Mexico Cith WCh R5

I'm astonished Leko played the Bishops's opening just to avoid the Petroff. That seems like a major concession.

Hey, at least he's trying something new.

Er, the couple-thousand-years-old kind of 'new'.

1.e4 is dead. Even Fischer realized that in the end...

Today's matchups are very interesting. If Leko and Svidler can beat Kramnik and Anand and other games are drawn then all the players will have same 2.5 points each. Unlikely but will be interesting to see all equal in standings after round 5.

There have been a lot of comment on how 1.e4 is dead and that the Petroff is uncrackable. This might be truer that I want to believe, but I doubt Rybka would have any trouble scoring 75% against anyone's Petroff. So, I'm not sure it's as dead as we make it look...

Kramnik and Svidler just drew...

Leko-Kramnik drawn. Funny, I was talking with Garry and glancing at the games and I said, "I bet Leko offered a draw when he played Be3." One move off! Garry's comment about the openings, "[Leko-Kramnik] What a shame. What a shame. This is world championship chess? Anand's position looks ugly but at least he prepared something." Gelfand's e4 earned an "interesting!"

It's so much easier from the sidelines.

Championship chess? What a shame?

I'll take Leko-Kramnik today over Kasparov-Kramnik Games 7 and 13 any time.

True, two match games from seven years ago completely disqualify Kasparov from commenting on anything to do with chess for the rest of his life. Yawn. Luckily, you don't have to take any games at all from 2000 because it's 2007. Now. Today.

Anand seems to have something going against Svidler. In a way I'm afraid because if the Marshall gets dented Aronian, Leko, and Svidler may turn to the Petroff...

What's with Kramnik's blazing hurry all of a sudden? He has blitzed through pretty much all his games this far, including out-Vishing Anand.

"True, two match games from seven years ago completely disqualify Kasparov from commenting on anything to do with chess for the rest of his life. Yawn. Luckily, you don't have to take any games at all from 2000 because it's 2007. Now. Today."

I know. And I'm encouraged. Isn't it nice how much chess has improved in seven years? It's enough better that one short game today garners more disdain than two cop-outs from just seven years ago.

Saying, "This is championship chess?" the great man sets up a standard, inviting comparison of today's Leko-Kramnik game with championship chess from the past.

Kasparov can never be disqualified from commenting on chess. But "shaming" unambitious play with white in a world championship event, he's pointing a gun at his own head. Or beating himself over the head with his own chessboard, as the case may be.

Rather than this Italian stuff, why not the Scotch Four Knights (*slightly* more complex than its boring reputation) or the Glek Variation?

Not cutting edge, but perhaps more consequential than 2.Bc4....

No one claimed Kasparov-Kramnik was a great match chess-wise. I believe Mig himself at the time said that this was not championship-quality chess. But considering Kasparov's entire career, including the championship matches, he has earned the right to criticize people for not showing up to work.

Anand-Svidler 1-0.

RR--

Wrong.

Shipov said the Kramnik-as-white games were some of the most exciting in chess championship history.

Most of the Kasparov-as-white games and non-games were boring as hell, of course, but whose fault was that?

Greg stop this Kasparov bashing it makes you look stupid.

There is a difference between trying to claim a rest day in a match by playing for the draw, playing for a win but failing due to your opponent's preparation and having a superior position and initiative but choosing to draw. Lumping the three together into one broad category does not help if you are interested in actual objective evaluation of the chess players (and chess) involved.

Nice one from Vishy. It followed a rather predictable pattern of their previous encounters - Svidler coming under mounting pressure and finally cracking before the TC.

Yuriy,

I'd say the Leko game comes out ahead no matter how you classify those games.

Jean,
--When the great man gets around to characterizing his own "14-move-draws-as-white-while-behind-in-a-WCC-match" as shameful, then he'll have license to apply that tag to players who put up more fight than he did.
--Does Kasparov's "Leko-bashing" make him look stupid? Just wondering.

And I would say that if you don't care what happened in the actual game aside from the number of moves, you might as well judge it by the number of checks or captured pieces--you know, like 7-year olds.

Leko-Kramnik was a yawner, but then again what's to be expected from these two when facing one another otb? Especially when Leko is (so far) doing his chess impersonation of Ulf Andersson in this tournament. Actually, that's not fair to Ulf as he would at least take it to an endgame.

chesstraveler, Kramnik has played some of the most exciting chess in this tournament. He only has one win but today is probably the only game in which he can be faulted for making/accepting the draw offer.

Leko, on the other hand, is definitely underperforming--strange choice of opening today, one which allowed him a lot of freedom, but he didn't seem to do anything with that freedom.

Okay, Yuriy, I'll accept your challenge. My comparison:

Kasparov-Kramnik Game 13: Having evidently prepared nothing for the Berlin, which had been played in games 1, 3, and 9, Kasparov offered a super-quick, non-game draw.

Leko-Kramnik, Mexico: Leko tried a surprise opening, the seemingly placid Guicco Pianissimo. We can't know if he'd prepared an improvement on his 1999 game because Kramnik varied first. Game drawn.

Leko comes out smelling better.

Kasparov is the greatest player of all time but his comments today are so full of bias and egotism they aren't even worth listening too.

I don't admire Kasparov personality-wise, but as a general rule, someone who is the best in his field has the right to criticize everybody else with the language he prefers! (just kidding)
By the way, today's games was somehow strange. As an observer (who doesn't go deep into calculation and the mind of GMs, I couldn't believe how easily Svidler cracked open against Vishy and how suddenly Moro lost everything in a time trouble (although it was against a blitz master). Aronian's defeat was also sad, but one should respect Gelfand's calmness and professionalism.

It is precisely because today's game allowed for greater initiative and opportunity for Leko that it's a shame he decided to draw so early. On the other hand, game 13 was clearly over and drawn. Bad outing for Kasparov? Sure, but it happens. It's silly to suggest that Garry should preface any criticism of others with: "However, I must admit that I have played a worse game than what we saw today at the end of a long match in 2000, plus there was 10-move draw in Linares in the nineties and there was that time in Moscow when I didn't have anything against Pirc and needed a nap."

Kasparov can criticise like anyone else. It wwould just be more interesting if he said something constructive. A shame? A few posters here are saying they've seen worse.

So far, I think nobody can threaten Kramnik and Anand for the title.
Aronian is too shaky to recover from -2.
Svidler is in the same boat.
Morozevich shows his usual fluctuation. He may score some more wins against the rest of the people playing there, but I can't imagine anything but a 50% performance.
Leko is boring as always but he may play a big role in deciding the champion.
Gelfand is solid but...
and finally Grischuk may bring some excitment but that's all.
What's your prediction?

Leko has played some beautiful chess. He seems to be proof of what Kramnik and others have said, that at this level today, you can't be successful playing simple chess. you've got to complicate. I expect him to come storming back with a few solid draws against players who really need wins.

Yuriy,

I'm in agreement with you about Kramnik. He has played quite well throughout. My point was that with their styles of play, I didn't expect much in the way of a game today and certainly wasn't disappointed. Although, I too thought that 50.Bg8 against Grischuk was winning and at least more precise than what was played. Still, Kramnik hasn't been in any trouble after the first 5 rounds. Speaks for itself.

Conduct-based standards, not people-based standards.

Kasparov's criticisms of other players would be so much more credible if he critized himself, rather than excused himself, when HE had done the same thing.

In 1984, Kasparov pulled off a mind-numbing, record-shattering string of short draws to catch his breath and recover himself for strategic purposes. Lesser mortals use short draws to recover themselves, for THEIR strategic purposes.

Kasparov-1984 and lesser mortals acting according to the same principle: both are blamable or neither are.

1984 - wow. Since then Kasparov has become the greatest player of all time. One would think he should be able to say something is not world championship chess if he sees it.

GK: Kasparov-1984 and lesser mortals acting according to the same principle: both are blamable or neither are.

O, c'mon, Greg, petty again. Kasparov can say whatever the hell he wants to say -- this is his game. His stature is such that it's always very interesting what he has to say, even if he irritates someone's fans. That's true about chess, of course, not necessarily Russian politics...

D.

Dimi--

You don't care for petty discussions about whether a person's conduct is just or rational.

You only care about whether a person has a "right" to speak about chess,(don't we all) and whether his speech interests or irritates you.

With such "standards," it's easy to see why you constantly wave the flag for that amoral, but always interesting and irritating character, Silvio Danailov.

"True, two match games from seven years ago completely disqualify Kasparov from commenting on anything to do with chess for the rest of his life. Yawn. Luckily, you don't have to take any games at all from 2000 because it's 2007. Now. Today."

Actually, Kasparov has, objectively speaking, a dismal record when it comes to fighting chess in World Championships.

There are the 2 games mentioned in his 2000 Match vs. Kramnik.

8 straight draws to open his title defense vs. Vishy in 1995.

Most of his matches with Karpov were draw heavy, and he tended toward the very conservative "play for an edge with White, play to draw with Black" strategy.

And then there is the "Moscow Marathon" of 1984-85:

17 straight draws (after losing 4 of the first 9 games to Karpov). He wasn't even pushing in those games. Even after he won his first game, he still took 13 straight draws, until Karpov began to physically collapse. Garry was able to defeat Karpov just once in the first 45 games.

The play was so feeble and insipid that it led to the end of the first player to win 6 games match format......

Does anybody want to tally up how many games Kasparov has drawn in World Championship Matches? Drawn as White? In 25 or less moves?

Just in the "Moscow Marathon" Match alone, Kasparov had 14 (of 24) Games with the White pieces, in which he drew within 25 moves. This happened in 11 out 12 of the games that he played as White, from Game #8 through Game #30!

"But "shaming" unambitious play with white in a world championship event, he's pointing a gun at his own head. Or beating himself over the head with his own chessboard, as the case may be."

Yeah, he's being hypocritical. He's practically the Sen. Larry Craig of unambitious play with White, in World Championship events.

That said, I only have the greatest of respect for his tournament results, where he did strive energetically for the win--both with White and with Black.

Oh, man, what a bloated moralistic discourse over a minor point of opinion – you bleeding heart Kramnik fans tend to lose all sense of scale...

D.

Don't worry, Koster brings up the same two games from 2000 every time Kasparov speaks or when anyone mentions Kasparov's name. Are they relevant to the opening of Leko-Kramnik? I simply relayed an off-the-cuff comment because some here seem to appreciate them. Instantly, Koster on the scene with breaking news: LONDON 2000 GAMES 7 AND 13 OMG OMG OMG!!!!!! for probably the 50th time, as if somehow it's a refutation of something, or that it excuses all short draws, or that there is anything in common with the situations or the games, or that it's interesting or new. Kasparov had a 30-year career of fighting chess. To endlessly whine about the exceptions that prove the rule is nothing more than hating. Especially when accompanied by silly attempts to divine the principles in play.

Ah, the "all draws are the same" argument. Brilliant. When Leko finds himself down 4-0 in an unlimited game match, we'll talk equivalence. The differences with match play aren't even the point. Kasparov played around 70 draws of 25 moves or fewer with white during his 20 years at the top. So what? He's not saying otherwise. Draws happen to everyone, even short ones. It's relative. Kasparov's percentage of such draws is incredibly low, even including the matches. Regardless, that's not even what he was talking about.

Kasparov was talking about the game after around 10 moves. He was referring to the insipid opening choice. Not the draw. So you can now say Kasparov didn't gain the advantage in the opening in every single one of his white games so he is being hypocritical about criticizing the opening, too. I guess he's made quite a few tactical blunders in his life, so there goes his right to criticize any middlegame play. And how about that time he lost a drawn rook and pawn endgame to Piket? My god, he should just shut his goddamn mouth; he obviously knows nothing.

This entire preposterous discussion is nothing but trollery. If Marin calls Leko's opening lame in his analysis is this opinion refuted by an analysis of Marin's personal opening history? Bah.

I updated the item with a round report, btw.

Aronian seems unrecognizeable since his match with Carlsen. His form has been really spotty. I thought it was quite courageous of Svidler to play the Marshall Gambit against Anand. However, it also wasn't very prudent. Kind of a gift point. Svidler has been a nice customer of Vishy's....missing wins and fumbling drawn positions alike.

Moro was being Moro. In this case, he was a bit too ambitious.

Gelfand must be stunned at his good fortune. Aronian played an agressive, but positionally suspect line, essentially playing to Gelfand's forte. He practically forced Gelfand to play for the win.

Aronian is the biggest disappointment, so far. Anand and Kramnik must be pleased to have opened a gap on him.

Morozevich is the tournament wild card--or Russian Roulette. Leko still needs to find his form....and needs a win by the end of the first "lap" of the tournament. Of course, Leko has been known to play it safe, even when he can't afford to.

Gelfand and Grischuk have only remote chances of winning the title, but it's better to be plus than minus.

Svidler is basically out--losing like that to Morozevich was a heavy psychological blow.

I think that Kramnik is playing so quickly largely to conserve energy.

"My god, he should just shut his goddamn mouth; he obviously knows nothing."

Right on!

1.e4 is dead. Even Fischer realized that in the end...

I discussed the merits of 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 with a Top 100 correspondence grandmaster and he said that all published analysis are basically flawed; moreover, he couldn't find a clear way to equalize with black.

Maybe Leko thought the same and gave it a try...Kramnik's having analysed this before Dortmund shows that it should be taken seriously (at least, more seriously as is common).

Of course, not all draws are the same. But the short, fightless ones are pretty hard to differentiate. In several of the games during his matches, Kasparov offered draws to Karpov while the position was still book.

Do you really think that Leko would--or could--play that way for a stretch of 12 Whites? Leko, like almost any top player, would be anxious to start chipping away at the 4-0 lead, when he had the opportunity to play with the White pieces.
[Leko did accept a draw without playing ANY moves--the very definition of insipid, I suppose. However, the mitigating circumstance was that he was Black, and his opponent was....Karpov]

"Draws happen to everyone, even short ones. It's relative. Kasparov's percentage of such draws is incredibly low, even including the matches. Regardless, that's not even what he was talking about."

Huh? Well, maybe some database maven can come up with some hard figures, and see how Kasparov measures up to other players.

The real issue is how Kasparov performed in World Championship events. Certainly, 14 Short Draws as White {SDW%}(out of 24 chances) isn't incredibly low. Indeed, it's incredibly high. If you ONLY look at his Matches (and all of his World Championship events were Matches), then his SDW% is rather high.

For instance, in his 1987 WC Match vs. Karpov, in Seville (the one which ended in a 12-12 tie, he had 4 of his 12 Whites were SDsW.

Against Kramnik, 4 out of 8 of his Whites were SDW;

Against Anand, it was 4/9 or 44% SDW, plus a couple more under 30 moves.

Somebody can total up the figure for his 8 WC matches

K-K I
Round "10"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[White "Garry Kasparov"]
[Black "Anatoli Karpov"]
[ECO "E12"]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.Nc3 Bb7 5.a3 d5 6.cxd5 Nxd5 7.e3
Nd7 8.Bd3 N5f6 9.e4 c5 10.d5 exd5 11.exd5 Bd6 12.O-O O-O
13.Bg5 Qc7 14.Bf5 a6 15.Qd2 1/2-1/2

Omigawd, Koster, give it a rest old son. Personally, I couldnt care less about some perceived Kasparov hypocrisy. This is a man who is many people's choice for strongest player in history. Pretty much whatever he says is interesting, even if it reveals him to be a hypocrite (which in this case it does not), atavist, recidivist, papist, exorcist, hedonist or calvinist. One reason I browse this blog is for Mig's tidbits on the (chesswise) great man. Having you rant and rave interminably at the mere mention of his name because of some seriously weird hangup you have is quite boring. Like I said, give it a rest old pipsqueak. By all means give vent to your desires every now and then, but all the time is sooo boring for the rest of us.

Great games R5 (except, as predictable, you know who).
Did Aronian simply missed that g4 or he thought he had compensation ?
He seemed to have lost focus earlier, after Qf6, when he went for the Ne8-Ng4 manouver, instead for the standard Nc7-Nb5, Rfe8 etc.

Of course the issue here is not the fact that Kaspy criticized Leko's opening choice. The choice turned out to be not very good, everybody can see that. The problem is the disrespectful manner in which Kaspy does his criticism. Kaspy deserves all the whack he's got here.

1.e4 is dead. Even Fischer realized that in the end...

Kapsarov's draws were often part of his match strategy. At least some of them like the first few against Anand by his own admission...

he wouldn't be taking short draws in a tournament like this.

Kasparov's comments on chess are always worth reading and very much appreciated by this reader at least. His remarks about other players are sometimes self-serving, but he is far from being the only one guilty of this (relatively minor) offence.

I'd be very surprised if Kramnik (and the others who play 1..e5) didn't have something prepared for the Bishop's Opening, Four Knights, King's Gambit and so on.

The flash updates at chesscenter.com have reports on the press conferences, if anyone is still lookking for them.

I love reading Kasparov's comments and am grateful to Mig for relaynig them. But they always seem to convey the same message: "These players today are unworthy. Remember what a great fighter and champion I was."

The specific points under discussion are trivial, true. But the sub-text speaks volumes.

Not sure why so many are after Koster. He is, as I saw it, not questioning Garry's right to criticize others. He is merely pointing out the hypocrisy involved. And he has every right to bring it up - unless Kasparov had ever been self-critical or apologetic about his short draws or insipid play (particularly against Kramnik in their WC match), which I don't think is the case.

His Kasparov obsession is known, but in the context of the thread I think that Koster's comments are relevant.

- Kapalik

Not sure why so many are after Koster. He is, as I saw it, not questioning Garry's right to criticize others. He is merely pointing out the hypocrisy involved. And he has every right to bring it up - unless Kasparov had ever been self-critical or apologetic about his short draws or insipid play (particularly against Kramnik in their WC match), which I don't think is the case.

His Kasparov obsession is known, but in the context of the thread I think that Koster's comments are relevant.

- Kapalik

If there is one thing that chess world learned from the "no limit" matches of 75, 78, 81 and 84, aside from the incredible skill of the players involved, it's that in such format even the most fighting chess players will have quite a few draws and short draws. Kasparov prefacing any criticism of other players' fighting spirit or opening choices by mentioning every time he didn't fight to the max of his abilities would get old even faster than the Pavlovian reminders of those times by others.

The Kasparov-bashers all seem to think that some off-the-cuff remark to Mig over the phone is to be thought of in the same way as a polished, thoughtfully considered review in a book, or something. It's fascinating to hear the strongest player ever react to positions verbally, to have his almost unmediated "impression" of something. You think he doesn't have an opinion every time he passes by a chess board? And you're surprised that someone with the chess instincts and prowess he possesses wouldn't be verbally pointed too -- wouldn't have a strong opinion?

I don't believe Koster is obsessed with GK. On this blog he points out hypocrisy as he sees it, and GK's post-career commentary is often a veritable fount of hypocritical material.

And Mig may be protesting too much when he writes:
Instantly, Koster on the scene with breaking news: LONDON 2000 GAMES 7 AND 13 OMG OMG OMG!!!!!! for probably the 50th time

...because it's also probably the 50th time we've heard GK comments relayed through Mig that remind us of a world champion who was also a bully, a liar, a misogynist, a revisionist and a two-faced spoilsport.

To Mig these faults are irrelevant given their close friendship, and good on him for steadfastly defending his friend. But it's a double-edged zwischenzug. If Mig is willing to toss out the comments, Koster is absolutely correct to brandish a razor where necessary.

Koster not obsessed with GK? Ha ha. This from the guy who claimed that Capablanca didn't want a rematch with Alekhine, and Kasparov with Kramnik!

But what really irritates with Greg is that you would think that someone who has been refuted (both factually and in argument) as often as he has on this blog would develop some humility. Instead we still get continually showered with his arrogant know-it-all claptrap.
Greg's junk would be better suited to Susan Polgar's blog. But he is probably already there too, as the biggest troll also, posting anonymously.

>>Oh, man, what a bloated moralistic discourse over a minor point of opinion – you bleeding heart Kramnik fans tend to lose all sense of scale...
>>

LOL, yeah. Anybody who defends *Leko* against a specious criticism is a Kramnik fan. You do say some dumb things, Dimi...

All this fuss just because Leko dared to play the Bishop's Opening. Larsen once played it in a Candidates Match, with no hysteria.

That's well known that money makes people free. But what to do when one doesn't have money? The one way only is to try to get the loan and just college loan.