MNb wrote on 10/07/07 at 21:13:07:


Well given that all he has to do is win a match v a winner of the grand prix to play the winner of anand v kramnik I am sure he will !

Antillian wrote on 11/08/07 at 11:45:07:


It was favor, not flavor, right?  But in any case, my suspicion is that Kramnik's meaning was ironic.  "I gave him the title," as in self-criticism.  Still, its bad form to denigrate a competition in which you have just been defeated.  But its pretty small potatoes, especially for top-level chess.  I certainly wouldn't refuse to shake Kramnik's hand over it.  My attitude about Topalov as well.

They say that Kathleen Battle is a total b---h, but with that voice, who gives a d--n?

Kramnik's comments are indeed disappointing, but the original Russian has a slightly different flavor than the article in Chessbase makes out.

Kramnik's verb choice was more "I favored Anand with the title" than "I loaned him the title".  I think Kramnik was trying to put a positive spin on the World Championship and maintain that he has a right to the scheduled match rather than to denigrate Anand's achievement.  ChessBase made Kramnik sound a bit more pig-headed than he probably deserved.  

But who can blame ChessBase?  They not only made sensational headlines, but even had the acumen to give the original Russian for us to verify what he actually said.  

Antillian wrote on 11/07/07 at 15:56:34:


Yes, particularly since Kramnik played, and finished behind Anand, in this supposedly not-so-important tournament.  But perhaps his eventual results will back up his words.

How is it that Kramniks comments dont surprise me. Unfortunately he has been consistently self-serving and ungracious in the past and is consistent in this path. A great player, but his actions away from the board have never inspired me.

Cheers. Even after a few tasty beers I disagree. 

I am a fan of Topalov's chess and I agree. I sincerely hope he will take up the race for the title again, behind the board that is.

Personally,

I don't mind a book reviewer inserting his own opinions into a review as long as they pertain to the material covered.  I read the New York Times Book Review every week and regularly peruse professional reviews (of history) .  I prefer reviews that are written by experts in a given field and which present a book from a point of view rather than those that pretend to a false objectivity that can never be.  I want the book put into a social and cultural context by the reviewer.

I've found Silman's reviews to be rather uneven, but his review of Topalov's book was excellent because he achieved the twin goals of any good review:  a) he informed the reader of the content of the book in an interesting way and b) he provided the reader with an informed discussion of the material covered in the book.  

In other words, what Willempie sees as a drawback of Silman's review is exactly what I look for in an exceptional review.  

Willempie,

Your English is fantastic!  You made your point quite clearly.  I disagree with you, but you don't need a speechwriter.