Originally posted by vipiuDon't know about that, if you look at the opening play in this match, Kamsy was better at solving the problems and getting an advantage. It's just that in the middlegame he has on several occasions completely lost it, and Topalov very skillfully played on Kamsky's timetrouble.
actually he was just compensating the lack of strength (compared with Topalov) by spending more time...this is time, it happens in many sports...
the weaker players spend more effort to compensate some other abilities, and keep the games balanced even in tennis, football, etc...for the first half, after that they are overplayed...
I was rather dissapointed in Topalov in this match, I think he got lucky in his first black game, two of his three wins were the result of bad timemanagement by Kamsky. In this game, Kamsky had a clear win, he was better in Topalov's first black game, he just couldn't pull the trigger when he needed to.
Originally posted by GarnothI know that the games looked very balanced and Topalov seemed lucky, but we all knew before the game(and the players also knew) that Topalov is one class better than Kamsky...
Don't know about that, if you look at the opening play in this match, Kamsy was better at solving the problems and getting an advantage. It's just that in the middlegame he has on several occasions completely lost it, and Topalov very skillfully played on Kamsky's timetrouble.
I was rather dissapointed in Topalov in this match, I think he got lucky in hi ...[text shortened]... better in Topalov's first black game, he just couldn't pull the trigger when he needed to.
This class proved a little...see the last game...I think Topalov went on purpose a bit wrong (on move 28 for example Rxa3 is obvious), just to exploit his opponent time trouble and weaknesses...he knew he could afford this...
Anyway, in the end this match was much worse(in my opinion) and poorer played than Anand-Kramnik...and Topalov did not show much real quality chess...
Originally posted by vipiuI'd agree with that. If I lose an OTB on time it is almost always because I have been losing over the board and have used lots of time in a vain attempt to find counterplay. It happened to me just last week when I was playing someone graded 209 ECF (about 2300 FIDE). I needed to use more time than him to work out the complexities of the position and eventually lost on time in a double-edged position. If I'd used less time then I probably would have missed a complicated tactic and lost that way instead.
actually he was just compensating the lack of strength (compared with Topalov) by spending more time...this is time, it happens in many sports...
the weaker players spend more effort to compensate some other abilities, and keep the games balanced even in tennis, football, etc...for the first half, after that they are overplayed...
Originally posted by Fat LadyMy point is that both games where Kamsky lost due to his time management he had the better position.
I'd agree with that. If I lose an OTB on time it is almost always because I have been losing over the board and have used lots of time in a vain attempt to find counterplay. It happened to me just last week when I was playing someone graded 209 ECF (about 2300 FIDE). I needed to use more time than him to work out the complexities of the position and eventua ...[text shortened]... ed less time then I probably would have missed a complicated tactic and lost that way instead.
But I agree, this match was exciting (lot's of different openings, playing for the win all the time) but the Anand-Kramnik match was of a much higher quality.
I knew Topalov was a favourite but he disappointed me a bit...
Originally posted by GarnothYou're right, plenty of openings, that was good.
... But I agree, this match was exciting (lot's of different openings, playing for the win all the time) but the Anand-Kramnik match was of a much higher quality.
I knew Topalov was a favourite but he disappointed me a bit...
Just think, he has plenty of potential to impress against Anand 🙂