A strange chapter has closed in chess: at last we've returned to a single champion, but it wasn't easy! Reunification talk had been in the air off and on for nearly a decade, but only after the unfortunate retirement of Garry Kasparov did it actually take place.
The match can be divided up into four segments: games 1-4, games 5-9, games 10-12 and the tiebreaks.
In the first four games, both players failed to convert when they had the initiative. In game 1 Topalov was pressing (though he never had anything concrete), went too far and lost. In game 2, a Kramnik blunder threw away what would have probably been one of the most glorious days in championship history, but Topalov failed to convert both immediately and over the course of the next few moves as well. Eventually, the position became balanced, but Topalov continued to (over-)press and managed to lose. In game 3, it was Kramnik's turn to blow a win and several other nice opportunities. Unlike Topalov, however, he limited the bleeding and drew that game. Finally, game 4 was a mutually well-played draw. Topalov had a small edge with White, but Kramnik's excellent defense kept everything under control.
The next five games, four of which were actually played, went wholly in Topalov's favor, though largely marred by the "toiletgate" controversy. Kramnik forfeited game 5, and then played his second and third consecutive black games in games 6 and 7. Both games were drawn and it looked like he had weathered the storm, but in game 8 he pressed with White before losing the thread starting at around move 30. He lost badly at the end of that game, and game 9 was even worse.
That left Kramnik a point down with just three games left, but he seemed to be surprisingly energetic and upbeat in the post-game 9 interviews. (Against Leko in 2004, he already looked haggard after winning game 1, and while he was never as physically frail as Karpov, his track record is that he coasts a bit at the end of long events. So this was good news for Kramnik & his fans, especially coming off of his illness.) Sure enough, his play in game 10 was far more energetic, but even so, it was a bizarre Topalov blunder that gave Kramnik the win. Game 11 was a see-saw struggle, with first Topalov and then Kramnik enjoying some advantage, but on both occasions the defender played more accurately and the game was drawn. Finally, Kramnik had an edge in game 12, but Topalov's active defense saved the day in another mutually well-played game.
Finally, the tiebreaks. In the first game, Kramnik with Black quickly obtained an edge, but several time-wasting moves later Topalov seized the initiative. It was starting to look dangerous, too, but Kramnik's great defensive idea starting with 36...Nc4! saved the day: draw.
Game 2 was a typical Kramnik win: start with an equal position - but
his kind of equal position - and grind the opponent into a fine paste. Kramnik's handling of the queenless middlegame/overpopulated ending was far superior to Topalov's, and he won smoothly.
Game 3, in turn, showcased Topalov's strengths. In a must-win situation, he created a dynamically equal but incredibly tense middlegame in which a single Kramnik inaccuracy could be fatal. And so it was: Kramnik's 34...Ke7? allowed Topalov to detonate a winning tactical explosion in what was the most spectacular game of the match.
Topalov had proved his resiliency yet again, but Kramnik too showed his competitive heart. Again starting with practically nothing out of the opening, he outplayed - and outcalculated - Topalov. He neutralized Topalov's play against his weak c-pawn, won a pawn, and then again neutralized Topalov's compensation as well. By move 44, he was well on his way to a win, but another Topalov blunder ended the game - and the match - immediately.
Who Played Better?
Topalov has suggested in at least a couple of interviews that while Kramnik captured all of his opportunities, he (Topalov) missed many chances, and had he not missed them, he would have won the match (pre-tiebreaks).
It's not a particularly gracious remark, but is it true? The first thing I'd like to suggest is that it's a bit of cherry-picking: if you press like a maniac all the time, you're bound to self-destruct every so often. It goes with the territory. If one is always looking for ways to win, to push, to exert pressure, it's relatively easy to make certain assumptions about the opponent's replies (that they'll be reactive). As in tennis, aggressive players not only have more winners, they have more unforced errors as well.
But even so, is Topalov right? In game 1, he blundered, but he didn't miss any winning opportunities beforehand. So in our fantasy world tabulation, we can give Topalov another half point and take one away from Kramnik. In game 2, Topalov threw away one clear win and maybe one or two subtler wins. But before we give him the full point, however, remember that the first blunder was made by Kramnik, and that the right move would, by Topalov's own admission, led to a draw. So Topalov gets another half point, Kramnik loses a half point.
In game 3, Kramnik missed a winning move himself (and some promising chances afterwards), so we have to give him an extra half-point back. And how about game 5? Shouldn't we give Kramnik at least a half point for that game, too, since he'd have had White? Thus far it's at least a wash for Kramnik. Finally, in game 10 Topalov blundered, but he was at least in a position where Kramnik had some advantage and was enjoying "his" kind of position. So at most we can say that Topalov had one fewer break than Kramnik, but that's only if we assume Kramnik only draws game 5 and game 10, and we're also assuming that his team's protest had no other adverse effects upon his opponent.
The Openings
I came across a few people griping about the monotony of the openings. Yes, 12 out of 15 games started with 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6, it's true. But even within that framework, there was a lot of variety - there were Slavs, Semi-Slavs and even a Queen's Gambit Accepted (by transposition).
Further, the Slavs came in three flavors: the 4.e3 Bf5 line, the old main line with 9.Qe2, and the Slav with 6.Ne5. All three systems are dramatically different from each other, and there are differences between the Meran and the Anti-Meran in the Semi-Slav as well. Add to this the QGA game, the two Open Catalans and the one Closed Catalan, and while 1.e4 fans may be understandably disappointed, it's not really fair to claim that the opening choices were monochromatic.
Who did better in the openings? It's clear that Topalov was responsible for the overwhelming majority of the novelties, and in that sense his play in that phase of the game was more impressive than his opponent's. But recall Kramnik's "Berlin Wall" match with Kasparov in 2000: there his goal with Black wasn't as much about achieving equality as it was getting the right kind of position. Kramnik understood very well what to do in those endings, while Kasparov was repeatedly frustrated. By that standard, I think Kramnik's opening play was more or less a success in this match as well, but I don't think he was particularly successful with White. Topalov gets the nod here.
What Now?
That's the subject of a subsequent post!
