IMJohnCox wrote on 09/15/06 at 14:43:39:

Yep principles are always the first to go when honour or money is involved. I am not going into this debate about FIDE, other then stating that I think my chess association should drop out of FIDE.
Quote:

I think you're first remark is the core of the issue and why this match is there in the first place. Is he the right champion or not?
I found his remarks a bit over the top as well, but on the other hand quite understandable after witnessing all the previous hassle about the WC AND ending up with a huge margin (including a sabbatical the last 7 rounds). Also Kramnik's results had been anything but impressive at that moment (luckily he improved much lately), so I read the remarks more in the vain of "I've proven my claim, so if he wants that match he has to make it happen as he is the one who needs to show it"
Quote:

Yes and Euwe beat Alekhine, yet chess history for some reason puts more importance on that funny writer Nimzowitsch
If Topalov can keep up these results he is one of the most impressive Wchamps since Alekhine. We tend to forget that we have been spoiled with Karpov and Kasparov who almost always showed they were the best during their tenure.

And personally I like it when a sporter makes the rest of the field look like amateurs. I think many spectators loved it when Armstrong just cycled away on the heaviest col or when Fischer had his unbelievable run in those donut matches. It just shows that even when they have won they keep giving their best. 
Of course if they do it everytime it gets a bit boring

There’s a difference between not protesting and coming out positively in support of Ilyumzhinov at the election as Topalov did. Of course Kramnik has negotiated with the FIDE president from time to time and I dare say they’ve been photographed together – how could he not?

True, Kramnik has also always said that he believes he is the true champion. But then he’s right. I suppose part of my objection to Topalov’s utterances was that in my view Kramnik so manifestly has the better claim. But on any view it was pathetic for Topalov to call Kramnik ‘the number six player in the world’ and ask why he should play him. The guy has no class.

As to Mansell et al, Kramnik did something Topalov could never have done – he beat Kasparov. If chess history ended now, it’s Topalov who would be the footnote.

Quote:


I don't agree. Kramnik don't want draws but he wants to win matches/tournaments. And sometimes it's a good choice to make a draw to save energy.   
I hope Kramnik will win, because of the same reasons John has given.

Tom

IMJohnCox wrote on 09/15/06 at 11:39:53:


Hmm, it seems I must've missed a lot of chess gossip, as I have no idea why Topalov would be 'deeply unsymphatetic' - he had some comments about Kramnik being too low rated and there was some accusations about Cheparinov and cheating - which I don't recall being taken too seriously. So, can you give any examples of why you find Topalov so unsymphatetic?

Generally, Topalov's popularity seems easy to explain I think, as more players prefer Topalov's aggressive style rather than Kramnik's solidity. The player who tries to win every game will always be more popular among the spectators - especially if his opponent is prone to quick draws...

Before I reply keep in mind that I am talking margins here. These guys play at such high level that reflections are always magnified to a certain degree. Similar to what happened with Euwe and Alekhine, where the former was painted as the "logician" and the latter as the "improvisor", but if you look at their games this is difficult to maintain it in such wording.
IMJohnCox wrote on 09/15/06 at 10:47:47:

Isnt that what digging into (not digging in as in going defensive) a position means? Ie ala Botwinnik converting a technical advantage into a win even if it takes 80 moves.
Quote:

Yes that is what I mean. This advantage will diminish if Toppy plays the same openings each time and would allow Kramnik to dig into the types of positions better allowing him his "technical" play. Eg let's assume Toppy plays the KI (not likely) and keeps playing it. The first game may catch Kramnik at unawares, but if he repeats the same type of play the next game I feel Kramnik will be better suited to deal with this "position style repetition". 
Eg in an interview with Spassky he also said that his results were best in matches when openings got repeated as he could then focus on the middle game in his preparation. This is probably why Fischer bombarded him with completely different openings every time. Even an Alekhine twice
Quote:

Problem is that Toppy has even less impressive results in that department. The 'former Soviet champs" refers to for example the famed K-K matches where refinements on previous openings were commonplace. After each match it would be difficult to point to 2 greater experts on eg the QGD.
Quote:

That would be very interesting to see.
Quote:

I have no experience with playing WC matches, but I would think that day-to-day things are much easier when in a familiar environment. Such simple things as reading a menu and the dinner itself could impact your focus (or the focus of the seconds). 
I do doubt we will hear the audience clap every Kramnik move followed by booing Topalovs

I think Kramnik is favourite also due to home advantage. However I think and hope Topalov will win. To me it seems that Kramnik is someone who is good at matchplay and who is good in digging into certain positions, similar to many former Soviet champs. Topalov seems to me better at sensing the psychological moment for action and better at improvising. Of course we're talking margins here as I doubt if many people could guess the player just by looking at the game.
I think Topalov could use this to his advantage by varying the type of middle game every time. This is basically what Fischer and Karpov did against Spassky. However he has to prepare those very thoroughly as otherwise he may end up fooling himself as for example happened to Korchnoi against Karpov when he didnt play the French.

I will personally be shocked if Kramnik tries to repeat the Berlin Defense against Topalov. It was a great weapon to use in one major match, but that was six years and a lifetime of chess ago.  If Kramnik does choose the Berlin, I predict that Topalov will win the match.

On the other hand, Kramnik's handling of the QGA still remains fresh and I can see him employing the QGA well as Black.

I'm guessing that Kramnik will have found something interesting in one of the side variations of the Sicilian as Black, possibly in the Paulsen-Kan-Taimanov family. 

Topalov will probably try to win with 1.e4 and get interesting games in the QID complex as Black.  If Kramnik also plays 1.e4, then Toppy will almost certainly test out some Scheveningen/Najdorf type of line.   

I'm stating these as certainties even though they're just guesses.  Still, I hope it will make for some interesting responses.

I think Kramnik may throw out a surprise and give the QGA a go once or twice as black.
I feel Topalov would answer 1.Nf3 with 1...c5 or 1...d5 (Slav).
Kramnik will prepare vs. 1.Nf3 with 1...Nf6,2.c4 e6 going for QGD or quasi-Nimzo, or 2...c5 Symmetrical English.

Engaging in a Qc2 Nimzo or QID g3 discussion would be critical for the match and interesting to see who comes out on top.

I don't think Topalov will risk the KID, but I know he's thinking about it!

Every game could conceivably be a Qc2 Nimzo, but it is incredibly unlikely.  I would love it though!