The official Vishy victory party was postponed and I suppose we should thank the players for giving us some decisive games and for maintaining the sporting interest until the final day. Three decisive games in round 12, only the second time that has happened.
Round 13: Grischuk-Anand, Gelfand-Kramnik, Aronian-Svidler, Leko-Morozevich. LIVE
Since being knocked back to a +1 score by Grischuk in round 9 Boris Gelfand has shown all the ambition of a sloth on casual Friday. He had two whites in a row and used them to play a total of 46 moves against Leko and Svidler. It seemed clear he considered Anand out of reach and would be happy to coast in at +1 if left alone to quietly munch his leaves. But in round 12 Aronian shook Gelfand's tree and found out just how quickly the Israeli can move when pressed, even if he's the oldest player in the field. Aronian's 16.g4 crossed the border between aggressive and crazy. (Kasparov: "Aronian can't tell the difference between the world championship and a blitz game! It's a shame because the guy can play real chess when he is focused.") Gelfand's incredibly cool response, 16..Rf8, highlighted the truth of one of the old maxims: be careful with your pawn moves because pawns can't go backwards. One wag on the ICC suggested that Aronian play g4-g2 in response, with a repetition. Exactly. Instead, White's king was ripped out into the open and Gelfand blew the Armenian off the board in short order. 23.Qxg6 offered better chances with a few pawns in the center for the piece after 23.Qxg6 Bxf3+ 24.Nxf3 Rxf3! 25.Bc2 Nf8 26.Qh5 Rf7 27.f4. [Malcolm Pein points out below that 23.Qxg6 Nxe5 wins. 24.Nxe5 Rxf2! 25.Kxf2 Qxh4+ 26.Kg1 Bxe5] But Gelfand had only around 12 minutes left an Aronian decided to take his chances in the attack. The win moved Gelfand back up to +2 with 7/12, still a full point behind Anand with two rounds to play.
The win did keep Gelfand ahead of defending world champ Vladimir Kramnik, who also won. (And kept the mathematical chances of retaining his title alive for one more round, btw.) You have two choices against Kramnik's Catalan: the long squeeze or the risky breakout. Either way, you die. Since Kramnik started playing the Catalan regularly in 2005 he has eight wins and four draws. Insane. Leko went for option B but suffered a surprising lapse on the defense against Kramnik's exchange sac (some wondered if Kramnik just missed ..e5). Leko's usually one of the world's best defenders. Here he either got too ambitious or just failed to evaluate the power of White's 28.Qf7 infiltration. 26..f6 looks like the culprit. 26..Re7 giving the exchange back immediately looks okay for Black. 27.Nxb7 Qxb7 28.e5 and White would probably play on in the Q+R endgame with a tiny edge. In the game, Kramnik finally got to flex his attacking muscles and crashed through for his first win in two weeks. This lifted him back to +1 and clear third place with 6.5. He's a full point ahead of the pack of Leko, Moro, and Aronian. Svidler and Grischuk are on 5.
Morozevich swapped places in the standings with the nosediving Grischuk by handing the youngest player in the event his fourth loss in a row with black. The game developed very slowly and Morozevich handled the opening of the position in mutual time trouble better than Grischuk. He picked off a pawn and then mated when Grischuk lashed out with nearly no time on his clock. Over Grischuk's last eight games, white has scored seven points! Black, it is safe to say, is not okay.
GM Miguel Illescas, a friend and long-time coach of Kramnik's, reported that Kramnik, despite his impressive win over Leko, looked tired and depressed at the press conference. It's finally sinking in that he's losing his title, rematch next year or no. (Asked of his chances to still win the event, he replied, "zero.") Regardless of where you stand on matches vs tournaments and the endless political shenanigans that have occurred since he beat Kasparov in 2000, this is going to hurt. It hasn't exactly been a glorious reign for Big Vlad, a super-solid player whose style is ideal for match play but that often left him playing second fiddle at tournaments behind more dynamic players like Kasparov, Anand, and Topalov, who played Spassky, Korchnoi, and Larsen to Kramnik's Petrosian. His time with the title was marred by health problems that had an obvious effect on his results. Thanks largely to Kramnik the title was unified in 2006 for the first time in 13 years, and we're all very grateful for that. Of course this could end up being a Botvinnik-style short break for Kramnik if he beats Anand to retake the title and then defends it against the victor of the Topalov-World Cup winner match. It might look brief in the history books but that's still a ways away. If we get two draws on the top boards today, as expected, it will be Vladimir Kramnik, WCh 2000-2007.
"Vladimir Kramnik, WCh 2006-2007."
Vishy Anand, FIDE champ 2000 and 2007, maybe WCh someday.
Just FYI, this photo of Svidler-Morozevich made it onto the Guardian's "Sports pictures of the week" section today. And who says chess isn't really a sport?...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/gallery/2007/sep/28/1?picture=330840743
here we go again...I guess 275 comments on the previous thread were not enough
In my opinion, Kramnik been excellent world champion who consistantly show great gentlemanness
I guess that Mig wanted it with his "final" comment on this entry "if we get two draws on the top boards today it will be V.Kramnik, WCh 2000-2007"..instead that "we get a challanger for 2008 match".
The only one happy with this situation is Kasparov who now sees somebody definitely weaker thnn himself, i.e. Anand, getting ahead of his nemesis Kramnik...oh, well..Mig can't help agreeing with his boss.
"Thanks largely to Kramnik the title was unified in 2006 for the first time in 13 years" Huh, did I read this correctly? Why should we thank Kramnik for the unified title when he was desperate to play the match with Topalov and the letter didn't need the match?! Is there something I've missed or it is forbidden to say complimentary words about Topalov after the Elista disaster?
>"Thanks largely to Kramnik the title was unified in 2006 for the first time in 13 years">
Thanks largely to Kirsan and FIDE the title was debased by inflationary, blitz mass production of "FIDE world champs" of dubious worth.
Mig,
you are not really equating Topalov with the Great Dane (and I don't men neither Scmeichel nor
Gus) ?! ;o)
Larsen is a gentleman and I don't think even Topalovs tournament records measures up to Larsens.
Kramnik's match record:
# FIDE Quarterfinals, January 1994 Wijk aan Zee, Kramnik-Leonid Yudasin (4.5-2.5).
Not exactly stellar stuff,except for the match victory over Kasparov. And we'll never know if that was a flash in the pan because Kasparov did not get a rematch.
"It's finally sinking in that he's losing his title, rematch next year or no."
It'll take another 1000 years for RUSSIANbear to accept it though. He thinks dogs flying and world championship decided in tournaments are comparable!!! He has been watching RUSSIANs exchanging title in MATCHes for so long that he cannot stand an INDIAN winning the title in TOURNAMENT. Everyone is biased. Some people admit it. Others stay in denial. The best stuff here is his nick gives us what is really deep inside his mind.
Live commentary:
http://www.crestbook.com
http://www.chessdom.com
Annotations:
http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/twic.html
http://www.chessbase.com
Oops, let me try again.
Vlady's match record:
FIDE Quarterfinals, January 1994 Wijk aan Zee, Kramnik-Leonid Yudasin (4.5-2.5).
PCA Quarterfinals, June 1994, New York, Kramnik-Gata Kamsky (1.5-4.5).
FIDE Semifinals, August 1994 Sanghi Nagar, Kramnik-Boris Gelfand (3.5-4.5).
WCC Candidates, 1998, Cazorla, Kramnik-Alexei Shirov (3.5-5.5).
FIDE Knockout, July 1999, Las Vegas, Kramnik-Tiviakov (1.5-0.5); Kramnik-Victor Korchnoi (1.5-0.5); Kramnik-Veselin Topalov (3-1, including rapid playoff); Kramnik-Michael Adams (Quarterfinal) (2-4, including rapid playoff).
Classical World Chess Championship 2000, London, Kramnik-Garry Kasparov (8.5-6.5)
Classical World Chess Championship 2004, Brissago, Kramnik-Péter Lékó (7-7), Kramnik retains.
FIDE World Chess Championship 2006, Elista, Kramnik-Topalov (6-6, 2.5-1.5 rapid playoff)
Not exactly stellar stuff,except for the match victory over Kasparov. And we'll never know if that was a flash in the pan because Kasparov did not get a rematch.
Can't you move this crap to the thread especially designed to discuss, I mean "discuss" issues about title legitimacy and such? Sigh.
If you look at the lineup in Mexico, one player stands out: Vishy Anand. All the others were mass-produced by the Soviet system. Anand is the lone outsider, just as Fischer was an outsider, and just as Carlsen is an outsider. Reflect on the environment in which Anand spent his formative years, and compare with the kind of chess education his Russian peers have got. Heck, he was India's first GM! His is a staggering individual achievement, with no godfathers, no managers, no patrons. He's just kept his head down and concentrated on the chess; he lets his chess do the talking, and he keeps getting better every year.
We've had enough Russian world champions. I want Vishy to win this tournament and then beat Kramnik next year, because we need a champion who has not been mass-produced by the Soviet chess school. Variety is good for the game. For the same reason, I want Carlsen to become world champion in future.
now this is comical acirce giving lectures what is crap.
"Can't you move this crap to the thread especially designed to discuss, I mean "discuss" issues about title legitimacy and such? Sigh."
While it's a dismal record, I would not use the word "crap" to describe it. Too strong a word. Except perhaps for the pre-2000 period.
Anand is indeed a nice guy. This is proven by the fact that he is liked by all, despite having fans like "Paul".
Don't be surprised if Anand wins today. It will seal it for him. If he ends up in a position with little risk of losing but some chance of winning he will probably play on.
A whole lot more of us would be loudly cheering Anand's victory if it weren't for so many people showing no respect for the classical title.
"He has been watching RUSSIANs exchanging title in MATCHes for so long that he cannot stand an INDIAN winning the title in TOURNAMENT."
Well, these Russians have had a bear hug on the title for so long that a change is hard to digest. Also, it certainly doesn't help that Vishy is from the "wrong" side of the world. He's an outsider twice over. As I said earlier, if any of the great white hopes like Adams or Short or Carlsen were in Vishy's shoes, this board would be ringing with hosannas and hallelujahs ... match purist or not. And Vishy's an outsider thrice over, because he's a nice guy.
If he wins here (please, God, nice guys do win sometimes, right?), he should appoint a manager immediately to deal with the fallout. It would be the smartest career move he has ever made.
"Kramnik...consistantly show great gentlemanness"
Hmmm.... let's see:
1) 2001-2 Kramnik refuses to give Kasparov a reasonable event from which to qualify to become his challenger.
2) Early in 2002, Seirawan offers his 'A Fresh Start' proposal, which was much the best proposal for deciding the World Championship ever put forward by a person of influence.
Kasparov agreed to it. FIDE agreed to it. Kramnik refused. But for Kramnik, the title could have been unified in 2002.
3) Kramnik's sobotage of 'A Fresh Start' necessitated the considerably inferior Prague Agreement. Even for this, Kramnik had to be dragged kicking and screaming to sign. He only signed it because his own sponsors told him they would drop him if he didn't.
4) Having signed this, Kramnik afterwards declared two or three times that he would honour it.
However, in 2004, immediately on having retained his "title" against Leko [a title already morally defunct], and having waited until the Fide side had had to have the Tripoli qualifier, Kramnik strongly indicated that he would not play the winner of a Kasparov-Kazimdzhanov match. Kramnik thus in effect broke the Prague agreement.
5) In 2005, Kramnik refuses to play in the San Luis event, thus for the second time preventing the unification of the title.
6) Generally shunned by now, Kramnik desperately pursued a WC match with Topalov. His keenness to play Topalov, whom he correctly thought he had a good chance of beating, contrasts strongly with his determined and longstanding avoidance of a WC match with Kasparov, whom, since 2001, he was afraid of.
In signing up for the match with Topalov, Kramnik agreed, WITHOUT CONDITION, that the winner, as unified World Champion, would put his title on the line at Mexico 2007.
7) Having taken the Title, Kramnik again turned round and broke his word. He now gave FIDE the ultimatum that he would not play in Mexico unless he was given a challenge match next year against the winner if it was not him. FIDE caved in to this blackmail.
Anand's comments on this totally unjustified new match were published a few weeks ago. They were not complimentary.
If this match goes ahead next year, it will be the third time that Kramnik has challenged for the title without having played a single qualifying game. Even Bogoljubov did not manage such a feat!
(Vladimir Kramnik, WCh 2000-2002 and 2006-2007 only.)
Kramnik is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
...And he has pulled the wool over your eyes.
"Anand is indeed a nice guy. This is proven by the fact that he is liked by all, despite having fans like Paul."
Strange as it may seem, I'm no Anand fan. I'm a Kasparov fan. He's the player who rescued chess from the sterile positional play of Karpov. I wanted him to beat Anand in 1995. Yes, I have a weakness for Kasparov's brand of chess, and I cannot forgive Kramnik for not having given him a rematch. I also don't like Kramnik's style, which I admit is a matter of taste.
But Kramnik is a much better person than Topalov...
And now I have a life to catch up with.
Funny to read the "Kramnik not worthy" comments. After he played Kasparov he was world champion.
After he played Leko he was world champion.
After he played Topolov he was world champion.
Now he looses it in a double round robin (maybe) and he is looked on as a weak World Champ?
You guys kill me.
When he takes the title back in match play, It will be funny to see what the whinners come up with.
Wonderful post, Chris, wonderful! Sums it up beautifully. Kramnik's deepest moves are made off the chessboard.
And now, my life, here I come.
I'm only equating people with dynamic styles who won tournaments during the reign of a champion with a conservative match-friendly style.
When I talk about Kramnik's style I mean now, and his results since 2000. He was hardly a match stylist before that, losing just about all of them. (Kamsky, Gelfand, Shirov) Nor am I saying he's the greatest match player ever. +2 against Kasparov obviously amazing, but = with Leko and +1 against Topalov weren't spectacular. It's relative. If they played Mexico 10 times he'd probably win once, maybe twice. Anand would take half, then Aronian, Morozevich and the other dynamic but streaky players would get a few. In a big event someone like that is almost always going to get hot and pass Kramnik's +2. When he's hot it's +3, when he's not it's +1. In a match, +1 is all you need.
Kramnik's classical tournament record since becoming world champion with his place and the winner in parenthesis:
2001: Corus =3-4 (Kasparov). Astana 2nd (Kasparov). Dortmund =1-2 (Kramnik and Topalov). 2003: Corus =4-8 (Anand). Linares =1-2 (Kramnik and Leko). Dortmund =2-3 (Bologan). 2004: Corus =6-8 (Anand). Linares 1st. Dortmund (KO format. All draws before losing to Anand in rapid tiebreak in final). 2005: Corus =4-7 (Leko). Mtel =5-6 (Topalov). Dortmund =6-7 (Naiditsch). Russian Superfinal 7th (Rublevsky). 2006: Dortmund =1-2 (Kramnik and Svidler). 2007: Corus 4th (Aronian, Topalov, Radjabov). Dortmund 1st.
On that list, certainly not unimpressive other than at the large fields at Corus, he finished with better than +2 thrice, +3 at Astana 01, Dortmund 01, and Dortmund this year. I think his -2 at Mtel was his only negative score, then three even scores. Two clear tourney firsts, one with +3 and one with +2. Also like Petrosian, he didn't play that often compared to his peers. Partly for health reasons at one point, partly because that's what always seems to happen with champions. They have more exhibitions, feel more entitled, can afford to be choosy, etc.
Now compare with the earlier Kramnik. In 1997 alone he made a +5, +4 twice, +3 and +2. In 1998 he tied for first at Corus with Anand on +4. Then started the shift. New trainer, some new openings, no more +4 results. Fewer losses as well, of course, from the 6-8 per year range to the 2-4 range, usually zero with white. He's not a weaker player, just a different player.
Everyone involved in the Elista WCh match had their interests. Topalov had little choice in the matter since he was there at FIDE's command. Obviously he could have refused, but they would have replaced him. There was a lot of political pressure on Kirsan both to unify and, not coincidentally, to give a Russian a clear shot at the title. Kramnik needed the match or he wouldn't have been there, but that doesn't mean he doesn't deserve credit for doing it. Also for sticking around when it must have been tempting to leave after the forfeit. The bottom line is that reunification took place on his watch. He wasn't the selfless hero some make him out to be, but we shouldn't be shy about giving him some credit.
One thing about this tournament that annoys me is the non-neutral comments on the website of the organisers.
Who is this "LEONTXO GARCIA"? Has he never accepted a short draw of his own? He seems so eager to bash Kramnik that I just have to ask if he's a mean killer machine himself?
Understand me correctly: I'm also disappointed at Kramniks performance, but it is really a good thing to have one player beeing bashed at at the official site?
Jens in Stockholm
ps And yesterday you didn't disappoint me, Vlad! Keep it up! Go for keeping the title!
I'm glad that Mig took the time in numerous paragraphs to verify his position on Kramnik. Anything less and he would have been classified as a "chess purist" by Dimi. God knows you don't want to be labeled as such by the Dster.
Reasonably even-handed retrospective on Kramnik, Mig. Petrosian was probably a little worse in tournamet performance as WC. Botvinnik's rematches were with the same opponent and usually shortly after the match - ideally when one was sick (Tal)! Kramnik wasn't the perfect gentleman, but he was and IS a gentleman, at his best in the moral trial of Elista. Kasparov was not quite a gentleman, but chess is only superficially a gentleman's sport. Kasparov will never be surpassed as the chess player par excellence, in the Fischer tradition of hard work and ruthless competition. Yet Anand is a chess player par excellence in the Tal tradition - one who loves the science and the fun of chess, and who makes other chess players happy to have him in the tournament hall. Viva Anand!
guest aim: accusing me of bias towards Russians again? How creative. The lack of coherent arguments rears its ugly head again. Like I said before, for all you know, I am not even Russian. Or a bear. I may be more Indian than you.
"Everyone is biased. Some people admit it. Others stay in denial. " - so which one of these types do you belong to?
Chris B, these interpretations of chess history have been debated and refuted so many times, it is surprising someone seriously still believes them. Shouldn't it get a little boring by now? Kramnik sabotaged Prague? Really? Even after Kasparov versus FIDE champ matches didn't happen and after Kramnik ended up giving Topalov a point and a game with white odds - just for the sake of unification, you still stick to this story?
As for not giving Kasparov a rematch - it was only because before the match Kasparov insisted the London winner should not get a rematch. If the previous 500 times this was explained on this blog didn't make you understand this simple idea, I don't know if this will.
Paul, Kramnik's early failures are fun to talk about, but they are irrelevant in the context of discussing the world championship. Yes, he lost some matches a long time ago, most of which were at the age when others were not even good enough to get to the stages of the championship cycle where they would lose matches to the world top players. The important thing is that he beat the world champ in the world championship math in 2000 and hasn't lost a world championship since.
Fair enough, we have to thank Kramnik for the unification. We also have to thank Kirsan, Topalov (and Danilov), Russian Chess Federation... the list goes on. But to say that it was "largely" to Kramnik is just like having amnesia and forgetting all the circumstances surrounding the match. Topalov was the only one who didn't need the match. Even if he'd been replaced, most of chess fans would consider him the world champion.
Chess politics is dirty, just like all other politics. In my opinion, since capturing the title in 2002 Kramnik has been much more chess politician than a chess player. I'm curious what will happen with Anand.
"I'm curious what will happen with Anand."
He'll need to appoint a manager - pronto. Anand is a chess player, not a politician.
well Chris B made a good point there...
"If this match goes ahead next year, it will be the third time that Kramnik has challenged for the title without having played a single qualifying game."
I remember, Kramnik even lost the so called qualifying match against Shirov, yet still got a chance to play Gary.
Then got to play Leko, by virtue of being champion.
And played Topalov and this tournament for the same reasons.
On the other hand, Vishy has always been given a step-motherly treatment.
What happened in Laussane against Karpov was a farce.
Poor Vishy, played so many qualifying tournaments, like New Delhi etc... but what is remarkable is the way he handled the situation.
Hardly ever complained or threw tantrums like the others.
For me he is a true gentleman and a professional.
hope he wins, this so called unified chp!
Go vishy go!
-Asim
It's possible that Grischuk will beat Anand today. It's just the kind of low-probability event that tends to occur in a high-voltage setting like this. He's a wild player, and he's got nothing to lose. It'll be interesting.
Paul, you seem extremely keen on Anand getting a manager (you mention it all the time), you're a big fan of his, and you seem to have time on your hands: tell us, are you angling for a job?...
"As for not giving Kasparov a rematch - it was only because before the match Kasparov insisted the London winner should not get a rematch." Russianbear
Just as you don't care about what Kramnik says about the ownership of the classical title, I don't care about what Kasparov insisted on before the match. The previous leapfrogging over Shirov was bad enough, but the fact that Kasparov wasn't given a rematch casts a long shadow over Kramnik's classical title. His first title defense after 2000 was four years later against Leko (weaker than either Kasparov or Anand), and he nearly lost.
As I said before it is not over yet. If Anand loses today with black against Grishuk (not unconceivable) then the whole tournament situation changes.
Theorist, you don't know the backlog that's piling up because of this blog. And no, I don't want the job: I like to keep my hands clean. Lastly, I'm not a Vishy fan; I'm a Kasparov fan.
Theorist, you don't know the backlog that's piling up because of this blog. And no, I don't want the job: I like to keep my hands clean. Lastly, I'm not a Vishy fan; I'm a Kasparov fan.
Sorry about the double post. I'll have to go to bed soon, so I'll know only tomorrow. Another point in Anand's favor is Grischuk's suspect stamina; he doesn't look very healthy. But fortified by vodka, he'll come out swinging. Dangerous game for Vishy.
Paul, fair enough. Deep down, I think we're all Kasparov fans... (And my backlog is piling up too).
Paul, aren't you giving yourself too much credit(?) by urging Anand to hire a manager just to head off the potential damage his reputation may suffer because he has fans like you?
And DaneDude - yes Larsen was a gentleman (and Topalov isn't). But the comparison obviously referred to their chess success and/or skills, not their personal qualities. And it's pretty clear that Topalov is way ahead of Larsen in the former department.
Larsen won at least one chess Oscar, and was constantly topping big tournaments between about 1967 and 1971. But he was the archetype of the tiger who routinely beats up on the bottom of the field but does well to even break even against the top of the chart. (Note: My statement should not be construed as giving any comfort to the idiots on this board who posted a similar claim about one of the Mexico WCh front-runners, I forget who. There are no weakies to beat up on here; all the Mexico participants are of near-equal strength, and as someone pointed out earlier, the tournament standings looked quite different from the order of ratings.)
The thing is, in the late '60s there were very few GMs in the world, and even fewer of what we would today call super-GMs. The bottom half of even important invitational tournaments would often include several players not much better than me. So I see no great distinction for a supposedly world-class GM (Larsen) to take 90% against those guys while scoring less than 50% against his top-level peers.
I'm going from memory, not statistics, so perhaps someone here will come up with numbers to refute me. My recollection is that in hiis peak years Larsen consistently scored poorly not only against Fischer and Spassky, but also Petrosian, Korchnoi, Geller, Tal, and maybe even Portisch, Gligoric and Polugaevsky.
Paul, it is not obvious that Leko was weaker than Anand or Kasparov in 2004. Leko got first place in Linares 2003 ahead of both Anand and Kasparov and he got second place behind Kramnik in Linares 2004, tied with Kasparov. He also finished first in Wijk 2005 soon after the Kramnik match - also ahead of Anand. Given that he won the Dortmund 2002 qualifier, he was a worthy challenger, and like I said, it is not obvious he was weaker than Anand or Kasparov at the time. Leko was not the same since Wijk 2005, but between 2002 and early 2005, Leko did have his share of success.
OK, Russianbear, I will grant you that point about Leko.
Jon Jacobs, I don't know what you are driving at. Is speaking up for Anand tantamount to damaging his reputation?
Anand will need a manager if he wins Mexico, because then the sh-- will really hit the fan.
Russianbear,
You clearly have a different interpretation of what a 'refutation' is than me. As far as I am concerned, I have not seen one serious refutation of these interpretations. You will not agree, of course.
You should have read my post more carefully. Did I mention anything about a rematch? I said that Kramnik refused to give Kasparov a reasonable event from which to qualify from to become his challenger. Even Kramnik apologist acirce said on a thread a couple of months ago that the format of Dortmund 2002 was 'ridiculous'. This was Kramnik's unforgiveable crime.
Yes, Ponomariov refused to play Kasparov. So FIDE found a replacement in Kasimdzhanov. What was wrong with this?
The main reason that Kasparov-Kasimdzhanov wasn't played was because there was now little point - Kramnik had already indicated that he would not play the winner. Yes, Kramnik sabotaged Prague.
I'm not sure what the Topalov match has got to do with Prague, but yes, I will give Kramnik some credit for continuing this match after the forfeited game. Though on cooling down, Kramnik probably figured he would likely still win the match anyway (rather than some virtuous 'doing it for the sake of reunification'), and was going to sue if he didn't.
But as for Kramnik's disgusting blackmail after this match, I give him no credit at all.
"If this match goes ahead next year, it will be the third time that Kramnik has challenged for the title without having played a single qualifying game."
You can't really blame Kramnik for that. Kasparov offered him a shot at the title after he couldn't reach a deal with Shirov. If you've got a gripe, it should be with Kasparov for offering it, not with Kramnik for accepting.
After that, Kramnik was the classical title-holder, fair and square. He clearly didn't need to play a qualifier to defend his own title against Leko and Topalov.
The automatic re-match against the Mexico winner is a shady deal, and the only opportunity he's been given that really doesn't make sense. But still, it took two sides for that deal to happen: Kramnik to demand it, and FIDE to capitulate.
Let's try and get a bit of realism here please.
A lot of people aren't going to hail Anand as WC. I won't particularly.
Since when were elite chess players just 'nice guys'. Please. Try watching some Grandmaster games in the flesh, let alone researching and writing a novel on chess, then give me an answer. ALL Grandmasters, not even just elite ones, are capable of being cold and calculating when they need to be. I wouldn't say that Anand was a particularly 'nice guy'. Look at his body language in many photos. Seems a little bit defensive, or protective of himself usually. Seems like he's usually trying to maintain focus on being a tough chessplayer really. People wouldn't 'enjoy' being in the same tournament as him, if only because they'd know they'd be in for a very tough game.
Both boards are on fire. Does Gelfand have compensation for the pawn? And what's happening in Vishy's game? Anybody have a clue?
I hope Anand DOES NOT hire a manager. Who the hell wants to hear some jerk manager speak on his behalf. If he made it this far, he certainly does not need some manager. Even in boxing, successfull boxers self promote and manage themselves.
Interesting comparison between chess and boxers. When Trinidad was up and coming - he was flashy and knocking everyone out, while Hopkins maintained his title with boring or foul fested fights, sometimes barely winning on decisions. Yet he completely dominated and knocked out Trinidad.
Just as in boxing you determine the better fighter through a match so it is in chess - its common sense.
With all this talk about Kramnik being unworthy - It is anand who has to prove himself by beating Kramnik in a match.
He does not need a manager to speak on his behalf, he needs one to conduct negotiations ... with Kramnik's manager, for instance.
"I wouldn't say that Anand was a particularly 'nice guy'. Look at his body language in many photos. Seems a little bit defensive, or protective of himself usually. Seems like he's usually trying to maintain focus on being a tough chessplayer really. People wouldn't 'enjoy' being in the same tournament as him, if only because they'd know they'd be in for a very tough game."
What the hell does ANY of that mean regarding weither or not Anand can be considered a "nice guy" or not? Or anyone for that matter, geez!
Boris doesn't bore me as much as the ad nauseum discussion on chess history, who's WC, disputed or not, who's nice and who's not. Can we all focus on an exciting round 13?
Yet another excellent report and commentary by Mig (the one on WC status is also very well written and argued). Looks like Mig is in a good form just like Anand :)
Surprising to see nice guys like Anand and Kramnik having such lousy fans (Topalov fans I can understand :))
Cheers,
Kapalik
Anand has spent 4 min to Grischuk 1h for 19 moves.
Why do these guys play at all ? Go to the board only to enact your home studies ? Why not setting journals as scientists do and debate there this or that analysis of a sub-variation.
That would be both in equal terms ( home analysis) not this comedy of "playing"-chess OTB.
Anand has spent 4 min to Grischuk 1h for 19 moves.
Why do these guys play at all ? Go to the board only to enact your home studies ? Why not setting journals as scientists do and debate there this or that analysis of a sub-variation.
That would be both in equal terms ( home analysis) not this comedy of "playing"-chess OTB.
--Posted by: Ovidiu at September 28, 2007 16:03
Gee, I did not see anyone complaining about home prep and the resulting big advantage gained on the clock when Kramnik beat Morozevich in round 2.
Why the double standard? Or are you simply another Kramnik apologist?
No, gmnotyet, I wasn't following Kramnik game.
Now I see it is the same.. lol..Kramnik 9 min, Gelfand 1h and 4 min !..at least they are not in the endgame alreday..well, "Chess is dead, I am done with it" (Fischer)..etc..you know the line.
@Jon Jacobs
I am sure Larsen at his peak, 69-70, overall has at least 50 % against the group of players you mention. Suggesting that a player like Gligoric might have been stronger than Larsen, is simply silly.
I don't have any databases but will have a look at chessgames.com
Calling Larsen a "supposedly world-class GM" when at his peek is close to showing the man disrespect.
Do you consider eg. Morozevich a world-class GM today ?
Compare the two: Willingness to play unorthodoxly in the opening, clearly among the most creative of their contemporaries and willing to complicate a game by moves which they know are perhaps not the objectively strongest. And now take a look at their results... Comparing the tournament records of other of todays super GM's with Larsens, the conclusion ought to be the same.
And wrt. to the thing I mentioned in my first post, tournament records, I don't think Topalov in any way can be said to be "way ahead of Larsen".
Depending on your definition of "chess skills", your claim that Topalovs chess skills are way ahead of those Bent had, is either obvious or dubious.
At his peak I consider Larsen to be the worlds strongest tournament player, not the strongest chess player, but not far from either.
Clouds gather over the Leko castle, it will start to moro soon,
Haiku
Lekos Haiku?
whites pieces like snow
play like flowers in winter.
Black magic can't help
Is Anand in trouble? 4 isolated pawns in the endgame do not look good.
Great home prep by Kramnik, he didn't need to think at all this "game".
Anyone else here at Mig-blog for Chess960 ?
Kramnik and Gelfand just drew.
So World Champion Kramnik goes +0 =6 -1 with the Black pieces at Mexico City. Very inspiring.
Based on the recent Gelfand-Kramnik draw, Anand clinches the World Championship if he can win his Black game against Grischuk. Anand has weak pawns but active pieces so the position is very double-edged.
A player who cannot win with the Black pieces simply does not deserve to be the World Champion.
Based on the recent Gelfand-Kramnik draw, Anand clinches the World Championship if he can win his Black game against Grischuk. Anand has weak pawns but active pieces so the position is very double-edged.
A player who cannot win with the Black pieces simply does not deserve to be the World Champion.
Gelfand stays true to his "game by game" approach, then, he's "just playing chess" even when it's obvious that Anand is in trouble just a few feet away from him... If I didn't know any better, I'd say he just doesn't *want* to be world champ :(
>A player who cannot win with the Black pieces simply does not deserve to be the World Champion.>
well now, it would be enough if he could win the match against Kramnik
To call this position after move 32 double edged is a little over the top, although this doesn't stop Grischuk from spending 11 minutes thinking it over.
Considering the circumstances, I'm disappointed with Kramnik's play today. That being said, I hope I'm not attacked as an Anand fan. Although earlier I had indicated that I was rooting for Anand; yesterday, I was accused of being a Kramnik fan because I would prefer to see Anand-Kramnik in a match for the world championship. I'm also classified as a "chess purist" which somehow manages to come across with a negative connotation attached to it.
Apparently I've missed out on a new paradigm of chess political correctness that wants to pidgeon-hole an individual no matter what his/her opinion.
Okay this shows why I am no good at chess.... I totally thought Rc2 was forced.
I would just like to say that I have always enjoyed watching Kramnik's play. Everybody seems just to enjoy the crash, bang, wallop school of chess (which I also like), but Kramnik has come up with some astounding concepts during his games.
At his best he is remarkable.
Anand has weak nerves if he is going to lose this game in spite of having prepared it at home to the endgame and being 1h more on the clock...weak nerves indeed.
Every once in a while you see Anand inexplicably playing like this. 90 mins up, with a horrendous position. Why the hell did he play 40... Kc8 without taking any time to think (time control for Grischuk had passed, so that couldn't be a factor)?
Anand's record with black in this tournament is hardly awe inspiring.
>Why the hell did he play 40..Kc8 ?
there was nothing better, Ke8/e7/d7 would have led to Re3/d2+ followed by Rd3/e3 and the R escaped a2 like now with Rc3
Annad is overwhelmed by the stakes, weak emotionally, he will be dead meat in the match against Kramnik like he was in that against Kasparov in '95.
Talent yes but not much of fighter.
"Annad is overwhelmed by the stakes, weak emotionally, he will be dead meat in the match against Kramnik like he was in that against Kasparov in '95."
There is no way to know what will happen in the match, since Anand hasn't played one for a long time. You want to predict based on one unfinished game and a match played 12 years back (how were Kramnik's match results those days btw?). As if nothing has happened in the intervening years that can speak about Anand's toughness. You want to make brash predictions, go to the threads that Anand Nair has already soiled.
Ovidiu: Annad is overwhelmed by the stakes, weak emotionally, he will be dead meat in the match against Kramnik like he was in that against Kasparov in '95.
Talent yes but not much of fighter
Oh, c'mon, they said the same about him back at Corus 2007, but see how far he reached since then. Let's give him a break. Everybody can drop a game, but his record is still quite good.
D.
>There is no way to know what will happen in the match, since Anand hasn't played one for a long time.>
My point was a character trait of Anand and such things are pretty stable.
Just wanted to say it was a joy every day to watch Morozovitch, who cares about titles. God bless him
If Anand loses today this gives Leko a chance to come up clutch. Not that that will ever happen, especially with Black.
Just wanted to say it has been a joy to watch Morozovitch play every day, I will miss it. I don't care about any titles, god bless Moro.
I didn't know how much I liked Gelfand's style of play until this tournament; his games have always been a bit under the radar. He may not be as sharp as Moro or technical as Kramnik, but he is creative and fun to watch. I know, I know, now that I've outted myself as pro-Gelfand I'm sure I'll be attacked for something... but wth.
I honestly don't care who is called the World Champion as long as the confusion and hating doesn't make these kind of tournaments impossible in the future. I just like chess, not the meaningless politics and lobbying.
Morozowitch plays incorrect Chess. Wasted talent.
After 55 moves it looks all over for Anand. He'll have at least one and a half hours left on his clock to think about self-inflicted wounds.
Wasn't the opening all prepared by Anand into the late middlegame? How do you have preparation that puts you into an endgame with 4 isolated pawns????
Really bad play by Anand, and at the worst possible time.
"Morozowitch plays incorrect Chess. Wasted talent."
You gotta love chessplayers and their opinions.
Well done, Anand!!
D.
Looks like Anand somehow managed to draw! Let's hope that what doesn't kill him... etc.
You don't suppose Anand had this calculated all the way to bear kings do you?
Anand and Grischuk draw. Excellent endgame technique by Anand.
Oops!
Been reading to much 'russianbear':-)
I meant 'bare' kings
Anand shuts all the loose talkers :)
I sincerely hope Grischuk did not turn down a draw offer from Anand. Its ridiculous if he made a bored Anand go thru the motions of proving to the kid that the game was always confined to the drawn realm.
This from the same kid who offered Kramnik a draw on move 13.
Grischuk would miss 62. a7
To me the interesting questions has been answered as of this point -- we know who is _not_ the WCC anymore. That's one sure step towards reunification.
D.
Someone please explain me the move 74.Ke4 reported by the official broadcast? I mean, after 73...Kxh2 the are only the 2 kings left... did Grischuk want to play on? :-)
Yes, Grischuk was under the impression that he could eventually stalemate Anand's king and assure the draw.
34. Rc2 won for Grischuk, Anand was very lucky.
Mmh. They canned 74. Ke4 from the official recording of the game. Seeing that I had started wondering whether placing your K on the center on a bare kings ending had some symbolic meaning among GMs. Just a drunk computer operator, I assume.
lone_pawn: there's a tradition where, after the game ends, the king(s) are placed in the center to indicate the result: white king in the center = white won, black king = black won, both kings = draw.
Grischuk might have placed his in the center (legal move), while placing the black king would be illegal and thus not recorded. Something like that.
I just love the way people make a fool of themselves in this thread! :)
Anand escapes with a draw!! Well done! Hail to Anand - the new WORLD CHAMPION, and the no. 1 player on the planet. The Chess world should consider itself lucky to hv this nice gentleman and a Class player as its WC.
Actually there is a long tradition of the tailender posing problems (or beating) the leader in roundrobins so in a way it was not a surprise. Anand 's decision to play on against Morozevich has proven to be crucial. Tomorrow Leko has chance for a shot for glory - will he take it?
Anand disappointed ovidiu by his fantastic save. Great players play good on bad days. Today was a prime example of that.
A draw on move 20 me thinks in Anand-Leko.
I for one welcome our new Indian overlord...
(you have to have seen the Simpsons episode...)
Does anyone have any computed rating changes for the participants in the tournament? Also, where will Ivanchuk end up on the October ratings list?
I bet tomorrow we see a Sveshnikov from Leko. He will uncork something special. Come on Anand, slay the Sveshnikov. This one is for immortality!
@Chesslover:
Vishy should move to somewhere around 2804 after his short draw against Leko tomorrow. Vlad should be more-or-less unchanged after his (maybe he gains one, to go to 2770)..
This game underlines the fact that Anand is the best defender in the game today. He would certainly have lost this game a few years ago. Also, his mental strength has improved. His poise in this event has been remarkable - another change from a few years ago, when he would make the occasional blunder or throw away games. The challenger will find it hard to unseat him next year - he'll have to pull out something special. It should be a corker of a match. If Anand-Kramnik next year is drawn, how will the tie be resolved?
On TWIC: "If he loses and Gelfand beats Morozevich with black then it will be Gelfand who is champion ... " With equal points, shouldn't there be tiebreaker games?
@Paul
No, the first tiebreak between Anand and Gelfand would be their mini-match: Tied
Then would be number of wins : Tied
After that would be score against top half: This is a bit uncertain but Gelfand has the advantage. I think Grischuk has to beat Svidler in the last round for Anand to emerge on top.
Only if it is still tied will they move to rapids.
Europe Echecs has a post-game interview with Anand. He admits that the whole a5-a4-Rb3 plan was wrong. Dorfman claims its a win for white and Anand doesent dispute saying these "Soviets" see everything.
Yes, I went to bed after Anand played ...c5, and I was unhappy about Anand's position. I wonder where his preparation went wrong? He played the opening moves really fast.
That he should still use the term "Soviets" is revealing, in a way. The Soviet school of chess is still alive and kicking. It's contribution to the development of the game has been enormous, but how many years of capitalism will it take for Russian chess to be reduced to the status of, say, American chess?
"In almost all pictures at chessbase Aronian appears with corners of the mouth very deep down as if chronically depressed or something.
Does anyone know what is going on with the guy these days ?" Ovidiu
I don't know about "depressed"; to me, he looks perpetually stoned.
I'm not saying he is; he just looks that way.
Grischuk-Anand could have been captioned "Vodka vs. Lime Juice." Vodka almost triumphed.
Cheers!
Does anybody know if Anand enjoys a drink now and then? Or is he a teetotaller? I think moderate drinking would improve his game. He should take more risks in chess.
Talking about Anand and managers, I now recall he did have a manager during the PCA days. If he doesn't appoint one now, it means he would have made a conscious decision to be his own lawyer.
Vishy is a teetotaller. Like all good TamBrams he used to be veggie as well, dunno if that has changed.
Come to think of it, he won a tournament where he weighed and presented his weight in wine caskets - he gave it away/sold it or something.
I love the prospects of Anand-Kramnik match and it will a great contest. I think Anand should play the dynamic positions in which he excels and not go into Kramnik teritory of squeezefest matches.
I know Kramnik recently outplayed Anand in a very nice game(wijk?) Can somebody tell me when did Anand do that to Kramnik? (not blundered games)
I think after setttling down in Spain, he began eating fish.
I'm disappointed that he's a teetotaller. He should have a drink now and then. Stimulate the imagination. Stir up the hormones. The one thing I'd like him to do in chess is take more risks. Embrace the irrational. That's why I'm a Kasparov fan. That's why I'm an Alekhine fan. That's why I'm a Tal fan. And we know the role alcohol played in the lives of the latter two. It killed them, but would they have been the players they were without it?
Vishy, take up moderate drinking. Good for your game, good for your heart.
Leko missed the press conference because of a drug test. Do they test all the players? What do they look for? Caffeine, alcohol, canabis, opium, heroin, morphine, PCP, mescaline, LSD, amphetamine, ketamine, ecstasy, cocaine ...
I don't know why the players don't object to this insulting intrusion into their personal lives.
>I love the prospects of Anand-Kramnik match and it will a great contest.>
It won't be chesswise as dramatic as Topalov-Kramnik, neither has Topalov's incisiveness.
But it will still be "of weight" as a sort of "India vs. Russia".
Meanwhile, it's business as usual in India. Only chess players know about this tournament. There seems to be not even a mention on the news channels. The Indian TV reporter in Mexico is from Doordarshan Sports (I think), a separate government-run sports channel. There is a sense of closure about the title returning to the birthplace of chess, but it's cricket, cricket, and more cricket on TV. It makes me want to puke.
It's a sobering reflection on the pitiful mind share that chess commands. We can criticize FIDE, but if it were not for Kirsan's money, where would the players be? And petty bickering over the title only makes matters worse.
I am not sure all the analysis/comments claiming Grischuk missed a win (or Anand escaped) will hold up under scrutiny (especially one involving intense computer evaluation).
All current indications are that it was always going to be a draw. None of the lines that have been mentioned (including 60. Kb5 instead of gxf5 claimed as a missed win) lead to a forced win for white and can be defended to an eventual draw. Remember Anand had all the time in the world in this game given the pace at which he played.
If anything the Grischuk-Anand game is a testament to the defensive powress of the soon to be 15th World Chess Champion in the classical tradition.
Anand played a sharp line for a win (he could have chosen far more sedate lines if he wanted) and his excellent home preparation ensured that the worst that could happen to him in this game was a draw.
"Vishy is a teetotaller. Like all good TamBrams he used to be veggie as well, dunno if that has changed."
As I said earlier, he began eating fish after moving to Spain. Good for him.
Another TamBram genius, the mathematician Srinivas Ramanujam (subject of "The Man Who Knew Infinity" by Robert Kanigel), suffered horribly in England; partly the weather, but also because he would not compromise on his diet.
But that was another day, another age.
I don't know about computer analysis, cacofonix, but it looked extremely unpleasant for Black over the board. I cannot believe he was happy to go into that rook ending. It looks as though something went awry in his preparation. We'll just have to wait and see.
I just hope the last game is less nerve-wracking.
I'm happy to see Anand's contemporary, Gelfand, do well. His happiness was evident in the press conference. I wish him all the best for today's game.
The oldest players have the most points. Can these guys match the longevity of Korchnoi or Smyslov?
In the event Anand (playing white)loses to Leko AND Morozewich (playing white) losing to Gelfand in round 14, then both Anand and Gelfand will end up with 8.5 points. Because their head-to-head games ended in draws and because both players will have the same number of wins, Sonneborn-Berger score will be used to break the tie. I calculated this score under all the nine possible scenarios (depending on Kramnik-Aronian and Svidler-Grischuk games) and in all 9 scenarios, Gelfand has better tie-breaks. So if Anand loses and Gelfand wins, then and only then, regardless of the outcomes in the other two games, Gelfand will be the world champion. In any case, the next world champion is either Anand or Gelfand.
Anandfan: "...In any case, the next world champion is either Anand or Gelfand."
You kidding me!!!
The question is Leko's morale right now. His win yesterday may give him some desire to fight it out.
Kudos to Mig for recycling also. "Corus wont bore us " became "Boris..." :)
>If anything the Grischuk-Anand game is a testament to the defensive powress of the soon to be 15th World Chess Champion in the classical tradition. >
Wasn't Anand that already in 2000 when he first won the FIDE tournament ( or was Khalifamn the 15th ? I keep getting mixed up on this issue).
At any rate, certainly Anand is either the 18th or the 15th WCh, or both.
Gelfand goes for early draw with Moro in the final round. He wouldn't want to risk losing 2nd place and a lot of money.
When he sees that and with the title in the bag, Anand goes for a win against Leko as an encore for the chess fans.
I'm wishing and hoping.
Anand has a great record vs. Leko. I suspect he targeted Leko as a source for full points, and might be able to cash in on the preparation. A win would give his new championship status greater weight - and would be entertaining! Future matches: I'd expect Kramnik to use an opening surprise, alla Garry's Dragon that caught Anand and his own Berlin that stonewalled Garry. Who prepares the best has the best chances. Anand-Topalov would be interesting since the two have traded very interesting wins in recent games - two sluggers.
I would love to see what would happen if a player failed their drug test!
As soon as Anands game from yesterday was over, I bet €79 at odds 1.1 that Anand-Leko will be a draw.
AlonzoMosely - good bet, but let's hope Anand is not THAT "nice." (or cautious)
I wish I could understand why is it that we can't go back to the days of Spassky-Fischer-Karpov, kasparov, with interzonals and knock out matches for the contenders. That system was very democratic, gave everyone a chance, and produced great chess legends that were undisputed world champions, real kings of the chess world. The process itself with the interzonals and the knockout matches and the culmination in a title match are all great sporting events and a real treat to chess fans all over the world, more so today than in the past with the current popularity of the game and the internet. Fide bring back that system, bring back the 60s and 70s. Why change something that worked so nicely?
The Jew that he is, Gelfand will probably settle nicely for the 2nd prize pot.
Anand actually prepared the game until move 23 and ironically went wrong on move 24. If he had played 24. ..Be7 instead of Kd8, he'd saved a few tempii he later used up in bringing the Knight back into the game and instead played Rc6 sooner to harass the White Knight on a4.
He still has some tendencies to play too fast. He needs to get over it.
Goood luck to him today.
>Anand actually prepared the game until move 23 and ironically went wrong on move 24...>
these guys end up as bewildered as us when having to cope with the depth of their opening preparation
Anand has done that before, preparing in depth and then going wrong immediately after leaving prep. Basically because of playing too quickly.
I think he lost with white against Leko in one of the Corus's.
When it works it is pretty godlike though, rattling out perfect moves well into the deep middlegame. Witness his Nc7 against Karjakin also at Corus. that was found at the board.
>Anand has done that before, preparing in depth and then going wrong immediately after leaving prep.>
The best-worst example of them all is Kramnik-Leko Marshall in their WCh match.
If I remember correctly according to Kramnik it was ALL home prep.
The comp just didn't see that it was losing, it was giving white a winning big plus for promoting a-pawn to queen when Kramnik turned it off as he was hurrying to the playing hall.
Right, JaiDeepBlue. In Corus 05. acc. to Short, Anand blundered on move 26. The exception that proves the rule. 4-1 in Anand's favor for classical games as white vs. Leko 2000-present.
Johnny,
You are an ass. I'm sure Fischer has a blog somewhere you can sell your phycho anti-semetic babel.
>I'm sure Fischer has a blog somewhere you can sell your phycho anti-semitic babel.>
see at :
http://www.jinfo.org/Chess_Players.html
Anybody care to name their favorite game from this tournament so far?
My choice is Kramnik-Morozevich. It was played in Kasparov style.
"I wish I could understand why is it that we can't go back to the days of Spassky-Fischer-Karpov, kasparov, with interzonals and knock out matches for the contenders." bashandash
I think the problem is money. Don't ask me how they found the money earlier.
Speaking of money, I could be wrong, but a problem with the match system is that two guys take a disproportionate share of the available cash. A tournament-based system should result in a more equitable distribution.
Professional chess players lead a hard life, and so many are dropping out. A handful at the top live like kings. There has to be a better way.
Kramnik-Gelfand, great fight
"I think he lost with white against Leko in one of the Corus's."
Yikes, I'm gettin' the heebie-jeebies.
Mig:
"When I talk about Kramnik's style I mean now, and his results since 2000. He was hardly a match stylist before that, losing just about all of them. (Kamsky, Gelfand, Shirov) Nor am I saying he's the greatest match player ever. +2 against Kasparov obviously amazing, but = with Leko and +1 against Topalov weren't spectacular. It's relative. If they played Mexico 10 times he'd probably win once, maybe twice. Anand would take half, then Aronian, Morozevich and the other dynamic but streaky players would get a few. In a big event someone like that is almost always going to get hot and pass Kramnik's +2. When he's hot it's +3, when he's not it's +1. In a match, +1 is all you need."
I agree with you overall. Kramnik himself may not agree but his openings and his style is better suited for matches.
A few quibbles:
Don't forget he had six blacks and 5 whites in his match agaisnt topalov. And Topalov was at the peak of his play. Kramnik, at lest recently - even more than most - does do markedly better with white.
As far as Anand winnign half of these events I have to wonder. Its hard to look at pst history since Kasparov was int here winnign so often. But did Anand place higher all of the other participants in linares more than half the time? What about other high clibre torunaments?
I am not here to argue about who is champion but to my mind winnign this tournament proves Anadn is the best in the world about as much as it proves Gelfand is second best in the world. Anand did great he took a point from 5,6,7and8 finishers and hasn't lost a game. Excellent tournametn strategy executed amazingly well. Playing Kramnik in a match is a different ball of wax.
"I am not here to argue about who is champion but to my mind winnign this tournament proves Anadn is the best in the world about as much as it proves Gelfand is second best in the world." nicefrokinmove
It doesn't prove it. It confirms it. The proof is that he is the world no. 1, and will soon be the only 2800+ player on the list.
Gelfand is a different kettle of fish. He is the world no. 13 who has just played the tournament of his life.
Posted by: nicefrokinmove at September 29, 2007 12:40
"I am not here to argue about who is champion but to my mind winnign this tournament proves Anand is the best in the world about as much as it proves Gelfand is second best in the world."
Great one nicefrokinmove. Any of the contenders could have won the Mexico tournament had he been in his best form and had too a bit a luck.
Topalov did it even more impressive than Anand and Gelfand now..oh well.
Ovidiu,
I've always thought Kramnik is Jewish but the website you gave the link doesn't mention his name. Do you have any information about it?
lol... Now a conversation about "proofs". A question: did drawing a match with Leko or beating Topalov by a single point "prove" anything about Kramnik? Not really. One could argue that such equal results show that his opponents could have won had he "been in his best form and had too a bit a luck". These proofs that you guys are quibbling about- they do not exist.
What they matches did proves is that Kramnik was equal to the task at the moment while his opponents were not- a sign of greatness, not "being the strongest". Anand has now accomplished a similar task....
The closest thing that we have to "proving who is the strongest" in chess is a player's rating. It takes into account all games that they have played (matches or tournaments) along with the strength of their opponents. By this criteria too, Anand is on top.
Kramnik, to the best of my knowledge, is a Slav. Yes, that page is interesting. I didn't know Svidler and Harry Golombek were Jews.
stendec,
I know we have our differences, but I'm in agreement with your last post. The only difference there is...you were too kind.
Anybody knows what Yudasin is doing these days? He with his cap and Kramnik with his long hair made a photogenic couple during their match.
Can't stay awake anymore. Leko, be a good boy. Don't spoil my Sunday.
>Ovidiu,I've always thought Kramnik is Jewish but the website you gave the link doesn't mention his name. Do you have any information about it?>
He claims he isn't since he married that 'journaliste' in christian-orthodox church.
On the other hand the name 'Kramnik' is a common name for Russian Jews.
It could be that he is coming from an assimilated Jewish family.
Some thoughts on the Grischuk-Anand game:
- Despite the blunder by Anand (24..Ke8, Be7 isn't the only alternative, there are others like Bxd6) and weak moves like 28 ..Rc6 and 40..Kc8, I don't think Anand was ever lost - at least not in any analysis I have seen so far.
- Anand's play was precise and he showed great defense. It is all the more commendable because Grischuk played great till the end (some very good tactical tricks like Rc2) and didn't seem to make any major blunder.
- I don't think Anand's play was a result of pressure or choking when close to the goal. I think he got a bit careless and cocky , made one major error and yet was comfortable that he could hold an inferior position and prefered to simplify to that inferior position by giving up the c pawn. Even though he had to sweat for it, his decision was proved correct in the end.
World Championship 2007 - coffeehouse stars
Does Boris bore us? Or is the World Championship spoilt by coffeehouse players?
Here are the 'stars' awarded at Mexico:
Morozevich - 6 stars (A truly stellar performance)
Aronian - 4 stars (Classy but too forced)
Grischuk - 3 stars (Raw promise)
Svidler - 2 stars (Habitual hibernation must stop)
Kramnik - 2 stars (Keep taking those pills Vlad)
Anand - 1 star (Winning is a serious business)
Gelfand - 0 stars (Boring Boris?)
Leko - 0 stars (Peter Perfect)
Paul I think a WCC system shoudl be geared to finding who is the best player in the world. A series of candidates matches would do that better than the rating system.
A tournament doesn't do that hardly at all. Anands rating has nothing to do with this his claim to be WC. If Anand didn't win this tournament he could have had a rating of 3000 but not be champ.
23.Qxg6 Bxf3+ 24.Nxf3 Rxf3! 25.Bc2 Nf8 26.Qh5 Rf7 27.f4.
Mig I think 23.Qxg6 Nxe5 works and wins so its probably gone after 23.e6? - cheers Malcolm
Yah, ..Rxf2+ again. Oh well. So something horrible like Rf1 might have been called for although that's clearly lost as well. 16.g4 deserves it, however.