A what???? When did Kramnik last play the Sicilian? Or did you mean in later games when he's White?

I get the impression that finding a theoretical edge is of secondary importance for these guys compared to getting positions that match their strengths, even if they are roughly equal (in white's case) or slightly worse (in Black's case).  Does anyone else get this feeling?  I always thought that opening preparation was all about finding a theoretical edge somewhere by coming up with fresh new (strong) ideas, but my opinion is starting to undergo refinements and modifications.  I'm a patzer without a deep understanding of the game, so maybe i'm just getting a basic education now!

I think we'll start off with a Slav where Topalov with stick with 4.e3.  The game will continue as a Semi-Slav and Kramnik, if allowed, will go for a Meran.  Topalov has no reason to avoid a Meran so this might be what we'll see.

I doubt we'll see the QGA transposition again; I think that was a one time thing.  

If the game starts off with 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e3 then we won't see 4...Bf5 of course, but I suppose after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 Kramnik could choose 4...Bf5 although I don't expect this.  Kramnik has a couple of games in this line from 1993-1995 but hasn't played it in over 10 years.

Remind me what Karpov got up to in 1974? I don't remember it.

1978 was bad, agreed, although I don't think it was as bad. It's not like Korchnoi was a saint.

But it's long past time parapsychologists were banned as part of delegations. I don't know what they are, but good guys don't seem to need them.

I don't think anyone is saying the psychological antics affect whether Topalov's a good player or not. We're saying we think they have made Kramnik play worse and thus we're not finding out who is truly the best player. To say nothing of the fact that the player who has won more games isn't leading the match.

'Overpressing' - well, he played too sharply in the opening for his mood or form, or whatever. Call it what you will.

Do lay off the Drawnik nonsense.

I am a bit puzzled by the strong connection several contributions make between the psychological warfare antics and the quality of Topalov as a chessplayer.
Based on the games so far I simply think Topalov has entertained us  better and shown more enterprising chess than Drawnik. His seventh game was the only reasonable good game so far.

If we apply the same standards we couldnt respect Karpov as a world champion. His psychological warfare against Korchnoi probably exceeded anything I have seen so far. This applies both to the 1974 and the 1978 match. Still I respect him as a chessplayer and a legitimate world champion, though I can't respect his attitude when not behind a chessboard.

The statement that only the Bulgarians will be able to respect Topalov as a world champion is rather beside the mark (I am not a Bulgarian).   
As for the eighth game I cant read it as Kramnik overpressing, but rather as Kramniks position gradually worsening. There where perhaps some points where he could have played better, but this was a difficult endgame, and Topalovs judgement and/or preparation were simply superior.

Taljechin - I know where you are coming from trying to say a player has responsibility for his Managers actions, but the analogies you use are misleading for one reason - Danailov however much distasteful his accusations have been, and potentially damaging for the game, has done nothing illegal. It is well known Topalov leaves all non-chess matters to Danailov, I agree if Danailov was breaking the law then Topalov would also be liable - all I am doing is pointing out that Topalov is just playing chess here - he has always implicitly trusted Danailov in the past and it has served him well - in this case I believe it is not serving him well but thats another story.

Danailov was deliberately trying to give Kramnik another distraction to think about, I am pretty certain about that. See my earlier comments for how I think the Kramnik team should handle this and how they have really handled this the wrong way. Kramnik actually entertained the question about the Fritz percentages in his last press conference and started making comparisons which showed that he had actually been thinking about this - the tactic succeded when it should not, another thing to occupy Kramniks head with.

Keano wrote on 10/06/06 at 10:51:13:



Point 2 - and you fail to understand it again. Morally, the same laws should apply for all. But I see there's no point in discussing that with you. You probably think Tonya Harding was totally innocent as well...


Point 1 - obviously I don't play the Slav or QG, so my first impression was indeed that he sacrificed. (As otherwise something like 14.Nxd7 Nxd7 15.b3 seems safer to me.) And maybe he did? As ...Qa5 was played on the next move in the stemgame from '74 - and I noticed that in '92 Schach-Archiv recommended "11.dxc5 Qa5!" so it's certainly not an unknown move in that kind of position. So I'd guess that Kramnik either underestimated Qa5 or else his state of mind after the recent provocation was so upset that he wasn't thinking clearly.