Topalov Takes All in Bilbao

"Carlsen needed a win over Anand and a Topalov-Ivanchuk draw to reach a tiebreak blizt match."

A Carlsen win and an Ivanchuk win would have lead to a tiebreak blitz match as well.

Is there any legit online place where one could bet on chess matches?

Try igindex.com or betfair.com

Carlsen went 2/5 in the second half (not 1,5). He scored only 1/4 at the end though.

Topalov is back!
here is his recent interview taken by Yuri Vasiliev in Russian after Bilbao:
http://news.sport-express.ru/online/ntext/25/nl256731.html
Some excerpts:
"I have happened to win in Weik, in linares, on numerous occasions in Sofia, but this one was a special tournament. Winners of all those tournaments were playing here. In general, these 6 players have won most tournaments of this year, not just classics, but rapid chess, also. Ivachul has won just four. Bilbao was stronger than championships in San Luis and Mexico. But those tournaments had the official title on stake, and Bilbao - an unofficial one. I think, I deserve it. And i was told, that I got the number one position in the rating lst after this tournament. It is very prestigious for me to become the winner of the first grand slam, and I hope this is beginning of a very positive chess tradition..."
"question: are you going to watch the Anand-Kramnik match?
answer: of course I will analyse the games from this match, but let me co0nfess, the match between no.5 and no.6 is not of that much interest for me. Kramnk is not the best player even in Russia. Morozevich, who won the Tal Memorial game vs. him, also topped him n the rating list. And anand in Bilbao was a shadow of former great player..."

man... this guy (the bulgarian) just doesnt wanna let go, does he?
he is pathetic

The gap is so small that he is only 8 measely rating points above Anand even if he is 1 and Anand 5. In other words number 5 and number 6 are closer to number 1 than ever before so it sounds worse than it is.

Reading Topa's interview, I can't think of anything else but a caricature version of Bobby Fischer. A very bad and cheapo one though...

Well, arrogant as it may sound, he's clearly correct that *if* anand plays like his play in Bilbao, and kramnik like his play in tal memorial, its not going to be a good-quality match - "total mess is every phase of the game" is not very far from truth.

So yeah, anand/kramnik had better step up their game if they want to compete with the likes of topalov, carlsen etc.

Topalov's comments remind me of those he made before Elista---about the rating disparity between himself and Kramnik.

I find Topalov's comments (if they are not mitigated by context) that Vlad Kosulin mentioned to be vaguely nasty. I am sure he knows that a) strength alone does not make a champion. It takes a lot of consistency, and I think Vlad has shown that even when he is in a slump, he is still a difficult opponent b) ratings are variable and at this level probably reflect form more than sheer ability. He's talking there like someone who has been #1 since 07.

Kramnik may not be as supernaturally dominant as his reputation, and Anand is not infallible, but I expect it will still be a good, invigorating match. These guys haven't been mulling around playing monopoly with their seconds for the past year.

I just have a question ... are we sure this was a real interview? Or just a fake one?

During the Elista match and the aftermath, we read fake interviews and statements from players, in an attempt to give us a created image on the personalities of Topalov and Kramnik.

I might be wrong, but I sincerely doubt Topalov said that and it looks more like another attempt to create a bad image of the bulgarian to the general public.

Topalov makes comments like this all the time.
He is a fool. Great chessplayer prehaps but as a person an idiot. Period.

One thing strikes me as rather amusing in Topalov's comments:

"I was told that I got the number one position in the rating list after this tournament" - so he didn't really care enough about ratings to actually look, he only knows because somebody told him.

But then, a little later: "Let me confess, the match between no.5 and no.6 is not of that much interest for me" - doesn't this seem to reveal that he actually did have quite a good look at the live rating list, and that he does care a lot about ratings?

IF the interview is true, there is no reason to get so upset about it. Remember that Topalov is the favourite in the match against Kamsky, and if he wins he gets to face either Anand or Kramnik. He is preparing for that second match psychologically, which means he is much more afraid of them than he is afraid of Kamsky.

I don't think anyone's upset, or even surprised, by Topalov's comments - but it just further confirms what a poor specimen of a human being he is. You just have to imagine how gracefully Carlsen or Ivanchuk would have responded to ending up at no. 1 in the October ratings to see the difference.

I'm not sure what's more comical - mocking Anand for being no. 5 and boasting about being no. 1, when he's spent the year at no.5 or no. 6 while Anand was no. 1... or trying to make out that he's some sort of unofficial world champion after he came into the "final" despite not winning any of the supposed qualifying tournaments.

On another note, the interviewer also asks about the glass cube. Topalov says the crowd noise is louder at some normal tournaments, so clearly the sound-proofing in the cube wasn't as impressive as claimed. Then Topalov says you could only actually hear the commentator discussing the games when you went to the rest room or toilet, so that's ok then :)

Mig wrote:

"My feeling about that match has always been that Vishy at his best beats Kramnik at his best."

No freaking way. Kramnik at his best is better than the greatest ever, Kaspy.

Anand is a great player, but has never played the type of chess Kramnik has (very inconsistently) played.

Topa is №1... it's quietеr here...

A year from now few people outside of Bulgaria will know or care who had the highest ranking in October, 2008. But after we're all long dead they'll still be talking about the winner of the Kramnik-Anand WCC match.

Come on, Greg, relax, Kramnik is WC forever and ever! This cant change even Kasparov. While Kramnik is live and Kirsan is on the front, WC will be only Mr Kramnik! Take it easy :)

"are we sure this was a real interview? Or just a fake one?

During the Elista match and the aftermath, we read fake interviews and statements from players, in an attempt to give us a created image on the personalities of Topalov and Kramnik.

I might be wrong, but I sincerely doubt Topalov said that and it looks more like another attempt to create a bad image of the bulgarian to the general public."

Are you serious? You think Vasiliev would do that, and that he and Sport-Express would get away with that? Sorry, much too far-fetched. What are those fake interviews during and after Elista you mention?

I'm assuming that something was lost in translation, otherwise the comments as they have been quoted makes Topalov look utterly ridiculous. I mean technically, Anand is still No.1 (the official list is yet to come out) and already Topa is talking about rankings. This from someone who has spent the last couple of years languishing at the back of the pack.
Also, each time Topa talks about ratings and bad-mouths someone they usually start climbing the ladder. He trash talked Moro and Kramnik in 2006 and sure enough they had overtaken him.

Topalov, his manager, and his website are all parts of a Russian-backed plot to disparage Bulgarians.

Delusional remarks from an insecure super-GM who failed to dominate the chess world (as he predicted he would) after Kasparov's departure. What a pair of rocks: he gets owned by Ivanchuk on his home turf in Sofia, then gets a strong result in Bilbao and starts talking smack almost immediately. As with Fischer, it appears he is only likable at the board.

Let's hope the distant #5 and #6 are able to play chess worthy of Topalov's valuable time.

Greg, take it easy my friend! Let's see some football mathes from Champion's league in company of Mr Kramnik! Cheers!
Kramnik like extremely football fan just want to see by cable TV some football in rest room. I hope organizators of next WCC match are instaled cable TV for Mr Kramnik. That is in interest of chess and in opposite of short draws in WCC match! Cheers again!

What a moron!
I have no difficulty in believing Topa really said this Danailov-puppet-style nonesense.
However, if it's true you could hear the commentators from the rest room, they have to do some work on their aquarium. And the toiletgate accusation might just reappear...

Kramnik is a first among equals. Kramnik will beat Anand in the WCC but he's not clearly better than any of the top five or six players in the world. Anand won a tournament, but he'll never win a "conventional" WCC match.

Gentleman, this is scary and disappointing -- you all responded
in fervor and self-righteousness to the fine bait thrown out by
Kosulin, but never even had the IQ to question the
translation. Lousy... Very lousy.

On answer one, why didn’t Kosulin translate the leading question
to which Topalov responded??? Here is the translated question –
demonstrated that Topalov stated his assertions regarding the
relevance of this Tournament, prior to it, not after.

Q (Vassilev) “I remember that after one of the Tournaments, was
it in Linares, or Waik An-See – you told me in an interview that
the winner of the Final Tournament can consider himself
“Tournament Champion”. Do you consider yourself such?”

And on two (2) -- here is the "continuation" of the second answer
that Kosulin omitted (shame on him, what a despicable character,
BTW!!!!) shows the true direction of the response:

"...I think that after the title was owned by Karpov and Kasparov
the situation in Chess changed cardinally. Now it is not enough
to "have a title", but to constantly prove who is the
strongest. Play in Tournaments and win. And also be first in the
ratings".

I.e. things are far more fluid now than a "title" that gets
challenged once every so many years. I think this concept is not
new and that we have discussed in on multiple occasions.

Anyway, enjoy your little egg shells. All these guys who do not
know Russian – be advised to always get a second source, unless
you intend to be fooled. Otherwise they’ll lock you in the toilet
for good.

Have fun there.

D.

Now being prompted to read the full Topalov interview with
Vassilev (BTW, unrelatedly, but significantly so, the name
Vassilev was Stalin's nick in telephone communications to his top
front generals during WW-2) is pretty relaxed and rather
interesting.

Kosulin should wipe the disgrace off his forehead and offer a
good and truthful translation to the entire interview, correctly
and trustworthy. I'm watching and doing QA. :-) Otherwise I must
conclude that his knowledge of Russian is less than mine, not to
mention the purity of intentions.

D.

"...unrelatedly, but significantly so, the name Vassiliev was Stalin's nick in telephone conversations to his top generals during WW-2."

Significant??!

Topalov and Danailov sound positively sane compared to this. There MUST be something in the water.

vasiliev made lots of "unclear" statements during (maybe they're still going...) the negotiations of the topalov-kamsky match. he made the novelty more important than the facts, and lots of sites (like chessbase and TWIC) published such info. maybe he just trusted too much his (only) source, kamsky's manager... biased or incompetent reports, either way you consider it, such depose heavily against this guy words. and all the translated interviews I see from this guy look the same. are all translations wrong?

"Gentleman, this is scary and disappointing -- you all responded in fervor and self-righteousness to the fine bait thrown out by Kosulin, but never even had the IQ to question the translation. Lousy... Very lousy."

Lol, Dimi, but you're not questioning the translation either - in fact you've just admitted it's accurate. Quite how the additions improve the impression made by Topalov, I really don't know.

For what it's worth Vlad also left out such "pretty relaxed and rather interesting" snippets as:

Interviewer: All in all, how did you find playing in Bilbao?

Topalov: There are cities in which everything goes well for me. Why - I don't know, but Bilbao in particular really suits me. I feel very comfortable here. The organisers of the tournament here - are friends of mine and Silvio. And I spend my time excellently here.

I: What do you mean by those words?

T: Well, how to put it? I like the food, the city's beautiful, the organisation's at a very high level. The very fact that the tournament took place was a great success for us. It was the idea of Silvio, after all. And it completely proved itself.
-------------

I can't believe Vlad left those touching words for Silvio... Or the exciting stuff about the high cost of car parking in Spain, how Topalov, without a wife (but with a Spanish girlfriend) has enough money not to need to play in tournaments, is friends with the Bulgarian president so he's not planning on doing a Kasparov, likes football but rather than supporting any particular team just likes "good football" (rule of thumb in life: never trust a man who says that) and "as I have a lot of friends in many countries and there's no language barrier, I feel very comfortable everywhere". There also aren't any restaurants with more than three Michelin stars, would you believe!?

Oh, apart from mentioning the glass cube he also talks about the Kamsky match (preparing for it is "colossal adrenaline")and how surely FIDE wouldn't mess around with a semifinal match for the world title - Kasparov looked on and wept :)

p.s. it's a barren effort translating Topalov. Just for comparison, here's an excerpt from an interview Ivanchuk gave just after the blitz in Moscow, before heading to Bilbao (yes, I know the Topa crowd will mock Ivanchuk, as they do Kramnik, for talking about art, but then as the proverb goes, chess is a sea in which a mosquito can bathe and an elephant can drown):

http://russiachess.org/content/view/2648/377/

- How important is the creative component of chess for you? Or, all things considered, is the most important thing - the struggle itself?

Ivanchuk: Chess, as I see it, is very many-sided. It combines not only sport and art, but also psychology and philosophy. Chess has a very strong influence on your world view, particularly when someone plays at a high level. I've read many philosophical works: Plutarch, Aristotles, Socrates, Nietzsche. I consider philosophy as a science to be quite close to chess. And if you want to talk about art, it seems to me that closest of all to chess are music, theatre and... the circus! Chess is cunning enough to combine within it many things that appear incompatible. Let's say, logic and poetry. The most important thing is never to stop working at it. Mikhail Botvinnik said: if you want to play strong chess then you have to keep learning throughout your whole life. I agree with him.

mishanp,

A lovely quote. Many thanks.

Since mishanp has mentioned Ivanchuk, I remember there was a piece of interview at the Tal Memorial between Ivanchuk and Vasiliev (!) where Ivanchuk recalled the last words he heard from Tal:

The Great Champion approached one of the Champions (Smyslov or Spasski I don’t remember) and asked “What is guaranteed by the title Champion ?” “I don’t know, Sir” the Champion admitted. “Remember this” Tal said “the title Champion guarantees the title ex-champion !”

The morale of the story is that
- Tal is great in many aspects
- Ivanchuk is also a nice guy
- Vasiliev indeed has a lot of contacts and knows how to make his reports interesting
- Topalov, you have your share of the ex-title, now STFU and let Anand have his.

Mishka (NP), obviously it bothers you (and the usual chorus of a
few petty jokers here) to accept the facts, but like him or not,
Danailov was one of the prime forces behind the Grand Slam. The
team involved conceived it, implemented it, got the sponsorship
and it went smooth. From start to finish it went as planned and
provided for exciting Chess. The scoring system was nice, at
least experimenting with something new. These people created
something positive. There is absolutely nothing wrong with
stating that in an interview or being proud of it. Please give
credit where credit is due.

D.

mishanp, your rule of life is the best thing I've heard on this blog. I wish I'd said it, but don't worry. I will.

A close second is the image this thread conjures up of Topalov attempting to read Spinoza. He's such a classless individual.

rdh, I dont know what classmore is You, but let you imagine attempt of Fisher to read Spinoza. Or Kramnik? May be you can imagine this. I cant. Excuse me. But what to say about Fisher's playing of chess? I hope nothing bad! Fisher is a genious chessplayer! Right? All in all playing of chess is the best what Topa can do! Not to read Spinoza. So when you in some brand make 50% of what Topa make in chess, than you can make a valuation of Topa!
So, moron, go back in your rancho to pick potatos!

rdh, I don't see much class in your endearing act of a
pretentious dweeb. What's next now, Kierkegaard?

Leave Topalov alone -- I can't understand the wicked desire to
twist Vasilev's interview in a negative light, particularly
through selective and out of context quoting and
translation. That's truly low class.

D.

Dimi: Please enlighten us what sort of context quoting and translation error occured in this bit:
[i]of course I will analyse the games from this match, but let me confess, the match between no.5 and no.6 is not of that much interest for me. Kramnk is not the best player even in Russia. Morozevich, who won the Tal Memorial game vs. him, also topped him n the rating list. And anand in Bilbao was a shadow of former great player..."[/i]

What an idiot and completely in character.

Dimi, the point is just that because someone doesn't translate a whole interview (unpaid and time-consuming) doesn't mean he's somehow twisting the interviewee's words. Topalov said what Vlad quoted and the context really doesn't make it any less pathetic.

I quoted the bits about Bilbao/Danailov to make the point that it was a pretty bland interview and Vlad leaving bits out was understandable. But as you mention it, I do find the Danailov/Topalov relationship somewhat creepy. You don't see many other managers of top sports people who crave the limelight quite like Danailov does (Don King's about the only one who springs to mind).

As to the great benefits he brings to chess... The problem is that a controversial figure who always picks fights with those around him is the last person you really want to be organising tournaments. Inevitably some players will fear bias (rightly or wrongly) and avoid the tournaments (so they can't become a genuine grand slam). Plus there are inevitable conflicts of interest e.g. Bilbao involved the winners of the other tournaments and then a couple of invitations, but what was the chance of Topalov not being invited even if there were more deserving candidates? Or was the points system and accelerated time control introduced because it was considered a good idea by all concerned, or was it simply perceived by Danailov as giving a certain edge to Topalov?

It's similar to the situation with Ilyumzhinov. It's great if someone can bring money to chess, but you're always forced to assess whether they actually do more harm than good and prevent the game from finally acquiring a "normal" independent structure (yeah, I know, but we can always dream!).

bradmajors: Please enlighten us what sort of context quoting and translation error occured in this bit:

I already did. Read the rest of the paragraph and see the point
it's trying to make. And I suspect that your hemorrhoids flared
over the #5 and #6 remark. Big deal, the guy projects his view on
things – right or wrong, he has that right and probably there is
a reason why people interview his ego, not yours…

All the Chess players from Kasparov to Morozevich and certainly
Kramnik utter strange stuff -- they are people with their own
thoughts, enjoy their Chess and get a Life. I don't mind the
typical fen-talk, but here it's getting silly with the petty
crap...

bradmajors: What an idiot and completely in character.

Ok, that makes you a genius. Good luck.

D.

What are you even talking about? Yes, the guy projects his view on things, we project our view on his view on things. The common consensus being that he's a fool, get over it.

Dear Dimi,
It is joy to argue with you again!
A famous Russian mathematician Kolmogorov said once "every mathematician believes he is a head over all others. The reason why they don't say this in public, is because they are intelligent persons." I hope you've got my point what makes a huge difference between Topalov and the rest.

Hey guys,
it is obvious that these comments by Topalov lack elegance and are not polite. But why isn't anyone aksing if what he says is true ?
It is a fact that the forthcoming match will be between the 5. and 6. ranked players in the world. And while the rating difference at the top is sufficiently small, so we cannot say that Anand and Kramnik are weaker than Topalov or Morozevich, we cannot say the contrary either.
You see what is happening - Kramnik plays a big tournament, scores +1 and says "I am very satisfied", Anand plays a big tournament, finishes last and he is exonerated because he is "hidind novelties".
If Champions can afford such a behaviour towards top tournaments I think there is something wrong in the system. Not so much from the sports point of vue, but with respect to the passion for the game. Fans need idols, they need to see their guys are all the time fighting to show they are the best.
If some people can play a serious match once in two years, and the rest of the time just loiter around, playing sometimes in tournaments without pressure, there is no way they could be respected as true champions.

Great, Beem! Perfect post!

Anyone who can win a serious match every two years without playing chess under pressure (or not at all) in between has my utmost respect.

Great critical powers of perception you have there, Sherman.

It's funny how Kramnik and Anand loitered their way to 2799 as recently as January. And I'm sure they're both lazing around on a beach just now.

If it really needs pointing out... Kramnik wasn't "very" satisfied with his result, as far as I remember, but was happy to have played good complex chess in Moscow - and also entertained fans with his efforts in the blitz. Seems fair enough, and better than Topalov's performance there, at least (presumably he was relaxing while his rating rivals tired themselves out before rushing to Bilbao).

And do you really think Anand set out to come last and fail to win a game in Bilbao!? Sorry, but bad results happen. I think Anand's probably entitled to one or two after the career he's had.

And yes, shock horror, the world title match is vastly more important than a few rating points here and there. Who cares, or remembers, the ratings of Topalov and Kramnik in 2006? The only thing fans of Anand and Kramnik want is for them to be in top form for the match next month.

bmajors: The common consensus being that he's a fool, get over it.

Unfortunately you still don't get it. Give it one more try, it
may work...

I suggested that you to read the full paragraph with the critical
translation that I added -- translating it partially it appears
like a gossipy and a mocking remark that a the few predisposed
fools bit on hard

1) The point was that after the period of unilateral domination
by Kasparov and Karpov, it is more important who wins tournaments
than having a match between any of the top few top guys, be they
#5 & #6, or #2 & #4 at any one moment.

2) The point was not to criticize the performance of anyone as it
is obvious that any can have a bad tournament, but to illustrate
that sporting forms change and having these matches is not
necessarily the best representation of a game between the two
strongest guys at any one moment.

Hopefully now you warm your wires a bit...

D.

Li'l whinging infant Dimi, you must still be distracted by the German rowdies at the Net cafe where you play War Craft.

You tried claiming the translation was inaccurate and you had to back up on that. Then you said it was taken out of context, which doesn't work because any quote is by definition from context. Then you tried denying other posters the right to react to Topalov's now-accurate comments, which didn't work well either, especially not with other posters. Then you implied that people who pointed out that Topalov spoke like a fool were jealous of his chess success. That was a good one but again, not successful.

"1) The point was that after the period of unilateral domination by Kasparov and Karpov, it is more important who wins tournaments than having a match between any of the top few top guys, be they #5 & #6, or #2 & #4 at any one moment."

Okay. If this is what Topalov was trying to say (in his heavily-nuanced and secretly recondite comments as decoded by Dimi), why did he take part in the match against Kramnik and why on earth did he agree to play Kamsky? Why doesn't he take a stand and demand to be crowned the World Tournament Champion (oh sorry, the World Tournament Champion Outside Sofia)? Surely he can't believe that matches are of any importance, so why pretend?

"The point was not to criticize the performance of anyone"

You're right there, for once. The point was not to criticize, it was to dismiss outright the stature earned by class acts Anand and Kramnik.

So tell me Dim-dims, when you go to the Net cafe for War Craft marathons, do you always wear your IT'S TOPALOV'S WORLD, WE JUST LIVE IN IT T-shirt? And if so, can you get me one in German?

Clubfoot get your medications and get lost.

D.

nyob wrote:
"Kramnik will beat Anand in the WCC but he's not clearly better..."

Uh, 'beat' is all that 'better' means in this context. 'Better' is merely a nonempirical placeholder word which has no meaning of its own.

So Kosteniuk wins the WWC. Thank goodness for that, hopefully it means she'll be able to remove "Vice-Champion" (of the world 2001) from her website. It's a horrible construction.

I heard a silver medallist at the olympics describe himself as the vice-champion. Presidents yes, sportspeople no.

Ouch, poor Dimi got destroyed by Clubfoot this time :)

Knallo,
they would have my utmost respect too. But nowadays chess is very dynamic.
I myself look back fondly to my childhood when we could wait three years for a match and be happy with it. However now, with top-notch tournaments all the time, internet covering, rating being renewed four times a year (at the old times it was once a year), not to speak of live ratings, a champion can certainly keep the respect of the fans if he is absent most of the time, but certainly not their devotion.

Sherman,
my post was not part of Topalov vs. others talk. I just said that if a champion does not regularly confirm his superiority MOST (which may not include you) of the fans will not consider him the strongest player. And it is bad for a sport if the champion is not widely considered to be the strongest.

sorry, my last post is of course addressed to mishanp

Posted by Vlad Kosulin:

"A famous Russian mathematician Kolmogorov said once "every mathematician believes he is a head over all others. The reason why they don't say this in public, is because they are intelligent persons." I hope you've got my point what makes a huge difference between Topalov and the rest."

Why are you trying to prove that Topalov cannot be a good mathematician...?

LOL! Good post, Clubfoot! If you're on meds, I'll have what you're having. :-)

Beem, the same point of view /like yours/ Topalov shares in his interviews all the time, including last interview from Vasiliev. Nothing diferent. For my luck Russian is not problem for me and I read it originall. But most important in Topalov's opinion is that the champion must prove again and again his class, but not to play blitz from time on time or some event which not enough "satisfied" him. All other words, talked here vs Topalov reputation are biased and unfair to him/like Kosulin translation for example/.

"my post was not part of Topalov vs. others talk. I just said that if a champion does not regularly confirm his superiority MOST (which may not include you) of the fans will not consider him the strongest player. And it is bad for a sport if the champion is not widely considered to be the strongest."

Ok, ignoring Topalov's school playground comments for a moment...

Actually, most sports get along just fine with the champions not necessarily being the strongest at any point in time (think of team games, boxing etc. - and don't forget the role of chance). It's only really tennis that just has a rating system, but then I'd say that the absence of a champion there and just having individual tournaments makes things less interesting. Chess has a long tradition of the world championship title being won and lost in matches. I think it's one of the few good things that has more or less survived the chaos in chess (I accept you might not feel that way).

Of course, I agree with you that the champion should compete and show decent results at other times, but then Kramnik and Anand have being doing that throughout their careers (Kramnik's form dipped only when he had a debilitating illness). They've nothing left to prove, and it's absurd to make anything much of one or two bad results immediately preceding such an important match.

"Beem, the same point of view /like yours/ Topalov shares in his interviews all the time"

Funny that, I could swear Topalov and his team have been rather quiet about ratings being all that matter while he's been below Anand and Kramnik in the ratings.

Sherman, I don't have to imagine Kramnik reading Spinoza; he's said in interviews that he reads S at tournaments to relax.

This whole silly debate is the same as the one in the 1960's about Petrosian, of course, and some other bloke and his fans declaring himself the tournament champion. They didn't have world rankings in those days, but I doubt Petrosian would ever have been top of them. And does anyone today think Larsen was the greatest player of that era? I think not.

Kramnik reads Spinoza to _relax_? Not sure...

You may have some other interview in mind, but I just remember one interview where he mentioned Spinoza. It was the New In Chess interview right after Elista. He was talking about what he was doing in between the games when not preparing:

"I was reading quite a lot, but only when I wanted to free my mind of chess. I read some ridiculous crime stories. Usually I don't read this kind of stuff, but during a chess tournament this is what I prefer. Because at such moments it's important to completely forget about chess. When you read a serious book, I don't know, let's say Spinoza or something, it keeps you from working and sometimes you lose concentration. Reading such a book requires intellectual digestion. This is not what you want and while you are reading you suddenly realize that you are thinking about chess again. You read a page and you don't know what you are reading. That's why I brought some light comical books and crime stories that don't require any intellectual effort. That's a good way to forget about chess, because music doesn't completely help. You are listening, but you are still thinking about chess."

"1) The point was that after the period of unilateral domination by Kasparov and Karpov, it is more important who wins tournaments than having a match between any of the top few top guys, be they #5 & #6, or #2 & #4 at any one moment."

No, it's not. Since when are random tournaments more important than WC matches? For him to make such light of the Anand vs Kramnik match is pathetic, especially considering his match with Kamsky. He'd have another tone if he'd have beaten Kramnik, which of course he didn't. On the FIDE list Anand and Kramnik are #1 and #3 respectively, by the way. Topalov is #5.

I think mishanp got quite a point about the champion not needing to be the strongest of the moment. Still, one has to agree with the fact that it's much better if the champion plays as much as he can and proves his strengh at (almost)every chance. I remember Kasim's remark about not staying at home after he won Tripoli, and he was hardly seen as a real world champion marking his name into chess history (although i admire a lot the way he fought to win that tournament beating Topalov and Adams). Maybe the problem is that the whole chess world got too much used to the Kasparov way in which he was the champion, the 1st on the rating list miles away and the man who was winning almost every tournament he played in. His moment has passed anyway, and maybe it's time for someone (Fide, Acp, Global Chess or whoever) to step up and organize things a little. I think that rapid chess should count for rating, the same way different surfaces count the same in tennis, and that the top list should be updated every week. But i guess that's asking too much.

Dear Vlad,

A famous American scientist, Einstein said whatever he wanted and I think was more clever then Kolmogorov

acirce, sorry you're right, not during tournaments. Still sounds like he reads this stuff, though.

bmajors: On the FIDE list Anand and Kramnik are #1 and #3 respectively, by the way. Topalov is #5.

See, you still can’t make the quantum leap and get it -- you've
become fixated to the point of who is #N[1-10] when a few points
only divide the top few. It doesn't matter -- try to get the
essential part of Topalov's message. It has something to do with
the fact that in the period of relative equality, playing
Tournaments and winning is more important than a title that can
become stale. Most of all this probably applies to someone like
Carlsen, who may be the strongest much sooner then the current WC
cycle ends. Try to get the point at last -- this is my third and
final attempt.

D.

Dimi: If he didn't care about the list then why did Topalov specify that a match between the world #5 and #6 didn't interest him. You're saying playing tournaments and winning is more important than the WC. I don't see many suggesting that recent tournament hotshots(Aronian, Carlsen, Topalov, Invachuk) are stronger or will hold more prestige than whoever wins in Anand/Kramnik, that's ridiculous.

There is absolutely no other sport (except boxing, and I don't think we should compare chess to boxing ; and then boxing champs have to defend their title quite often compared to chess) when the champion just waits for a long period of time to get a challenger. In all sports each championship starts from scratch, or champs are seeded some way, but not too much.
On the other hand, I do think the title is best decided in a match. So I would propose to organise a cycle where all guys including the champ participate, and the first two guys at the end of the cycle play a match for the crown (or the first four play two short matches, and the winners one long).

In 1972, Fischer was rated far higher than Spassky, so much so that in fact even his thumping victory cost him 5 rating points. Yet, if for some reason that match never took place, and Fischer was not "officially" crowned champion no one would particularly remember Fischer today.

jaideepblue,
Fischer was already a legend before he won the Wch. I think he would have been unforgettable, even without winning the Wch, like Keres, Flohr, Reshevsky, Korchnoi and Bronstein.

between the world #5 and #6 didn't interest him.

He didn't say that. He said that it interests him, but not that
much, for the reasons he stated.

bmajors: You're saying playing tournaments and winning is more important than the WC.

Me saying?? No, it's not me saying it... I'm just translating to
you what he said. I think you got totally wrapped up.

Now, was that the right time to be slightly dismissive of the WC
title match? Perhaps not, but could be calculated to boost the
Grand Slam, or who know what else. Could be just loose talk. Was
the position entirely genuine, considering his struggle to
participate in the WC match? Not particularly so, no more, no
less than the average politician. The reason I reacted is due to
the original immature attempt to change the meaning by selective
quoting. That's all, have a nice day.

D.

It's about time the DD comments are an enjoyable read again.

"2) The point was not to criticize the performance of anyone as it is obvious that any can have a bad tournament, but to illustrate
that sporting forms change and having these matches is not necessarily the best representation of a game between the two strongest guys at any one moment."
-Posted by: Dimi at September 18, 2008 18:03

If this is truly Topalov's philoshophy, why was his reaction to the WC loss to Kramnik so spectacularly immature? Surely he would have been adequately pacified by knowing that he was the better player at that time.

"A famous Russian mathematician Kolmogorov said once "every mathematician believes he is a head over all others. The reason why they don't say this in public, is because they are intelligent persons." I hope you've got my point what makes a huge difference between Topalov and the rest.
-Posted by: Vlad Kosulin at September 18, 2008 13:25

That is really a fantastic quote. All the more so since Kolmogorov (along with Smirnov) was a mathematician who produced something great.

The WCC chess games between Kramnik and Anand will generally be regarded as the most important chess games of the year because they carry the most prestigous title in chess and logically the most prize money. No tournament victories can match this in prestige or prize money and it is hard to imagine any chess player who would state that he would rather have tournment victories than win this world title match. Criticisms about the ratings of the participants do not lead anywhere. Toplaov has made this kind of remark in the past when he held a bigger rating points lead over Krmanik and commented that kramnik was not strong enough to deserve a match against him. He lost the match to Kramnik and could not translate his rating points lead into sufficient winning match games: losing 3 rated games and winning 2. It is probable that he retains an unshakeable belief that he was and is the best chess player in the world. It is possible that this conviction led him to believe his 3 classical and 2 rapid chess game defeats to Kramnik were due to Kramniks illegal use of a computer running chess software during these games. It is obviously sometimes extremely difficult to accept defeat in chess and players have there own way of rationalising it. Topalov will soon have a chance to translate his rating superiority over Kamsky in a match and his chess results will be more important than his comments. For lovers of controversy there is the increasing possibility of another massive split looming in the chess world. I do not think there is any realistic chance of either Kramnik or Anand accepting Topalov as their next challenger. Whoever wins will regard themselves as the undisputed WCC and although they are not saying anything now, very possibly will not accept the challenge from a player on the basis of a single match win against the no 16 rated player in the world. They (Kramnik/Anand ) will also doubtless point out that they never agreed or were consulted by FIDE on this radical late change to give Topalov an opportunity. So perhaps we should view Topalovs comments as the first round in this inevitable trench warfare

It would appear to me that Topalov's comments were tongue-in-cheek, given all this fuss over who is #1 on any day. His immediate interest is in his Match with Kamsky, which, if he wins, he will play the winner of Anand-Kramnik; obviously he is interested in who his opponent may be.

"It would appear to me that Topalov's comments were tongue-in-cheek"

Of course. What you didn't seem to realize is that all the responses from Clubfoot, dimi, mishanp, etc., were tongue-in-cheek as well.

"It would appear to me that Topalov's comments were tongue-in-cheek"

Oh yeah, there's no doubt about it. Topalov is practically addicted to irony! Just turn everything he says upside down and the truth shakes out. His accusations of cheating against Kramnik, for example...uh...hmmm...

"A famous Russian mathematician Kolmogorov said once "every mathematician believes he is a head over all others. The reason why they don't say this in public, is because they are intelligent persons." -Posted by: Vlad Kosulin at September 18, 2008 13:25
..

During Satlin's terror years of 1930s Kolomogorov was vocal in the political persecution of his former teacher acad. Nikolai Luzin as "as an enemy under the mask of a Soviet citizen".

"...if he wins he will play the winner of Anand-Kramnik..." Ah if only it were so simple....

A direct quote from clubfoot: "The point was...to criticize."

Since any quote is "by definition" in context, does it really matter that the "not" is omitted?

I did not say "in context" but "from context". And anyhow your ellipsis indicates that you have omitted a segment of the quote. You can observe this on book covers everywhere:

"I couldn't put it down..."

Where often the actual quote was

"I couldn't put it down fast enough."

...and this was not the case with VK's delivery of Topalov's comments. However much clarification may be added a posteriori, a quote cited from an interview is from the context of that interview. The willy nilly extraction of ideas from written work and grafting upon them new meanings is an example of out-of-context manipulation (and not always a bad thing either). But one's insistence that they know the mind of a speaker, in this case Topalov -- that's the reader's thing and not a contextual issue.

Deliberate misquoting is another matter...

More Bulgarian entertainment! http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4927

While I'm quite looking forward to a Kamsky-Topalov match it's hard not to want things to fall through on account of the way Topalov and co. conduct themselves. Just in that one short letter from the president of the Bulgarian Chess Federation (which in general terms is hard not to agree with) we have:

1) "The decision taken at the PB meeting in Tallinn in 2007 was welcomed by everyone expecting the end of the schism in the chess family." Er, no - Topalov getting a match with the World Cup winner to qualify for a title challenge certainly wasn't welcomed by everyone. Anand-Kramnik ends the schism.

2)"the other semi final match between GM Kramnik and GM Anand". This match is not a "semi final", not even for FIDE - e.g.("For the first cycle of 2008/9, the two players who lose the World Championship (ie. Kramnik or Anand) and Challenger matches (Topalov or the World Cup 2007 winner)...")

3) "The Bulgarian chess player who is no. 1 in the current rank list..." - no, officially he's not, not that it would have any significance in the current situation with players bunched together at the top.

4) "...cannot be eliminated from the competition for the world championship." There's no reason he deserves this match more than any of the other players at the top of the rankings.

Anyway, it's good to have something to keep us busy until the World Championship :)

Two thoughts immediately come to mind:

1. If it wasn't for the trunk filled with money (whose money is it anyway? Mtel's? Bulgaria's? Raised from multiple different sponsors each time? Tell me if you know) that this guy carried around, would any top level chess chess tournament want to deal with him? It seems smarter to say: "We will take our chances with the other 8 top-level GMs, because your men, Mr. Danailov, cause a stink nearly everywhere they go."

2. Taking the idiotic statements, like the ones misha mentions above, aside, isn't it good to have somebody speaking out on behalf of chess grandmasters, when FIDE's behavior is less than satisfactory? This organization has a lot of problems in its behavior and rarely communicates an explanation for its actions. If they do something good, it's often an under-the-table surprise suddenly sprung upon everybody. If they screw something up, we have to conjecture and guess that it even happened-got changed-cancelled.

I agree FIDE deserve to be taken to task, and this whole situation is beginning to look almost identical to FIDE's inability to arrange a match with Kasparov. That was when Kasparov was far and away the biggest draw in chess, so you wonder what the chances are now with Topalov and Kamsky.

Still, Danailov's scheming's gone from the sublime to the ridiculous (or maybe the other way around) this time!

http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4927

"Early Saturday morning there was a quick reaction by the Bulgarian Chess Federation members and Silvio Danailov himself. They said, "The text of the letter in the Bulgarian news agencies is a wrong translation of the original that we have sent them." After a while, the original of the letter of the Kamsky-Topalov match arrived by email to the Chessdom editors.
The wrong text (translation of which you can find here) continues to be spread through the Bgnes news agency. The Bulgarian Chess Federation members specified, "Of course we did not call the match between Kramnik and Anand semi final, as it was published in Bulgarian media. This would be total disrespect to the match itself."

Of course Danailov & his lackeys would never even dream of being disrespectful to Kramnik and Anand. And it's easy to see how someone might mis-translate "the other match for the world championship" as "the other semi-final match" :) It's still wrong, of course, as it's not the "other" match, but the only match.

And I think it's also important that in both situations FIDE did little to communicate to the public and to the match participants the problems they were having. Everything both happens and falls through under the table.

Not only would a public announcement make FIDE seem like a higher-rate organization, but it can help acquire an alternate sponsor.