It looks like you guys are running out of thread in the g2 post, so here ya go. Instant analysis has more pluses than minuses. Fresh, instinctive impressions from GMs live are fantastic and instructive (hello, Chess.FM) and a few hours of good analysis with computers and variations is also great. The middle ground, not so much. The computer quashes the interesting instincts without having enough time to work deep enough to find the truth.
That said, young Anish Giri tossed in this interesting line to his express analysis of game two at Chessbase. "I think Topalov got tired of making moves without any idea. He wanted to force things." This after the move 23..Ne3?, punctuation by Giri. This has a ring of truth to it. There is a rare art to waiting patiently, meeting the needs of the position when there is no real plan to follow forward. Topalov is a genius at creating initiatives and finding attacking resources with material imbalances. Biding his time is not something he does particularly well. He's so good at finding ways to be aggressive that he rarely gets a chance to practice, mind you.
Anand played a bit like Topalov to beat Kramnik in 2008 because unbalanced two-way attacking positions are Kramnik's weak spot. (Or were, judging from Kramnik's 2009 showing.) Yesterday Anand played like Kramnik to beat Topalov, whose weak spot is long positional maneuvering. This impressive ability to transform into paper, rock, or scissors according to necessity makes Anand's choice of a razor-sharp Grunfeld in game one even more curious to me. He really must have had some good prep and just bungled it.
Share your coverage links and quotes, please. Still waiting for baby here in Brooklyn. He's nearly two days late, little beggar. Speaking of chatter, I may toss up a sloppy little chat room here during the games if you're interested. Might be a nice pub atmosphere. Or it may be a magnet for trolling losers, but I guess we'll find out quickly.
The CB analysis is fine, but does not transfer the emotions of the game. That is why I watched at chesspro.ru and http://live.chessdom.com/anand-topalov-2010-g2.html and also with the Stockfish, it might not be perfect, but brings joy and strong enough analysis for my level (certainly not more than 2200 I am). So basically, I am looking forward to game 3, game 2 is history and will see after the match. I hate it that we have rest day, but I hope the quality of the game 3 will be good and the players will rest.
Anand will win with black tomorrow, then lose with white. A string of three draws will ensue, the first and third ending in perpetual check. After that it's anyone's guess.
probably best online commentaries are from Sergey Shipov (of Crestbook.com) - English translation is on http://www.chessnc.com/en/online/.
But, I agree that Anish Giri's comments on chessbase wasn't bad at all.
-- s.
Mig is hiding today's real news in that comment about Kasparov's reaction to Qa3.
Kasparov is on his way to Oslo - where a certain other chess player lives.
Aha. No body building for Kasparov, but instead a Freedom Conference.
http://www.oslofreedomforum.com/
This chat has a huge "meetic" banner on it. I am worried that if I login on it, there is no way my wife would belive I am chatting about chess :-p
Ne3 confirming Topalovs mother didn’t teach Topalino enough Impulse Control when he was a kid. http://tinyurl.com/3xpczpd
I find Anish Giri's annotations slightly annoying because they read like he is annotating a game between two of his students: there is not the slightest acknowledgement that Anand and Topalov might be a little bit better than Giri himself. Ah well, such is youth. Giri undoubtedly will be one of the top top soon.
I agree
I like them for the same reason. Young strong players have to believe in themselves.
>> re is not the slightest acknowledgement that Anand and Topalov might be a little bit better than Giri himself
My guess is that Giri assumes everybody knows this.
It's "express" commentary, so my guess is also that Giri assumes everybody knows not to expect super deep 100% sure analysis that will stand forever.
His commentary (and previous ones) is pretty good if you ask me.
Mig, if you are putting banners on the site as that chat room link horribly does, why not put in something you are paid for?? Up to now, when I just click on this link to read the comments in the thread it has variously advertised Pakistani Girls, Broadband and Phone rentals, and Getting your "look" (whatever that is). Ugh. Have you changed your policy or no endorsements? Thanks.
Interesting. Topalov played liked Anand to beat Kramnik and Anand played like Kramnik to beat Topalov. :-)
... and Anand played like Topalov to beat Kramnik!
Oh... I'm not sure why people always have to make comments such as "Well the commentator isn't as strong as the players, so they shouldn't make such a comment." This has nothing to do with what a commentators job is. Certainly both players are stronger than Giri, Polgar and Short, but commentators are there to give game insights. Qa3 is one of those ugly looking moves that few will even understand. Shipov was the only one who seem to get it right.
I don't think it's that bad in Giri's commentary, at least compared to remarks by Short and Polgar - you could almost hear them yelling at their student Anand: "I TOLD you to avoid doubled pawns!!!"
And the other extreme is live commentary on Chessdom/Chessbomb - never forgetting to mention, and mention over and over again what a genius Topalov is. At least during game 1, yesterday they ran out of steam, and actually remained silent for a while when the game had turned.
It's pretty ridiculous to suggest that Short disliked the move just because it gave Anand doubled pawns, or that he said anything remotely close to it. But keep telling yourself how much more clever you are than the former WCh finalist.
I commented that Giri's annotations can be, for me at least, somewhat brash. It's just a consequence of his youth (and brilliance).
On the other hand, Giri's youthful insouciance can be refreshing, as when he writes, "I love these moves" or "This is the most winning rook ending I've ever seen in my life." That's fun to read.
Actually, Short's preference for piece activity over solid pawn structure featured quite heavily in his W.Ch match. See "The Inner Game" (great book) for more.
Short's own words included "ruin your pawn formation" - which translates to doubled pawns (these particular isolated ones).
I don't claim to be more clever than a former WCh finalist. As a matter of fact, noone would pay me for doing live commentary, hardly anyone would take me seriously - all I did yesterday was discuss the game here with some fellow amateurs.
However, Short himself claimed to be, or wanted to sound clever. I don't question his opinion on 15.Qa3 (he may well be objectively right), but his arrogant choice of words - no excuse that he's British, it didn't sound humorous at all ... .
P.S.: Is there another _single move_ by a top GM that was discussed so extensively over the Internet? :)
Wasn't it Short who said "Modern chess is too much concerned with things like pawn structures. Forget it - checkmate ends the game"? Again, the idea that he (or any other strong player in the world) would ever dismiss a move simply because it gives you doubled pawns is laughable. He does if he thinks the positive aspects of the move are not worth it.
Unless somebody like Kramnik or Carlsen starts annotating the games, it’s a given that 100 percent of the commenters are nowhere near as good as the players themselves. We all understand that. I give them credit for taking a stand, long before it’s clear how a move will turn out.
Even 24 hours later, it’s still not clear if 15.Qa3 was objectively sound, or if it was a mediocre move that was bailed out when Topalov made worse moves. There’s also the question whether Anand was predicting that Topalov would get impatient (as it seems he eventually did), or if he had a different idea.
Yes, INCLUDED. We're getting somewhere.. Btw, the tone in my previous post was a bit unnecessary. I was however genuinely annoyed by your attitude, and that was how I expressed it.
In addition to the fact the short disliked Qa3, his comment was driven by two facts: (1) Anand lost badly the day before and (2) Anand thought for a long time before making the move. It is an unusual move and couldn't be prep because he had to think, so Short assumed that it must be a blunder just like yesterday. Not a good assumption.
Strong GM has negative opinion of move by Champ.
Off with his head!!
Seriously, the guy can have any opinions on any moves, he doesn't have to justify it. It's his genuine opinion!! And he does know something about chess...if his outlook differs from that of the champ, so much the better, gives us another viewpoint. His respect for Anand is beyond doubt, for example in "The Inner Game" (second plug) he talks about what a genius Anand is. Let's not clutch at straws here...
"Not a good assumption."
Are you referring to your own post? :)
I think he thought the move was bad because it was bad and because he is a very strong player who can usually see if a move is bad. Sometimes things are not more complicated than that.
Acirce, you are aware of the result of the game, right? If the move was so bad that a weak player like Short could see clearly that white had no chances of winning after that, how come a 2800+ player, who could beat Short in his sleep, lost to such a terrible terrible move?
It was a shallow comment based on emotion and context of the game rather than any kind of analysis, stated in an over-the-top way. There is no way to defend it.
@ There’s also the question whether Anand was predicting that Topalov would get impatient (as it seems he eventually did), or if he had a different idea.
it was the "Kramnik idea" of trading Queens even at high costs as long as you do it against players who need it on the baord so as to be able to devise a plan (to play 'dynamic'), as Kasparov or Toplaov
"It was a shallow comment based on emotion and context of the game rather than any kind of analysis..."
I guess you know best.
As for the result of the game, yes he was wrong about "no winning chances whatsoever", if you take it literally. Do you think he seriously meant that White's winning chances were literally 0? I don't. But that statement certainly made it easy to score cheap points, so I'm sure he regrets putting it that way.
Short was the one trying to score cheap "I told you so" points by being empathetic. Did he say "mediocre"? "Not the best option?" "I don't like it?" No. He said "Shockingly bad".
You have to see the context of my previous post - replying to r who was a bit annoyed about Giri's (suggested) teacher-to-student attitude and blaming it on Giri's youth. If such an attitude is typical of teenage players, Short's manners haven't changed (for the better) since he was a teenage prodigy himself? ,:) So once again, I criticized not Short's comment itself, but the tone he chose.
If doubled pawns were part of Short's comment, you cannot really claim that he "didn't say anything remotely close to it"?
The tone of my comment was deliberately a bit over the top, after all this place is called "Dailydirt"! ,:) Thinking back to the time [some decades ago] when I was teaching (10-12 year old) students myself, I may have told them "don't allow doubled pawns" - which IMO makes sense as a general rule when they aren't strong enough yet to assess how weak they are or could become, and how much compensation they get. Two other general rules would make less or no sense:
- don't sacrifice a pawn in the opening, or
- don't go for an early queen exchange
Now for a question I asked somewhere else.
If Qa3 was so great from a psychological perspective, then what psychological insights made Anand so sure Topalov would play the passive, static and "anti-Topalovian" 16..N7f6 instead of the seemingly more characteristic 16..Nc5 that not only seems objectively better but also wouldn't have allowed White to get exactly what he strove for? After all, wasn't the whole idea behind this supposed great psychological concept that Topalov doesn't like passive positions, would tend to become impatient and so on? Well sure, but it was Topalov who "chose" to remain passive - there was a good alternative from the very beginning.
I may well be babbling nonsensically here, but if then please point out how.
Thanks SlavoF, I found Sergey Shipov at http://www.chessnc.com/en/online/ the best too - objective, deep and entertaining. I also liked Giri's fresh style.
I was surprised how biassed two of the other commentary websites were, even subconsciously seeing the game only from the point of view of one player. Obviously chess psychology is crucial in this match, see Aronian's comments before the match about Topalov's reaction when he is losing (or not winning) for example. All the more strange why Anand and/or his team opted for the very kind of opening and position that favours Topalov in Game 1. Anyway, a great match ahead, and all to play for!
"If doubled pawns were part of Short's comment, you cannot really claim that he "didn't say anything remotely close to it"?"
Watch me!
If I say a move is bad because it loses a pawn for no compensation, weakens your kingside, gives your opponent the bishop pair in an open position, turns your position hopelessly passive and gives you isolated doubled pawns, then "acirce says the move is bad because it gives you doubled pawns" really bears no resemblance to what I said.
I think Giri's commentary is wonderful stuff!
Well, let's have another look at what Short precisely said or wrote:
"I am speechless [followed by many words ... ,:)]. 15. Qa3 is a shockingly bad move. White has no winning chances whatsoever after this. Black wasn't threatening anything, so why exchange off the queens, ruin your pawn formation and make things easy for Black all at one go? And this dubious decision has come VERY early in the game."
Would Anand have more winning chances, would black's task be "less easy" with queens remaining on the board? So - different from your example - the only thing that really changed was white's ruined pawn formation (in my words: doubled pawns).
Everyone was puzzling over the choice of Grunfeld in game 1, and then over Qa3 in game 2. Qa3 eventually made sense. I think Grunfeld will also make sense by the time this match is over. I think we might see it in game 3. But if that is too predictable, then may be Vishy will delay it to a later game. We will see another Grunfeld - guaranteed.
"Would Anand have more winning chances, would black's task be "less easy" with queens remaining on the board?"
Yes, I suppose that's what Short meant -- you should ask him if you want to be sure.
"So - different from your example - the only thing that really changed was white's ruined pawn formation (in my words: doubled pawns)."
That, the queens went off (I'm puzzled as for why you shrug this off as irrelevant, it usually makes a big difference), and the move "made things easy for Black" in further unspecified ways.
But this is silly. I offer a draw. If not, I resign.
I can only speculate, maybe we will get an answer from the players "in due course" (only after the match!?). Maybe both players considered Bd5: (immediately or within a few moves) as promising for white and slightly dangerous for black? Then black also gets doubled d-pawns which can be attacked a bit more easily than white's on the a-file.
Of course, white would have to make several concessions:
- he has to part with the Catalan bishop
- (of course related) black gets the bishop pair, and the light-squared bishop can be activated
- the white pawn on e2 is also weak now.
On the plus side, again: the white rook can maybe invade to c7.
No idea if it makes any sense objectively spoken, but the point of 16.-N7f6 is certainly to stabilize his colleague on d5.
Acirce,
I agree with you.So, the passive continuation may point to either topa did not evaluate position correctly(made his choice in haste),or he made a decision to make a solid move which keeps things in balance.
Well, of course exchanging queens does make a difference, the issue is whether this affects/reduces Anand's winning chances. Who am I compared to Short? But who is Short (the 2010 version) compared to Anand?
It looks like Anand, for whichever reason, _wanted to_ exchange queens, and _accepted_ that this came at the prize of doubled pawns.
As to "black not threatening anything", this is true for the time being. But in the predecessor game Gulko-Shulman, Tulsa 2008 (given at various sites), black's queen became active and eventually decided the game (0-1, 30).
ian Rogers comments http://beta.thehindu.com/sport/other-sports/article410206.ece
The build-up to bash Short\Polgar is not entirely logical but entertaining. Let it be.
"But this is silly. I offer a draw. If not, I resign."
Nice. I would like your permission to use this line whenever the position on the message board asks for it.
I think better commentary is by Svidler on ICC, importantly he is analyzing without machine, we all suspect Polgar gives comp moves and mostly Short also(not so sure of him). Unfortunately because of him playing in Grand prix he wont commenting for some time it seems. But based on comment shere I am shifting to Shipov from now on.
Re: Short, etc.
If I want to hear entertaining commentary, I listen to Short. If I want to hear another view, I listen to Shipov, Polgar, etc. If I want accurate analysis I listen to a fish. If I want to know exactly why Anand played a certain move, I will wait till the game is over for Anand to comment on it.
I meant to say "... I will till the *match* is over for Anand to comment on it."
The truth of the matter is, Anand's move was by no means as bad as Short's hyperbole suggested, and you were right to call him out on it. Short really irritates me for some reason. Could it be his narcissistic, self aggrandising, pompous personality that didn't see the boasting about sleeping with a dead colleague's paramour for the pathetic own goal that it is? Maybe.
I enjoy Svidlers commentary on ICC. They are very spontaneous and without any comp help. Also more than mere variations (which comps can provide), he speaks more about the position, weaknesses and plans. He is also very respectful of both players and if he makes a mistake in analysis, he shows dignity in accepting it very quickly.
Late baby is a good thing Mig! They say late babies are smarter. Einstein was a late baby.
But then again, I was 17 days late, so that's definitely not an "air-tight" theory... lol
I enjoy Svidlers commentary on ICC. They are very spontaneous and without any comp help. Also more than mere variations (which comps can provide), he speaks more about the position, weaknesses and plans. He is also very respectful of both players and if he makes a mistake in analysis, he shows dignity in accepting it very quickly.
I enjoy Svidlers commentary on ICC. They are very spontaneous and without any comp help. Also more than mere variations (which comps can provide), he speaks more about the position, weaknesses and plans. He is also very respectful of both players and if he makes a mistake in analysis, he shows dignity in accepting it very quickly.
who is the "dead colleague" and who is this paramour ? :)
Unless somebody like Kramnik or Carlsen starts annotating the games, it’s a given that 100 percent of the commenters are nowhere near as good as the players themselves. We all understand that. I give them credit for taking a stand, long before it’s clear how a move will turn out.
****
I think there is a logic error here -- strength at playing (i.e. results in over the board games) is different from strength in commentary.
If 20 high-grade player play tournament chess over and over against each other, some will rise to the top and be the "best players".
But it isn't at all clear that such a result means that the others are significantly worse at thinking about chess...or...given sufficient time...at finding/acknowledging the strategical factors of various moves.
Add in the idea that to be a good commentator, one must also be a pretty good speaker/writer...and it isn't clear at all that the "best player" is the "best commentator" or that the "weaker player" is the "weaker commentator."
A lot of what might be the variation in commentary can be ascribed to "style" or "personal preference" in terms of move selection -- equivalent moves are favored by different players for various reasons.
Any player of sufficient grade should be able to "see everything" that the top players do -- especially without the stress of actually playing.
I enjoy Svidlers commentary on ICC. They are very spontaneous and without any comp help. Also more than mere variations (which comps can provide), he speaks more about the position, weaknesses and plans. He is also very respectful of both players and if he makes a mistake in analysis, he shows dignity in accepting it very quickly.
yeah ... why all the fuss about Short's comment on Qa3?
I did not think it was disrespectful. It was strong reaction to an apparent bad move, that was all.
Didn't Mig reported that Kasparov "left the room in shock after Qa3"? So apparently Kasparov did not think much of it either.
Short can be an irritating fellow. I think people are simply reacting to their dislike for Short. My advice to such people is not to take Short seriously. The guy acts like a buffoon sometimes. Let's try and enjoy the buffoonery.
Tony Miles; N.N.
Short is a blowhard, but an entertaining one. Obviously you need to take his comments with a grain of salt. Still, there are few people I'd rather have commenting on a game (partly because he's one of the very few top players who's a native English speaker).
I don't get this ragging on Qa3. Its not as if white had a smashingly decisive move and rejected that. Yes, Nc5 *may* have led to better positions than N7f6 (which is by no means clear as Topalov's plan of h5, Ng4 was never executed properly, instead he dilly-dallyed on the q-side).
So Anand seeing that outright winning chances were few opted for a move that gave his opponent 50% chance of losing. Which he did. Qa3!
Svidler speaks far better English than most native speakers (not better than Short, I agree).
where did Mig say that Kasparov left room in shock after Qa3, I did not find it, help me locate it.
Topa is very good at bouncing back after losses. It will be a fun Tuesday. It will be interesting to see if Anand abandon's gruenfeld or not.
Search for Garry in the comments section.
Several have questioned Topalov's 16...N7f6 and suggested that Nc5 was better. I think Topalov thought if Nc5 was obvious then, it will fall into Anand's preparation directly and looked for an alternate. From that perspective ...N7f6 was probably a practical choice where he did not easy any big problems. Ofcourse, later he was outplayed.
Dutch newspaper columnist and IM (?) Hans Bohm suggests that Topalov withdraws from active chess if he loses this match. Maybe old news, maybe a big loss to chess?
Dutch newspaper columnist and IM (?) Hans Bohm suggests that Topalov withdraws from active chess if he loses this match. Maybe old news, maybe a big loss to chess?
@16..N7f6 was probably a practical choice
it was a natural choice for sure, he followed with 17..Re8!, then Rbd8/Nb8 etc. and he got better position..which he screwed up in one move with a slef-shooting tactical shoot 25..Ne3? which changed the evelauation form "equal if not better" to "lost"..
see
http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/2010/04/anand-topalov-wch-r2.htm#comment-217693
thank you Karlanandov and roamingwind
Article some of you might find interesting on the infinite possibilities in chess:
http://www.factodiem.com/2010/04/black-and-white.html
Nice quote from that article:
"Our powers of calculation are surpassed by the number of different games of chess that are possible. One estimate puts it at 10123, a number that has no material existence in the Universe. (For comparison's sake, this is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times more than the number of atoms that exist.)"
The last number I've read for the number of possible moves in a chess game is 10 to the power of 120 or:
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
That's a lot of moves to have to calculate, even for a computer!
Kortchnoy said once that 'all that is well forgotten is news' in chess. In the 6th game of his 1972 match against Spasski, Fischer played 12. Qa4 followed by 13. Qa3, with the effect of avoiding Black's reply ...c5-c4, in a pawn formation with c5+d5 isolated pair. c5 actually was interferring between Qa3 and Qe7. You may say that this is another position with different characteristics, or in 1972 they did not know as much as Anish Giri knows today, etc. But the fact remains: Spasski knew that he must keep the Queens on the board, because Black is not developed well enough on the Q-side to counter-balance White's initiative and better pieces coordination on that part of the board. You can see how Spasski, when playing Black and entering into Queen's Gambit games in the 1972 match, strived to avoid Queen exchanges. I think that his concept was confirmed by yesterday's game, when after Queens exchange Black struggled to find an active plan while White had a firm grip on the 'c' file. That's why I think that the evaluation of the move 15.Qa3 should be !!, also in conjunction with 15...Qxa3?.
Hmmm... my 0's got cut off trying to demo 10 to the power of 120... Maybe w/o the ","s?
1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Huh! Interesting "glitch" in the blog; doesn't display or wrap a certain number of characters in a row...
Absolutely.
I love Short precisely because he is so opinionated. I enjoy reading or listening to people who have strong opinions, and it doesn't always matter whether I agree or not, although it often helps if I do disagree with them. The point is it's just more interesting to hear from people who feel strongly about their topic. I can generally can tell when they're speaking from their own prejudices, and as long as they aren't trying to deceive me about it I don't mind at all. It makes it more interesting.
Not only that, Nigel IS funny, no matter what the rest of you tossers think.
I think I'll start a fan club.
The press conference is now up on the official site. A little recap of what I was able to understand:
- Both players basically said that after some point White was simply much better. I can´t understand most of the first part of the conference.
- The Spanish speaking journalist says that it is usual after a loss to try to make an easy draw in the next game, and asks Anand what motivated him to play a very active, agressive game and search the victory from the beginning. Anand said that he just let himself be carried by the position.
- Then he asks Topalov if the loss was due to a mistake in calculation or an error in the opening preparation (very poor and generic question IMO, there are tons of interesting questions to ask about the game instead). Topalov doesn´t say much, he wanted to reach a normal position and then just made inacurracies.
You guys are over analysing this Qa3 move. This move was a huge gamble from Anand but it paid off well on this particular game due to a very poor performance by Topa. If Anand plays more moves like this during the match I am positive he is not retaining his title. Great start of the match so far. Topa confirms his reputation in the openings and Anand his reputation as a more rounded player. We must congratulate the Bulgarians and sponsors for organizing such high level event. Let the best player win! On game 3 I bet we will see another Grunfeld.
press conf video on chessvibes has clear audio. http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/wch-g2-anand-strikes-back-levels-score/#comments
Mig
1) Mig, I cant access your site from work. Is there anyway, to make this blog "under the radar"? Would love to follow the comments live for the games.
2) To me , Anish's comments can be seen to be either "innocent" or "brash" depending on how you view the world. I see his comments as being innocent and humble
3)who do you think Kasparov is rooting for? Seems like he is rooting for Anand, which is pretty odd I think...and unexpected
4) If Anand wins this and maybe next time? Would he have reached the level of being universally acclaimed as a "dominant"chess player of his era?(or atleast of 10-15years?)
It makes sense to me for Kasparov to root for guys like Anand, Ivanchuk, Gelfand, etc. After all, when they were at their peaks Kasparov was still the King. In the post-K era, their high level even when past their primes is a good indicator of how great Kaspy was as a player if he was strong enough to dominate an era with such marvelous competitors.
Surprised that no one has mentioned "kingscrusher", who is offering excellent post-game analysis during the rest days (in English)...example:
Game 2, three parts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rdk6v_9kZTE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DzybHaSHiY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dycUP86P2Y4
Will Anand play another Gruenfeld or will he be haunted by Kasparov's comments about playing it in a WC match?
I think it will be another Gruenfeld, it was clear that Anand had something prepared, but due to the fatal memory lapse he could not show what he has in game one. So he will try it again. Plus he may have the psychological need in trying to beat Topalov at his own game - sharp tactical play.
Kasparov is a consummate chess player. Some people keep chess and life separate. I don't think Kasparov is one of those people. For him life is chess. He even wrote a book about that. When you live life like that, everything you say and do is based on cold calculation.
If you ask Kasparov who he is backing, I'm pretty sure his answer is: neither of them. He wants the winner of the world championship to be his friend. Why should he take sides? There is no benefit. What he really feels deep down in his heart is an entirely different matter. We have no way to know that. May be Mig knows, but that's unlikely too.
If you ask Kasparov why he was disgusted with "Qa3," I think he will say that he was disgusted because of "objective" reasons, not because he is rooting for Anand.
Thanks for the link. Very instructive analysis indeed.
Thanks for the links. Good stuff. I didn't know about it...
Thanks!
I also found out that a user called jrobichess is also commenting on the games on youtube. I prefer the links you posted because he seems to give a better high level view of the game.
MK, you can use a RSS reader (for example Google-Reader) and suscribe to: http//www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/atom.xml
Also check:
http://www.google.com.mx/reader/view/feed/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chessninja.com%2Fdailydirt%2Fatom.xml
PS
The drawback is that there are no comments (half the fun)...
Short is hilarious.
I hope we don't see another Gruenfeld from Anand. Game 2 approach should be Anand's approach for the match. Why give Topalov anything? Play solidly then exploit Topalov's "dynamism."
I visited this page first time and found it Very Good Job of acknowledgment and a marvelous source of info.........Thanks Admin! http://www.bestphonelookup.com