The powerful Gibraltar Chess Congress (slogan: "Don't taunt the monkeys") ended today with clear win by second seed Vladimir Akopian. The Armenian #2 rocked The Rock by stomping Kuzubov in 23 moves in the final round with a nice knight sac. You don't see many 3.Bb5 Sicilian games ending in sacrificial blowout miniatures, I must say. The win put Akopian up to an impressive 7.5/9 to take clear first and the 10,000 pound first prize. That's nearly twenty thousand dollars. Combined with his countryman Aronian's equal first at Corus they may need another parade back in Yerevan.
Ninja annotator Hikaru Nakamura continued his impressive streak in opens by winning two of his last three to finish in the pack at seven points. Sutovsky and Areshchenko are the other members, and possibly Mickey Adams if he bamboozles his way to a R+B vs R win in the last game still going. (Now drawn with a cute stalemate trick by al-Modiahki.) Nakamura's closing spurt included a miniature blowout of the super-solid Epishin in round seven. Irina Krush beat Akopian in round 1 and Viktor Korchnoi in round 8.
Kudos to the organizers for using anti-short-draw rules. ("Draws by mutual agreement in under 40 moves are not allowed without the agreement of the arbiter. No pre-arranged/tacit agreements to draw allowed (of any length, by repetition or otherwise). Genuine draws by repetition or stalemate are acceptable."
Congratulations to "tourist" Akopian, one of my favorite players! Excellent comeback after his early (R1?) defeat by Irina Krush.
classical time control? I can't find the answer at chesscenter or chessbase.
3.Bb5 Sicilians frequently ended in sacrificial blowout miniatures when the opening's inventor, Rossolimo, was at the helm! :)
"The rate of play is 40 moves in 80 minutes plus 20 more minutes for all the remaining moves, with one minute per move added from the start."
Also: "Draws by mutual agreement in under 40 moves are not allowed without the agreement of the arbiter. No pre-arranged/tacit agreements to draw allowed (of any length, by repetition or otherwise). Genuine draws by repetition or stalemate are acceptable."
A big hurrah for Irina Krush taking down Akopian and Korchnoi.
She seems to be playing some insired chess lately...
Jennifer Shahade said on ICC today that she "thought" Krush just needed a draw in the last round to earn a GM norm. Unfortunately for her, she lost. In any case, she had great tournament, so congratulations to her!
Aronian, Akopian, Sargissian - behold the System of a Down of chess.
One should also mention the both entertaining and interesting live-analysis by GM Stuart Conquest & guests; pretty splendid indeed.
How are these draws settlements working out? Is there a lot of argument between GMs and arbiters? How does the arbiter decide if the position is a draw? Can he use computer software to help him?
I second tackhead's praise of Stuart Conquest's commentary. It was a real joy to listen to. The only problem was that he engaged the audience there a lot in his commentary but his microphone often wasn't strong enough to pick up what the audience members were saying.
Anyway, I hope the ICC/ChessFM consider using GM Conquest in the future.
Clever move by Akopian to lose during R1 and play from the easy part of the draw!
Absolutely right, zhorik. Adams and Efimenko had better tournaments, arguably, than Akopian, but they weren't quite as clever...
I hope our team's average ELO will be > 2700 in next olympiad...
Regarding the draw rules:
I cannot imagine any player arguing with a GM arbiter over his decision regarding a draw, rare as they would be.
I wonder if Mig can find out if any games required the arbiter to make such a decision?
Nakamura also benefitted from the "Swiss Gambit" first-round loss...
Didn't he do this also in the last US Championship?
Not only draws by mutual agreement required the arbiter's approval. Draws by repetition did too, which is even more dubious. Who is he to decide if the players "need to" repeat? Weird. Not approving that is clearly illegitimate outside intervention to me.
Was this covered in this Blog? - The question is what was Finegold's part in all this.
http://xyqe.com/chess/58-216-re-falsifying-tournament-report-read.shtml
EB 06-080 – Board - The Executive Board has considered the recommendation of the Tournament Director Certification Committee (TDCC) re: Larry Cohen and has determined that Larry Cohen’s TD Certification should be suspended for three years and that he not be allowed to run GM or IM norm tournaments for ten years. PASSED 5-0.
Another post from the same thread....
***
billbrock 10152763
Joined: 25 Sep 2005
Posts: 509
Location: Chicago, IL
PostPosted: Sun Oct 30, 2005 11:47 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Larry Cohen has asked me to post the following on his behalf:
***************
A NOTE OF APOLOGY & EXPLAINATION
By Larry S. Cohen
As you may know there were some inaccuracies with regards to a FIDE tournament I ran some months ago. This specifically was in regards to the question of a GM Norm from the tournament. My memory is not very good [I once misplaced for 3 months a book entitled ‘how to improve your memory’] and it took other people to remind me of what exactly happened. I will now tell you the events as they did happen.
The tournament was organized and financed by myself to be a double round robin tournament of 3 Grand Masters and 3 International Masters. A little over a week before the event I had to get a new Grand Master, which I was able to do with no problem. Then a week before the event I found out that I would need to get an International Master, as one of the IMs was unable to arrange for travel back into the US in time for the event. I scrambled a bit, and was worried I might need to delay the event. However, I did find a local area IM who agreed to play. This as it turns out was not to work out real well. The new IM had troubles getting away from work unexpectedly. This resulted in a forfeit, and a game played at a different time than the regular round. I did have on hand at the site a schedule of play that all the players saw. The tournament was then run over 5 days time with 2 games a day at a time control of 40/120, SD/60. Early in the tournament one of the players asked if FIDE would allow the rounds to be reported in a different order than played. At the end of the tournament a different player asked the same question. At the time I did not know what the answer was, although it is now plainly clear.
The record of order of play that I have saved on my computer is the same as was reported into FIDE. The only other record I have was an order of play that would have only required 5.5 points out of 9 for IM Young to get a Norm. As I have been recently reminded the actual order of play was the standard 6 player round robin [as in USCF handbook] run through twice! However, when the question arose about the order of play all I had a record of was what I sent to FIDE. I therefore thought that this was the actual order of play, and that I changed it for some reason. The fact that I had a file with a different order of play led me to believe that I had made changes to the normal (& actual) order of play. I know that if I had done this in advance I would have done so in a random matter. Therefore, when questioned about this I stated [incorrectly] that I had made the order of play through random selection. I do know that I was trying to discourage “GM draws” in the tournament. The fact is the standard order of play resulted in a GM-GM match up in the last round. Knowing that I was out to discourage GM draws [but I had decided against a draw move minimum] I also reasoned that I would have changed the order of play because of this as well.
I know that the order of play would not matter in a USCF tournament, but as this was a FIDE tournament as well I should have thought it through much better. I would like to know if there is anything posted on the FIDE web site concerning the accuracy of the submission. I do know that I had some added problems exactly because the FIDE web site [the FIDE Handbook] does not list ANY instructions on how a Double Round Robin tournament is to be conducted. This is a strange omission as FIDE does not ban Double Round Robin tournaments, and there have been a number run in the past. Maybe it is time for the FIDE Handbook to be revised. I know the USCF has tried to regularly update the USCF rulebook [about every 4-7 years], but when did FIDE last update?
Once again I would like to apologize for the inaccuracy of any earlier statements and for the inaccuracy of the order of play for the FIDE report.
Sincerely,
Larry S. Cohen
oops - the context of the above (intended to be a reply to Harry Fonseka's question) was lost.
There was an earlier cut & paste from the "2005 Martinovsky Memorial" thread of the USCF Issues Forum that is being held for approval....
We'll probably have Irina Krush showing her games in WCN lectures.
"I cannot imagine any player arguing with a GM arbiter over his decision regarding a draw, rare as they would be. "
You assume that the GMs involved (including the arbiter) are rational human beings. We see many examples of where that's not the case, recently :)
"I wonder if Mig can find out if any games required the arbiter to make such a decision?"
The rule is still young--it might be a while.
Acirce is correct in pointing out that relying on an arbiter is ultimately a form of allowing outside interference in the game. This concern must be seriously dealt with, as well as conflicts of interest. Would you let the Elista arbiter make these decisions in another Kramnik game?
how on earth do they know the difference between "tacit" draw agreements and a "genuine" draw?
I don't like Sofia rules (allowing draws only in theoretically drawn positions) for this reason either. (Do the arbiters always know what is a theoretical draw or not? Can they always find out?) But at least they always allow the players to repeat. Not even allowing this unless they "need" to looks even worse to me. What does it even mean? Here it would seem it's up to the arbiter's own judgement a lot more. I'm not sure in what kind of position an arbiter (of relatively low chess strength, in most cases) would be able to say confidently and with a clear conscience that he understands that better than the players.
Sofia tournaments have consistently produced poorer quality chess than expected from the participants level. Tight scheduling plus forced play out of draws=tired GMs and blunder-filled games.
I think the way the Sofia rules would work is not so much that arbiter would decide the position is not drawn, rather that GMs in a position which is not clearly drawn would be embarrassed and not even ask for a draw.
I insist on the idea of recording draw offers on the scorecard and published reports. That would work similarly.
"Sofia tournaments have consistently produced poorer quality chess than expected from the participants level. Tight scheduling plus forced play out of draws=tired GMs and blunder-filled games."
I would mind it less than I do now if there were more rest days.
As it is now, I think the rules coupled with the tough schedule is specifically designed to favour Topalov.
One of my posts above was a bit confusing. Let me just clarify the Sofia rules by direct quoting:
"The players should not talk during the games; additionally they should not offer draws directly to their opponents. Draw-offers will be allowed only through the Chief-Arbiter in three cases: a triple-repetition of the position, a perpetual check and in theoretically drawn positions."
http://www.mtelmasters06.com/en/regulations.html
How hard could it be for two players who want nothing but to shake hands as early as possible to "force" a perpetual check? There must be well-known opening variations that lead quickly to perpetuals.
[Event "5th Gibraltar Chess Festival"]
[Site "Gibraltar Gibraltar"]
[Date "2007.01.29"]
[EventDate "2007.01.23"]
[Round "6.1"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[White "Yuriy Kuzubov"]
[Black "Ivan Sokolov"]
[ECO "?"]
[WhiteElo "2554"]
[BlackElo "2632"]
[PlyCount "20"]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 Be6 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. Ng5 Bg4 7. Bxc4 Bxd1 8.
Bxf7+ Kd7 9. Be6+ Ke8 10. Bf7+ 1/2-1/2
Yes, acirce, that is one way to get around it. The Sofia rules aren't 100% enforceable, but their spirit is in dire need and demand worldwide.
Finally, the arbiter doesn't have to be a weak player. Some arbiters have been world-class strength or have received help from world-class players.
Doesn't the Kuzubov-Sokolov game fall under the tacit-draw category?
[sighs] The two should have had their game forfeited; otherwise, the rule is just a joke.
According to http://64.ru/ Campomanes got into a car accident. He was going to airport in Antalya after he attended FIDE Presidential council meeting there. He will have to undergo serious surgery on Feb 3rd.
No. But perhaps yes. Schiller said Sokolov didn't "expect" Kuzubov to go for a draw. Hard to believe that it came to a great shock to him though. Also, he says it was only a "quick" draw in terms of number of moves, and that they took their time on the clock; but how much time can it really have taken?
"came as.."
Yeah, I read about Campomanes. Sad to hear. Best wishes.
On one hand, having GMs be more tired does favor Topalov since they are now more likely to make the same kind of mistakes in execution during later stages in the game he is known for.
On the other hand, forcing to play out drawn and semi-drawn positions means that the later stages of the game, the ones at which he is not as good, will occur in his games more often.
You can twist the logic a million different ways, but I would be interested in hearing your thoughts.
hey mig, dont you think its time for a Short/Chessbase/Topalov Thread?
I agree with arcice that arbiters shouldn't be telling players whether they can repeat the position or not, or adjudicating whether the position is drawn.
Why do these tournaments go for such complicated anti-draw rules? If you employ the simple 'no draw offers allowed at all', then these problems disappear, and it makes chess a far better game.
Artificial move limits are stupid. Having the arbiter adju
The arbiter doesn't need to be involved.
Doh. Ignore the last two lines obviously.
"On one hand, having GMs be more tired does favor Topalov since they are now more likely to make the same kind of mistakes in execution during later stages in the game he is known for.
On the other hand, forcing to play out drawn and semi-drawn positions means that the later stages of the game, the ones at which he is not as good, will occur in his games more often."
He almost always plays out his games until there is a clear draw anyway. It's his approach to the game (nowadays; there used to be more exceptions) no matter the rules. I doubt he would do that if he didn't consider it overall beneficial. It's not like he does that just to please the fans.
When this is done AND the rules force all the other players to do the same thing, with ten rounds and only one rest day - there is no doubt it favours someone with the stamina of Topalov.
I'm not aware of this year's schedule though.
Stamina--yep. I do think though that playing out a drawn position does not play to his strengths. He gets most of his advantages from the opening. If the position is equal or not over by middlegame, he is more likely to stumble and lose than other GMs. If Topalov was in law enforcement, he would be better at arresting than executing :)
How on earth does Gibraltar manage if the players are repeating moves? Tell them they can't - so what happens if they go back and repeat some more? Or tell one of them they can't, and if so which one? It's bonkers.
Gibraltar really irritate me: they could be such a good tournament yet they persist in these stupid egotistical rule changes and in some bizarre increment-based time control.
What's wrong with the time control? I don't understand why people object to increments. Surely its better to decide the game on the board than by who can move fastest in a quickplay finish.
"[Event "5th Gibraltar Chess Festival"]
[Site "Gibraltar Gibraltar"]
[Date "2007.01.29"] etc."
You have *got* to be kidding me.
Kuzubov-Sokolov game really emphasizes the fact that if two (strong) players want the game end in a draw it will end in a draw. And I think this is acceptable... say if this is ok for their tournament strategy. In this case neither of the two players ended up actually winning the event so maybe even the American chess fans that have hard time accepting a draw as a legitimate result can feel happy.
The organizers can make players play 10, 20, 50, 100 moves if they want to but if the players want it to be draw it will be a draw. Also to make strong players play out all positions to bare Kings is absolutely stupid and making them look like slaves for the 'benefit' of the crowd (chess fans that don't want to take the time to check basic endings in a book but rather see 'them played' out ie. get a free demonstration on stuff that many times is too trivial for the GMs to be interested in).
Draw is a part of the game and no changes are required - get over it... And study endings!
I don't object to increments - in a quickplay finish. Gibraltar however (a) play a semi-quickplay limit for the whole game a la the discredited FIDE stuff, and (b) use increments during the main session, which is a device designed to ensure arbiters can sit on their bottoms longer at the expense of lowering the quality of the game.
To me all these Sofia rules, Gibraltar rules, arbiter decide if it's a draw or not, etc are just stupid gimmicks. If one wants to eliminate draws for whatever reason, other sports, such as hockey, already have a solution: overtime.
Change the scoring to 3 pts for a win, 2 pts for an overtime win, 1 pt for an overtime loss. Overtime is played till the first win, start with rapid game, if still a draw, play a blitz game, if still a draw, play an armageddon blitz. Swap colors before each new game. There are no more draws. Fighting chess guaranteed.
What's more, drawmasters will have to expend extra energy in multiple overtimes, so there is a built in incentive to decide your game in regulation (unless you are Anand, I guess).