PDA

View Full Version : FIDE Grand Prix in Sochi



Kevin Bonham
02-08-2008, 04:07 PM
Second FIDE GP event is on from 30 July - 15 August

Field: Ivanchuk, Svidler, Grischuk, Radjabov, Karjakin, Kamsky, Cheparinov, Navara, Gashimov, Wang Yue, Aronian, Gelfand, Jakovenko, Al Modiahki

Round 1 results

Svidler Peter ½-½ Kamsky Gata
Cheparinov Ivan ½-½ Gashimov Vugar
Gelfand Boris ½-½ Jakovenko Dmitry
Radjabov Teimour 1-0 Al-Modiahki Mohamad
Grischuk Alexander 1-0 Karjakin Sergey
Wang Yue ½-½ Aronian Levon
Navara David ½-½ Ivanchuk Vassily

Round 2
Kamsky 1-0 Ivanchuk
Aronian 1-0 Navara
Karjakin draw Wang
Al Modiakhi draw Grischuk
Jakovenko draw Radjabov
Gashimov draw Gelfand
Svidler 0-1 Cheparinov

rest days August 5 and 10
games start 9pm AEST I think.

Basil
02-08-2008, 05:23 PM
14 games. 9 draws. well done. the 'sport' is alive. carry on!

Garvinator
02-08-2008, 07:53 PM
14 games. 9 draws. well done. the 'sport' is alive. carry on!
The same could be said for soccer/football. To repeat, the issue is not with draws by itself, the issue is with draws in two circumstances:

1) Where the players pack it up after 10 moves
2) Where the players decide in the middle of the game with plenty happening to agree a draw

Hard fought draws are no issue.

Basil
02-08-2008, 08:03 PM
The same could be said for soccer/football. To repeat, the issue is not with draws by itself, the issue is with draws in two circumstances:

1) Where the players pack it up after 10 moves
2) Where the players decide in the middle of the game with plenty happening to agree a draw

Hard fought draws are no issue.

Not quite.

The same cannot be said for football or soccer (degree of prevalence). Football results don't substantiate your assertion.

There are two distinct issues;
1. The first where players 'pack it in after 10 moves' - on that we are agreed.
2. The issue of hard fought draws are fine - on that we are agreed.

However, I believe you have fudged the two ideas here. 9 draws out of 14 is bad. Bad bad bad. If they were all hard fought draws (I don't know), then that would be fine - and unusual.

I'm guessing they weren't all hard fought draws. Perhaps I should have checked :eek:

Kevin Bonham
02-08-2008, 09:18 PM
I'm guessing they weren't all hard fought draws. Perhaps I should have checked :eek:

Can say that the shortest was 32 moves; I had a look at it earlier and it didn't seem particularly gutless (and the decision to pack up and go home in an OCB ending with even material was completely reasonable). Cannot vouch for all the rest.

Cheparinov beating Svidler on the black side of a Berlin was pretty impressive.

Basil
03-08-2008, 12:14 AM
Live games www.sochi2008.fide.com/live-games.html
The link didn't work for me until I put the entire URL into the browser. Just sayin'!

http://sochi2008.fide.com/live-games.html

Basil
03-08-2008, 12:18 AM
Round three. Radjabov - Gashinov. Draw. Crap.

24 moves. Queens off. Lots to play for. Entirely legal. Entirely crap.

Basil
03-08-2008, 12:37 AM
I enjoyed the 'photo gallery' link (after three rounds). Looks like a good venue, good effort put into opening ceremony, and the dress regs should be held up like a torch to you slope-back knuckle-dragging hippies ;)

These blokes are dressing for it. Bobby suggested the same fifty years ago and Gunner's onto it!

Denis_Jessop
03-08-2008, 12:50 PM
I fail to understand, or to have any sympathy for, the sudden mania about draws in chess. Draws have been around for centuries.

Capablanca claimed that the game was suffering "draw death" in the 1920s or 30s but was talking nonsense then as the subsequent rise of the Soviet School proved, not to mention Alekhine who was around then and KO'd Capa.

Now that the standard of chess is so high among the leading players, the differences in strength between them so much smaller than, say 50 years ago, and the amount of data available so much greater, the likelihood of draws by top players is also far more likely.

Bunnies like us cannot even presume to know the likely outcome of most GM games that are agreed draws because GMs know so much more about the game than we do. Only idiots like [Alex] can claim to be of GM standard when they have a rating of 1700 or 1800 at best (currently 1484 for the Tool) and even a "patzer with a Pentium" (Khalifman attrib.) is unlikely to know.

If a draw is pre-arranged there ia a law to deal with that.

These days there are hundreds, if not thousands, of current games available on the net that aren't draws so, if you don't like draws, go and look at them instead.

DJ

Basil
03-08-2008, 01:12 PM
I fail to understand, or to have any sympathy for...
And that is part of the problem. Denis, you have made most (all?) of these points before and I have addressed them.

However, not exhaustively, I do note here that
• The styled 'mania' is not a mania in actuality. It's an identification of a problem.
• If Casa identified the problem back in 1920s, then it is self-defeating to attach a present day phenomenon
• Whether lay players can identify the reasons for the draws does not make the draws good for the sport.

Drawn results in high quantities are simply bad. I'd suggest that needs to be fully digested before we can make progress.

eclectic
03-08-2008, 02:23 PM
would there be more of an incentive to eschew draws in such high level tournaments if there were a substantial bonus prize for winning the event with a picket fence score?

Basil
03-08-2008, 02:29 PM
would there be more of an incentive to eschew draws in such high level tournaments if there were a substantial bonus prize for winning the event with a picket fence score?
We'll make a rightie out of you yet! Promote that man!

The issue is of course deeper than that; cultural, leadership etc., but an excellent start. Name your staff and budget and you shall have it.

Kevin Bonham
03-08-2008, 05:26 PM
Round three. Radjabov - Gashinov. Draw. Crap.

24 moves. Queens off. Lots to play for. Entirely legal. Entirely crap.

Not sure about "lots to play for". At your level and also mine, anything could happen from the final position but between super-GMs the chance of anything other than a draw is probably quite minimal. However it was a lame game and it was mainly Radjabov's fault for stuffing up his preparation and allowing Black to equalise.

Cheparinov's kingside hack against Kamsky succeeded but it shouldn't have:

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5 5. e4 Nxc3 6. bxc3 Bg7 7. Bc4 c5 8.
Ne2 Nc6 9. Be3 O-O 10. O-O Na5 11. Bd3 b6 12. Qd2 e5 13. Bh6 cxd4 14. cxd4 exd4
15. Bxg7 Kxg7 16. f4 f6 17. Rac1 Bg4 18. Ng3 Bd7 19. h4 Rc8 20. Rxc8 Bxc8 21.
h5 Qe7 22. Qe2 Bd7 23. Rc1 Rc8 24. Re1 Rc3 25. e5 f5 26. hxg6 hxg6 27. Qd2 Nc4
28. Bxc4 Rxc4 29. Qd3 Qc5 30. e6 Bb5 31. Nh5+ Kh6 32. Qh3 d3+ 33. Kh2 gxh5 34.
Qh4 Be8 35. Re5 Qf8 36. Qg5+ Kh7 37. Rxf5 Qg7 38. Qd8 Rc2? 39. Rg5 Qc7?? 40. Qxd3+
Kh6 41. Qf5 1-0

Basil
03-08-2008, 07:01 PM
Not sure about "lots to play for".
True. I should pick my words more carefully when attacking the embedded status quo. I should rather say 'sufficient to play for'.


At your level and also mine, anything could happen from the final position but between super-GMs the chance of anything other than a draw is probably quite minimal.
On the premise I agree (anything could occur at lesser levels), however on the conclusion I beg to differ (that an outcome other than a draw being quite minimal). Certainly a better level of play reduces the blundering/ poor play, but not to such a degree that the game shouldn't be played out.

Denis_Jessop
03-08-2008, 10:43 PM
And that is part of the problem. Denis, you have made most (all?) of these points before and I have addressed them.

However, not exhaustively, I do note here that
• The styled 'mania' is not a mania in actuality. It's an identification of a problem.
• If Casa identified the problem back in 1920s, then it is self-defeating to attach a present day phenomenon
• Whether lay players can identify the reasons for the draws does not make the draws good for the sport.

Drawn results in high quantities are simply bad. I'd suggest that needs to be fully digested before we can make progress.

The point I meant to make was that Capa complained of draws 80 years ago but the complaint was not well-founded in that subsequent developments in chess style etc refuted it. Only recently has the fuss about draws re-surfaced. My point about this is that it is only to be expected given the current situation of player strength and knowledge. Banning draws won't make games more interesting, just longer and more boring. Other anti-draw steps can be overcome by knowledgeable GMs as GM David Navara remarked at the first FIDE GP event, though lesser players may suffer.

DJ

Garvinator
04-08-2008, 02:07 AM
Gunner, is this the type of game you hate most when talking about non sport draws for chess?

For other posters who will comment. Yes I am aware the game ended in three move repetition, but for what seems like no real reason other than both players decided that they wanted a short day.

[Event "FIDE Grand Prix 2008/09"]
[Site "Sochi/Russia"]
[Date "2008.08.03"]
[Round "4"]
[White "GM Gashimov, Vugar(AZE)"]
[Black "GM Grischuk, Alexander(RUS)"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "B80"]
[WhiteElo "2717"]
[BlackElo "2728"]
[PlyCount "46"]
[EventDate "2008.??.??"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 a6 5. Nc3 Qc7 6. g3 Nf6 7. Bg2 Nc6 8. O-O
d6 9. Re1 Nd7 10. Bg5 Nde5 11. Nxc6 bxc6 12. b3 Bb7 13. Na4 c5 14. Qe2 h6 15.
Be3 Be7 16. f4 Nd7 17. Rad1 O-O 18. c4 Rad8 19. Rf1 Rfe8 20. Qf2 Nf6 21. Qc2
Nd7 22. Qf2 Nf6 23. Qc2 Nd7 1/2-1/2

Basil
04-08-2008, 02:33 AM
Gunner, is this the type of game you hate most when talking about non sport draws for chess?
It's not the type of draw that I 'hate most' although for all intents and purposes, it could be. These games are bad for the 'sport'.

As far as 'hating' goes, I'll allow the term, although it's not the best word to describe my malaise - although I'm yet to identify the best word :eek:

Basil
04-08-2008, 02:58 AM
The point I meant to make was that Capa complained of draws 80 years ago but the complaint was not well-founded in that subsequent developments in chess style etc refuted it.
You may have the advantage over me there. I'm not aware how more modern approaches refuted it. It appears to me that more modern approaches have entrenched it - although I confess to not being widely read there.


Only recently has the fuss about draws re-surfaced.
Notwithstanding your point above, there may be good reason - for instance a desire to scrutinse the 'sport' with performance benchmarks (quantifiable growth in active numbers in proportion to other indicators, funding and so forth). Chess has predominantly been an insular, self-fulfilling latent drifter as a 'sport' (we are chess players and we do our thing [/scrutiny-thankyou-very-much]). But with questions such as

why are there so few females
why do we lose such a critical mass of school leavers
why can't we (western world) be taken seriously at government level
I think it is a normal and healthy self-examination process. I'm avoiding dragging specific corollaries into this discussion, but in general terms, I'd note that all 'sports' need to evolve - and simply chess isn't (to the degree it should IMO). It should be clear that I am certainly not putting the answers to these (indented) questions at the feet of 'GM draws', I am simply suggesting that the performance benchmarks referred to above naturally shine a spotlight on all aspects of a sport and GM draws seem a fairly useful target, among other things.

It is an entirely separate matter that I personally dislike GM draws. I think they're lazy and lacking in obligation on more than one level. Kevin has previously raised some doubt over my assertions - I forget what they were and I can't recall whether they were beliefs he held or being raised in the interest of developing the debate.


Banning draws won't make games more interesting, just longer and more boring.
Agreed.


Other anti-draw steps can be overcome by knowledgeable GMs as GM David Navara remarked at the first FIDE GP event, though lesser players may suffer.
Agreed. Although I would suggest that a more apt statement is 'other conceived and tested anti-draw steps ...'. I don't have the solution; but without one we are in trouble - not that we can quantify the trouble without the benchmarks :wall: :lol: :doh:

Brian_Jones
04-08-2008, 08:38 AM
But with questions such as

why are there so few females
why do we lose such a critical mass of school leavers
why can't we (western world) be taken seriously at government level
I think it is a normal and healthy self-examination process. I'm avoiding dragging specific corollaries into this discussion, but in general terms, I'd note that all 'sports' need to evolve - and simply chess isn't (to the degree it should IMO). :

With all the crap and overlong posts Gunner, sometimes it is hard to spot the really important points you make!

Basil
04-08-2008, 12:46 PM
... sometimes it is hard to spot the really important points you make!
the main thing is that you appear to be better informed on account of them ;) And have 10 HCDs for your insult!

Kevin Bonham
04-08-2008, 06:33 PM
For other posters who will comment. Yes I am aware the game ended in three move repetition, but for what seems like no real reason other than both players decided that they wanted a short day.

There is no point having anti-draw rules if they cannot prevent that sort of draw.

Current scores
+2 Cheparinov
+1 Grischuk
=0 everyone else except
-1 Karjakin and
-2 Navara

Denis_Jessop
04-08-2008, 08:28 PM
You may have the advantage over me there. I'm not aware how more modern approaches refuted it. It appears to me that more modern approaches have entrenched it - although I confess to not being widely read there.

I started having an interest in chess in about the mid-1940s and started teaching myself in the early 1950s. From then until now I have not heard any significant complaint about the number of draws by top players. Moroever the Soviet School of Chess, sort of founded by Alekhine but really founded by Botvinnik, contained players who introduced a new fighting spirit to the game and indulged in sacrificial and tactical play. They included Keres, Bronstein, Tal, Stein, Geller, Korchnoi and others. Those who played a quieter game ( such as Smyslov. Botvinnik himself, Petrosian, Spassky Polugaevsky, Taimanov and the like) were admired for their strength and style. I haven't heard Fischer criticised for drawing games either. Nor, among Western masters, Reshevsky, Najdorf, Larsen et al.

The longer time limits then played may have encouraged players to play for a win as they had longer to analyse over the board, not to mention adjourments. One of the (still) main lines for White against the Latvian Gambit was found by Smyslov (who hadn't seen it before) over the board.

Nowadays players, having to cope with shorter time limits, are more likely to agree to draw in a level position because of the risk of blundering through lack of time. It's the old battle betweeen artistic perfection and thud and blunder. The modern approach favours the latter to the game's detriment.

DJ

Basil
04-08-2008, 08:58 PM
Thanks for the history, Denis - it's appreciated.


Nowadays players, having to cope with shorter time limits, are more likely to agree to draw in a level position because of the risk of blundering through lack of time.
Quite possibly, but in my view that doesn't make the decision to agree a draw a correct one. Clearly for us to debate what constitutes 'correct' requires debate in itself. You have asserted your position on that matter (I believe) below.


It's the old battle betweeen artistic perfection and thud and blunder. The modern approach favours the latter to the game's detriment.
I'd certainly agree that less analysis time will result in less perfect play. And to that degree I can share your lament.

Nevertheless I maintain my position that draws where a game's possibilities haven't been reasonably pursued are not good for the 'sport'. I'd argue that it (reduced analysis time) is but a matter of degree, and although analysis time has been reduced, the players haven't passed some magic marker where all bets are off.

While the pure art may have decreased (somewhat), I view that change as part of 'progress' (ugghh) and note there have been other variances (such as the introduction of computers, greater availability of literature and the like). I don't accept that less time for perfection is an 'out' in its own right.

Gentlemen, we have a business to run and tickets to sell. Let us entertain them!

eclectic
04-08-2008, 08:58 PM
how many of life's battles are really about winning or losing?

lots of draws occur; and mostly honourable ones at that

Basil
04-08-2008, 09:01 PM
... thud and blunder.
Brand new to me, an' I like it! Paying $20 HCDs right there, folks!

Basil
04-08-2008, 09:01 PM
lots of draws occur; and mostly honourable ones at that
I'm talking about the dishonourable ones. I thought that was clear ab initio.

Axiom
04-08-2008, 09:03 PM
It is a very deep and tricky problem , that of the draw in chess , and its collorary the fair fight draw and the unfair fight draw.
I intuitively coincide with gunner's sentiments re the need to evolve chess by playing the game to minimum dress standards including the preservation of the honourable contest .
I also concur with jessop's concern re the degradation of the game itself from enforced fight to the death caged battle .
But upon reflection i see jessop's concerns secondary to gunner's .
The whole idea of a contest is to strive to win , not to take a mutually convenient no-contest result.
It is obviously a philosophical difference of views , but on balance i would support the thrust of gunner's position ie. that chess must do something to promote its elevation .
why ?
because chess is blatently discriminated against , and we help this opposition by allowing a non thinking approach to self promotion, avoiding simple measures to make the activity more attractive to sponsors ie. in effect , to the zeitgeist.

As chessplayers we are warriors , and warriors fight , not draw counsel . Warriors dress for the kill .
Much like the fighting boxing councils , chess suffers from the in-fighting of its warriors. Needing that cohesive force that can propel it to its rightful place as the ultimate human mind contest .

eclectic
04-08-2008, 09:07 PM
axiom?

do i detect post drift here?

:D

Metro
04-08-2008, 09:12 PM
It's not the type of draw that I 'hate most' although for all intents and purposes, it could be. These games are bad for the 'sport'.

As far as 'hating' goes, I'll allow the term, although it's not the best word to describe my malaise - although I'm yet to identify the best word :eek:
I agree with Gunner.The soft draws do not serve the 'game' well.But this is off- topic.

Axiom
04-08-2008, 09:13 PM
axiom?

do i detect post drift here?

:D
ec- i can disclose to you now , that you were part of a highly classified operation , known to us , as "post relocation" , we thank you for taking part ,
and apologise for any disorientation that may have occurred during the process.


[Disclaimer : any adverse side effects caused by this operation are deemed to be of an inconsequential nature by the federal govt.]

Denis_Jessop
05-08-2008, 05:49 PM
Gentlemen, we have a business to run and tickets to sell. Let us entertain them!

I agree that almost all that we need say on this has been said and I'm sure that each position has its adherents.

I mention, regarding entertainment, that Wolfgang Heidenfeld published a book, simply called "Draw", quite some years ago devoted entirely to entertaining draws. At a quick look, Peter Parr seems to have it listed but Brian Jones doesn't so it may still be in print.

Moreover, one of my favourite games is the bizarre draw between IM (later GM) Duncan Suttles and (GM) Wolfgang Unzicker at the Siegen Olympiad 1970. The game lasted only 25 moves but some strange things happened along the way.

DJ

arosar
05-08-2008, 06:00 PM
You know, you can have a whole conversation with just the word "draw". I read that somewhere.

AR

Kevin Bonham
05-08-2008, 10:03 PM
6/7 drawn last night.

I wonder if the Grand Prix itself has a problem in the way it allocates points. Points are allocated 180, 150, 130, 110, 100 ... 10 and if ties occur the points are shared.

To make it more exciting and discourage draws they could:
* offer a 50 point bonus for outright first
* reduce the gradation at the lower end of the scale (so that instead of tailing off from 70 in tens it might tail off in fives with a minumum of 40.)
* offer an extra 30 points for a score of, say, plus three or better.

Radjabov's description of his win against Cheparinov (the only win of the round):


a game of patzers, playing on the boulevard, with a level less than 2000, completely ridiculous.

[..]

Really, the level of some European junior championship, and I'm not talking about under 16 but under 8! It's very good that there's a rest day tomorrow because this is very strange. It's not like in Mexico where you have a jetlag, it’s not the food, it's strange, we play like amateurs!

The game in question:

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 e6 5. Bg5 h6 6. Bh4 dxc4 7. e4 g5 8. Bg3 b5
9. Ne5 Bb7 10. h4 g4 11. Nxg4 Nbd7 12. Nxf6+ Qxf6 13. Be2 O-O-O 14. e5 Qf5 15.
a4 b4 16. Bxc4 Nc5 17. Ne2 Rg8 18. O-O Be7 19. Qc1 Ne4 20. Ba6 Kb8 21. Bxb7
Kxb7 22. a5 Rc8 23. a6+ Kb8 24. Qxh6 Ng5 25. d5 Rg6 26. Qxg6 Qxg6 27. d6 Bd8
28. hxg5 Bb6 29. Rfd1 Qxg5 30. Rac1 Qg4 31. d7 Rd8 32. Kf1 Kc7 33. Rd6 Rxd7 34.
Rcxc6+ Kd8 35. f3 Qh5 36. Rxb6 Qh1+ 37. Ng1 Rxd6 38. exd6 1-0

MichaelBaron
07-08-2008, 11:34 AM
Can not believe how unlucky Gelfand was against Rajabov yesterday. Feeling sad for Boris :(

Kevin Bonham
07-08-2008, 11:38 PM
Can not believe how unlucky Gelfand was against Rajabov yesterday. Feeling sad for Boris :(

When I went to bed around move 40 Gelfand looked clearly on top, I see that he went astray not too long after. Unlucky indeed after such fine work to shut down black's attack early in the game.

Nice endgame technique in this win by Aronian v Al Modiakhi

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 Nxe4 5.Re1 Nd6 6.Nxe5 Be7 7.Bf1 Nf5 8.c3 0-0 9.d4 Nxe5 10.Rxe5 g6 11.Nd2 d5 12.Nf3 c6 13.Re1 Bd6 14.Bg5 f6 15.Bd2 Ng7 16.Bd3 Be6 17.Bh6 Qd7 18.Nh4 Rae8 19.Qc2 Bf7 20.g3 b6 21.a4 Rxe1+ 22.Rxe1 c5 23.Qd1 Re8 24.Rxe8+ Qxe8 25.Ng2 cxd4 26.cxd4 Ne6 27.Bb5 Qd8 28.Ne3 f5 29.Bc6 Qf6 30.Nxd5 Qxd4 31.Qxd4 Nxd4 32.Nf6+ Kh8 33.Bd5 Bxd5 34.Nxd5 Nb3 35.Nc3 Be5 36.Be3 Kg7 37.Kf1 Kf6 38.Ke2 g5 39.f3 f4 40.gxf4 gxf4 41.Bf2 Bd4 42.Nb5 Bxf2 43.Kxf2 a5 44.Nc7 Ke5 45.Na8 Nc5 46.Nxb6 Nd3+ 47.Ke2 Nxb2 48.h4 Kd6 49.h5 Kc6 50.Nc8 Nxa4 51.Ne7+ Kc5 52.Ng6 Nc3+ 53.Kd3 Nd5 54.Nf8 a4 55.Nxh7 a3 56.Kc2 Kc4 57.Ng5 Ne3+ 58.Kc1 Kb3 59.Ne4 a2 60.Nd2+ Ka3 61.Nb1+ Kb4 62.Kb2 axb1Q+ 63.Kxb1 Nf5 64.Kb2 Nh6 0-1

(I'm rather fond of knight endings and was not at all surprised that this one got converted.)

Standings going into tonight's games: +2 Radjabov Cheparinov +1 Gashimov Aronian -1 Gelfand Karjakin Al Modiakhi -3 Navara = the rest. Aronian-Jakovenko and Ivanchuk-Gashimov already drawn. Gashimov is again doing quite well.

Kevin Bonham
08-08-2008, 09:20 PM
Karjakin beats Al Modiakhi from a pawn down in weird queen ending. This was the only decisive game in the round and the draw rate has been 70%, which even I think is the sort of thing Things Should Be Done About (and I've suggested one - change the point distribution).

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 Nc6 4. Nc3 Na5 5. Nge2 Nxc4 6. dxc4 d6 7. O-O Be7
8. a4 O-O 9. a5 Be6 10. b3 c6 11. f4 exf4 12. Nxf4 Nd7 13. Bb2 Ne5 14. h3
g5 15. Nfe2 g4 16. hxg4 Bxg4 17. Qd4 f6 18. Ng3 Rf7 19. Nd1 Rg7 20. Ne3 Rg6
21. Nxg4 Rxg4 22. Nf5 Bf8 23. Qe3 Qe8 24. Rf4 Rxf4 25. Qxf4 Qh5 26. Rf1 Re8
27. Bd4 a6 28. Qg3+ Qg6 29. Qh3 Nf7 30. Rf4 Ng5 31. Qd3 Re6 32. Ng3 Bh6 33.
Rg4 Bf8 34. Rh4 Be7 35. Bc3 Kf7 36. Kf2 Ke8 37. Kf1 Kd7 38. b4 Ke8 39. b5
Kf7 40. Kg1 Kg8 41. Kh2 Kf7 42. Bd2 Bf8 43. Bc1 Re8 44. Nf5 Kg8 45. bxc6
bxc6 46. c5 Nxe4 47. Rxe4 Qxf5 48. Rxe8 Qh5+ 49. Kg3 Qxe8 50. cxd6 Qe1+ 51.
Kf3 Qxc1 52. d7 Be7 53. d8=Q+ Bxd8 54. Qxd8+ Kg7 55. Qd7+ Kg6 56. Qe8+ Kg7
57. Qd7+ Kg6 58. Qd3+ Kg5 59. Ke2 Qg1 60. Qg3+ Kh6 61. Qf4+ Kg6 62. Qe4+
Kg7 63. Qxc6 Qb1 64. Qd7+ Kg8 65. Qd3 Kg7 66. Qg3+ Kf8 67. Qd6+ Kg7 68. Kd2
Qb5 69. Qc7+ Kg6 70. g3 h5 71. c4 Qb3 72. c5 Qb2+ 73. Kd3 Qb1+ 74. Kd4 Qd1+
75. Kc4 Qe2+ 76. Kd5 Qf3+ 77. Ke6 Qb3+ 78. Kd7 Qd5+ 79. Qd6 Qb7+ 80. Kd8
Qa8+ 81. Kc7 Qa7+ 82. Kc6 Kg5 83. Qc7 Qa8+ 84. Kb6 Kg4 85. c6 Qg8 86. Qb7
Kxg3 87. c7 Qe6+ 88. Ka7 Qe3+ 89. Ka8 1-0

Kevin Bonham
09-08-2008, 12:06 AM
Svidler-Ivanchuk

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.d3 Bc5 5.c3 0-0 6.Bg5 d6 7.Nbd2 h6 8.Bh4 g5 9.Bg3 Nh5 10.Bxc6 bxc6 11.d4 exd4 12.Nxd4 Nxg3 13.hxg3 Qf6 14.N2b3 Bb6 15.Qf3 Qxf3 16.gxf3 Kg7 17.g4 d5 18.Nf5+ Bxf5 19.gxf5 Rfe8 20.Nd2 Rad8 21.Rd1 dxe4 22.fxe4 Rd5 23.Ke2 Rxf5 24.Rh2 Rf4 25.f3 f5 0-1

Garvinator
09-08-2008, 12:12 AM
Apologies for being a bit of a wet blanket, but this occurred to me today after reading articles about the recent bombings in Sochi, site of this Fide GP event.

Back in Morelia/Linares, Radjabov withdrew from the Morelia leg due to a hotel break in.

From the chessbase article related to the break in: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3671


Therefore, I requested reparation for the damages that we have sustained, attributing much of the blame directly on the Morelia/Linares Mexican Organizers for making unsafe and improper safety arrangements in the known, high crime city of Patzcuaro, Mexico. I feel that this is a fair and proper request for the clear mishandling and improper security provided by the organizers of Mexican part of Morelia/Linares chess tournament. My father and I are extremely upset from this horrible incident, and have been clearly given no support at all over the past several days. I have given the Tournament Organizers ample time to consider my request, delivering a letter on the 12th of February, and if necessary given them time to acquire an appropriate replacement as to not significantly disrupt this important tournament.

So, let me understand this. Why has Radjabov not withdrawn from Sochi? Surely a couple of terrorist bombings in the city where the event is being held is a threat to your own safety. Also, Georgia is a known hot spot for bombings, violence and war as can be seen by the latest 'skirmish' with Russia.

I can not help but feel that Radjabov is being a bit selective with his protests.

Kevin Bonham
09-08-2008, 12:50 AM
Probably in the Morelia case, outrage at personally being a victim had a lot to do with his complaints.

However, if I was offered the choice of going to a city with a known high crime rate where my security would be inadequate, and going to a city where a relatively small-fry terrorist attack would occur somewhere during my stay, I'd be inclined to choose the latter.

Aaron Guthrie
09-08-2008, 04:23 AM
So, let me understand this. Why has Radjabov not withdrawn from Sochi? Surely a couple of terrorist bombings in the city where the event is being held is a threat to your own safety. Also, Georgia is a known hot spot for bombings, violence and war as can be seen by the latest 'skirmish' with Russia.

I can not help but feel that Radjabov is being a bit selective with his protests.He complained about the organisers "safety arrangements" and also their handling of the situation.


Therefore, I requested reparation for the damages that we have sustained, attributing much of the blame directly on the Morelia/Linares Mexican Organizers for making unsafe and improper safety arrangements in the known, high crime city of Patzcuaro, Mexico. I feel that this is a fair and proper request for the clear mishandling and improper security provided by the organizers of Mexican part of Morelia/Linares chess tournament. My father and I are extremely upset from this horrible incident, and have been clearly given no support at all over the past several days. I have given the Tournament Organizers ample time to consider my request, delivering a letter on the 12th of February, and if necessary given them time to acquire an appropriate replacement as to not significantly disrupt this important tournament.Emphasis mine. The complaint isn't that the city is high crime, but that given that it is certain security should be provided.

Kevin Bonham
13-08-2008, 12:17 AM
Aronian beats Gelfand in 26 moves after Gelfand blunders:

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Ba6 5.b3 Bb4+ 6.Bd2 Be7 7.Bg2 c6 8.Bc3 d5 9.Ne5 Nfd7 10.Nxd7 Nxd7 11.Nd2 0-0 12.0-0 Rc8 13.e4 c5 14.exd5 exd5 15.dxc5 dxc4 16.cxb6 Nxb6 17.Re1 cxb3 18.Qxb3 Nd7 19.Nf3 Bc4 20.Qb2 Bf6 21.Bxf6 Nxf6 22.Ne5 Bd5 23.Rad1 Qa5 24.Bxd5 Nxd5 25.Nd7 Rfd8 26.Qe5 White wins 1-0

Black knight is pinned to death and black can't take the white knight without getting mated on the back rank, so all over.

I missed last night's fun in which there were five decisive games out of seven.
The surprise co-winners of the first GP, Gashimov and Wang Yue, are both in the lead of this one as well.

MichaelBaron
13-08-2008, 02:47 AM
It was fun to see a King and pawns endgame (Karjakin -Gasymov) played at such a high level

Kevin Bonham
15-08-2008, 12:32 AM
Nice to see some exciting decisive games on the most important boards in the final round.

Karjakin - Radjabov. Spectacular endgame finish, very instructive.

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 0-0 8.Qd2 Nc6 9.Bc4 Bd7 10.0-0-0 Rc8 11.Bb3 Ne5 12.Kb1 a6 13.h4 h5 14.g4 hxg4 15.h5 Nxh5 16.Rdg1 Qa5 17.Bh6 Bf6 18.fxg4 Bxg4 19.Bxf8 Kxf8 20.Qe3 Rxc3 21.Qxc3 Qxc3 22.bxc3 e6 23.Bc4 Nxc4 24.Rxg4 Be5 25.Rg2 b5 26.Rf2 Kg8 27.a4 bxa4 28.Ka2 Nf6 29.Re2 d5 30.exd5 Nxd5 31.Rh3 Bxd4 32.cxd4 Nf4 33.Reh2 Nxh3 34.Rxh3 g5 35.Rg3 f6 36.Rc3 Nd2 37.Rd3 Ne4 38.c4 Kf7 39.c5 g4 40.c6 Ke7 41.d5 exd5 42.c7 Kd7 43.Rxd5+ Kxc7 44.Rf5 g3 45.Rf4 Kd7 46.Kb2 Ke6 47.Rxe4+ Kf5 48.Re1 Kg4 49.Kc2 g2 50.Kd2 Kg3 51.Ke2 a3 52.Ra1 a2 Black wins 0-1

Aronian - Grischuk. Looks like really nice positional play by white and then black folds in time trouble in an already unpleasant position

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e3 e6 5.Nf3 Nbd7 6.Bd3 dxc4 7.Bxc4 b5 8.Bd3 Bb7 9.0-0 b4 10.Ne4 Nxe4 11.Bxe4 Bd6 12.a3 bxa3 13.b3 Nf6 14.Nd2 Qc7 15.Bf3 Bxh2+ 16.Kh1 Bd6 17.Nc4 Be7 18.Bxa3 0-0 19.Bc5 Rfd8 20.b4 Bxc5 21.bxc5 a5 22.Re1 Ba6 23.Nb6 Rab8 24.Rxa5 Bb5 25.Qa1 Nd5 26.Ra7 Rb7 27.Rxb7 Qxb7 28.Qa5 Qe7 29.Ra1 Qg5 30.Nxd5 exd5 31.Qc7 g6 32.Ra7 Qf6 33.Bg4 Re8 34.Kg1 Kg7 35.Bd7 Re7 36.Qd8 h5 37.Ra8 Kh6 38.Rc8 Kh7 39.Bxc6 Bxc6 40.Rxc6 Qxc6 41.Qxe7 Kg7 42.Kh2 White wins 1-0

Kevin Bonham
15-08-2008, 12:47 AM
Trying to work out if Karjakin-Radjabov was a draw or not after the knight sac (which is still a great move because even if there is a draw against it it requires very accurate play and black was struggling for winning ideas otherwise).

46.Kb2 played by white was losing. The key move is the immediate acceptance of the sac with 46.Rxe4.

I currently have this line: 46...f5 (forced) 47.Re1! now if ...f4 48.Rg1 Ke6 49.Kf2 Kf5 50.Kc3 Ke4 51.Kd2! Kf3 52.Rf1+! Kg4 53.Rg1! draws.

Over to anyone who wants to find a winning improvement for Black.

Capablanca-Fan
15-08-2008, 12:52 AM
Trying to work out if Karjakin-Radjabov was a draw or not after the knight sac (which is still a great move because even if there is a draw against it it requires very accurate play and black was struggling for winning ideas otherwise).

46.Kb2 played by white was losing. The key move is the immediate acceptance of the sac with 46.Rxe4.

I currently have this line: 46...f5 (forced) 47.Re1! now if ...f4 48.Rg1 Ke6 49.Kf2 Kf5 50.Kc3 Ke4 51.Kd2! Kf3 52.Rf1+! Kg4 53.Rg1! draws.

Over to anyone who wants to find a winning improvement for Black.
One doesn't see a positional double exchange sac too often.

MichaelBaron
15-08-2008, 01:11 AM
Yes, Karjakin - Rajabov was facinating :clap:

Kevin Bonham
15-08-2008, 08:27 PM
Remarkably Jakovenko's win over Cheparinov also saw the side with knight for rook saccing the knight to beat the rook with pawns:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 Nxe4 5.d4 Nd6 6.Bxc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 Nf5 8.Qxd8+ Kxd8 9.Nc3 Ne7 10.h3 Ng6 11.Ne4 h6 12.b3 c5 13.Bb2 Be6 14.Nfd2 h5 15.Ng5 Be7 16.Nxe6+ fxe6 17.g3 h4 18.Kg2 Kd7 19.Rae1 Rad8 20.Nf3 Ke8 21.Rd1 a5 22.a4 Rd5 23.c4 Rd8 24.Bc1 Rf8 25.Rfe1 Rf7 26.Rxd8+ Bxd8 27.Re4 hxg3 28.fxg3 Rd7 29.h4 Rd3 30.Re3 Rd7 31.h5 Ne7 32.g4 Nc6 33.g5 Ne7 34.Re2 Nf5 35.Rd2 Rf7 36.Rd3 Rf8 37.Kh3 c6 38.Kg4 Bc7 39.Be3 b6 40.g6 Bd8 41.Bf4 Bc7 42.Nd2 Nh6+ 43.Bxh6 gxh6 44.Rd6 Bxd6 45.exd6 e5 46.Ne4 Rf4+ 47.Kg3 Rf1 48.Kg2 Rf4 49.Nf6+ Rxf6 50.d7+ 1-0

Final scores
8.5 (+4) Aronian
8 Radjabov
7.5 Wang Yue, Kamsky
7 Svidler, Jakovenko, Karjakin
6.5 Ivanchuk, Gashimov
6 Grischuk, Cheparinov
5.5 Gelfand
4 Navara, Al Modiakhi

Current progress in the Grand Prix, sorted by average points per event played and then number of events played:

1. Aronian 180/1
2. Carlsen 153.33/1
3. Wang Yue 273.33/2 (136.67 av)
4. Gashimov 218.33/2 (109.17 av)
5. Radjabov 210/2 (105 av)
6. Mamedyarov 105/1
7. Kamsky 180/2 (90 av)
8. Jakovenko 90/1
9. Svidler 175/2 (87.5 av)
10. Adams 85/1
11. Grischuk and Karjakin 150/2 (75 av)
13. Ivanchuk 65/1
14. Cheparinov 80/2 (40 av)
15. Gelfand 30/1
16. Navara 50/2 (25 av)
17. Inarkiev, Bacrot, Al Modiakhi 15/1

Yet to compete: Leko, Pelletier