Topalov v Nisipeanu

report by John Lee Shaw

They have only met once before, and that was apparently 15 years ago, but currently World Champion Vaselin Topalov, and European Champion (though not for much longer) Dieter Nisipeanu, are engaged in a 4 game match, in Bucharest, Romania.



Game 1 Report

Game 1 proved to be quite satisfying for both players. Traian Basescu, Prime Minister of Romania made the first move (pictured below) for Nisipeanu, who had White. He rose to the challenge of Topalov's Berolina variation against the Spanish, and apparently produced a novelty on his move 11 (Nd4). It seemed that White had a little pull for a while, but Topalov seemed to find the right neutralizers to satisfy the arbiter that the right outcome was to share the point.

Nisipeanu, D - Topalov, V (1/4)
Bucharest, Romania

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. O-O Nxe4 5. d4 Nd6 6. Bxc6 dxc6 7. dxe5 Nf5 8. Qxd8+ Kxd8 9. Nc3 Ne7 10. Ne4 h6 11. Nd4 b6 12. Rd1 Ke8 13. Bf4 Ng6 14. Bg3 Bb7 15. f4 a6 16. f5 c5 17. fxg6 cxd4 18. Rxd4 fxg6 19. e6 Rd8 20. Rad1 Rxd4 21. Rxd4 Bxe4 22. Rxe4 Bc5+ 23. Kf1 Rf8+ 24. Ke1 Bd6 25. Bxd6 cxd6 draw.


Game 2 Report

After the quite mutually satisfying Game 1, Dieter Nisipeanu will be a little disappointed with the quite different outcome of Game 2. He did quite badly out of the Queens Gambit Declined opening, (5.Bf4 variant), which Topalov is quite familiar with. My database (which I stress is not totally up-to-date) has 8 games of Topalov in this line, and none of his opponent. Veselin has a good record with it too. Nisipeanu's 5th move of ...c5 possibly showed intimidation straight away, as all of Topalov's games in this line had previously gone 5...0-0. Nisipeanu's avoidance of this line does not seem to have done him much good, and if he had something 'home-cooked' Topalov seemed to give him no time to serve it up. His 9. e4 seems to be new, though the naturalness of the move (and a lack of confidence in my database, haha) tells me it can't be.

Central exchanges left Topalov with an isolated pawn, and as if giving an illustration of how not to play chess, his king went to f1 from a check, leaving him with some work to do in activating his h1-rook and hiding his monarch. Nisipeanu was then left to form a plan on getting activity, as well as playing against the isolated pawn. In my opinion, his choice of Queenside activity did not thank him, and Topalov seemed to quite easily gain two beautiful and connected passed pawns. Evidence of the bleakness of the Black position, was that Dieter could find nothing better than to exchange down to an endgame, which with the advanced state of the passed pawns, was always going to be hard to play. He tried valiantly, but to no avail, and the World Champion claimed the point in 43 moves.

Tomorrow is game 3, which Nisipeanu obviously can not afford to lose. He has the White pieces, though, and we wait and see what he has in store.


Topalov, V - Nisipeanu, D (2/4)
Bucharest, Romania

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. Nc3 Be7 5. Bf4 c5 6. dxc5 Na6 7. cxd5 Nxd5 8. Nxd5 exd5 9. e4 O-O 10. exd5 Bxc5 11. Be2 Bb4+ 12. Kf1 Bd6 13. Bg5 Qa5 14. a3 Nc7 15. Bc4 b5 16. b4 Qb6 17. Bb3 a5 18. Be3 Qb7 19. Bc5 Bxc5 20. bxc5 a4 21. Ba2 b4 22. axb4 Qxb4 23. Qd4 Na6 24. c6 Qxd4 25. Nxd4 Nb4 26. Ke2 Nxa2 27. Rxa2 Ba6+ 28. Kd2 Bc4 29. Ra3 Bxd5 30. c7 Be6 31. Nb5 Bd7 32. Nd6 g6 33. Rc1 Kg7 34. Rc4 Ra6 35. Rd4 Ra7 36. Ne8+ Rxe8 37. Rxd7 Raa8 38. Kc3 Kf6 39. Kb4 Ke6 40. Rd4 Ke5 41. Rc4 Rec8 42. Kb5 Kd5 43. Rc2 1-0


Game 3 Report

Game 3 ended in a draw, which leaves Topalov a point ahead with 1 game left to play. It was a Sicilian, and I can find no games with Black's move of 7...Nbd7 being played before (7...Be6 usually being favoured). Topalov certainly put the onus on his opponent to bring the game to him, as he adopted a relatively quiet opening set up. Nisipeanu could have tried for more than he did against it, his 10th move of Qd3, seems inferior to the likes of Bd3 or a5. There again, perhaps the idea was to provoke ...Nc5, hitting the queen, as happened. Perhaps the Queen should have been retreated to d2, (tempo-wasting that it is) as the Qc4 of the game seemed to lead to not very much for the Romanian, who hopped his knight in to d5 which Topalov exchanged for his light-squared bishop. Upon Black's 13...Rc8, things appear to be equal. An exchange of Queens followed, and the draw was already looking likely.

It is beyond me as to why Topalov threw a pawn with his 17...a5 (to gain the c5 square for his knight or rook?) but maybe the World Champion misjudged something, as it seemed to give White chances. Nisipeanu's 21.Bc4? though was inaccurate, when a5 was more to the point. When the pawn push did come, White practically seemed to invite Black to win it tactically, and it was soon Topalov who was ahead! Topalov was probably still with advantage when he allowed draw by repetition, with ...Rb4+. More could perhaps have been played for with ...Ra1. Either way, quite a satisfying result for Topalov, as he is now a point ahead with only 1 game remaining, and he will have White. Nisipeanu will probably be somewhat disappointed.


Nisipeanu, D -- Topalov, V (3/4)
Bucharest, Romania

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 e5 7. Nde2 Nbd7 8. Ng3 g6 9. a4 Qc7 10. Qd3 Nc5 11. Qc4 Be6 12. Nd5 Bxd5 13. exd5 Rc8 14. b4 Ncd7 15. Qxc7 Rxc7 16. c4 h5 17. f3 a5 18. bxa5 Bh6 19. Bb6 Nxb6 20. axb6 Rc5 21. Bd3 Be3 22. a5 Bd4 23. Ra3 Rxa5 24. Rxa5 Bc3+ 25. Ke2 Bxa5 26. Rb1 Nd7 27. Ne4 Ke7 28. c5 Nxc5 29. Nxc5 dxc5 30. Ra1 Bxb6 31. Rb1 Bc7 32. Rxb7 Kd6 33. Ra7 Rb8 34. Bc4 f5 35. Kd3 Rb4 36. Ra6+ Bb6 37. Kc3 e4 38. fxe4 fxe4 39. Ra8 Kd7 40. Rg8 Ba5 41. Rg7+ Kc8 42. Rg8+ Kc7 43. Ra8 Ra4+ 44. Kb3 Rb4+ 45. Kc3 Ra4+ 46. Kb3 draw by repetition.


Game 4 and final Report

The match ended in victory for Topalov, who clearly out-played his opponent to gain the full point and a final match score of 3-1. Nisipeanu chose the Sicilian Richter Rauzer variation. Interestingly, Topalov's record against this opening is not too bad, a couple of losses some draws, and a good few wins. His most recent excursion with it was against Kozul, during the FIDE World Championship in Tripoli, 2004. Topalov won that game, playing the same 6.Bg5 against Nisipeanu. The game followed already trodden footsteps up until Topalov's 12.Qe3. Black exchanged e for f pawn, and allowed White to pick of the d6 pawn, which to be honest was a horrible looking 'bit' anyway really. I suppose Nisipeanu's choices solved some problems, not only did he rid himself of the horrible d-pawn, but he also exchanged off dark-squared bishops, of which Topalov's was clearly the more functional. Then, he had the open c-file to work with. Still, to look at the positiion that resulted, I don't think Black really has enough for the pawn.  Apparently the position is equal, but when we speak in terms of potential, then it is hard (for me anyway) to see anything aggressive for Black. Certainly Nisipeanu's move 16...Rc6 was questionable, and seemed to contradict the validity of his play up to now. If we take it that he sacrificed the pawn for activity, then why did he a few moves later exchange off a rook? There were certainly good alternatives, in ...Ng4 or even an exchange sacrifice of ...Rxc3, ...Rc6 seemed to just hand White the advantage on a plate. After the exchanges that followed, Black was left with two isolated wing pawns, (to white's one in the centre), and inactive minor pieces. Topalov was sitting pretty.

Possibly Nisipeanu's final nail in the coffin, was the decision to exchange light-squared bishops in return for a passed pawn on the K-side wing. Then, he grabbed Topalov's h-pawn, which really did not need grabbing immediately. From here on in, White was winning, and Nisipeanu's decision to exchange off the last pair of rooks was pretty much resignation. Topalov played precisely and converted the point on move 43.

I must say, I enjoyed this match, and I hope you did too! Both players clearly came out to play, and full credit must go to them for this. It must be added, of course, that the rule about draws could be argued to being a factor, but this I think would be unfair. It has been shown many times that Grandmasters can play theory and draw quite legitimately, but in this match the players steered away from that in the main. As for the rule itself, (that draw offers only be made through the arbiter, and in technically drawn or repetition situations, etc), well I think that it deserves some tests in other events.


Topalov, V - Nisipeanu, D (4/4)
Bucharest, Romania

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. Bg5 e6 7. Qd2 Be7 8. O-O-O O-O 9. f4 Nxd4 10. Qxd4 Qa5 11. h4 e5 12. Qe3 exf4 13. Bxf4 Be6 14. Bxd6 Bxd6 15. Rxd6 Rac8 16. a3 Rc6 17. Rxc6 bxc6 18. Be2 Nd7 19. Rd1 Qc7 20. g3 Rb8
21. Qd4 Qxg3 22. Qxa7 Nf6 23. Kb1 h5 24. a4 Bg4 25. Bxg4 hxg4 26. Qd4 Qxh4 27. e5 Nd5 28. Nxd5 cxd5 29. Rg1 Qh2 30. Rxg4 Rc8 31. Rxg7+ Kh8 32. Rg4 Rc4 33. Qd1 Rxg4 34. Qxg4 Qxe5 35. c3 Kh7 36. Qd4 Qe6 37. a5 f5 38. b4 Qe2 39. Qxd5 Kg6 40. Qd6+ Kg5 41. a6 f4 42. Qc5+ Kg4 43. a7 Qe5 44. Qe3 Qa5 45. Qd4 1-0