The Chess Mind

A few posts ago, I presented the concluding moves of a recent pawn ending, challenging the reader to find the mistakes - if any. When I first saw this ending, I understood everything just about immediately; not because I'm so bright or because of my new but sadly unofficial IM title, but because I've had almost exactly the same ending! So if you want a (big) hint, have a look here.

Apparently I've been promoted: take a look at FM Robert Rowley's chess link page. While you're there, check out his U.S. Open (2003) page - you'll find some good, instructively and honestly annotated games there.

Hat tip: Victor Reppert

P.S. for those who aren't sure: I'm not an IM. Perhaps when I'm playing my best, in positions I know well, that's my strength. Unfortunately, there are other times and other positions, and the overall average isn't good enough - at least not yet.

Sure, draws can be boring, but they don't have to be! Here's a lively draw from the just-completed Essent Tournament. Black sacs a rook in return for loads of activity, and thereafter attack and defense remained in perfect balance for more than 20 moves, culminating in a perpetual check. Have a look, and for fun, you might want to see if you can find something good for White after 9...Bxb4.

Monday is Halloween, and we'll give the day a chessic spin. Normally, our show celebrates the great moments from the past and present of our game, but this week, we'll take a look into the abyss. Opening blunders, chokes, draws agreed in won positions, falling for unethical bluffs - you name it! It's time to put fallen humanity on center stage; a chance to remind ourselves that we're all human - even the best of the best are capable of missing tactics club players can find on a bad day.

So, I hope everyone will join me this Monday night at 9 p.m. ET for some instruction and a lot of amusement. Instructions for watching the show can be found here, while a list of previous shows' games is available here.

Or are there any errors at all? Click here for your starting position and the game's remaining moves. I'll offer a hint in a few days; meanwhile, keep your chess engines off! (Reminder: if you think you have the solution, please do not post it, or make statements that might provide a hint, in the comments section. You're welcome to use the Contact link to confirm your solution privately, however.)

In this post, I presented two positions where the side with a knight was able to achieve a draw against the stronger side's bishop, thanks to the power of the blockade. This time, our task is the opposite. It looks as if the side with the knight has an impenetrable line of defense, but looks can be deceiving.



White to move; (how) can he win?

Some time ago, I offered my readers two knight vs. bishop positions as homework. In both cases, the side with the knight stood worse, but had the opportunity (so I claimed) to draw by constructing a blockade on the squares opposite to that of the bishop. The first position was the easier one (though not easy enough, apparently!), and now it's time for the harder one.

Here is our starting position



and when you're ready for the solution, click here.

The 9th Essent Tournament, the Hoogoveen Open and the Casino de Barcelona Masters all ended this weekend, and were won by Pentala Harikrishna, Vladimir Baklan and, in a tie, Vassily Ivanchuk and Viktor Moskalenko, respectively.

The flurry of events has ceased, but Fear not, withdrawal symptoms will only last one day: the World Team Championships in Beersheva, Israel, starts October 31 and runs through November 11. (I haven't seen a website for the event, so it might be that it doesn't start until November 1 - sometimes tournament notices include the dates for the opening and closing ceremonies. So we might have to suffer a second day of anticipation.)

Life is good (for the chess fan).

Update: Inky writes to confirm that the actual chess starts on November 1, and has provided the link for the tournament website. Thanks!

Lonnie writes, by email:

Dennis, I have made a page with a few chess links on it, and would like to pass on to your viewers of your blog. thanks..... lonnie http://www.dawglist.com/chess.htm

Many of the links are to sites that haven't been updated in a quite a while, and there are some notable omissions (just mentioning blogs, a spot check failed to locate Mig's, the Boylston Chess Club, Susan Polgar's and even the one you're now reading). Still, there are many links there, and readers might well while away a few pleasant minutes in search of hidden treasure.

Here's a game from the SCG First League, played this Monday.

Nikola Djukic-Robert Fontaine

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.O-O Nxe4 5.d4 Nd6 6.Bxc6 dxc6 7.dxe5

Here's a position that has occurred on thousands of occasions, but I don't think any of those games ended the way this one did. The comment in the game file in Chess Today (CT-1816) puts its best:

mobil phone 0-1

Three or four years ago, FIDE made it a rule that if one's cell phone rings during a game, that player is immediately forfeited. It made sense as an anti-cheating maneuver (though I don't know if anyone had been caught cheating in that way prior to the rule's implementation), but so far the rule has only served to forfeit the absent-mindedly innocent. It's a small club, and now Mr. Djukic is its latest member.

So beware, cell phone users. You should turn off your phones during tournaments anyway, from common courtesy, but if that's not reason enough, the prospect of losing serious money should provide the necessary extra motivation.

A worry: it's a cold winter day as some big-money swiss event comes down to the last round. Player 1 is doing well, in the process of winning a game that will ensure him a very nice payday. He gets up to go for a walk, whether to relax, get some water or coffee or for some other legitimate end, and while he's gone, his opponent (player 2) or some confederate slyly slips a disposable cell phone in player 1's coat pocket. Player 1 returns, player 2's confederate rings the phone, and player 2 wins by forfeit, cashes his check and tells no tales.

While that's a bit far-fetched (though not impossible), there are other possibilities. A player could set her cell phone to vibrate rather than ring and have it plugged into a headset without being detected. (For example, start with the earplugs connected to a Walkman or MP3 player, pull them out and stick them into the phone, get your advice, and then plug them back in to the music player.) So a time is probably coming when all electronic equipment will be banned from tournaments (except perhaps phones and beepers belonging to emergency personnel), and it's probably going to be sooner rather than later.

The ChessBase news page has posted a collection of readers' comments on the Kramnik-Topalov situation, and the comments run pretty heavily against Topalov. I guess most of the chess world is as sick as I am of split titles, and wants to see reunification, as long as it's achieved in a timely manner and is followed by a fair procedure for determining future champions.

Speaking of which...

A couple of days ago, I posted a link to the latest modification in the 2005-2007 cycle, and not everyone is happy about it. Click here to see protests from Kamsky and Shirov, and then here for FIDE's reply followed by Kamsky's rejoinder.

It's not likely that a solution exists that will please everyone, but hopefully there's one that will please enough of the players to get - and keep - the show going.

A few days ago I presented a couple of games from the 2nd Samba Cup, then off to a rather sleepy start. Thankfully, the event grew much more competitive and concluded dramatically, with Baadur Jobava defeating Kamil Miton in the last round to leapfrog into first place. You can find the results here, the tournament website through this link, and the Jobava-Miton game by clicking on the last word in this sentence.

That's over, but three noteworthy eventst have taken its place. First, the 9th Essent Tournament in Hoogoveen is at the halfway point, and here are the standings:

Harikrishna 2.5 (out of 3)
I. Sokolov, Sutovsky 1.5
Stefanova .5

The tournament, as you might have guessed, is a double-round robin, and (if I recall correctly) the invitations each year follow the same format: a world champion, a female player, the world junior champion and a Dutch player. Sometimes these requirements are handled liberally: there are no "absolute" world champions here, but three of the four players are or have been world champions of a sort: Antoneta Stefanova is the women's world champion and Pentala Harikrishna is the current world junior champion, while Emil Sutovsky was the 1996 world junior champion. That leaves Ivan Sokolov. He's the highest-rated player in the event, but "only" qualifies as the Dutch entrant.

Next, the king of league events, the Bundesliga, kicked off the 2005-2006 season this past weekend. (Here's the official site.) Because it is spread out over the course of many months, it doesn't receive nearly as much attention in the English language chess press as it deserves, given the number of elite GMs participating, but those following big-time chess should always keep watch for Bundesliga weekends.

Finally, there is the Casino de Barcelona Masters, a 6-player round robin starring the ubiquitous Vassily Ivanchuk. Ivanchuk's last two events were terrible (by his standards), but he's started well here with a win over fellow GM Ruben Felgaer. (I'm including this game too - click here.)

The news for now is essentially the same, but the principals always find new ways to say it.

Here's Kramnik's response to Topalov's "no thanks, you're not in my class" reunification rebuff. Meanwhile, the New York Times has interviewed Topalov, less about reunification and more about his thoughts on Kasparov and his place in chess over the past decade or so. (It also has a funny picture of Topalov posing with his trophy as if it were an extremely large and expensive toothpick.)

Back to title news: FIDE's latest version of the 2005-2007 World Championship cycle is available here.

And that's the news for now...more later as events warrant.

Readers of this blog (and its predecessor) are familiar with my occasional mention of various sorts of unsportsmanlike behavior in chess, generally in the context of internet blitz and bullet. One typical example is for a player in a lost position to not resign or even keep playing until mate, but to simply let his time run out. (My standard reply is in kind: I turn off the autoflag feature. If my opponent wants to waste his time, I'll let him.) I imagine almost all my readers are familiar with that maneuver, but who'da thunk that sort of thing would go on in the stately realm of correspondence chess?

The sad but true answer: Anyone with a realistic view of human nature. Thanks to tonight's Chess Today (CT-1813), I've been apprised that it's a problem in correspondence chess, too, where it's known as the "Dead Man's Defense". Here's the original definition:

"The Dead Man Defense". The idea is that the pace of the game is so abnormally slow that you are hoping your opponent (the victim) dies in the interim. It could be the only way to save the game. Because cc players are generally older, on average, the chance of this actually happening is enhanced by using this defense.

Not only is it used when you are losing the game (or drawing a previously won position) it is also a legal way to be contrary, for no reason at all, other than for the trouble/anxiety it causes your opponent...

Charming!

If you're interested in reading more on this, see the Correspondence Chess Message Board, and then do a search for "DMD" or "Dead Man's Defense" - there are various, unfortunately non-consecutive threads discussing it.

One might think that correspondence players were a more elevated breed, a mannerly collection of chess Platonists searching for truth.

Apparently not.

What, another Boris Gelfand win? No, this week he's the victim, losing to another relatively unnoticed member of the sometimes-2700 club, Alexey Dreev. With White, Dreev likes to play solidly, and likewise when facing 1.e4 - he's a Caro-Kann specialist. Against 1.d4, however, it's as if he becomes a different person: he's a Semi-Slav specialist!

The many-headed Semi-Slav is one of the sharpest variations (really a cluster of variations) in all of chess, and that's just what we get in this week's game, from the 1993 edition of the sadly defunct yearly event in Tilburg. The opening is precisified into the Meran Variation, and Dreev achieved quite a nice position in the early middlegame. What makes the game special is his decision to first sac the exchange (on move 24) and then a piece for two pawns (on move 29 - and quite possibly foreseen at the time of the first sac). Neither sac won outright; they were genuine offers for long-term control, for enduring pressure.

While it takes both imagination and guts to make sacrifices of that sort, it's easier, once the sac has been made, to be on the aggressor's side. It's difficult both from a purely chess standpoint and especially from the psychological perspective to defend against an opponent's long-term initiative. Gelfand is a gifted defender of such positions in the Najdorf (see last week's show; see also his games this year with Radjabov and Nakamura), but on this occasion he wasn't up to the job, and Dreev brought home the full point on move 44.

With a sharp opening, long-term sacrifices and aggressive positional play, there's something of instructional and entertainment value for virtually all chess fans! I hope, therefore, to see all my readers this Monday night at 9 p.m. ET. (Let's set a non-April Fool's show record!)

The link with instructions for watching live or archived shows is here, while a list of games covered in previous shows can be found here.

N.B. The shows for the last four weeks have not been posted by ChessBase. I'm not sure why this is, but they've been apprised and will remedy the situation soon. (I hope.) Give them a little more time: they've recently changed servers, are releasing Fritz 9 and some of them were in San Luis. If it's not up by the end of the month, I'd suggest writing them via their feedback form.

Current record: 5-2
Five down, four to go.

Next victim: Tennessee (in two weeks)

...are available here. Does Topalov really believe he's in a different class than Kramnik? If we had nothing to go on but 2005, then okay, but unless the 30-year old Kramnik is in his death throes, then the 30-year old Topalov is speaking out of his euphoria.

There's more I'm inclined to say, but I'll report only my strong impression that Topalov has no desire to risk his title. He'll defend it when he needs to, but I suspect that even if Kramnik were 60 points higher - as has been the case for most of their careers - he'd find a different reason to avoid a title match.

So, given Topalov's statement(s), the immediate prospects for reunification are just over, unless (1) FIDE President Kirsan Iljumzhinov forces it, or (2) the players' ratings even up and public pressure makes Topalov's stand impossible to maintain.

Another opportunity for the chess world has been lost; on now to other topics.

In A Setback for Reunification, I noted (with dismay) FIDE World Champion Veselin Topalov's abrupt declaration of a lack of interest in reunification (especially abrupt, considering that Silvio Danailov, his manager, had expresed just such an interest several days before); today, we have news of Classical World Champion Vladimir Kramnik's view on the matter: he's for it. Here's the upshot as presented in tonight's issue (CT-1810) of Chess Today, drawn from an interview with Kramnik in Rodnaya Gazeta (via Russian news sites):

Kramnik considers himself to be the legitimate Classical World Champion, and challenges Veselin Topalov to a match. In the opinion of Kramnik, the unification of the chess world now depends on FIDE and Topalov: they should give agreement for the unification match.

No surprise there, but whether this forthright, public declaration will any impact on Topalov remains to be seen. Interestingly, it is not only the principals who have weighed in; we also have comments from the two charters members of the (informal) Committee to Impeach Kramnik: Alexei Shirov and Garry Kasparov. Here's Shirov, from a brand new interview:

[Q:] Does Kramnik, in your opinion, have moral or juridical rights to challenge Topalov?

[Shirov:] Not a bit. It is sufficient to recall the year 1998.

Equally shocking, Kasparov (at least as reported by Mig), thinks Topalov shouldn't bother with Kramnik, either.

Shirov's gripe is entirely understandable: in 1997, he defeated Kramnik in a match for the right to play Kasparov for the title. Kramnik got paid for losing, while Shirov's big payday was to come from the title match. That match was supposed to occur in 1998, but it fell through and Shirov earned $0. If that's not bad enough, Kasparov decided, in 2000, to give Kramnik a shot at the title. Kramnik accepted, they played, and Kramnik won. (And, needless to say, was paid well for the experience.)

Kasparov's comment is another story. For years, he denounced FIDE and ridiculed their championships. He claimed his title was the genuine one, the true continuation of the line from Steinitz. He didn't believe he had forfeited this during the five years he failed to defend the title - even in 1998, when his results were rather mediocre. Further, he generally maintained, post-2000, that Kramnik was the (or at worst, a) true title-holder as well.

Before his match with Kramnik, Kasparov explicitly waived any right to a rematch; almost immediately after losing, however, he placed heavy pressure on Kramnik to offer the rematch he had willingly foregone. Kramnik did not comply, plumping, reasonably enough, for a qualification cycle. (This was won in mid-2002 by Peter Leko, who defeated Topalov in the final.)

Kasparov bypassed the qualifier, but found another way. In early 2002, all the relevant parties signed the Prague Agreement, according to which Kasparov was supposed to play then-FIDE champion Ruslan Ponomariov, Kramnik play official challenger Peter Leko, and then the winners of those matches play each other. Unfortunately, the match with Ponomariov fell through, but Kasparov's status as challenger-in-waiting was maintained through last year and early this year, and he was still supposed to play Rustam Kasimjanov - with the winner to play Kramnik (who retained his title by narrowly drawing the match with Leko). The Kasimjanov match wasn't coming off either, and between his frustrations and his political interests, Kasparov decided he had had enough and retired from the game.

Thus Kasparov, like Shirov, feels some resentment towards Kramnik, but Kasparov has far less of a leg to stand on. Shirov was deprived of what was rightfully his and was done a severe economic injustice (though Kramnik was the beneficiary of that injustice, not its perpetrator); Kasparov, on the other hand, was not treated unjustly: he wasn't entitled to a rematch, and he didn't get one.

But like his great predecessor, Kramnik too has the ability to shoot himself in the foot. Around the time of the Kasimjanov era, prior to Kasparov's retirement, Kramnik pronounced the Prague Agreement dead. His official reason was a concern for the future of the unified title: he wanted to make sure that a reasonable cycle would be in place rather than a continued series of knockout events. The more cynical interpretation was that this was a pretext: Kramnik took the first available opportunity to block a possible rematch with Kasparov, and since Ponomariov-Kasparov had fallen through, he could report that FIDE hadn't held up its part of Prague, so neither would he.

At that point, I was sympathetic to Kramnik's arguments, but then most of my sympathy left when he produced this statement in a recent (September 2005) interview

The Prague agreements enabled me to play against the FIDE champion. I am ready to fulfil this agreement and play for the absolute world title against the winner of San Luis. I hope that the other side will carry fulfil [sic] the agreement as well.

What?! Prague is dead when it's Kasimjanov-Kasparov instead of Ponomariov-Kasparov, but once Kasparov is out of the picture it's alive? Nice. Add to this the Danailov-Topalov about-face from this past week, and it's tempting to wish a pox on the whole lot of them. Even so, I believe that reunification is the best thing for chess, both for the fans and the good of the profession.

Is there enough good sense and delayed self-interest to make it happen?

A few days ago, I offered two knight vs. bishop endings for the readers' endgame practice. In both cases, the knight side has the worst of it but, with best play, can save the game by constructing an imbreachable blockade. The first position is easier, so I'll present the answer to that one now, allowing those needing a little help with the second a bit more time and perhaps a clearer idea of what a solution might look like.



There's the problem (again, White to move and draw), and when you're ready to check your analysis or to see what I've produced, click here.

A few days ago Silvio Danailov, Topalov’s long-time manager, stated that Topalov would be happy to play Kramnik – and the clear sense was that it would be for the world championship.

It’s also clear that Topalov recognized and valued Kramnik’s title, as Topalov participated in the Dortmund qualifier in 2002, making it to the finals before losing a tough match to Leko. Note, by the way, that Kramnik’s own path to the title was a direct one: he didn’t have to qualify before facing Kasparov, whose rating was 79 points higher going in.

Now to the present. Topalov asks why Kramnik should get a title shot (against him) when he’s only #7 on the rating list and 60 points lower-rated, especially when he could have played in San Luis?

Well, how about an obvious answer: Kramnik is also a legitimate world champion, and this event would unify the titles, make chess fans happy, increase the prestige of the championship title by eliminating the factions, and give both players a nice payday?

Against the #7 objection: Kramnik would have played a reunification match against Kasimjanov if he had won, despite the latter’s status as the world’s #35 player.

Against the 60-points-lower objection, there have been and could have been many matches with gaps of equal to greater size. For example:

Kramnik (2770) vs. Kasparov (2849) in 2000.
Topalov (2745) against Kramnik (2807) (had the former qualified in 2002).
Kasimjanov (2670) against Kramnik (2743) (had Kasimjanov won in San Luis).
Spassky (2690) against Fischer (2785) in 1972 (fortunately, Spassky was the champion and didn’t have a choice).

Finally, it’s true that Kramnik would get his shot without qualifying, but so what? Topalov isn’t qualifying to play Kramnik, either, and Topalov didn’t worry about that sort of argument in 2002, when it could have undermined the value of Kramnik’s title.

In the 2005/5 issue of New in Chess Magazine, Topalov proclaimed “I am not afraid to lose. This makes the difference between me and the others” (p. 27). Maybe that was true at the time, but I worry that he has caught the world champions’ disease; like revolutionaries, their openness to risk and opposition to injustice magically disappears once they have left the ranks of the persecuted and joined the privileged class.

My suspicion is that the real motivation is their head-to-head score. Kramnik’s record against Topalov is a dominant +19 -9 =34, and even this year - Topalov’s best and Kramnik’s worst - they have split their games with two wins and two draws apiece.

Maybe I'm wrong. I hope I am, and further hope that Topalov changes his mind. If he doesn't, it's a loss for the chess world and, in my opinion, a real blow to his reputation for fearlessness.

[Hat tip: Brian Karen]

This strong event is taking place in Skanderborg, Denmark, and after five of nine rounds, young Russian GM Artyom Timofeev leads with 3.5 points. (Surprisingly, the two highest rated players, Vassily Ivanchuk and Liviu-Dieter Nisipeanu, are in next-to-last and last places, respectively.)

The tournament has been plagued by a high percentage of short draws, but several interesting games have been played - two of which can be replayed here. In the first game, Timofeev executes an impressive, sustained kingside attack against Nisipeanu, while the second will be of special interest to readers of this blog. In several earlier posts (see 1, 2 and 3), I considered what looked to me an dangerous but ultimately unsatisfactory idea from the game Jobava-Ivanchuk (played in the Capablanca Memorial in Havana back in May of this year. To my surprise, Jobava chose a near-relative of this line against Magnus Carlsen; rather less surprisingly, he lost. Can he repair the variation, or is it time for him to give it up?

According to the traditional reckoning, knights and bishops are equivalent: both are worth about three pawns, as beginners' books have taught us since the dawn of civilization. This oversimplification is useful when we take our first steps, but with a little experience under our belts, we quickly learn that reality is more complicated. Knights and bishops operate very differently, and depending on the circumstances, the value of one may greatly exceed the value of the other.

Elaborating those different circumstances is a book-length project, and as two such works already exist (Steve Mayer's Bishop vs. Knight: The Verdict, and Jan Timman's recent Power Chess with Pieces), I'll leave further exploration up to my readers. Instead, we'll have a look at one particular theme: the knight as blockader against a bishop and pawns all on the same color squares. (You might think of it as an opposite-colored bishop ending, but with a knight.)

Those hoping for a lecture will have to wait; this lesson begins with the reader. Your homework is to examine the following positions - it's White to move in both cases - and attempt to prove a draw. The first is fairly easy and the second a bit tougher, but in the end, they come to just about the same thing.





Solutions will be given in a few days.

(A reminder: Please, for the benefit of other readers, do not leave comments with analysis or hints to the solution. If you are excited about your discoveries and want to let me know, you are welcome to do so - but please write via the "Contact" link. Also, though it should go without saying, using chess engines to discover the solution is counterproductive in the extreme!)

When I was a kid, I enjoyed thumbing through the Guinness Book of World Records. Like many, I was fascinated by the extremes of human existence and performance, and while I haven't given that work more than a cursory glance in nearly three decades, that curiosity hasn't entirely left me - especially not in the realm of chess. (For an extreme confirmation, take a look at this post from my earlier blog.)

Here, then, are two recent games: one very short, the other quite long, and both instructive. The first, the short one, shows that even very strong players - IMs and GMs - are not immune to getting miniaturized, while the second highlights the value of simple solutions.

Click here.

Click here to read an interview with Topalov's manager and trainer, Silvio Danailov. So far, reunification prospects are looking good; let's hope some official rumblings turn these promising soundbites into something concrete, and soon.

Danailov talks a little trash ("I can hardly imagine Kramnik getting +2 in San Luis, had he participated in the tournament"), but for those who are curious, their career is pretty heavily in Kramnik's favor: +19 -9 =34 (and even this year, Topalov's best and possibly Kramnik's worst, their score has been +2 -2 =2).

Among those players narrowly missing out on the FIDE World Championships was Israeli grandmaster Boris Gelfand. He isn't as prominent as he was in the mid-90s, but he's still near the top (number 13 in the world; number 12 if one excludes Kasparov) and a very attractive player. He works hard, plays sharp openings and loves complicated positions - what more could a fan want?

So I'll assume his relative lack of prominence as a fan favorite is an exposure problem, and will strive to remedy the problem with this week's game, from the 1995 Dos Hermanas tournament. Gelfand essayed the Najdorf against Alexei Shirov, who utilized the old main line with 6.Bg5 and followed it up with a quick Nd5 piece sacrifice. A razor-sharp middlegame turned into a razor-sharp endgame, but Gelfand's (more) accurate play, culminating in study-like finish, eventually brought him the full point.

It's an amazing game - a tactical feast - one so rich we could easily take two shows to cover it properly (and depending on how things pace, we just might take that second show)! I hope my readers will join me on the playchess server this Monday night at 9 p.m. ET; for directions on accessing the show live (or this or my past shows in the archives), click here; for a list of games covered in previous shows, click here.

P.S. For my review of Gelfand's recent work My Most Memorable Games, click here.

Another tidbit from the Sofia News Agency: Veselin Topalov will give himself a well-deserved break from tournament chess and will not participate in the World Cup championship. Instead of participating in that event, scheduled for Khanty-Mansiysk, Russia from November 26 through December 18, Topalov may choose to write a book. I for one would greatly enjoy such a book, especially as the Topalov games I'm most familiar with are his losses (see this post from my previous blog) - he has contributed to some of the greatest games of all time as a sort of professional Kieseritzky.

@#$%^^!!!

Record to date: 4-2

Next Victim: BYU

New FIDE World Champion Veselin Topalov didn't make Garry Kasparov retire, but Topalov's victory against Kasparov was the latter's last game as a professional to date. Ironically, there's at least a chance that a game with Topalov might end the retirement of one of Kasparov's great predecessors - the 11th World Champion. According to this item from the Sofia (Bulgaria) News Agency, you-know-who is interested in playing the champion of San Luis; not in traditional chess but in Chess960.

Will it happen? It's almost certain that it won't, but it's not impossible. (The 1992 match with Boris Spassky happened in Sveti Stefan, after all.)

Another question of interest is whether it's desirable. Chess would get a lot of publicity - and some of it might even be good. On the other hand, I fear that Topalov's expenditure of time and energy on negotiating, preparing for and playing the match may do serious harm to the incredible level he has attained, just as, in my opinion, Kramnik's computer match helped destroy his peak form and Kasparov's activities with the GMA, PCA and the rest often had an adverse effect on his play.

Hat tip: Brian Karen

And now it's official: Veselin Topalov of Bulgaria is the new FIDE World Chess Champion, and deservedly so! After many years as a top player but not one of the absolute best, he has completely broken through. His 2004 was a real success, and he has been by far the dominant figure in chess in 2005. Let's hope he continues to play this same, aggressive brand of chess now that he's champion.

That said, there was nothing aggressive about his last-round game, with Judit Polgar, but under the circumstances there was no reason to fish: a quick draw suited both players, and that's just what happened.

A little more surprising, but only a little more, was the last round draw between good friends Peter Svidler and Viswanathan Anand. Something more was at stake here: the second-place finisher is automatically seeded into the quarter-finals of the next cycle's elimination matches. Svidler, as far as I've been able to tell, trailed Anand on tiebreaks, so he had some motivation to make something happen with the White pieces. Whatever his pre-game ambitions, Anand's Petroff was a complete success, Svidler got nothing, and the game wound up a quick draw. Anand and Svidler split 2nd-3rd place money, and as Svidler qualifies into the eighth-finals of the aforementioned event anyway, third place is no failure.

I expected tame draws from the other players as well, given the minimal remaining competitive and financial incentives, but I was wrong! Leko gradually outplayed outgoing FIDE champion Kasimjanov, while Adams' last chance to win a game fell through, as Morozevich's dogged defense saved a draw.

Final Standings:

Topalov 10
Anand, Svidler 8.5
Morozevich 7
Leko 6.5
Adams, Kasimjanov 5.5
Polgar 4.5

UPDATE: THE ANALYSIS IS UP! Click here.

We have a champion!

At one point, about 2.5-3 hours into the round, it looked like Topalov might be in trouble: Anand offered a sac that looked promising at first glance, while Topalov's position looked critical against Kasimjanov. As it turned out, Anand's sac was only good for a draw, while a combination of Kasimjanov's inaccuracy combined with a brilliant counterattacking idea by Topalov turned the tables, leaving the defending, outgoing champion needing to hold the game. He did, but that game, together with Anand's draw, clinched the title for Topalov. (Svidler also drew, but once Topalov drew Svidler's results were irrelevant to the first-place battle - in case of a tie, Topalov wins without a playoff, based on their head-to-head score.)

The other two games were drawn quickly: Polgar-Svidler went straight to an endgame, and although Polgar had a nominal edge, the draw was rapidly agreed. Adams-Leko was even less inspiring, but understandably so, as the players' ambitions in this event were dampened long ago.

So here are our quasi-final standings (they're not the final standings because there's one round to go, but as the event has been decided and four quick handshakes tomorrow are likely, it's as good as done):

Topalov 9.5 (out of 13)
Anand, Svidler 8
Morozevich 6.5
Kasimjanov, Leko 5.5
Adams 5
Polgar 4

Pairings for Round 14

Topalov-Polgar
Svidler-Anand
Morozevich-Adams
Leko-Kasimjanov

Predictions:

Draw, draw, draw and draw. All in less than three hours.

Non-analytical update: Svidler wins second on tiebreak if he draws tomorrow vs. Anand. (Hat tip: Brian Karen)

UPDATE: ANALYSIS IS POSTED! Click here.

It's a standard rule in chess that a player can claim a draw when a position has occurred three times with the same player to move each time. That is to say: if you take a picture of the board on three different occasions, with intervening moves separating any two pictures, and it's the same player to move each time, then either player can unilaterally declare the game drawn. (Note: if it's your move and the move you intend to play will generate the repetition and you want to claim it, make the move on the board, claim the draw, but don't hit your clock - once you do that, the other player might zip out a move that breaks the repetition, and it will be too late.)

In tournament chess, such a claim might be disputed, but in online games, it's very easy: one clicks on the "draw" button, and if the claim is valid, the program immediately stops the game and declares it drawn. Note that the software won't do this automatically: that's the player's job. If two people are in a silly mood, they can repeat the position thousands of times, and the game will go on.

With that background in mind, have a look at the following position:



White is WIM Vera Nebolsina, Black is IM Yury Lapshun, and this is from a 3-minute game played on the ICC last night. (Hat tip: Brian Karen)

It's Black to move, and White's 48 seconds and Black's 1:39 give the players more than enough time to figure out this position. Black's weak back rank spells doom unless he can muster a perpetual check, and it turns out one is ready to hand:

34...Qd6+ 35.Kh1 Qd1+ 36.Kh2 Qd6+

Okay, we've been here before. That's the first repetition; the second time the position has occurred.

37.Kh1 Qd1+

That's one rep and two appearances for this one.

38.Kh2

and now Black can simply play

38...Qd6+

click on the draw button, and the game ends. Or White can do it - it doesn't matter. But for some unknown reason, the players decided they hadn't yet had enough of the game, so on we go!

39.Kh1 Qd1+ 40.Kh2 Qd6+

Draw? What's that?

41.Kh1 Qd1+ 42.Kh2 Qd6+

Pretty stupid, right? The times are now :41 for White, 1:29 for Black - still plenty of time. White can only break the perpetual by throwing away her rook, and Black can only vary at the cost of an immediate loss. Of course, White has a 48 second time deficit, so one would think she would have the extra motivation to get it over with. But hey - she doesn't care, he doesn't care, and White probably figured she could make at least another 100 moves or so before needing to force the draw. So why stop now? - let's continue!

43.Kh1 Qd1+ 44.Kh2 Qd7 45.Kh1

Notice anything different? White didn't.

45...Qxf7

Black did. Whoops!

0-1

Draw your own morals.

Yes, it's true: there are other tournaments!

First, one major event just finished, the Karabakh International. Here are the final standings of the Category 17 A group:

Levon Aronian 6 (out of 9)
Ashot Anastasian, Hikaru Nakamura 5.5
Ivan Sokolov 5
Karen Asrian, Victor Bologan (!), Vassily Ivanchuk (!!), and Bartlomiej Macieja 4
Alexey Dreev, Bu Xiangzhi 3.5

(Note: Bu Xiangzhi dropped out with three rounds to play because of a family emergency.)

A very impressive result for Aronian, and a very disappointing result from Ivanchuk, who never seeemed to really recover from his first round [pick your favorite euphemism] (click here and here for a reminder).

Second, the World Senior Championship finished this past Monday and was won by Bulgarian GM Liuben Spassov on tiebreaks ahead of Czech GM Vlastimil Jansa. Bulgaria isn't typically thought of as a chess superpower, but unless Topalov chokes badly the next two days, that country will have the (FIDE) World Champion, the Women's World Champion (Antoaneta Stefanova) and the World Senior Champion. Impressive!

Now, to forthcoming events:

The Corus tournament in Wijk aan Zee features a star-studded field, as usual. The event will take place from January 13-29, 2006, and the A group consists of the following players:

Viswanathan Anand IND 2788
Veselin Topalov BUL 2782
Peter Leko HUN 2751
Vassily Ivanchuk UKR 2748
Vladimir Kramnik RUS 2739
Etienne Bacrot FRA 2725
Levon Aronian ARM 2724
Michael Adams ENG 2718
Boris Gelfand ISR 2717
Sergey Tiviakov NED 2700
Ivan Sokolov NED 2696
Gata Kamsky USA 2690
Sergey Karjakin UKR 2658
Loek van Wely NED 2648

The only obvious omission here is Peter Svidler (especially if he finishes first or second in San Luis), and several of the inclusions are noteworthy:

First: it will be important for the prospects of reunification to see how Kramnik does: a strong result should help it along.

Second: a successful performance by Ivanchuk will leave the chess world wondering what might have been, had he not narrowly missed out on San Luis.

Third: Kamsky's entry will be eagerly watched by many, especially in the U.S., as this will be the former world championship finalist's first round-robin event in about a decade.

Fourth, fifth and sixth: I'm glad to see Gelfand getting another crack at the top dogs, and I'm curious as to how Aronian and Karjakin will do in their first appearance in the Wijk A-group.

Linares follows a couple of weeks afterwards, and you can find a tentative, semi-gossipy list of participants here (below the Corus news).

Right here. It's a neat short film, dramatizing a famous historic game. (I won't say which one, although it's very easy to figure it out if you don't already know.) Take a look and submit the feedback form at the bottom of the linked page - you might win an autographed copy of Kasparov's My Great Predecessors. (Which volume isn't specified - maybe all of them?! Volume IV would be my guess, but it's only a guess.) Not bad for five minutes' recreation!

In round 9, Anand offered an unnecessary but enterprising piece sacrifice against Topalov, and then, to the surprise and disappointment of many, quickly forced a repetition. By doing so, he pretty much guaranteed that he would not catch Topalov (a tough task in any case, but a lead-pipe cinch after the draw). So what's the story? Was my claim that Anand didn't really want to be world champion fair, or was it based on a misjudgement about the situation and the position?

I didn't catch Seirawan's commentary on playchess.com that day (though I did for several other rounds, and it was excellent!), but the reports were that he was rather critical of Anand as well. And here's an excerpt from an interview with the 2663-rated Alexander Moiseenko:

AM: If Topalov were in Anand’s shoes, he would not even consider the perpetual check (16.Qf3 Kg7 17.Qg3+) – he would surely continue the attack even if it was risky.

MS [Misha Savinov, the interviewer]: And would Moiseenko keep on playing? Or does it depend on the situation?

AM: I would surely play 16.Qd3. What’s the point of the perpetual check? One has to fight! In a team event I would draw without thinking, of course. And in an individual tournament one should play on.

One may also wish to consult with the horse's mouth - or rather, the horses' mouths: videos of the Anand & Topalov post-game press conferences are available through the current (round 12) report on the ChessBase site. (Fluent Spanish speakers willing to take the time to translate are invited to mail them to me (in whole or in (relevant) part), here.)

On the verge...

Topalov-Svidler was drawn, with Topalov making dead sure that nothing interesting could possibly happen. A wise strategy, leaving 1.5 points ahead of Svidler with just two rounds to go. With Black against Kasimjanov next round and White with Polgar in the finale, it's hard to see Topalov not scoring (at least) 1 out of 2 and gaining the title.

But it's not impossible, and Anand brought himself back within a point and a half with a second consecutive win, this time at Leko's expense. Anand played the Petroff, presumably amenable to a draw, but Leko produced a novelty on move 17 that enlivened the position. Anand rose to the occasion, Leko got nothing, and by move 27 was clearly worse and lost by move 31. A bad day for Leko, but the occasion for renewed hopes for Anand, who might be kicking himself for the quick draw with Topalov in round 9.

In the other games, Kasimjanov won a pawn against Adams but was unable to convert; ditto for Morozevich against Polgar. Both games were drawn.

Standings after Round 12:

Topalov 9
Anand, Svidler 7.5
Morozevich 6
Kasimjanov, Leko 5
Adams 4.5
Polgar 3.5

Pairings for Round 13 (On Thursday):

Kasimjanov-Topalov
Anand-Morozevich
Polgar-Svidler
Adams-Leko

Predictions:

Unless Kasimjanov has a nuclear bomb of a novelty up his sleeve, I think Topalov will find his way to the draw once again, leaving him just a draw (with White against the tournament tailender) away from the title. And he'll need these half points, as I think Anand and Svidler will beat their respective opponents. Finally, I think Adams and Leko will euthanasize their tournaments and agree to a draw.

ANALYSIS UP: Click here.

Creeping closer...

This is true of Topalov, who with a somewhat scary draw against the winless Adams moves a little closer to the title, but it's also true of Svidler and Anand, both of whom gained half a point on the leader with wins in their respective games.

Adams essayed a sharp pawn sac line against Topalov's Scheveningen Sicilian, and what looked like a careless move by the soon-to-be world champ left him in a precarious position. Strong defense held the game, however, and in the end it might justly be said that it was Adams who had to force the draw.

Svidler finally gained some ground, stopping the tournament's currently hottest player. Svidler started with an edge, and best of all, it was in the sort of position where he could bother his opponent indefinitely without risk. He did, and while he might have won more quickly, the important thing is that he did get the victory.

Anand gained ground, too, exploiting what looked like Kasimjanov's lack of familiarity with Anand's 13.Na5. This would have been understandable if the move had been a novelty, but it had been played in the important game Bologan-Gelfand earlier this year. Whatever the true story, Kasimjanov didn't find the solution and was lost in a hurry.

Finally, Polgar-Leko was a dull draw from the get-go, foreordained by the variation of the Caro-Kann chosen by the players.

Standings after Round 11:

Topalov 8.5
Svidler 7
Anand 6.5
Morozevich 5.5
Leko 5
Kasimjanov 4.5
Adams 4
Polgar 3

Pairings for Round 12:

Topalov-Svidler
Leko-Anand
Morozevich-Polgar
Kasimjanov-Adams

Predictions:

This is it: the end of the line. If Svidler wins, it's total chaos with two rounds to go; if he loses, Topalov clinches at least a tie for first (Anand would have to win out and Topalov lose his last two for a tie to result); finally, a draw almost surely guarantees the title as well. As motivated as I'm sure Svidler is, though, it's hard to see Topalov losing with White. So if Svidler tries something lively - and he should - I expect Topalov to rise to the occasion and win.

Anand needs a win, but doing so with Black against Leko is a tall order, so I'll predict a draw.

Morozevich's streak has come to an end, but I don't know what it means. Is it time for him to start tanking again, or was it just a blip? For me, it's a toss-up - between a Morozevich win and a draw. I'll opt for the former.

Finally, I think Kasimjanov and Adams will find a draw agreeable - expect an early handshake.

UPDATE: MY ANALYSIS IS UP: Click here.

So close...

Topalov-Morozevich was a fighting game, as expected, and also as expected, Topalov gained a decisive advantage. Morozevich kept causing trouble, though, and just eked out a dramatic draw.

The outcome of the event is not in any doubt, however, especially as none of Topalov's closest pursuers gained any ground. Svidler was worse before achieving a draw against Leko, and Adams-Anand was a quick draw between two players who seem to want to get the event over with.

Finally, Kasimjanov had such an overwhelming advantage against Polgar that even two consecutive blunders weren't enough to prevent him from winning. Kasimjanov is out of the race for first, but his continued fighting spirit is impressive; as for Polgar, the sooner this event is over and forgotten, the better.

Standings after Round 10:

Topalov 8
Svidler 6
Anand, Morozevich 5.5
Kasimjanov, Leko 4.5
Adams 3.5
Polgar 2.5

Pairings for Round 11:

Adams-Topalov
Anand-Kasimjanov
Polgar-Leko
Svidler-Morozevich

Prediction: Four draws. Adams will be happy for a draw, and with White against a player who wins the title by drawing out, I don't think Topalov will have any big objections. Anand might push for a win if Kasimjanov falls into some preparation, but otherwise, I think end-of-tournament inertia will take over. Polgar will use the White pieces to take a breather, while Svidler's White pieces will neutralize Morozevich's good form.

UPDATE: MY ANALYSIS IS UP: Click here.

The Kasparov-Short match was the most lopsided world championship match of the post-WW II era (12.5-7.5), but that score belies just how hard-fought it really was. Short had serious opening problems with Black, but with White he had Kasparov on the run in almost every game. With a small break or two for Short early in the match, it could have been a real battle.

The outcome notwithstanding, the match produced a large number of extraordinarily complicated games, and in this week's show we'll look at one of the craziest, the eighth game of the match. Short essayed 6.Bc4 against Kasparov's Najdorf, and mayhem ensued as short sacrificed first a piece and then a further exchange. The game wasn't perfect, but both sides performed brilliantly - Short in attack, Kasparov in defense - and it wound up a hard-fought, well-deserved draw.

If that's not enough to whet your appetite, then have a look - you can replay the game here. If you want to see what in the world is going on (at least as far as I can figure it out!), join me this Monday night at 9 p.m. ET. It will be a great show and a reminder, lest we start to forget, that giants walked the Earth before Topalov, too.

Instructions for watching the show (live, preferably, but afterwards in the archives, if need be) can be found here, while a list of games covered in past shows can be found here.

In 1993, I played in the Southern California Championship, and going into the last round, I was half a point behind my opponent. Our ratings were similar, but he had White and was having a great tournament (he won up twice), while I had played down every round and was in just my second event in five years. So when my opponent offered me a draw in the opening - an opening position I felt was slightly worse and much more in his bailiwick than my own - I accepted.

I felt like a bit of a wuss, but money was tight and I thought choosing the bird in the hand was the right decision. Even so, I'll never forget IM David Strauss telling me, afterwards, "I guess you don't really want to be the champion."

Turning to the big game of the day, Topalov played provocatively with Black, and Anand responded with a piece sac. White only had one pawn for the piece and a choice: take a draw by repetition and kiss any chance of winning the tournament goodbye, or take a risk on reasonable but admittedly speculative attacking prospects.

What should Anand do?

He has White, isn't rusty or playing badly, has all the money any normal person could want, and a lively position that, as far as the GMs and computers were concerned, admitted the possibility of all three results. The point of this event is to win the world championship, but rather than take the last real chance to derail the Topalov express - certainly his last chance at the title - Anand decided to cash his chips, take the draw, and close up shop for the year.

Taking the draw was probably the objectively correct thing to do (but then why did Anand head for the sac in the first place? It could have been safely avoided), but unless the ensuing position was practically a forced loss, Anand should have fought on. What does it mean for his legacy if he concludes 2005 rated 2780 rather than 2785, or if he finishes this event in fourth rather than third or even a distant second? Chess historians remember who lost world championship events; chess fans remember the winners.

The bottom line: Anand doesn't really want to be the world champion.

An even more bloodless game was Polgar-Adams, but in this case it was understandable, given their position at the bottom of the crosstable. In the 1960s, Boris Spassky demonstrated that the Marshall Gambit was a potent drawing weapon (see here and here), which is why many players (including most especially Kasparov) avoid the Marshall with 8.a4, 8.h3, 8.d4 or accept it but avoid the old main line. Not today: Polgar went straight down the old mill stream, the current flowed where it always does, and the players agreed to a draw.

In the second most important game of the day, Svidler went for blood against Kasimjanov and for a while, it looked like he'd succeed in catching his prey. I fear that the drawn result and the game's relative unimportance will obscure its value, but I strongly encourage my readers to take a close look at the game from move 24 on. Kasimjanov set the board on fire there, and concluded the game with an absolutely brilliant perpetual check idea. Really fantastic chess, but the bad news for Svidler is that he's not gaining any ground on Topalov - he remains two points behind.

"Oh yes, they call him the streak"

This 1970s novelty song by Ray Stevens can be applied to Alexander Morozevich, albeit (thankfully) in a different way than Mr. Stevens had in mind. After 6 rounds, Morozevich was -2 and tied for last, 3.5 points behind Topalov. Bad streaky. After today's (slightly lucky) win over Leko, Morozevich has won three in a row and has pulled within half a point of second place. Good streaky! Topalov is up next, and a now in-form Morozevich probably represents the last chance for a bump in the Bulgarian's road to the title.

It's probably too late, but at least Morozevich wants to be the champion.

Standings after Round 9:

Topalov 7.5
Svidler 5.5
Anand, Morozevich 5
Leko 4
Kasimjanov 3.5
Adams 3
Polgar 2.5

Pairings for Round 10:

Topalov-Morozevich
Leko-Svidler
Adams-Anand
Kasimjanov-Polgar

Predictions:

Topalov looks like he has switched into draw mode, and even though he has a big lead, it's a dangerous strategy. (I'm reminded of the "prevent" defense in (American) football, of which it is often said, aptly, that it only succeeds in preventing the team with the lead from winning.) Leko and Anand were cooperative enough, but I don't think Morozevich will be - Topalov will be forced to play. Fortunately, I think his great form, together with good preparation and possession of the White pieces will help him bring in the full point.

Svidler has been in good form, while Leko is probably discouraged by his setback with Morozevich. It's hard to see Leko losing with White though, so I'm predicting a draw; likewise, for Adams-Anand. Finally, I think Kasimjanov will hand Polgar another loss.

The games, with my annotations, are available here.

In his round 7 win over Rustam Kasimjanov (apparently, this is now his official name, as far as FIDE is concerned, a change that went into effect yesterday (Friday, for those of you in more westerly time zones)), Veselin Topalov won by slowly grinding his opponent into submission. It was very difficult to see just where Kasimjanov went wrong, but it looks like GM Karsten Müller, co-author of the very fine Fundamental Chess Endings, has done it (in Chess Today, issue 1795).

Before presenting a summary of his analysis, let's take a look at the position before the last move of the game:



The superficially obvious response to the check is 73.Kxg5, but this is a horrible blunder: Black plays 73...Re1 74.Kg6 Rg1+ and it's a trivial Philidor position-type draw, even without the e-pawn.

The right move - the move played - was 73.Kh5!, using Black's g-pawn as an "umbrella", preventing Black from raining checks upon the White king. Black resigned here, as there is no defense to White's plan of Kg6 + R_8+. For instance, 73...Rd4 74.Kg6 Rd8 75.Rh7 Kg8 76.f7+ Kf8 77.Rh8+ Ke7 78.Rxd8 and 79.f8(Q).

Ironically, it's the presence of the Black g-pawn that costs him the game, and so Müller's bright idea was to go back and find a way to lose the pawn and thus save the game! This is the key position:



Kasimjanov played 58...b4? and lost. The particularly assiduous among you are invited to work out an improvement; when you're ready to test your results or just want to see Müller's, click here.

In Ivanchuk Does it Again, we took a brief gander at Vassily Ivanchuk's startling loss on time from a position a club player would find impossible to lose, to say nothing of the number five player in the world. In that post, I offered a conjecture as to how he could allow the loss on time; in this post, I take a look at the position itself, which was in fact a win, and at least two different ways. Alas!

The big shindig in San Luis isn't the only world championship event, or even the only world championship at the moment. After 8 rounds of 11, there is a four-way tie for first place in the World Senior Championship with Hans-Joachim Hecht (for a long time the endgame commentator for ChessBase Magazine, also well-known for his spectacular loss to Mikhail Tal in the 1962 Olympiad in Varna (in Bulgaria!)), Bulgarian(!) GM Liuben Spassov, Vlastimil Jansa (whom I remember from youth from the excellent book What's the Best Move, co-authored with Vlastimil Hort, and...Nona Gaprindashvili.

All four players have 6.5, and I believe that the winner automatically receives the GM title (at least if he or she doesn't already possess it). This has the interesting implication that if Gaprindashvili wins the event, she can not-earn the title a second time - at least according to some ways of viewing the matter...

Regular readers of my blog know that I'm a fan of endgame studies, and for three reasons: aesthetic value, instructional value, and for their value in calculation practice.

Good study material isn't nearly as accessible as game or opening analysis, so when it's available on the web it's worth point out. Accordingly, here's a heads-up on a study competition celebrating the 75th birthday of GM, endgame doyen and study composer Pal Benko.

(Two notes. First, in the .pdf for the third-prize winner, the diagram header wrongly describes it as a win for White; it's a draw. Second, I strongly recommend downloading the .pgn instead of using the .pdfs, as the latter are very poorly written - some entries have tons of nested parentheses and chess diacritical marks that are mistranslated from the chess program.)

It ain't over 'til it's over!

A win for Topalov today would have come pretty close to clinching the event, practically speaking, but Topalov was finally stopped (or rather, slowed) as Leko easily held the draw with the Black pieces. His closest pursuer, Svidler, failed to gain any ground, as he only managed a draw with Adams, but Anand's win over Polgar brought him not quite into striking distance, but within range of striking distance. (In the other game, a resurgent Morozevich won his second straight game, this time over the sinking Kasimdzhanov.)

Thus the door is still ajar, especially with Anand due for White against Topalov in the very next round. A Topalov win would slam the door shut, but if Anand wins - certainly not an impossibility - the peleton could still close in on the Bulgarian grandmaster.


Standings after Round 8:

Topalov 7
Svidler 5
Anand 4.5
Leko, Morozevich 4
Kasimdzhanov 3
Adams 2.5
Polgar 2

Pairings for Round 9 (On Saturday):

Anand-Topalov
Morozevich-Leko
Polgar-Adams
Svidler-Kasimdzhanov

Predictions: As happened in Linares, Kasimdzhanov started having serious troubles in the second half, and I predict they'll continue - win for Svidler. In the battle of the cellar-dwellers, I think Polgar will use the White pieces to put a stop to the bleeding and accede to a draw (unless Adams gives her a big opportunity). In the battle of the 50 percenters (Morozevich-Leko), I predict they'll stay there - another draw. Finally, in Anand-Topalov, the biggest game of the day - probably the biggest game of the tournament, if there's a decisive result - I'm going to predict a draw.

Sorry! The update has been up for some time now; I simply forgot to announce it. Games, with analysis, are here.

Can we crown a winner yet?

Kasimdzhanov made Topalov work very hard for the full point, but he achieved it just the same, and leads at the halfway mark with a whopping 6.5/7.

Further, pre-event co-favorite Anand lost a second game, this time to Morozevich (I warned you he was waking up!), and is now 3 points back with 7 rounds to go. However, it's not quite over yet, as Svidler beat Polgar to remain "just" two points behind the leader. Finally, in the game least likely to have first-place implications, Leko beat Adams's Petroff to return to 50%.

Standings after Round 7:

Topalov 6.5
Svidler 4.5
Anand, Leko 3.5
Kasimdzhanov, Morozevich 3
Adams, Polgar 2

Pairings for Round 8:

Topalov-Leko
Kasimdzhanov-Morozevich
Adams-Svidler
Anand-Polgar

Predictions: Leko has been playing a little better than he was at the start, but until someone stops him, I see no reason not to predict another Topalov win. Kasimdzhanov and Morozevich is totally up in the air, so with a near-total lack of conviction, I'll predict a draw. Next, I'll predict a win for Svidler, who looks like a good candidate to win the tournament (while Topalov wins the exhibition). Finally, although Anand's form is questionable, Polgar's form looks much worse, so I'll go with the Indian player as he attempts to generate a little positive momentum going into his round 9 game with Topalov this Saturday.

Fun note: If the event ended today, Topalov's rating would be 2807 - within striking range of Kasparov's 2812. Maybe, just maybe, Kasparov will feel a little extra tug to return to the game if Topalov passes him on the January 2006 rating list.

Games - with analysis - are here.

It's not over yet, but it's getting there. Topalov won yet again, this time with the 2000 edition of the Petroff (the Berlin Defense) against Polgar. The Berlin is one of those "coiled spring" openings: White starts with more space and better coordination, but Black gets the bishop pair and, sometimes, the chance to prove White's e-pawn, and sometimes the White kingside in general, is overextended.

So it was here. Polgar went a-pushing with her kingside pawns, but it was premature. Topalov managed to coordinate, gets lots of activity and win a pawn. The rest, as the infamous "they" say, was a matter of technique.

As in round 5, the three non-Topalov games finished as draws, but as usual, even the draws are full of fight. Anand-Svidler was a Marshall Gambit in which the usual roles were reversed. Anand accepted the gambit pawn, but sacrificed the exchange a few moves later to achieve a strong pawn center. White may have achieved a small edge, but active, non-materialistic play by Svidler secured the draw on move 39. A clean game, but one leaving both opponents two full points back of Topalov.

Kasimdzhanov-Leko repeated Anand-Leko from the previous round up to Black's 18th move. Leko achieved a better position than he did the round before, but here too he had the inferior position and no winning chances. He held the draw without too much difficulty, but that's not good enough three (!!) points behind the leader.

Finally, Adams-Morozevich was a fascinating game, with Morozevich early on giving up two rooks for the queen. It worked out well and he had Adams under pressure throughout, but his opponent eventually (just) saved the draw. I think Morozevich is starting to find his form, and while it's too late for him to win the event (three and a half points out of first), he might do some damage to the leaders before this event is all over.

For now, however, three things in life seem to be sure: death, taxes, and now Topalov. (Famous last words?)

Standings after Round 6:

Topalov 5.5
Anand, Svidler 3.5
Kasimdzhanov 3
Leko 2.5
Adams, Morozevich, Polgar 2

Pairings for Round 7:

Leko-Adams
Morozevich-Anand
Svidler-Polgar
Topalov-Kasimdzhanov

Predictions:

Leko gives the tournament his last, best chance and defeats Adams. Morozevich draws with Anand (though the chance of a Morozevich overpress is always a real possibility), Svidler beats an out-of-form Polgar, and Topalov beats Kasimdzhanov.

UPDATE: MY ANALYSIS IS UP: Click here.

Here's today's Fox Trot strip; hopefully, chess will survive in Bill Amend's current plot line longer than it did the last time (mentioned in this post).

Only one decisive game this round, but it occurred in the most important game: Svidler-Topalov. In a real surprise, Topalov repeated the 6...Ng4 line used unsuccessfully by Anand against Kasimdzhanov in round 4. Svidler varied first, and then Topalov unleashed a bombshell. Svidler could allow a quick perpetual (he didn't, obviously), or head for an ending with the material imbalance of the bishop pair in return for a rook and two pawns. This imbalance often favors the two bishop, but not this time: Topalov prevented them from breaking free, outplayed his opponent and won yet again. 4 1/2 out of 5!

The other games were drawn, but all were hard-fought. Polgar had a big advantage against Morozevich, but the latter defended resourcefully and slipped away. Adams seemed to have an ideal position against Kasimdzhanov's Najdorf, but the latter "Sveshnikoved" the position at just the right moment and held the draw. Finally, Anand came out of the opening with what looked like a large advantage against Leko's Sveshnikov, but Black found enough counterplay at the last moment to escape to a slightly inferior but theoretically drawn ending.

Standings after Round 5:

Topalov 4.5
Anand, Svidler 3
Kasimdzhanov 2.5
Leko, Polgar 2
Adams, Morozevich 1.5

Pairings for Round 6

Adams-Morozevich
Anand-Svidler
Kasimdzhanov-Leko
Polgar-Topalov

Quick prediction: Anand and Topalov win, other games drawn.

UPDATE: MY ANALYSIS IS UP: Click here.