Astrakhan, which means "place of sleepy goats" in the Mongol language, is hosting the much-delayed final Grand Prix tournament. So far it's not exactly a thriller, coming off two rounds with a combined one decisive game. Things were a little spicier in the first two rounds, but after four there still isn't anyone with two wins to rub together. The only standout in the field is standing out for the wrong reason. Fan favorite Vassily Ivanchuk, who still had a chance to make it to the candidates matches if he won first place here and Radjabov wasn't in the top three, has lost twice in the first four rounds. Ouch. The other players who have a chance to qualify, Leko, Gashimov, Wang Yue, Jakovenko, and Radjabov, are all on even or +1.
Despite the gloomy stats, it hasn't been all pathetic short draws. In fact, some of them are veritable miracles of creative equality and piece exchanges. Watch in amazement as all the pieces are hoovered off in Mamedyarov-Jakovenko. After the thrills of the Anand-Topalov match, it's a bit of a comedown to see Petroffs and Berlins again. (Although there was a 25-move win for Black in a Berlin, which is probably close to unprecedented. Ponomariov hit Svidler with a nice two-mover right out of Reinfeld's 1001 Tactics.) Akopian-Mamedyarov was exciting but somehow despite various sacs it ended in a draw regardless. Event the Benoni has fizzled, although I'm not sure what Jakovenko was hoping for before offering a draw to Gashimov on move 25. Svidler-Radjabov was looking exciting and just like that they found a forced repetition. Ivanchuk-Wang Yue was another abrupt repetition after fireworks.
The short list of decisive games include Gashimov's impressively smooth build-up and breakthrough against Ivanchuk in a Ruy and the Ukrainian's loss today to Inarkiev after trying too hard to win an endgame. I'm sure things will heat up eventually. Anyone notice that in three tries, everyone has played g3 against Radjabov, not allowing a King's Indian? Coincidence? Naturally, all three were drawn. The leaders on +1: Leko, Ponomariov, Gelfand, Inarkiev, Eljanov, Gashimov.
Mig said: Astrakhan, which means "place of sleepy goats"
You don't say! Do you think the pathetically short draws might have something to do with sleepy goats? Did you intentionally leave that low hanging fruit for readers to figure out?
Just to justify posting on this thread :) Konstantin Landa commented on Ivanchuk's latest loss at Chesspro: http://chesspro.ru/chessonline/onlines/index_3143.html (a sobering read...in Russian)
Also at Chesspro, Vasiliev has the first half of an interview with Topalov. You can see the difference between the questions being asked by a chess journalist rather than the more general Bulgarian press - and it's an amazing read. If Dostoevsky had written about chess it might have turned out something like this: http://chesspro.ru/_events/2010/at9.html
- On the 12th game. It turned out fateful because, to begin with, you were caught out in the opening...
- In fact we weren't caught out. After all even in the "Lasker" there are a few lines. The problem was that the playing time was coming to an end... [he repeats the comments about having let Anand slip in 3 games, while Anand only missed one winning chance]
... and the tie-breaks were approaching...
- And that's known to be a lottery?
- It's not that it's a lottery... But simply in my life, to be honest, I've only ever beaten Ruslan, when he was 15. In all the other tie-breaks I've lost.
- And added to that there was the negative magic of the number "13". After all you lost the tie-break to Kramnik in Elista on the 13th...
- No, I don't think that played any kind of role.
- But what you did in the 12th...
- It was suicide. The thing is that when he played 29...e5 I decided to reply 30. e4. Of course I saw that his next move would be 30...f5. But, I thought, when he does that I'll have a think: to play 31. Nd2 or to take. And when he instantly played 30...f5 at that moment I had more than half an hour left, but for some reason I immediately played 31. exf5. Of course, it was suicide.
- But don't you find it strange: a match for the world title, the deciding game, and you commit chess suicide.
- But I saw no difference between losing the way I lost and losing in the tie-breaks.
- But after all you could have played 31. Nd2...
- Yes, I could. But I knew for an absolutely certainty that Anand would never lose SUCH positions. It was the type of position that he'd never lost in his life. And in the tie-breaks if, let's say, I played out of my skin, then I could only hope for a 2:2 score. And then - blitz! But my preparation in general hadn't included either blitz or rapid. No training games at all. I'm not claiming that I completely dismissed blitz, but I considered it very unlikely that it would come to blitz.
- So it was suicide?
- Yes. Partially conscious suicide. But you have to give him credit, for the first time in the match he got out of the opening with a normal position.
Hot Doggies, can't wait!!!
http://www.chesscentral.com/Deep_Rybka_4_p/deep-rybka-4.htm
Mishanp,
Uau! Quite an enterview! I feel sorry for Topalov for entering the last game in such of state of mind. It seems that the Anand's match strategy worked out well, after all. It was not OTB stuff only.
Mig just successfully wasted 5 min of my life in (unsuccessfully) trying to uncover the actual meaning of Astrakhant in Tartar/Mongolian/whatever. (I have difficulty believing the grandsons of Ghenghis would name a city "place of sleepy goats"...)
Funny as ever, Mig!
----------
Topalov rather improve his rapid and blitz skills soon. Because in the Candidate matches, they play only 4 games in 1st and 2nd round. And 6 games in the finale. If tie-breaks, there will be (if necessary) 4 rapids, 2 blitz and eventually 1 armagedon game.
If Topalov win his 2 first matches he will probably meet Kramnik or World Blitz Champion Magnus Carlsen in the finale...
Actually, I think the short match format in the Candidate tournament, will help Carlsen become the next challenger, due to his rapid/blitz skills.
Thanks for the interview, Mishanp. It clarifies what was going on in Topy's mind when he played 'e:f5' , for him it was a 'draw-odds' thus he had nothing to lose.
Nice game by Ivanchuk. He got an advantage out of the opening, patiently maximized it until it looked like an easy breakthrough with the pawns.
Unfortunately, the other guy, Inarkiev, could play chess as well, and did so more accurate in the end, and managed to break through earlier.
If I added up right, Gashimov should be the qualifier right now, if the tournament would stop immediately, or goes all draws.
Mishanp, thank you so much!
This was the first helpful (part of an) interview of Topalov in putting some light on his side of the story.
I hate to ask for more and try to take advantage of your kindness, but would it be possible for you to translate the rest?
Thank you :)
Somebody should have asked him if he saw Qe8 before he took those two pawns. I think he didn't. He didn't see the concrete line for black starting Qe8.
Which 4 (or 3) wins did he miss that he keeps repeating it? From the projections I saw during the games 10, 11 and a couple before no one said anything about Topalov's position being stronger or more equal than Anands.
Could it be that he was so focussed on his moves and believed that each move was stronger than the opponents that he was completely oblivious to the fact that the opponent could play a strong holding move of his own?
Would be interesting to find out why he keeps thinking he missed 4 wins. Which four wins and how? Hope somebody asks him.
Did he underestimate Anand's ability to defend accurately and consistently (except of course game 8)?
"- Yes. Partially conscious suicide. But you have to give him credit, for the first time in the match he got out of the opening with a normal position."
The first time in the match he got out of the opening with a normal position? It seems to me he got out of the opening with a normal position in 12/12 games.
Sorry slightly off topic but I think any thread will contain lots of WC references these days. Can't wait for the candidates - what a field Carlsen, Kramnik, Topalov, Aronian etc and only one to be left standing at the end ....... What a prospect.
With Black. This was indeed the first Black game where Anand equalized comfortably and easily, getting the kind of game that favors him.
In reply to John, he means having an advantage, not outright winning. He mentioned in other interviews that at this level, if you can't build on and convert your advantage then you are in trouble. In this interview he explained that those were games 3, 5 and 10.
I don't really agree as far as games 3 and 5 go. He did get minimal advantage, but with two small inaccuracies the games were dead draws. That doesn't resemble the kind of advantage one can realistically hope to convert to a win. Especially against Anand. Plus this kind of positions were not really his element.
On game 10, it looked really bad for Anand. He himself said he was losing. On ICC, within a few moves in the endgame Speelman and the others got really worried as well. But winning it was very very difficult. it was still too early to even imagine any forced winning variation. It would require an accurate plan, precision and execution over many moves. However, Topalov couldn't find it and we will see in coming analysis if this endgame was indeed winning and how.
So we are talking about two games where he had minimal advantage and one (game 10) where he had a very promising endgame but which was anything but clearly winning.
In contrast, Anand DID have winning positions in game 9, even if difficult to convert in time trouble, and did lose a drawn endgame, even though he said hadn't seen the drawing h6+ idea, so he didn't know it was objectively drawn. But still, Bc6 lost instantly.
I think it is hard for Topalov and we shouldn't judge him too harshly. Once again, he was so close to fulfilling his ultimate dream. The time for true introspection and pondering will come a little later. Right now, he must be heartbroken.
With Black. This was indeed the first Black game where Anand equalized comfortably and easily, getting the kind of game that favors him.
In reply to John, he means having an advantage, not outright winning. He mentioned in other interviews that at this level, if you can't build on and convert your advantage then you are in trouble. In this interview he explained that those were games 3, 5 and 10.
I don't really agree as far as games 3 and 5 go. He did get minimal advantage, but with two small inaccuracies the games were dead draws. That doesn't resemble the kind of advantage one can realistically hope to convert to a win. Especially against Anand. Plus this kind of positions were not really his element.
On game 10, it looked really bad for Anand. He himself said he was losing. On ICC, within a few moves in the endgame Speelman and the others got really worried as well. But winning it was very very difficult. it was still too early to even imagine any forced winning variation. It would require an accurate plan, precision and execution over many moves. However, Topalov couldn't find it and we will see in coming analysis if this endgame was indeed winning and how.
So we are talking about two games where he had minimal advantage and one (game 10) where he had a very promising endgame but which was anything but clearly winning.
In contrast, Anand DID have winning positions in game 9, even if difficult to convert in time trouble, and did lose a drawn endgame, even though he said hadn't seen the drawing h6+ idea, so he didn't know it was objectively drawn. But still, Bc6 lost instantly.
I think it is hard for Topalov and we shouldn't judge him too harshly. Once again, he was so close to fulfilling his ultimate dream. The time for true introspection and pondering will come a little later. Right now, he must be heartbroken.
"I hate to ask for more and try to take advantage of your kindness, but would it be possible for you to translate the rest?"
If you mean the second part, then Vasiliev hasn't put it up on the website yet! The first part was apparently everything Topalov had to say about the 12th game, while the second will cover the rest of the match and other topics.
The little bit I skipped because it repeated things said in the Bulgarian interviews (see e.g. http://tinyurl.com/3ypk7vp ) was:
"Anand let me escape only in the 9th game. Whereas I let him slip in the 3rd, 5th and 10th. He took almost the maximum from the positions where he had an edge. Except the 9th game. That is he had a chance to win one extra game, which he didn't manage to do. While from the three games I mentioned I had the chance to win one more. And moreover easily.
- So you'd built up anger and hurt?
- No, not hurt... But it's a sport: when you don't kill, you get killed. Plus, the normal time of the match was coming to an end. And the tie-breaks were waiting for us..."
Actually I think if you take the Bulgarian interviews and this together you get an overall picture of Topalov's thought processes. Although he later dismissed it (surely Danailov must have had a word!) the number 13 must at least have been in his mind. And though he disagrees here he told the Bulgarian interviewers that he felt angry at the way the last game went. You can see how important in the end Anand's psychology of simply "playing the position" became.
Though on the other hand... let's say Topalov had been lucky and the position he recklessly played into at the end turned out to be good for white. All his psychological complexes would have resulted in him winning the title :)
Topalov :
"It's a sport: when you don't kill, you get killed"
Susan Polgar :
"Kill with grace, be killed with dignity"
The second article by Vasiliev's now up: http://chesspro.ru/_events/2010/at10.html
The rest of the Topalov interview has nothing earth-shattering. He's asked about Dufek and, surprisingly for me at least, it turns out they only got together after Dufek drew with Topalov in an exhibition game after this year's Linares - but Topalov says he offered a different perspective on opening preparation.
"- Was it a surprise for you that Anand played Kramnik's openings?
- But he started with the Grunfeld. I think he had a different plan, but they had to change as it went along. I expected the Catalan, of course, but you never know exactly which Catalan. I had a couple of ideas... It was also necessary to prepare a whole range of openings for 1. e4 and other first moves.
- And what can you say about the "Elista endgame" with the bishop on g6 in the Slav, which you only broke down with some help from your opponent?
- I couldn't believe that I'd rejected that opening because of that line in Elista...
- You mean white gets a large advantage?
- The way Anand played I got positions with an evaluation between "large edge" and "won". And without any risk at all!
[...]
- I can see in your face, from the glint in your eyes, that you're not disappointed with the match result. Is that true?
- I'm disappointed that I didn't take my chances. It's a law of sport. Let's say, endgame technique isn't my cup of tea. But even with my technique I should have taken more points than I got in those "Elista endgames". It's unforgivable - not to win one of the 3rd, 5th and 10th games. For a match for the world title it's ridiculous. That gave Anand chances to maintain equality. A man without openings managed to hold equality from the 2nd to the 11th game!"
After that he's asked about Sofia rules, his future plans and so on, but nothing really worth repeating. I'll add some of Anand's comments in a while.
"- The way Anand played I got positions with an evaluation between "large edge" and "won". And without any risk at all!"
Whoever evaluated his positions as "large edge" and "won" and most likely it is an engine that did it possibly cannot also tell him that if those evaluations were actually true he might have won one of those games.
It is apparent he relies heavily on computers even for evaluations of his positions. Didnt Kasparov say he plays and thinks along computer lines after game 12? That explains it.
He is a broken man not because he lost but more because he actually thinks he could have won 3 and 5 and 10 even when he was still far away from any forced winning line.
I dont think he had the skills to breach Anands defences unless Anand let him in like he did in 8.
In any game the defender always looks inferior to the initiator simply because he moves in reaction to the presser or 'attacker' but does that automatically mean the presser is winning? Not by a long shot, no.
Topalov Who will tell the child Topalov this?
Vasiliev also had a 15 minute interview with Anand:
"- Did your team have a lot of work during the match?
- Yes. During the match we had problems with black. I didn't get the type of position I wanted to get. I was always under pressure. Until the 4th game we managed to set Topalov problems with white, but after that we also couldn't get an edge with white. My team and I had to do a lot of work in order to improve our preparation and deal with problems.
- Playing "Kramnik's openings" was a good idea. Kramnik in one interview said he was really flattered...
- Everyone would like to play like Kramnik, because it's great! Yes, I tried to defend the black side of the "Elista endgame" with the bishop on g6 in the Slav. I thought that Veselin would try other ideas, but he kept returning to that ending - it's difficult for black. But all the same not all of our ideas were identical to "Kramnik's openings" because I also played the Grunfeld Defence.
[he talks about how Topalov surprised him by not varying openings - and the hardest moment for him being after the 8th & 9th games]
- ...if the [12th] game had gone differently and you'd had to play tie-breaks did you consider yourself the favourite in rapid play? Or were you still worried about the tie-breaks?
- Yes, I've had good results in rapid chess. But I got them in tournaments. Here, with the stakes so high, I don't think I'd be favourite. Four games in a row with the stakes so high... No, I don't think I was the favourite at all. At the same time I wouldn't say I feared them. My mood was: what will be will be. If I have to play rapid chess, I'll play rapid chess.
- Going back to what actually happened, was it a great surprise for you in the 12th game? When did you know that you were going to win the game and match?
- When I played 29...e5 I already saw that I was better. When he took on f5 I could see that he was taking a big risk, but I still had some doubts. But when I managed to find the move Qe8 I knew that I'd win the game and match."
To be fair you can see that both players tend to agree on how the openings went. But I'm with you on the "Elista endgame". My impressions was that apart from the weird blunder with ...f4 in the game Topalov won Anand could have kept playing that ending without losing for weeks on end.
"[he talks about how Topalov surprised him by not varying openings - and the hardest moment for him being after the 8th & 9th games]"
Easy to see why. 8 was heading dead drawn for Anand before he made it instantly losing. 9 was heading sure winning for Anand before he made it instantly drawing.
Surprising how Topalov kept returning to the white side of the "Elista endgame" on Slav territory. If he chose to Anand could have played Slav for months and forced draws without giving Topalov the slightest window.
What was Topalov thinking behind retaining the same opening? Was that the one he had the made the widest preparation for as white?
Does this now mean, since both seem to somewhat converge on Anand's opening problems, that Anand had to do much of the playing OTB?
Topalov won the "preparation" contest in this match and he should have had great advantage.
However, fortunately for Anand, he also chose to prepare technical-endings, anti-topalovian positions, which he could not convert.
That was a mistake which Toplaov still doesn't understand at this moment since he says :
"The way Anand played I got positions with an evaluation between "large edge" and "won". And without any risk at all!"
That's what Kramnik aim for, but Topalov wins when takes risks for attacking, not when he tries to convert an edge in a simplified, without risks, position. He is no Kramnik.
That is what he probably tried in game 12, taking a risk and losing.
I think it might not have been as simple for Topalov to take risks against Anand as he might do easily against other players, even against Kramnik where it might work. That could be one reason why he tried to play risk free against Anand most of the time. He will have known that Anand had the skills to make him pay for risks taken.
I think he was in a dilemma too even though his opening preparations were better than Anand.
From both interviews it is shocking to learn that Anand was effectively left with his OTH skills to negotiate the board after his openings were neutralised after game 1. Terrible state to be in.
@I think it might not have been as simple for Topalov to take risks against Anand as he might do easily against other players..
That is what he does best in chess and he has done
it before against Anand, and defeated Anand in great style, see :
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1338705
In this match however he prepared sharp lines only as Black (in Catalan) and "wasted" his White chances to go for a topalov-attack for the sake of Q-less endgames.Bizarre decision.
Right. That would have been the best thing to do. I think it comes down to a judgement call. A difficult judgement call that Topalov had to take (to not go totally down the risk way).
Will have asked himself - If I take a risk with Anand in every game how many might I win and how many might I lose. He must have evaluated this possibility. Something he might not have had to worry against say, Kramnik since Kramnik cannot handle unbalanced positions as well once pulled into it. Anand can and proved it with the Meran against Kramnik.
In White Topalov got pulled into Slav and kept with it. Wonder what he has to say about why he did that. Somebody should find out from him the reason.
I think it is only now I can appreciate how difficult it must be to play someone of Anand's style or no-style. No easy answers to tackling him. It appears that there is no easy one way to approach Anand.
"If he chose to Anand could have played Slav for months and forced draws without giving Topalov the slightest window."
That is not true and it was also not Anand's conclusion. The issue here is pressure. Playing these positions with no winning chances and being forced to defend accurately for long hours is a thankless task which has also never been Anand's style of play. It might suit Leko or Kramnik perfectly well but not Anand and certainly not in his age and limited energy.
So when Topalov kept coming back with improvements, it got really difficult for Black.
In game 7 Topalov shows he solved his Catalan problems and pressures Anand for hours with Black, only to apply even more pressure with White in the next game the very next day. For us it is easy, sitting at home and relying on several GMS and engines to find the way for Black to draw. But Anand couldn't. He was defending for a second time in a row, for 6 hours, this time a miserable position that he thought was probably losing no matter what he did. That's why he lost this game. And that's why he abandoned the Slav.
People tend to underestimate the impact of relentless pressure in competitive play of the highest order. It is indeed what causes mistakes and blunders in World Championship matches. It is also extremely tiring. Not everybody can defend inferior positions forever like a Petrosian.
It is evident from this and other interviews that Anand thought he could pull this off for a while. He would hold a couple of times and Topalov would try something else. But he didn't, and this surprised Anand, and he shifted his strategy because he couldn't possibly continue like that, defending inferior positions forever with no chance of improvement or counterplay while White would keep producing improvements.
This was also one of the main criticisms of Kasparov on Anand's strategy, that he shoul'd have tried to get promising positions with Black and not imitate Kramnik.
@main criticisms of Kasparov on Anand's strategy
That was a good post, curious..though it turns upside down what I argued for :)
You may be right since Anand decided that he could not take it anymore and changed to that surprising (a 1990s variation) 10..b6-Grunfeld and to QGD (that 'hit and run' strategy of which he was talking).
If Topalov comes up against Kramnik in the canidates he'll find someone willing to defend the supposed "large edge or won" endgame every game :-)
A 30 min interview with Anand by Peter at Chessvibes. Key points.
Very interestingly at one point in the interview Anand says he had several aggressive lines prepared in other lines (openings) and that Topalov just stuck to same strategy (Catalan, Slav). Aggressive lines that Anand did not get to use.
This brings an interesting point to be asked to why Topalov stuck to Catalan even after losing twice, and why stuck to Slav even after Anand drew with Black (excepting the 8th of course).
So did Topalov refuse to move away from the Catalan even after 2 initial defeats because he thought that since Anand got two wins he may not have anything more in Catalan to surprise him with so better to stick to Catalan than move to another opening as black where Anand might have something new (as Anand possibly/apparently did according to the interview).
The same goes for Slav. Anand says in the interview that he expected Topalov to move away from the Slav after Anand drew the initial games and was surprised when Topalov stuck to letting Slav be played. So was this because Topalov after seeing Anand's play in the Slav thought it safer not to play other lines where Anand might surprise him.
Interesting interview.
Has Topalov come out and said anything in interviews other than whining about how he could have won 3 more when he could have easily?
Will be interesting to hear his thoughts on these lines.
See the interview here
http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/i-honestly-thought-he-had-gone-nuts-interview-with-the-world-champion/
It is funny that if we go by Topalov's logic he should have lost to Kamsky where Kamsky had lot of promising positions.
And in this match yes Topalov seems to go by the evaluations of engines.But even at Chessok.com there was never a great plus shown in game 3,5 and 10 for Topalov at any time.
Magnus Carlsen wins from inferior positions all the time in tournaments.That is talent.If Anand could defend inferior positions against Topalov it only means Anand is superior to him.This is what Kramnik, Kasparov and Dolmatov are saying.
Yes, Anand should have played QGD in the first game itself not the Grunfeld.Then he might have realized that if he got an equal or even position with Black that would have been enough to win.
Tell you a good news!
Yesterday I bought a pair of shoes from Massshoes!
It is cheap and freight free!
This is the web
http://www.massshoes.com
http:// www.spacenike.com
Here are the answers from GM Robert Hess:
1) I think Topalov will have much trouble defeating Anand in this match. When you look at Topalov's match against Gata Kamsky, you can easily recognize that Topalov is always playing to win. This will either allow him to force a rare loss by Anand, or end up being self-destructive. I think Anand is the favorite in this match -- his experience and strength have proven him a top player time and time again.
Here is the view of my friend GM Simen Agdestein (former trainer of Magnus Carlsen) from Norway about this match:
1. Who do you think will win the match? Anand
3. How would you describe the strengths and weaknesses of each player? T. I have the feeling that Topalov gets a bit nervous or something in crucial phases
Here's some of Tsanko Tsanev's interview with Topalov. He didn't let us down and returned to his favourite Russian themes, which seemed to strike a chord with the interviewee: http://tinyurl.com/2u79p25
Here are the more original bits:
"- After the match Anand said that you'd started to play a different type of chess. How true is that?
- The idea before the match was to decrease the number of losses. I lost three times. With black I lost in one game, but after that we managed to firm up with black. The aim was to reduce the risk a little in order to lose less, but that also reduced the number of wins.
- The Russians accuse you of relying more on tactics, rather than on a positional struggle...
- The Russians are always ready to see the reverse side of the medal. They accuse me of not being a master of positional battles, but when you start to outplay them they say that you're a bad tactician because you make one-move blunders in some game. There are no perfect players, but at the highest level it's all the same, just that there are different styles. You can change it in one tournament, but in a long game it's almost impossible.
[In this interview he gives the - "I was angry that Anand had finally got a good opening and I didn't want to give him an easy draw so he had an extra rest day" version of the last game]
- Why were the Russian sites supporting Anand during the match in Sofia?
- Because of the match in Elista. There dogma had dominated chess for many years. Silvio Danailov broke the tournaments rules, life is totally different and sport must be in step with the internet and develop, and not be as it was in the 70s. I worked with a lot of Russian trainers, even more than Anand. He can't be the successor of Kasparov, who for a long time was the number 1 in the rating list at the same time as being the World Champion. Anand hasn't even passed 2800 now. Only Carlsen can maybe do something similar now, but he still doesn't have the title and will have to get through the 8-player qualifier. For a long time, since the 30-40s, the Russians have decided who will be champion and who will be the president of the federation [probably this should be FIDE?]. But since 2006 they don't have a world champion, either male or female, or any team world titles. Clearly their school doesn't work well after the changes. If they don't launch old players like Kramnik they have no chance."
"Their dogma", not "There dogma"...
And "long game" should be "long match" - sorry!
"I worked with a lot of Russian trainers, even more than Anand. He can't be the successor of Kasparov, who for a long time was the number 1 in the rating list at the same time as being the World Champion. Anand hasn't even passed 2800 now. Only Carlsen can maybe do something similar now,"
I can't believe that Topalov is so bitter about this. I am afraid what might happen to Anand if he was left alone in a room with Topalov.
Topalov has given a new meaning to cheap.
If Anand has read this he must make sure he soundly thrashes Topalov in a match by a bigger margin so that Topalov does not go home believing he 'narrowly' missed winning and hence harbour such bitterness.
I felt bad for Topalov after watching him while resigning the 12th game of the match against Anand.
But I guess, I won't feel so from now as he is not showing any respect to his opponent Anand.
He could have been a bit magnanimous in his loss.
I am soooooooooo glad Topalov lost. He has his bitter little words. Anand has the crown. Nuff said.
Good. Nuff said.
Now, about Astrakhan ...
CO
"I worked with a lot of Russian trainers, even more than Anand. He can't be the successor of Kasparov, who for a long time was the number 1 in the rating list at the same time as being the World Champion. Anand hasn't even passed 2800 now. Only Carlsen can maybe do something similar now,"
How old is this guy again?
Yes, a bit strange that Astrakhan is still completely overshadowed by the WCh match (I continued to post but stayed at the dedicated thread) - will it now, at least here, be in the shadow of the US Championships??
There may be reasons:
- many draws, but not all of them were boring and bloodless
- the wrong Ukrainian leading after round 5, Eljanov while many (Mig included) are rooting for Ivanchuk.
I think a World Championship match is just a hard act to follow! Though in terms of off-topic posts... I plead guilty, but with the mitigating circumstance that the appropriate thread now has over 500 comments! It takes a while to load even on a fast internet connection.
Finally Ivanchuk won one. And it was a good one too!
Fair point about the >500 comments - maybe Mig should create a new (post-)WCh thread, just as he put some off-day chatters in during the match. And preferably a separate one for those (still) interested to discuss the evergreen or evergrey topic whether Khalifman, Ponomariov and Kasimdzhanov were worthy champions or not ... .
BTW, how does the number of comments compare to the Anand-Kramnik match? And back then, how many discussed other things besides, or marginally related to the games? Volcanogate, Sofia rule controversies, live transmission copyright ... (I cannot come up with similar issues for the Bonn match, which I consider good news).
One more point on Astrakahn is that even Russian chess sites don't seem to have any reports up on it yet (Chesspro have commentary on a game a day). The Azerbaijani extratime.az have some, but they just seem to be taking material from the official site.
That's the one plus about the Astrakahn GP, though! They have reports in generally very good English on the official site. e.g. snippets from the press conferences after round 4: http://astrakhan2010.fide.com/4th-round-press-conference.html
Thank you mishanp!!!!!
What is Radjabov doing? Does he think he can just play anything against Ivanchuk? Is there no respect any more?
Patzer Thomas says: Not sure if it's that bad or provocative, both are playing creatively - but Radjabov seems to be surprised about the turn of events as he is behind on the clock. It seems to me that the "funny" moves starting with 11.-h5 are aimed at preventing white from playing g4 under favorable circumstances.
BTW, Radjabov had already faced a similar setup - sort of Caro-Kann but with both kingside bishops fianchettoed - in round 4 against Svidler. That game ended with a +- forced repetition on move 25, still one of the better draws IMO.
Call me old-fashioned, but I think in the opening one should aspire to make the pieces work together, and find a safe place for the king. I can't believe in throwing your bishop before the enemy, and cutting its retreat with your own pawns.
I see your point, but the alternative would have been to keep the bishop locked behind the pawn chain which isn't pleasant either. Black was forced to play e7-e6, maybe not immediately but as soon as the white knight appears on f4. In fact this could be Ivanchuk's prepared improvement to Svidler-Radjabov: delaying Nf3 and then rather playing Ne2(-f4) - but Svidler started with 1.Nf3 ... .
Just trying to understand what's going on when two top GMs play off the well-beaten opening theory track. Radjabov may well be in a relaxed and "experimental" mood if he knows or expects to qualify(!?) for the candidates event by means of the organizer wildcard!!?
Maybe Radjabov's opening wasn't THAT bad, he's a piece up in the final position ,:) . Seriously, he probably missed a win somewhere ... .
Engines gave black a clear advantage in four games: Inarkiev should convert against Gelfand, Eljanov may escape again (but it will be hard to score a full point today), not sure if Wang Yue really has anything substantial.
The whole Grand Prix concept has been a bust. It's clear that FIDE has no concept of how to market these events. What it amounts to is a decent payday for 4 Russians, 3 Ukrainians, and 3 Azerbaijanis. Oh, and somebody earns a coveted spot in the Candidates' Matches, if and when they are held. Not exactly a compelling narrative.
It not a problem that Eljanov is the leader. It is a problem that Eljanov is the leader at only +2. Too many draw--whether or not hardfought. Too many dry games, with players trying to grind out positions, or maneuver 'til their opponent falls asleep before having vacuumed all of the pieces off of the board. Has there been a single memorable game played there yet? There certainly hasn't been any shortage of Ruy Lopez Berlin Defenses, or Petroffs...
Yeah, this is the common picture of the Grand Prix, but I will paint a different picture based on the same raw data:
It is an opportunity for those "sub-top" players who aren't regularly invited to Linares, Corus A, Dortmund, ... to
- play a strong event
- earn prize money (why not?)
- qualify for the candidates event (why not?)
In particular, Gashimov is a "product of the Grand Prix" - prestigious invitations (Linares, Amber) came only at a later stage.
Like it or not, ex-Soviet players still dominate the subtop, even if they are no longer as dominant at the very top (only 40% of the top 5).
On the draws, fair point - though all the noise about Sofia rules distracts from the fact that a draw is a logical result between players of roughly equal strength. What was wrong with Eljanov's 3.5/5 (TPR 2882)? Yes, Nakamura (San Sebastian) and Shirov (Corus 2010) started with 4.5/5 and 5/5, respectively - but they had faced a fair number of <2700 opponents. In Astrakhan, the rating outsider Inarkiev "refuses to give presents" and is actually now leading the field ... . Yes, there was Carlsen at Nanjing 2009 and Ivanchuk at MTel2008, but such performances happen at most once every year.
And today's round had everything it takes: a fighting draw between Ivanchuk and Radjabov, four decisive games (including a Wang Yue grind from the black side of a Petroff!), and even a short Berlin draw between Svidler and Leko to keep the naysayers happy ,:)
How can they be having this elite tournament without the SUPER_ELITE INTERNATIONAL STAR NAKAMURA?
What a travesty, he has won 0 elite tournaments but he is considered elite by American standards, what a disgrace, stop the tournament. Wait for the US Championship which must be cat 12 to finish so the superstar can join the world chamionship cycle...HALT
Well, if the USA had organized one of the GP events, Nakamura could have gotten an organizer wildcard. They would have been most welcome, initial plans/ambitions were to hold one event on each continent [excluding Antarctica which cannot come up with a wildcard ,:) ].
At the start of the series (April 2008 rating list), Nakamura's rating was 2686, Gashimov's (Azeri wildcard) was 2679.
There was recurrent talk, but only talk about a potential Grand Slam event in Seattle. And would the St. Louis people be willing and able to organize something on an international level?
Talking about the increasing diversity among top players, I think this year is the first time 2 players from Asia are in the top 10. And according to the current liverating, there are 3 in the top 20, as Wang Hao just joined after his victory in Bosna. This guy also deserves more invitation to strong tournaments. Looking forward to see him play at Poikovsky in a couple of weeks.
The Russian or ex-Soviet domination is even less among the top juniors (potential future top players). In fact, they are not dominating at all in that age group.
"Well, if the USA had organized one of the GP events, Nakamura could have gotten an organizer wildcard. They would have been most welcome, initial plans/ambitions were to hold one event on each continent [excluding Antarctica which cannot come up with a wildcard ,:) ]."
My Goodness, FIDE fell a bit short on that mark!
At least they managed to hold the 6 events in 6 different cities. After half of the initial cities pulled out, I was wondering if they would have to resort to hosting the rest of the Grand Prix events in Elista.
Maybe it would be better (at least, publicity-wise) to hold the tournaments in Antarctica. Or maybe on a cruise ship, sailing the 7 Seas....
Nakamura would probably qualify by rating, if the Grand Prix were to start up now. But he was too low for selection back a couple of years ago.
"The Russian or ex-Soviet domination is even less among the top juniors (potential future top players). In fact, they are not dominating at all in that age group."
As is to be expected. However, it is a bit misleading, since it is a part of the Russian School of chess not to rush to create prodigies. There are still more Top-level trainers in Russia than anywhere else, and you oftern see Russia Juniors who are unheralded suddenly make a name for themselves in their early 20s. If I'm not mistaken, Russia still churns out more GMs than any other country...
"Yeah, this is the common picture of the Grand Prix, but I will paint a different picture based on the same raw data:
It is an opportunity for those "sub-top" players who aren't regularly invited to Linares, Corus A, Dortmund, ... to
- play a strong event
- earn prize money (why not?)
- qualify for the candidates event (why not?)
In particular, Gashimov is a "product of the Grand Prix" - prestigious invitations (Linares, Amber) came only at a later stage."
I actually agree with you on the merits of the Grand Prix events. It is good that lesser known Super-GM (2700+) get opportunities to play in strong, relatively lucrative, events.
Just don't expect these events to garner much publicity in the Chess World. My earlier post was in response to the sub-thread about the lack of attention that such as strong, significant, and Official FIDE event, in an atempt to explain just why that is the case.
Actually "the Soviet Union" isn't doing THAT badly mong the top juniors: I count five Russians (including import Karjakin), one Ukrainian and one Azeri among the top 20. This (35%) isn't much less than 40% among the adult top 5 (one of them will probably be the next world champion).
And if we take into account that three other top juniors (Caruana and the two Vietnamese Le Quang Liem and CTRL+V Nguyen Ngoc Truong Son) work with Russian trainers, at least occasionally ... .
I was mostly wondering why _this_ Grand Prix gets little attention, in my impression also compared to the previous ones. Several reasons come to my mind:
- It is still a bit in the shadow of the WCh match - or fans and journalists are a bit tired after Sofia?
- Fan favorite Ivanchuk isn't doing well (that's what I meant with "the wrong Ukrainian leading"). Moreover, Gelfand and - I dare to say - Leko do not quite get the recognition they deserve IMO.
- It is now also overshadowed by other events: US Championship and FIDE election campaign (where both Mig and Chessvibes have a rooting interest for Karpov).
On the lack of domination of ex-Soviet juniors,
Doug said:
As is to be expected. However, it is a bit misleading, since it is a part of the Russian School of chess not to rush to create prodigies.
Why is it to be expected? If we go back, in previous top juniors rating lists, say from 2000, or even as recent as 2005, juniors from ex-Soviet countries actually did dominate, they made up more than 50% of the top 20 juniors. Not anymore.
Also, although unheralded strong players could suddenly make a name after reaching their 20s, but in the past many ex-soviet juniors made their names (for some of them, big names) in their teens: Ponomariov, Grischuk, Radjabov, Mamedyarov. Earlier on: Svidler, Morozevich, Kramnik, Kamsky, Ivanchuk, Shirov. Seems to happen less today.
Thomas,
Are we counting ex-soviet players or trainers?
If you want to take into account top players who trained with russian trainers, you might as well include Anand and Topalov. And Carlsen. :-)
Topalov said in a recent interview that he worked with a lot of russian trainers. Anand has worked with Dvoretsky (it's stated on Dvoretsky's page). And you know which russian trained Carlsen.
If you count like that, now you can have 100 % in the top 5. Perfect russian or ex-soviet domination :-) :-).
Thomas,
When you were counting "Soviet Union" juniors, who
is the one that "will probably be the next world champion"?
If we count juniors who train with (ex-) russian trainers, then almost the entire top 10 juniors is included. Except Wesley So, who amazingly does not have any trainer.
http://www.gmwesleyso.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=150:wesley-so-the-only-player-wo-a-coach-among-the-worlds-top-10-juniors&catid=38:featured-article&Itemid=64
Even if many (young) top players have worked with Russian trainers once in a while, the issue is how big the Russian contribution was, if they can be considered "a product of the Russian chess school". I don't have detailed data for every single top junior (who has?), but to me it seems
- the Vietnamese owe a lot to Bareev (who visited their country for training sessions)
- Caruana: mishanp once posted an interview where the Russians sort of claim him as "one of them" (don't ask me for link or quotes)
- other end of the scale: Carlsen was already world top before he started working with Kasparov. He had gotten there working with Norwegian trainers and largely on his own.
My point is: "Soviets" are nowadays less dominant because they also share their knowledge with others - not, or not as much the case five or ten years ago?
@henru: I was a bit unclear, "probably the next world champion" referred to the current adult top 5, which includes Kramnik and Aronian. If I have to make a wild guess on a current junior who could become world champion - but not in the next cycle - maybe Sjugirov?
Talking of the Soviet School and other topics... here's an interesting interview from the presumably still quite sprightly 84-year-old Mark Taimanov: http://smena.ru/news/2010/05/17/17245/
Starting at the end:
"- This is the first time in many decades that a Russian or Soviet player hasn't taken part in the World Championship match. Why?
- Because the hegemony of our chess players is no more. It faded away. I think that computers have played a levelling role, switching the emphasis from creativity to sport and at the same time removing the old advantage of the Soviet School. In addition, the social importance of chess in our country has noticeably decreased. I'm sure that even a month ago, before the current match, the majority of Russians would have struggled to name the chess world champion. Before, something like that was hard to imagine.
- Is there really not a single Russian capable of competing for the title? What about Vladimir Kramnik?
- Perhaps Vladimir has ambitious plans to regain the title, but it'll be oh so difficult to do. For Kramnik and Svidler and other players of his generation the peak of their achievements is, alas, behind them. You need to count on 20-year-olds, but among them I don't see any potential world champions. Sergej Karjakin, who became a Russian citizen, and the St. Petersburg Evgeny Alekseev and Nikita Vitiugov are undoubtedly good players, but the epithets "outstanding" or "genius" can't be applied to them." [unsurprisingly he mentioned Carlsen as a potential champion]
Earlier he was asked about the Anand-Topalov match and, among other things, had this to say:
"In general, in terms of its sporting struggle and content it satisfied all the hopes of fans of chess artistry. It was a conflict between the classicism of Anand and the romanticism of Topalov. It was particularly heartening that the fate of the title was decided in the classical games and not in rapid or blitz, where a lot depends on chance. Of course it wasn't without mistakes from both sides, but blunders are absolutely inevitable under such pressure. And overall it lived up to expectations - the match was played at quite a high level.
- Was it really as high as the legendary encounters between Anatoly Karpov and Gary Kasparov?
- I don't want to offend the players in this match, but here we saw a struggle among chess players, while in the Karpov-Kasparov confrontation we witnessed a battle of personalities. Differing in world view, temperament... The interests of Topalov and Anand are focussed on chess - they have no achievements or even a desire for achievements beyond the board, in contrast to the great players from Steinitz to Kasparov. Moreover, in spite of their total concentration on chess the current leaders have in no way surpassed their predecessors in their play, and in fact seem to be inferior."
As a translator's note... I agree it's very easy to dispute that last section :) But maybe he's really thinking of himself, and e.g. Smyslov - he also had a musical career: http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=320
Thanks, and it's understandable that you didn't want to make this comment #573 in the final WCh thread ,:) .
On the last section: I think the question is already odd, the Karpov-Kasparov matches were special and remain legendary for three reasons which no longer apply:
1) they were the last of a series of "Cold War matches", preceded by Karpov-Korchnoi, Karpov-Fischer that didn't happen and Fischer-Spassky. Kasparov succeeded (to the western world) in depicting himself as Glasnost and Perestroika, and Karpov as an old commie [whether that's completely true is another story].
Hmm, Kramnik-Topalov was depicted by some people as "noble Bulgarian against evil Russia", but they weren't as successful - and not only because the wrong person won ... .
2) they went over 24 games - among other things, providing lasting contributions to opening theory: the Sevilla variation in the Grunfeld went out of fashion, but the Ruy Lopez Zaitsev variation still builds on the K-K matches.
3) they were between the undisputed #1 and #2. For the Anand-Topalov match, we already discuss whether Carlsen could beat one or both of them ... .
About interests beyond chess, what exactly had Kasparov and Karpov to offer at the time? Kaprov was collecting stamps, Kasparov was doing what?? And "different in temperament" also applies to Anand and Topalov ... .
@Thomas: Why is the next world champion probably Kramnik or Aronian, instead of say, Carlsen?
Another reason why the K-K match is legendary:
Karpov and Kasparov are legendary quintessential examples of their respective styles. Even top grandmasters talk about "playing like Karpov" or "like Kasparov". Anand and Topalov's style are not even close to becoming a reference like K & K. Not to say that they play at a lower level of strength, but they are not legendary and not reference points as much as K & K.
Another point:
It's not only that Karpov and Kasparov were #2 and #1 at that time. These are giants who clearly had their long periods of domination. But Topalov was no. 1 on the list for just a little more than 2 years, Anand even less. No comparison. And with their age, and Carlsen reaching maturity, there is probably not much chance to improve their personal records in being no. 1 on the rating list. As Topalov himself said (in an interview right after Kasparov retired), none of his peers (including himself) is a giant as Kasparov is. (Note: Carlsen was not around the top yet at that time.)
The last battle between Anand and Topalov was an exciting and instructive battle between 2 very strong, but not dominating, players. The battles between K & K were between two giants. Two legends.
Yep, those are all the points I'd have made! By the way, with this interview I think I can retire content as a finder of obscure articles :) The thing is almost all good Russian links get posted quickly at e3e5.com. But with this one there was nothing - and I posted it on Crestbook.com - and now today it's on e3e5.com, with the comment "from a tip from the Crestbook.com forum". Yes, I realise that's of no interest to anyone but me!! :)
mishanp, please start a blog and archive ur translations, its very difficult to search through the dirt :)
I do actually have a web page/blog now but it still needs a lot of work... I'll let you know when it's ready - and thanks for the suggestion! (I think you suggested it before?)
Again misunderstanding: I said "one of the current top 5", hence (in alphabetic order) Anand or Aronian or Carlsen or Kramnik or Topalov.
In other words: I don't believe that Gelfand, Kamsky and whoever else takes part in the candidates tournament (second GP spot and Azeri wildcard) will win their next four matches ,:) .
Things are looking good for Gashimov, who sits at +2. Since Radjabov and Wang Yue are now at 50%, it will take a small miracle for Radjabov to win the 2nd Qualifying spot.
This means that Radjabov will probably have to rely on the organizer's Wild Card, and he will be vying for that with Mamedyarov, who is +1.
No doubt, the Round 11 game Radjabov--Mamedyarov will be of keen interest tomorrow. If Radja wins, they will switch positions in the Standings....
Timor may be the favorite to be the Wild Card selection over Mamedyarov, irrespective of the finish this tournment, or whether Shakh sports a higher rating. Still Radjabov would rather not take anything for granted, and in this circumstance, Mamedyarov is his rival. He can afford to risk, since even if he loses, Shakh won't have any chance to overtake him in GP standings.
Radjabov will play Gashimov in Round 12, but he'll be Black then. It will be interesting to see how he plays it. If he is confident about getting the Wild Card, he may play for a win, to try to overtake Gashimov in the GP standings. on the other hand he might think that it is desireable to do what he can to insure that 2 Azerbaijanis will participate in the Candidates' Matches. that could entail a safe, fightless draw, or there is a chance that due to conflicting goals, he may play poorly, and lose the game.
The fact that Eljanov is in the lead means that he will eat up many of the GP points, even though he himself is not in contention. That makes it more difficult for Jakovenko, who is =3rd, to leapfrog over those ahead of him.
Eljanov is +5-2=3, for a total of 6.5/10
Given the number of Draws @ Astrakhan, it is remarkable that he has been a part of 7 of the decisive games. That's roughly 1/3 of the 22 decisive games produced thus far by the entire field. Props to him for fighting chess.
Thanks for discussing the GP which - due to recent news - is still or again completely in the shadow of the WCh match.
"it will take a small miracle for Radjabov to win the 2nd Qualifying spot."
All it takes is beating Gashimov with black, then both are tied at +1 and Radjabov keeps his lead in the GP standings. Would it be "a small miracle"? Maybe not for Radja who _often_ wins with black - and while Gashimov kept his nerves under control so far, things get increasingly tense in the final rounds. But I had already suggested your other scenario ("he might think that it is desireable to do what he can to insure that 2 Azerbaijanis will participate in the Candidates' Matches").
"Eljanov is +5-2=3, for a total of 6.5/10
... Props to him for fighting chess."
Actually this applies to most players who can no longer qualify for the candidates event - going down the tournament table: Alekseev and Ponomariov have four decisive games, Inarkiev has six non-draws (he was leading the field before losing four games in a row), tailender Akopian has five - even he won a memorable game against Inarkiev, declining several move repetitions while he was slightly worse*
Jakovenko has one decisive game, Gashimov, Radjabov, Wang Yue and Leko have two ... .
* At least engines thought so, apparently Akopian disagreed (see press conference quotes at the tournament webpage)
"
"it will take a small miracle for Radjabov to win the 2nd Qualifying spot."
All it takes is beating Gashimov with black, then both are tied at +1 and Radjabov keeps his lead in the GP standings. Would it be "a small miracle"? Maybe not for Radja who _often_ wins with black - and while Gashimov kept his nerves under control so far, things get increasingly tense in the final rounds."
You are right: I'm guilty of a bit of exaggeration. Things might be different after the 11th Round (when we know the result of the Radjabov--Mamedyarov game).
Gashimov(2734) has the following schedule for the final 3 rounds:
11)--Black against Ponomariov (2733)
12)--White against Radjabov (2740)
13)--Black against Leko (2735)
He has 2 Blacks, against Pono and against Leko.
By Round 13, I'm not sure what motivation Leko will have to really push for a win. But I think that it is more of an advantage (as a trade-off) to simply have the White pieces against Radja, in their match-up.
Radjabov does have 2 Whites in the Final 3 games. He simply seems to be lacking good form--his victory over tailender Akopian notwithstanding. Nor do I believe that Radjabov is impervious to pressure, either; I've seen games where he seems to have cracked. But anything can happen in a single game. I think that he has about a 10% chance of beating Gashimov. If he plays for an all-or-nothing result in that game, he is liable to end up with a Zero.
Radjabov:
11) White--Mamedyarov (2763)
12) Black--Gashimov (2734)
13) White--Wang Yue (2752)
If both Gashimov and Radjabov falter, Wang Yue could conceivably sneak it. So, it is possible that the round 13 match-up will be of consequence.
Aside from the Grand Prix 2nd place slot, there are a few others with chances to win the tournament.
1st Eljanov at +3
2nd Gashimov at +2
=3rd Jakovenko at +1
=3rd Mamedyarov at +1
Eljanov finishes with 2/3 Blacks
Jakovenko with 2/3 Whites
Mamedyarov with 2/3 Blacks
Of note is that Jakovenko's Round 13 Opponent is Akopian, and Jakovenko will be White in that game.
In Round 12, Jakovenko is Black against Eljanov
So, he has good chances of moving up, and id he beats Eljanov, he can practically vault to the top
___________________________________
Round 11 on 2010/05/22 at 15.00
SNo. Name Rtg Res. Name Rtg SNo.
6 GM Alekseev Evgeny 2700 - GM Svidler Peter 2735 14
7 GM Inarkiev Ernesto 2669 - GM Wang Yue 2752 5
8 GM Ponomariov Ruslan 2733 - GM Gashimov Vugar 2734 4
9 GM Radjabov Teimour 2740 - GM Mamedyarov Shakhriyar 2763 3
10 GM Leko Peter 2735 - GM Akopian Vladimir 2694 2
11 GM Ivanchuk Vassily 2741 - GM Eljanov Pavel 2751 1
12 GM Jakovenko Dmitry 2725 - GM Gelfand Boris 2741 13
Round 12 on 2010/05/23 at 15.00
SNo. Name Rtg Res. Name Rtg SNo.
14 GM Svidler Peter 2735 - GM Gelfand Boris 2741 13
1 GM Eljanov Pavel 2751 - GM Jakovenko Dmitry 2725 12
2 GM Akopian Vladimir 2694 - GM Ivanchuk Vassily 2741 11
3 GM Mamedyarov Shakhriyar 2763 - GM Leko Peter 2735 10
4 GM Gashimov Vugar 2734 - GM Radjabov Teimour 2740 9
5 GM Wang Yue 2752 - GM Ponomariov Ruslan 2733 8
6 GM Alekseev Evgeny 2700 - GM Inarkiev Ernesto 2669 7
Round 13 on 2010/05/24 at 13.30
SNo. Name Rtg Res. Name Rtg SNo.
7 GM Inarkiev Ernesto 2669 - GM Svidler Peter 2735 14
8 GM Ponomariov Ruslan 2733 - GM Alekseev Evgeny 2700 6
9 GM Radjabov Teimour 2740 - GM Wang Yue 2752 5
10 GM Leko Peter 2735 - GM Gashimov Vugar 2734 4
11 GM Ivanchuk Vassily 2741 - GM Mamedyarov Shakhriyar 2763 3
12 GM Jakovenko Dmitry 2725 - GM Akopian Vladimir 2694 2
13 GM Gelfand Boris 2741 - GM Eljanov Pavel 2751 1
The strategy of the potential qualifiers may be - deliberately or not - "avoid big risks and hope to break away from the others with one victory late in the tournament". Timing and opponent of Gashimov's first victory was "perfect": round 1 against Ivanchuk, more or less killing Chucky's hopes and putting early pressure on others. But his second victory may have come a bit too early, others can still react ... .
Gashimov-Radjabov: some "intriguing" chessgames.com statistics on their earlier games: Radjabov won twice in 1998 (one game is from the U12 world championship), six later games (one in 2004, five in 2008 including three in the GP) were drawn, five of them in less than 30 moves, Sofia rules notwithstanding ... .
Leko-Gashimov could have been a key game if Leko had "used the advantage of the black pieces" against Eljanov yesterday (before, black had won in Eljanov's games in five consecutive rounds). Even then Leko would have needed to overcome his notorious last-round problems.
The miracle already happened!?
Ponomariov-Gashimov 1-0
In his one and only GP tournament, Ponomariov (who replaces Anand's second Kasimdzhanov) only fights for prize money and Elo, and he can still spoil other people's tournament
Radjabov-Mamedyarov 1-0
Mamedyarov apparently blundered in time trouble, hmmm ... no way to tell, certainly no way to prove that this was done on purpose. But if Radjabov qualifies for the candidates event, Mamedyarov could get the wildcard - reportedly, Gashimov is on bad terms with the Azeri federation and could end up with nothing (he certainly didn't lose on purpose).
Anyway, now Gashimov and Radjabov play each other tomorrow under different circumstances ... . And the sunny side of the many draws (and/or the balanced field, whatever one prefers) is that the last two rounds can still be exciting - currently four players tied for second place with 6/11. Jakovenko, Gashimov and Radjabov still have qualifying chances, and "guest" Ponomariov could play an important role: If he finishes second in the end, there are limited bonus points to earn for those trying to catch Radjabov.
"Radjabov-Mamedyarov 1-0
Mamedyarov apparently blundered in time trouble, hmmm ... no way to tell, certainly no way to prove that this was done on purpose. But if Radjabov qualifies for the candidates event, Mamedyarov could get the wildcard - reportedly, Gashimov is on bad terms with the Azeri federation and could end up with nothing (he certainly didn't lose on purpose)."
Not the most agressive of openings, to be sure. It was a clever selection, as it gives minimal winning chances to Black. It made it appear to the observer that they were content to play a "Correct" Draw. And, Lo and Behold: Mamedyarov was holding at move 25, but Resigns after White's 39th. Perhaps a disappointment for Mamedyarov, but paradoxically he finds himself in a better position than Gashimov to be selected as Wild Card, for the reason Thomas gave above.
We will see if Gashimov can produce a win "on demand" in Round #12 against Radjabov. He can ill afford to cede a Draw, as then he would have to play for a win a Black against Leko in Round #13.
It should be noted that Wang Yue, although he has not risen above even for the duration of the tournament, can still finish +2 if he wins his last 2 games. That could be enough to nose Radjabov and Gashimov for a 2nd Place finish in the Grand Prix! Wang Yue will be Black against Timor in Round #13. In Round #12, Wang is White against Ponomariov, and should have ample reason to take risks, and even to go for broke.
Eljanov is White against Jakovenko, but if Jako wins, then he will be tied for the tournament lead.
So, that makes 3 key match-ups for the next round....
When Ivanchuk's not on form, he's REALLY not on form :(
[White "Akopian, Vladimir"]
[Black "Ivanchuk, Vassily"]
[Result "1-0"]
1. Nf3 d5 2. d4 Nf6 3. c4 e6 4. Nc3 dxc4 5. e4 Bb4 6. Bg5 h6 7. Bxf6 Qxf6 8.
Bxc4 c5 9. O-O cxd4 10. e5 Qd8 11. Ne4 Nc6 12. a3 Be7 13. Qe2 O-O 14. Bd3 g6
15. h4 Kg7 16. h5 g5 17. Ned2 Rh8 18. Nh2 b6 19. f4 gxf4 20. Rxf4 Bg5 21. Raf1
Bxf4 22. Rxf4 a5 23. Ng4 1-0
A complicated set-up in Gashimov-Radjabov. Black might just storm through with his pawns. White can play against the typical weakness on d6, but I don't think this is enough. Black may either build up pressure against e4, or advance his kingside pawns King's-Indian-style. I'd bet on Radjabov.
Does anyone know why Ivanchuk (already) resigned in the final position? Or did his cell phone ring?
Well, his position is miserable. Nevertheless, there is no immediate clear win, and he's up in material, so why not continue indeed. Perhaps his phone rang, but knowing Ivanchuk he may very well have resigned. Of course it's very likely he would have lost that anyway.
A few have mentioned the possibility (and I call it only a possibility) that there may have been some off-the-board reason for Mamedyarov to have blundered and lost against Radjabov.
I observe that Mamedyarov is the same person who made cheating accusations against another player last year, being upset enough to withdraw from the tournament. While not inconceivable, of course, I would hope that a top-10 player would be closer to immune from performing such an action, regardless of the patriotism it may require, and especially in view of his previous actions.
Blunders happen. Cheating happens. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Just sayin' ...
CO
why Ivanchuk (already) resigned ?
his understanding of chess allowed him to realize how bad he must have played if he got himself in that awful position, he could not stand the thought and resigned
Two games still to finish. So, the games to watch out tomorrow would be Radja-Yue and Leko-Gashi. All of them, with the exception of Leko, can still qualify, as can Jako.
Can any one tell me why Leko played 56...Rc7? Time pressure?
"why Leko played 56...Rc7?"
Good question, I had the same one ... . Maybe engines (Stockfish at the Chessdom live site) have the answer: If black makes waiting moves with his king (nothing else available), he will eventually end up in zugzwang, a sample line goes
56.-Kf7 57.Rb8 Rc7 58.Bd8 Rc6 59.Rb7+ Kg8 60.Bg5 Kf8 61.Rd7 Kg8 62.h6 gh6: 63.Bh6: - and now "sacrificing" the knight with 63.-Nb6 is considered best, on Kg8-h8-g8 the white king goes to g6 with mating threats!?
Maybe Leko saw this, or maybe he considered his defensive chances better if he sacs a pawn, but at least activates his rook.
Yes, it may well be that Ivanchuk resigned because he was too disgusted with his previous play - it wouldn't be the first time in his career!? But engines don't see a win for white in the final position and actually give a slight advantage to black (at least at shallow search depths which are publicly available).
Does Chucky remember the game Ivanchuk(!)-Kramnik from the last round of the Tal Memorial? Black played on in a similarly dangerous or bad position (arising from the same opening variation) and eventually escaped with, or earned a draw. Of course then tournament victory was at stake (now only the fight against last place), and Kramnik may be, or consider himself a better defender.
That was the first in a chain of events which caused Ivanchuk to "temporarily quit" professional chess. Let's hope that his bad result in Astrakhan won't make him "reconsider the decision to reconsider his spontaneous decision"!
Guys. I am absolutely lost with overall standings.. Can anyone shed some light on current odds?
1. is the fight now only between Radjabov vs gashimov for the second spot (i.e., can Yakovenko/Yue mathematically intervene?)?
2. Does Radjabov secure his spot by a last round draw regardless of any other game?
3. If Q2 is "no", what if Gashimov overcomes Radja by halfpoint as a result of the last round (e.g., Radja draws and Gash wins)? Will he then certainly get the qualification spot or that will depend on how many people he Gashimov shareds second place in Astrakhan?
All games ended. Now, can any one tell me why Inarkiev play 83...g4 instead of 83...Ka6 idea 84...Kxa7? Now it would be more difficult to mate with two knights even though Black has some pawns which deny him the opportunity of getting his King stalemated.
Or, 83...Ka6 84 Nc3 Kb2 85 Kd2 (85 Nd3+ Kxc3 86 Nc1 Kb2)b4 86 Nd3+ Ka3 87 Nc1 bxc3 ... ...?
A1: Jako or Yue can still qualify (mathematically).
A2:No.
A3: Gash is then a certainty.
Guess that's something for me ,:) - let me start by reposting the pre-tournament GP standings based on the two best previous results. In () the worst result which may become relevant as a tiebreaker, in [] the players that can no longer qualify:
Radjabov 303.3 (60)
Wang Yue 273.3 (80)
Gashimov 263.3 (65)
[Ivanchuk 245.0 (20)]
Jakovenko 243.3 (35)
[Leko 240.0 (80)]
A1: Jakovenko's chances seem rather theoretical, as the gap between him and Radjabov in the current event would have to become more than 60 GP points. He needs to win against Akopian (the "easy" and plausible part), and one or both of the following must happen:
- Radjabov loses against Wang Yue, and/or
- Eljanov loses tomorrow, and Jako shares first place
If Jakovenko himself believed in his qualifying chances, he wouldn't have gone for a 15-move draw against Eljanov today .... .
Wang Yue has "decent" chances IF he beats Radjabov tomorrow with the black pieces, he might still depend on some of the other results.
A2: No
A3: There is at least one scenario (albeit an unlikely one) where Radjabov qualifies even if Gashimov finishes 1/2 point ahead of him: Eljanov wins or draws, Ponomariov-Alekseev and Radjabov-Wang Yue are drawn, and all other players currently at 6.5 points lose their games against the lower half of the field. Final standings would be
Eljanov 8 or 8.5 points [180 GP points]
Gashimov 7.5 [150]
Pono, Alekseev, Radjabov 7 [(130+110+100)/3 = 113.3]
I will note that this scenario includes Ivanchuk-Mamedyarov 1-0 and continue with a new post on Azeri wildcard considerations.
@A3, actually Pono-Alekseev doesn't need to be drawn in that scenario for Radjabov to qualify: the winner of that game would take GP points from Gashimov, and Radja would be the only one left on 7 points, so the GP scores would be:
Eljanov 8 or 8.5 [180]
Gashimov, [Pono or Alekseev] 7.5 [140 each]
Radjabov 7 [110]
So here, Radja could even afford that Mamedyarov draws and takes 5 GP's from him.
@A3: There is at least one scenario (albeit an unlikely one) where Radjabov qualifies even if Gashimov finishes 1/2 point ahead of him||
Yes, Thomas, you are right. I considered only those scenarios where Gashimov shares second place.
The Azeris might also consider the following:
If Gashimov qualifies, Radjabov gets the wildcard. If Radjabov qualifies, Mamedyarov gets the wildcard (given Gashimov's troubles with the federation). This means
- for Gashimov: He needs to win against Leko tomorrow and hope that this means qualifying for the candidates event
- for Radjabov: he doesn't have to be afraid of Gashimov ... unless he wants Mamedyarov to join him in the candidates event!?
- for Mamedyarov: he benefits if Radjabov, rather than Gashimov qualifies. In some scenarios, he will hurt Radja's chances (hence his own) if he wins or draws against Ivanchuk tomorrow - because he would end up tied with or ahead of Radjabov "stealing" GP points from him.
If Mamedyarov is as "bad" as some people think, what should he do if
- Ivanchuk tries to steer the game towards a quick draw out of the opening
- Ivanchuk has an attack, and Mamedyarov can choose between perpetual check and getting mated
- Ivanchuk blunders ("NO Chucky, I DO NOT want to win against you!!!")
And what if Mamedyarov's cell phone rings during the game, or if he arrives late - this being an official FIDE event, zero tolerance rules probably apply ??
I know this sounds absurd, but the situation itself is rather absurd. It wouldn't be an issue for the ongoing tournament if the candidates event was organized by Spain (Shirov), USA (Nakamura) or France (Vachier-Lagrave) ... .
Very profound indeed.
Thanks! Sounds like Gashimov has a very slim chance of qualification. Pity, I though he deserved. But Shakh in deed "did" evrth he could to increase his chances:
1. He won Gashimov;
2. Lost to Radja
3. Had a decent tournament that will keep him a rating favourite against ther Azeri players (I think Azeri federation will need some sound reasoning behind their choice of a player).
Having said al this, I do not think he lost to Radja on purpose.. though he probably won Vugar on purpose :)
So, the games to pay close attention to tomorrow:
Radjabov (+1)--Wang Yue (=)
Wang is in a "must win" situation to even have a chance. Radjabov holds his destiny in his own hands; would clinch with a win. It's an intriguing match-up. Wang will give it a go, and see if he has a chance to grind out some technique.
Leko (-1) --Gashimov (+1)
Leko can only be a spoiler, but may not be inclined to fight too hard for a win. Getting back to 50% might be a motivation. Also, Leko may have too much pride to "waste a White", even with little else to play for. Gashimov needs to finish at least 1/2 a point in front of Radjabov.
Given his situation, I think that Gashimov simply has to play for a win from Move 1.
Jakovenko (+1) -- Akopian (-2)
Jakovenko needs to win, to even have a chance. That said, I doubt that he will play in va banque style....
Ivanchuk (-2) Mamedyarov (+1) --
As Thomas pointed out, his chances on being selected for the Wild Card probably hinges on whether Radjabov clinches the 2nd Place slot in the Grand Prix. But the better he does, the more he might harm Radjabov's chances under certain scenarios. I don't envy Shakh his situation: anybody can lose against Ivanchuk, especially with the Black pieces. Does Ivanchuk want to be enmeshed in this (potential) controversy, even if only as a footnote.
Gelfand (-1)-- Eljanov (+3)
Given his quick draw with White against Jakovenko in Round #12, Eljanov will obviously be satisfied with a Draw against Gelfand, which will clinch clear 1st in the Tournament. Gelfand is in the exact same position as Leko: sitting at -1, stuck in Astrakhan with nothing else to do, and maybe so desire to go back up to 50%.
Will Gelfand press? An Eljanov loss could free up some GP points for one of the contenders.
Ponomariov (+1) -- Alekseev (+1)
Potentially could be playing for a share of 1st Place. Could both be motivated to play for a larger share of the Prize fund. As was noted, a decisive game here could improve Radja's chances
Inarkiev (-3)-- Svidler (=)
There's really very little reason to follow this game at all. :-)
Of course, it might be too tempting for Peter not to try to take advantage of Inarkiev's form, so the game might be interesting on its merits.
Inarkiev played very interesting chess, also in the games he lost - particularly against Akopian and, in a way, yesterday against Alekseev: he went wrong in the middlegame, but then defended (or grovelled on) stubbornly. He almost forced his opponent to win 2K vs. P, would that be "easy" at GM level?
By comparison, Eljanov played mostly technical chess which some may call boring - but at the very least it's an achievement to beat Leko in his own style.
BTW, the TWIC page on the Astrakhan GP still has a photo "Ernesto Inarkiev leads after 7 Rounds" (which should be 'after 6 Rounds')! Couldn't they find a photo of Eljanov?
One more point: there is also extra prize money for the top 10 in the final GP standings, maybe this motivates some players? 10th place is 12,000 Euros (11th place is 0 Euros). Svidler is currently 13th, with a win today he could probably overtake Kamsky and Bacrot who are ahead of him (but have already played their 4 events), he may overtake #10 Mamedyarov if that guy loses against Ivanchuk. Poor Mamedyarov, even more things to take into account ...