TOPALOV-KRAMNIK 2006 WORLD CHESS CHAMPIONSHIP
Authors: Veselin Topalov & Zhivko Ginchev
Russell Enterprises, Inc. (2007)
220 pages
$28.95

Reviewed by Jeremy Silman

Though I'm always very happy to receive review copies of chess books, it's fairly rare that I actually get excited about a shipment. McFarland books are guaranteed to bring a smile to my face, a recent large box of Everyman titles was most welcome (these will all be reviewed in the next couple months), and a package from Russell Enterprises provided a real thrill thanks to two fascinating titles: VICTOR BOLOGAN SELECTED GAMES 1985-2004 and TOPALOV-KRAMNIK 2006 WORLD CHESS CHAMPIONSHIP. The Bologan book (which is excellent) will be featured in another review, but here I'll focus on the Topalov book.

Regular readers of my site will know that I was most critical of the actions of Topalov and his team during the 2006 match (THE SLIMING OF A CHAMPION). So I felt that a book by Topalov himself on this affair would clarify his true position and let us know how much of the madness was his, and how much was his manager's. In fact, I very much wanted to temper my view of Topalov and think more highly of him as a person (he's clearly a tremendous player), and I was counting on this book to make that happen.

It's important to note that there are two voices in this book. One is Topalov's, which appears in the twenty-five-page introduction and in the notes to all the games. The other voice belongs to a journalist named Zhivko Ginchev, and it's not a particularly pleasant voice. Paranoia fills many of his pages, and though the material is interesting and gives us a real feel for team Topalov, the anti-Kramnik rhetoric more often than not left me with a need to sandpaper my skin in a hot shower.

In any case, I was more interested in Topalov's words. At times Topalov comes across as a nice enough guy, and his notes to the games are fantastic. But, when you least expect it, Kramnik hate-speak appears on a page, or simple moments of simplemindedness leaves the reader scratching his head in confusion. Here are some examples:

Topalov is disingenuous on page 19: "Many of Kramnik's friends took the view that the champion could only be a champion if he had won a match; it had been this way ever since Steinitz. They did not have an explanation as to how Botvinnik and Karpov became champions, or why tradition was flouted when Kramnik, instead of Shirov, got to play Kasparov."

What in the hell is Topalov talking about? In Botvinnik's case it was difficult for him to play a match with Alekhine (the Champion at that time) due to the fact that Alekhine had died. Thus a match tournament was the best solution. Karpov became champion because Fischer simply refused to play, thus forcing an alternate solution (in that case, the winner of Karpov's final Candidate's Match vs. Korchnoi was given the title). To be fair, Topalov is right on about the Kramnik-Shirov fiasco. Poor Shirov got royally screwed by the powers that be, while Kramnik oddly benefited from losing that match.

On this same page, Topalov points out that he initially didn't feel any "moral imperative to play Kramnik." Once again, I feel what he writes is self serving and incorrect: "Kramnik did not observe the FIDE rules, and obviously wanted the system that would be most advantageous to him. Unlike him, most of his champion peers would part with their titles playing on an equal footing with the rest."

It becomes clear that Topalov considers Ponamariov and the other FIDE champions to be real World Champions, and not just Championship hopefuls who earned nice victories in tournaments where victories in blitz chess were critical in the final results. Somehow, it never occurs to Topalov that Kramnik wanted the World Championship to mean something again, and not be passed from one player to another based on a single tournament result. This is why I don't consider Ponamariov or any of the other FIDE champions to be real World Champions. In fact, I never considered Topalov to be World Champion either since he didn't beat the real Champion, Kramnik, in a match. Using that same stance, I can't fully accept Anand (a man I am very fond of, both as a true gentleman and player) as the 15th Champion either, until he beats Kramnik (the 14th World Champion) in their upcoming match. Here I feel as if I'm a single voice in the wilderness since the world has fully embraced Anand as the undisputed World Champion.

Topalov's warped logic continues on page 20 where he mentions that Anand was offered a match with Kramnik, which Anand refused in loyalty to FIDE: "I don't know how close they got to signing a contract, but it seems that they could not convince the world's #3-rated player that #7 was the champion."

Topalov has long placed enormous importance on ratings. However, it's funny that now Kramnik's rating is higher than Topalov's, yet Topalov has been vying hard to create a rematch by coming up with a huge sum of money. Suddenly rating takes a back seat when it concerns his own interests. This same logic would have changed history if rating became the yardstick for crowning the World Champion. Petrosian, never a great tournament player, would have been relegated to obscurity, while Fischer, by dint of his enormous rating advantage over his rivals, would have retained his title until old age dragged him down.

I should mention that, more often than not, Topalov is extremely honest about his stances. For example, his views on money are simple and to the point: "What made me agree to play Kramnik? Undoubtedly one enticement was money. Silvio and I calculated that one good-paying match is more profitable than dozens of the best-paying tournaments."

He goes on to say, "So in agreeing to play Kramnik, we did not pretend to take any moral high ground. Besides, I don't not see anything wrong with the champion being well-paid."

Disturbingly, Topalov mixes raw honesty with paranoia. He goes on and on about how playing in Russia was asking for trouble, and makes it clear that a conspiracy was afoot. One of the worst notes occurred in game 4 after the 22nd move. Kramnik offered a draw from an inferior position but later told Topalov that he felt it was dead even. This led Topalov to write the following swill: "According to Bareev's  evaluation, White has a pleasant advantage and this is also the opinion of all the computer engines I consulted. And now that we know that even Fritz 10, by no means the best computer program, is clearly better than Kramnik, I would say my opponent's assessment of the position as a dead draw is quite wrong. And there is another ethical question: whether it is right to offer a draw with the black pieces when leading +2 in the score and in an inferior position. But I guess we should not look for moral values in people that do not have them."

This was a classless comment, and one that ended my hopes that I could once again become a Topalov fan.

Though much of what was written didn't sit well with me, others will likely agree with team Topalov. But whether you are with them or against them, this book is a fascinating read and also offers Topalov's magnificent notes to an extremely exciting match. In my view, every serious chess fan should own (and carefully read) this book.

Click to buy (or get more information about) TOPALOV-KRAMNIK 2006 WORLD CHESS CHAMPIONSHIP