Let’s for one second forget about the scandal and focus on the actual chess. Why did Topalov lose the match?
– Kramnik is stronger?
– Kramnik’s style is more suitable for match format?
– Topalov has less match experience?
– Nerve?
– Opening choices?
– Other reasons?
What do you think?
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
It seems quite clear, to me at least, that Kramnik is the stronger player. He won 5 games to Topalov’s 3 and 2 of those came right after the scandal he and his manager created and after Kramnik’s phsycology was most likley weakened.
Could Topalov have beaten Kasparov in 2000? I doubt it.
Kramnik is stronger and Kramnik’s style is more suitable for match format.
It’s simplistic to point at the score. Instead of stellar games by two of the best chess players in history, we were treated to a blunder fest with the one who screwed up fewer times declared the winner. Were both men so pressured they couldn’t think straight? My vote for 2006 World Champion is “None of the Above”. At least Toiletgate made the debacle interesting.
I think nerves was an issue for Topalov as he looked much more tight tham Kramnik throughout the match. Also opening preparation and confidence issues on Topalov’s side, for example playing d4 every game for a supper attacking player takes away from Topo’s aggressiveness, pychology, and element of surprise. For example when Fischer play Spassky in ’72 WCC he deviated away from his main openings and played c4, d4, Alekhines defense, and Nimzo Indian. That showed Bobby’s confidence in himself and strong preparation.
I think that Topalov did excellent opening preparation for the match. He was able to obtain an advantage early on in many of the games.
In the middle and endgames there were interesting struggles. I believe Kramnik is the stronger endgame player but Topalov showed he could play the endgame too in games 7 and 8.
The quality of the match was marred by blunders; I think this (in addition to other things) shows that Kramnik is stronger psychologically than Topalov. In the end I think that it’s this strength that decided the match.
BTW, in regards to the upcoming Essent Tournament, GO JUDIT GO!
Topolav committed more blunders (?) moves than Kramnik. Thus you might say that this fitted Kramnik’s style perfectly, and thus he ultimatelly prevailed in this longer match.
On the other hand, if Topalov is able to “tighten up” his play, he could easily prevail in future matches. Only time will tell.
I think Topalov’s lack of match experience (and consequent nervousness?) showed in games 1 and 2, where he should easily have scored 1.5 instead of 0, in which case he would likely have won the match. That said, his acquiescence in Danailov’s sleazy tactics, and acceptance of the stolen point from game 5, were disgraceful. It would have been a huge black eye for chess if Topalov had won because of that. Let us hope that he displays greater maturity in the future. I certainly do think it would be appropriate to allow Topalov to participate in the next world championship cycle; excluding the world’s highest-rated player from participation is crazy.
Kramnik is a more complete player and simply has a greater natural talent that also includes a feeling for match strategy and psichology, which become important in long matches.
It is not a surprise that Kramnik won, it is much more of a surprise that Topalov managed to get to the very top of the game due to a very hard work. Most of the one-sided talents like him never get there.
There is also an emotional bond between these two players, which maybe explains why Kramnik cannot really hate Topalov – they grew up playing each other on the board since they were 14 to see who was the best.
For every real player with ELO above 2200-2300 is clearly that Topalov is the stronger player. The most people that comment here are pleasant amateurs. But if analyze the games – it’s no doubt, that in every game Topalov made new move, he play only for the win, have more chances and etc . Of course Kramnik’s style is more suitable for match format. He is like Greece in footbal – ugly and boring defence, but succesive in the end. Anyway I think that future is in players like Topa……
Imo it’s a question of keeping an high level of concentration for more than 6 hours day and for 16 games: Kramnik’s tranquil style is more suitable for that task, while Topalov style is suitable to get an advantage in the middlegame through very hard pressure, but in case of failure the waste of energies doesn’t allow him to play with
the same accuracy in the next stage, the endgame, and the mistakes may occur more frequently. So Topalov is very dangerous in the first 20-30 moves and two-three hours of game, but after, if the opponent manages to come out without excessive damage, has good changes to get a good result also from an even position.
Also I would like to add that there’s no doubt that Topalov is the best attacking player on earth (in his best days not second to Kasparov) and Kramnik is the best positional player (Svidler
said that to him is by far the most difficult player to play with, more than Kasparov and Anand) so in these events the difference can be made by details or by being in slightly better form than the opponent: there’s is no doubt that Kramnik would have been crushed if he played in St.Luis, on the other side Topalov could not win everything in two years in a row.
It is a good sign for chess that FIDE can afford to give 1.000.000 US$ to two players, for such low quality chess.
I hope all other chess players will get some money, too. Because without money, there’s no good chess possibilities today.
What I disliked more, is that the new World Champion didn’t smile too much on the photos from the closing ceremony?!
The glass wall between Topalov and the audience
Better to lose and play again another day…than to be crowned the Potty Champ
Topalov’s protest exposed the low down tactics his real opposition went to to win…and what discusting conditions to have to play for a World Title
We all know what a great player Topalov realy is
The first committee did not make any mistakes they knew
Nerves.
Topalov tried to win every game, pushing pawns, searching for initiative, while Kramnik played every game to equalize, to simplify, to search for a safe draw.
Playing always to win in the Topalov-style is very expensive for nerves, and when you are 0-2 after two game (the second one won with mate in 3) in a 12 games match it’s very hard.
style of topalov is unsane!
How can we measure the QUALITY of the 12 chess games played?
No doubt about the answer. Nerves. If it wasn’t for that, Topalov would be the champ. (Remember Game 1 & 2).
Kramnik defeated Topalov twice, in classical time control and in rapid chess.
Kramnik is clearly stronger then Topalov
I’d say simply that Kramnik is more professional than Topalov. Topalov thought he could out play Kramnik using half the time. It wasn’t his ability that cost him the match rather his impatience and overconfidence.
Topalov played the best chess and would have won if he had not torpedoed himself with gross blunders.
Topalov badly needs to get a decent defence together against 1.d4. This should have been the reason he lost, not blunders, but wasn’t because Kramnik was too weak and gutless to exploit it.
Overall the standard of play was abysmal – the worst in a World Championship since Alekhine-Bogojubov 1934 and perhaps since the Lasker-Janowsky matches.
Topalov obviously should work on endings. He was rather weak in that. Maybe also the toailetgate damaged him more than Kramnik, because in the end more people accused Topalov team of the scandal while Kramnik was “poor man”.
Nerves. Kramnik cheated every way he could to distract Topalov.
i doubt there were as many blunders in the never ending karpov – kasparov match put together as there were in these few games…
Kramnik is stronger in the defence. Basically Kramnik played solid waiting for Topolov to blunder.
And as they say in the NFL “Defence Wins Championships”
Super endgame technique counted in his two rapid white games, that’s it if you believe the match was tied 6-6.
Topalov reminds me the Nigel Short in 1993 in the match versus Kasparov.
Two attacking players, but only short was so aggressive. Kasparov defended most of the time, and when short missed the win, kasparov got the point.
On the opening and the early middlegame, topalov showed a great skill. His inability to grap the point in his bag showed that he can better himself in the future. Thrilling!
Kramnik was equal to himself: to keep everything under a certain limit of damage to nullify the attacking position he was facing.waiting for the mistake… sorry for topalov, he made too much mistakes all the match long.
So they are two great player, but in that case, the shield was stronger than the sword.
Kasparov believes that Kramnik has a deeper understanding of chess than Topalov (contrary to what the poster said here about all palyers over 2300 believing Topalov is the better player)
From my point of view Topalov seemed better prepared for this match – the advantages he gained out of the opening were greater than Kramniks. However he made too many elementary blunders and Kramnik duly punished him. Topalov also struck me as too aggressive – he flung his pawns forward with abandoned and never seemed to spend a decent amount of time thinking. If he had managed his time better then maybe we would have a different champion
Playing always to win, while perhaps more condusive to new variations as well as excitement, has its disadvanteges as well. It carries a higher risk; that if you make a mistake you may not recover: you are more likely to lose. Thus, Topalov played riskier chess, made critical mistakes from which he could not recover, and he lost.
What separates Topalov from Fischer and Kasparov is the latter two champions’ abilities (and legacies) of taking bold risks, or playing new innovations in World Championship play AND NOT making critical mistakes; rather both Fischer and Kasparov played them flawlessly to victory.
In life, and war as well, this separates winners (champions) from losers (or also-rans).
One word: Technique
Kramnik exploited his superior technique in several games, and that was the difference.
Chess Training Blog
The chess content of the match was a bit disappointing.
Kramnik still seems to be playing below the level he reached when 23-26 years old – possibly he has not fully recovered his health.
Topalov’s preparation seemed better in that he was able to get his ideas in first. This fact plus a single minded approach to attack was probably Topalov’s best chance of success in the match.
When attacking Topalov did a good but not great job- he missed a lot of good lines and made bad blunders.This will not be remembered as high class chess.
Kramnik seemed stronger in the late middlegame and endgame-just the stronger chess player when preparation not at issue.
Topalov has had some great results but though now in his prime he loses an awful lot of games-some really bad loses-compared to Kasparov and Karpov.
If they were to play again I would put my money on Kramnik as I think he would be better prepared than this time around. He is the more rounded player.
I disagree with r taylor and agree with anonymous 4:05:58am. Before the match, I agreed with Kasparov’s comment that Kramnik had the greater understanding of chess than Topalov. Not now. Kramnik displayed very little understanding in games 2, 8, and 9, while Topalov showed plenty. In fact, Kramnik won on practical play, not understanding, by blundering less often.
Kramnik showed that technique still counts for something. I saw the match mainly as Topalov’s preperation vs Kramnik’s technique.
Kramnik won the match, but who is to say that Topalovs opening preperation next time will be good enough to win the match?
Kramnik needs to work on various g4 ideas in the Slav and Topalov has to work on his technique..
Untill then Kramnik is a little ahead of Topalov
@ Chess444
Are you crazy? it’s rather obvious that the ONLY problems Kramnik faced were because of opening preperation! I wouldnt call that a lack of technique, rather a lack of knowledge about next pawn-pushing ideas 🙂
Kramnik used every minute alloted to him, especially in the openings
Topalov wasted his precious minutes and left them on the clock instead of using them to think of a better move.
Topalov will alwasy be a streaky player. But the shouldn’t change his style because he needs to go for broke to be at his best.
i think there a lot’s of misunderstandings about chess playing…
e.g. take the famous “second game” – it was NOT Topalov to blunder first, but Kramnik with 31…Bxf8 (there is NO clear way to win after 31….Kxf8. 32.Qg6) – but Topalov did not even consider that Bxf8 changes every thing – so why is he the better player? Kramnik may have taken his last shot – a TRAP (he might have overseen 33. or 34…. Bg5! …) – and Topalov felt into …
this is chess – dear friends – even on it’s highest levels – and there is, nor will there be ANY perfect game at all… (the phantom world chess champion Mr. R.J. Fischer is in agreement!).
the better HUMAN chess player (Kramnik) won that match against an awesome HUMAN contender (Topalov).
chess is not for the silicon camp – or should e.g. corvette cars be allowed to join the olympic 100m olympics contest?
NO!
I really think it was match preparation that failed Topalov. Let’s me use two examples to illustrate my point.
Consider Fischer-Spassky and Kramnik-Kasparov. In Fischer-Spassky, Fischer’s strategy: 1. Go for closed games because Spassky was weak in closed games. This is the idea behind 1.d4 in the 6th games, wins in the 3rd, 5th,6th and 8th game were all closed games.
2. Avoid preparations and never play same line again. This is the idea behind Alekhine, Pirc etc — constantly changing defenses.
So the success depended on having a plan that was based on an understanding of the opponent and the team.
Consider Kramnik-Kasparov 2000. Kramnik’s plan was to play endgame positions that were slightly inferior. He knew Kasparov hated playing those positions. With white he went for 1.d4 and complex closed positions.
Another plan that worked because it was suited to the opponent.
I could name many more e.g. Alekhine-Capablanca, Spassky-Petrosian etc. I bet you can read it up.
In this match, Topalov’s plan was to play 1.d4. Why should this plan work? Kramnik is really good in closed and endgame positions.
Instead I think Topalov should have tried to reach positions that are completely unbalanced, retain as many pieces as possible and then wait for opportunities.
Almost every game except the 2nd was played on positions in Kramnik’s turf. No wonder the result.
Topalov controlled the match from start to finish – his problem is that he is blunder prone. Take game 2. Had he not blundered forced mate the match would never have reached the tie breaks. Ditto for game 1 refusing to accept the draw.
I am not sure about who is best. Kramnik won this match and must be considered the best at this moment, but for the last couple of years Topalovs results are better. But maybe Topalovs play is too risky for match play especially when the opponent is a master of defence and positional play. Maybe Topalov was not at full strength by some unknown reason. His performance was not at his best – he may have made minor mistakes and even blunders before, but not as many as here, where it often happened that a good position went into a struggle for a draw.
You become big champion only when you respect your opponent!!! Simply, That is how it goes. And of course, you can not be arrogant.
I think that Topalov (for some reason) was unable to judge how strong Kramnik is.
He did not want to suite his game to the opponent and he did not realise that he was clearly outplayed in few games.
Kramnik built his positions slowly, without big risks, and Topalov was not concentrated enough on Kramniks moves. He underestimated them many times. (For example, in tie breaks game 4 move: Rab1)
(Thank you Susan for working so hard on this blog, it is great and full of hot stuff)
Psychological factors such as confidence had a decisive role in this match. Topalov’s confidence was shaken after his blunders in the first two games, but the key to his loss was Kramnik’s forfeit. Topalov lost the match because he could not accept Kramnik’s decision to forfeit a game without play. Rather reminding of what happened to Spassky after Fischer forfeited game 2.
I think that Topalov played the more inventive chess, and produced advantageous positions in a majority of the games. However, he failed to capitalize on those positions far too often — turning winning chances into draws, and drawing chances into losses. Topalov is good enough that he could have survived a couple of these mistakes, but it happened far too often to survive against a player of Kramnik’s ability.
Having said that, it was still a very close match. Kramnik was clearly better, but he wasn’t a lot better. I’m not enough of an expert to diagnose the reason, but in a match full of mistakes, Topalov simply made more of them.
By the way, the quantity of blunders wasn’t so unusual. Just play over the games of some past world championship matches.
Topalov makes mistakes. Kramnik doesn’t.
Simple as that.
Anonymous 7:58:09am,
It doesn’t seem to me that Topalov’s opening preparation was much superior to Kramnik’s. With White, yes. But with Black, apart from Game 8, his openings were awful, he got a lousy position every time apart from Game 8.
I didn’t say technique, I said understanding.
As for Game 2, maybe it was unclear before Kramnik’s blunder, but that was just luck that it was so; no one would have chosen Black’s position by choice. It seems to me that Kramnik displayed a clear lack of understanding by playing …Rc8 and spending about 3 moves going after a pawn, while Topalov was massing. Why not just play …Be7 instead, nipping the attack in the bud?
Bad karma
I would say, Kramnik is the stronger player in the just concluded match.
Didn’t just the result show 8.5-7.5 in favor of Kramnik. And it was accomplished in a highly tense playing environment.
It has been a long match, only a real fighter can wrap up the game to his advantage.
Topalov makes mistakes. Kramnik doesn’t.
Did you watch the same match the rest of us did? Of course Kramnik made mistakes. He just made fewer of them.
Leaving apart the toilet discussion, Kramnik won the match because he played tie-break better. Would Topalov draw tie-breaks 2 and 4, we would now discuss ‘why Kramnik lost’ (including heated quarrels about toiletgate, of course).
As about tie-break… Kramnik style (exchange pieces, play technical ending) seems to be a little bit more suitable for rapid games, than Topalov’s (complicate things, search for tactical opportunities). That’s all.
Ah, and it seems to me that Topalov did not treat Kramnik truly seriously on the beginning of the match.
I think Topalov’s style leads him to overreach in an attempt to create winning chances, which is very dangerous against a skilled defender lioke Kramnik. Petrosian used to do the same thing to over-aggressive players.
Kramnik every game played for the draw. I didnt see any briliant move or idea at all of Kramnik. All wins of Kramnik are Topalov mistakes. So we have to say that Topalov beat Topalov. Hope we will see in the future other scenario.
topalov is only human.
pressure very harmful to humsns
he blundered.
his conscience bothered him.
he was outplayed.
most important.
kramnik is coooool.
maria
Ok Susan I think we would all like to know your final analysis on why Topalov lost this match. I know you mentioned during the match Topo has to try something other than d4!
Why Topalov lost the match?
Because of his personality. The same characteristics that make his games so fascinating for some (“he’s always trying to win, he never retreats, he’s always pushing …”) are also a serious handicap against really strong opponents: he still pushes when there is nothing more to push, he’s still overly optimistic when he should be simply realistic and stop. Instead he gambles, like in game one and two. Worst of all for Topalov are passive positions, where he’s slightly worse and has no chances for counterplay: then he freaks out like in game ten.
Kasparov once said something along the lines “Over the board, I always know what I’m doing.” Minus the inevitable human blunders, Kramnik, Karpov, Fischer, Spasski, etc. might as well have said that. But Topalov doesn’t qualify, he’s a gambler.
to be honest – who of us patzers can decide whether Kramnik or Topalov played the better chess?????
i disagree, that understanding of chess starts above 2200 to 2300 ELO – it starts above 2600 to 2900 ELO – interstingly exact the range covered by modern chess software any patzer uses at home for his / her improvement of understanding of chess!
BTW: ICC, playchess or other servers are very good for blitz chess improvement – but a bad luck for chess at all …
sincerly
Kramnik won because Pocket Fritz 2 plays better chess than either of them.
By the way, I am not a chessbase spy 🙂
Fritz is the stronger player, as
Topalov’s manager claimed. Kramnik
played some of the Fritz moves and
he won and Topalov lost. Had Kramnik’s moves all Fritz Topalov
wouldn’t win a single game:-)
I would say that Kramnik was much more patient and deliberate than Topalov. A casual observer would quickly note that Topalov often had much more time on his clock than did Kramnik. Perhaps Topalov’s “attacking style” lends itself at times to impetuosity. But I think that he can learn a lesson here from the playing style of our new World Champion. Kramnik’s play was more steady and he did not commit the significant number of errors (if not outright blunders) as did Topalov. Against an opponent as strong as is Kramnik, Topalov in his future matches should move towards more patience and thoughtfullness. This, I believe, should serve him better!
Dr. Rene Carlos Ochoa
Anyone know the rating of Topalov now after the WCC ?? Is he still the leader or is it Anand ??
Does anyone know the rating of Pocket Fritz 2 after the world championship?
It has been revealed that Fritz 10 actually played Topalov in the last world championship match. Kramnik confessed that using the program in the World Championship helped him prepare for his upcoming man versus machine match. He didn’t make all of the Fritz moves because he wanted the computer to play more like a human.
Denial is like a disease. Kramnik won 2 more actually-ploayed games than Topalov, as well as playing more black. Thus, Kramnik’s resulting play was more consistently good, and thus superior to Topalov’s play in this world championship match.
Topalov manager Danailov’s posturing aside, anyway you slice it Topalov made game-losing blunders in critical game positions and therefore choked under pressure.
The sooner Topalov and Danailov face this fact and stops crying like little children about it, the sooner they can work on overcoming it.
This is my wife’s summary of the match.Toplaov vs. Kramnik
Kramnik plays chess better.
Topalov is good in putting pressure on weaker opposition, who fall under his psychological pressure, and forgive his blunders.
Kramnik makes less blunders, and uses opponent’s blunders most of the time.
Another strength of Kramnik is in his understanding of position as a whole. You’d never see him making an irrational move.
Topalov sometimes gets lost in the position, and makes strange moves, especially he loves to move forward king side pawns. Kramnik took full advantage of this during the match.