while it was certainly a nice fight, the game was again unsatisfying. However, I like that it lasted 58 moves though. Having a short draw would have been really disappointing. I guess at least for patzers like me this can be an endgame lesson :)

well done Topalov! I want this match to go to the wire in the second half.

"This knight is really going for an Academy Award in this game. "
haha
Interesting game, i had no any clue whatsoever what happened on the board
I prefer almost any match to a tournament

no more predictions :(
I hope Anand wins next with whiite, or it will give new confidence to Topalov.
Today's game had no pressure on Topalov, which is like releasng pressure over a pinned opponent...

Not good game from Anand today. A lot of inaccuracies today, hope on monday he will be more concentrated. =\

Well, so much for 1 d4 and queenless middlegames. It has had it's use but now has become a blunt weapon. Time for both players to change to 1 e4! and start some attacking play!

@ Bert
I think Topalov is afraid Anand will play the petroff against 1.e4

Really disappointing for Anand that he scored only 2.5/3 out of his white games. Even more disappointing for Topalov that he scored 0.5/3 playing black.

@KingTal: What were Anand's inaccuracies today? Or should I rather ask: When didn't he follow the first line of Rybka?

good performance by topalov today, he did not lose again.

The sequence of knight moves was really impressive, all the more because Anand did not achieve much with his opening today. Besides the tactics associated with 13.Qa4, which were easily parried by Topalov, White did not have many choices in this game. After exchanging queens Black had the two bishops and space advantage. The dance of the knights Anand staged from move 22 managed to neutralize Topalov's chances and allowed a slightly inferior but totally defensible position for White. Following the game with an engine was interesting and helped me appreciate the high level of precision that was demanded from both players in order to keep the balance.
It was a wasted White for Vishy nonetheless. It now remains to be seen whether Topalov can put up one of his famous comebacks in the second half.

I must admit Topalov has guts to play Catalan again...

@Thomas: as example...

depth: 21 engine: Firebird 1.1
14. Rc1 +0.20 --> Bxc6 +0.37
25. Nf4 +0.05 --> Nd6 +0.38
29. Na7 ~0.00 --> Nd6 +0.17
33. Nxb6 +0.09 --> Nf4 +0.25
Anand moves weren´t bad but some of them were really inaccurate and gave away the little advantage. Good that Topalov made some imprecise moves too.

Inaccuracies by Anand? Where?
The word "Knightmare" appeared on various sites, very appropriate.
I think Anand is enjoying the match, even giving Topalov the "advantage" of the two bishops, it takes a lot of guts!

Topalov has every right to not offer draws and to play for as long as he pleases. I find it inapropriate for Chessvibes or anybody else to criticize him for that; he is playing a world championship match and is not breaking any rules by not offering draws. Physically he thinks he is in better shape than Anand so this is part of his overall strategy for the match and actually it makes a lot of sense. Stop bothering him with silly comments about draw offers and let the guy play his chess. Let the better player win (so far it appears this would be Anand).

OK, one more time then. I don't care if he wants to play on, fight, whatever. I agree that it's a good thing, the Sofia rule, and I praise Danailov/Topalov for preaching it. But... (a big but)... if you're repeating moves when you want to draw a dead drawn position, THAT is silly. Just looking at your opponent and speaking the word 'draw' is enough, and saves a minute, a few moves and a lot of criticism from GM Konstantin Landa, GM Sergey Shipov (and some guy running a site with videos).

(Btw I have the right to criticize him. I'm not breaking any rules by criticizing him. See the point? If you have the right, that doesn't mean you have to use it.)

@KingTal - (and all other computer thinkers) do not consider the computer evaluation of .38 or any other numerical evaluation as important.
What you should look for are trends in the evaluation, is it getting bigger or lower. You can play a line that a comp considers .38 then get to the end of its own line and it will suddenly change its eval to 0.00 (look at the game Anand played ...g4 then the eval said it was a poor move then later it changed to dead equal.
USE YOUR BRAIN!

I can see all the Chessvibes videos but if I didn't I have no idea what remove your cache files means.

"I'm quite okay," says Anand, studiously refusing to say the organizers who insulted him before the match even started are okay. I have a feeling we'll hear more from him about it after the match is over.

Sure Peter. Btw I also have the right to criticize your for criticizing Topalov! Such is the beauty of a free society. Keep up the good work and see if you can fix this cache thing, I am yet to watch game six video!

@kfan. Precisely what is Topalov's problem with simply offering a draw when it's a drawn position? The fact that Topalov starts to blink with his eyes whenever someone asks him a slightly critical question about Sofia rules, and Danailov only answers questions he likes to answer, surely is some indication that they themselves don't very much believe in this particular rule. 'Nuff said.

Topalov painted himself into a corner over this silliness - almost any effectiveness it may have had as a strategy was lost when he announced it publicly, why not just silently practice it unless the position was dead drawn or it was in his interest to draw, as was this case and also the last? Having made the ill-advised public announcement, Topalov feels obligated to remain stuck on stupid by following his statement.

What a jerk!

@Arne Moll: Precisely what is Topalov’s problem with simply offering a draw when it’s a drawn position?

He must show how good a law-abiding citizen he is! A little national pride? Perhaps. (In Sofia you play by our rules!). Also a means of pressuring the 'oldie' champ to make him blunder. But definitely a way of ensuring that the money is well spent. Who wants to pay those two masters for short draws?

It's been non other than the homeboy the one who has demonstrated how superfluous it is to play a draw for another 20 moves in games 3 and 5, but he felt morally compelled because he had White. He was more justified to play on in game 6 because it was the only Black where he wasn't crushed out of the opening. By move 20 it was hard for everybody not to prefer Black's position. But then, in a twist of fortune, Anand unleashed a cavalry attack for which the game will now be famous rather than for anything Topalov did. ;-)

impeccable anand..

'Video Added' in BOLD leaves a smile :) doesnt it?!

Really an interesting game. I think engines do not help much to understand what happened here after Queen exchange. I would have prefered the bishop pair, but it was really impressiv to see how Vishy played the Knight pair.

@ Sofia Rules:
What is a dead draw position?

For my level with a rating around 2100 Elo there are only positions dead draw, which are mentioned in the FIDE rules. I often do not belive myself, what kind of endgames I was able to win or lose.

Take a look at this endgame of Ponomariov vs. Carlsen from Amber Rapid Chess with each side 4 pawns (on kingside without any defect) + Rook:
http://www.chessbase.com/cbm/cbm135e/cbm135-03/ponomariov_carlsen.htm

Even it was Rapid Chess many players would agree, this is draw for any GM after move 39, but Carlsen managed to win on move 100 against a 2700 player.

A GM I know, analysed in his database endgame R+B vs. R. I do not remember the correct percentage, but over 50% of this theoretical draw ending are won. He even found 3 games which reached a theoretical won position (analysed already by Philidor). Only 2 of these 3 games were won. So the result does not depend on, if the position is theoretical won or drawn.

So I conclude, if they play for the audience of very different level of chess skill, there is no theoretical draw. Only a repetition of moves shows the audience, nothing is possible. Although even there the audience cannot be sure.
If they only play for themselve and GMs+IMs, then they could agree draws really earlier.

I think it is just a kind of impolite, not to talk to each other after repetition of moves. This is the only thing I do not like about how Topalov handle this, but even the FIDE rules say, that in such positions you can ask the arbiter for the draw, only by writing down the move and stop the clock.

Anand: "I am quite OK".
Kamsky in a press conference during his match against Topalov: "I am OK".
Someone from team Kamsky during the same match: "The organizers don't even pretend to be neutral."

About 'dead drawn position': I agree that this is often subjective. But the solution is not to let them play out the game till the end each time. This is a form of ridiculing an intellectual game. It's the task of the commentator to explain why the players 'suddenly stop playing' (as an amateur might feel it). Or even the players could be asked to explain in one or two sentences, on stage perhaps even, why both sides can't make progress. This way the audience even learn something. :-)

@ Peter Doggers - "dead drawn position"

I could agree with you about the analyses, but they are not done in a sufficient way for weak players (maybe impossible). And 2 sentences are not enough for sure.

As example take game 5 of WCC. A friend and I analysed the idea of black 41. Rd5 instead of Nf5. We could reach no conclusion, how to reach there a dead draw. The ideas for black are:
- exchange rook or play b5 (rook defends all weak pawns on 5th rank)
- play e5 to get rid of weak e6
- black knight dominates white bishop
- black king can get freely active and much better than white king
Maybe it is dead draw too, but I think most of the audience do not understand why.

Who said anything about this possibility in game 5? Even Sofia Rules did not help to understand this. So I agree Sofia Rules are not the solution, but your suggestion is not reality and also not the solution. If commentator think it is dead draw he will not say much. If they are playing on he has to say something again and this helps.

GM Shipov comments in english concerning draw.

51.Kf2 "With your permission I fall silent. What?s use in pretending that something important happens. That is, maybe it does happen! But not regarding the chess."

58.Kf2 Rc2 "And again there has been played that ridiculous performance with the participation of an arbiter. It was necessary that he came, looked at the players accepted their approval of the drawn result and fixed it. Though, the players haves shaken hands this time. I can?t understand what?s the use in this dissembling? Why not just offer a draw and agree to it? All that is very ugly. By and large, DRAW! "

Source
http://www.chessnc.com/en/online

I really like him lol, very entertaining!

Nicely put, Pozzi.

I also don't understand why playing a position out to a dead draw is a form or ridiculing an intellectual game.

One could just as well say the opposite, which is that nothing less than carrying out an argument to its conclusion is intellectually honest. You can look at this both ways.

In my view, as a spectator sport on the one hand, or as a fighting sport (don't we pride ourselves on how chess is like mental boxing?), also as an art, it makes sense to regulate in favor of the game playing itself out.

If the GMS are able to dash out the moves, it certinaly isn't so much to ask of them to do so

I really do wonder how many of these so called 'Dead Drawn positions' amateurs would draw against GM's or comps for that matter?

If one goes through Dvoresky endgame manual, it is quite frightening to see the most barren positions with lots of poison. Even more barren than many of these drawn positions we complain about where sofia rules are concerned.

And let’s not forget Carlsen - Ponomariov , Rook & Rook vs. pawns on ‘same side’ of the board!

This picking on the Sofia rules lacks perception of the ‘Big’ picture....’Majority’ of people who watch World Championship matches are 'NOT' category 'C' or 1500 players but much less.... they don't see anything ‘silly ‘ in games played out! They see it as normal and in fact professional!

Oh yes, a part of this ‘Majority’ happen to be wealthy investors and organiser who dip into their pockets & time to make these events happen, which puts ‘food’ on the table for these GM’s and entertains we non-paying chess fans! Yet we complain, FANTASTIC! ‘Beggars cannot be Choosers’...

The only people who have a right to complain about anything is a ‘Chess paying fan’

Perhaps, that is why chess is where it is today...Nowhere?!?
We think tooooo much of ourselves rather than how to appeal to the mass market.

@Pozzi: Maybe you are right that Anand was slightly better in the final position of game 5. But either he didn't even realize this (after all, he was - voluntarily - defending a passive and possibly slightly worse position for most of the game), or he didn't consider it promising enough to play on [and on and on]. He may have 10% winning chances, with some help from the opponent, is this worth it or rather a waste of energy and time? Do we have to see games like McShane-Short (London Classics 2009, 1-0 163) in a WCh match?

Anand didn't commit himself to Sofia rules. Neither Topalov (self-committed to Sofia rules) nor the arbiter (only committed to the written match regulations, AKA "world championship rules") can force him to avoid a repetition and make symbolic winning attempts.

As the match goes on, we may find out how the players (mostly Topalov) deal with the following situations:
- a position with completely blocked pawn chains
- an opposite-colored bishops ending where one player has one or even two extra pawns, but absolutely no winning chances.
Will we see a pro forma repetition (e.g. 47.Kf2 Kf7 48.Kg2 Kg7 49.Kf2 Kf7 etc.), or will we see 50 meaningless moves before a draw can be claimed? In either case, what would be the added value? Is this really the future of chess?

Everybody criticize Kramnik for short draws and now everybody criticizes Topalov for playing till the end. It's his choice and it made him World n°1, the winner of 11 tournaments in the last 5 years, all of the highest level, and at least 4 times 2nd. Who are you just to criticize him ??

Thomas, can you just tell me when Topalov made meaningless moves ?? You take one single exception which is very unlikely to happen, and then you criticize the whole rule. Maybe you should try to defend one of these "drawn positions" against a grandmaster !! And let me tell you, if you know the endgame is gonna last 50 meaningless moves, then you're not forced to watch it and you can let the other people watch other games that would apply this excellent rule in a future tournament and who will be happy not to have draw when there is still a lot of fight left like in Anand-Morozevich ?? Oh! Did I just say Anand !? So THIS maybe explains THAT !

@ Thomas
I do not complain about Anand in the 5th game, that he did not try to win. That is his decision and I am sure he was thinking about the mentioned idea and found a defence for white (only I am not able to do it - this is one of the reasons why my rating is 700 points below). It is the players decision to repeat moves.

I complaint about the suggestion from Peter Doggers, to agree draws earlier, because commentator will explain it. I think commentator are very good in this WCC and I am happy about them. Although the mentioned idea was not analysed, because they can never analyse everything. So I prefer that they play until repetition of position (decided by Topalov for himself), so you can be sure, the players tried everything, they find worth to try it.

I am not happy how Topalov does apply Sofia Rules for himself (I think it is impolite and I think it was the idea of his Manager), but I think it is good for the audience that they play until repetition. Even if they do play until repetition, there is nearly no dead draw for the audience of weak players like me.

I am a fan of Vishy by the way and hope he will win.

@ Thomas,

If a position with completely blocked pawn chains is impenetrable or if an opposite-colored bishop endgame is a dead draw, Im sure a way can be found to repeat moves or to even produce a stalemate (say in K+P vs K).
In fact nothing prevents two players from repeating moves on move 15. But it does dignify the agreement, somehow, to force each side to think through or justify the series of moves that culminate in declaring a draw.

As per the argument about "saving forces", leaving aside that it is questionable whether that is good sport, nothing prevents the side with the slight advantage to signal his or her opponent that he's willing to repeat moves

In the end it's just about adding an element of purity to the game and also to discourage entitlement among gms who get are fortunate enough to make a living.

Anyway, it turns out most GMs are willing to play by such rules.

Anand was absolutely entitled to not to accept them for this match, of course. But so is Topalov entitled to enforce them. Having to go through the arbiter might be unnecessary posturing, but they can just repeat moves, offer a handshake and sign the scoresheets

Iif Sofia rules become standard in top-level tournaments, over the years it will be quite natural to accept them in WC matches.

(I meant to say -to make a living from CHESS :)

@Timothee:
1) Regarding meaningless moves from Topalov, I refer you to comments by Peter Doggers and Sergey Shipov.
2) Opposite-colored bishop endings are not "unlikely to happen", but rather common in GM practice - sometimes straight out of the opening. Makes me wonder to what extent you actually follow top-level chess ... or maybe you only remember wins and forget about logically drawn games?
3) Amateur vs. GM (or amateur vs. amateur) is an irrelevant comparison to top GM vs. top GM. In a team match just yesterday, I somehow managed to win a slightly inferior but probably drawn endgame (or rather my opponent found a way to lose) - this is unlikely to happen at top level. [Before I had considered to offer a draw, but decided that my opponent should do so - and we were behind in the match.]

All that being said, I am not per se against Sofia rules - though I fail to see why they are useful or required. I am critical of the way they are "celebrated" in the ongoing match, particularly in game 3. With all the comedy going on, an arbiter being called onto the scene, ... it is plausible that the players "simply forgot to shake hands". Though IMO it is equally plausible that Topalov deliberately wanted to insult Anand, given what happened before (Volcanogate). Either way, for me this is "bringing the game into disrepute". At least, by now the players adapted to "Sofia 2010 rules" (I don't remember similar incidents earlier at MTel or elsewhere) keeping some sort of dignity.

BTW, which Anand-Morozevich game are you referring to? Their total score according to chessgames.com is +15=14-10 for Anand (including rapid and blitz) - a comparatively low drawing percentage - and at first sight I couldn't find a premature draw between them.

one good thing about sofias rule is that we, the public, don't have to fear premature draws. as spectators we've all felt disappointment, even cheated when a pro game suddenly ends in a draw at move 10 or 17. haven't we?

I am not complaining about playing under sophia rules but a few points
-this is a WC match and the rules are self imposed for Topalov. This can be considered a disadvantage. Topalov has to be the one to repeat the position if HE considers it equal. This can be a mental block that can create problems if he happens to think that a certain position he can play on and lose the balance.
Push to hard and you end up out of balance.

I am also noting that Anand seems to be getting the " Knight pair" a lot in this match

People mis-interpret the debate and then start their own illogical threads of arguments. Nobody complained against Topa playing on as long as possible. The question is why doesn't he offer a draw when he is himself going for three-fold repetition. If he is so willing to play till bare kings then why does he repeat moves. He can always play avoid 3-fold repetition by playing a 'different move'. I mean, when he is repeating moves he is admitting that this is a dead drawn position and he should actually offer a draw. It's nothing but 'childish' to call the arbiter to claim a draw after three-fold repetition.

It is this 'hypocritical behaviour' that I don't like. He should admit that although he tried his best to win but the opponent has managed to reach a position that is drawn and so it's time to gracefully offer a draw. It was Topalov who declared that he will play every game to win and so he should not assume that the opponent will offer a draw because the opponent (who didn't claim any high moral ground) is respecting his 'approach' and giving him an opportunity to 'honour' his own claim Topa might play a different line to avoid 3-fold repetition. So the onus is always on him.

@tony you're right. definitely topalov's problem not anand's. and in the end danilov will have to admit pushing this issue (sophia rule) backfired. another cheap shot bites the dust...

Anand: " I am quite OK"

Coming from Anand, I bet he's pissed off and can't wait for the match to end so he can get back to civilization.

Something that is often overlooked it seems about the Sofia rules: this is a World Championship.

In a regular tournament, it is the prerogative of the organizer to stipulate all sorts of amendments to the rules. If the organizer demands the players to play in their swimming trunks or do a handstand after each move "to make it more interesting for the spectators", that's his business. If a player does not agree, he can simply decline his invitation and play somewhere else.

Hopefully you see that for a World Championship this sort of thing is not possible. The organizer has to stick to the FIDE rules TO THE LETTER and nothing else. (Amendments to those rules are only possible if both players agree, they cannot be enforced by one side only.)

Apart from the fact of course that Sofia rules in a one on one match are superfluous: if one player does not want to play short draws he can simple refuse draw offers and not make short draw offers himself, Sofia rules are not needed. Doh.
As others have already mentioned; by a similar reasoning they might as well award 10 points to a win and 1 to a draw; it would not make a single difference.

Another thing I would like to add about the Sofia rules: if a player thinks it's in his best interest to play short draws: that's his business.

Now in a regular tournament I'm ok with Sofia rules going against what the plyer himself might want to do for the sake of the spectators.

But I am willing to make an exception for the World Championship. (Meaning that I'm against Sofia rules if it's the World Championship.) Now I can't really back that up with a lot of logical arguments except this one: in a World Championship the players themselves should have the last word on whether or not they want to draw, not the arbiter or anybody else.

I understand that not everybody will agree with this particular point, just like some people will prefer a 24 game match, or how some people will prefer a round robin tournament for the WC, or even a knock out.

i'm glad anand has risen above all the legal, political and psychological issues; allowed the wcch match to be played.
does anyone know about how many viewers have logged on to the great web-sights covering the the games?

@ Aingle: that is good point.
Both players agreed on a draw. They did it by the means of repeating moves and not by tongue. But when both players seem to be d'accord with a draw, there's nothing to be said against asking your opp. (Actually, it`s even ok if only one player thinks, that it's a draw position)

btw: does the Sofia rule (I know, it doesn`t apply in the WCC) permit repeating moves before turn 20 or turn 40 or st like that?

@ Wdamit: There can arise mutual zugzwang positions where deviating by one side means making a bad or even outright losing move. So repetitions have to be allowed, but even then it has to go through the arbiter who has the final word.

From the regulations of Mtel 2009:

"The players should not talk during the games; additionally they should not offer draws directly to their opponents. Draw-offers will be allowed only through the Chief-Arbiter in three cases: a triple-repetition of the position, a perpetual check and in theoretically drawn positions.

The Chief-Arbiter is the only authority who can acknowledge the final result of the game in these cases. He will be advised in his decisions throughout the tournament by GM Zurab Azmaiparashvili, FIDE Vice-President."

Of course when there are no Sofia rules in place it is just silly to call the arbiter after repetitions when just saying "draw?" and shaking hands would have been enough.