PDA

View Full Version : Topalov/Kamsky pick the margin



Garvinator
13-02-2009, 02:14 AM
Time to pick the margin.


The match shall be played over eight (8) games and the winner of the match shall be the first player to score 4.5 points or more. A tie shall be broken according to article 3.7 below. If the winner scores 4.5 points in less then 8 games then the organizers can re-schedule the Closing Ceremony for an earlier date.

Garvinator
13-02-2009, 01:29 PM
While I have tipped Kamsky to win by 2 games, the result I would most like to see is Kamsky to 'win' the match by not winning a game at all.

How is this done you might ask? It is acheived by drawing all 8 classical games, all the rapid games, blitz games and then drawing with black in the armageddon game with some huge controversy to finish ie Kamsky wins the match by ending up with knight v knight in the final game :lol:

Saragossa
13-02-2009, 02:15 PM
I'm liking Topa mainly because of his sharp openings and tactical brilliancies...that are sound.

Miranda
13-02-2009, 02:33 PM
I think Kamsky doesn't have much of a chance... Topalov is just better!

Alexrules01
13-02-2009, 03:43 PM
I believe Topalov will win, only by one game though

Kevin Bonham
13-02-2009, 06:57 PM
I've added tiebreak options for anyone who thinks the match will go to tiebreak.

Garvinator
13-02-2009, 07:46 PM
I've added tiebreak options for anyone who thinks the match will go to tiebreak.
Can you please delete the tie break options? The margins given can also apply to the tie break games as they only say that a player wins by 1 game or so. The wording of the options was done just in case tiebreaks occur and especially if a player wins by the armageddon draw.

Kevin Bonham
13-02-2009, 07:48 PM
Can you please delete the tie break options? The margins given can also apply to the tie break games as they only say that a player wins by 1 game or so.

OK, I've removed them, though I think that winning by one game in a blitz tiebreak is a totally different thing to winning 4.5-3.5.

Especially if that one game is armageddon blitz (in which case the player hasn't really won by anything.)

Garvinator
13-02-2009, 08:32 PM
OK, I've removed them, though I think that winning by one game in a blitz tiebreak is a totally different thing to winning 4.5-3.5.Not really in this match, it delivers the exact same result.


Especially if that one game is armageddon blitz (in which case the player hasn't really won by anything.)Was just trying to keep poll options down to as little as possible ;)

Denis_Jessop
13-02-2009, 09:02 PM
OK, I've removed them, though I think that winning by one game in a blitz tiebreak is a totally different thing to winning 4.5-3.5.

Especially if that one game is armageddon blitz (in which case the player hasn't really won by anything.)

If what you mean is that deciding what is apparently a serious chess match by blitz and armageddon games is a joke and a blight on the game, I agree.

Yet I also like Garvin's multiple draws scenario. Another way for Kamsky to win without even playing would be for Topalov to forefeit the match on the ground that security in the toilets was inadequate, even in Bulgaria :)

DJ

Kevin Bonham
13-02-2009, 09:07 PM
If what you mean is that deciding what is apparently a serious chess match by blitz and armageddon games is a joke and a blight on the game, I agree.

Oh, I mean that as well, but that wasn't my point in that instance.

Actually I don't object to the presence of armageddon in this particular match since Kamsky qualified for it by winning one of those silly knockouts (albeit convincingly and impressively) and Topalov qualified for it by losing his title and then kicking up a fuss. So I can't see that the addition of armageddon tiebreaks makes it any sillier than it already is.

Capablanca-Fan
14-02-2009, 12:04 PM
If what you mean is that deciding what is apparently a serious chess match by blitz and armageddon games is a joke and a blight on the game, I agree.
Maybe so. But even they are far better than the silly pseudo-mathematic tiebreak systems that abound. At least blitz is chess after a fashion; the tiebreak systems totally lack merit.

Garvinator
16-02-2009, 11:12 AM
Opening Ceremony tonight. We will find out tonight who is white in game one.

Garvinator
17-02-2009, 11:37 AM
Topalov is white in game one which starts tonight.

Ian Rout
17-02-2009, 02:55 PM
Topalov is white in game one which starts tonight.
Do colours reverse at half-time?

Garvinator
17-02-2009, 03:02 PM
Do colours reverse at half-time?
Nope: http://www.wccc2009.com/en/results.html

So which means from the schedule Topalov will always have white after the rest day. As I have said on previous occasions, silly scheduling compared with just playing every second day.

Kaitlin
17-02-2009, 04:19 PM
I vote Kamsky by 2

ER
17-02-2009, 06:33 PM
Do colours reverse at half-time?
nop, they just change seats!

Kevin Bonham
17-02-2009, 07:32 PM
So which means from the schedule Topalov will always have white after the rest day. As I have said on previous occasions, silly scheduling compared with just playing every second day.

Presumably the latter is not considered as financially viable.

Bill Gletsos
17-02-2009, 08:40 PM
Do colours reverse at half-time?Yes according to the regulations for the event the colours are reveresed after Game 4.

The website currently is not showing this and has the colours for games 5-8 incorrect.

Bill Gletsos
17-02-2009, 08:42 PM
Nope: http://www.wccc2009.com/en/results.htmlIncorrect.
You have made the mistake of trusting the website draw as opposed to checking the regulations for the event here (http://www.wccc2009.com/en/regulations.html).

So which means from the schedule Topalov will always have white after the rest day.No it doesnt for the reason above.

Kevin Bonham
17-02-2009, 08:45 PM
That's sloppy form for the website to have that wrong.

Garvinator
17-02-2009, 10:28 PM
Incorrect.
You have made the mistake of trusting the website draw as opposed to checking the regulations for the event here (http://www.wccc2009.com/en/regulations.html).
Well there you go, silly me. What a mistake to make. Thinking the official website would have it right :whistle:

Kevin Bonham
18-02-2009, 12:30 AM
Official website is shockingly slow-loading yet someone is trying to complain about playchess transmitting the game. :rolleyes:

Ian Rout
18-02-2009, 09:03 AM
It will make the last game much more interesting if Topalov has White needing a win to win or tie in the last game with White.

Game 1 was an (eventful) draw, not sure if that's been mentioned yet.

Kevin Bonham
18-02-2009, 11:32 AM
Topalov - Kamsky game 1

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bg7 7.Bc4 c5 8.Ne2 Nc6 9.Be3 0-0 10.0-0 Na5 11.Bd3 b6 12.Qd2 e5 13.Bh6 cxd4 14.Bxg7 Kxg7 15.cxd4 exd4 16.f4 f6 17.e5 (TN) 17...Bd7 18.exf6+ Qxf6 19.Ng3 Kh8 20.f5 gxf5 21.Bxf5 Bxf5 22.Rxf5 Qd6 23.Raf1 Nc6 24.Ne4 Qe7 25.Qh6 Rxf5 26.Rxf5 Ne5 27.h3 Ng6 28.Rh5 Rg8 29.Nf6 Rg7 30.Nxh7 Rxh7 31.Qxg6 Qe3+ 32.Kf1 Qc1+ 33.Kf2 Qd2+ 34.Kg3 Qe3+ 35.Kh2 Qf4+ 36.Kg1 Qc1+ draw

Annotated by Marin on chessbase here (http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5215).

A sharp draw but probably always going to end up that way with no realistic winning chances for either side.

ER
18-02-2009, 03:39 PM
I followed the game (with some analytical points by GM Dimitrov) here
http://games.chessdom.com/sofia-2009/topalov-kamsky-game-1
their interface is obsolete but serves it's purpose
The site also has all the latest information about the match as well as other Chess related issues.

Adamski
18-02-2009, 07:51 PM
Surprise, Surprise! They began with a draw.

Garvinator
19-02-2009, 12:14 AM
Does Kamsky think the time control is 10 moves in 2 hours?

Kevin Bonham
19-02-2009, 12:41 AM
Does Kamsky think the time control is 10 moves in 2 hours?

After Kamsky's 10.Qh5 I was a bit surprised Topalov played 10...c6 as fast as he did.

Very juicy position; I just hope Gata doesn't make a meal of it when he gets into time trouble.

Garvinator
19-02-2009, 01:05 AM
Very juicy position; I just hope Gata doesn't make a meal of it when he gets into time trouble.
Is 25 moves in 20 minutes with no increment to surf time trouble? ;)

Kevin Bonham
19-02-2009, 01:34 AM
Is 25 moves in 20 minutes with no increment to surf time trouble? ;)

How about 25 moves in 13 minutes? :rolleyes:

Kevin Bonham
19-02-2009, 02:04 AM
Or 17 moves in 3:30?

Kevin Bonham
19-02-2009, 02:33 AM
Game 2. Kamsky had an at least equal position in a very interesting game on move 15 but was already dead on the clock with only 13 mins to make 25 moves. Naturally he started making errors and was annihilated.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 Bc5 5.Nxe5 Nxe4 6.Qe2 Nxe5 7.d4 Qe7 8.dxc5 Nxc5 9.Nc3 Ng6 10.Qh5 c6 11.Bg5 f6 12.Rae1 Ne6 13.Bd3 0-0 14.Bd2 d5 15.f4 Qc5+ 16.Kh1 d4 17.Bf5 Rf7 18.Ne4 Qd5 19.Bxg6 hxg6 20.Qxd5 cxd5 21.Nd6 Rc7 22.c4 dxc3 23.Bxc3 d4 24.Bb4 Bd7 25.Rf2 a5 26.Ba3 b5 27.b3 b4 28.Bb2 Ra6 29.Ne4 Rac6 30.Kg1 Rc2 31.g3 d3 32.Rd1 f5 0-1

I intend to move most of the posts discussing the games etc to the same thread and possibly lock one of them to stop discussion spilling over two threads. Suggestions as to which one should get the booty welcome.

Garvinator
19-02-2009, 08:02 AM
I suggest this one be kept open as the other one is titled 2008 ;)

Garvinator
19-02-2009, 08:04 AM
I want to change my vote, I was not aware when voting that Kamsky was going to burn up the first hour on his clock for his first ten moves in each game. This was not in the regulations or clearly spelt out by the organisers.

Kevin Bonham
19-02-2009, 11:28 PM
Clock log of Kamsky-Topalov game two showing how much time players spent on each move (from Mig
's Daily Dirt (http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/2009/02/kamsky-topalov-g2-clock-flop.htm#more)


Move Kamsky Topalov
---- ---------------- ----------------
1. e4 (0:00) e5 (0:05)
2. Nf3 (0:06) Nc6 (0:06)
3. Bb5 (0:06) Nf6 (0:07)
4. O-O (3:57) Bc5 (0:06)
5. Nxe5 (21:10) Nxe4 (0:06)
6. Qe2 (4:23) Nxe5 (0:08)
7. d4 (11:20) Qe7 (0:07)
8. dxc5 (8:58) Nxc5 (0:06)
9. Nc3 (1:22) Ng6 (0:08)
10. Qh5 (27:05) c6 (13:32)
11. Bg5 (5:09) f6 (0:03)
12. Rae1 (3:25) Ne6 (2:45)
13. Bd3 (3:09) O-O (1:05)
14. Bd2 (3:43) d5 (6:07)
15. f4 (8:56) Qc5+ (0:05)
16. Kh1 (1:49) d4 (0:05)
17. Bf5 (0:04) Rf7 (2:01)
18. Ne4 (3:24) Qd5 (0:04)
19. Bxg6 (0:22) hxg6 (8:58)
20. Qxd5 (0:07) cxd5 (0:04)
21. Nd6 (0:01) Rc7 (7:47)
22. c4 (5:09) dxc3 (1:53)
23. Bxc3 (0:22) d4 (2:59)
24. Bb4 (1:02) Bd7 (0:25)
25. Rf2 (0:25) a5 (1:01)
26. Ba3 (0:09) b5 (0:10)
27. b3 (0:32) b4 (2:34)
28. Bb2 (0:05) Ra6 (0:04)
29. Ne4 (0:04) Rac6 (0:21)
30. Kg1 (0:51) Rc2 (0:33)
31. g3 (0:05) d3 (1:32)
32. Rd1 (0:05) f5 (1:17)

Ridiculous!

Kamsky in fact lost on time still eight moves shy of the time control, but his position was terminal anyway.

Miranda
20-02-2009, 06:56 AM
No matter what others say, I still think it comes down to the fact that Kamsky's a bit rusty.

MichaelBaron
20-02-2009, 09:46 AM
Game 2 was very one-sided.

Capablanca-Fan
20-02-2009, 11:40 AM
No matter what others say, I still think it comes down to the fact that Kamsky's a bit rusty.
Could be. He thought for ages on several moves in the first 10 in an opening that he should have known. A loss with White is not a good omen.

Kaitlin
20-02-2009, 11:59 AM
thats what i dont like about chess .. the memorising stuff ... bring in column 'i' and row 9 :D.. acutally will need 'j' as well and a row 10

Desmond
20-02-2009, 12:33 PM
Could be. He thought for ages on several moves in the first 10 in an opening that he should have known. A loss with White is not a good omen.Yeah, and thinking for 27 mins and not being able to make up that time by making the next 4 or so moves quickly is bad. Surely he considered ...c6 in that 27 mins.

Kevin Bonham
20-02-2009, 02:41 PM
The game indicates the dangers of paying too much heed to what an opponent has played in the past during preparation. Topalov had never played 4...Bc5 before and Kamsky clearly did not expect it.

Ian Rout
20-02-2009, 03:13 PM
No matter what others say, I still think it comes down to the fact that Kamsky's a bit rusty.
According to the FIDE rating list Kamsky commenced his comeback with the April 2005 rating list so if he's still rusty it's his own fault. You ought to be able to shake rust in nearly four years and he shouldn't have trouble getting into top tournaments.

In fact Kamsky played 243 games from that time compared to Topalov's 222 in the same period. Those games included beating players like Carlsen and Shirov in the World Cup, which is not bad for a rusty player.

Perhaps it's more that he relied on his natural talent which enabled him to keep his rating at an impressive 2700+ rather than building up the sort of critical opening repertoire that will beat a near-2800. Or maybe he has and we haven't seen it yet.

Denis_Jessop
20-02-2009, 04:53 PM
According to the FIDE rating list Kamsky commenced his comeback with the April 2005 rating list so if he's still rusty it's his own fault. You ought to be able to shake rust in nearly four years and he shouldn't have trouble getting into top tournaments.

In fact Kamsky played 243 games from that time compared to Topalov's 222 in the same period. Those games included beating players like Carlsen and Shirov in the World Cup, which is not bad for a rusty player.

Perhaps it's more that he relied on his natural talent which enabled him to keep his rating at an impressive 2700+ rather than building up the sort of critical opening repertoire that will beat a near-2800. Or maybe he has and we haven't seen it yet.

As Ian implies, the facts available on the FIDE ratings pages completely disprove the theory of "rust". When Kamsky came back in 2005 his rating was 2717. It quickly dropped, due to rust no doubt, to 2671 on the April 2006 rating period. But it has climbed almost ever since so that, in the October 2008 period he reached his highest ever rating of 2729. He is now 2725, still above his pre-comeback raitng. Moreover he played 98 games in the Jan 2008 to Jan 2009 period.

DJ

Kevin Bonham
20-02-2009, 09:41 PM
Some comments from the players on official site re game two:


At the brief press conference after the game, Gata Kamsky was in no mood for extensive comments: 'Very complex game. Perhaps f4 was unnecessary. Completely missed 21...Rc7 and you know the result...';

'I made some mistakes during the game but I am very happy with the victory. I was told that have missed to win faster on move 17, but failing to calculate some line is quite normal.' said Veselin Topalov.

Garvinator
20-02-2009, 10:51 PM
Game 3 starts in about 10 mins or so. The main website is showing:
Warning! It is absolutely prohibited the live broadcast of the moves or video during the game on other websites, media or software without the explicit permission of the orginizers of the match. Currently the broadcast rights are being violated by ChessBase on its software PlayChess

I am not sure how playchess are in violation of this considering that Game 3 has not started. :whistle:

Kevin Bonham
20-02-2009, 11:04 PM
I also doubt they're in violation at all. Reporting the moves is not the same thing as broadcasting a video of a sporting event.

Miranda
20-02-2009, 11:08 PM
You can't put copyright on chess moves! (can you?)

Kevin Bonham
20-02-2009, 11:10 PM
You can't put copyright on chess moves! (can you?)

There's been a lot of argument and a few threats about this over the years but I reckon if you could really do it somebody would have by now.

I wonder if a court would see much difference between that and copyrighting the score to a cricket match or golf tournament (which would obviously be laughed out of court).

Miranda
20-02-2009, 11:17 PM
Yes, exactly.

It's like when they tried to have the half-hour delay on the WCC moves... which was cut after a few rounds.

Kaitlin
20-02-2009, 11:35 PM
When I work out a brand new opening .. im going to patent it...copywrite it and trademark it too :D

Kevin Bonham
21-02-2009, 02:27 AM
Game 3 drawn:

Topalov,Veselin - Kamsky,Gata [D81]
World Chess Challenge - candidates final Sofia (3), 20.02.2009

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Qb3 dxc4 5.Qxc4 Bg7 6.e4 0-0 7.Be2 a6 8.Bf4 b5 9.Qxc7 Qxc7 10.Bxc7 b4 11.Na4 Nc6 12.d5 Nd4 13.Bd3 Bd7 14.Nb6 Bb5 15.Be5 Nxe4 16.Bxg7 Kxg7 17.Bxe4 Rab8 18.0-0-0 Nf5 19.Bxf5 gxf5 20.d6 Rxb6 21.dxe7 Re8 22.Nf3 Rxe7 23.Nd4 Bd7 24.Rhe1 Rxe1 25.Rxe1 Rh6 26.Re7 Rd6 27.Ne2 Kf6 28.Re3 Ba4 29.b3 Bc6 30.Nf4 a5 31.g3 Be4 32.f3 Bc6 33.h4 Rd4 34.Kc2 Bb5 35.Nh5+ Kg6 36.Nf4+ Kf6 37.Nh5+ -

Capablanca-Fan
21-02-2009, 11:50 AM
You can't put copyright on chess moves! (can you?)
I can't see how it could be done under current FIDE Laws (http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=124&view=article):


8.3 The scoresheets are the property of the organisers of the event.

Kevin Bonham
21-02-2009, 12:22 PM
I can't see how it could be done under current FIDE Laws (http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=124&view=article):


8.3 The scoresheets are the property of the organisers of the event.

Which in theory might be said to imply that the organisers of the event own the copyright, but it doesn't. What they own is the physical scoresheet as a record of the game made by the players, and the reason they own it is nothing to do with copyright but is to do with the verification of the moves (and of their recording by the players or otherwise) for refereeing purposes.

Capablanca-Fan
21-02-2009, 02:27 PM
Which in theory might be said to imply that the organisers of the event own the copyright, but it doesn't. What they own is the physical scoresheet as a record of the game made by the players, and the reason they own it is nothing to do with copyright but is to do with the verification of the moves (and of their recording by the players or otherwise) for refereeing purposes.
Certainly the players would have a hard time claiming copyright violation if the organizers released the moves.

Denis_Jessop
21-02-2009, 08:01 PM
Certainly the players would have a hard time claiming copyright violation if the organizers released the moves.

What's more is that, if anything could be copyright (I don't think it can) it would not be the game in progress but the game after completion as otherwise, for example, players following moves made in a previous game could be in breach of copyright until they deviated from it.

The situation is not unlike that in a leading law case decided in the 1930s (from memory, Cowan v Rosehill Racecourse) in which the organiser of the races at Rosehill course in Sydney banned a broadcasting station from entry to the course to breoadcast the races. The station then set up a tower on adjacent land so that they could see the races and broadcast them from there. The court refused an application to restrain that practice. Copyright was not the basis of the order sought but the principle is the same, I think, as trying to stop a website from broadcasting the moves of a game as it happens.

DJ

Garvinator
21-02-2009, 08:21 PM
Rather than all these 'examples' I think a better example is to just look at what is currently happening. If the organisers really had a leg to stand on, they would have done something about it and rang chessbase and complained.

Perhaps they have and chessbase ignored them. But since it would not have affected chessbase's coverage to just delay the moves by a couple of minutes, I do not think it is unreasonable to assume that they have received no complaint at all.

So all that the posting of the message has achieved is point out to more people that chessbase is relaying the moves live :whistle:

Basil
21-02-2009, 08:37 PM
Rather than all these 'examples' I think a better example is to just look at what is currently happening. If the organisers really had a leg to stand on, they would have done something about it and rang chessbase and complained.
Garv, looking at what is happening is NOT a good way to determine standing. Many winnable positions (in many fields including at law) are not claimed/ converted for various reasons that have nothing to do with standing or likelihood of winning. Conversely, the the same is true naturally for many defeatable positions.

As it happens I am as certain when I first heard of the embargo as I am now that the position is entirely untenable. However, it would be folly to assert the position is untenable simply because of the (apparent) conduct of the parties.


So all that the posting of the message has achieved is point out to more people that chessbase is relaying the moves live :whistle:
This is a by-product of the situation, which I agree has interest in its own right, but should not interfere with the discussion regarding the broadcasting of the moves.

Kevin Bonham
21-02-2009, 08:45 PM
Two whites in three days for Kamsky now. Of course, if he plays these whites as badly as his first the match will be pretty much over, but if he can play them well this is a big chance to get back into the match.

Phil Bourke
21-02-2009, 09:13 PM
Rather than all these 'examples' I think a better example is to just look at what is currently happening. If the organisers really had a leg to stand on, they would have done something about it and rang chessbase and complained.

Perhaps they have and chessbase ignored them. But since it would not have affected chessbase's coverage to just delay the moves by a couple of minutes, I do not think it is unreasonable to assume that they have received no complaint at all.

So all that the posting of the message has achieved is point out to more people that chessbase is relaying the moves live :whistle:
Mig Greengard stated that all this revolves around an old dispute between Chessbase and Danialov. I am sure that those who have ICC accounts can go and listen to the replay for more details as I tend to stop listening whenever I hear that word Danialov :)

Denis_Jessop
21-02-2009, 09:22 PM
Mig Greengard stated that all this revolves around an old dispute between Chessbase and Danialov. I am sure that those who have ICC accounts can go and listen to the replay for more details as I tend to stop listening whenever I hear that word Danialov :)

This could well be so as both Chess OK and Chessdom are broadcasting the games live apparently without objection.

DJ

Basil
22-02-2009, 01:52 AM
You know how support for the Laba party is stacked with voters who have no idea? Millions of school-leavers, illiterates, long-term unemployed, lifer uni students and so forth? Each and every one of them artificially forcing the support for the leftish ideals up?

Well, I'm supporting Topa on the basis that has nothing to do with chess. Kamsky and his dad are disgraces. Violence? Cheating? Especially in years gone by. Discuss. If I'm wrong, I'm happy with my free kick in the first para.

Garvinator
22-02-2009, 02:22 AM
Well, I'm supporting Topa on the basis that has nothing to do with chess. Kamsky and his dad are disgraces. Violence? Cheating? Especially in years gone by. Discuss. If I'm wrong, I'm happy with my free kick in the first para.
Ok I will give you free kick about the bit about supporting Topa.

This match is only taking place because Danailov and Topalov had a big spew to fide after Topalov lost to Kramnik for the world championship match.

Topalov claimed to fide that to not have the number one player in the world involved in the next world championship cycle would be absurd. So fide re-wrote the whole cycle to include Topalov, which is basically this match.

The small devil in the detail of all this. Kramnik and Topalov both signed the same match contract which stated that whoever lost that match was out of the next world championship qualification cycle.

So Topalov knew full well he was playing for all the cookies, but when he lost, he couldn't handle it and had a bit bitch, whine and moan. In another words, a big sook. Except that fide gave into him, instead of telling him to get lost and showing him the match contract.

Of course had Topalov won against Kramnik and Kramnik tried to make the same demands, I am sure Topalov would have just sat back and allowed Kramnik to get a 'free' match :whistle:

Kevin Bonham
22-02-2009, 02:39 AM
Topa's own form with the false cheating accusations and related dummy spits in his match against Kramnik was none too pretty either.

As for Rustam, he was indeed a thug and Gata was at least a passive beneficiary of his behaviour. However that was a very long time ago and I believe Kamsky Snr is now estranged and out of the picture.

A case could well be made that these two deserve each other.

Kevin Bonham
22-02-2009, 05:25 AM
Kamsky wins game 4! His first win against Topalov ever!

Kamsky's pawn sac on move 26 to get activity on the queenside appeared to surprise Topalov who reacted inaccurately (I thought 30...b4 was especially suspect though we'll see what the expert analysts say) and spent the rest of the game suffering for it.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0 9.h3 Bb7 10.d4 Re8 11.Nbd2 Bf8 12.Ng5 Re7 13.d5 Nb8 14.Nf1 Nbd7 15.Ng3 g6 16.Bc2 h6 17.Nf3 Nb6 18.h4 Qd7 19.Nh2 Bg7 20.h5 Rf8 21.Nhf1 c6 22.dxc6 Qxc6 23.Ne3 Kh7 24.Qf3 Bc8 25.Rd1 Be6 26.b3 Qxc3 27.Bd2 Qc7 28.Ba5 Qb8 29.Rd2 Nc8 30.Rad1 b4 31.Qe2 Kh8 32.Bd3 Na7 33.Rc1 Nb5 34.Bxb5 axb5 35.Bxb4 Rd7 36.Rc6 Rfd8 37.Qd1 Bf8 38.Qc2 Kh7 39.Ba5 Re8 40.hxg6+ fxg6 41.Bc7 Qb7 42.Bxd6 Bf7 43.Bb4 Bxb4 44.Rxd7 Qxd7 45.Rxf6 Re6 46.Nd5 Bf8 47.Rf3 Kg7 48.Rc3 Ra6 49.Rc7 Qd6 50.Qe2 Kg8 51.Qxb5 Rxa2 52.Qb7 Ra1+ 53.Kh2 Bxd5 54.exd5 Qf6 55.Qc8 Qh4+ 56.Qh3 Qxh3+ 57.Kxh3 Rd1 58.Ne4 Ba3 59.Ra7 Bb4 60.Rb7 Ba3 61.f3 Kf8 62.Rb5 h5 63.Kg3 Rc1 64.Rb8+ Kf7 65.Rb7+ Kf8 66.Kf2 Rc2+ 67.Kf1 Rc1+ 68.Ke2 Rc2+ 69.Kd3 Rxg2 70.Ra7 Be7 71.d6 Bd8 72.Nc5 Ke8 73.Rh7 1-0

To state the obvious, we now have a match on our hands!

Miranda
22-02-2009, 09:40 AM
To state the obvious, we now have a match on our hands!
Didn't we always? :whistle:

Saragossa
22-02-2009, 11:06 AM
A minor hitch. Topa will recover and win his next.

Basil
22-02-2009, 11:34 AM
Really enjoying that chess is being played! Great for the game. Great for Gunner!

Kevin Bonham
22-02-2009, 02:51 PM
Ian Rogers writeup here (http://main.uschess.org/content/view/9155/517).

Desmond
22-02-2009, 03:17 PM
Ian Rogers writeup here (http://main.uschess.org/content/view/9155/517).
hilarious photo of Topa :lol:

Kevin Bonham
22-02-2009, 04:34 PM
I felt sorry for Topa watching the webcam late in the game. He spent a lot of time slumping and looking annoyed and at one point got up and left his chair to swivel abruptly.

This from the official site report of round 3 (round 4 should be a fun read when it goes up) :


Asked by a Bulgarian TV reporter is he comfortable in Bulgaria, the American GM answered: 'I feel fine in Bulgaria, thank you.'

To another question by the same reporter: 'Why are Kamsky's replies at press conferences so brief? Is it because of some dislike towards Bulgarian reporters?', Gata Kamsky answered: 'Logical replies are are always brief.'

:lol:

Silly paranoid nonsense by reporters.

Apparently Kamsky was quite talkative after winning game 4.

Capablanca-Fan
23-02-2009, 03:47 PM
Ian Rogers writeup here (http://main.uschess.org/content/view/9155/517).
Thanx for that. It seems that the Bulgarian audience is sporting at least.

Kevin Bonham
23-02-2009, 07:31 PM
The body language in the Round 4 press conference (http://www.wccc2009.com/en/press4.html) is quite amusing. Not only does Topalov at one point cross his arms in a peeved-looking fashion but at the end Kamsky looks quite impatient with the reporters continuing to ask Topalov questions that he clearly isn't inclined to answer.

Garvinator
23-02-2009, 11:10 PM
I wonder if any journos will ask Topa for his opinion on the Shak accusations in the press conference after the game ;) and what Topa will respond with :whistle: since Topa is such an expert on the subject of engine moves in GM games :P

Kevin Bonham
24-02-2009, 12:45 AM
That's sloppy form for the website to have that wrong.

Turns out it didn't; apparently an agreement was reached that overrode that part of the original match conditions (wonder why?)

Kevin Bonham
24-02-2009, 11:59 AM
Topalov wins, or rather Kamsky loses, game five.

I play 4.Ngf3 a lot so I was interested to follow this game. I was never convinced Kamsky had completely equalised, but at the same time Topalov's advantage (if it existed) was miniscule. I was surprised that Kamsky was so hellbent on exchanging bishops he was willing to give Topalov three moves in order to do it, but he did not get as much positional grief over that as I expected. Just when it was looking more and more likely that the game was going to be drawn, he blundered a pawn with 35...Nb4?? and had to give up another to avoid going into a R+4P vs R+3P ending where white's well advanced h-pawn would make it unlikely he could hold. The queen ending was dead lost with even a minimum of care from Topalov so black could have resigned earlier. I liked Topalov's move 46.a3!

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 c5 4. Ngf3 cxd4 5. Nxd4 Nc6 6. Bb5 Bd7 7. Nxc6 Bxc6 8.
Bxc6+ bxc6 9. c4 Bd6 10. cxd5 cxd5 11. exd5 exd5 12. O-O Ne7 13. Nf3 O-O 14. Qd3
Qd7 15. Rd1 Rfd8 16. Be3 a5 17. g3 h6 18. Bb6 Rdc8 19. Bd4 Bc5 20. Bc3 Bb4 21.
Be5 Bd6 22. Rd2 Bxe5 23. Nxe5 Qd6 24. Re1 Rc7 25. Qf3 Rf8 26. Kg2 Rb7 27. h4 Qb4
28. Ree2 Qa4 29. b3 Qb4 30. Nd3 Qd6 31. h5 Rc7 32. Nf4 d4 33. Re4 Nc6 34. Nd3
Rd8 35. Rc2 Nb4 36. Nxb4 axb4 37. Rxd4 Qf8 38. Rxd8 Qxd8 39. Rxc7 Qxc7 40. Qa8+
Kh7 41. Qe4+ Kg8 42. Qxb4 Qc6+ 43. Kg1 Qc1+ 44. Kh2 Qc2 45. Qe1 Kf8 46. a3 Qb2
47. Qb4+ Kg8 48. Kg2 Qe5 49. Qg4 Qb2 50. Qc8+ Kh7 51. Qc4 Qxa3 52. Qxf7 Qb4 53.
Qc4 Qb7+ 54. Kg1 Qf3 55. g4 1-0

Desmond
24-02-2009, 12:23 PM
Good to see so many decisive games in this match.

Ian Rout
24-02-2009, 12:51 PM
Turns out it didn't; apparently an agreement was reached that overrode that part of the original match conditions (wonder why?)
Do we know if that was before or after the draw for colours? If I had first Black my preference would be to keep the mid-match swap.

Kevin Bonham
24-02-2009, 07:49 PM
Do we know if that was before or after the draw for colours? If I had first Black my preference would be to keep the mid-match swap.

I read somewhere that it was decided in November 2008 at Dresden.

Kevin Bonham
25-02-2009, 02:27 AM
Game 6 drawn. Pretty quiet by the standards of the match so far.

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5 4.Nf3 e6 5.Be2 c5 6.Be3 cxd4 7.Nxd4 Ne7 8.Nd2 Nbc6 9.N2f3 Bg4 10.0-0 Bxf3 11.Nxf3 g6 12.c4 Bg7 13.cxd5 Nxd5 14.Bc5 Bf8 15.Qc1 Rc8 16.Bxf8 Nd4 17.Qd1 Nxe2+ 18.Qxe2 Kxf8 19.Rac1 Kg7 20.h4 Qb6 21.g3 h6 22.a3 Rc5 23.Rc2 Rhc8 24.Rfc1 a5 25.Qd2 Rxc2 26.Rxc2 Rc5 27.Qc1 Rxc2 28.Qxc2 Ne7 29.Qc3 Nc6 30.b3 Qd8 31.a4 Qd1+ 32.Kg2 Qe2 33.Qe3 Qd1 34.Nd2 Nb4 35.Nc4 Nc2 36.Qd2 Qb1 37.Qf4 Ne1+ 38.Kh2 Qxb3 39.Qf6+ Kg8 40.Qd8+ Kh7 41.Qf6 Kg8 42.Qd8+ Kh7 43.Qf6 Kg8 -

Kevin Bonham
27-02-2009, 03:26 AM
Well, my predicted margin of 4.5-2.5 was correct, though it didn't look that way a few days ago!

In game seven, Kamsky was getting on top by move 25, at which point both players had 40 minutes left. But he burned his clock down to below 10 mins and then played a move that wasn't even all that good (it certainly blew his advantage).

Instead of simply winning the a-pawn and getting a very drawn ending, Topalov complicated matters, playing four objectively dodgy moves in a row (28.Rec1?!, 29.Qd7?, 30.d6?, 31.Qb7?!) but Kamsky in extreme time trouble returned the compliment with 31...Reb8? (31...b4! wins) and 32...Rc8? (Fritz says 32...Bd3!! is good but you need hours on your clock to see a move like that!) after which white was winning. By the time he reached the time control Kamsky had completely capitulated.

Sad end to an exciting match.

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 c5 4.exd5 Qxd5 5.Ngf3 cxd4 6.Bc4 Qd6 7.0-0 Nf6 8.Re1 Be7 9.Nb3 Nc6 10.Nbxd4 Nxd4 11.Nxd4 0-0 12.c3 Bd7 13.Qf3 Qb6 14.Bb3 a5 15.Be3 Bc5 16.Rad1 a4 17.Bc2 Qxb2 18.Bg5 Nd5 19.c4 Bxd4 20.Qd3 f5 21.Qxd4 Qxc2 22.cxd5 Qxa2 23.Qb6 a3 24.Be7 Rfe8 25.Qd6 Ba4 26.Qxe6+ Kh8 27.Ra1 Qc4 28.Rec1 Bc2 29.Qd7 a2 30.d6 b5 31.Qb7 Reb8 32.Qc7 Rc8 33.Qxc4 Rxc4 34.d7 Bb1 35.Rd1 Kg8 36.d8=Q+ Rxd8 37.Bxd8 Bc2 38.Rdc1 b4 39.Rxa2 b3 40.Ra8 Kf7 41.Rb8 Ke6 42.Re1+ Kd5 43.Be7 Ra4 44.Bf8 Ra7 45.h4 1-0