The Chess Mind

A few days ago, Shirov reminded the rank-and-file that errare humanum est; for those in need of further proof, German great Robert Huebner "improved" on Shirov's 13-move loss by resigning a Bundesliga game from this Saturday after making his 12th move! While the Shirov loss was explicable - he was underprepared in a very sharp, very dangerous line - Huebner's blunder strains credulity. In a position where his opponent had an obvious threat - one that is extremely well-known from cognate positions - Huebner not only failed to prevent it; he positively encouraged it!

Whatever the explanation, such accidents (assuming it wasn't some sort of protest game) are worthy of note and a comfort to the amateur's soul: we're all fallible - very fallible.

Click here for the horror.

JaiDeepBlue comments on my Cifuentes-Zvjaginsev post:

A great game with a queen sacrfice and a king-hunt, if I remember. It was adjudged the "Best Game" in the Informator of that period.

Blogmaster, perhaps you can analyze why talents like Zvjaginsev do not make it to the super-elite.

At last, an easy question! Here's the answer - pick one or more of the following:

1. He's less talented than those players.

2. He hasn't worked as hard as those players on one or more aspects of his game.

3. He hasn't had the opportunities they have.

4. His competitive character isn't as well-developed.

I know this is a rather flippant answer, but I don't think the situation is any different than why one high school student becomes a 1900 while his best friend only makes it to 1750.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your question, though. Maybe you're asking this:

Zvjaginsev had an enormous rating as a teenager - he hit 2600 just before his 19th birthday - so why didn't he keep pace with those in the super-GM category?

I have two answers.

First, I think 1-4 above still apply. Some people reach their maximum potential (or at least a plateau extremely difficult to transcend) sooner than others: getting to 2600 first doesn't guarantee getting to 2700 first! (As they say, past performance is no guarantee of future results.)

Second, Zvjaginsev didn't fail to keep pace with those in the super-GM category, because (generally speaking) he wasn't even with them in the first place. His mark is 2600 at 19; let's compare this with the world's current top 10.

Kasparov: He comes from a different era, of course, but even so: his first rating as a 19-year old (in 1982) was 2675, which put him at #2 in the world.

Topalov: 2640 (1994).

Anand: 2555 (1988) - but he had almost no opportunity to play outside of India until the year after.

Svidler: 2635 (1995).

Aronian: 2562 (2001).

Kramnik: 2725 (1994).

Leko: 2668 (1998).

Ivanchuk: 2625 (1988).

Gelfand: 2510 (1987) - but with few opportunities to play outside the Soviet Union, which artificially deflated his rating.

Ponomariov: 2743 (2002).

Thus with the exception of Levon Aronian and two players with artificially low ratings, Zvjaginsev's mark of 2600 at 19, while extremely impressive, lags behind his colleagues at the top of the food chain. It's not a big deficit - 34 points if we count everyone; 59 if we exclude Anand and Gelfand - but add those points to Zvjaginsev's current rating and he's right up there (2698 or 2723).

I don't know if I've answered your question, but I tried! If I missed, please write in and set me straight, and we'll do it all over again.

...at least sometimes.

Alexei Shirov is not only one of the most exciting players around, he's flat-out one of the greatest players of our era, period. He can calculate, he can improvise, he can innovate - you name it, he can do it.

But although he can prepare with the best of them, he failed to do so - in spades - in his game yesterday with British GM Peter Wells. Wells, like many elite British players, is a fan of the Trompowsky (1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5), and in fact recently published a widely acclaimed book on that very opening (Winning with the Trompowsky, Batsford 2003).

Wells, with White, defeated Shirov in 13 moves. Brilliant preparation? No. A clever novelty? No. A new trap? No again. Shirov followed a game between two well-known grandmasters - Tromp specialist Hodgson and Dutch GM van der Wiel for 11 moves (at which point he was probably lost), disimproved on van der Wiel's play on move 12, and resigned after Wells' 13th move.

Of course GMs are human and it's impossible even for them to keep up with everything, but the funny part is that Hodgson-van der Wiel is one of the main games in Wells' book, analyzed in significant detail!

So prep up for your opponents, and if you think you're going to play a GM who has written a book on an opening you'll play into, you might want to buy it beforehand. Conversely, Shirov's example shows that even legends of the game can go awry in slightly offbeat openings; in principle, there's no reason why a well-prepared 2000+ player couldn't have won the same game Wells did. (Granted, he'd have taken longer to resign.)

Be prepared!

(Click here for the game.)

It took a little longer than I had hoped, but the Round 11 post has been updated: the annotated games are available now.

Paaneater writes, via email:

Dennis,

Sorry to trouble you with this. Hope you remember me. I was the one who sent the QGD game of a ten year old boy (my son) from India. He seems to have a problem these days. His chess has definitely improved. But he seems to have a peculiar problem. He plays lots of good moves and outplays the opponent (much higher rated) and then makes a couple medium sized inaccuracies. Seeing his advantage slipping away, he makes a blunder and loses the game.

I thought it is a good topic to address in your blog and it would be of immense use to me. [snip] Regards,

[paaneater]

I do remember you and your son (or rather, his very impressive chess) - how could I not?

To be honest, the list of problems I've suffered from in my chess career hasn't included this one, so I can't tell you what I've done to overcome it. What I might be able to do is figure out why I haven't had the problem in the first place, and maybe help in that way. A second way I might be of help is to subsume your son's problem under a more general heading which includes problems I have "enjoyed", and advise on that basis.

Let's start with the first. When I'm playing a peer (or better) and believe I've let an advantage slip away, one of the first things I'll consider is if I can at least draw the game. If I've determined that I can, I'll then consider if I can play on without undue risk. That helps me to calm down, knowing there's at least a draw to be had, and helps me to be objective. Maybe if I play the position out, I'll get outplayed by a stronger opponent, but I won't lose on an emotionally-based blunder.

Turning to the second approach, this seems to fall under the general category of emotionalism. When I've been overly excited about something going on at the board - whether it's suddenly having chances when everything had been going poorly, or having the chance to win a big game or upset a strong player, or having survived a time scramble, or (on the negative side) having blown a good position - I've tried to consciously stop the flood of emotion from carrying me away. I'll get up from the board, take a walk, take some deep breaths to relax, think about something positive - anything to clear my mind, feel more positive, and be able to return to the board ready to fight and approach the position with some degree of objectivity.

These aren't all my thoughts on the topic, but I hope it's enough to be helpful. To recap and summarize: (1) leave the board to calm down, (2) decide if there's at least a draw to be had, and from this relaxed, confident, objective perspective, (3) figure out what to do next.

Let me know if this helps!

Sometimes a tie is a good thing, and we had two of them in the 2006 edition of the Corus tournament(s) in Wijk aan Zee. In the A-group, Viswanathan Anand defeated Boris Gelfand to catch Veselin Topalov for first place (the latter drew his game with Peter Leko), while in the B-group Zoltan Almasi lost and was passed by both Magnus Carlsen and Alexander Motylev.

Anand and Motylev each finished first on tiebreak, but thankfully it mattered in neither case. It didn't really matter for Topalov, because no qualification or world title was at stake. It could have mattered a great deal to Carlsen, but the organizers did the right thing and gave both Motylev and Carlsen the right to play in next year's A-group event. (Suat Atalik won the C-group by himself, easily, and will be promoted to next year's B-group.)

So it's a happy ending for everyone in the running for first coming into the last round (except Almasi), and a great tournament as well! Let's hope the good, aggressive chess continues through Linares as well.

Round 13 Results (A-group)

Adams-Mamedyarov 1/2-1/2
Ivanchuk-Karjakin 1-0
Leko-Topalov 1/2-1/2
Aronian-Sokolov 1-0
Kamsky-Tiviakov 0-1
Anand-Gelfand 1-0
Bacrot-van Wely 1/2-1/2

Final Standings (A-group)

Anand, Topalov 9
Adams, Ivanchuk 7.5
Gelfand, Karjakin 7
Aronian, Leko, Tiviakov 6.5
van Wely 6
Bacrot 5.5
Kamsky, Mamedyarov 4.5
Sokolov 4

Final Standings (B-group)

Motylev, Carlsen 9
Almasi 8.5
Jobava 8
Navara 7.5
Cheparinov, L'Ami, Naiditsch 7
Beliavsky 6.5
Vescovi, Koneru 6
Smeets 4
Stellwagen 3
Lahno 2.5

Final Standings (C-group)

S. Atalik 10
Werle 8.5
Marcelin 8
van der Wiel 7.5
Li Shilong 6.5
Bischoff, Visser 6
Jonkman, van der Weide 5.5
Adly, E. Atalik, Hopman 4.5
Afek, Bensdorp 3.5

Commenting on this week's ChessBase show's game, Cifuentes-Zvjaginsev, Umesh writes

This is a wonderful game. Check out another fabulous game he played with Malakov.

Indeed it is - certainly Zvjaginsev's closing attack is a thing of beauty, and you can replay it here.

At Wijk aan Zee each year, it is the A-group that gets the most attention, featuring as it does many of the world's absolute best players. Yet sometimes, depending on who is playing or the games that are produced, it is the "sideshow" that gets top billing.

Such a case occurred in the 1995 version of the event, when it was a game in the Open tournament that received the most press. Roberto Cifuentes is a good GM and had the White pieces against the young (then 18) Russian GM Vadim Zvjaginsev, but it didn't matter. Zvjaginsev won a brilliant game, replete with sacrifices, and that put him on the chess map.

Zvjaginsev is an exceptionally original player, and although he hasn't quite made it into the world's absolute elite, he is a very strong player chess fans should keep their eyes on. This week's show offers viewers a chance to get acquainted with this player's signature game, and I hope you'll take advantage!

For directions for watching the show live (9 p.m. ET), please click here (directions for watching archived shows is also included therein), while a list of games covered in previous shows is available here.

The news going into the final round is that there isn't much news, at least in the A-group. With Black, Anand held Topalov easily, and all the other games but one (Kamsky defeating the slumping Mamedyarov) were drawn. Going into the last round, here are the standings:

Topalov 8.5
Anand 8
Adams, Gelfand, Karjakin 7
Ivanchuk 6.5
Leko 6
Aronian, Tiviakov, van Wely 5.5
Bacrot 5
Kamsky 4.5
Mamedyarov, Sokolov 4

And the pairings for the last round are

Aronian-Sokolov
Ivanchuk-Karjakin
Anand-Gelfand
Leko-Topalov
Kamsky-Tiviakov
Adams-Mamedyarov
Bacrot-van Wely


Topalov has the lead, of course, but the last round pairings are greatly in Anand's favor. Anand's career score against Gelfand, excluding draws, is +11 -5, and that's from a +1 -5 start (and those 10 straight wins were all with White). On the other hand Leko, who will have the White pieces, has a career plus score against Topalov: +14 -10 - though Topalov went +3 -1 against Leko in 2005 in decisive games.

Meanwhile, in the B-group, Motylev, after finally overtaking Carlsen, immediately lost to Almasi, who is now leading that event, with Motylev and Carlsen half a point behind. As the winner of this event is automatically seeded into next year's A-group, a lot is at stake. [Finally, a B-group aside: Naiditsch won again!]

It should be a great last round!

In group B of the Corus tournament, long-time leader Magnus Carlsen was defeated (badly) by Alexander Motylev, his closest pursuer going into the game. Now Motylev leads by half a point in the qualifier for next year's A-group, with just three rounds to go.

Could Round 12 of the group A event mirror this? Both Topalov and Anand drew their games, and are scheduled to play in the morning, with the FIDE champion enjoying the white pieces. Hopefully it will be the game of the tournament, with Topalov resisting Anand's usual play-Black-and-draw-quickly approach to his peers. I think Topalov's track record gives us reason to be hopeful!

Round 11 highlights:

In group A: Topalov drew with Ivanchuk in a hard-fought game. Ivanchuk sacrificed a healthy quantity of material in exchange for a very dangerous passed pawn, but by returning the material Topalov neutralized the danger.

Kamsky managed to climb his way out of clear last when van Wely self-destructed trying to make something happen in a position he could draw at will, while Leko defeated Mamedyarov and Karjakin pulled back into a tie for third by defeating Sokolov.

In the B-group, Motylev's win put him in clear first, half a point ahead of Carlsen and Almasi, and two points ahead of a resurgent Naiditsch, who won his second straight game. Finally, the C-group remains devoid of drama and will not be mentioned again unless something interesting happens.

Group A, Round 11 Results:

Anand-Tiviakov 1/2-1/2
Adams-Bacrot 1/2-1/2
Karjakin-Sokolov 1-0
Leko-Mamedyarov 1-0
Aronian-Gelfand 1/2-1/2
Kamsky-van Wely 1-0
Ivanchuk-Topalov 1/2-1/2

Group A Standings:

Topalov 8
Anand 7.5
Adams, Gelfand, Karjakin 6.5
Ivanchuk 6
Leko 5.5
Aronian, Tiviakov, van Wely 5
Bacrot 4.5
Mamedyarov 4
Kamsky, Sokolov 3.5

Group A, Round 12 Pairings:

Sokolov-Bacrot
van Wely-Adams
Mamedyarov-Kamsky
Tiviakov-Leko
Topalov-Anand
Gelfand-Ivanchuk
Karjakin-Aronian

Click here for some chess highlights.

Topalov wins again! Utilizing some deep preparation on the White side of a Queen's Indian against Aronian, Topalov's first exchange sac offered a promising middlegame, and the second promised the full point. A fine game, good enough for the clear lead, as with Black Anand equalized against Mamedyarov, but no more.

Only two other games were decisive: van Wely's bishop pair left Leko under pressure that eventually proved too much, while Bacrot's large opening advantage gradually led to his defeat of the slumping Kamsky.

Standings after Round 10:

Topalov 7.5 (TPR 2888)
Anand 7
Adams, Gelfand 6
Ivanchuk, Karjakin 5.5
van Wely 5
Aronian, Leko, Tiviakov 4.5
Bacrot, Mamedyarov 4
Sokolov 3.5
Kamsky 2.5 (TPR 2538)

Pairings for Round 11 (on Friday):

Karjakin-Sokolov
Aronian-Gelfand
Ivanchuk-Topalov
Anand-Tiviakov
Leko-Mamedyarov
Kamsky-van Wely
Adams-Bacrot

In the B group, Carlsen has maintained his half-point lead over Motylev (7.5 to 7), while Atalik's lead in the C group is now two points over Werle (8.5 to 6.5). And in a nice bit of group B news, Naiditsch broke his losing streak with a win over Lahno; hopefully, this is the beginning of a new, positive streak.

Comments on Topalov-Aronian here.

When we left off a couple of days ago, Topalov was in first in the A group, half a point ahead of Anand and Karjakin. Carlsen led the B group by a point, and (Suat) Atalik led group C by a point as well.

Round 8:

Lots of draws, but one of the two wins (Aronian's defeat of Mamedyarov was the other) was of great importance: Anand, with Black, defeated Etienne Bacrot to catch Topalov in first place.

The B-group was bloodier, as usual, with only two games drawn. One was the game between Carlsen (the leader) and Navara (his closest pursuer), leaving the former a point ahead of the trailing pack. Likewise, S. Atalik drew, maintaining his one-point lead over the C-group.

Round 9:

Anand won again, but so did Topalov. Anand picked apart van Wely's Sveshnikov Sicilian, while Topalov played that same variation against Karjakin, exploiting some serious errors in the late middlegame. The pair now lead by a point over Gelfand and Adams, who defeated Sokolov and Kamsky, respectively.

In the C-group, another Atalik win kept him a point ahead of Jan Werle, but a Carlsen draw in group B leaves him just half a point of Alexander Motylev, with David Navara and Zoltan Almasi another half a point behind.

Finally, there's the Naiditsch tragedy: four straight losses. He won Dortmund in 2005, had the best year of his career, co-led the B-group with 4/5 and had a winning position with Carlsen in round 6. Unfortunately, when he blundered and lost that game, it seems he didn't just find a speed bump but a brick wall. From his ChessBase interviews during Dortmund he seems like a nice youngster, and he's certainly an outstanding talent, so I hope he recovers from this slump soon.

Group A Standings after Round 9:

Anand, Topalov 6.5
Adams, Gelfand 5.5
Ivanchuk, Karjakin 5
Aronian, Leko 4.5
Tiviakov, van Wely 4
Mamedyarov 3.5
Bacrot, Sokolov 3
Kamsky 2.5

Group A Pairings for Round 10:

Sokolov-Adams
Bacrot-Kamsky
van Wely-Leko
Mamedyarov-Anand
Tiviakov-Ivanchuk
Topalov-Aronian
Gelfand-Karjakin

From Chess Today (issue 1905):

[The] Russian website www.russiachess.com reported that at the meeting of the Kalmyk Chess Federation on 20 January 2006, Kirsan Ilyumzhinov announced the match between Veselin Topalov and Vladimir Kramnik. The match should take place in September 2006 in Elista. Strangely, there is no information about this statement on the FIDE website. This wouldn’t be the first time the FIDE President makes a sensational statement, which does not hold later, so let's just wait and see...

Could it be? What about Topalov's objections and Kramnik's health? At this point, the safer bet is that it won't happen (assuming this isn't just a rumor started on a prank), but we'll keep you posted.

There's more than one way, of course. Not showing up for class is an excellent approach, and not bothering to study for exams is another. Another promising strategy is to avoid any and all written work, but in this post, I'll mention that old stand-by: plagiarism.

There are more or less subtle ways to plagiarize. For instance, paraphrasing an author's words, even while citing that author, is verboten. Either give the author's exact words, slap quotation marks around them and give proper credit, or write the whole thing in your own words - and still give credit to your source for the idea.

When it comes to plagiarizing, though, if you really want to guarantee an F, just rip off the writer's words verbatim (maybe with a trivial cosmetic change or two) and "forget" to give credit. Here's a blueprint:

ORIGINAL

After 3 of 11 rounds, the tournament is looking like a great one, with lots of lively, fighting games. Among the interesting stories so far are Kramnik's first round loss to Svidler, Zvjaginsev's round 2 win utilizing 2.Na3!? against the Sicilian, and Morozevich's forfeit loss in round three due to oversleeping(!!).

As I said, many of the games so far have been really exciting...

THEFT

After three of 11 rounds, the tournament is looking like a great one, with lots of lively, fighting games. Among the interesting stories so far besides Kramnik's first round loss to Svidler, is Morozevich's forfeit loss in round three, due to oversleeping(!!), and Zvjaginsev's Round Two win utilizing 2.Na3!? Against the Sicilian. Many of the games so far have been really exciting...

A student engaged in such blatant academic dishonesty would receive a guaranteed F (and not just any F, but a zero) on at least the relevant assignment. Such dishonesty is generally easy to catch and to punish in the academic context; in the world of chess journalism, however, it's not so easy.

The original quote, given above, is from this blog, from my first update on the Russian Championship Superfinal. The second quote comes from a recent issue of the Chess Chronicle (page 7). Despite the fact that the material on my blog is copyrighted (see the blog's header) and, even more to the point, the material stolen isn't even of any real interest, the "writer" took it anyway. I'm rather at a loss to understand the point. [Note: There isn't anything wrong with taking information from my or other copyrighted sites - up to a point. It's that there are right ways and wrong ways to do so, and this is a clear case of the latter.]

I'm not alone in having my work lifted, nor is this the only bit of lifting from my blog, apparently - see here for more details. It's probably not worth pursuing further, but I hope my readers will avoid patronizing the Chess Chronicle until they apologize and/or can the plagiarist. A pity, really, as it's an otherwise interesting addition to the world of chess publishing.

[Hat tip: Brian Karen]

I'm sure that many of my readers have been following the Corus tournament at least as closely as I have, but for those who are more casual about it, here's a summary of what you've missed since my round 2 update about a week ago.

Round 3:

Ivanchuk led by himself with 2-0 going into the round, and a serious opening error by Anand gave him good chances to make it 3-0. Unfortunately, an unnecessary, dubious pawn grab gave away the advantage, and an outright blunder several moves later gave Anand a full point and clear first place.

In the round's second most obviously important game, Topalov capitalized on a Bacrot ending blunder to bounce back to 2-1 and shared second-third with Ivanchuk. The round's other decisive games (in group A) featured convincing wins by Karjakin over Kamsky and Gelfand over round two hero Adams.

In group B, Naiditsch leads with 3/3, but only half a point ahead of Carlsen, Navara, Almasi and Vescovi; in group C, Suat Atalik leads with 3/3.

Round 4:

Anand drew quickly (15 moves) with Black against Sokolov, and was caught in first place by Topalov, who defeated van Wely in a savage game. Gelfand won again (against Bacrot), pulling within half a point of first, and Aronian notched his first win of the event with a win over Kamsky.

In the B-group all the leaders drew, maintaining their relative positions, and likewise S. Atalik drew but maintained his lead over the C-group.

Round 5:

Anand outplayed Leko to regain clear first, as Topalov was held to a draw by Mamedyarov in a very complicated game. Gelfand also drew, but Ivanchuk's win over Kamsky put him into a second-place tie with Topalov (and kept Kamsky in clear last place). The only other winner in the A-group was Karjakin, who defeated the next-to-last Bacrot.

In the B-group, Carlsen's 20-move massacre over Beliavsky elevated him into a first-place tie with Naiditsch, while Atalik continued to dominate the C-group with a win over Jonkman.

Round 6:

In a battle of old rivals (they played two candidates matches with each other in the mid-90s), last-placed Kamsky beat the first-placed Anand in the way you'd expect the leader to crush the tailender. This dropped Anand into a tie with Topalov, half a point ahead of Adams (who beat Ivanchuk), Ivanchuk, Gelfand and Karjakin.

In the key game of the group B tournament, Naiditsch was on his way to a well-deserved win over co-leader Carlsen (up the exchange and a pawn) when he failed to find an answer to Carlsen's one and only threat. Carlsen's win puts him a point ahead with 5/6; a nice score, but not as impressive as group C's Atalik, who won again to find himself with 5.5/6.

Round 7:

Topalov has at last found his way into clear first, destroying Sokolov's Ruy while Anand drew (quickly) with Adams. Catching Anand, the oldest player in the tournament, is its youngest player, Karjakin, who defeated Mamedyarov. The other winners were Leko (over Kamsky) and van Wely (over Aronian), and that brings us up to date. Here are the full scores in the A group:

Topalov 5 (of 7)
Anand, Karjakin 4.5
Adams, Gelfand, Ivanchuk 4
van Wely, Leko 3.5
Tiviakov, Mamedyarov, Aronian 3
Sokolov, Bacrot 2.5
Kamsky 2

In the B group, Carlsen won again, maintaining a one-point lead over David Navara. As for Naiditsch, he lost again (it's amazing what confidence - and the lack thereof - will do), falling into a tie for 5th-8th places. Finally, in the C group, Atalik took a short draw with van der Wiel, maintaining a one-point lead over Werle.

A-group pairings for Round 8:

Sokolov-Kamsky
Adams-Leko
Bacrot-Anand
van Wely-Ivanchuk
Mamedyarov-Aronian
Tiviakov-Karjakin
Topalov-Gelfand

Neon Qwerty writes, by email:

Hey Dennis!

[snip]

I also have a trivial question re: computer chess and faulty engine evaluations. Everyone agrees that computers will often evaluate a side as winning when a human can intuitively tell that it's a dead draw. The question is: what is the most [egregious] evaluation that a computer can give a drawing position? Two pawns up? Three? A rook?

Just wondering and thought that you might know,

Alan.

Alan,

That's a fun question, though one difficulty in answering is that new engines are coming out all the time and this is a problem programmers regularly work on. So the answer is that I don't know, but as an opening bid I offer the following position:

White is up two rooks and a bishop, but although the position is hopelessly drawn, most of my software programs don't get it.

Shredder 9 wins the palm on this one, awarding White only a very modest .35 edge (at depth 37), which perhaps reflects the abstract possibility that White could put a rook en prise and Black mistakenly capture it.

Fritz 9: White has a 4.5 pawn advantage.

Rybka 1.0, 32-bit: White +12.95.

Fruit 2.2.1: White +12.96.

Junior 9: White +15.61

Hiarcs 9: White +16.56!

Not a proud display for computerdom, but Shredder 9 shows that it's possible to write code for this. In any case, readers are invited to top this example, and to find situations Shredder doesn't handle as well.

Ratmir Kholmov's skill in repulsing enemy aggression led to his receiving the nickname "the central defender", but this strong Russian grandmaster had his brilliant attacking days, too.

One of his most famous efforts came against the great David Bronstein in the 1964 USSR championship. Bronstein's aggressive play on the Black side of a Najdorf Sicilian left Kholmov in a position where his obvious attacking ideas failed and retreat left Black with an edge. (Don't ask the computer; it doesn't know either! At least mine doesn't; those of you with souped-up multi-processor machines might find something different, but I doubt it. [If you do, please let me know!])

Where even Bronstein (and even more noteworthy, the computer) failed, Kholmov succeeded, producing a deep, correct tactical idea refuting his opponent's over-aggressive play. We'll break the idea down, and in that way realize that even the most ingenious tactics can be discovered by thoughtful reflection on the logic of a position.

Curious? I hope so! Join me this Monday night at 9 pm ET; directions for watching (live and archived shows) are here, and a list of games covered in past shows can be found here.

Endeavoring to catch up a bit on the events of the last week or so, I'll start now with comments on the blog.

First, thanks to those of you who wrote in to express your best wishes re my cold/flu/whatever. I'm not yet 100%, but I'm loads better than I was on Monday and Tuesday.

Second, I've posted comments on the two previous posts and attempted to do likewise with this one (A Study in Defense: Solved) as well. Unfortunately, it wouldn't post, and my attempts to fix it made it worse. Perhaps that's for the best; in any case, here's what I wanted to say:

This post has received some very surprising comments!

MM: What page of Marin's book are you claiming this is on? Is this a non-English edition? There is one Capa-Alekhine game fragment in my copy, but it's not this game.

SBB: I'm not sure why you initially thought Black was supposed to win. (Not that you shouldn't look for the best result you can possibly get out of any position, of course!) In the initial post, I wrote that White has "a nice, nagging edge", not that he merely seemed to. I'm not trying to trick you with what I write!

Chris and SBB: As the anonymous commenter correctly wrote, 17...Nd5 18.Bxd8 Rfxd8 19.Nxd5 Bxd5 20.Rfd1 doesn't win anything, as Black can simply move the Rd8 off the d-file, rendering e4 a blank shot.

Whether it was the old cold/flu/whatever developing a kick after a couple of weeks, or some new strain playing tag team with the previous one, I woke up this morning feeling distinctly miserable. Accordingly, rather than sharing my misery with my audience, I'm going to take tonight off; the tentative plan, pending Frederic Friedel's approval, is to reschedule for Friday at the usual time (9 pm ET).

Sorry!

...Michael Bagalman, who sends along this link, offers his tongue-in-cheek disagreement: "I have a simple rule: if there are cheerleaders, it must be a sport".

It's likely that all of us have experienced plateaus while learning. We make good progress for a while, and then one day (or rather, one month, one year...) we're just stuck. If so, don't give up:

Our brain is not cut out for nonlinearities. People think that if, say, two variables are causally linked, then a steady input in one variable should always yield a result in the other one. Our emotional apparatus is designed for linear causality. For instance, you study every day and learn something in proportion to your studies. If you do not feel that you are going anywhere, your emotions will cause you to become demoralized. But reality rarely gives us the privilege of a satisfying linear positive progression: You may study for a year and learn nothing, then, unless you are disheartened by the empty results and give up, something will come to you in a flash. My partner Mark Spitznagel summarizes it as follows: Imagine yourself practicing the piano every day for a long time, barely being able to perform "Chopsticks," then suddenly finding yourself capable of playing Rachmaninov. Owing to this nonlinearity, people cannot comprehend the nature of the rare event. This summarizes why there are routes to success that are nonrandom, but few, very few, people have the mental stamina to follow them. Those who go the extra mile are rewarded....Most people give up before the rewards. (Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Fooled by Randomness, 2nd ed. (New York: Random House, 2004), 179.)

That's a generic account; here's a case study:

Let's start from the beginning: you had a good first year in chess school when you were 8 years old. Did you continue your tournament success at the same pace?

No I didn't. I made the first few norms quite easily because I already had some experience in chess from playing with my mother; but afterwards I was stuck, and didn't make the second category norm as quickly. I believe it took me a few years. Then, one summer when I was at the Estonian camp, I played in a camp tournament and won it very easily. I felt like I had jumped to another level.

How old were you?

I don't remember exactly-maybe around eleven or twelve years old. (Jaan Ehlvest, The Story of a Chess Player (Ehlvest Chess Gates, 2004), 39.)

Just think: a player who made the top five might have given up as a 10-year old has-been! There is, no doubt, a distinction between the plateaus of the youngster and the newbie, on the one hand, and that of the mature player on the other. But until we've gone that extra mile, how will we know which plateau we've reached?

About a week ago, I presented this position as an exercise: Black to move and at least ease the burden of White's initiative:



(Capablanca-Alekhine, 1927 World Championship Match, game 15, position after 17.Rd2)

Several readers wrote in with helpful comments and suggestions, most of which are incorporated into my notes, which also include commentary from Polugaevsky (from Lyev Polugaevsky and Iakov Damsky's The Art of Defence in Chess. Ironically, while I have the book, I wouldn't have thought to look had it not been for MM's comment to the original post), Koblenz (from his Lehrbuch der Schachtaktik, Band 2) and from the Chess Stars volume on Capablanca.

Click here.

Today's headline is obvious: Topalov defeated! With White, Michael Adams was able to impose his will on his opponent and won a nice, controlled game that concluded with a crushing attack. It's nice to see Adams back after a very poor 2005, and Topalov has been reminded that past performance is no guarantee of future results. (To coin a phrase.)

There was plenty of other action in the A-group: Vassily Ivanchuk defeated Ivan Sokolov to take the clear lead with a 2-0 score, as the third first round winner, Viswanathan Anand, was unable to convert a superior ending against Levon Aronian. The stability of Ivanchuk's lead will be tested tomorrow when he plays Anand.

Etienne Bacrot joined Adams and Anand at 1.5 with a win over Sergey Tiviakov, while Gata Kamsky bounced back from yesterday's loss with what Yasser Seirawan described as a "lucky" win over Boris Gelfand.

The other games were drawn, leaving the following table of results:

Bacrot-Tiviakov 1-0
van Wely-Mamedyarov 1/2-1/2
Leko-Karjakin 1/2-1/2
Kamsky-Gelfand 1-0
Adams-Topalov 1-0
Anand-Aronian 1/2-1/2
Sokolov-Ivanchuk 0-1

Standings after Round 2:

Ivanchuk 2
Adams, Anand, Bacrot 1.5
Kamsky, Leko, Mamedyarov, Topalov, van Wely 1
Aronian, Gelfand, Karjakin, Sokolov, Tiviakov .5

Pairings for Round 3:

Mamedyarov-Sokolov
Tiviakov-van Wely
Topalov-Bacrot
Gelfand-Adams
Karjakin-Kamsky
Aronian-Leko
Ivanchuk-Anand

In the B-group, Carlsen, Naiditsch and Vescovi share first with 2 points, but four others are just half a point back. Meanwhile, in the C-group, rating favorite Suat Atalik continued his winning ways and enjoys clear first with two points.

For full results and all the games, click here; for my notes to Adams-Topalov (largely but not wholly based on Adams' post-game comments to Yasser Seirawan during the latter's playchess.com broadcast), click here. (I've also included Kamsky-Gelfand and my guess as to the "lucky" moment Seirawan referred to.)

The now-15-year old Maxime Vachier Lagrave is the seventh-youngest GM of all time, yet while he represents (part of) the future of chess, fellow French GM Anatoli Vaisser demonstrated that at 56, he is still very much part of its present.

Our chief exhibit is their game from the 2005 French Championship. Vachier Lagrave opted for a risky pawn-grabbing line in the 8.Rb1 Gruenfeld. The players followed old theory for many moves before the youngster produced his novelty. Black enjoyed an extra piece, White a dangerous passer and active heavy pieces, but the result was in doubt until a Vachier Lagrave error permitted Vaisser to execute a brilliant zugzwang idea that won him both the game and the informal award for the best game in ChessBase Magazine 109.

A theoretically important game with rich tactics and a deep zugzwang idea: what more could one reasonably want from one game? Join me this Monday night at 9 pm as we explore the ins and outs of this contemporary gem; instructions for watching the show can be found here, while a list of past shows' games can be found here. (Directions for watching archived shows can be found in the preceding link.)

It was a good start for the Corus tournaments in Wijk aan Zee, with plenty of decisive games and interesting story lines.

In the A-group, Veselin Topalov took up where he left off in 2005, crushing Gata Kamsky in just 25 moves. His main rival, Viswanathan Anand, won even more quickly (more moves, but less clock time) by completely refuting Sergei Karjakin's novelty. Finally, in the third decisive game, Levon Aronian apparently either underestimated his queenside problems or overestimated his kingside chances, and Ivanchuk was easily up to the task of collecting the full point. (A link to these games, with some brief notes, is given below.)

In the B-group, six of the seven games were decisive, all won by White. I've offered brief comments to two of the games: Vescovi-Jobava and Carlsen-L'Ami.

Finally, in the C-group, the dramatic Atalik-Atalik game had a decisive result as Suat defeated Ekaterina, his new bride. Fans of women's chess may take heart, however, in the shocking finish of the Marlies Bensdorp-Li Shilong game. Li Shilong had an extra pawn in a knight endgame, but first missed a probable win, then one or two ways to maintain some advantage, then two or three possible draws on the way to a loss.

The aforementioned games can be accessed here; for all the games and results, click here.

Group A Round 1 results:

Mamedyarov-Bacrot 1/2-1/2
Karjakin-Anand 0-1
Topalov-Kamsky 1-0
Gelfand-Leko 1/2-1/2
van Wely-Sokolov 1/2-1/2
Aronian-Ivanchuk 0-1
Tiviakov-Adams 1/2-1/2

Round 2 pairings:

Sokolov-Ivanchuk
Anand-Aronian
Leko-Karjakin
Kamsky-Gelfand
Adams-Topalov
Bacrot-Tiviakov
van Wely-Mamedyarov

And here are the A-group pairings for round 1 of the first super-tournament of the year:

A Group:

Loek van Wely-Ivan Sokolov
Shakhriyar Mamedyarov-Etienne Bacrot
Sergey Tiviakov-Michael Adams
Veselin Topalov-Gata Kamsky
Boris Gelfand-Peter Leko
Sergey Karjakin-Viswanathan Anand
Levon Aronian-Vassily Ivanchuk

The B-group is super-strong in its own right:

B Group:

Alexander Beliavsky-Koneru Humpy
Arkadij Naiditsch-Daniel Stellwagen
Giovanni Vescovi-Baadur Jobava
David Navara-Jan Smeets
Magnus Carlsen-Erwin L'Ami
Zoltan Almasi-Kateryna Lahno
Alexander Motylev-Ivan Cheparinov

There's also a C-group, and it has some strong GMs as well, but overall its average rating is significantly lower than that in the first two groups. (It does feature one especially interesting first round pairing: GM Suat Atalik facing his new WGM bride Ekaterina (nee Polovnikova). Will he burn a White against a significantly lower-rated opponent for the sake of love and domestic harmony, or will competitive considerations win out?

The games start at 7:30 am ET tomorrow (Saturday), and will be broadcast on the usual major chess servers. (Naturally, I recommend watching on playchess.com, where GM Yasser Seirawan will be offering commentary.) As for predictions...I'll skip this tournament and just enjoy the chess.

In the FIDE World Championships in San Luis last year, the game Kasimjanov-Anand (round 4) started as follows

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 Ng4 7.Bg5 h6 8.Bh4 g5 9.Bg3 Bg7 10.h3 Ne5 11.Nf5 Bxf5 12.exf5 Nbc6 13.Nd5 e6 14.fxe6 fxe6 15.Ne3 O-O 16.Be2 Qe7 17.O-O Rad8

And now, I bring you Mr. Kasimjanov, courtesy of New in Chess 2005/8:

Now we've come to the position that I had studied in serious depth together with Darmen Sadvakasov and Daniel Fridman, who helped me in my preparation for this world championship. At some point Sadvakasov set up this position and said: 'This is an important position. It's important for the whole evaluation of the plan with 11.Nf5 after 6...Ng4.' To me it looked like a lost position for Black. White has two bishops, a better king and a better structure. But he insisted that things were very tricky and that once the knight moves to f4 (via g6), as happened in the game Dolmatov-Sakaev, Aeroflot Open 2003, things are completely unclear. For days and days we analyzed this position and we tried all kinds of ideas. I tried c3, Bd3, Bb1, Qc2 and mate, but it doesn't work quite so easily. I tried to play positionally with Re1, Bf1 and c4, but nothing was working - which was amazing given White's trumps. The black knight would come to f4, the other one to e5, he'd play ...b5 and ...Qb7, and suddenly I was under pressure with White!

And then there were some training games against Grischuk played on ICC - three-minute games. (Maybe they should be studied better. I have played quite a number of theoretically important games on ICC in the last few months, but who cares, who would watch them?) Well, actually Fridman played 'with my very close obsrevance'. I played c3, Bd3, Bb1 and then there came ...d5, ...d4, and he crushed me on the d-file. Then I was wondering if maybe the pawn should stay on f5, so that the knight cannot go to g6 and f4. An interesting idea, but Grischuk played ...Qe7, ...Rad8, and then when at some point I took on e6, he took back with the queen! And then the d-pawn and the f-pawn started rolling, and once again he tore me apart. Then, having finished this match we looked at each other and asked ourselves the question: what if the knight never gets to g6? We played the bishop to h5, and it was immediately clear to me that this was the refutation of the whole set-up. [Page 53]

18.Bh5!

A serious improvement compared to the Dolmatov-Sakaev game. Black has no useful moves. After executing this move I looked at Vishy and I knew that he was lost. He has a good sense of danger and after 18.Bh5 he knew that the danger had arrived. Black has no counterplay at all. [Page 54]

(To replay the game - and Dolmatov-Sakaev - with my quick, reasonably accurate but not particularly perspicacious commentary, done during the event, click here.)

I find this account extremely interesting on several levels.

First, his novelty, contrary to what one might be inclined to think about GM preparation, wasn't the product of switching on the computer and awaiting and interacting with its results. (That said, Fritz 9 has it at #1 or #2 just about immediately, and after all other normal moves Black's reply is 18...Ng6; Shredder 9 is less hip to the ...Ng6 idea, but it too is immediately fond of 18.Bh5. Yet neither program evaluates it as meaningfully better than 18.Re1 - if better at all - and until one realizes the power of ...Ng6-f4, it's far from obvious that Kasimjanov's move is anything special.)

Second, the sense that a position is somehow important is one that gets developed over time and is, I think, more prominent in stronger players. It took them a long time to sniff out the right approach, but Sadvakasov's original intuition was right.

Third, their great strength and insightful intuition notwithstanding, they didn't just find the right move immediately. Thus we too should be patient in our own searchings, and should also realize that GMs have to figure things out, just like the rest of us.

Fourth, this flash of insight confirms what researchers into human creativity have long known: these "aha!" moments aren't generally picked out of the air, as if by magic, but result from one steeping oneself in the ins and outs of a given problem. They knew where to look, they tried various approaches, and only then did the answer "suddenly" appear.

In short, you're much more likely to be creative if you work hard first!

Now that I'm at last home from my vacation, the posts should start to flow once more at a steady pace and, when displaying games, with their usual graphical elegance. (Or at least with the elegance they normally possess.)

Happy 2006!

Estonian GM Jaan Ehlvest was among the world's best about 12-15 years ago (once breaking into the top five), and is a familiar sight at large American Swisses. Despite his successes and his recognizability as a person, I suspect that his chess is far less well-known to the average player.

We'll take a first stab at remedying this in our show this week, as we examine his game with Leonid Yurtaev from the 1983 USSR Championship semi-final in Volgodonsk. Yurtaev, with White, employed the King's Indian Attack (KIA) against Ehlvest's Sicilian, and the traditional race ensued: White going for Black's king; Black ripping open queenside lines. Ehlvest played a nice line against the KIA (thus if you play the KIA or hate facing it, this is a game worth seeing), but Yurtaev's imaginative sacrificial barrage created a real mess on the board. Ehlvest escaped and even won, but to see how, you'll have to tune in this Monday night at 9 p.m. ET!

As always, directions for watching my shows, whether they are new or in the archives, can be found here, while a list of games covered in past shows is available here.

Vladimir Kramnik has withdrawn from the forthcoming Corus tournament in Wijk aan Zee (on pretty short notice - it starts just over a week from now) due to a form of increasingly worsening arthritis. According to Kramnik's statement, this will require clinical treatment and several months away from competitive chess.

We wish him the best.

Here are the tentative pairings for the FIDE Candidates Matches:

Levon Aronian (2752)-Magnus Carlsen (2625)
Peter Leko(2740)-Mikhail Gurevich (2633)
Ruslan Ponomariov (2723)-Sergei Rublevsky(2665)
Boris Gelfand(2723)-Rustam Kasimjanov(2670)
Etienne Bacrot(2717)-Gata Kamsky(2686)
Alexander Grischuk(2717)-Vladimir Malakhov(2694)
Judit Polgar(2711)-Evgeny Bareev(2698)
Alexei Shirov(2709)-Michael Adams(2707)

The matches will be of six games (plus tiebreaks, if necessary), and are part of a cycle that will (hopefully) conclude in 2007. In the meantime, the time, location and prize fund for these Candidates matches is yet to be determined.

Here's your starting position, with Black to move:



White isn't winning, of course, but he does have a nice, nagging edge thanks to his better rooks and Black's slightly loose queenside pawn structure. What should Black do?

[Note for newbies, reminder for old-timers: please don't leave your guesses in the comments - give everyone an unadulterated chance to solve it for themselves.]

The (a?) solution will be given in a few days.

Some time ago I ran my own little comparison of Fritz 9 and my previous favorite, Shredder 9; now Kevin Solcich has thoughtfully written in to share the results of his test of Fritz 9 against the brand-new Hiarcs 10. My comments are interspersed.

Dear Dennis,

I thought I'd contact you directly as I wasn't allowed by the system to comment on your 11/17/05 post.

[DM: The default deadline for comments is within 7 days of a post's publication; understandably, as readers are less and less likely to scan (now much) older posts for comments. I'm glad you persevered and used the contact link!]

In that post you gave four positions for Fritz 9 and Shredder 9 to analyze. You concluded that F9 was ultimately a little better.

[DM: True, but a little misleading. If one has to choose between the two engines, F9 seemed to me superior, but it would be more accurate to summarize view with these three comments:

1. F9 solves deep tactics more quickly than S9. 2. S9 finds subtle positional ideas more quickly than F9. 3. F9's speed advantage in tactics exceeds S9's speed advantage in positional play.]

I did the same thing today with F9 and the just released Hiarcs 10. My computer is very similar to yours. I have to give the verdict to F9 as well. It was a tiny bit faster (actually a good bit more then that in position one) in all four positions. Although I think I'd have to say that H10 worked out all the details a little bit quicker in position four.

I think I am a little sad that I spent my money on H10. As you wrote in your original post, this sort of test isn't conclusive but it at least made me wonder whether the average club or non-professional player (myself) really should have much use for more then one of these ultra-strong programs.

[DM: I think that depends on what you want to do with the software. If you use it for analysis, whether of GM games, your completed OTB and online blitz games, or (legally, I hope) in correspondence/email chess, then it's worth considering a second engine. Unless you're at least 1800-2000, though, that's probably not all that important.]

I hope my report was of some small interest to you. Keep up the good work.

[DM: Indeed it was! Thoughtful questions and contributions from my readers are welcomed, and I appreciate your taking the time to write.]

See this post regarding the other guys' victory. (Okay, not really - they (Ohio State) played well, darn it.)

Wait til next year!

In his introductory comments to his game with GM Mark Tseitlin from the Katerini tournament in 1992, Jaan Ehlvest writes this:

In our game he went to exchange all the pieces to achieve a pawn endgame he thought was winning for White. His happy mood was cruelly ended. After such an episode, grandmaster and doctor of philology Robert Huebner once said something like "chess is terrible; it is better to be dead..."

--Jaan Ehlvest, The Story of a Chess Player (Ehlvest Chess Gates, 2004), p. 181.

Have a nice day...

In a much earlier post, I suggested that while true bad luck was is rare at best, good luck does occur. (The salient point was that our "accidents" were under our control, but the gifts our opponents give us often occur without our prompting.)

Whatever one thinks about the above, there are other ways to think about luck we can employ to supplement our understanding of the topic. Take, for example, the following quote:

We must believe in luck. For how else can we explain the success of those we don't like?

-Jean Cocteau, cited in Jaan Ehlvest, The Story of a Chess Player (Ehlvest Chess Gates, 2004), p. 76.

The quote is good for a chuckle, but the underlying sentiment is best expunged from our psyche. It's bad for our character, obviously enough, but it's even impractical: we're not going to improve by worrying about someone else's talent and past opportunities. As the Stoics and the Serenity Prayer both suggest, we should figure out what we can change, and then get to it!

Chess fans tend not to like draws, especially when they're short. I have no problem with draws when they result from a real game, but while I too am disappointed by short draws in elite GM tournaments, I believe that attempts to ban them have limited efficacy - a point I've made on my blog before.

Here's the latest bit of anecdotal confirmation, courtesy of Jaan Ehlvest's autobiographical The Story of a Chess Player (Ehlvest Chess Gates, 2004), 174-5:

I was invited to play in the prestigious Linares Tournament only once. After that I was probably put on organizer Luis Rentero's infamous "black list". In 1991 my rating was clearly in the top 10 in the world, and I was annoyed about the low appearance fee offered by Rentero. My anger didn't help me - in the first round, I lost from a very promising position to Anatoly Karpov; and in the second I took too many risks against Beliavsky, playing the King's Indian as black. After that I made a prearranged draw with Mikhail Gurevich. The contract with the organizer forbid draws before move 40, so we had to pretend a little bit more.

Here's a possible counter-argument: a longer game, even if not only the result but every single move is prearranged, still gives chess fans more to chew on. If the fans benefit, the organizers benefit and if the organizers benefit, so do the players - everyone wins.

Here's the game, in case you're curious. Did they do a good job?

Linares 1991, Round 3 [White "Ehlvest, Jaan"] [Black "Gurevich, Mikhail"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [ECO "C11"] [WhiteElo "2650"] [BlackElo "2650"]

1. d4 e6 2. e4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. f4 c5 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. Be3 cxd4 8. Nxd4 Bc5 9. Qd2 Nxd4 10. Bxd4 Bxd4 11. Qxd4 Qb6 12. Qxb6 Nxb6 13. Nb5 Ke7 14. Kd2 Bd7 15. Nd4 Na4 16. b3 Nc5 17. Bd3 g6 18. a4 a5 19. Raf1 h5 20. g3 Rag8 21. h4 Rc8 22. Ra1 Rc7 23. Rhb1 Ra8 24. Ra3 Be8 25. c3 Bd7 26. Bc2 Rcc8 27. Rba1 Na6 28. Nb5 b6 29. Nd6 Rc7 30. Rb1 Nc5 31. b4 axb4 32. Rxb4 Ra6 33. Ra1 Rca7 34.Rab1 Nxa4 35. Bxa4 Rxa4 36. Rxb6 Ra2+ 37. R1b2 Rxb2+ 38. Rxb2 Rc7 39.Rb7 Rxb7 40. Nxb7 Bc6 41. Nd6 Bd7 42. Ke3 Bc6 43. Kd4 Bd7 44. Kc5 Ba4 45. Nc8+ Kd8 46.Nb6 Bc2 47. Kd6 Bd3 48. Nd7 Bc2 49. Nf6 Bf5 1/2-1/2

In addition to the elite championship event in Russia, the 2005 edition of the yearly tournament in Pamplona, Spain has also just concluded. Ruslan Ponomariov took first with 5/7, closely followed by Pentala Harikrishna and sometime-Topalov second Ivan Cheparinov with 4.5.

Complete final standings:

1. Ponomariov 5
2. Harikrishna, Cheparinov 4.5
3. Tiviakov (a great Dragon expert and outgoing member of the 2700 club) 4
4. Fressinet 3.5
5. Izoria (winner of the apparently one-time only HB Global Challenge) 3
6. Timman 2
7. De al Riva Aguado 1.5

The tournament website is here.

In somewhat of an upset, Sergei Rublevsky completed one of the finest results of his career, winning the event by a full point, undefeated. In joint second were Dmitry Jakovenko (another mild surprise) and Alexander Morozevich - not a bad result for the latter, especially considering that he lost one game by forfeit due to oversleeping! Bareev, Zvjaginsev and Svidler had decent tournaments, sharing 4-6th places another half point back, followed by Kramnik, who concluded 2005 with yet another mediocre result.

Complete final standings:

1. Rublevsky 7.5 (out of 11)
2-3. Jakovenko, Morozevich 6.5
4-6. Bareev, Zvjaginsev, Svidler 6
7. Kramnik 5.5
8. Motylev 5
9-10. Dreev, Khalifman 4.5
11-12. Tomashevsky, Volkov 4

For the final round report and links to the games and earlier reports, click here; for the tournament website, this is the link for you.

Courtesy of the January 1, 2006 issue of Chess Today (#1881):

1. Kasparov 2812
2. Topalov 2801
3. Anand 2792
4. Svidler 2765
5. Aronian 2752
6. Kramnik 2741
7. Leko 2740
8. Ivanchuk 2729
9. Gelfand 2723
10. Ponomariov 2723
11. Morozevich 2721
12. Grischuk 2717
13. Bacrot 2717
14. J. Polgar 2711
15. Mamedyarov 2709
16. Shirov 2709
17. Adams 2707
18. Akopian 2704
19. Radjabov 2700
20. Bareev 2698

The big winners here are Aronian and Mamedyarov, while Ivanchuk was among those taking a spill. I don't think the list is completely up to date for all the events of 2005, which means that Svidler (down), Kramnik (down), Morozevich (up) and Bareev's (up) ratings will all have changed somewhat due to the just-completed Russian Championship Superfinal, while Ponomariov's may have moved slightly (either no change or a small gain) after the also just-finished tournament in Pamplona.