<btw <Plato> i left my engine run a little and it shows almost equality for black with the Nc7-e6 plan (if white doesnt play Nh5)>

Kasparov, Sasikiran, and Topalov all believe that White would have had objectively better winning chances had he played Kf2 instead of the piece sacrifice. By the way computers are not flawless in ultra-strategic positions like that one. Sasikiran in the interview makes it clear that he felt the position was very uncomfortable for him to defend but that the Knight sac changed it in his favor, and Topalov assents to this, admitting that Kf2 would have been relatively better.

It's your word against three top GMs. If you want to do serious computer analysis from that position, it takes much more than just leaving it running a bit. It's a strategically deep position. There are many various plans that White can adopt, and in practical chess it is very hard for Black to just sit tight and watch while White slowly improves his position and prepares for a kingside breakthrough. Regardless of whether it's winning by force, White's objective winning chances before the sac are better than after the sac, since before the sac he has an obvious advantage but after the sac best play is a forcing line which draws shortly thereafter.

Topalov has *admitted* that he overlooked ...Qxe5 when calculating the sac, having thought all the lines were winning for him.

A couple of comments from the press conference. Sasikiran's voice is soft and hard to hear sometimes, but this is what I could pick up:

<Sasikiran: "Well I thought Nxh5 was kind of changing the situation somehow in my favor... so maybe the piece sacrifice was [not as good as] Kf2 with pressure"

Topalov (as translated by the on-site translator): "Indeed, probably Kf2 was better.">

I should point out that in your and others' defense, he also says that he felt that practically it was unpleasant for Black to play, although in his earlier comment Sasikiran implies that for his part he felt it was more unpleasant before the sacrifice and that he had seen it when playing ...Kh6. Topalov also says that he even though Nxh5 was a miscalculation and agrees that Kf2 was better, he wasn't convinced that he could win the position because he had doubts about his technique.

But his doubts about his technical chess just mean that this is one area where he needs to improve, not that the sacrifice was correct. He admits that he played the sacrifice because he thought it was winning in all variations. In fact, over-optimism in his own chances and/or underestimating his opponents defensive resources is an area where some GMs have pointed out that Topalov can improve.

<bgkuzzy> Topalov's next tournament is Leon on 4-9th July.

Sorry but that's just the way it is in sports.. none can stand sore losers.>

Huh? Sorry, <s4life>, this nothing to do with "sore losers," it has to do with the reality that sometimes moves can be mistakes even if the ultimate outcome of the game is good.

Example: if one player makes a mistaken sacrifice in a strategically superior position, a sacrifice which changes the position from probably winning (in Kasparov's opinion) to a draw by force, then even if his opponent goes on to make a terrible blunder and lose it -- doesn't suddenly make the sacrifice correct. That's just the way it is in sports.

If all mistakes could be justified on the basis of the outcome of the game, all wins would be perfectly played.

Perfect doesn't exist in sports, nor in chess.. good enough to win is what sportsmen are after, hence I am not trying to justify anything. What is there to justify anyway? the win justifies itself... the better player won.

I never disagreed with that last statement. The better player won.

All I said is that he won in style - that is his style... combative, risky, at times erratic, but when it works, it's a delight to watch overall - he should be commended for having the guts of doing it, more so when his confidence has taken a dive in the last months. In the same way some of us appreciate M. Tal's wins using knight sacrifices for seemingly nothing, it's only fair that some others appreciate Topalov's way to win.

Had Topalov found the obvious mate in 2 in his second game for the WC, he would have gotten this year's chess informant [best game] for that game, kept his world title and his confidence intact...>