Congrats to Veselin Topalov!!!!!!!
also to his rival Kamsky

Topalov will defeat Anand and will be for second time WORLD CHAMPION!!!!

Oh my God, what an insane game ... I can't watch any more :P

to Milke;
kamsly is a Rook down !!!!
I am wathed the game live and Kamsky is very very sad ...
Kamsky is a worth chalenger for WCC, he knocked out many best players (Shirov ....) in the last Fide-Knout-out

wow... its over topalov prevails.

anand vs topalov! expect FIRE ON BOARD!!!

It was like a Football (the real..) game, when wining the Game with a goal at the last second of the second half...thanks to an oponent goal-keeper failure, when everithing was almost lost...

I like this crazy chess!!!

to VB;
I like also this crazy chess but when I do not play !!!

...an extreme chess

What do de engines say about 32... Bd3 33 d7?

to Frits Fritschy.
32. ...bd3?? you lose the queen !!!???

What a game!!!!!!!!

@ Popuscu: Wow..! After 31... b4 Kamsky was wining.....What a drama...now He's a rook down...

1-0 !

to Frits Fritschy,
Sorry I went to an other position;
your suggestion would give an equal game but

Heh, I like this crazy chess only when I play it.

Anyway, congrats to the winner. Topalov made less mistakes in the entire match and was clearly better, I would say. Kamsky got even a point more than I expected.

Anand topalov... top two in rating list... would be interesting!!!

@ Peter

I know this is a pretty lame comment considering that it is chess that matters, but....you have a BEAUTIFUL typo up there : ) :

"It was the most spectacular game of the match, and so the chess fans were treated with an excellent desert today."

Treated with a "desert", huh? Sounds pretty hot and dry, if you ask me...
:p

Sounds exciting in a wierd way of course. Because Anand will get his tail painfully synged in this match. He is a one-time champion who will be shown his true place at long last. The drubbing he will receive at the hands of Topalov will be a memorable one indeed. Of course the only SAD part of this is that ***deleted, we've had enough of this Danailov bashing, go somewhere else please*** Danailov, will be dancing with joy. That's something I don't want to see but it goes with the territory. Anand's linares performance just sucks totally. He will even lose to a loser like Kamsky.

Interesting game and nice comments from Peter Doggers. Thank you!

felt sorry for Kamsky but thats live bravo Vesko

Lets wait for the Topalov-Anand match, it will be very interesting.

man that was a great thriller ... Topalov is really brave and as GM Dimitrov wrote he is playing with fire here, this time this worked well for him. Overall though, I think he deserves the victory, Kamsky proved he is a tough opponent, but he is not quite that good to become a world championship challenger.

The match with Anand will be something spectacular, but Topalov needs to prepare better. Otherwise, he might find himself on the losing side because Anand showed great fighting spirit last year against Kramnik and he will not have problems with the clock, that is for sure.

I completely agree!

Two of the curently best players on the world should under no circumstances play a World Championship match.

And - while this may be considered spam - I cannot resist giving another Freudian typo which I recently came across [source unpublished and confidential]:
malgorithm (sic)

@Michel83: what about the other typo:

"I was a semi slave (If I remenber well)"

Another black day for world chess, although entirely predictable. What we now need is an absolutely clear and unequivocal statement from Anand, to the effect that he will never, in any circumstances whatsoever, play a world championship match with Topalov. Sadly, though, I have no expectation that he will take such a principled stand.

Michael X Tractor,
I am very cared about your mental health.

"Topalov has never been Worldchampion. For those who are still confused or ignorant here are the true Worldchampions: 1.Steinitz 2.Lasker 3.Capablanca 4.Aljechin 5. Euwe 6.Botwinnik 7.Smyslov 8.Tal 9.Petrosian 10.Spassky 11.Fischer 12.Karpov 13.Kasparov 14.Kramnik 15.Anand"

Interesting. Do you know that in early 1999 no other than Kramnik himself said that Karpov (!!!) is the the official owner of the World Championship title?

Of course he later decided to quickly forget about this statement.

@Brian Wall: Interesting and (most probably intentionally) confusing list! But I would say at least one name doesn't quite fit: Carlsen is not an almost champion, but rather may be a future champion - of course only the future will tell.

I can't wait for the match ... it will be a gigantic clash between the best players at this moment

Hi Peter,

IMO 28.Rec1 deserves '??' instead of '?!', simply 28.Rxa3 is excellent for white. Topalov took a huge gamble in Kamsky's time pressure and was lucky the American spoilt his winning advantage.

In any case it was exciting stuff! Looking forward to Anand-Topalov.

Topalov has never been Worldchampion. For those who are still confused or ignorant here are the true Worldchampions: 1.Steinitz 2.Lasker 3.Capablanca 4.Aljechin 5. Euwe 6.Botwinnik 7.Smyslov 8.Tal 9.Petrosian 10.Spassky 11.Fischer 12.Karpov 13.Kasparov 14.Kramnik 15.Anand.

'malgorithm'

thats a fine new word ,realy great :]

@me: Interesting undocumented troll. I have another one for you. Did you know that in 1997 Topalov stated that Kramnik was the only true genius of his generation?

to me and Guillaume;
I heard also that Tigran Pertossian said that Korchnoi is juste a beginner !!!
bla bla bla bla ....

to Guillaume, desol?© pour mon humeur si vous aimez Korchnoi.

to Guillaume
plutot humour.

Are you implying that what I said is not true? It is.

When all sorts of speculations regarding Kasparov vs. Shirov match were going on, and Kasparov stated that he would rather played with Anand than with Shirov, Kramnik gave an interview for Europe Echecs. In that interview Kramnik agreed with Shirov that Kasparov had an obligation to contest the promised match with Shirov. He also declared that, for what little it mattered, Karpov was the official owner of the world championship title, and attributed Kasparov's fine playing form, especially in the openings, to his preparations for the match with Shirov. He also said his loss to Shirov in the WCC qualifying match was 'an accident' due to non-chess problems he was having at the time of the match.

Now please tell me that I'm making all this up?
Don't judge others by your own ignorance.

P.S.: What does Topalov's statement (if he really said it - which is entirely possible) have to do with the topic???

kamsky played two dubious moves: 25. ...Ba4?! and 27. ...Qc4?!
The a3 pawn is thrown.

25. ...Bc8 was necessary.

I continue my last comment:

hence, the d5 pawn (move 27) is cleary more dangerous than the b7 one.

on move 27.
Topalov has got a quit "similar!?" position against Ivanchuk in Bilbao 2008, and managed to win it.
I was a semi slave (If I remenber well)

@Popuscu: Correct, it seems Kamsky is missing opportunities... Started missing 23....Rae8, and then he missed 25...Bc8 He is depending now either on his good luck or some Topa mistake... Ooopps...! It seems now Kamsky created some advantage after 30...b5... What's going on guys..?

I admire Kamsky´s fighting spirit.

Peter you say it will probably be a draw, but it looks veery dangerous for white ... I am afraid Topa would lose this one ... at least rybka and GM Dimitrov say so ;)

As already expected, GM Topalov prevailed over GM Kamsky in style! In terms of talent and other factors surely GM Kamsky was an underdog. If only one can trace back the history of GM Kamsky one can reasonably conclude that he is not even equal to GM Topalov. However, it is only in terms of fighting spirit that he is so strong. I agree that we will expect high quality chess between the GM Anand and GM Topalov in their WCC Match. GM Topalov could have won his WCC Match with GM Kramnik but his rude match strategy ruined him. Hope that he will just focus on playing chess in his WCC Match with GM Anand. So far, GMs Kramnik and Anand had already been World Champions in their respective time. Hope it will be the time already for GM Topalov next year. After GM Topalov, who will be the next World Champion? Guess who!

Looks like Kamsky is going to use up all his time in a good position. Sounds vaguely familiar.

LOL
Big market of confusions and ignorances!
Suit yourself!

4.5-2.5! Exactly what I predicted in the poll, too bad I´m not into gambling ¬¬U

The rights of the organisers are currently being violated by Chessvibes...

;)

Kristian

I knew that comment had to be coming. :-) Well, we're actually bringing the game with a delay and our source of the moves is ICC and TWIC. ;-) It's an exception of course; we're not really into bringing games live. But I just couldn't resist bringing some notes already.

Why do you say Kamsky is "following the computer"? In this day and age that seems to be a rather unfortunate way of putting it...

Thanks, Peter - just kidding, of course. Terrific game!

The almost Champions -

Keres, Bronstein, Korchnoi, Deep Blue, Fritz, Deep Junior, Shredder, Rybka, Khalifman, Kamsky, Tartakower, Kasimzhanov, Magnus Carlsen, Ivanchuk, Ponomariev

@ supergrobi

Ooooh, I hadn't seen that one. Typos that are not simply typos but "make sense" in a twisted way are the most beautiful ones. Leaves the question open if they are Freudian... ;) I actually love it when I do them myself.
;)

(Yes yes, I know, I'm spamming this thread, I'll stop now)

Congrats Topalov for a good win. As for Topalov getting this privilege,
1. Topalov (and Kramnik) sigining the agreement that the loser of VT - VK (2006) would not play in Mexico City 2007.
2. Topalov deserving to be in Mexico City (based on any number of factors that his fans will gladly point out - losing finalist, #1 in list, etc etc)

If you ask any neutral observer, #1 shd override #2 and thus the backdoor manipulation for him to get the match with Kamsky shd not have been possible.

But, similarly, Kramnik getting the match with Anand 2008 shd not have been possible.

The only difference is VK negotiated that as a condition to participate in 2007 - **before** the match - while VT/Danailov negotiated match with WorldCup winner, much after they had lost their title.

So, it doesn't matter what happened, we are here, and I guess the match Topalov-Anand shd happen. Otherwise, it would create a situation somewhat similar to 93 where the WC and FIDE are not in agreement.

So, principles don't matter (when has it, with respect to FIDE?) - moving forward in the interest of not damaging chess further does.

Not intended to stir up more dust around this topic. Just sharing my thoughts in the spirit that each of you are as entitled to your opinions/thoughts as I do.

Topalov is certainly a worthy challenger who plays in an uncompromising and exciting style, but please, Caissa, goddess of the Royal Game, when it's time for ultimate match with the Great Indian, let him leave his handlers at home so that we may be spared the toilet sleuthing and other irritating histrionics unworthy of the WC.

to Brian Wall,
... and Shredder, because I payed 50 euro to get it.

@me: Thanks for the info (if you could give the exact issue of Europe Echecs it would be perfect). Topalov indeed never said that thing about Kramnik, and I agree that it was quite off topic (and perhaps bad humour indeed, popuscu). My point was actually that your own post was pretty much off topic. Why would a 1999 statement by Kramnik about Karpov being the official WC at the time be relevant to decide the correct WC lineage? I mean, why would it matter more than a quote from any other champion at any other time? Even if true, it serves no purpose but to get you another excuse to bash Kramnik once more, this time for inconsistency, I guess.

There isn't a "correct" WC lineage, anymore than there is for the various boxing world championship where there have been 4 competing titles.

The idea of a correct lineage is meaningless because how can you resolve it ? By taking a vote ? By choosing an infallible person who decides ? By making up your own mind ? By agreeing to differ ? There is no satisfactory decision procedure.

My point was exactly what shy_guest said - there is no "correct" lineage. Putting down FIDE champions and overglorifying the PCA/Classical champions is just dumb. They all had to work hard to get there, nobody handed them the win. Statistically speaking it is much much harder to win a KO tournament or round-robin tournament than a match. In match chances are 50-50 if opponents are equally strong. In KO the chances are much less. But thats another story - let's not go there.

There just isn't any "correct" lineage when even players don't agree, or are (like in Kramnik's case) changing their minds.

And in case you all forgot, from winning San Luis in 2005 until Elista match in 2006 it was Topalov who was considered as a "true" champion by great majority of the public. Only small minority considered Kramnik as the "true" world champion.
Result of the Elista match, and specially the "toilet gate", changed peoples perception in retrospective, and all of the sudden Topalov was pushed in the same basket as all other FIDE champions before him.

P.S.: Unlike some people here, I don't bash grandmasters - not Kramnik, not Topalov, not Kamsky, or anybody else.

"And in case you all forgot, from winning San Luis in 2005 until Elista match in 2006 it was Topalov who was considered as a “true” champion by great majority of the public. Only small minority considered Kramnik as the “true” world champion."

Of course this might be true, but I still wonder all the time about the sources of such claims including terms like "great majority" and "only small minority".

Oh, come on. Is your memory that short? Topalov was very dominant in that period - he was even hailed as the next Kasparov. Nobody talked about Kramnik.

Funny how I was described as "jelous Russian" when I argued that he has a lot of miles before him until we can start to compare him with Kasparov. I said that only time will tell if he can mantain that dominance. And the time did tell. Ironically, now I'm often described as Topalov fan. Go figure. :) (By the way, I'm neither Russian or Bulgarian.)

There is one more thing that people generally don't differenciate, but I do. I differentiate between terms "World Champion" and "best/strongest player in the world". So if you ask me who was the strongest player on the world, then my (purely subjective) list would be.

1965-1970 Spassky
1970-1972/3 Fischer
1973-1975 unclear
1975-1985 Karpov
1985-2005 Kasparov (there have been some short periods where others were better or considered equal, but generally speaking he was dominant)
2005-2006 Topalov
2006-2009 unclear

If Topalov does well in the next super GM tournament he plays in (having convincingly won the last two), I will consider him as the best player on the world again.

If you ask me about World Champions, then my (again purely subjective) list would be:
1948-1957 Botvinnik
1957-1958 Smyslov
1958-1960 Botvinnik
1960-1961 Tal
1961-1963 Botvinnik
1963-1969 Petrosian
1969-1972 Spassky
1972-1974 Fischer
1974-1975 vacant
1975-1985 Karpov
1985-1993 Kasparov
and then I recognize two lines.

PCA line:
1993-1996 Kasparov
1996- title defunct

FIDE line
1993-1999 Karpov
1999-2000 Khalifman
2000-2002 Anand
2002-2004 Ponomariov
2004-2005 Kasimdzhanov
2005-2006 Topalov
2006-2007 Kramnik
2007-20?? Anand

As you can probably see, I don't recognise "private" titles. A World Championship title is not something any individual could own. Kasparov ceased to be anykind of champion for me when PCA collapsed.
Everything before WW2 I don't recognize it as official because it was all on informal basis. There is nothing wrong with that, thats how all sport competition started (on informal basis) but it can not any circumstances be counted as official. At least in my book.

So there, here you have it. MY views on the matter.

I'm sure many don't agree with me and are shaking their heads at home :)

I forgot to mention. A World Champion for me is a person who wins the World Championship and defends it under the valid rules of the governing organization. Period. No but's or if's.

In case you wonder what my last post is all about:

It is an addendum to the long post which is currently pending approval by the moderator. So you will have to wait a little to see it.

@me: After San Luis 2005, it was quite clear for everybody that counts (with the notable and understandably biased exception of Kasparov) that although Topalov was the new FIDE world champion, he still had to beat Kramnik in order to be recognized as the one and only world champion. Had it not been the case, the 2006 WC match in Elista would have had not reason to ever take place.

@me:
"I argued that he has a lot of miles before him until we can start to compare him [Topalov] with Kasparov. I said that only time will tell if he can mantain that dominance. And the time did tell."
IMO, time did NOT tell, at least not yet. Looking at the most recent FIDE rating lists, Topalov become #1 (again) in October 2008 [four players within striking distance of 10 points] and maintained this spot in the January 2009 list [Anand only five points behind]. Things look more convincing in the live rating list, and will do so in the next FIDE list (including his Nanjing result), but that's still a far cry from "maintaining dominance" - I think most people, including Topalov himself, do not argue with such facts.

Concerning your shorter follow-up post, I have my own "buts and ifs": First, who is the "governing organisation"? During a certain period there were two, FIDE and PCA. Second, what (exactly) are the "valid rules"? - if they keep changing, not only between cycles but even during an ongoing cycle. Third, for me it is (and will always remain) legitimate to distinguish between tournament or match and KO lottery champions.

Thomas, now you confused me. I said that the time did tell (that he is not as dominant as Kasparov). And you are saying....what?

Only for a brief period (between 1993 and 1996) there were two governing bodies. Only in that period there have been two World Champions for me. At all other time there was only one governing body - FIDE. Valid rules are the rules that are curently in effect. Frequent changes of rules are bad, changes during the cycles are unheard of. Still it doesn't change anything. The one who wins the match/tournament/game/coin flip/whatever called "World Championships" is the world champion. It's like that in any sport. Whoever wins the World championships is the world champion, irrespective of what he does at all other competitions.

Concerning you first paragraph, yep I got you wrong - I thought you wanted to imply that Topalov now _is_ as dominant as Kasparov was in the past. So that's cleared up, now all I can say is "I agree with you (on that point)".

But you confused me with something else: "changes during the cycles are unheard of". ????? Did you miss lots of discussions here and elsewhere? Changes DID occur during the ongoing cycle - well, maybe all changes announced during the Dresden Olympiad will be nullified again. "Ongoing cycle" here refers to the one that will determine the challenger of Anand or Topalov (whoever wins their upcoming match - whenever/wherever that one happens, time, location and sponsors are not yet known ....).

@me: with such a relaxed definition of what is a world champion, the FIDE board could announce tomorrow that the new world champion has been decided by a vote (in compliance with the "whatever" rule you mention above), and that its recipient is the great Kirsan Ilyumzhinov.

OK, maybe I used the wrong word - I am not a native speaker. I perfectly aware of all the changes in the past and current world championship cycles. I am totally against those kind of changes. However this doesn't change anything at all. Like it or not FIDE is the only worldwide chess organization, and is thus the only governing body that can crown a World Champion. What I or you think about it, is totally irrelevant.

And to answer Guillaume: Yes, they can do that. Ilyumzhinov would be World Champion then. However I would most likely stop following professional chess in that case.

To explain my last paragraph, I give you a counter question: Can a Senate/Parliament (or whatever it is called) in your country change the constitution and declare themselves as the absolute rulers for life?

The answer is YES. They can do that by 2/3 (or whatever it is prescribed) majority of votes. However there will probably be uprising of the people and they will depose them soon. By force.

It's the same concearning FIDE and Ilyumzhinov. They CAN do that. But it probably wouldn't end well for them.

@me: so there is a limit to your acceptance of what FIDE decides to call a world champion after all?

@ me

On a off-topic side note, that's completely wrong (at least in my country, no idea about yours).
The answer to your question is NO (as said, at least in my country). There is certain parts of constitution, and the "principle of democracy" and "principle of rule of law" are two of them, that can't be changed by a vote; they are written down in the constitution as "unchangeable" (and that is "unchenageable" too) by any means.
The only way to change them would be by undemocratic means, eg military force.

I don't even need to argue that a Law can be contested at the constitutional court, because it doesn't matter. No matter if 2/3, 4/5 or all of the parliament would vote for such a thing: It is NOT possible (as said, at least in my country) to declare yourself as absolute ruler for life through a vote in parliament.
The guys who wrote the constitution of my country were smart enough declare certain principles as unchangeable even by vote. You're free to think that's good or bad, but your statement above is wrong in my country.

Completely off-topic and not important for your point, I know, but still...