have I ? I dont believe these things make somebody superior or inferior. Thats not my philosophy.

<You can choose to be hurtful and sarcastic>

Sarcastic, yes. Thats just my style. Hurtful, no ! I apologize if thats the impression you got. I thought (and still think) that you made some misinformed comments and I pointed those out. I made mistakes, too - which <Eyal> pointed out and I totally accepted.

As for your idea of 24-game matches, I think most people would consider that to be impractical in today's age. The top players certainly do. I don't see the point either.

<I suppose you are one of these who doesn't believe that Alekhine was a Jew?>