more on the failed uep kramnik-topalov match

see here <http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2742> and here

<http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2743>. the first document, from the
topalov team, is simply maddening - especially in its first reason for rejecting kramnik's
match offer:
1. [1] we do not recognise mr. kramnik as a champion. [2] the world champion’s
title belongs by law to fide and, after his refusal to participate in the official world
championship in san luis, mr. kramnik automatically lost his right to be designated
the world champion. [3] however, by the looks of it, he has decided to seize the
title for the rest of his life. [4] let us remember that he’s only 7th in the world
ranking list, scoring quite mediocre results recently. [5] at the same time, in
addition to being the official world champion, veselin topalov is number 1 in the
world ranking list of 1 january 2006. [sentence numbers added.]
it's like shooting fish in a barrel, but let's critique this anyway, just for fun.
let's start with [2]. appropriately enough, it is plagued with two serious problems. first,
what "law" is this that conferred ownership of the world championship title on fide? did
fide fail to sue the pca in 1993 and 1995, braingames in 2000 and dannemann in 2004 -
all claiming to run world chess championships - solely out of the goodness of their
organizational hearts? and what about the accoona "world championship" in new york
earlier this year?
worse still, [2] is at least implicitly self-contradictory. the suggestion at least seems to be
that kramnik had the right to be called "world champion" prior to san luis, even though
kramnik's title had nothing at all to do with fide. go figure.
now let's briefly consider the peerless thinking displayed by [3]. it's strange that danailov
would blame kramnik for trying to possess the world championship title for the rest of his
life. for one thing, kramnik doesn't have a title - doesn't danailov remember his previous
sentence? second, should we infer from this that topalov's aim is to lose the title as
quickly as possible?
let's be charitable and assume topalov's manager really means to say that kramnik is
going to try to keep what the latter wrongly thinks is his title, without bothering to defend
it, for as long as he possibly can. that's at least coherent, but is it plausible? hardly. it was
just one year ago that kramnik defended his title, and it has been kramnik, not topalov,
who has been pursuing the unification match.
finally, sentence [4] is true but not obviously relevant (and partially addressed by yours
truly in an earlier post <http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/posts/1129782319.shtml>),
while [5] is also irrelevant and - i think - false. my understanding is that kasparov won't
drop off the rating list until he has been inactive for an entire year, and that doesn't occur
until march.
i'm sure this is a p.r. attempt to seize the high ground in future negotiations for the title,
but it would be better, in view, if the participants and organizations stopped trying to
emulate pro boxing and wrestling. if i'm topalov, i want to show the world that i'm the
champion, period. it would increase his stature, please the chess world, do wonders for
his legacy and raise the prestige of the game by dissolving the factions. and as an added
bonus, he gets a nice payday and the chance to cash in by beating up on kramnik, the
merely 7th-ranked player with the mediocre results.
related posts (on one page </posts/chain_1129782319.shtml>):
more on the failed uep kramnik-topalov match
a setback for reunification
<http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/posts/1129782319.shtml>
posted by dennis monokroussos on wednesday november 16, 2005 at 9:28pm
<http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/posts/1132198097.shtml>

(link <http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/posts/1132198097.shtml>)miket
(<mailto:miketwyble@hotmail.com>):
i perhaps have slightly more sympathy for the topalov case than the author though
agreeing that the case has been poorly put by the toplaov camp.

kramnik would have to be accepted as world champion de facto after the kasparov match
and provided a qualification cycle which culminated in the frankly disappointing leko
match. since then kramnik has done nothing to produce a legitimate cycle of qualification
matches and there seems little or no prospect of one.how long can he go on claiming to
be world champion in these circumstances?

the problem is that he has now opted out of the fide cycle which was in a format that was
both enjoyable and seemed to provide a legitimate champion??[ i realise the issues with
that last statement].

the truth is that top class chess desperately needs a recognised champion in the post
kasparov era and i concur in the hope that a topalov-kramnik match is on the cards.
11.17.2005 4:39am
(link <http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/posts/1132198097.shtml>)supergrobi:
i think one of the main problems is that fide wants to skip matches entirely. personally i
can accept a tournament for qualification purposes but not directly for the title.
exceptions might be the more or less sudden disappearance of the reigning champion in
one way or the other (alekhine, fischer), but we still have a (classical) world champion
with kramnik who is willing to play. maybe danailov wants to enter the chess books as
the man who ended the classical line of world champions—who knows if ponomariov
would have played kasparov without him...
(i don't know why kasparov says that kramnik is history and topalov the new champion.
maybe he is tired of writing books on that topic and doesn't want to make more money
with a "my great successors" series? this is of course a rhethorical question. everybody
knows how frustrated kasparov is because he didn't get a rematch vs. kramnik. sadly
enough this is his own fault by relinquishing the rematch clause. btw, sorry for my poor
english, i'm not a native english speaker.)
11.17.2005 5:16am
(link <http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/posts/1132198097.shtml>)acirce
(<mailto:ulfhamm@hotmail.com>):
"since then kramnik has done nothing to produce a legitimate cycle of qualification
matches and there seems little or no prospect of one."

people putting this argument forward never explain why kramnik would produce a cycle
of his own while unification is still an issue. that would be an act of sabotage.
11.17.2005 9:15am
(link <http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/posts/1132198097.shtml>)bret helm:
topalov is correct. kramnik needs to get over himself!
11.17.2005 3:44pm
(link <http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/posts/1132198097.shtml>)dennis
monokroussos:
there are many people who need to get over themselves - maybe all of us sometimes! -
but i don't see either how that's relevant to the negotiations or any coherent way in which
that's argued in the passage i cited. like kramnik, dislike him; that's fine. but a lousy
argument is still a lousy argument, whether it supports your side or not.
11.17.2005 7:14pm
(link <http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/posts/1132198097.shtml>)bret helm:
i don't find it a lousy argument, dennis. if kramnik weren't given a chance to play in san
luis, then that is one thing. but, the way i understand it, he was. he apparently thought that
a legitimate competition against his peers was beneath him and that he was entitled to a
match against topalov. that sounds sort of prima donna to me. i find it admirable that
topalov turned down some serious money just on principle. don't get me wrong. i do not
dislike kramnik. however, i believe that he was being very presumptious to think he was
entitled, as if by fiat, to challenge the winner there to a championship title.
11.18.2005 11:03am
(link <http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/posts/1132198097.shtml>)dennis
monokroussos:
hi bret,

two quick responses. first, topalov isn't qualifying for kramnik's half of the title, either,
which is the main point. it's not because kramnik is tall or popular that he's got a stake in
reunification, but because he's a title-holder. both topalov and danailov have recognized
kramnik's title as legitimate, and not once in the history of chess has a title been stripped
based on "recent mediocre results". second, even if there is a good argument to be had in
this neighborhood, it wasn't made by danailov in the passage i cite.

for more on this, see today's post, here

<http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/posts/1132344275.shtml>.
11.18.2005 2:07pm
(link <http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/posts/1132198097.shtml>)bret helm:
fair enough, but it's my own personal viewpoint that the title of champion should be
awarded in a rigorous tournament against the highest rated players in the world. i don't
feel kramnik should be able to sit on the sidelines while his peers competed for the fide
title in san luis. you are right in that it's not been done that way historically, but i think it
would result in the fairest determination of who really deserves the title of world
champion.

the current system, as you describe is akin to professional boxing where the challenger
has to fight a slew of opponents before getting a chance to fight the current title holder.
the way i describe is more like the tough man competitions where no matter who wins
what, for each competition every competitor starts at point zero. i view that as the more
correct way to do it as it results in a more robust determination of the winner.
11.18.2005 2:40pm
(link <http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/posts/1132198097.shtml>)dennis
monokroussos:
bret,

your desire to see the title determined by tournaments is reasonable. it also has nothing to
do with either the topalov/danailov argument against kramnik nor their proposal to
defend the title by matches with 2700s willing to pony up the dough. the attacks on
kramnik are also misplaced: if avoiding competition makes one a "weenie", as you put it
in a comment i deleted, then it may be time to wrap topalov in a bun.

finally, topalov recognized the legitimacy of kramnik's title when he competed in that
cycle, danailov repeatedly recognized it, even after san luis, before topalov induced his
current state of amnesia. further, fide had intended reunification for at least the last three
years. so whatever virtues san luis had, it doesn't make kramnik's title magically
disappear: it never rested on that event, and participation therein was never part of any
agreement.
on the other hand, kramnik has allowed that the title will be unified under fide after such
a match takes place, when fide will decide if the title will be awarded via a tournament,
match, or a bake-off with the iron chef. so the only impediment to a happy ending is
topalov, who would rush to play such a match, i think, if his career score vs. kramnik
wasn't so horrible.
11.18.2005 5:38pm
(link <http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/posts/1132198097.shtml>)capatal
(<mailto:brentwood 1 @ cox.net>):
we think your statement that topalov would rush to play
a kramnik match-if his career score vs. kramnik wasn't
so horrible-is exactly right dennis.( chicken feather
syndrome ? )
11.20.2005 1:55am
(link <http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/posts/1132198097.shtml>)acirce
(<mailto:ulfhamm@hotmail.com>):
trying to read topalov's mind can be tough. i don't think it has to be about being afraid to
lose more than about being so loyal to fide. if kasparov or anand challenged him through
fide's new "interim world championship match" rules (according to which you can simply
buy a shot at the title as long as you're rated above 2700) he'd probably accept. (we'll,
he'd have to, since it seems to be fide that decides according to the published rules.)
11.20.2005 6:24am
bulgaria's topalov suffers 2nd narrow defeat from kramnik

<view_photo.php?id=
70115>

<view_photo.php?id=
70115> veselin
topalov, 31, the
bulgarian grandmaster
who is the top-ranked
player in the world,
was defeated again in
the second game of
the match against
vladimir kramnik.
photo by
www.fide.com
sports: 24 september 2006, sunday.

veselin topalov, 31, the bulgarian grandmaster who is the top-ranked player in the world,
was defeated again in the second game of the match against vladimir kramnik, a russian
grandmaster, ranked no. 4.

the third game in the 12-game match is scheduled for tuesday, 2 pm bulgarian time.

experts commented that the second game, where the bulgarian played with white and
missed a precious opportunity to take the lead, has been one of the most exciting ever.

vladimir kramnik won the first game in 75 moves lasting six and a half hours. in a
drawing position, topalov refused to repeat moves, pressed for a win and blundered on
the 57th move.

topalov and kramnik vie to be crowned the true and only world champion. they will also
share the prize of usd1 m.

the two players inspire reminiscences of kasparov and karpov, who first started the
schism in the chess world back in 1993.

click here to receive realtime news about this topic in the future.
<http://www.novinite.com/email/newsalert_index.php>

the first game of a match to resolve rival claims to the world chess championship ended
in victory for vladimir kramnik
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/vladimir_kramnik/index.ht
ml?inline=nyt-per> of russia after his opponent, veselin topalov of bulgaria, pressed too
hard for a win in a position in which he was at least certain of a draw.
skip to next paragraph
the new york times

it was a dramatic start to a match between players of starkly different styles.

the match, which could last for 12 games, is being played in elista, the capital of
kalmykia, a region in russia on the caspian sea. the prize is $1 million, which will be split
equally, but the first player to score 6.5 will be the undisputed world champion.
mr. topalov is the world champion according to the world chess federation, the governing
body of chess, which is organizing the match. mr. kramnik bases his claim to the title on
having won a match in 2000 against garry kasparov
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/garry_kasparov/index.html
?inline=nyt-per>, the former no. 1 player in the world who broke away from the
federation in 1993. mr. kasparov retired last year.
mr. kramnik and mr. topalov are not only rivals; they offer a contrast a styles. mr.
kramnik is unflappable and tries to steer games into positions with clear-cut strategic
themes. he has more match experience — playing a series of games against one opponent
— than mr. topalov, even though they are both 31.
mr. topalov is aggressive and uncompromising, striving for unbalanced positions. he has
the style and the mentality of a gambler, and it has brought him a lot of success in the last
two years as he has ascended to the no. 1 ranking in the world.
mr. topalov’s style is particularly suited for tournament play, where each round brings a
new opponent and a fresh set of problems. matches, however, are wars of attrition. often
it is better to be cautious, because a misstep can cost a player a game, putting him in a
hole that it can be difficult to recover from.
that is what happened in game 1.
matches, particularly for the world title, are always interesting from the standpoint of
seeing what the competitors will play. with months to prepare, and with the stakes so
high, the players and their teams of assistants usually prepare some special systems or
novelties.
in 2000, mr. kramnik, when playing black, trotted out an old and rarely used system
against mr. kasparov, who was unable to make any headway against it. after the match,
mr. kasparov credited mr. kramnik’s preparation and use of the defense as one of the main
reasons that he lost.
game 1 yesterday was a catalan opening, a system that both players have played often
from both sides of the board and are therefore very familiar with. in fact, in 2005 at the
dortmund super tournament, mr. kramnik, playing white, beat mr. topalov in the catalan.
mr. topalov quickly steered away from what he did last time, following the path of a
game played in april 2006 by alexander grischuk and alexander moiseenko. it is a game
that mr. kramnik probably knew as well.
topalov’s 12... ba6 was new and was an invitation for mr. kramnik to enter complications
by taking the black’s pawn on a5. the game might have gone, 13 qa5 bb7 14 qd8 ra1
when white would have had a choice of 15 qf8 kf8 16 0-0 ra2, when black regains his
pawn with good play, or 15 qb6 rb1 16 kd2 c3 when white looks as if he is in big trouble.
mr. kramnik sidestepped the problems by playing 14 qa4.
after the queens were exchanged, the game revolved around black’s a-pawn and whether
or not white could win it. mr. kramnik eventually worked up a strategy to do just that, but
topalov managed to stir up counterplay around mr. kramnik’s king.
mr. kramnik’s 27 bf3, allowing mr. topalov to land a pawn on f3, was probably ill-
advised. mr. kramnik may have thought that the pawn would pose him no problems, but
he was wrong.
after 37 rf1, white was up a pawn, but he was completely tied to the defense of his f-
pawn. at this point, mr. topalov could have forced a draw by playing nd2 to attack white’s
rook followed by ne4 to renew the attack on the f-pawn. instead, mr. topalov, true to his
nature, decided to play for more.
up through 47... kh4, mr. topalov still had enough compensation for his pawn deficit that
he had little to worry about. but then he started to drift, searching for a plan. at this point,
a more seasoned match player might have settled for a draw, content to have gained a half
point as black. instead, he fought on.
mr. kramnik’s 56 d5 was the first moment that he found for counterplay since early in the
game. the idea was to try to get his knight to d4 where it might be able to pick off black’s
f pawn, which had been a thorn in his side for so long.
after 57 ra4, mr. topalov could have played 57 ... nf2, the point being that 58 kg3 is met
by 58... e4 and after that 59 kf2 rb2 and white cannot escape check without letting black’s
f pawn queen.
instead, mr. topalov blundered with 57 ... f5. kramnik snapped off the e pawn with his
knight and the game could no longer be rescued.
afterward, the associated press reported that mr. topalov said of his game: “actually it was
a dream position for any chess player. black was clearly better, although i had significant
technical difficulties in converting the advantage. vlad defended well, and i eventually
made a blunder.”
the next game is today. it will interesting to see how mr. topalov, who is known for his
psychological strength, bounces back.
more articles in new york region » <http://www.nytimes.com/pages/nyregion/index.html>
wch elista (2), 24.09.2006

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.nc3 nf6 4.nf3 dxc4 5.a4 bf5 6.e3 e6 7.bxc4 bb4 8.0-0 nbd7 9.qe2 bg6
10.e4 0-0 11.bd3 bh5 12.e5 nd5 13.nxd5 cxd5 14.qe3 bg6 15.ng5 re8 16.f4 bxd3n
[16...rc8 17.g4 f6 18.bxg6 hxg6 19.nf3 qc7 20.qd3 nf8 21.f5 gxf5 22.gxf5 fxe5 23.nxe5
exf5 24.qxf5 bd6 25.nf7 re7 26.nxd6 qxd6 27.qxc8 qg6+ 28.bg5 qxg5+ 29.kh1 1-0
pelletier,y (2624)-deviatkin,a (2487)/moscow rus 2003/the week in chess 433]
17.qxd3 f5 18.be3 nf8 19.kh1 rc8 20. g4 qd7 21. rg1 be7 22. nf3 rc4 23. rg2 fxg4 24.
rxg4 rxa4 25. rag1 g6 26. h4 rb4 27. h5 qb5 28. qc2 rxb2 29. hxg6 h5 30. g7 hxg4 31.
gxf8q+ bxf8? 31... kxf8 was forced. 32. qg6+?? [32.rxg4+ bg7 33.qc7 qf1+ 34.ng1
wins.] 32...bg7 33.f5 [33.rxg4 qf1+ 34.ng1 re7] 33...re7 34.f6 qe2 35.qxg4 rf7 36.rc1
[36.qh5] 36...rc2 37.rxc2 qd1+ 38.kg2 qxc2+ 39.kg3 qe4 40.bf4 qf5 41.qxf5 exf5
42.bg5 a5 43.kf4 a4 44.kxf5 a3 45.bc1 bf8 46.e6 rc7 47.bxa3 bxa3 48.ke5 rc1 [48...rc3!
looks the best.; 48...b5] 49.ng5 rf1 50.e7 re1+ 51.kxd5 bxe7 52.fxe7 rxe7 53.kd6 re1
54.d5 kf8 55.ne6+ ke8 56. nc7+ kd8 57.ne6+ kc8 58.ke7 rh1 59.ng5 b5 60.d6 rd1 61.
ne6 b4 62. nc5 re1+ 63. kf6 re3 0-1 a complete disaster for topalov, he should have been
at least level in this match on chances, but instead he's gone 2-0 down.