The first I recent you because you blindly trust in analysis published about
game on site: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1091

I have seen them, maybe before you, but I think free and independent. (By
the way, that's reason why I overthrowed some refutation of the famous
winning combination in the game Botvinnik-Capablanca (I hope you can find it
by internet).

So, I'll answer on "your" comments some moves:

The sacrifice was forced after f4. Brilliant play by Anand to win the
queen.

What was the result? Look at Anand's pieces on the first row. Position after
22. move:
wKg1,Qd1,Nb1,c3,Bc1,f1,Re1,Pa3,b4,g2,h2/bKg8,Qf2,Nd4,e7,Be6,f6,Ra8,f8,Pd5,e4
,g7,h7
So, you can also see that there is very bad cooperation between white
pieces. I needn't persuade you that white had to play 22. Rf2 and suffered
Radjabov queen sacrifice.


Not really. Anand doesn't play Bb5? and we're all talking about how Anand
wiped
Radjabov off the board.


Your chess statements are ridiculous. You put question mark for 26. Anand's
move. Why? You are better chess player than Anand? Do you know what Anand's
idea was? Or you only copy that mark from the site.

In your mail there is main logic fault. You resound chess player and after
that you put question mark for his move. So it seems that you mean: Anand is
a good player who don't play good? You are obviously better than Anand.
You have to comprehend that the game was excellent and the sparkles of he
Radjabov's genius decide the game. New chess star is born.

Regards,
Goran Tomic