26 Sep 06
Originally posted by lucifershammeri dont know what your talking about, honestly.....
He ran into time trouble. Positionally, I don't think he was losing; but his clock was running out.
if it was not a draw then hes down a rook so his position is obviously losing without a draw, when he played rb3 that was not good because it allowed f5 and likely a draw, so again i dont know what youre saying, we all know hes not losing because it was a draw so i mean i dont know what your saying, enlighten us or just me, maybe im dumb
26 Sep 06
Originally posted by alexstclaireThe rook would still be on the board if Kramnik had not sacrificed it to force a draw. Kramnik's best winning chances, however, had been squandered earlier in the game, possibly when he missed Ne4!
i dont know what your talking about, honestly.....
if it was not a draw then hes down a rook so his position is obviously losing without a draw,
26 Sep 06
Originally posted by WulebgrNe4 was very strong, I reckon Kramnik saw it but decided not to risk it, due to the match situation - he took a lot of clock time over the moves around that period after all.
Kramnik's best winning chances, however, had been squandered earlier in the game, possibly when he missed Ne4!
Eight more draws to go?
26 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by TommyCThere's been three games: two have had decisive results and one was a rather interesting and well played draw. If anything it seems to me Kramnik had a slight advantage with a protected passed d-pawn opposed by Black's doubled a-pawns but under extreme time pressure decided to take the perpetual IF Topalov allowed it. I'm getting a little sick of this "Kramnik only plays for a draw" crap; maybe people should look at the actual games. It takes two players to make a draw and I see no evidence at all that Kramnik didn't play for a win except when he ran up against a short clock and then he made the rational choice that any GM would make under similar circumstances.
Ne4 was very strong, I reckon Kramnik saw it but decided not to risk it, due to the match situation - he took a lot of clock time over the moves around that period after all.
Eight more draws to go?
EDIT: As for I assume 16 Ne4, it seems like either Ne5 or Be7 is an adequate response. Kramnik's Bg5 seems more logical: developing a piece, connecting the rooks and forcing the exchange of Black's well placed dark squared bishop.
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
27 Sep 06
If Kramwad wins im going to cry 🙁
Topalov is a much better ambassador for chess, although whoever wins will be over shadowed by Kasparov for years to come, I suspect if you asked the none chess playing world (foo's) who the chess World Champion is 70%+ would say Kasparov. Whoever wins the WC is going to have to stamp themselves on the game of chess in a big big way to get outside of that shadow.......I just dont feel that Kramnik could do that in the same way Topalov might.
Although I guess if FIDE keeps its act together and hosts the regular WC tournament that it wont matter too much.
27 Sep 06
Originally posted by WulebgrI agree, Fide's championship tournament system sucks and I do not recognize any of their pretrenders as champions.
Ever since he was crowned, Topolov's reign has given the FIDE championship system something it never earned and does not deserve: legitimacy. His victory will be understood by many as vindication of their illegitimate run of champions: Karpov, Khalifman, Anand, Ponomariov, Kasimdzhinov. Make no mistake, the FIDE leaders do not believe that Topolov is the cha ...[text shortened]... at classical time controls retains its much deserved supremacy as chess's most notable venue.
Champions must be decided by match play!