[Preview: Once again it's do or die for Vladimir Kramnik. Down 6-4 in a 12-game match, he'll have to beat Anand with black for the first time ever and win with black for the first time period in two years to live to play game 12 on Friday. Of course he wasn't playing a world championship elimination game in all those other games with black. Benoni, as against Leko in 04 in a similar situation? Dutch? Kramnik's inexperience in various sharp lines against 1.d4 will be matched by Anand's since Vishy is normally a 1.e4 guy. Preparation means less than nerves in most of these cases.
Lasker, Kasparov, and Kramnik himself have won must-win final games in world championship matches, all with white. In 1958, Smyslov beat Botvinnik with black in an elimination game only to give up the clinching draw the next day. I think that was the only must-win world championship win with black in the modern era. Other potentially relevant stat: Karpov beat Kasparov three games in a row toward the end of their 1986 match.]
It's over! With a 24-move draw in a Najdorf Sicilian (!), Anand defeated Vladimir Kramnik 6.5-4.5 to retain his world championship title. In hindsight it's easy to say that it was brilliant of Anand to play 1.e4 and make sure such a critical game took place in positions he was far more comfortable with than Kramnik. (Who wasn't exactly going to play the Petroff.) The opposite would have occurred in, say, a Benoni.
Anand was never in any danger and after Kramnik's implausible 12..exf5 White was the one looking for advantage. Peter Svidler came on ICC Chess.FM to join me and Jan Gustafsson for a while, which was great. (He was scheduled to commentate for all of game 12, so it was nice to get him on today.) His dismal opinion of Kramnik's chances was soon confirmed on the board. Peter also let us know he had spicy tikka with, umm, buckwheat for dinner, which is a nice homage if it doesn't kill him.
Comments from Garry Kasparov
Game 11: "A difficult position for Kramnik to be in after 1.e4. Final games like this have their own logic so you cannot compare it to his attempts to play the Sicilian in 2004. 12..f5 was suspect, not something I would have considered. That's what can happen when you are in openings that aren't yours. You want to play by instinct but they are not used to these positions and this leads to poor decisions. After the Berlin and the Petroff, playing a Rauzer is a shock to the system. He looked very uncomfortable, but of course the match situation was close to impossible. The final position was unpleasant for Black and this Kramnik understands."
Match in general: "It was a very well-played match by Vishy. Except for the loss of concentration in the 10th game, he played consistently and managed to enforce his style. His choice to open with 1.d4 was excellent. He reached playable positions with life in them so he could make Kramnik work at the board. Anand outprepared Kramnik completely. In this way it reminded me of my match with Kramnik in London 2000. Like I was then, Kramnik may have been very well prepared for this match but we never saw it. I didn't expect the Berlin and ended up fighting on Kramnik's preferred terrain.
[In this match] Kramnik did not expect tough, sharp challenges with white and this was the key for Anand. He kicked some sand in Kramnik's face and hit Kramnik's weakness: his conservative approach to the game itself. Suddenly Kramnik had to fight in these sharp positions and he wasn't able to do it. This result ends the illusion that Kramnik is a great match player. London was a unique occurrence and I still stand with Leonid Yudasin as the only players Kramnik has ever beaten in a match! Kramnik now has some work to do. His overly-defensive play seems to represent a general decline in strength.
A great result for Anand and for chess. Vishy deserved the win in every way and I'm very happy for him. It will not be easy for the younger generation to push him aside."
Interesting about Kramnik's play, as Kramnik just had this to say in the press conference: "I am eager to improve. I will make serious changes to my preparation for tournaments and even to my play. It was a harsh lesson, but I will work." These top guys can just sense this stuff. As in, "not just outprepared, not just bad luck, but something is wrong." Anyway, great to hear Big Vlad rededicate right off the bat.
Of course we'd be calling Vishy a dunce for allowing a Sicilian had he somehow walked into a nice piece of Kramnik preparation, but the chances for that were very low since Anand doesn't usually play the Rauzer. Kasparov joked after the game that not only has 1.d4 taken over the world championship matches, but 1.e4 is now just used as a drawing weapon! The last person to play 1.e4 in a WCh match was Kramnik, who used it exclusively against Leko. The last Sicilian in a WCh match was, drumroll please, the 18th and final game of the Kasparov-Anand match in 1995! (And also in games 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17, and 18 of that match. For some real trivia, the Sicilian's first world championship appearance was Lasker's use of it twice against Schlechter in 1910. Dragon and Pelikan!) Kramnik went for a sideline with 7..Qc7 to avoid any more nasty Anand prep. Kamsky is just one player who has recently gone for the 8.Bxf6 response, though 9.f5 is definitely a bit off the reservation. Radjabov just tried it against Grischuk in Sochi and Anand is much more likely to be up to date with the ins and outs of such positions than Kramnik, who doesn't play e4 or the Sicilian anymore.
Kramnik then used a good chunk of time to play the startling 12..exf5, which was condemned by Gustafsson and Svidler at the time and by Kasparov after the game. Keeping the tension and developing normally with 12..Bd7 was expected. As Kasparov put it, "that's what happens when you are in openings that aren't yours. You want to play by instinct but they are not used to these positions and this leads to poor decisions."
Anand spent a long time, over 20 minutes, on the curious response 13.Qe3. In my book that's saying it's good even if the point isn't clear. But it keeps the bishop on h6 unless Black plays ..h5 first, after which he can't castle kingside. Gustafsson and Svidler both decided they liked the move quite a bit after a while. It also invites complications after 13..Be6 14.Qb6 that look favorable for White. We spent a long time on that one, as did Kramnik, according to Dennis Monokroussos's summary of the press conference.
We were expecting 14.Nd2 but Anand went for the direct route with 14.Rd5. It appears 15..Rg8 is the only move to avoid serious trouble for Black, but it again disrupted Black's development. Anand then showed his typical fearlessness in optically scary lines by calmly swapping on c8 and playing 20.Kb1, tucking his king away nicely. Bishop sacs on b2 don't work at all and the black king is a mess. The game itself won't get much attention because the result was all-important, but looking at it again it really was a very well-handled affair by Vishy. Every little queen move had an annoying point and Black's pieces and king could never get organized. Of course playing with draw odds doesn't hurt!
Great match and great victory for Anand. Congratulations! Despite my recognition of Mexico 2007 as a de facto and de jure world championship, there was certainly an extra vibe with Kramnik as the last match champion. Having every WCh loose end wrapped up at long last (including Fischer's death for the real nutters) is a very good feeling.
I won't ruin the warm fuzzies with thoughts about Ilyumzhinov still being in charge and the matches still only being 12-games long and the elimination of the candidates matches. No word on Topalov-Kamsky other than that Topalov is now playing on the Bulgarian Olympiad team, something that would almost certainly not have happened were there any positive news about the match happening in November.
Anand and t-shirt photos from Macauley, in Bonn for ICC Chess.FM.
> he'll have to beat Anand with black for the >first time ever and win with black for the first >time period in two years
Anything may happen but it depends on Anand not on what Kramnik can or cannot do.
Kramnik commented g10 "It was a pleasant surprise; I didn't do anything special and then the position was basically winning"
Dear God,
Please let Vlady win the next two; in great battling games where it's impossible to find the losing move. Then I promise to try to find a bright side of Garry, to stop making fun of other posters, and to eat my vegetables.
God bless Vlady, and Vishy, and Mig, and Clubfoot, and acirce, and rdh, and russianbear, and all the other posters, and Susan. And God bless Eric's books, every last one of them. And God bless even Nigel and even Silvio and Veselin.
Amen.
I'm thinking it will be a war of nerves situation. Surely what happened in the last game scored more than just a point for Kramnik.
Greg, is the situation really so pitiable for Kramnik...?
Do you think Kramnik can be so ungracious as to leave you eating vegetables...?
Time for Anand to surprise Kramnik with 1.e4?
Tough decision for Anand: Deviate from his usual style and go for some especially drawish line?
Kramnik is sometimes able to find and build on tiny advantages in what to most look like simple, about equal positions.
Let's set up the pieces on the side table, lean back and enjoy the show.
Oh God, your grace is new every morning. This is a new day and a new game. Please be with Anand. Amen.
I would like to know what's the "rating performance" of Anand and Kramnik after 6.0 - 4.0 score in this WCC match. I know I can get the liverating here at http://chess.liverating.org/ where Anand's current live rating is 2791 (jointly topping the list with Topalov) and Kramnik's 2764.
I'm sure Anand will be kind enough to ensure greg koster does not have to eat his vegetables. A simple and straightforward draw in the Petroff should do the trick.
"In 1958, Smyslov beat Botvinnik with black in an elimination game only to give up the clinching draw the next day. I think that was the only must-win world championship win with black in the modern era."
Excuse me, have you already forgotten KRAMNIK-Leko?
Dear God/Allah/Jehovah,
Please do not intervene in this A-K match. Thine hath made brains and hands for playing chess and that ought to be sufficient for thine children. Let thine efforts, oh father God,be directed at more pressing problems in the world- earthquake in Pakistan, hungry people in Africa, oppressed monks in Burma, my libido/sex mismatch etc. And especially for the last request, we beseech thee in eager anticipation of a favourable response. Amen.
''my libido/sex mismatch''
sorry that should read 'amorous supply/demand imbalance'.
I will grant a smashing victory unto Anand, and confirm him among the ranks of the Righteous. Amen.
"Excuse me, have you already forgotten KRAMNIK-Leko?"
excuse me, Mig was talking about winning with BLACK.
GeneM, many thanks for going through my post Armageddon / "draw-odds" games in a previous forum.
I fully agree with you on Armageddon bidding for all the situations, except, IMHO, in such a World Championship Match, where the Title Holder has not been made to qualify through a ‘Cycle’, not even a very short one, and directly defends his Title in a Match against a Challenger. Here, I feel that a preset colour assignment, i.e., Black for the Champion along with a Pre-determined time allocation (and, yes, you are again right, 5:4 is not sacrosanct, it may be 5.5:3.5 or 6:3 or any other combination preferred by majority of grandmasters in time bidding Armageddons and decided at the outset of the Cycle, along with the other rules, regulations and conditions).
SPAM follows (Please, please don’t ban me!):
Sorry for a diversion! And for bringing up one of my pet subjects, i.e., the privileges of a World Champion and Draw Odds in a World Championship Match.
Whoever wins the current WC match, there is no doubt that he will be the Absolute world match Champion. And as a World Match Champion, he would be absolutely deserving one very huge privilege, i.e., he would be spared the rigors of qualifying through a grueling and uncertain Cycle. This is indeed a great privilege, but thoroughly deserved.
But, I still hanker for one very minute privilege for the World Champion. In the future World Championship Matches, and I am really afraid that there may be none, the World Champion should be given the "DRAW ODDS' in the ARMAGEDDON Blitz Game, i.e., Black pieces with 4 minutes (or whatever was decided in the regulations for the Cycle) for the game as against the Challenger having White pieces and 5 minutes (or some orher preset time allocation) with the Champion retaining his title in case Armageddon ends in a Draw.
The reason I say so, is - imagine if in a future match two Draw Specialists (such as Kramnik and Leko) meet, and all the twelve regular games at Classical time control, all four Rapid games and the two Blitz games end in DRAW, and the Challenger thereafter draws the Black Colour for the Armageddon game, draws that game and thus wrests the title. Wouldn't it be a travesty of justice if a Challenger defeats a World champion in a Title Match, without actually beating him in a single game. As if the Champion forfeited the match.
I agree, that such a possibility is remote, but it is indeed theoretically possible. We can only pray and wish that we may be spared such a monstrosity.
I reckon it will be 1.e4. Vishy will rely on his more familiar repertoire when facing something unusual. I would presume most of Vlads prep against 1.e4 concentrated on drawing lines for Black so Vishy would not fear Vlad prep'd to the gills in some Berlin equivalent. He would also hope that Vlad has been concentrating on preparing against 1.d4 for this game rather than 1.e4. So Vlad's options against 1.e4 - Sicialian etc would be very familiar to Vishy. He cant play Petroff/Berlin etc so what's to try. Spanish I think.......
So
1.e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bb5
Anand is currently at 0.60, so he is performing 72 points above his opponent's rating. Kramnik is currently at 0.40, so he is performing 72 points below his opponent's rating. Anand's performance rating is 2844 and Kramnik's performance rating is 2711. See: http://www.fide.com/info/handbook?id=75&view=article
I expect a draw.
If Vishy plays 1. e4 I have no doubt Kramnik'll play a Sicilian; but I'd more likely expect him to play d4 and head for a sterile Exchange Variation, or maybe the Bxf6 [Moscow variation] line he didn't opt for in game 9.
It really is a most interesting situation. Will we see a repeat of Kasparov-Karpov where Karpov, too eager to draw, made a few too many little concessions and was ground down? Of course he was playing black then. I vote for e4, for one thing a little surprise, for another it must be easier for Kramnik to surprise Anand with some sideline against d4 than with e4. If Anand really wants a draw with e4 I am sure he can get it against any variation. He can play the Anti-Marshall, Rossolimo, Bb5+, mainline Caro-Kann to pre-empt any sharp games. Although here's an idea: Schliemann Ruy Lopez!Play the Scotch and a drawish line of it Vishy...
>I agree, that such a possibility is remote, but >it is indeed theoretically possible. We can only >pray and wish that we may be spared such a >monstrosity.
A lot of religious freaks on Mig's blog this morning. And we haven't seen yet the counter-prayers of Annad's fans as "krishna".
Now I 'wish' to replace 'pray' by 'hope' and hope that Ovidiu may refrain from classifying me a religious freak.
Brian, actually the game will be
1. e4 draw? e5
2. Nf3 draw? Nc6
3. Bb5 draw? f5
etc.
D
Sorry for a diversion! And for bringing up one of my pet subjects, i.e., the privileges of a World Champion and Draw Odds in a World Championship Match.
Whoever wins the current WC match, there is no doubt that he will be the Absolute world match Champion. And as a World Match Champion, he would be absolutely deserving one very huge privilege, i.e., he would be spared the rigors of qualifying through a grueling and uncertain Cycle. This is indeed a great privilege, but thoroughly deserved.
But, I still hanker for one very minute privilege for the World Champion. In the future World Championship Matches, and I am really afraid that there may be none, the World Champion should be given the "DRAW ODDS' in the ARMAGEDDON Blitz Game, i.e., Black pieces with 4 minutes (or whatever was decided in the regulations for the Cycle) for the game as against the Challenger having White pieces and 5 minutes (or some orher preset time allocation) with the Champion retaining his title in case Armageddon ends in a Draw.
The reason I say so, is - imagine if in a future match two Draw Specialists (such as Kramnik and Leko) meet, and all the twelve regular games at Classical time control, all four Rapid games and the two Blitz games end in DRAW, and the Challenger thereafter draws the Black Colour for the Armageddon game, draws that game and thus wrests the title. Wouldn't it be a travesty of justice if a Challenger defeats a World champion in a Title Match, without actually beating him in a single game. As if the Champion forfeited the match.
I agree, that such a possibility is remote, but it is indeed theoretically possible. We can only wish and hope that we may be spared such a monstrosity.
It's not in Vishy's style to play for a draw from the onset. An active position favors him and he will continue to pursue such lines. I predict a draw will ensue after Vishy presses Vlad with white.
Oops!!
Really sorry!
Meant to spam some other site ... please forgive me, guys
e4 c5
someones prayers answered!
trivia question: when was the Najdorf last played in a world championship match before this game?
Anand-Kasparov game9?
This opening should favor the Vish. Kramnik is given the chance to fight, which is good. But this kind of game is Vishy's to win. Should be exciting!
Why is anand taking so long for move 10? Is 9....Qc5 a novelty?
Nope. 10. Qd3 is the usual move now.
Thank you Paul...
Wonder why anand is taking so long...
Probably trying to remember his analyses and guessing where Kramnik might have a TN.
Intriguing, Kramnik has won the opening duel by forcing it into unbalanced channels but countering that is Vishy's vast "feel" for such positions. As long as Vishy doesen't choke, he should win this.
After Move 10. Susan Polgar's comments "In my opinion, Black has already equalized. Black has a good presence in the center and the Bishop pair. White's pieces are not optimally coordinated. I think Black has a comfortable position."
For all we know, Vishy may have prepared this for some obscure GM in a Bundesliga game a decade ago - trying to remember his analysis from then ;-)
Kramnik would better have prepared a strong novelty here, statistics give this variation as very advantageous for White : 90% cf. chessok.com
But I think that statistics is based on very few games...
I don't claim to be a very strong player, but black doesn't look very good to me here (move 12). The bishop pair doesn't have much activity, he can't castle on either side - it just looks really messy.
Following Kavalek-Chandler Bundesliga 82/83 for the most part.
This game is reminiscent of the last game of the Short-Karpov match. Karpov needed a win and played the Sicilian Richter-Rauzer..and lost. A player with a largely positional style adopting a counterattacking defence in a must-win situation. I'd be very surprised if Kramnik didn't lose today but then he had little choice but to go for it. Fascinating game in prospect.
exf5 doesent seem to make sense. A Najdorf Sicilian player would have the "feel" not to do it. But perhaps there is some deep idea which this patzer can't see?
Just saw the moves. Kramnik is no wuss. Go Kramnik!
>I don't claim to be a very strong player, but black doesn't look very good to me here (move 12). The bishop pair doesn't have much activity,
he can't castle on either side - it just looks really messy >
That's the Sicilian Defense, and sometimes Black does lose fast precisely because of the sort of logical-positional
reasons you gave...however it also leads to postions so chaotic and complicated that no human player can fully see through and thus it gives equal (random) chances to a "winning on spot" shots.
exf5 is a very ballsy move - giving scope to the bishops.Anand is favorite but Kramnik will go down fighting.....
Before Black's 13th move.
Susan, Malcolm, Rybka at chessok and Fritz at chesscube are all giving ugly lines beginning with 13...fxe4, where the queens come off. But why not 13...f4, which develops the Bc8 and keeps the queens on?
tjallen, then White permanently has the d5 square.
With no tension in the center, white will develop the bishop, get the rook into the game and black will be simply lost because of enormous flaws in the structure and the king stuck in the center.
playjunior - thanks!
Unfortunately for Kram the white knights look very good here - simply Nd2-c4 abd plonking the other knight on d5 looks very strong and natural.....
After Bg7 this is a slam dunk for Anand Kram will be lucky to draw....
I think Anand is going for the win!! The match I mean, not the game... :-(
Rd5 looks weak, playing into Kramnik's game, 14.Rd5 Qe7 15.Nd4 Nxd4 16.Qxd4 Be6 17.Rxd6 fxe4 18.Nxe4 0-0..and Black is safe, has files for his Rooks, and his Bishops will soon take aim on white castling
I don't have a comp, but I like Anand's position after he played 15. Qg3. Looks like Krammy will have to play 15...Bh6+ now, unless there is a hidden brilliant alternative. Vishy is just a lot more comfortable in these positions.
It's so easy when we have a Rybka at hand.
Well maybe not. Susan Polgar gives some interesting lines with 15...Rg8. I've got to head off to work so I'll miss the rest of the game. (boo hoo!) Wish I had the time to really look into the possible lines.
Not sure that the position is all comfortable for white.
The d5 square is better for the knight than the rook.
His pieces are not well coordinated.
Exchanging the Queens at d6 will release Black's bishop pair.
Black is in an unpleasant position it should be over fairly soon
Why didn't Anand go 16.Qh4.
LOL thanks Andy, and do let us know when your shuttle enters the earth's atmosphere.
Susan Polgar giving =+ in a few variations after 15____Rg8. Well we're getting the exciting game anyway. Does Vishy go into an ending against Vlad with 2 Bishops ......
>Why didn't Anand go 16.Qh4 ?
He did not see it, both make mistakes. Kramnik fxe4 ?! instead Be6 failed to take advantage of 16.Qf4...Better turn Rybka-3200 off, it makes them both look as patzers and this kills the fun
A probable finish is 20 ..Qe1+ 21 Nc1 Ne7 ( or Qb4 22 Qxb4) 22 Qd2 draw as the queens are coming off
@Ovidiu
Yeah, exactly...
Looks like Vishy handled the complications decently.
After 24 Rf2 I think the match iv over. It's either a win or draw for white. Plus Kramnik is shorter than Anand on time (about 15 minutes shorter, and thinking)
I think 24.Rd7 looked better.
time to celebrate Vishy's Match victory!
... as Susan also suggests.
Let's not celebrate in each others face, especially prematurely.
Congratulations Vishy! A little bit of excitement at the end but he prevailed. I think he could have played on (in a normal game) with good chances of winning in the end.
Draw agreed!
Draw! Kramnik showed his class in game 10, just making us appreciate even better Anand's win.
It was very decent, polite, game. The kind which Susan likes to comment.
Nothing terrible happened, it was as if played in a park between two old gentlemen who agreed before that no matter who wins they both get the same amount of money and get to drink the same amount of beer afterwards.
Well like I said should be over fairly soon and it was - seems like you were the one in outer space! Congrats to Anand on retaining the WCC
Congrats to Anand. Looking forward to his future match with Gata Kramnik!
Draw agreed. And Anand becomes the classical world champion #15! Good job by him! I admit I have questioned him, his mental toughness, and his commitment to playing a match on such a level, but I have to admit, he has erased all doubts now. He definitely showed he deserves to be the classical champ in this match.
If this is not worth a post I don't know what is! Long live Anand, a worthy WC truly to be respected! Universal in his play, enterprising in his attitude, somebody to take his place among the pantheon of superlatively gifted players comprising the likes of Capa, Alekhine, Euwe, Botvinnik, Tal, Smyslov, Petrosian, Spassky, Fischer, Karpov and Kasparov. Way to go man, I am truly in awe of your achievements..
Hail Anand!!! The 15th World Champion!!!!
Kramink lost the championship crown in the same lame, fightless way he had held it since 2002. A lackluster, uninspired reign by a supremely talented player. Talent wasted by fear.
Congrats to Anand.Great day for India.Many more will be inspired to take up chess.
Congratulations to Anand.
Have to hand it to him, playing sharp lines through out even when he was clearly in the lead and no need to take risks
Respect for Kramnink for second half of the match, he played at his level. Too bad it took him 6 games to get
to form. This is the case where a 20/24 game match.
Special respect for Kramnik for acting sportsmanly while being behind (i.e did not start any off the board scandals or snide comments).
Before the match I had small disrespect for Kramnik when he said those things about lending the crown to Anand. However, his behavior in this match has been gentlemanly, to the point of acknowledging Anand's strenghth in opening night conference.
.... I was hoping to see this game played out to the end. :( But I understand both players' reasons for agreeing to the draw.
Okay so what is next? Does Anand play the winner of Topo-Kamsky? Or maybe that match doesn't ever happen - then what? The winner of the next cycle? (Carlson?)
"Before the match I had small disrespect for Kramnik when he said those things about lending the crown to Anand. However, his behavior in this match has been gentlemanly, to the point of acknowledging Anand's strenghth in opening night conference."
just wait a couple of days. i bet Kramnik is going to say that he was just outprepared.
Clubfoot - time to give Andy his props. Nice call Andy.
Congratulations anand !!! We are all proud of you.
I don't think Kramnik will make any excuses at all. This guys are classy, both of them.
>Kramink lost the championship crown in the same >lame, fightless way he had held it since 2002
“Le style est l’homme meme”
As expected Anand easily defended the title of the World Champion.He is very strong,but also he was a bit lucky with his rival.Big name,big ego,but weak play.That´s Drawnik.One of the most pale players since Khalifman to have the right to call himself a Champion,world record(47 games without a single win in a rated game!,a player who never quialified from a cycle,but played 4 matches for WC(also a record!).Extremely cinycal,Drawnik openly said that he doesn´t care about the opinion of the chess fans!Even after Mexico 07 Drawnik, more arrogant than ever, still stated he didnot lose his title!And he didnot miss the chance to defend his name-he finished the match with a draw offer!Shame!!
Congratulations to Viswanathan Anand! 15th World Champion indeed. Kramnik was outprepared and outplayed in the first half of the match, and then again in the last game. Too bad, it could have been an even better match. Certainly hope that Gata Kamsky defeats Veselin Topalov, but that's a tall order, for #24 in world to beat #2.
Never again will naysayers (Read Mig) will be able to say that Anand is not desrevedly the World Champion. And I say that hopefully, because there may always be someone who might bring out a technical tradition that will rob Anand the pure pleasure of his title.
Look at the guy! He has won all that was thrown at him: knockout, tournament, and a MATCH! The only real reason Anand did not play a match for the title until now was because he threw his weight in Fide's lot. When Kasparov was looking for an opponent (and Shirov match did not come through), he first asked Anand but Anand could not agree as he was contractually committed to Fide. Thus Kramnik got the chance to play despite having lost every single opportunity for the WC contention. Garry probably made a mistake in underestimating Kramnik and lost it (more becasue of his bashing his ego and head at the Berlin Wall) and Kramnik could forever claim that he was the righful WC and even bragged that he had loaned his crown to Anand (of course, that may just be psychological play).
The favors being curried to Kramnik continued as he was given a chance to play Anand in this match. But that worked finally in Anand's favor as he got his first chance to win a match for his crown and silence his critics (hopefully forever).
So here it is: Anand defeated Kramnik in a match play who defeated Kasparov in a match play.
Now that this goal is finally achieved, hopefully we will see many more masterpieces from Anand. My bet is that he will try to dominate the chess scene like Kasparov did as his final goal in his chess career.
Last but not least, for Kramnik, there is no disgrace. He showed his mettle by making Anand sweat more than a little. I think his only folly was that he was slow to wake up. Maybe he took naysayers more seriously than he should have. Or may be he thought that Anand would crumble psychologically (as with Kasparov when Kramink watched closely as his second). Whatever it is, it will be a shame if Kramnik retires.
Rejoice, all chess fans for an excellent match that these two greats gave to us.
Regards,
SJ
Read Mig's comments after Game 6 - "a painter paints". He fights, just not in a way that entertains you.
Great moment in life for Anand. He has been dreaming of it since he took up chess.
There is success.
Also, congratulations to the millions Indian chess fans.
You have your champion now. No one can dispute it now :-).
Enjoy.
Just don't start acting cocky and saying disrespecting words to others. You might jinx him :-) for the 2009 match,
>Kramink lost the championship crown in the same lame, fightless way...
Which game in this match, other than the 1st, could you call "fightless"?
!!! So Vishy lives upto his name (Viswanathan =
Lord of the universe, anand = joy)!!!
congratulations once again.
Perhaps we can finally bury the myth that Kramnik's strength was in match play. Since 2000, his record in classical games is a whopping +1 in match play. If you include his entire career, it is a negative score. He was, of course, a very good match player—but only because he was a very good chess player, not because he had a unique skill at matches that others at his level did not have.
"When Kasparov was looking for an opponent (and Shirov match did not come through), he first asked Anand but Anand could not agree as he was contractually committed to Fide."
I believe the actual reason Anand did not play Kasparov in 2000 was the flakiness of Kasparov's money guarantees. Anand had earlier agreed to a match with Kasparov, with sponsors seemingly in the bag (arranged by Kasparov), spent months preparing for it and the match fell through. Anand lost the money he spent on his seconds. Which is why he asked for stronger guarantees which Kasparov was unable to provide. I think Anand decided to stick with FIDE from that point onwards, because at least the FIDE title was not subject to the whim of one person.
Looks like ChessVibes is the new DailyDirt. The old lunatic posts have dried up here. Here is a classic from ChessVibes post on G/11.
# Andreas on 29 October 2008 19:00 PM
Anand has been sponsored by AMD http://www.amd.com
I don’t know if AMD has provided Anand with computer resources,
but my guess is that they have. In hat case Anand could have had
access to 1000 computers somewhere via the Internet, running
Rybka engines on each computer. He could then send hundreds
of thousands of lines from a big database with games for the super
computer cluster to analyse for him. Then over a period of several
months Anand would only have to memorize all this computer
analysis. It seems reasonable that this indeed happend.
Kramnik on the other hand probably only had a few computers to
work with in his home.
I think that as Bobby Fischer put it “The old [classical] chess is dead,
its played out”. See, Anand had a novelty in so many lines that he
must have prepared many many thousands of lines and to do that
you need workhorse computer power and AMD has probably provided
that. A big hall with hundreds or thousands of computers devoted to
Anands preparation for the match.
How anyone could not really appreciate Kramnik after his performance at the press conference would be beyond me. That he can crack wise after losing the WCC speaks volumes for his character.
He did put to rest any retirement rumors. In particular, he felt that while the match was a harsh lesson for him, it was a good one and he would learn and improve from it. He allowed that he was going to have to change his prepartion methods, and perhaps his playing style as well(!) He also stated that he hopes he will have a chance to fight for the world title again.
When asked about how he could come out day after day and be such a good sport in the press conferences given the match situation, he told us his motto in life, "You are responsible for the quality of your work, but not the results." Meaning, I guess, that if you try your best, what happens happens.
Anyway, I was routing for Anand, but was very taken with Kramnik's persona at the press confs. He seems like a truly good guy.
BTW, Vishy said his plans for the evening were to kick back with his peeps and listen to Coldplay (!)
Very nice press conference. Kramnik was graceful in defeat and Anand was humble in victory. Nice match overall..
Congratulations to Vishy Anand, truly a worthy World Champion.
OK guys,finally the saga of the Toilet Champion Hero , Mr.Kramnik, finished forever.No more privilegios,no more gifts,no more KGB help,no more toilets , he is done ! Finally there is some justise in life. Everybody could see his real power withoot external help,he was playing like a child. The funny thing was that Vishy,who was clear last in Bilbao just a month ago, without single win,beet the Toilet Hero so easy. This can mean only one thing,he was playing againts very week player.
"You are responsible for the quality of your work, but not the results."
oh boy! Kramnik did do his homework about the Indian! Thats a straight quote from the Hindu religious scripture, Gita, which basically proclaims "Karmanney Wadhika Rastu, Maa Faleshu Kadachana" - roughly translated from Sanskrit, that means "keep your mind on the work, not the hope for result"
Perhaps we can finally bury the myth that Kramnik's strength was in match play...[that] he had a unique skill at matches that others at his level did not have.
He did have an unique skill ( well, along with Leko) which needed an excuse and rationalization to make it palatable.
That was why the mystifying "yes it is draw but because his style and openings are for match-play" was offered so often.
Congratulations to Vishy! I'm happy for his many fans--especially our Indian Daily Dirt friends, who justly take great pride in their national hero.
Vishy, if it comes to a match with Topa, please crush him mercilessly.
"You are responsible for the quality of your work, but not the results."
the results speak loudly about the quality of your preparation and work
"You are responsible for the quality of your work, but not the results."
Karmink's quote of the basic tenet of Hindu philosphy suggests the extent of his prep. Perhaps he was looking at non-chess aspects in understaning the very essence of Anand's strength!
"KGB help"? "toilets"? Sounds like something a bitter Topalov fan would say. Like I wrote in an earlier entry, Kramnik is a 3-time classical world champion. He can afford to lose a WC match and not be too disappointed with his career. And note Kramnik has lost while retaining his dignity, which is a concept that maybe is not familiar to some of the Topalov fans.
Kramnik is a 3 time world champ; Topalov has never been a champ. Maybe you may want to consider that when you speak of "justice". There indeed IS justice in life and part of that is the fact that the guy who behaved like a total jerk in Elista in 2006 also ended up being inferior to Kramnik over the chess board.
>Karmink's quote of the basic tenet of Hindu philosphy suggests the extent of his prep.
> Perhaps he was looking at non-chess aspects in understaning the very essence
> of Anand's strength!
Well, he could just have invested that time in checking a couple lines in the Meran instead :-)
Thanks to Kramnik and Anand for a match played "as gentlemen". To say that Kramnik lost without a fight is clueless and, to be honest, rude. The last three games were all tough fights, and Anand's play in Game 11 was championship stuff.
You don't beat that stuff, not with Black.
The match was interesting, and the games well played in all. This was the most interesting set of games in a WC match since 1995, if not 1990.
Congratulations Anand. Kramnik, take solace in the fact that your check is just as fat.
Where can we see the Press conference?
Finally, chess world is unified...
Totally apropos of nothing here. Did anyone catch this a week or two ago?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/crosswords/chess/19chess.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Seconds:
Did Anand's seconds finally come out at the press conference?
It will be interesting to know who contributed to what. Especially the Bb7.
Also, intersting will be how much money is paid to the seconds
And finally, did Carlsen really work with Anand?
VK tasted the spice Mexican tacos and the spice Indian curry. Let that gentleman qualify next time to play for the title. Vishy well done , chess has finally made justice to you. You are the most complete chess player of the history, you have world championized all the existent chess cathegories, just get Random960 to conclude the chapter. Greetings to Russianbear.
Congratulations to Vishy!
Perhaps that article that Theorist linked to is a little silly, given that a historical and exciting world championship match has just finished, but I thought the article was interesting nevetheless. I have a feeling Mig might like it.
Just read the press conference summary provided by Dennis M ChessMind blog.
http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/anand-kramnik_world_championship_2008_-_new!/
Anand and Kramnik playing styles and opening choices may be contrasted but both are gentlemen!
I hope I can ge as graceful as Kramnik in his loss and just as humble as Anand in his victory!
Class apart for sure.
W
It is interesting to look back at Kramnik's press conference after the last round of the Mexico WCC tournament:
http://blip.tv/file/get/Doggy-R14PressConferenceKramnikAronian731.wmv
See the bits starting at 6:20 and 11:00.
Some fighting words: he wants to play Anand "to finally decide who is who, who is better", "I am a difficult opponent in a match and already many great players have experienced it", and a nice quote from Alekhine on Capablance...
...but also a lot of respect for Anand ("one of the greatest players of the last 10-15 years", repeatedly saying how big a challenge the match will be).
He talks about his relative strength in match play starting 11:00. (that he just needs to score +1 and he rarely loses, "my weapons which I was making for years and years were more aimed at matches")
I rather like Kramnik's frankness and his display of competitiveness without being cocky or dismissing his opponent. As an Anand fan, I wish Anand would also be as revealing in his press conferences about what he really thinks, instead of giving extra-safe and careful answers.
Congratulations Anand! There are no ifs, ands, or buts this time. It's over!
Anand was unfortunate that he never got to play a WC match during his real peak. The chess world was a mess when he was winning his Chess Oscars. Everything depended on the whims of a few people, and there was no system in place. 1995 was a few years before his peak. FIDE started with the idiotic knockout tournament to determine the WC, and Anand didn't get a match with Kaspy either because of Kaspy's behavior. Anand is past his peak currently, but was able to put together one superlative performance to keep the title he deserved. There is no doubt age is catching up to him. Anand in time trouble was an unknown concept till now. Not anymore. I hope that he is able to maintain this level for at least a year and defend the title at least one more time. But even if he can't, it doesn't matter because he has earned his place in history. One of the five best players of all time, and the undisputed #1 rapid player of all time.
The seconds did not 'come out' at the press conference, but Vishy noted they were in attendance for the first time, and acknowledged each of them by name.
I would guess the press conf will eventually be up on chessvibes, and possibly chessbase as well.
I was unaware that Vlad's motto was from Hindi. A nice piece of irony that, and it fits in well with his whole tenor at the PC.
When I posted earlier, I did not mention Vishy's performance as it was what one would expect--humble, classy, praising Kramnik, etc. Perhaps the most interesting insight was that he was not happy with the rest day. He wanted it over, and I would guess based on his comments that he did not sleep much last night.
As forthe opening, neither one had prepared it(!). Kram said he knew no theory, and wondered if Qc5 was TN, Vishy knew a little bit, but not much.
Both of them also said it was quite an interesting match with good games. Quite clearly they both really enjoy chess.
Indeed, when talking about his disappointment, Kram made the point that it is just a game (as opposed to something significant). However, it is a great game with lots of joy and discoveries. Definitely not a guy looking to retire :).
Another great quote from him, in talking about his prep and why it was so dismal, he said "One might think we were spending our days on the beach, but it was not so." I do enjoy his wry sense of humor, and not sure I was aware of it before this match.
Congratulations to Anand.
He has been a raw talent that came from India and was the first Grand Master from India. Unlike Karpov, Kasparov, Kramnik, who all came from the Soviet School and had Grand Masters as coaches during their formative years and had Botvinnik as mentor, Anand had nobody - no coaches, no mentors. This showed in Anand making mistakes - an example is his 6 move loss in 1988 to Zapata. Probably no other World Champion in his career has ever lost a game in such a silly fashion ever.
But the genius in him showed and he won the World Juniors in 1988, which Ivanchuk was expected to win. In a couple of years after that, he was one of the top Grandmasters of the world.
Not having mentored showed in the 1995 WCC match, which he lost not because he was inferior to Kasparov in pure chess, but was not prepared psychologically for Kasparov's aggression. He pulled himself after that and has had great tournament performances.
He has been a universal player in his style, a worthy champion.
Dear friend,
You have no idea what's going on in chess,you are really patetic.
Wow,I forget, probably you are russian,that's why you are so patetic. ¿Who is Number ONE on the World now ? TOPALOV-ANAND 1-0 25 moves,month ago in Bilbao.
Please,shut up and try to learn something,SLAVE !
That hardly counts, Anand was suppressing his best play in Bilbao and Bilbao was an experiment. No one expected how it would turn out, not to mention Danailov & co. were behind the whole thing...Anand is No.1 now as well and the World Champ too! Anand has won the WC in various formats, which Topalov never achieved. Overall Anand has more tournament wins to his name and I believe a plus score against Topalov. Anand also beat Topalov earlier this year...
Working fiendishly to create the impression that VesTop fans are all low-grade morons, and showing no respect for Vishy's big day, the Russian FSB plot to impersonate Topalov fans continues.
That'll be the myth which Vishy just repeated at the press conference, will it, Ovidiu?
Why do Topalov fans sound so much like Palin supporters! :-)
Kramnik at the press conf. about his future plans
"It was a harsh lesson, but I will work. For the moment, I will relax. I hope someday to fight for the world championship again... for now, there's less pressure, so I can rest, relax, improve."
he sounds like an ill men, he only wants to relax and rest
Great victory by Anand! Congratulations to the defender of the Title.
This victory saved Chess from it's latest schism. This was the end of
the Kasparov line from 1993, a line rather short, which fell under the
weight of it's own unprincipled beginning and conduct that even denied
its very founder a chance for a rematch. Anand completed the
unification of the title under FIDE. With his decisive victory over
the challenger (it was never even close!!) Anand gave a lot of
credence to the FIDE line of Champions.
This a great day. I'm going to have my Champagne.
D.
Open your eyes guys!The main difference between Kramnik in Elista 06 and Bonn 08 is that Bonn is in Germany and it is not russian territory.In Elista he played more or less as in Bonn,but then he just had his internet in the toilet.That´s the simple truth and all the rest is xxxx!
[Profanity deleted. Further inability to speak like an adult will result in deletion and banning. I do not want the site on net nanny lists because a few people can't control their language. - Mig]
One has to admire Anand fans who routinely, conscientiously, "shush" unsportsmanlike posts from their fellow fans.
Congratulations to Viswanathan Anand! 15th World Champion
Nice one, Greg.
Dimi, you seem to be confused about the lines. The match title line wasn't started with Kasparov or with FIDE, and it is not likely to be dead with Anand. For 120+ years matches have consistently produced the best players of their respective generations as the world champions, and Anand's title isn't likely to be the last in that line.
Anand has hardly given credence to the FIDE line of Champions. The FIDE line of Champions got one spanking after another, whether it was the defeats it received at the hands of Kasparov and Kramnik in places like Linares, or the Kramnik-Topalov match. And since Anand beat the match champion today, he is as much a match champ now as he was a tournament champ earlier. So it is not the case of Anand giving
credence to the FIDE winners, it is Anand separating himself from the FIDE winners by joining the true champions and separating himself from FIDE winners. So, sorry to disappoint you, but the result of this match does nothing to change the status of people like Topalov or Kasimdzhanov. Anand has changed his own status, and he didn't give credence to the status of others. Topalov and others would have to win their own WC matches to get places in history that would be anywhere close to the places Anand, Kramnik and 13 others have secured for themselves.
That was a well-played last game from both, and now it is official: Anand stays champion. Congratulations!
What's next? I hope for a match Anand-Topalov. Then the three of them will have played a complete match cycle against each other.
The match has shown again that the format World Champion against challenger is the most intriguing and most marketable event in chess. So maybe we stay with it for a few more years.
Congratulations to Vishy! He has made all his fans proud by his excellent play, his fighting chess and gentlemanly behaviour on and off the board. Congrats to Kramnik too for being so graceful in defeat and also for making this match all about chess and nothing else. I am especially happy that finally we have an undisputed champion. More than anything else, we chess fans deserve to have one champion without any if-s or but-s. Let's hope it remains so for years to come.
greg koster: Look back at the game 5 thread. Some of us did try to shush the more extreme Anand posters. That only seemed to encourage the offenders (actually 1 guy), to the tune of thousands of words in that post and the next. Some people (you, Russianbear) tried to make hay out of this by tarring all Anand fans by the behaviour of this 1 guy. Exhibit A: Russianbear's statement, "I have been on the receiving end of some mean spirited nationalistic and even racist attacks by Anand fans", and explaining that this is why he started to root against Anand since 2004. That is a lot of mileage to get out of 1 guy. Anyway, I don't care who people support, let alone asking for their reasons. But I was hoping people would ignore the obvious nut cases who are not supported by the other fans anyway. At least today so far there seems to be a spontaneous appreciation by everyone of both these players. Let's see how long it will last.
>That'll be the myth which Vishy just repeated at >the press conference, will it, Ovidiu?
Don't take the PC very seriously. All the joint Anand-Kramnik press conferences have been pre-emptive and phony exercises in mutual admiration.
They had to be so, the the sponsors likely took care to instruct them. The memories of the Elista are still close.
New York Times :
"This year’s match is likely to be less contentious, at least away from the board, as Anand and Kramnik are friendly adversaries.
At a news conference on Sunday that was reported on several chess news Web sites, the players expressed mutual admiration. When asked what annoyed him about Anand, Kramnik said, “I am really very annoyed by the good level of chess which my opponent has been showing. This was the only thing that was really, really annoying. The rest is completely all right.”
RB, now is not the place to have this silly debate, but your religious
believes over the form of Championships, Steintz lines (which BTW
ended oficially in 1948), etc. is just irrelevant at this point. If
anything, it has been proven that there are no one-sided champions,
those who can win in just one format, but not the other. The schism
has been closed completely -- the process that started in 2005 has
been completed.
I enjoy that moment.
As far as Topalov, since you bring him up again -- hey, he has done
just fine -- just because Kramnik weaseled out of San Luis 2005,
doesn't mean much to diminish that result. Topa continued to play
tirelessly at the highest level and win some major tournaments. His
place in history is well preserved if he has to play no more games. Do
not forget that Kramnik was the challenger in 2006. Anyway, Kramnik's
result in this match raises more questions, but again, this is really
not the time to spoil Vishi's victory with that tired and old
debate. Try to direct your frustration somewhere else.
Congratulations to Anand!
D.
Mig,
Being a compulsive chess addict, I eagerly looked forward to your posts along with snippets from Garry after each game. Also thoroughly enjoyed your musings on ICC whenever I could snatch a minute or two at work.
Thanks for bringing chess to life in your own queer way!
The Vish ain't no fish!!
Look, it's very simple: Topalov will become 16th World Champion if he beats Anand! Until then, he will be a FIDE-champy like Khalifman or Pono, nothing more.
Btw, I hope he won't win... :-)
"Do not forget that Kramnik was the challenger in 2006."
Not true, both players were acknowledged by the match terms as champions. Then Topalov, being the ugly person he is, tried to spin it the way you're saying.
"This result ends the illusion that Kramnik is a great match player. London was a unique occurrence..." Will he ever get over it?
In fifty years we can hear his dying breath: "it was....a...unique....occurrence."
plei--
You're a little confused.
1) I didn't insult Anand fans in the thread to Game Five. I don't think I've ever insulted Anand fans.
2) In this thread I complimented Anand fans on their good sportsmanship.
I finally feel fully comfortable with listing Anand as #15 on the "real" world championship rolls.
Dimi, I don't know what happened in 1948 that would end the Steinitz tradition. And yes, I acknowledge Kramnik was the challenger for the FIDE title in 2006, just like Topalov himself was the challenger for the actual World Championship.
But you are right, it is not the time to rehash the old arguments again; but don't imply I am the one who is frustrated here: I think you are trying to channel your own frustration over Topalov's Elista loss into some sort of claim that Anand's victory over Kramnik somehow invalidates or reverses or disproves (or whatever)Topalov's loss in 2006. Get over it: Topalov won in a flawed format suggested by Kirsan( the guy who brought you the KOs) but Topalov was beaten in the title match even though his FIDE buddies gave him an extra point.
Meanwhile, I am perfectly fine with recognizing Anand as the champ. If Topalov ever beats Anand in a WC match, I will be fine with recognizing him as the champ, too. But let's not pretend Anand's victory in the sport's ultimate event gives credence to other people's claims of being the world champions when they were not. Anand is #15, and Topalov is yet to win one.
Super!!
Anand is the King of the Hill!!!
Nicely summarized by Big Boss! Very honest opinion.
Anand will just go on forever like the Energizer battery!
Mr Kramnik we can be mean to you but we just let you go off for now considering your gentlemen behaviour. :)
Thanks Anand's team! Special thanks to Carlsen!
Congratulations Anand!! ...for a wonderful, dominating performance!!
well said Rb, thank u.
I can't help myself from laughing of this. Sensing danger to the classified (what was that?) "title", wherever possible Kramnik fans and match cases are adding #15 to Anand's champion title. :)
Sincere congratulations to Vishy, who played an almost flawless match.
And congratulations of equal sincerity to Vladimir, a true gentleman and sportsman. May the seven years he held the championship console him. (Will Vishy manage 7 years? Magnus is coming!)
Perhaps it is selfish, but I really would have liked to see 24 games. Kramnik was just getting his feet back on the ground, and it could have become quite exciting. (This is not intended to detract from Vishy's victory in any way, mind you!)
Yah, I was a little bummed reading Kramnik voting for 14 and Anand saying no real difference between 12 and 14. I agree; it should be 18 or 20! But numbers like that aren't even on the radar anymore, let alone our dear old 24.
Please shut up Loopus.
Mig please ban this jerk.
>RB:Meanwhile, I am perfectly fine with recognizing Anand as the champ.
>If Topalov ever beats Anand in a WC match, I will be fine with
>recognizing him as the champ, too.
Very well, we will wait until that day for your religious annoitment.
I personally, don't care much about it because so far my predictions
and instincts have been proven correct. And I'm sure that history will
judge things slightly differently through the prism of time.
Let's drop Topalov for a second, he is not done, he'll have another
shot, his results and rating speak better than I or you can, but
consider this -- see, I don't personally care about Ponomaryov, of
Khaliffman, Kasimjanov, or who else, but considering that by his
endless weaseling Kramnik denied legitimacy to that generation of
players, at least some of whom were better than him at one time or
another, was extremely unfair and at the root of my sometimes strong
feelings towards that individual. The fact that he denied the #1
player and the great Chess legend a rematch was the big nail in his
legitimacy. That he weaseled out of San Luis was another. By weaseling
out frequently he created an undeserved aura of invincibility, the
myth of which you yourself repeated tirelessly for a long time like a
well trained shaman. He was right to weasel out as the results had
started to show even before this final match. And history will likely
be revised a bit as far as this person's results and true achievements
since 2000 and the unfair shafting of other players in that
period. Get used to that.
D.
And I ask myself why 24 is impossible?
After all, playing chess is their job. So why not play for 6 weeks (my guess) instead of 3? Less money per game, but still enough to make the average 2700 (What a strange expression, come to think of it!) slaver and drool, I think.
(I am, of course, not suggesting a return to the format of the first Karpov-Kasparov match, although that was interesting in a morbid way.)
greg koster: I didn't accuse you of insulting Anand fans. But you and others did attribute the behavior of 1 or 2 people to Anand fans in general. This from the game 6 thread: "But very impressive is the classiness of most of the Anand-fans and even some of the Topalov-fans in Vlad's darkest hour." As far as I can see there was one Topalov fan: loopus aka ToiletWhatever (not tough to see they are aka-s), just as there was pretty much one Anand fan (who made up it with volume) who was flinging the poop. I interpreted your 3:55 post here as sarcasm in this same vein, hence my reply.
"Let's drop Topalov for a second, he is not done, he'll have another shot, his results and rating speak better than I or you can, but
consider this -- see, I don't personally care about Ponomaryov, of Khaliffman, Kasimjanov, or who else, but considering that by his
endless weaseling Kramnik denied legitimacy to that generation of players, at least some of whom were better than him at one time or another "
I very much doubt you would say this if you were not a big Topalov fan, especially the part about some of them being better than Kramnik. Who was better than Kramnik? Pono or Kasim? Sorry, but that has the prjudice of a Topalov fan written all over it. Besides, I hope you realize that you should not be comparing a guy like Khalifman with Kramnik, but with Kasparov, who was the classical champ at the time Khalifman won the FIDE "title".
" was extremely unfair and at the root of my sometimes strong feelings towards that individual. "
Well, it is not wonder you feel that way with all the revisionist history you mention. The problem with that is: I feel exactly the same way towards the guy who have taken away a fair shot from a generation of players. But, unlike you, I understand that this big evil guy was not Kramnik, but Kasparov. Kramnik merely beat Kasparov and tried to undo all the wrong Kasparov have inflicted on the chess world. So, as someone who cares about players who are not exactly the 3-4 elite players, maybe you should blame Kasparov instead and thank Kramnik for his efforts at unyfying the title and playing the biggest part in bringing about the situation where the chess world is unified and strong grandmasters can enjoy a fair shot at the title. You've wanted to open the Champaigne, but you don't seem to realize that a lot of the good stuff that makes you want to open that bottle is actually due to Kramnik; and the blame for a lot of the things you seem to oppose cannot be put on Kramnik, but has to be put squarely on Kasparov instead.
" The fact that he denied the #1 player and the great Chess legend a rematch was the big nail in his legitimacy. That he weaseled out of San Luis was another. "
We've been through this multiple times. Kasparov himself insisted on no rematch. Can't blame Kramnik for fulfilling his part of the deal. As for San Luis, it is not clear why he should have participated in the candidates tournament for his own title.
Btw, Dimi, you can either blame Kramnik for not giving Kasparov a direct rematch or for not giving more people a fair shot (with a candidates tournament like Dortmund 2002), but not both. Pick one.
Dimi - When the champion isn't part of a system that forces a defense, he typically won't accept a challenge unless his terms are met. Kramnik is no different than Alekhine, Capablanca, and those who held the title prior to its takeover by FIDE. Most of us would be the same way if we were in his position. He's not the "weasel" you condemn him as.
"This result ends the illusion that Kramnik is a great match player. London was a unique occurrence and I still stand with Leonid Yudasin as the only players Kramnik has ever beaten in a match! "
Sounds like Kasparov is still bitter after all these years. He is not even giving Kramnik the credit for winning the Topalov match, and even most Topalov fans (and perhaps Topalov himself) have given Kramnik the credit for that.
And perhaps someone can explain me how Kasparov benefits from saying that the guy who has beaten him and on whom Kasparov could not score a single win in a long match is not a great match player? I honestly don't see the rationale in dumping on the guy who beat you in a match that wasn't even close.
1. Khalifman, Kasimdzhanov, and Ponomariov are not a generation of players. They are three 2700-on-a-good-day players who had their good day during a knockout championship. They aren't even close to the same age... Khalifman is older than Anand, and Ponomariov is in his mid twenties.
2. Kasparov dumps on Kramnik not because he lost, but because he never got a chance to get his revenge. That's his own fault too; he would have had a chance by now if he had put together a match with Ponomariov or Kasimzhanov, or stuck around to win San Luis.
3. Drawn matches are drawn matches.
Alekhine's (late) behavior vis-a-vis Capablanka was not an example
that speaks well of him, IMO. The London Rules etc. were bound to fail
at some point due to the inherent self-serving nature of mammals. Of
course, the history is much, much more complicated and parts of it we
learn from third parties (i.e. historians who are rarely impartial).
In Kramnik's case I know that things are much, much more complicated
as well and factoring Kasparov's stance in the period 2001-2002 things
become a real mess. I might have repeated the 'w' word one too many
times, but I can't accept VK as the innocent angel who didn't maneuver
to take shortcuts in an attempt to stay at the top for the longest
with the least amount of trouble. I'm preparing a response to
Russianbear's previous message.
D.
plei--
"But very impressive is the classiness of most of the Anand-fans..." [I do sincerely appreciate most Anand fans; almost all Anand fans, in fact]
"and even some of the Topalov-fans" [a backhanded compliment to a few VT fans at the expense of most of them.]
If that doesn't clear up things I give up!
Dimi,
One could also say (following your logic) that the great chess legend weaseled himself out of a match with Shirov.
Of course Kramnik's history will not be revised
because of this lost match (except maybe by drunk and revengeful Topalov fans who never accepted
their idol's loss in 2006).
You really are too narrow-minded and insignificant to start this process.
Compared to Kramnik and the acceptance of his loss and shortcomings, the Topalov gang behaved
as lying and intriguing mafia scum in Elista.
Hey Kramnik obviously made your day by losing this match, so why aren't you a bit more grateful towards him ?!
As far as i can judge, Kramnik seems to be a sympathetic guy.
If you would contact him, he might even be prepared to pay you a shrink in order to free yourself from your obsession with him.
Steven
Steven, get some manners going and we may even talk. Schmucks like you make participating in such forums less pleasant.
D.
Congrats to Vishy Anand in winning the Match format of the WCC.
All in all, an excellent match with no off-board theatrics. Kramnik proved he's a true Gentleman and that he only wants to play Chess. This should erase any doubts from anyone's mind who could have been responsible for all the brouhaha at Elista.
I'm glad to hear that Kramnik will continue work on aspects of his game/preparation that caused him to lose 3 games in this match. That's good news. He's too great a player to retire at 33.
Good luck to Kramnik in his future plans...
Steven--
Your post's insight-to-insult ratio is well beneath Kramnik (and Anand) fanboy standards.
> perhaps someone can explain me how Kasparov >benefits from saying that the guy who has beaten >him and on whom Kasparov could not score a >single win in a long match is not a great match >player ?
Kaspy suggests that nobody ever played better than Kasparov, ont even in match-play. Because, you see, that match defeat was an accident, a surprising and "unique" event, as opposed to (in retrospect) a normal event, an expectable event, because that defeat was due the fact that Kasparov played an oppononent who went to confirm that he was formidably strong in matches.
It is quite simple, in his mind Kasparov thinks that he has always been the best always and in every form he played ( perhaps even the greatest ever, though that remains to be proved in his future match with Capablanca, which will be held in Heavens not in London)
Congrats Vishy!Both the players deserve to be praised for their dignified behaviour!
greg koster: Sorry I seem to have misinterpreted all your comments as sarcasm! Fact is, I was bothered by the tone of a small minority of Anand fans, and that was little the rest of us seemed to be able to do about it. So, I guess I was expecting comments like yours to be made sarcastically. My apologies.
Admirable match with some absorbing and complex games - made more understandable through the matchless commentary of Mig here.
This has done a lot to restore the reputation of chess: terrific, professional demeanour by both sides. Thanks to all involved.
g
Greg; I think plei read sarcasm in your statements, which you seem to clarify was not implied?
Updated lineage of the World Chess Championship Title found here:
http://www.chessninja.com/boards/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=136216&page=1
By Mentat Advisor
Historical Lineage of Official Classical World Chess Champions in the Grandest Tradition of the Game
1. William Steinitz Austria-Hungary/USA 1886-1894
2. Emanuel Lasker Germany 1894-1921
3. Jose Raul Capablanca Cuba 1921-1927
4. Alexander Alekhine Russia/France 1927-1945
5. Max Euwe Netherlands 1935-1937
6. Mikhail Botvinnik USSR 1948-1963
7. Vasily Smyslov USSR 1957-1958
8. Mikhail Tal USSR 1960-1961
9. Tigran Petrosian USSR 1963-1969
10. Boris Spassky USSR 1969-1972
11. Robert Fischer USA 1972-1975
12. Anatoly Karpov USSR 1975-1985
13. Garry Kasparov USSR/Russia 1985-2000
14. Vladimir Kramnik Russia 2000-2008
15. VISHWANATHAN ANAND India 2008 -
>Congrats Vishy! Both the players deserve to be >praised for their dignified behaviour!
It wasn't a "social skills and good manners" competition. Anand deserves high praise for preparation and play, Kramnik deserves some mockery for his poor play in a match he dubbed "the defining moment of my generation"-or something.
So, now you are going to determine how and why anybody praise these players? Get a life!
Kasparov on Kramnik:
"Suddenly Kramnik had to fight in these sharp positions and he wasn't able to do it. This result ends the illusion that Kramnik is a great match player. London was a unique occurrence and I still stand with Leonid Yudasin as the only players Kramnik has ever beaten in a match! Kramnik now has some work to do. His overly-defensive play seems to represent a general decline in strength."
Nothing to add ...
>So, now you are going to determine how and why >anybody praise these players?
You can praise them for their dressing if you want, I have no means to stop you
Exactly, that's the point. I am happy to see you understood.
widow--
Let's all hope that Kramnik doesn't buy into this odd theory and start bleating that his successes in 2000, 2004, and 2006 were "normal" while 2008 was a "unique event."
Congratulations to the 15th Classical World Chess Champion!
There is no contradiction between good play and good behavior, so nothing wrong in praising good behavior in a match. How do you justify the claim that Kramnik played poorly (just pointing to the score line isn't enough)? He played "brilliantly" to save game 2, according to Aronian. In game 3, he defended accurately and actively for several moves after Anand's novelty until the inevitable time trouble. (I thought his double-piece sacrifice was one of the best moments of the match, and it was certainly not expected by Anand.) Post-game analysis suggested Kramnik was better after move 18. Kramnik's one big mistake was to rely on this analysis and venture in game 5 into the same line, but there again he was fine until move 28 and time trouble. The loss in game 6 is balanced by the win in game 10. And he was pressing in game 9 (at one point Anand thought he was lost). This was a decent performance by Kramnik and he was only outdone by some clever preparation, risk-taking and tactical luck on Anand's part.
With apologies to Ogden Nash:
Woe betide a champion that fails to heed it
that never lend any title to anyone unless they need it.
Congrats to Vishy! I love undisputed champions, and goodness knows he's put in the time.
Let me go ahead and get my jab in early, though: like Kramnik before him, just 'cause Anand's the one real champ doesn't mean that he gets to decide what "champ" means. He can fail to defend it or lose a match, but until he does one of those he *stays* champion, and no "but this tournament is the championship tournament" is going to change the minds of half the chess fans in the world. It's a match title and it's staying that way, whether Anand likes it or not.
Come on, Kramnik world champion 3 times? that weasel only won by mere luck in London, everybody knows that Kasparov had personal problems at the time. As Kasparov said, Kramnik IS not a great match player, that was always been a myth, he's only good for drawing!
It has a lot more value the championship won by Topalov in San Louis against the best of the world than any cheap championship Drawnik has won ever.
"acirce | October 29, 2008 9:41 PM | Reply
Congratulations to the 15th Classical World Chess Champion!"
+1
In all of the press conferences these two come across as really nice guys. I have especially started liking Kramnik as a person based on his performance in these press conferences. Topalov also comes across as a nice guy based on the few video clips I've seen of him, but the behavior in Elista was plainly inexcusable.
I can't say the same for Kaspy, but I have to agree that it was more fun when he was around. I guess a movie that only has heroes is not as fun as a movie that has heroes and a villain. Carlsen seems mild. Are there any other budding talents who can play the villain's role in the future?
So Anand has now defeated Kramnik in two WC formats. Great for him and great for chess! (I'm beginning to like Kasparov.)
Remains to see if he (Anand) can win against Topalov. In the last WC they played together Topalov won convincingly.
It would be an interesting match if it reaches that far. It will
boil down to who is in the right form at the time. And who is
crazier about winning. Both are pretty even (now) in classic
Chess, Anand being a clear guru in the other formats, of
course. Outside of San Luis where Topalov was in a killer form,
in the other tournaments that have traded games. One thing is
for sure, I do not expect any issues like the case with VK and
Elista. Mainly because Vishy is an extremely nice guy and a clean
dealer. Still, the mark of a true Champion that I value far
higher than anything Kramnik ever did – in two “Consecutive
Years” Vishi won in Mexico (Tournament) and now beat Kramnik
squarely (in a match). Respectable and remarkable and not
inconsistent with his Top Rating – showing that the true Champ
does not have to weasel out of formats, wait years, or make
special rules for Classical vs. Whatever else Title, etc…
D.
"I do not expect any issues like the case with VK and Elista. Mainly because Vishy is an extremely nice guy and a clean dealer."
You can be the nicest guy in the world, but if the other guy is making absurd charges about cheating by chess-incompetent FSB agents and his manager is running around with a little toy toilet there's not much you can do.
But Silvio has been making some noises lately about having made mistakes and about things in Elista being regrettable and a misunderstanding so I guess there's hope.
It is interesting now what Kramnik fans would say on how many years the Russian was a WC. It doesn't have any sense so say "Kramnik was the WC from 2000-2008" when in fact there was no unified title back then.
Still, there is no such thing like a lineage of champions from Steinitz, because nobody defeated Fischer in a WC match and Botvinnik didn't defeated anyone in a match to get the WC in first place. There are simply titles earned according to certain criteria; which system is more fashionable is a matter of taste. So, I guess history books should separate from 1993 to 2006 like they do in Boxing, according to the title. And it is incorrect to say that the title Kramnik had was "Classical Chess Champion", because Kasparov was using his title like a personal property at that time.
But in order to make Kramnik fans happy after the match, let's say Kramnik was THE World Champion during 8 consecutive years!! And Anand, would probably be WC for only one or two years, so Kramnik deserves at least four times more than Anand a place in the all-time chess greats.
Congrats to Anand for winning the WC for fourth time.
1998, 2000, 2007 and now 2008 !!!!
On the other hand, I sincerely hope Anand can make a point and argue that the Topalov-Kamsky match should not take place. I believe the World Champion (and Anand is right now THE WC in either format beyond any doubt) should have a vote in de decisions on how to organize the new World Championship cycle (and of course, we know he won't do what Kasparov did in 1993).
I guess I am not the only one who believes Topalov didn't earned the right to dispute a WC match in the new cycle after he lost his title in 2006. So, it is extremely unfair to Anand that next year he can lost the title against an opponent that didn't have to do a half of what Vishy went through to get his chance.
In this aspect, I am afraid Anand is too soft and can be absorbed by Danailov's demmands. Hopefully he will get respect and support from FIDE in those kind of decisions.
I don't know where people get the idea that Anand is soft. He may seem mild, but don't confuse that with being soft in negotiations. Some of the toughest negotiators I've seen are mild mannered and soft spoken.
If I'm Anand, I would welcome a fight with Topalov. You see, the more challengers you bury, the greater you become. If Anand is afraid of losing to Topalov, then may be he is not that great after all.
So, as long as the terms are fair, he should defend his title against Topalov. Then, defend it against Carlsen before Carlsen gets into his prime years. Then again defend it against Carlsen when he is in his prime years, but now Anand will have the psychological advantage. After that if Caruna (or whatever his name is) is up for it, defend it against him too. Then retire undefeated.
Let's not jump the gun here -- there is supposed to be a match
between the winner of the GranPrix -- Gata Kamsky and V. Topalov.
Nowhere is there a match scheduled between Anand and Topalov, or
even a word coming in that direction. Much water has to go under
the bridges until such an event becomes even a possibility. A
match between Anand and Kamsky would be no less “historical”…
I'm first to admit that the cycle was a bit of a mess recently --
there have been one, or more Title events in each of the past 3
years and the tempo does not seem to slow down. While I do feel
for Anand having to play all too often, the same applied to
others too. BUT on the positive side, notice that seeing more
matches is better than one match in N years, because the holder
is tired or not disposed to defend his title, or just feels too
great to do it. In these dynamic times we can't have the ancient
model of the times of Bogoljubov and Alekhine, it just makes no
sense. That was the romantic, pre-War era when the trains moved
slower and the ships were the only way to get across the
Ocean. The religious believe in the "so called" Steinitz line is
not more valid than the story of Noah's Arc. It went away in 1948
when the sport became highly organized -- an organization with
all its faults is still better than a single individual "owning
the title". How else would Chess deal with Fischer for example,
in 1975?? Anyway, I hope it goes away together with the much
circulated line lately of the match format beings as the only way
to show the true champ.
Of course, very soon Magnus may put the lid on all these rivalries that may seem ancient in a few months/years...
D.
"an organization with all its faults is still better than a single individual "owning
the title"
Sorry, Dimi. The FIDE "organization" is, of course, simply a single individual: Kirsan.
And while Kasparov and Kramnik could have done a better job managing opportunities for prospective challengers, Kasparov-Anand, Kasparov-Kramnik, and even Kramnik-Leko will be remembered after the silly FIDE mini-match knockout champions are long forgotten.
Of course any Topalov-Kamsky match has nothing to do with Anand you mean Topalov-Anand surely?? Its good for chess if Topalov-Kamsky takes place which looks very doubtful. Now what happens after that is anybodys guess - there is a chnce Anand would not agree to play Topalov but that all looks very far away
>Sorry, Dimi. The FIDE "organization" is, of course, simply a single
>individual: Kirsan.
Ok, so what do you suggest -- to put GK or GK in charge? The famous
one did not do particularly well, after all, considering that he
couldn't even get a rematch after 2000. Who's got the cash is the
question?
>And while Kasparov and Kramnik could have done a better job managing
>opportunities for prospective challengers,
I doubt it -- one was after the big money, the other one after "not
being challenged"...
>Kasparov-Anand, Kasparov-Kramnik, and even Kramnik-Leko will be
>remembered after the silly FIDE mini-match knockout champions are long
>forgotten.
The last one is not even known. Kramnik-Leko?? Who cares... There is
more to being a Champion than winning the Title somehow. I admire
Kramnik's career pre-2001, as it speaks enough for itself, but he
stretched it afterwards and became too stale and weaselish in the
process, which I seriously disliked. If he comes back like in a
powerful manner like he can then I'll be the first one admire such a
comeback.
Anyway, I think I've exhausted my posting limit and will take a hike
for a few days.
Have fun,
D.
I have nothing against Topalov actually. It was and is Silvio Danailov who was the manipulator. I believe Topa has quitened him up a bit lately
Anand's next outing should be Corus. That will be fun, with tonnes of prep at hand.
Congrats to Anand! Hopefully you can let Chucky borrow the title from 2011 to 2012 :)
It's silly for GK to imply Kramnik didn't defeat Topalov in their match (Saying Yudasin and him are the only players to lose a match to Kramnik). By any objective measure Kramnik beat Topalov, albeit in overtime, and that despite a questionable forfeit of a game in which he had the white pieces.
Dear Mr.Sandorchess!From what I read in your comment it is very evident you have no idea of some simple facts of recent chess history.
1.After the shemeful match in Elista Kramnik immediately said he would not respect his contract with FIDE and he would not play in Mexico 07.He wanted to play matches.
2.But then he also declined a one million dollar offer for a new match against Topalov,breaking the FIDE rules once again.
3.He only agreed to play in Mexico las year only when FIDE guaranteed him a match with the new World Champion from Mexico.Of course,Kramnik knew he cannot win there.
4.Anand was against a match with Kramnik,but he was obliged by FIDE to play it under the conditions Kramnik wanted.It is strange FIDE did not remind Kramnik the contract he signed before Elista?
5.Meanwhile Topalov did not break any rule by FIDE.He was excluded from Mexico,FIDE broke his own rules and denied him a new match,gave everything to Kramnik and felt guilty.That´s why Topalov plays Kamsky.Because he missed one cicle to respect his contract!
I recommend you Mr.Sandorchess to follow with more attention all that is happening in the chess world and not only to listen and hear the facts you want.
By the way Topalov is again N.1 in the world and in Bilbao won against players much stronger than Kramnik.For example Anand was clear last.
With respects
Off topic, but Anand's top 10:
Fischer
Morphy
Steinitz
Lasker
Capablanca
Keres
Tal
Korchnoi
Karpov
Kasparov
http://in.rediff.com/millenni/anand.htm
>How do you justify the claim that Kramnik >played poorly ?
Along the lines of Kasparov's comments.
In all the games he lost Kramnik could not keep for long the balance of the game. He entered (he
was out-manouvered by Anand prep. in opening but he also did it voluntarily in G5 and G6) in fluid and tactical positions where Anand didn't do anything special but play them accordingly and sonner or later Kramnik went astray.
Hooray for V. Anand and respect to Kramnik for losing so gracefully. What a great match.
Loving Gazza's comments. The guy just doesn't do gracious, does he?
>Loving Gazza's comments. The guy just doesn't do >gracious, does he?
chess may have progressed in the meantime but chessplayers's character has remained the same : "How could I lost to such an idiot!-Nimzovitch
In retrospect, it was the time management (specifically in the face of novelties and the desire to identify the best moves) was the main reason Kramnik lost. Sometimes good moves are good enough because its not that other guy has worked out all the possible moves in all possible combinations. In fact, Kramnik acknowledged in one of the post match conferences that he was tired of being 1 hour down on clock every time. When he realized this, the quality of his games improved.
Ironically, without having to go to lesser time controls, Anand's speed (combined with creating novelties to get sharp positions making Kramnik burn time) was his main strategic weapon that got him the win.
WIll this startegy work with Topalov, Kamsky? Maybe with Kamsky as he has not been managing time very well. But not with Toplaov. He can play sharp positions managing his time better.
Regards,
SJ
I'm very disappointed by Kasparov's comments. I don't quite understand why Kasparov keeps insisting on being remembered in history as the only World Champion to be defeated by a nobody.
I was rooting for Kasparov in 2000. I want to remember him as the greatest of all champions, who only lost his title in a match against the great Kramnik!
I don't think it would be fair either to remember Anand as the only World Champion who got his title by beating a nobody. Anand should be remembered as the worthy champion that took his title from the great Kramnik. He should be very proud of this achievement. I'm sure he is.
I thought Kramnik was teaching a sportsmanship lesson to Topalov by being so gracious and humble in defeat. Now I wish Kasparov could learn from that lesson too.
Congratulations to Anand! He has done it all. Thank goodness the victory was clean. No armageddon! And hat's off to the gentleman Kramnik. I hope some of his hateful detractors were watching and learning.
Even when Topa played the tournament of his life, San Luis he was unable to defeat a mediocre Vishy, so I would put my money on Anand in a match.
Anand vs Topalov match would be awesome.
Not that Topa has qualified for the match by any means, but nevertheless, that would be awesome.
OT reply to Theorist re http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/crosswords/chess/19chess.html
Thanks, I'd missed this.
Hmm, Howard Stern really is a decent amateur player: 4...Bxf2+ is nice. And he even appreciates LarryC's brilliance as an ICC commentator!
I'd seen rumors that Rush Limbaugh used to play on ICC.
Now if we could get Maddow....
I think Gazza's comments are fair. Kramnik is not the attacker he used to be, and he needs to make that a central part of his game once again. The point is not to maximize one's score against Rybka, but against human opponents.
Anand's top 10 but in no particular order..
Having said that, Kramnik's brilliant (and sound!) sacrifice in Game 3 shows his immense attacking talent
Congratulations to Anand, the 15th World Champion!
Kasparov still remains the greatest of all time, despite not being humble in defeat. However, Kramnik being a great match player is a myth. His only achivement was defeating Kasparov in a match. I understand this is a tall order, but his other match results don't speak greatness. He lost to Shirov, barely tied Leko in the last game of the match, barely beat Topalov, and was convincingly defeated by Ananad. Not exactly greatness by any standard. Good maybe, but not one of the greatest.
Topalov has yet to win the title in a match. If he does that, he will be called world champion #16 or #17, etc. Until (and if) that happens, his
fans need to chill.
I am excited about the future of chess. Hope the Topalov-Kamski match takes place and then a world championship match against the champion Anand. Keep it going.
>I don't quite understand why Kasparov keeps >insisting on being remembered in history as the >only World Champion to be defeated by a nobody.
Because he wants to be remembered as having been better than anyone he faced in his career, never ever overshadowed. He never was the "supporting actor" in any show he played, HE always the main hero
Yes HE did have now and then some accidents (like the Kramnik match and few games lost in simulataneous displays) in his career but their were just so, accidents.
Therefore in telling any story and event with Kasparov playing it is a story about HE and HIS doings, and all who ever faced should be regraded as footnoes to HIS great life story.
is that difficult to understand ?
3. Drawn matches are drawn matches.
...and when the World Cup semifinal goes to shootouts, the losing side's coach does not go round whimpering for four years about the "drawn match" result preventing his team from entering the final. It would have been a "drawn match" without tiebreaks. Bronstein-Botvinnik was a drawn match. Kramnik beat Topalov.
"It wasn't a "social skills and good manners" competition. Anand deserves high praise for preparation and play, Kramnik deserves some mockery for his poor play"
So the loser of a match for the world chess championship deserves our mockery. I'd almost forgotten that Spassky was tied up and pelted with tomatoes at the closing ceremony in Reykjavik; it was also nice to recall that FIDE repossessed Karpov's Lada in 1985. Ovidiu has smashed through to a still newer bottom and sums up at a stroke the drive of the posters who rooted for the loser losing without caring about the winner winning. But how will poor hater Ovidiu cope (pace Pircalert, McDimi and d'Tal and the poster who argued for replacing Kramnik's name with "interregnum") with no Kramnik at the top to stitch up?
Kasparov's "unique occurrence" shot is more of the same. With so many chess streetwalkers willing to genuflect at his word, no doubt many will agree that his 2000 zero-win loss should be excised from the official record because his conqueror dropped a match to someone else over eight years later.
But those who think for themselves may just remember Kasparov as the greatest ever and welcome Anand to the chess crown he richly deserves. May he hold it high and long.
I recognize the objection to Anand-Topalov talk on the basis that Topalov still has to play Kamsky. But it's a silly objection for two reasons.
1. Topalov is a much stronger player than Kamsky. Even when he was a world title contender, Kamsky never really managed to demonstrate any superiority over the elite. He was lost practically every game against Anand at Sanghi Nagar, and probably isn't anywhere near as strong now (relative to the rest of the elite) as then.
2. The match may never take place, and I think Danailov is likely to be a better advocate than Rustam Kamsky or whoever is trying to get Gata a shot.
A Topalov-Kamsky match would probably be a 70% score for Topalov.
You have to agree though that Kasparov was a sore looser. There are so many examples: the Deep Blue match, the single game loss against Anand in PCA championship, the 2000 loss against Kramnik and even the loss against a teenager in his last tournament. Grace and dignity in defeat were always alien concepts to Kasparov.
You know what, Kasparov's place in chess history is well secured. He would be remembered as one of the best ever and arguably the best ever. So, he should refrain from making derogatory comments about Kramnik's ability. I mean if you consider yourself best ever and you have been defeated in a match by somebody, wouldn't it automatically mean that "that somebody" is also a great player? By trashing that somebody's ability, don't you basically trash your own place in history? It's high time Kasparov and his fans realize this.
I agree with Guillaume's point. I would only add that by attacking Kramnik, Kasparov doesn't just tarnish his own legacy or undermines Anand's accomplishment, but also indirectly attacks people like Leko and Topalov. So he basically downplays anyone ever done in the post-Kasparov era: Kramnik was not a great match player, Anand is the guy who only beat someone who was not a great match player, Leko and (especially) Topalov didn't even do that. You would think that with Kasparov's record and accomplishments, he would not need to downplay the accomplishments of others.
It's the bitterness that lasts.
Clubfoot, your posts aren't funny any more, because you are desperately trying to insert some logic into your arguments, when really all they are are meaningless rants. When you are on form, they have some rhyme. Without this, they are factually incorrect nonsensiscal ad hominems. You along with a few others form a motley crew of posters that populate the spectrum defined by deluded adulation of Kramnik (read Russianbear: "Kramnik is a three time world champion") to hatred of Kasparov (Koster, poster child for obsessive hatred of a public figure). You, rdh, and acirce flit between these extremes, contributing little gems every now and then (rdh: " Kasparov doesnt do gracious does he..", when rdh doesnt know the meaning of the word) and falling over yourselves to retrospectively alter predictions a'la Susuan Polgar. Get over it buddy, Kramnik is a great player, but among the greatest of the greatest in history, he falls a little short. That's it, nothing more nothing less. Now go and vote for Barack Obama.
Congratulations to the 15th Classical World Chess Champion!"
+1
Mig I enjoyed listening to your comments and trivia, well done!
Kramnik deserves respect, more than he gets.
The recent results that Kamsky achieved do not show that big a difference between him and Topalov. Actually the match will probably be quite close and I feel a Kamsky win is very much possible, although Topalov will be favourite. But, there's another aspect to the match - since both these players are pretty famous (or you may say notorious) for all sorts of theatrics off the board, it may become pretty exciting for all the wrong reasons.
The king is dead. Long live the king!
As this Topa-Kamsky match looks like a non-starter, why can't they take the two winners of the Grand slam, grand prix whatever and add them to the mix. have a four player all-play-all mini-matches of 4 and the winner play anand in 2010? advantage is Carlsen, Aronian, Ivanchuk etcetera also get a chance and a big match then.
That's it! Whatever was I thinking when I asked where posters like d'Tal will turn after Kramnik fades from view?? The answer is clear now: they will attack other posters as usual and with all the logic of a pea-shooter dawn raid on Fort Knox.
I know I was factually correct and made sense, so no problem there, but as to my "deluded adulation of Kramnik" which I apparently share to a degree with the rest of my "motley crew" pals, you've aimed at the wrong target as my chess hero is Ivanchuk. My opposition to the anti-Kramnik drive on this blog is based on an adulation for the truth. Some have difficulty facing it and still others have difficulty telling it; too often the anti-Kramnik side features both. Those who point this out are branded "deluded rabid Kramnik fans" or, in the recent case of Steven's post to Dimi, asked to leave the blog for excessive "unpleasantness".
"Get over it buddy, Kramnik is a great player, but among the greatest of the greatest in history, he falls a little short."
Okay, but what exactly am I supposed to get over? Is it all right if I start with getting over Kramnik taking the title at love from the greatest player ever? Then I'll have time to get over the fact that he held it longer than Capablanca and as long as Euwe, Smyslov, Tal and Spassky put together.
"Now go and vote for Barack Obama."
????????
By the way, I can only add that Kasparov talking about Kramnik and the match seems as mature, calm, neutral and open minded as his take on Russian politics. :)
So is Kasparov an evil genius of message control or a normal person who is still bitter about losing to someone he doesn't respect? It can't be both. Everybody is trying so hard to make his casual remarks fit into a contrived world-view it's ridiculous.
Obviously since Kramnik beat him -- and Garry has always given him full credit for his tremendous performance in London -- criticizing Kramnik is not done in a calculated attempt to burnish his own image and legacy as many are postulating here. He's not stupid; he's aware of this. If trying to fluff his legacy concerned him that much he'd praise Kramnik to the skies.
In short, he said what he said and meant what he said. He doesn't call London 2000 a unique occurrence to fit some baroque agenda. He doesn't say Kramnik's match abilities are overrated because of how he thinks this statement will make people feel about him. It's just what he thinks and he says what's on his mind.
Motivation is fair game, I suppose, if a bit pointless. If he said it simply because he believes it, why then does Garry feel that way about the "unique occurrence" and the illusion of Kramnik's match abilities? I don't know for sure and neither does anyone else. Of course he's bitter about losing in 2000 and then not getting a rematch. Doh. I think it's just basic antipathy, and when there's something about Kramnik to criticize, he'll criticize it.
Not particularly admirable, no, but it's not like he's making up crazy slander or ranting wildly the way you'd think if you read some of these comments. Garry doesn't respect Kramnik's approach to the game or the world championship and has never been shy about saying so. Sure, he'd be a better human for saying it less often, but if you looking for better humans this thread isn't a good place to look, I'd wager.
As for Topalov, Leko, and the traditions we all obsess about, Garry's opinion of the entire mess rarely lifted above disdain after the Dortmund qualifier. He looked for his own opportunities with FIDE to try to get a match, but after that all fell apart he called the whole thing a joke. I recall him saying Topalov would be #15 if he beat Kramnik in 06 and that "Vishy deserves it" when asked a similar question about whether or not Anand was #15 after Mexico City. I don't think he ever presented any logic one way or another. (E.g something like "since Kramnik couldn't put anything together and went crawling back to FIDE, he deserves what he gets." Personally I was glad the Kramnik-Topalov match took place.) If anyone has other quotes to jog my memory I'd be happy to see them with links.
Hey Mig, what's the deal man? Why do you always feel such an indomitable urge to defend Kasparov every time somebody says something even slightly negative about him? I mean I don't see you defending anybody else with so much vigour. Why don't you stop licking his a$$ for a moment? I am saying this because I generally like your column for it's fairly balanced view unless of course the topic relates to Kaspy in some way.
..why then does Garry feel that way about the "unique occurrence" and the illusion of Kramnik's match abilities? I don't know for sure and neither does anyone else....
really ? because throughout your post you seem to know for sure and repeat many times over that :
" criticizing Kramnik is not done in a calculated attempt..";
"he doesn't call London 2000 a unique occurrence to fit some baroque agenda";
"it's not like he's making up crazy slander or ranting wildly.."
"The lady protests too much, methinks" (Shakespeare)
what do you think ?
"the illusion that Kramnik is a great match player"
I couldn't agree more with that statement from Kasparov.
Where did the myth of Kramnik's great match abilities start anyway? I've even had non-tournament players at the local Starbucks chess spot spout this ream of hs.
The facts speak for themselves don't they?
Fischer could have laid claim to being a great match player, given his trouncing of opponents on the way to the WC. Where's something equivelant, or even close, from Kramnik? There's nothing factual that indicates he is any better or worse than the other super gms at these match kind of events.
I can't see how anyone can argue with Kasparov's comment. Maybe it's not in good taste to publicly announce it, as most of us that follow chess already know the truth of his statement. Perhaps Kasparov wants to make sure the local players at Starbucks are also aware of the myth.
> Where did the myth of Kramnik's great match abilities start anyway?
I guess it was in London, 2000 when he beat Kasparov. Defending his title against Leko didn't hurt and beating Topalov may have strenghtened this myth.
>"the illusion that Kramnik is a great match >player" I couldn't agree more with that >statement from Kasparov.
That's nonsense of course, as the London match proved beyond any doubt.
Kramnik can defeat Kasparov (or anyone else by that matter) in a match-play anytime granted that Kramnik respects (fears) him enough so as never venture away from his "Schlechter-like" approach to chess.
It does not need to be a "great player" (and neither Schlechter nor Kramnik were/are) to achieve this as long as you always (with no exceptions) play the "anti-game" style.
When playing like this your opponent's drive to defeat you is an exercise in futily, it is not
oppossed by your strenght of play but it is trying to defeat the logic of the chess game itself.
Lasker could not do much better than Kasparov (against Kramnik) while trying to win the dried up, sterile, and simplified positions which Schlechter inavariably offered.
You only need to win 1 game because an eventual
slip of your opponent ( like G10 in Bonnn), you draw all the rest, you win the match.
Even this match with Anand was essentially lost by Kramnik rather than won brilliantly by Anand (as Karpov was quick to notice).
Kramnik got in troubles because his own disrespect for Anand (or, better, got carried away by vanity and forgot his weakness as a player) and played for complications with White as if he was indeed an equal with Anand on "pro-play" chess.
Wwhy not the 'anti-chess' 6.Qc2 and draw again instead of 6.Bd3 going for tactics ? He got slaughtered fast even by Topalov at Elista when musing with tactics in Meran.
Any why again (G5) ? and why c5 ? in G6 instead of passive tortuous defense ?...
The "Kramnik of Bonn" (and of Elista to a quite good extent) was not the "Kramnik of London", was not the Kramnik(and Schlechter) "fearful of the greats".
It was a "cockish-Kramnik" who lent his crown, who aggressively provokes Anand in open battles, and who muses on Hindu philosophy.
And who was quickly brought back to reality.
Completely agree with Clubfoot's recent posts.
Although I realise it was not exactly in the same universe as the recent news in the chess world, I'm glad that some found the Howard Stern / ICC confluence amusing.
6.Qc2 is "anti-Chess"? Hm, ok. I thought it led to Shirov-Shabalov gambit, among other things. If certain lines, like the Berlin are to be considered "anti-game", it needs to be asked why Kramnik's opponents, such as Kasparov, kept playing into such anti-game lines.
Kramnik may have been beaten in the Meran by Topalov, but he also beat Topalov even quicker in it in the final game of the tie-break. And Kramnik even had a win on the black side of it against Kasparov once (granted, that was before he started to specialize in matches).
> Where did the myth of Kramnik's great match abilities start anyway?
"I guess it was in London, 2000 when he beat Kasparov. Defending his title against Leko didn't hurt and beating Topalov may have strenghtened this myth."
Did you even follow the Leko and Topolav matches??
They were very close and could easily have gone the other way. Kramnik could hardly be called dominant in either of those matches. But he did win one and draw the other, and if it's only results that determines a 'great' match player, then we have different definitions of the term.
>If certain lines, like the Berlin are to be considered "anti-game", it needs to be asked why ...Kasparov, kept playing into such anti-game lines ?>
That's correct, and the great Garry Kasparov should have sparred us of wild rants and cheap
yudashin-shots but, as a great lover of chess history that he claims he is, ask us :
"What I, albeit a great player, yet do not have in common with Lasker ?"
Another shameful and dishonest post from Ovidiu, starting with imaginary presumptions and comparisons, continuing with apocryphal anecdotes and determinist "chess analysis" and finally drawing false conclusions. Only from a hater like Ovidiu could Kramnik draw contempt by saying something to indicate he reads books.
Anyhow I agree with Prantik that Mig really didn't have to post anything on this subject. After all, there's really no rigid either/or regarding Kasparov's comments and Mig shouldn't try to frame it that way. But remember that he doesn't work for Kramnik -- hence his silence when the anti-Kramnik side engages in tribal warfare with the pro-truth side...;)) And nothing's fair in chess or chess journalism anyway. Believe it, if I were starting a family I would defend my deep-pocketed employer to the edge of doom, right or wrong, online or off.
Kasparov is 100% right. His opinion may sound a little too harsh for Kramnik's fans, but he did not say anything which does not find support in facts. Of course Kramnik was outplayed in tense, tactical play by Anand. By the way, Kramnik collapsed in the same way in an half dozen other games played this year agains Carlsen,Aronian,Topalov, or Morozievitch.
Kramnik has not won a single game as black in the last two years! In fact, when in the 11th round he had to play for win with black he basically had nothing in his repertoire to lean on. Just stop here for a minute and think - World Champion who does not know how to play for win with black pieces... .It sounds like an absurd except that there is a lot of true in it.
Do we know yet who came up with Black's 14 ... Bb7 move of the Slav for Anand? I am dying to know.
The match is over, let's hear all the secrets :-)).
I also wondered whatdid Kramnik's team spent all those months preparing? Must be all for 1 e4.
> World Champion who does not know how to play >for win with black pieces... .It sounds like an >absurd except that there is a lot of true in it.
He doesn't need to in order to defeat Kasparov again in amacth. He will win a game with White after Kasparov slips in a Nimzo and draw all the rest ( except of course if loses touch with reality and decides to provoke Kasparov in an open play with a 4.f3 followed by e4,g4, and h4..in such case he will just lose)
> Believe it, if I were starting a family I would >defend my deep-pocketed employer to the edge of >doom, right or wrong, online or off.
I don't doubt that after witnessing how you defend your opinions, i.e regardless of any evidence to the contray
Times of India's online edition has a nice behind the scenes insight from Surya Shekar Ganguly one of Vishy's seconds.
http://sports.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Chess/Teammate_reveals_the_process_behind_Anands_success/articleshow/3656229.cms
Boy! they worked hard. Great work by Vishy to put together such a good team. Money can't buy that kind of commitment and loyalty.
Ovidiu,
Kindly shut up nao plox.
Which evidence exactly, Ovidiu? Just curious because I've exposed and crushed every single viral lie with which you've tried to infect this site -- at least the ones I noticed, anyway. Do tell.
And as to your implication that you would never stand up for a friend, let alone an employer friend -- not surprising in the least.
I don't know how much sense it makes to argue whether Kramnik has been a great match player. What I would like to do is point out the theoretical contribution of Kramnik. Since he seems far more interested in playing the best opening lines rather than the slightly dubious ones that give decent practical chances, his contributions to the opening theory have been enormous, especially in the closed games. Also, one could even say Kramnik is the guy who killed 1.e4, as he basically forced the top 4 players of his generation (Kasparov, Leko, Topalov and Anand) abandon 1.e4 in favor of the closed openings in the world championship matches.
Ovidiu is a piece of performance art composed upon the theme: how far can a human descend into abysmal depths of cynical, delusional, life-negation before blowing his own brains out. It's often painful to read, but on the plus-side he sometimes "nails it", as with his his recent present to one of the 15-year-olds or his "Mig doth protest too much."
Mig is the tailor in "The Emperor's New Clothes."
"say Kramnik is the guy who killed 1.e4, as he basically forced the top 4 players of his generation abandon 1.e4..."
Wow! Russianbear you somehow managed to make me post here. Are you serious? ;-) lol
... thanks for the reference to Times of India's article. Interesting read.
> one could even say Kramnik is the guy who killed 1.e4, as he basically forced the top 4 players of his generation (Kasparov, Leko, Topalov and Anand) abandon 1.e4 in favor of the closed openings..>
Sort of negative achievement and true to some extent. I think he also played a leading role in forcing "the fighting reply to 1.d4", the KID, out of fashion (including Kasparov's use of it) by promoting 9.b4 against the main-Nc6 line.
>Ovidiu is a piece of performance art composed upon the theme.. but ..he sometimes "nails it".. as his "Mig doth protest too much."
Mig is the tailor in "The Emperor's New Clothes.">
Mig may fail now and then for phoniness and for "protesting too much" (aka "reaction-formation" freudian defense mechanism) in order to save face but he also produces daily a lot of well-thought and enjoyable material.
You however are very constant over your posts in delivering only would be witticisms, infantile prayers, morbid sarcasm, and the like.
Hopefully you will redeem yourself in your future posts and add some meat to the pure spice otherwise I will be left to conclude that you try
so hard to be funny because you can't be anything else.
You are an idiot.
Looks like Vishy took the preparation for this match pretty seriously
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Chennai/Family_friends_reveal_the_price_a_champion_pays_for_his_success/articleshow/3656543.cms
Chessplayer #1 depreciated another prominent chessplayer on the occasion of his WCC loss an hour before and posters criticized the statements. Mig is often called upon to dress up Garry's conduct, but let's examine this instance in detail.
Posters questioned whether Kasparov's statement was appropriate, but Mig defers that discussion.
"So is Kasparov an evil genius of message control or a normal person who is still bitter about losing to someone he doesn't respect?" Kasparov: evil genius or normal person? Pick one, Mig asks.
--Evil genius? Posters criticized GKK's statement but no one called him anything like an evil genius of message control. Mig’s built a strawman.
--Normal person? It's normal to be bitter about a loss after eight years?
--But even this is a false construction. No one criticized Kasparov for being bitter. He was criticized for expressing his bitterness inappropriately.
A fairer question might be, “So does Kasparov consciously intend undermining another player’s reputation, or is he just a bitter person spouting off.” And why can’t it be both?
“Everybody is trying so hard to make his casual remarks fit...”
–Casual remarks? An aspiring politician knows that the comments by Chessplayer #1 conveyed to the two most prominent chess organs in the world, Mig and Chessbase, on the occasion of the end of a WCC match are going to have great, if not historic significance.
“.. into a contrived world-view it's ridiculous.”
–Mig claims that one has to be “trying hard,” and contriving, to reconcile yesterday’s disparaging remarks with Kasparov’s overall “world view.” Do not Kasparov’s remarks fit rather comfortably with his statements over the past eight years?
“Obviously since Kramnik beat him -- and Garry has always given him full credit for his tremendous performance in London ...”
–Kasparov has never referred to it as a “tremendous performance” or anything close. Characterizing the match result as “fortuitous” or a “unique event” is hardly an award of “full credit.” .
“...criticizing Kramnik is not done in a calculated attempt to burnish his own image and legacy as many are postulating here. He's not stupid; he's aware of this. If trying to fluff his legacy concerned him that much he'd praise Kramnik to the skies.”
–If Kasparov was knocked down by a great player then in some small sense and for some small time at least that player was greater than he. If Kasparov was knocked down by a mediocre player then it was obviously a lucky punch. Nothing “baroque” about that agenda.
"He doesn't say Kramnik's match abilities are overrated because of how he thinks this statement will make people feel about him. It's just what he thinks and he says what's on his mind."
–And on the occasion of Vishy’s great victory, why, of all things, is Vlady’s reputation for match play on Garry’s mind? Why else but because it’s always irritated him. And why would it irritate him unless he cared very much about what people think about him? What better time to deliver such a message than the moment of Vlady’s defeat?
“If he said it simply because he believes it, why then does Garry feel that way about the "unique occurrence" and the illusion of Kramnik's match abilities? I don't know for sure and neither does anyone else. Of course he's bitter about losing in 2000 and then not getting a rematch. Doh. I think it's just basic antipathy...”
–“Of course” is clever. It can mean “of course you know he’s bitter” but it can also be read as the supportive: “anyone who lost a match and didn’t get a rematch would be bitter.”
“...and when there's something about Kramnik to criticize, he'll criticize it.”
–Yes he will. But was the statement appropriate? How would Kasparov have responded if, an hour after losing the London match, Karpov or Anand or Kramnik had made a remark about his nerves or his lack of fight?
Not particularly admirable, no...”
–To posters who responsibly criticize Kasparov’s behavior, Mig always slips in a couple of significant words amidst his rhetorically fascinating Kasparov-defenses, saying: “you’re right.”
“... but it's not like he's making up crazy slander or ranting wildly the way you'd think if you read some of these comments.”
–It’s always easier for Mig to compare Kasparov’s conduct to crazy slander or wild ranting than it is to compare it to the typical and appropriate conduct of a sporting icon commenting upon a great event in his sport.
“Garry doesn't respect Kramnik's approach to the game or the world championship
and has never been shy about saying so. Sure, he'd be a better human for saying it less often, but if you looking for better humans this thread isn't a good place to look, I'd wager.”
–Wouldn’t it be great to be able to compare Kasparov’s conduct with that of Jack Nicklaus, Richard Petty, Hank Aaron, John Wooden, rather than with Daily Dirt posters?
“As for Topalov, Leko, and the traditions we all obsess about, Garry's opinion of the entire mess rarely lifted above disdain after the Dortmund qualifier. He looked for his own opportunities with FIDE to try to get a match, but after that all fell apart he called the whole thing a joke.”
–Bearing a large part of the responsibility for the “entire mess” and priding himself on his political skills, one would have hoped Kasparov would have tried harder to put it back together, and failing, would have been sad rather than disdainful and scornful that others couldn’t fix what he’d broken.
Is the press conference video up anywhere ?
Q: Were there any psychological under-currents between you and Kramnik?
I noticed that Kramnik tried to shake hands with me in a very confident way and the way he was handling himself in the press conference, he was basically trying to project that he was in control.
I realised that he was not his usual relaxed self; he was trying to show that all was going well when he actually was in a dire state.
`I will fight back he promised.’’ But I must admit that in the last part he put lot of pressure in the games.
Actually, Kramnik is someone whom I always got along with, though he has own views on Matches (referring to Kramnik`s boast that he had only loaned the title to Anand and intended to get it back), but we are fine when we are face to face with each other.
After winning three games, what happened in the 10th game which you lost?
Main problem I encountered was in game 10: Basically I did not understand Kramnik`s new move.
My set up was messed; he maintained a big bishop dance which is very sophisticated and very high level.
Sometimes you don`t understand what is going on and by the time you realise it, you cannot do anything as it is too late. But then surprises are part of Match strategy and you have to deal with it. I am glad that it happened to me rather late in the 10th game
>Did you even follow the Leko and Topolav matches??
"They were very close and could easily have gone the other way. Kramnik could hardly be called dominant in either of those matches. But he did win one and draw the other, and if it's only results that determines a 'great' match player, then we have different definitions of the term."
It is in those close matches that match player capabilities count. If you take Fischer-Taimanov match for example, the difference in chess strenght was so high that there's no need to speak of 'match' abilities. The last game in Brissago and the whole Elista match were heroic match accomplishments for Kramnik.
Vishy's Five Factors:
News: ePaper | Front Page | National | Tamil Nadu | Andhra Pradesh | Karnataka | Kerala | New Delhi | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous | Engagements |
Advts: Retail Plus | Classifieds | Jobs | Obituary |
Sport - Chess Printer Friendly Page Send this Article to a Friend
‘Kramnik’s taunts helped me’
Rakesh Rao
BONN: “Did you notice something? My last world title and this one were precisely 13 months apart. Last year, I won in Mexico City on September 29. Yesterday was October 29. It’s some strange kind of coincidence but I would have still preferred to finish it on the 27th itself.”
The highly infectious smile of Viswanathan Anand was firmly in place as he pointed at the role played by numerology in his last two triumphs for the world title.
When Anand mentioned his preference to end the much-followed 12-game match two days earlier, he meant he would have loved to remain unbeaten in what was clearly the biggest match of his astounding career.
The morning after the epoch-making victory over challenger Vladimir Kramnik on Wednesday, Anand was ready to start a long day meant for interviews, starting with The Hindu.
On his triumph: This is brilliant. A highlight. I know what they (the sceptics) would have said, if I had not won here. I had to deal with it.
Ironically, if you want to make a case that matches are ‘the’ format but they are not superior to others, you have to win a match. Mexico is in no way a lesser achievement. But if I had not won there, I could not have made it here.
In that sense it is very nice. For me, Mexico was beautiful. You win the title for the first time, the unified title, and here you hold it. Both are very nice.
You really can’t choose between memories. I can’t say whether my Baguio victory (for the World junior title in 1987) was any less. At that moment, it was very special.
On Kramnik: Against someone, who doesn’t even lose three games in a year, to win three out of four games was something special. But I am very proud that I could win by such a margin. It (the margin) could have been three points, and that would have been incredible. But in the second half, he clearly showed what a player he is.
Clearly, in the match, we hit the ground running. I am sure his preparations would have been excellent had I fallen into them. But we managed to show what we had. And, it’s just an ambush.
On the five factors that led to victory: 1. My team (comprising former world champion Rustam Kasimdzhanov, Peter Heine Nielsen, Radoslav Wojtaszek and Surya Shekhar Ganguly) was extremely good.
2. I was disciplined in letting Aruna (wife) handle everything else.
3. This time I really thought I was in the bubble for several months and I am coming out only just now.
4. Kramnik taunted me a lot and that helped me concentrate better. I knew I had to do a good job here otherwise I had to deal with this…not winning a match and so on. So it led to my being focussed. He was extremely gracious yesterday but I guess it comes in the territory. In election campaigns they insult each other and then they shake hands and show how well they are in the end.
5. Finally, I was just able to maintain my concentration level during the match. You cannot play without good concentration because the positions were so sharp.
http://www.hindu.com/2008/10/31/stories/2008103156551800.htm
Q:You have beaten everyone except Kasparov. Regrets?
A:It will be great if he changes his mind and comes out of the retirement. I will definitely give it a shot. It will be very exciting to play him again.
C'mon Mig, work the phones, make something happen :)
Mig,
The comments from Garry that you relayed are everywhere - at least in the Indian media and various internet sites and blogs. But they are all citing Chessbase as the source. Hope Chessbase paid you well or at least did it with your permission.
Polgar also copied the comments but I am pretty sure she didn't take permission - going by the unauthorized rampant copy paste that goes on in the site.
Kapalik
"Even this match with Anand was essentially lost by Kramnik rather than won brilliantly by Anand (as Karpov was quick to notice).
Kramnik got in troubles because his own disrespect for Anand (or, better, got carried away by vanity and forgot his weakness as a player) and played for complications with White as if he was indeed an equal with Anand on "pro-play" chess.
Wwhy not the 'anti-chess' 6.Qc2 and draw again instead of 6.Bd3 going for tactics ? He got slaughtered fast even by Topalov at Elista when musing with tactics in Meran.
Any why again (G5) ? and why c5 ? in G6 instead of passive tortuous defense ?...
The "Kramnik of Bonn" (and of Elista to a quite good extent) was not the "Kramnik of London", was not the Kramnik(and Schlechter) "fearful of the greats".
It was a "cockish-Kramnik" who lent his crown, who aggressively provokes Anand in open battles, and who muses on Hindu philosophy.
And who was quickly brought back to reality."
kudos to Ovidiu this is the best analysis of the match i read so far.
I very much doubt if Kasparov will agree to a match with Anand for the following reasons:
- There will be no title (FIDE owns it and Anand isn't one to go renegade) and only money at stake. Not enough to interest Kaspy.
- Anand is in top form and Kaspy will be rusty and realizes it's not the Anand of 95 that he beat. Why lose and tarnish his legacy. There's nothing much to prove and gain if he wins. A number of posters/fans have been hoping and praying that the Anand of mid-1990s will show up in the WC matches and tournaments but have been sorely disappointed.
- Kaspy's big advantage used to be his army of seconds and mountains of prep. More advanved engines like Rybka negate most of that advantage.
It is only Anand who wants the match. The only way the match can happen is if he can put the title on the line and convince FIDE/Kirsan to agree to it.
Kapalik
Kirsan wants a "weak" champion, and after 1993 it's hard to blame him.
If Kasparov came back Kirsan would maneuver him out of a title shot just like he did after Prague. Remember when we all used to think FIDE and Kirsan were disorganized and incompetent? Notice how much more organized and competent things got after Kasparov retired? Kirsan has more political sense in his little finger than GKK has in his whole body.
Nor did Kirsan like Kramnik (with his Zhukov-leverage) as champion.
The "reliable" Topalov would be Kirsan's champion of choice.
Greg,
I partially agree with you. He has good reason to be wary of Garry but why Kramnik? Didn't he essentially give a rematch to Kramnik (and Topalov) when there was no sound reason. Kirsan is potrayed as being too scheming, clever, evil and manipulative. It does fit into the western stereotype of Russia but I am not sure how true it is.
If Kirsan was interested in control, he would have preferred Anand (as he isn't selfish/self-centred like Garry, is not too rigid about match format like Kramnik, is not controversy and scandal prone like Topalov etc.) but we know Kirsan screwed Anand the most by keeping him out of Prague and imposing rematch after rematch.
Kapalik
ps: One conspiracy theory - what if Putin arm-twists Kirsan to bring Garry back to get a thorn out of his flesh? (probably overestimates Garry's importance in Russian politics).
Kirsan is "wary" of Kramnik, a "go-along" Russian because the head of the Russian chess federation is Kirsan's Russian-government boss. That is, Kramnik probably enjoyed some leverage over Kirsan.
After Elista, Kramnik insisted on a match and Kirsan was already committed to the Mexico City tournament WCC. So the outcome was that Mexico City became a de facto qualifier for the 2008 match.
Kirsan likes Topalov. His status as "ex-champion" was sufficient pre-text to air-drop him into the Kamsky match.
>Kirsan wants a "weak" champion, and after 1993 >it's hard to blame him.
There is an in-built, structural, conflict of interests between the WCh and FIDE. It doesn't have much to do with who actually are the actors (Kasparov/Kirsan or Fischer/Euwe), it is not due to is their personality but to the conflictual interests at stake
The conflict did not erupt after FIDE was created in 1948 beacuse the WChs were all Soviets and all de facto slave-people with no rights to speak out for their interests.
As soon as a non-soviet, Fischer, became WCh it became apparent and then again was burried for while during the Karpov reign.
After USSR collapsed and Kasparov could not be made to shut up at order it came to surface again and this was predicatable: the tensions have always been there only that they have been suppressed.
Nothing has changed, and nothing can be changed on this issue except if FIDE itself disappears.
Anand will begin himself to make troubles and want to assert independence and thus avoid being taxed and expoloited by FIDE. It just doesn't matter how mild and non-egocentric he is as person, the situation itself will force him start opposing FIDE.
Thank You Ovidiu -- this is the correct general assessment!
You're one of the smarter guys here. Funny too. I enjoy your input.
D.
>the conflict did not erupt after FIDE was >created in 1948..
it was created in 1927 , but only after 1948 it took control of the WCh-title
Then there would be two tests of your theory: FIDE-Fischer and FIDE-Kasparov.
Seems to me that FIDE rather bent over backwards to accommodate the "independent-minded" Fischer. Changed the Candidates event from a tournament to matches. Brought in the unlimited match. But I suppose FIDE's motive could have been to ride an anticipated money-wave generated by Fischer's popularity in the U.S. and elsewhere.
I had the impression that FIDE and GKK got along well enough, at least after 1986. I believe the 1993 split began with a rather small matter, the failure to consult with the players about the WCC playing site, and with the players' hopes of getting a better deal outside FIDE.
But why would FIDE/WCC problems be any worse than "labor-management" problems in any other "sport?"
I've never really understood the horrible politics in chess. Is there really that much money in chess to bother about in the U.S., or worldwide?
The Soviets were upset that the then FIDE president of FIDE, Max Euwe had a soft corner for fellow Westerner and seemed to favour him. Don't know if they expected a cash infusion though.
FIDE set up a wonderful structure for the WCC - Zonals, Interzonal, Candidate matches and the final. I don't think this setup can be rivalled and was the greatest achievement of FIDE before Kasparov and co wrecked it irretrievably.
"The conflict did not erupt after FIDE was created in 1948 beacuse the WChs were all Soviets and all de facto slave-people with no rights to speak out for their interests. "
Nothing can be further from the truth. Just because the Soviet World champs had better manners and were not lunatics like Fischer doesn't mean they were "de facto slave-people" (that whole notion is a de-facto stupid idea). Soviet champs, as well as the top players, surely made their interests known and lobbied their interests via the chess federation, etc. To dismiss the top chess players of the FIDE era as de-facto slaves is in itself indicative of de-facto intellectual slavery of whoever proposes such an idea.
>I've never really understood the horrible >politics in chess. Is there really that much >money in chess to bother about in the U.S., or >worldwide?
It doesn't matter how much there is, the more the better but even if none it won't change anything. Chess-politics is just a subset of politics in general and its 'dynamics' is governed by the same (twisted) logic :
"No one seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes
the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin
to understand me?" (G.Orwell, 1984)
"The last game in Brissago and the whole Elista match were heroic match accomplishments for Kramnik"
Yes the last game in Brissago was good, and the Elista match was exciting, but Krmanik essentially drew both matches to retain his title.
How does that make him a great match player? Isn't a great match player supposed to win matches?
btw, I just flipped a coin twice and called heads, then tails correctly before each flip. Thus proving that I'm a great fortune teller.
>but Krmanik essentially drew both matches to retain his title.
As a Topalov fan still having painful memories of that time, I
still must state clearly that Kramnik did not draw the match in
Elista. He won it. Not by much, but a clean victory it was. Now I
can deliver a mile of sour grapes as to how Topalov should have
won it convincingly had he not naively underestimated Kramnik. I
can even say that Topalov's defeat and the following taunting by
the Kramnik camp helped Anand to prepare exceptionally deeply and
ultimately win convincingly. All this and more. But as to the
facts -- Kramnik won in Elista. He did not draw...
D.
P.S. Kramnik won Game 10 in both his last 2 matches. In Elista
case that was decisive and Kramnik’s most decisive victory in any
format since then (IMO). In Anand’s case not at all. The previous
games made all of the difference. Anand started 2:0. Topalov
started 0:2…
"Kramnik did not draw the match in
Elista"
Yes I know, he won it in the rapid tie breakers. The regular match score was 6/6 however, and that's why I used the adverb "essentially" in front of drew, although the meaning I intended probably didn't break through. The point I was trying to make was that Kramnik did not demonstrate any clear superiority in regular match play during these events - having only scored an even result there. I don't think rapid tiebreakers would be considered when laying claim to someone being a great match player. But I'm sure some will disagree with that too.
p.s. I know Kramnik forfeited the toiletgate game, and someone is bound to point out the score should have been 6/5 for Kramnik with one game to go. I don't really give a damn about that. Kramnik's showing in matches after beating Kasparov has been middling at best in my mind, but there really aren't even enough matches he's played to make a true assessment. It's just funny how how his prowess in matches has been thrown about so much, in spite of evidence to the contrary.
Some people don't seem to realize that the whole notion of the "great" match player is subjective, because what is great to some is sub-par to others. Kramnik did play 4 best players of his generation in WC matches and ended up being a 3 time world champion in the aftermath (assuming he won't come back and increase the count). Yes, he didn't beat Leko and had his problems against Topalov. But like Dimi said, he did beat Topalov no matter how one looks at it, and if one knows the story behind the Leko match, than Kramnik's draw against Leko doesn't look too bad on his resume either. But then again, by Kasparov standards, Kramnik's record is probably not that impressive. However, not a lot of people in chess look impressive when their record is compared to that of Kasparov. My point is that whenever you all argue about whether Kramnik has been a great match player or not, you are not really arguiing about Kramnik, but about your respective definitions of the word "great".
>your respective definitions of the word "great".
Much of it also depends on what the definition of "is" is.
This is amazing but I can't help but agree with Russianbear (for the first time ever) regarding his last post.
It is true that Kramnik lost to many players prior to his match with Kasparov. But there is no doubt that he is the only one who could have beaten Kasparov. In my mind, I was sure that Anand could not have beaten Kasparov mainly because of psychological reasons. As he proved Anand would beat Kramnik and probably Topalov as well.
I do think Kramnik is better than Topalov and did beat him in classical match (I don't count the forfeit game just as the match purists would not give Anand his due until now). So Kramik beat the greatest player of his generation and did beat the 4rth best of his generation. In the last fifteen years, I think the best five players have been Kasparov, Anand, Kramnik, Topalov and Ivanchuk. So other than Anand he has beaten the best two players of his time. That is enough to merit him being called a great match player.
Similarly, despite all the pre-match talk of Anand being a weak match player holds no water as Anand has beaten Kramnik, Ivanchuk and split matches with Kamsky besides loosing to Kasparov. I think Anand is stronger than Topalov and will beat him under normal circumstances.
Anand also beat Shirov in Match play in 2000 - Tehran, who had earlier beaten Kramnik in a match.
<assuming he won't come back and increase the count
Using my newly discovered powers of fortune telling, the answer is no comeback unless he does.
I think Kramnik's head-to-head record against Kasparov (not only in the 2000 match) has obscured his somewhat inconsistent match record.
For whatever reasons, Kramnik has a HtH against Kasparov which is way better than the rating expectancies would suggest. Of course, this is terrific.
Again, for whatever reasons, Anand has a massive minus against Kasparov( lifetime not just the 1995 match) - far worse than their ratings expectancy would suggest. This is a blot on Anand's record of course - the only one perhaps, that cannot be explained away.
A lot of people may have decided (maybe Kramnik himself bought into this thinking) that this meant Kramnik would automatically manage a comfortable win against Anand in a match.
This is as fallacious as deciding that because Korchnoy had a massive plus score versus Tal and Tal had 50 per cent vs Karpov, Korchnoy would win against Karpov.
Or Geller-Fischer-Spassky on similar logic.
Even great players have bete noires - Botvinnik used to lose to Kan and Petrosian had problems against Gligoric, etc.
This means there is some specific technical/ psychological factor involved and that factor doesn't necessarily or usually translate when it comes to results versus a third party.
Anand actually has a more consistent match record than Kramnik. Leave Kasparov out of the picture and their respective match results versus other people suggests Anand is far more stable.
Also another thing - a lot of people seemed to assume that Anand was the same matchplayer at 38 that he was at 25, when he lost so heavily to Kasparov. That again, seems plain crazy in hindsight.
"Yes I know, he won it in the rapid tie breakers. The regular match score was 6/6 however, and that's why I used the adverb "essentially" in front of drew, although the meaning I intended probably didn't break through."
LOL you mean someone noticed that you deliberately gave false information? How unlucky for you that Daily Dirt posters aren't the morons you wish them to be in your heart of hearts.
But don't worry kid, I understand. People are ALWAYS substituting the word "essentially" for the word "never".
Hands up, everyone who predicted before the match that Anand would use 1.e4 as a surprise weapon.
>you deliberately gave false information?
Topalov drew the regular match 6/6, and lost the rapid tiebreak 2.5/1.5.
I didn't think I fooled anyone by saying he "essentially drew" that match.
But I guess I had you fooled for a bit, and I'm sorry about that.
Thanks goes to Dimi for the clarification, recognizing some like you might misinterpret what I was trying to say.
And Kramnik boning up on 6.Bg5 Najdorf theory before the final game! Surreal stuff.
"But I guess I had you fooled for a bit, and I'm sorry about that."
Your fraudulent hopes and dreams of hanging a drawn match on Kramnik have ended in tears, and it's time to give up the ghost. If you do not wish to be viewed as a sentient being, then so be it, I will spell it out: you did not have me fooled and no one misinterpreted your false information.
You could always try to deceive the less intelligent; corrupt local politicians are always looking for press agents, so start small and lie large in the hope you never run into people like me.
I feel really bad for fooling you into thinking the Topalov - Kramnik match was drawn.
I'll try to be more specific next time.
Sorry dude and thanks for the heads up.
I feel your pain, poor li'l baby. But it will pass sooner or later, maybe even before you hit puberty.
Clubfoot, why do you so much insist on acting like a stubborn moron? Why?? I thought it was abundantly clear what everybody had in mind.
I commented to lwolf123's message earlier because I wanted to emphasize another point – namely, that I find the method of rapid tiebreaks as perfectly fine, that they are part of the overall match that Kramnik won 2:1, which to me constitutes a fair and square victory.
Anyway, to RB's earlier point -- it is clear that Kramnik was much a much stronger Match player than a Tournament one (let's say since 2001). With the emphasis on match play he managed to survive a couple of challenges. There is no doubt in my mind that the fascination with match play as the only legitimate form to decide the Championship was motivated by a great deal of fan feelings. But a lot of the frustration in his direction came from the fact that it was generally perceived that he doesn't quite fit the image of a dominating player who deserves the title of a Champion. I also think that he started to believe himself in the myth of his match invincibility a bit too much and eventually it caught with him. Still, the fact that Anand had to prep so hard for him says something. Now the ball in Kramnik’s court to see how he’ll respond – he may get motivated and come back swinging like prior to 2001, or just decide to enjoy Paris and semi-retire…
D.
Comment 300:
I think Kramnik will reign again. It depends on his motivation to work hard.
Nearly 300 comments, why another one? I've been two times in Bonn watching the match (g3 - Anands first win and the fighting draw in g8) and would like to share some impressions.
It was a great match with a great atmosphere. The playing hall was nearly or completely packed with chess loving people. No single cell phone beeped, nearly no coughs, but tense vibes of thinking and calculating, a permanent whispering of interesting lines to the neighbors. While g3, I could foresee Kramnik's moves much better than Anand's, so no surprise that he had to lose :-) Anand always sitting at the board, Kramnik often left it after his moves. Both players could well be spotted instead of the gauze curtain (reminding me of a giant screen door ;-) designed to prevent them of seeing the audience.
Hundred meters away within the same building the commentary hall was placed. German GMs Dr. Helmut Pfleger and Artur Jussupow talked about chess and presented analysis on nice old-fashioned magnetic chess display boards (only in german, but fitting perfect for me ;-) In g3, they did too much talk and anecdotes while the board was on flames, but in g8 they did really well. Maybe because best German GM since Lasker, Dr. Robert Hübner, had critisized this very thing in an article in the very well-known german newspaper "Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung" (FAZ).
After g8 I also attended the press conference. Kramnik and Anand get a heartily applause by the chess crowd while walking in and made short comments on the game, being very respectful to each other. A journalist asked Kramnik why he didn't try a furious attack with moving the king all over the board. Kramnik answered: "I didn't want to lose like an idiot." Great laughter. Kramnik hadn't intended to do such an insult and tried to repair the damage: "You misunderstood me" ;-)
Media coverage in Germany was wonderful. Never seen so much chess in mass media since the first two K-K battles.
If you dirt-readers get a chance to attend a real WCC match in future: Don't miss it, it's great!
And, of course: Congrats to Anand for defending his title in a convincing way!
What might be taken for a precocious genius is the genius of childhood. When the child grows up, it disappears without a trace. It may happen that this boy will become a real painter some day, or even a great painter. But then he will have to begin everything again, from zero. I want to know where to find Family portrait ideas, do you?
Anand Wins Match,he is great,Both the players deserve to be praised for their dignified behaviour.
http://www.simplyrest.com/adjustableBeds