The insider’s guide to the Chess World Championship
(CNN) — Everything you need to know about this month’s Chess World Championship and the Buddhist Republic of Kalmykia that is hosting it.
The World Chess Championship. It’s not exactly the World Cup, is it?
Maybe not, but the 12-game match, which got underway on Saturday, is historic in chess terms at least, re-uniting the sport for the first time since it split into rival factions 13 years ago when Garry Kasparov broke with the World Chess Federation (FIDE), accusing the world governing body of corruption and mismanagement.
Kasparov? I’ve heard of him. He got beaten by a computer right?
Well, yes, but not just your average chess-playing PC. In 1997 Kasparov was narrowly beaten in a six-game match by the IBM supercomputer Deep Blue. But many consider the “Beast of Baku,” who became the world’s youngest ever world champion aged 22, to be the greatest chess player ever to pick up a bishop — the sport’s equivalent of Tiger Wood or Pele.
So Kasparov is finally returning to claim his crown as the king of the checkered board?
Not this time. Kasparov retired from the sport last year at the age of 41, disillusioned with chess and intent on entering politics as an avowed critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Kasparov is a leading figure in the pro-democracy “Committee 2008: Free Choice” pressure group and has been talked about as a possible rival to Putin at Russia’s next election.
So who’s playing instead?
Veselin Topalov, known as the “Bulgarian Chainsaw,” is the world’s top-ranked player and earns his place at the table by virtue of winning a world championship tournament in Argentina last year. He’ll face Russian grandmaster Vladimir Kramnik, who has been considered the “classical” world champion since beating Kasparov in 2000. Topalov is the more charismatic of the two while Kramnik, who is struggling with arthritis, is considered a measured, minimalist player. Surprisingly though, Kramnik has won the two opening games, mounting a daring counterattack as black in the second game to force mate after Topalov twice failed to spot winning positions.
And where is this 64-square shootout taking place?
In Elista, the capital of Kalmykia.
Excuse me?
Kalmykia is a Russian republic on the banks of the Caspian Sea, bordering Kazakhstan. The Kalmyks are notable for being Europe’s only Buddhist nation and trace their ancestry back to the Mongol empire established by Genghis Khan, who rampaged across Eurasia in the 13th century quicker than a rook through a line of pawns. Under Tsarist rule, the Kalmyks were granted autonomy in return for protecting Russia’s southern flank from Turkish attacks. But they fell out of favour under Stalin, who deported the entire nation to Siberia in 1943. They were finally allowed to return to their homeland in 1957.
Paris, London or New York not good enough for chess players obviously.
The odd choice of venue might have something to do with the fact that Kalmykia’s president, Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, is also president of FIDE and has been trying to bring the world championship to Elista for years. Since winning power in 1993 the millionaire Buddhist businessman has made chess the Kalmyk national sport, making it compulsory for school children and building a $50 million “Chess City” in Elista for the 1998 Chess Olympiad. Now he’s playing both Don King and Joseph-Desire Mobutu to Topalov’s Ali and Kramnik’s Foreman.
Sounds like a nice guy.
Ilyumzhinov is eccentric at best, corrupt at worst, according to his critics. He once ran for election by promising to give a mobile phone to every shepherd and claims to have been abducted by aliens during a business trip to Moscow in 1997. Despite campaigning with the slogan “a wealthy president is a safeguard against corruption” he faces accusations of diverting the state’s resources for his own uses, human rights abuses and suppressing media freedom. In the chess world his opponents accuse him of bringing the game into disrepute.
The rest can be read here. 
hi sus y i just wanted to tell u that ive seen both first games and number two game was almost a real piece of art!
I wouldnt be to harsh on both playuers blunders , specially topalov´s becuase those blunders were of the highest order.
I bet that Topalov could of beat all those that critize his blunders on this game two!!, He didnt win this game in part of his mistake but i give more credit the fact that he had a fomidable opponent, It isnt just a coincidence that he was appointed the successor of Kasparov?
or what do u think?
the h5 move was just a supermove, those rare smart genuius move that none of y audience would of done!, thats why he has a record of undisputed none lost games in a row
I havent seen game 3 except that i saw that they draw; i guess this will be good on Topalov specially cause he drew with black and normally Kramnik wins his matches with white and secures them with blak.
At least thats what happend on his match with Kasparov; although i have to admit that Kasparov was irreconciable, he played except for a couple of games like a real worn person, with no carisma on his games.
By the way when i was looking at game 2 I tried to ploay with the sacrifice qieen in order to get a quicker attack, just like Topy; except for a small but gigantic diferrence, I missed the fac t that the rook or queen would take the Bishop on d3 whick avoided black´s mate!!; On the game Topalov delayed his sacrifize one more move by playin Qc2!, smart boy.
Anyway It was a good very good gme dispite wghat anyoine else said, and i enjoyed iT!, and thats what counts so if topalov looses his match i will remember him for a long time for his contribution to entertainment.
Its a classic match attack vs defence, who will win????
çbye susy an to all chess fans…
Good analysis by CNN. (Maybe their first)
While I’m glad that there is some mainstream media coverage of this match, the report also shows the indifference of the American mainstream media towards human chess events. I can’t remember when a major American media outlet made mention of events like Dortmund and Linares.
Although I am personally critical of Kirsan, I feel it is the indifference of media and corporate sponsorship that is the main reason why a venue like New York is not chosen and not because of Kirsan’s machinations.
This is too bad because I really do think there are a lot of American fans out there and there is a strong potential to grow fan appreciation of chess.
jb.said:
> wanted to tell u that ive seen >both first games and number two >game was almost a real piece of >art!
>I wouldnt be to harsh on both >playuers blunders , specially >topalov´s becuase those blunders >were of the highest order.
Neither Kramnik nor Topalov deserve
to be World Chess champions judging by first two games.
Only weak player can consider first two games a masterpiece.
Ok,these were fighting games but overseeing mate in 3 and other basic chess stuff is no-no for top grandmasters.
Matter of fact,Susan Polgar gives you more difficult positions here,on her blog almost on daily basis (chess puzzles on this site) than the one where Topalov blundered in.
I’m very sad.I Hope next games will be of higher chess quality.
Anonymous, did you see the huge blunder from the Chigorin/Steinitz match in 1892? How about Bobby Fischer’s famous blunder against Spassky?
The fact is, when the stakes are this high, nerves come into paly.
The article said “…Topalov’s Ali and Kramnik’s Foreman.”
I see it more as Kramnik=M.Ali and Topalov=J.Frazier (as in 1971).
Topalov represents Kiran’s FIDE. It is Kramnik who has to struggle against the system, the deteriorated FIDO system that nearly everyone has harshly criticized during the past decade.
Ali won against the system. But Kramnik lost, because next year Kramnik must defeat 7 simultaneous challengers to retain his title (wildly unprecendented).
——-
I agree with Marc S. that blunders are a natural part of lots (or all) of WCC matches.
But history seems to be getting re-written regarding Fischer’s dubious move 29… BxKRP. Fischer was perfectly aware his bishop would be trapped. Fischer was willingly exchanging his bishop for 2 pawns.
In a book dedicated to the Spassky-Fischer 1972 match, Samuel Reshevsky et al wrote
… to label the move simply as a blunder is in itself a blunder. In reality, the move was based on fairly sound chess principles. … This would have meant obtaining winning chances if [Fischer] had conducted the game properly…
Personally I think Bobby knew the exchange was more to Spassky’s advantage. But Bobby wanted to demonstrate he had no fear of Spassky. He wanted Spassky to know that he would be facing rabid cut throat chess for the entire match. Fischer was playing for psychological effect, beyond the mundane calculations of this one move.
Many believe Spassky’s psychological state was not its best during this match. Spassky was usually aggressive. But was this BxKRP was the reason for Spassky’s affected style? I doubt it, after all Spassky was soon up 2-0, enough to list any player’s spirits.
Uh oh, Kramnik is up 2-0 also. 😉
Very entertaining interview… the interviewer is clearly not a chess fan and a very funny chap when asking questions. If that’s the best chess specialist CNN has, that’s fine – or maybe it was intentional to make it more “understandable” to the regular not-chess-fan in the world. In any event, it is already good progress for CNN! 😀
I like the stereotypes:
– Topalov – “Bulgarian chain saw”
– Kramnik – “Minimalist player with arthritis”
– Kasparov – “One who lost to the computer”
– VV
marc shepherd wrote:
>Anonymous, did you see the huge >blunder from the >Chigorin/Steinitz match in 1892?
___________________________________
Comparing the level of chess from 1892 and today is a complete nonsense.Sorry.
An average IM of today would beat without much trouble player of Chigorin’s or Steinitz’s strenght.
That’s the develeopment of this sport and every sport for that matter.See more on this in Kasparov’s “My great predcessor”.