Originally posted by Varenkaabout that. fischer was a total walking catastroph on that area, and he's maybe the most liked chessplayer ever. where as topalov lost his head once, for quite obvious provocation, and people are punishing him forever for that. if you go looking for interview footage of topalov, you can't find any where he isn't very soft spoken and courteous. even kasparov and karpov have a long history of snapping, not to mention korchnoij. and nigel short. but never topalov, excluding that one ridiculous mess. yet topalov is the only one who gets hard time because "he's not a nice guy".
Yes, his games are interesting but the point is people disliking Topalov as a person and not his games.
(I do get why people hate danailov though, that guy is really quite aggressive in keeping topalov's stuff together. which I guess is what you'd want in a manager, but sometimes that guy just goes too far.)
Originally posted by wormwoodI wasn't saying that the desire to avoid short draws was bad. But when the genuine time did arrive to offer a draw, why didn't he just speak to Anand? The Sofia rules weren't agreed and so Topalov acts like this?!
I think they asked for sofia rules, but anand's corner refused. so they did it this way.
Originally posted by VarenkaPrecisely! You can be a great player and be a sportsman/gentleman at the same time. Showing your opponents respect is not a weakness!
Yes, his games are interesting but the point is people disliking Topalov as a person and not his games.
For example, his decision to now make draw offers via the arbiter. Is that really good for chess? Why didn't he just ask Anand directly? It's behaviour like that which is annoying, not the moves he makes on the board.
Originally posted by wormwoodI agree to a certain extent, but if that was the way my manager was behaving i'd be looking elsewhere. Danailov is more like a Mafia style Heavy, Topalov has been benefiting from his heavy handed negotiating style for a long time now. Anand has made a lot of concretions so far yet has been largely criticised by the Topalov camp. I find that to be very unsatisfactory, looking back through previous WC matches most challengers have to jump through rings of fire to get a shot. Topalov is playing at home (as he did against Kamsky) and has an entire Nation cheering him on. Anyone would think he was the champ and Anand was challenging!
about that. fischer was a total walking catastroph on that area, and he's maybe the most liked chessplayer ever. where as topalov lost his head once, for quite obvious provocation, and people are punishing him forever for that. if you go looking for interview footage of topalov, you can't find any where he isn't very soft spoken and cou ...[text shortened]... hich I guess is what you'd want in a manager, but sometimes that guy just goes too far.)
Originally posted by wormwoodI couldn't agree more. I'm not a big fan of the Bulgarian team and their behavior, but you gotta give credit where credit is due. The "Sofia Rules" were an awesome idea.
I think they asked for sofia rules, but anand's corner refused. so they did it this way. I can't see how fighting against wimpy draws can possibly be anything but GREAT for chess. it brings out more exciting games, which we've seen already in these 4 games (have 3/4 WC games ever been decisive before?). and even when the game really is drawn, ...[text shortened]... drawn. which is also simply great for the audience. topalov should get a MEDAL for the idea.
Originally posted by MarinkatombI agree. Topalov is a fairly private man, his interviews are limited mostly to the dynamics of the chess match at hand. On the other hand, Danailov is a walking catastrophe...Jimmy "The Mouth Of The South" Hart was a pussy cat compared to Danailov. Unfortunately, you are often judged by the company you keep. I would love to see Anand win, but Topalov is great competitor and if he won playing exciting chess, I couldn't complain with a clear conscience.
I agree to a certain extent, but if that was the way my manager was behaving i'd be looking elsewhere. Danailov is more like a Mafia style Heavy, Topalov has been benefiting from his heavy handed negotiating style for a long time now. Anand has made a lot of concretions so far yet has been largely criticised by the Topalov camp. I find that to be very un ...[text shortened]... n entire Nation cheering him on. Anyone would think he was the champ and Anand was challenging!
(BTW, I'm drunk right now...if I start making more sense tomorrow, ignore the previous post...if not, ACES UP!!! w00t)
Originally posted by wormwoodYes - two of the Botvinnik - Smyslov Matches in the 1950s started with three decisive games out of four (Botvinnik winning all six of those games), and in their third match two of the first four were wins (one each).
have 3/4 WC games ever been decisive before?
Originally posted by wormwood3 of the first 4 games in the 1993 Kasparov - Short match were decisive ... but Gazza won them all so it's not quite the same thing.
(have 3/4 WC games ever been decisive before?)
I agree with you, btw, that it's quite reasonable for Topalov to not accept or offer draws if that's what he wants to do. That said, once it's clear the point is about to be split making the offer via the arbiter rather than addressing Anand directly just makes Toppy look like a nob (IMHO of course).
rest day rant:
I've been working in the online poker business for years and let me tell you; rivalries are good for chess! Most of the market for both chess and poker don't undersand the games deeply enough to just apreciate the pure game play.
In poker the television programs (except HSP) are all aiming at the booming market. This market is not in it for deep discussions about the relative EV an stop and go vs. an all-in with 44 in the big blind against a late opener etc. They are in it for the dream about big money, so these programs all cut to easy to understand big bluffs, pots, bad beats and cash on the table. There's also a lot of colorful personalities. Like Phil Helmut; an expert tournament player (especially good at extracting the most from poor players), that has a habbit of exploding in nasty rants at the table. Everybody hates him and when he is on high stakes poker everyone tunes in wanting him to lose.
Fischer's rants and general behaviour, kasparovs emotional outbursts and the eterlnal rivalry with Karpov, Topalov and Kramnik's bitter battle: It's all good for chess folks! Chess got one free-ride in the 20h century. That was the cold war battle on Island. Most of the rest of the rest that has caught the world's eye has been made by colorful personalities and spectacles and not by pure chess art.
If you check the chats on the live stream, it's clear that many of the followers are in it not for the game, but simply are rooting for one of the candidates and/or hating the other candidate. Just like a regular football match. And again, this is good for chess. If chess is to grow, it is by getting the idea spreading to the masses.
One of the main widely read online newspaper where you can olso follow chess here in Norway, opened the match article with a picture of Topalov. «Will he make a new scandle? Will it be an Indian gentleman or an Bullgarian bad boy who wins the title.» Just imagine how many more clicks and reads this article got just because Topalov saved the day by being a bad boy!
Although I'm siding with Anand and Kramnik in all technical aspects of all the spectacle i'm grateful we have villans in chess.
regards, Paul
Totally agree.
Wihtout characters the sport would receive little coverage and no sponsorship.
In 1969 the total prize fund for the Spaskky - Petrosian WC match was $1,400.
Just 3 years later and Fischer had the 1972 final fund up to $240,000
and chess on the front of every newspaper in the free world.
This good guy v bad guy is nothing new, boxing and wrestling had been
using for years and if you can just see past all the 'hogwash' you will find
two great chess players playing their part really well.
I doubt if we would have been treated to such games in a Kramnik-Anand match
played in Moscow.
Just need Topo to land one of his specials to keep the match alive.
Originally posted by MarinkatombCompletely agree with you. In fact I would contend that without sportsmanship one never achieves the status of a true great.
Precisely! You can be a great player and be a sportsman/gentleman at the same time. Showing your opponents respect is not a weakness!