The Chess Mind

Today's round was a big one, with six decisive games out of eight - none favorable to a player behind in a match.

Two matches ended today, and two others have the trailers on life support. Leko concluded his match when Gurevich blundered a pawn in an approximately equal ending. Likewise, Kamsky wrapped up his contest with Bacrot when the latter took too many liberties trying to create play in a drawable middlegame. (In fairness, Bacrot did create play, but it was against his own king.) Likewise, Malakhov tried to avoid a drawish ending against Grischuk, but his "success" meant a second win for his opponent, who leads 3-1. Also leading 3-1 is Bareev, who convincingly outplayed Polgar in an old-fashioned line of the Queen's Indian.

In the more closely contested matches, Aronian bounced back against Carlsen, reclaiming a 1-point lead with a positional crush. Rublevsky maintained his 1-point lead against Ponomariov in a long, always balanced draw. The Adams-Shirov match saw its first decisive result when Shirov blundered away a sure draw trying to squeeze a little something out of the position. Finally, Gelfand and Kasimdzhanov remain deadlocked, though it looks like the former may have missed a singe-move opportunity for a clear advantage.

Match Standings after Game 4:

Aronian - Carlsen 2.5-1.5
Adams - Shirov 2.5-1.5

Leko - Gurevich 3.5-.5 (finished)
Bareev - Polgar 3-1

Rublevsky - Ponomariov 2.5-1.5
Grischuk - Malakhov 3-1

Gelfand - Kasimdzhanov 2-2
Kamsky - Bacrot 3.5-.5 (finished)

Games here.

Their plea: let Topalov play! Their suggestion, which should have been made before the Elista match, in my opinion, is that a ninth player be added to the world championship event in Mexico City later this year. (I agree that Topalov should play, but think it should be a candidates event with the winner facing Kramnik next year. Kramnik will play a world championship match next year anyway, whether he wins or loses, so why not?) Their press release is here.

Here and here, respectively.

Roman Dzindzichashvili is best known nowadays for his opening books and videos and for his online play, but the American GM (by way of Georgia and Israel) was once among the world’s strongest players. (I think he was #12 at one time.) His victims include such players as Botvinnik and Bronstein from his days in the USSR, Larsen and Timman after he left, and Shabalov and Nakamura in his tenure here in the US.

He hasn’t played much the last few years, but it’s worth taking the time to get acquainted with he achieved when he was in his prime. This week we’ll take a look at a tactical gem from 1973, played in a semi-final of the Soviet Championship against Vitaly Tseshkovsky. The game started quietly enough, as a sort of Reti/English hybrid, but the play sharpened considerably as “Dzindzi” built up a kingside attack. His advantage grew consistently through move 26, when the natural move would have given him a decisive advantage. He blundered in time trouble, but this was a clear case of a felix culpa. Several moves later, Dzindzichashvili unleashed a fantastic combination that was sound, brilliant, and just about impossible to handle in time pressure. With very accurate play, Tseshkovsky could have saved the game, but it was too much to expect under the circumstances, and went down to defeat.

I think you’ll find the game entertaining, and opening connoisseurs will enjoy seeing an opening that doesn’t get much coverage in our shows. Hope to see you all tonight – Thursday at 9 pm ET! (Directions for watching the show are here.)

Going into the rest day, three matches are tied, three have one player up a game, and two are virtually decided. Let's take these score groups in order.

First, the tied matches. Gelfand-Kasimdzhanov and Adams-Shirov have only seen draws so far, but it's not for want of trying. Gelfand's game saw the super-sharp Moscow variation of the Semi-Slav, and after Kasimdzhanov's strong 17...c5 Gelfand had to work very hard to keep the position from getting out of hand. Likewise, Adams-Shirov was a sharp Archangelsk; unfortunately, the complications quickly petered out into a forced draw. The BIG game was Carlsen-Aronian, which shows why I hated this pairing - the youngster is getting stronger practically every day. It's a shame if either player misses Mexico City, but that's just what has to happen. In an English-cum-4.a3 QID (without a3), Carlsen gained a structural advantage that he was able to convert beautifully.

In the up-a-game category, we have a similar pattern: two matches maintaining the status quo with a draw (Grischuk-Malakhov and Bareev-Polgar) and one Johnny-come-lately (Rublevsky-Ponomariov). Grischuk enjoyed a very slight advantage against Malakhov's Berlin Defense, but the latter equalized easily and the game was a relatively quick and painless draw. Bareev found a very important new move in a sharp Panov/Botvinnik Caro-Kann and equalized with ease. First Bareev and then Polgar enjoyed a very slight edge in the resulting endgame, but neither player was in much danger and a draw was the normal result. Finally, Ponomariov decided he'd prefer to lose than accept a draw, and self-destructed in a drawn queen ending. Rublevsky isn't exactly a favorite in this world championship cycle, but he's certainly strong enough to cash in on freebies.

Finally, Kamsky (against Bacrot) and Leko (against Gurevich) took two-point leads with wins today. Bacrot was down a pawn but with good drawing chances until blundering in time trouble, while Leko won a model ending against Gurevich's French. These two matches are almost surely over.

Match Standings after Game 3:

Aronian - Carlsen 1.5-1.5
Shirov - Adams 1.5-1.5

Leko - Gurevich 2.5-.5
Bareev - Polgar 2-1

Rublevsky - Ponomariov 2-1
Grischuk - Malakhov 2-1

Gelfand - Kasimdzhanov 1.5-1.5
Kamsky - Bacrot 2.5-.5

Games here.

Finally, since I referred to Hamlet in my last post, I thought I'd continue the literary theme in this one. One can imagine FIDE and Kalmykian President Iljumzhinov telling the audience at the opening ceremony, while pointing at the natives, something like this: "Whatever you've done to Elista - these, my brothers - you've done it unto me." (Or, more darkly, one can imagine Iljumzhinov hearing this, or something a lot like it, on some future day.)

Over on ChessVibes there's a video interview with Danish/Scottish IM/author/publisher Jacob Aagaard, supplemented by an abbreviated but still impressive analysis of a position from the game Sämisch-Nimzowitsch, Karlsbad 1923. (Unfortunately, it's on a poorly designed pocket magnetic set, but you'll get used to the pieces in < 1 minute.)

One interesting tidbit was that Aagaard moved to Scotland not for a chess-related reason or even a romantic one, but because of the church. I certainly have nothing against that, but it's shocking that to fulfill his need required a change of country! In all of Denmark, he couldn't find what he was looking for? One might say that something rotten in the state of...wait, has that line been taken?

Though both events were extremely strong and can boast a fine pedigree, the 37th Bosna tournament in Sarajevo and the 42nd Capablanca Memorial in Havana had the misfortune of competing with the MTel Masters, the US Championship, the Candidates' matches in Elista and even the Radjabov-Carlsen match for the chess world's attention. Too bad, and I'm afraid I lack the time/energy to offer much by way of retrospective coverage as well. Nevertheless, the results follow, and I can at least provide the links for readers to investigate the games on their own, should they be so inclined.

Final Standings for Bosna 2007:

1. Movsesian 6.5 (of 10)
2. Predojevic 5.5
3-4. I. Sokolov, Morozevich 5
5. Short 4.5
6. Timofeev 3.5

Final Standings for the Capablanca Memorial:

1. Ivanchuk 7.5 (out of 9, with a TPR of 2883!)
2-3. Dominguez Gashimov 5.5
4-6. Quezada, Miton, Arencibia 4.5
7. PH Nielsen 4.0
8. Nogueiras 3.5
9. Bruzon 3.0
10. Delgado 2.5

Links:

Bosna:
Official Site
Games in PGN

Capablanca Memorial:
Official Site
Daily Reports
Games in PGN

No one got revenge today, but three more players took a one-point lead: Leko, Kamsky (on time in an almost surely drawn position), and Bareev:

Match Standings after Game 2:

Aronian - Carlsen 1.5-.5
Shirov - Adams 1-1

Leko - Gurevich 1.5-.5
Bareev - Polgar 1.5-.5

Ponomariov - Rublevsky 1-1
Grischuk - Malakhov 1.5-.5

Gelfand - Kasimdzhanov 1-1
Kamsky - Bacrot 1.5-.5

Games here.

Link.

I presented this position a couple of days ago:



The task was to figure out what White ought to do here. All his pieces seem ready to go, but he'll have to remove some defenders before he can win. If you haven't already worked on it, give it some more thought. When you're ready for the answer, click here.

And they're off! Most of today's games were drawn, but almost all were prolonged struggles. That was true of the two winners' games, too. Aronian defeated Carlsen with the black pieces, when the youngster's mistimed d4 gave Aronian a strong queenside initiative. The other winner, Grischuk, convincingly outplayed his opponent from start to finish, helped along by Malakhov's dubious ...Be5xg3.

The games, with comments, are here.

OK, ladies, gentlemen and others: here's the story. As things stand at the moment, the World Championship in Mexico City, slated for September 12-30 (which probably means the 13th through the 29th) of this year, will have 8 players fighting it out in a double-round robin. Four players are already seeded: World Champ Vladimir Kramnik and the top three finishers from San Luis 2005 not named Veselin Topalov: Viswanathan Anand, Peter Svidler, and Alexander Morozevich.

That leaves four spots, and that's what this Candidates' event is all about. In two rounds of 6-game matches, 16 candidates will be whittled down to the four needed to fill the spots. Here are the matches, bunched up to show the second round pairings as well:


Levon Aronian - Magnus Carlsen
Alexei Shirov - Michael Adams

Peter Leko - Mikhail Gurevich
Judith Polgar - Evgeny Bareev

Ruslan Ponomariov - Sergei Rublevsky
Alexander Grischuk - Vladimir Malakhov

Boris Gelfand - Rustam Kasimdzhanov
Etienne Bacrot - Gata Kamsky

(The winner of Aronian-Carlsen plays the winner of Shirov-Adams; the winner of Leko-Gurevich plays the Polgar-Bareev survivor, and so on.)

Here's the schedule:

Round 1:
Game 1: May 27 (Sunday)
Game 2: May 28
Game 3: May 29
(May 30 is a rest day)
Game 4: May 31
Game 5: June 1
Game 6: June 2
Tiebreaks (if necessary) June 3

Round 2 works exactly the same way: 6 games, starts on June 6, has a rest day on June 9 and tiebreaks, if necessary, on the 13th. All normal time control games start at 7 a.m. ET; tiebreaks at the chipper hour of 5 a.m.

First-round predictions? Here are mine: Aronian over Carlsen (what an awful first-round pairing!), Adams over Shirov, Leko over Gurevich, Polgar over Bareev, Ponomariov over Rublevsky, Grischuk over Malakhov, Gelfand over Kasimdzhanov (but not if it gets to rapids!), and Kamsky over Bacrot. I'm confident about Leko, pretty confident about Ponomariov, Aronian, and Grischuk (I hear he's morphing into a pro poker player; if he were just doing chess I'd be a lot more confident about him), a little confident about Polgar (she has been absent from the chess scene, playing just 7 slow time control games since 2005, but in the past year Bareev has been AWOL at the board, sinking from 2701 a year ago to 2643 (and losing more points) on the current list), and not confident at all about Gelfand or Kamsky.

Finally, here are the lifetime head-to-head scores, where applicable:

Aronian 7 - Carlsen 4 (+3 =8)
Adams 14 - Shirov 21 (+6 -13 =16) (Mitigating factor: Shirov started with 7 unanswered wins, not counting draws.)
Leko 1/2 - Gurevich 1 1/2
Polgar 8 1/2 - Bareev 5 1/2 (+6 -3 =5) (Note, however, that the last three decisive games were Bareev wins.)
Ponomariov 2 1/2 - Rublevsky 2 1/2 (+2 -2 =1)
Grischuk 6 - Malakhov 4 (+4 -2 =4) (Excluding blitz, it's +3-1=3)
Gelfand 1/2 - Kasimdzhanov 1/2
Kamsky 1 1/2 - Bacrot 2 1/2 (+1 -2 =1)

Have a look:



White's position certainly looks impressive, but what can he do with it? Do your best to figure things out; my analysis will show up in a day or two (or three).

This May has been a spectacular month for chess fans: MTel (disappointing, but still a super-tournament), the US Championship, the Candidates starting in Elista tomorrow (I should have a post on this later tonight), and the Bosna and Capablanca Memorial tournaments currently underway. Here's an interim report:

Bosna, standings after 7 (of 10) rounds:

Movsesian 5
Predojevic 4
I. Sokolov 3.5
Short, Morozevich 3(!)
Timofeev 2.5

Capablanca Memorial, standings after 6 (of 9) rounds:

Ivanchuk 5 (too bad he's not in the Candidates)
Gashimov, Dominguez 3.5
Quesada, Arencibia 3
Miton, Nogueiras, PH Nielsen, Delgado 2.5
Bruzon 2(!)

As can be seen above, Nigel Short hasn't had a stellar tournament so far, but one bright spot came in round 4, when he defeated Ivan Sokolov with that wonderful old museum piece known as the Evans Gambit. There wasn't much else that was 19th century about the game, but that's typical of contemporary gambit play: it's about long-term gains or a prolonged initiative much more than it is creating a whirlwind and praying for mate.

Here's the game.

Here's a recent beginner's book title: Teach Yourself Visually Chess. A maybe colon missing is?

Alexei Alexeivich Troitzky is known among chess fans for his analysis of two knights vs. pawn, the conclusions of which are summarized in the famous "Troitzky line". What chess fans probably don't realize is just how amazing his achievement really was - I know I didn't. Hans Ree's fine essay* has cured me of my ignorance, and I'm grateful - Troitzky's achievement deserves recognition, and gratitude as well from those of us whose careers started in the pre-tablebase era. I encourage you all to have a look - it's a very good read.

*This direct link will only work until Ree's June 2007 essay goes up. You'll then want to go here and select the May 2007 column.

James West entitles his most recent reply in our ongoing debate "Relentless":

When people ask me what my middle initial stands for, I sometimes say jokingly, "Relentless!" Those of you who have been following my over-the-blogs debate with Dennis Monokroussos can understand why. Every time Monokroussos finds a line that is advantageous for White against the Philidor Counter Gambit, I redouble my efforts to find a better move for Black. This time, my never-say-die approach seems to have paid off because I think that I have finally found an equalizing path in the variation favored by Monokroussos, namely...

That he is relentless can't be disputed; that he is successful, however, can be. This post will be my final one on this variation (with one exception*): as none of the pro-White analyses have been overturned (the loyal opposition has always done the varying from earlier lines), I'm at least satisfied that my intuitions about the position after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 f5 4.Nc3 fxe4 5.Nxe4 d5 6.Neg5 have been confirmed. A "mathematical" proof that White has a clear advantage is impossible**, but if a player of West's abilities, doggedness and deep familiarity with the opening hasn't succeeded by now, it's reasonably unlikely that it's going to happen. Impossible? No, that would be foolish of me to say, and I'll continue to follow (and check) his analytical efforts - but not on this blog. (Especially given the apparent lack of reader interest, at least to judge by the complete absence of feedback over here.) Here is my (presumably) final* reply in our very pleasant dispute, from which I've learned a great deal. Thank you, Mr. West!

* West didn't offer a reply to my last analysis of the variation 6...exd4 7.Nxd4, but when he does I'll offer a reply (even if it's to congratulate on him on finding a refutation of my analysis).

** Actually, it's incoherent, since a proof of that sort could only show that one side or the other is winning or that the position is a draw. As I blogged long ago, calling an advantage "clear" or "slight" is a way of offering a prediction, or describing the sides' relative margin of error, or describes the players' comfort level, or is shorthand for a statistical assessment.

Link.

It wasn't the cakewalk one might have expected after his 5-0 start, but a convincing last-round win over Kudrin, in conjunction with Onischuk's draw with Gulko, gave Shabalov his fourth U.S. Championship title. (Shabalov also won in 1993 (with Yermolinsky), 2000 (with Benjamin and Seirawan), and 2003.)

Final Round Results:

Shabalov - Kudrin 1-0
Onischuk - Gulko 1/2-1/2
Shulman - Kaidanov 1/2-1/2
Nakamura - Becerra 0-1
Ehlvest - Stripunsky 0-1
Ibragimov - Ivanov 1/2-1/2
Akobian - Sevillano 1-0
Perelshteyn - Khachiyan 1/2-1/2
Hess - Yermolinsky 1/2-1/2
Langer - Gurevich 1/2-1/2
Krush - Bradford 0-1
Mulyar - Friedel 1/2-1/2
Preuss - Robson 1-0
Sarkar - Smith 1/2-1/2
Airapetian - Burnett 0-1
Aigner - Browne 0-1
Bonin - Movsisyan 1/2-1/2
Braunlich - Zenyuk 1/2-1/2

Final Standings:

1. Shabalov 7
2. Onischuk 6.5
3-5. Kaidanov, Shulman, Becerra 6
6-9. Kudrin, Gulko, Akobian, Stripunsky 5.5
10-16. Ehlvest, Nakamura, Ibragimov, Ivanov, Khachiyan, Perelshteyn, Bradford 5
17-23. Yermolinsky, Sevillano, Gurevich, Hess, Langer, Preuss, Burnett 4.5
24-29. Krush, Browne, Mulyar, Friedel, Smith, Sarkar 4
30-31. Bonin, Robson 3.5
32-34. Zenyuk, Aigner, Movsisyan 2.5
35. Braunlich 2
36. Airapetian 1.5

The top five finishers all qualified for world championship competition of some sort (I'm not sure exactly how that's supposed to work), and Bradford and Langer both achieved IM norms; for the former, it's his final norm. Congratulations to the winner, qualifiers and normers!

For Shabalov-Kudrin, Nakamura-Becerra and Krush-Bradford, click here; the remaining games can be accessed via the Monroi site.

In a recent poll of Russian experts trying to choose the best game of 2006, two candidates received almost the exact same number of votes. The winner, by a single point, was Topalov-Aronian from Corus. That’s a great game – no question – but one most (if not all) of you have already seen. (If you haven’t, you can find the game here.) You probably haven’t seen the other game, though – a pity, but we’re going to do something about that.

The game is Zvaginsev-Zhang Pengxiang, from the China-Russia Summit match played in August of 2006. Vadim Zvjaginsev is one of the most original players on the chess scene, a man who introduced the improbable 1.e4 c5 2.Na3 into grandmaster praxis, and whose other experiments include 1.e4 e6 2.f4 – as played in our featured game. Zhang Pengxiang is a fine player in his own right; not as well-known as his opponent, but now that his rating is approaching the upper 2600s, that’s bound to change. (His official rating is 2657, and the FIDE site says his current expected gain is +14. Impressive!)

Back to the game. Zvaginsev, as mentioned, chose the peculiar 2.f4 against the French, but although the game didn’t follow standard theoretical channels, the basic French Defense themes remained firmly in place. There are occasions in more mainstream version of the opening where White gets a nice dark square bind with, e.g., a bishop on d6, and that’s what happened here. That happened here, too, but what was so unusual here is that the dark square bind (a) cost White the exchange and a pawn, (b) happened in a position where he was almost completely undeveloped, and (c) took place in an almost entirely blocked up, closed position! As the old movie reminds us, though, there can be a big difference between being x and being mostly x, and Zvjaginsev did a beautiful job of utilizing all the open and potentially open lines on both sides of the board. It’s an attractive, picturesque, thematic and instructive game, and chess fans and (anti-) French aficionados should all check it out.

So please join us at our usual place and time: the playchess server, Thursday night at 9 pm (ET). See you there! (Directions for watching the show can be found here.)

Round 8 Results:

Kudrin - Onischuk 1/2-1/2
Gulko - Shabalov 1/2-1/2
Kaidanov - Ivanov 1-0
Becerra - Ehlvest 1/2-1/2
Perelshteyn - Shulman 0-1
Gurevich - Nakamura 0-1
Khachiyan - Ibragimov 1/2-1/2
Stripunsky - Langer 1-0
Robson - Akobian 0-1
Yermolinsky - Krush 1/2-1/2
Sevillano - Mulyar 1-0
Friedel - Hess 1/2-1/2
Bradford - Bonin 1-0
Browne - Preuss 1/2-1/2
Burnett - Movsisyan 1-0
Airapetian - Sarkar 0-1
Smith - Braunlich 1-0
Zenyuk - Aigner 0-1

Leading Standings after Round 8:

1-2. Onischuk, Shabalov 6
3-5. Kaidanov, Kudrin, Shulman 5.5
6-9. Ehlvest, Nakamura, Becerra, Gulko 5

Top Final Round Pairings:

Shabalov - Kudrin
Onischuk - Gulko
Shulman - Kaidanov
Nakamura - Becerra
Ehlvest - Stripunsky

Note: On the official website there's an ominous notice: "The pairings might be changed based on a player's health." It doesn't say who the player is or how far up the food chain he or she might be, but let's hope the top pairings are unaffected and, most importantly, that the player in question is and will be okay.

In tonight's game selection, I take a look at the surprising game between Gurevich and Nakamura. After a shaky opening and acute play by Gurevich, Nakamura had to scramble to avoid getting massacred. He did a pretty good job, too, but even so he was probably lost after his 33rd move. Unfortunately, Gurevich nervously exchanged queens, after which the position was roughly equal: Nakamura's bishop pair offered full compensation for his opponent's extra pawn. Even after that, Gurevich should have drawn, but he was probably so shocked at not having won that he was unable to adjust, and his resourceful opponent won. (Nakamura has enjoyed quite a bit of good fortune this tournament - especially when Yermolinsky resigned in a drawn position - but it has still a disappointing event for him.)

That game, with brief comments, is here; for the whole lot of 'em use this link.

Shabalov drew with Ehlvest, but Onischuk defeated Nakamura with Black, leaping into a tie for first. As usual, most members of the immediate chase pack drew their games, but Kudrin defeated Ibragimov to pull within half a point of the lead. What was looking like a blowout just a couple of days ago has turned into a real contest going into the last two rounds!

Round 7 Results:

Shabalov - Ehlvest 1/2-1/2
Nakamura - Onischuk 0-1
Ibragimov - Kudrin 0-1
Ivanov - Shulman 1/2-1/2
Gurevich - Becerra 1/2-1/2
Yermolinsky - Kaidanov 0-1
Krush - Gulko 0-1
Akobian - Perelshteyn 0-1
Khachiyan - Stripunsky 1/2-1/2
Hess - Sevillano 1/2-1/2
Langer - Smither 1-0
Mulyar - Browne 1-0
Robson - Sarkar 1-0
Burnett - Friedel 0-1
Preuss - Zenyuk 1-0
Braunlich - Bradford 0-1
Bonin - Airapetian 1-0
Movsisyan - Aigner 0-1

Leading Standings after Round 7:

1-2. Onischuk, Shabalov 5.5
3. Kudrin 5
4-10. Kaidanov, Ehlvest, Ivanov, Perelshteyn, Shulman, Becerra, Gulko 4.5
11-15. Ibragimov, Nakamura, Khachiyan, Gurevich, Langer 4

Top Pairings for Round 8:

Kudrin - Onischuk
Gulko - Shabalov
Kaidanov - Ivanov
Becerra - Ehlvest
Perelshteyn - Shulman
Gurevich - Nakamura
Khachiyan - Ibragimov
Stripunsky - Langer

Click here for Nakamura-Onischuk and Akobian-Perelshteyn; for the rest, this is the place.

"Why remove theory to let everyone start from the same level? I've been studying chess for 40 years and you make me start at the same level as somebody who spent all that time drinking and watching TV?" (Romanishin to a group of Italian players in Rome, 2006.)

Wittily put, and it even seems to make sense - at least at first. Upon further examination, it's not so clear. Here are some of the flaws with Romanishin's reasoning; readers are invited to supply more - or to rebut the flaws in my reasoning.

(1) R. assumes that the only benefits he accrued from his 40 years' labor pertain to particular openings. But learning isn't so compartmentalized, and what he has learned - even if only tacitly - about pawn structures, piece coordination, and working his way through unclear positions will pay off in Chess960 as well.

(2) R. isn't addressing the basis of the pro-Chess960 argument. If its advocates are right about the deathly state of contemporary opening theory, he should welcome the change. Those TV-watching booze hounds have flipped on their Fritzes and Rybkas, and have thereby caught up with Romanishin and his 40 years of work. There's no advantage to staying pat - the elbow-bending couch potatoes have already caught him. If they're not right, however, then there's no reason to jump ship to Chess960. Romanishin's time investment isn't relevant either way.

(3) Making the switch would help R. in his battle with the alcoholic cyborgs. His industriousness and understanding of how to work out the opening phase of the game will help him to systematically prepare for the random positions better than his opponents. We can label this advantage the learning-how-to-learn edge.

This was probably the field's last chance to avoid turning the rest of the tournament into a prolonged coronation, and Onischuk took that chance. Not only did he defeat Shabalov, but he did so with surprising ease, pulling to within half a point. The rest of the chase pack continued their heavy diet of draws, however, so odds are excellent that one of these two will win the title.

Round 6 Results:

Onischuk - Shabalov 1-0
Ehlvest - Nakamura 1/2-1/2
Shulman - Ibragimov 1/2-1/2
Kaidanov - Becerra 1/2-1/2
Kudrin - Stripunsky 1-0
Gulko - Yermolinsky 1/2-1/2
Ivanov - Langer 1-0
Sevillano - Khachiyan 1/2-1/2
Browne - Akobian 0-1
Smith - Perelshteyn 0-1
Mulyar - Gurevich 0-1
Friedel - Krush 0-1
Bradford - Hess 0-1
Sarkar - Burnett 1/2-1/2
Zenyuk - Robson 0-1
Preuss - Bonin 1/2-1/2
Airapetian - Movsisyan 0-1
Aigner - Braunlich 0-1

Leading Standings:

1. Shabalov 5
2. Onischuk 4.5
3-9. Ibragimov, Ehlvest, Nakamura, Shulman, Becerra, Kudrin, Ivanov 4

Top Pairings for Round 7:

Shabalov - Ehlvest
Nakamura - Onischuk
Ibragimov - Kudrin
Ivanov - Shulman
Gurevich - Becerra

Onischuk-Shabalov here, all games here.

For those of you who aren't fans of Veselin Topalov, I have good news and bad news. The good news: he was just a point out of last place. The bad news? That was enough for solo first place! A sad finish for Sasikiran, who had been in clear first since round 7, but an impressive achievement by Topalov, who was -2 after the first three rounds.

Round 10 Results:

Nisipeanu - Mamedyarov 1/2-1/2
Adams - Kamsky 1/2-1/2
Topalov - Sasikiran 1-0

Final Standings (in tiebreak order):

1. Topalov 5.5
2. Mamedyarov 5
3. Kamsky 5
4. Nisipeanu 5
5. Sasikiran 5
6. Adams 4.5

Games here.

Is anyone still reading these? James West and I have been going back and forth over lines that start with the moves 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 f5?! 4.Nc3 fxe4 5.Nxe4 d5?!/?, and the results thus far have been in White's favor. In just about every post, I've argued that White gains a clear advantage (or more), and West has admirably stuck up for his variation, diligently searching for new methods of defense.

For those who are still following the debate, my last salvo was fired off here, and this is his latest response. I'm pleased to report that on this occasion West and I are nearly in agreement. His analysis looks quite sensible, and I'm happy to adopt his proposed variations. The only barrier to complete concord comes in the evaluation stage: I think he has misassessed both variations. In one line, White wins outright, and in the other, White maintains a clear advantage. But have a look for yourselves.

As if there weren't already enough fun events taking place in the chess world, I have three more to (briefly) report on.

First, there's a double round-robin event in Bosna with Morozevich, Short, I. Sokolov, Movsesian, Timofeev, and Predojevic. The first round was yesterday, and Morozevich defeated Short with the black pieces; the other games were drawn. That game is linked, below.

Next, the 42nd Capablanca Memorial in Havana, Cuba also started yesterday, and stars Ivanchuk (who, like Morozevich, also won with Black in the day's only decisive game), P.H. Nielsen (Ivanchuk's victim), Bruzon, Dominguez, Miton, Gashimov, Arencibia, Quesada, and Delgado.

Finally, the Lichtenstein Open finished yesterday, and was won by Chess Today founder Alex Baburin. Most of his wins came from grinding his opponents into the dust, but I've linked to an atypically flashy win you're bound to enjoy.

Click here for Short-Morozevich and Subbaraman Vijayalakshmi-Baburin.

Round 5 Results:

Shabalov - Kaidanov 1-0
Onischuk - Ehlvest 1/2-1/2
Nakamura - Yermolinsky 1-0
Ibragimov - Gurevich 1-0
Shulman - Sevillano 1-0
Khachiyan - Gulko 1/2-1/2
Becerra - Akobian 1-0
Stripunsky - Browne 1-0
Hess - Ivanov 0-1
Kudrin - Zenyuk 1-0
Perelshteyn - Krush 1/2-1/2
Langer - Preuss 1-0
Burnett - Bradford 1/2-1/2
Bonin - Smith 0-1
Robson - Mulyar 0-1
Movsisyan - Sarkar 0-1
Braunlich - Friedel 0-1
Aigner - Airapetian 0-1

On board 1, Shabalov achieved a very small advantage in the opening, which Kaidanov attempted to neutralize with a pawn sac. The sacrifice was sound, but he missed at least two tactical possibilities which would have equalized. As a result of these omissions, Shabalov was able to trade again and again, and when it was about to become a king and pawn ending Kaidanov threw in the towel.

None of the other three-pointers were able to keep pace with Shabalov, either. Onischuk-Ehlvest started sedately, but the position built up until Onischuk's 27.Bxa6 briefly set the board ablaze. Unfortunately, when Onischuk mistakenly traded queens on move 33 it turned the whole thing into a flashy exchanging combination, leading to a materially imbalanced but equal ending which was duly and dully drawn. Had Onischuk played 33.Qd8+, however, he probably would have enjoyed solo second place.

Finally, Yermolinsky lost to Nakamura, but I'm not sure if he resigned or lost on time. Whichever it was, the final position was drawn or at worst just a little better for Nakamura.

The upshot, then, is that with four rounds to go, Shabalov leads by a point and a half. I think that if he doesn't lose this next round, the championship is almost certainly his; if he wins it, the engraver can get to work.

Leaders after Round 5:

1. Shabalov 5
2-7. Ibragimov, Nakamura, Ehlvest, Onischuk, Becerra, Shulman 3.5
8-15. Kaidanov, Yermolinsky, Khachiyan, Stripunsky, Kudrin, Ivanov, Gulko, Langer 3

Top Pairings for Round 6:

Onischuk - Shabalov
Ehlvest - Nakamura
Shulman - Ibragimov
Kaidanov - Becerra
Kudrin - Stripunsky
Gulko - Yermolinsky
Ivanov - Langer
Sevillano - Khachiyan

The three games mentioned above, plus board four's Ibragimov-Gurevich, are here; the rest can be found here.

The envelope, please...and the winner is...Vladimir Kramnik! This is Kramnik's second win; his first came in the year 2000, thanks mainly to his starring role in the match with Kasparov.

The "Oscar", as it's called, an annual award sponsored by the Russian magazine 64-Chess Review, based on their survey of chess journalists. (Needless to say, I'm not included.) Here are the vote totals for the top 10.

Kramnik - 3636 pts
Topalov - 2828
Anand - 2754
Aronian - 2238
Ivanchuk - 1122
Radjabov - 980
Leko - 963
Morozevich - 888
Mamedyarov - 860
Carlsen - 822

Full details here (if you can read Russian).

Hat tip: Chess Today.

Round 9 Results:

Mamedyarov - Adams 1/2-1/2
Kamsky - Topalov 1/2-1/2
Sasikiran - Nisipeanu 1/2-1/2

All the games were drawn, preventing my daydream of a six-way tie for first from coming to pass. Sasikiran maintained his slim lead over the pack, drawing comfortably with Nisipeanu. He even had some winning chances in the major piece endgame, but after missing 22.Qf2 his opponent was able to hold.

Kamsky-Topalov was a little unusual. Kamsky played an odd, tempo-losing novelty, but gradually gained an edge anyway. It wasn't much, and when he played 24.c4 to open more lines, Black was able to equalize. Black even obtained an edge, but Kamsky had enough counterplay against his opponent's king to keep the draw.

Finally, Adams got the Queen's Indian right this round (compare with his round 6 game, the one that, in retrospect, may have ruined the 6-way tie) against Mamedyarov, and even managed to get an edge. It wasn't much though, and a small inaccuracy allowed Mamedyarov to equalize completely: draw.

Standings after Round 9:

1. Sasikiran 5
2-5. Kamsky, Mamedyarov, Nisipeanu, Topalov 4.5
6. Adams

Final Round (Round 10) Pairings:

Nisipeanu - Mamedyarov
Adams - Kamsky
Topalov - Sasikiran

Games, with light comments, here.

It might have been brief, but the players put on a good show. The two rapid games weren't enough to settle things, as each player won with White, and two playoff blitz games were drawn. So it came down to the "Armageddon" game. Carlsen had 4 minutes, Radjabov 3 minutes and draw odds...and Radjabov won.

Games here, website here.

Round 4 Results:

Nakamura - Shabalov 0-1
Kaidanov - Onischuk 1/2-1/2
Ibragimov - Ehlvest 1/2-1/2
Akobian - Shulman 1/2-1/2
Yermolinsky - Stripunsky 1-0
Gulko - Becerra 1/2-1/2
Ivanov - Khachiyan 1/2-1/2
Krush - Kudrin 1/2-1/2
Perelshteyn - Hess 1/2-1/2
Gurevich - Burnett 1-0
Sevillano - Bonin 1-0
Browne - Smith 1-0
Zenyuk - Friedel 1-0
Bradford - Preuss 1/2-1/2
Sarkar - Langer 0-1
Mulyar - Aigner 1-0
Airapetian - Robson 0-1
Movsisyan - Braunlich 1-0

Leading Standings:

1. Shabalov 4
2-5. Ehlvest, Kaidanov, Onischuk, Yermolinsky 3
6-15. Akobian, Becerra, Browne, Gulko, Gurevich, Ibragimov, Khachiyan, Nakamura, Sevillano, Shulman 2.5

If this draw-heavy pace and Shabalov's good form continue, he might win this thing going away. It's still early, but a 4-0 start that includes a win (with Black) against Nakamura gives his fans good reason for optimism. Here is that game.

Round 8 Results:

Nisipeanu - Adams 1-0
Topalov - Mamedyarov 1/2-1/2
Sasikiran - Kamsky 0-1

Round 8 was a good one for the spectators, with three long, complicated games. In Nisipeanu-Adams, White's attack progressed in slow motion, but after the first time control the breakthrough happened and Adams' kingside was like a castle with a lowered drawbridge and without a moat. It's the sort of game a human could win against a computer: you just build and build, and the computer doesn't know what to do until it's too late. (For that matter, Adams didn't know what to do either.)

Topalov-Mamedyarov was one big complication, proceeding from one imbalance to another. I'm not even close to understanding the game, but as far as I can tell, it looks like the players were both very accurate. Topalov was eventually able to neutralize his opponent's counterplay and win material, but it wasn't enough: Mamedyarov drew easily with a standard rook vs. queen fortress.

Finally, the new leader, Sasikiran, lost a game he should have drawn. Despite this, he's still in clear first, but almost the entire field is now a mere half point behind!

Standings after Round 8:

1. Sasikiran 4.5
2-5. Kamsky, Mamedyarov, Nisipeanu, Topalov 4
6. Adams 3.5

Pairings for Round 9:

Mamedyarov - Adams
Kamsky - Topalov
Sasikiran - Nisipeanu

Pairings for Round 10:

Nisipeanu - Mamedyarov
Adams - Kamsky
Topalov - Sasikiran

An exercise for the readers: figure out what results for rounds 9 and 10 would lead to a six-way tie for first.

Games, with comments, here.

Round 3 Results:

Shabalov - Ibragimov 1-0
Stripunsky - Nakamura 0-1
Onischuk - Ivanov 1-0
Kudrin - Kaidanov 0-1
Ehlvest - Perelshteyn 1-0
Shulman - Khachiyan 1/2-1/2
Akobian - Yermolinsky 1/2-1/2
Preuss - Gulko 0-1
Becerra - Sarkar 1-0
Smith - Gurevich 1/2-1/2
Burnett - Sevillano 1/2-1/2
Bonin - Browne 1/2-1/2
Friedel - Bradford 1/2-1/2
Krush - Mulyar 1-0
Hess - Robson 1-0
Langer - Aigner 1-0
Zenyuk - Movsisyan 1-0
Braunlich - Airapetian 1/2-1/2

Leading Stadings:

1. Shabalov 3/3
2-5. Nakamura, Ehlvest, Onischuk, Kaidanov 2.5
6-13. Ibragimov, Yermolinsky, Stripunsky, Akobian, Khachiyan, Shulman, Becerra, Gulko 2

Top Pairings for Round 4:

Nakamura - Shabalov
Kaidanov - Onischuk
Ibragimov - Ehlvest
Akobian - Shulman
Yermolinsky - Stripunsky
Gulko - Becerra
Ivanov - Khachiyan

Games here.

Round 7 Results:

Kamsky - Nisipeanu 1/2-1/2
Mamedyarov - Sasikiran 0-1
Adams - Topalov 1/2-1/2

Sasikiran won again, this time at the expense of former co-leader Mamedyarov, who has had three consecutive poor performances. The position was sharp and unclear throughout, and for a good chunk of the game Mamedyarov had the advantage. Though the position was dangerous for him, he managed to maintain at least equality through the time control, but blundered on move 41 and lost immediately.

Kamsky-Nisipeanu was an accurately played draw. Kamsky came up with a new move and idea against his opponent's Taimanov Sicilian (still no Philidor!), but Nisipeanu's willingness to sac pawns for activity maintained the balance.

Finally, Adams had some advantage against Topalov, but he was unable to maintain it and this game too wound up drawn.

Standings after Round 7:

Sasikiran 4.5
Adams, Mamedyarov, Topalov 3.5
Kamsky, Nisipeanu 3

Round 8 Pairings:

Nisipeanu - Adams
Topalov - Mamedyarov
Sasikiran - Kamsky

Games, with light comments, here.

Will it never end? It will, but not yet. My part 7 is here, and this is West's reply. Of course, there's an antidote, and it's just a click away.

One other remark, for the good Mr. West. While our debate thus far has focused on the lines (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 f5 4.Nc3 fxe4 5.Nxe4 d5? 6.Neg5 exd4) (1) 7.Nxd4 Qe7+ 8.Be2 h6 9.Ngf3 c6 10.O-O Qf6 11.Re1 Bb4 12.c3 Bd6 13.Ba6+ Kf7 14.Bd3 and (2) 7.Bb5+ c6 8.Bd3 Bb4+ 9.Bd2, he ought not to forget about Marvin Barker's suggested 9.c3 (in line (2)).

Update: I've slightly modified the analysis to incorporate a suggestion by Dave Vigorito and to alter a couple of sentences in the commentary.

This is a great opportunity for my readers, both for its intrinsic interest and for the potential prize. My friend Alex Herrera, whose chess page is linked on my sidebar (and here), has posted his second Monthly Challenge (go to the second game from that link - Engel-Sanakoev). Your mission, if you choose to accept it (and you should!) is to analyze the position after White's 24th move and to determine (a) whether 24...Ba3 was the best move, and (b) what constitutes best play from that position (after 24.Qf1).

It's a contest, and 30% of the score goes to the answer on part (a) and the remaining 70% for part (b). Email Alex with your analysis (his address is given on his site), and he'll send it along to the judge. (Guess who.) The prize, in addition to the pleasure of analysis and its positive effect on your strength, is Sanakoev's outstanding World Champion at the Third Attempt.

Here are the results:

Nakamura - Kudrin 1/2-1/2
Perelshteyn - Onischuk 1/2-1/2
Yermolinsky - Ehlvest 1/2-1/2
Ibragimov - Becerra 1-0
Gurevich - Shabalov 0-1
Sevillano - Stripunsky 0-1
Khachiyan - Akobian 1/2-1/2
Kaidanov - Bradford 1-0
Shulman - Krush 1-0
Gulko - Bonin 1/2-1/2
Ivanov - Mulyar 1-0
Robson - Friedel 1/2-1/2
Browne - Langer 1-0
Pruess - Movsisyan 1-0
Aigner - Hess 1/2-1/2
Sarkar - Zenyuk 1-0
Smith - Airapetian 1-0
Burnett - Braunlich 1-0

Leading standings:

1-3. Ibragimov, Shabalov, Stripunsky 2
4-14. Nakamura, Kudrin, Perelshteyn, Onischuk, Yermolinsky, Ehlvest, Khachiayn, Akobian, Kaidanov, Shulman, Ivanov 1.5

Games can be found on the Monroi site. (For now, click on the Live Games link for round 2 games.)

It's the interview that eats like a commercial - an intermercial. Whatever you want to call it, it's Kasparov being interviewed about his Revolution in the 70s, Part I. (Reviews of the book can be found here and here.)

Round 6 Results:

Nisipeanu - Topalov 0-1
Sasikiran - Adams 1-0
Kamsky - Mamedyarov 1-0

It's a brand new tournament! Well, not quite, but after today's round, which saw the top two lose and the bottom two win, all six players have a fair shot at first place.

In round 5, Adams blew a great chance to take a solo lead, and I wondered how both he and Mamedyarov would respond to that game. The answer: badly. Adams' play in particular was utterly incomprehensible. He produced a novelty on move 17 in a known position, and one move later "sacrificed" (read: blundered) the exchange and lost easily. Mamedyarov didn't fare much better against Kamsky in a Pirc-cum-Ruy Lopez. Finally, Topalov equalized against Nisipeanu's pet line against the Najdorf (6.Be3 e5 7.Nde2) and outplayed him in the ending.

Standings after Round 6:

Mamedyarov, Sasikiran 3.5
Adams, Topalov 3
Kamsky, Nisipeanu 2.5

Pairings for Round 7:

Kamsky - Nisipeanu
Mamedyarov - Sasikiran
Adams - Topalov

(Swiss system pairings!)

Games, with light notes, here.

Aside from a certain well-known figure in Russian politics, the two best players in the world over for the past 10 years are Viswanathan Anand and Vladimir Kramnik (not necessarily in that order). These two are probably co-favorites going into the Mexico City world championships later this year, and so it’s interesting by way of preview to have a look at their recent battles – especially when the games are like the one we’ll take a look at in this week’s show.

The main event this week features their most recent game, the rapid game from March’s Amber tournament in Monaco. The game was drawn, but what a draw it was! Anand sacrificed a rook and then a piece for a massive kingside attack, and it was all Kramnik could do to defend, his extra swag notwithstanding. Kramnik returned the material a bit at a time, and when Anand missed his one and only shot at a win, Kramnik was able to escape and even seize some winning chances of his own. The lack of time inherent in rapid chess may have cost Anand the opportunity to find the win, and near the end it might have prevented Kramnik from making the most of his opportunities, and the game concluded peacefully. All in all, the inaccuracies notwithstanding, it was a well-played and occasionally brilliant effort by the two players, thoroughly deserving a closer look from chess fans everywhere.

I hope you’ll accept the invitation to join our Thursday night chess family; remember, the show starts at 9 pm ET. See you then!

(Directions for watching the show [remember, it's free!] can be found here.)

There weren't any full-point upsets, and only four lower-rated players escaped with a draw in the opening round. Full results, in board order, are given below, and two games with my comments can be found here.

Round 1 Results:

Friedel, Joshua vs Nakamura, Hikaru 0-1
Onischuk, Alexander vs Browne, Walter 1-0
Krush, Irina vs Kaidanov, Gregory 1/2-1/2
Ehlvest, Jaan vs Pruess, David 1-0
Hess, Robert vs Ibragimov, Ildar 0-1
Shabalov, Alexander vs Sarkar, Justin 1-0
Bradford, Joseph Mark vs Shulman, Yury 1/2-1/2
Stripunsky, Alexander vs Smith, Bryan 1-0
Mulyar, Michael vs Gulko, Boris 1/2-1/2
Akobian, Varuzhan vs Burnett, Ronald 1-0
Bonin, Jay vs Ivanov, Alexander 1/2-1/2
Kudrin, Sergey vs Robson, Ray 1-0
Langer, Michael vs Perelshteyn, Eugene 0-1
Becerra, Julio vs Aigner, Michael 1-0
Movsisyan, Movses vs Yermolinsky, Alex 0-1
Gurevich, Dmitry vs Zenyuk, Iryna 1-0
Airapetian, Chouchanik vs Sevillano, Enrico 0-1
Khachiyan, Melikset vs Braunlich, Tom 1-0

It starts Friday, ends Friday, and if you blink, you'll miss it. It will take place in Porto-Vecchio and will see the two talented (and super-strong) GMs play a pair of 10'+3" games.

HT: Chess Today

It's a 9-round swiss held in Stillwater, Oklahoma. The list of players (all 36 of them) can be found here, while the pairings, theoretically, ought to be found here. (As of this writing, they're not up, but I've read that the top board will see Joshua Friedel against Hikaru Nakamura; ironically, they were paired in the first round last year, too, and Friedel won with Black.) There are no free days - it's a round-a-day through the 23rd, with the rounds starting at 2 pm local time (3 pm ET, I think) except the last day, when the games start at noon. There will be a blitz tournament the evening of the 18th and a playoff following the last round, if necessary.

Ms. Moskalenko is a human rights lawyer in Russia whose clients include a certain ex-world champion. Kasparov has been taking on the Putin regime in earnest the past couple of years, at considerable risk to his own well-being. Ms. Moskalenko has been and is doing her best to help him, Mikhail Khodorkovsky and other high-profile recipients of at least questionable prosecution and persecution from the Russian state, and now it's her turn.

Worth reading.

Link.

Round 5 Results:

Nisipeanu - Sasikiran 1/2-1/2
Topalov - Kamsky 1/2-1/2
Adams - Mamedyarov 1/2-1/2

Going into the one and only rest day, the players concluded the first of the two round-robin cycles with draws. Nisipeanu-Sasikiran was a short draw, but the agreement was appropriate. Happily, the players weren't forced to continue another 40 meaningless moves, but figured out a way around the no-draw offer rules by repeating the position.

Topalov-Kamsky had a bit more life to it. Kamsky chose a comparatively rare variation of the Queen's Indian, and at least today it worked out well. Black equalized, and Kamsky's 18...f6 led to lots of exchanges and a drawn ending. In a normal event, the draw would have been agreed on move 31, but it took the players another 12 moves before they could figure out and execute a draw-producing repetition.

Finally, there was the Adams-Mamedyarov battle. Adams came out of the opening, a Taimanov Sicilian, with a wonderful slight advantage - wonderful because Black had zero counterplay. Adams was able to increase his advantage, but, remarkably, missed chance after chance to make that advantage decisive. After Adams' very poor 53.Ke5?(?) he was almost in danger of losing, but fortunately Black had too many pawn weaknesses for a complete reversal. A narrow escape for Mamedyarov, who maintains his half-point lead over Adams. It will be interesting to see how these two react to this game on a psychological level.

Standings after Round 5:

Mamedyarov 3.5
Adams 3
Nisipeanu, Sasikiran 2.5
Topalov 2
Kamsky 1.5

Pairings for Round 6: (On Wednesday)

Nisipeanu - Topalov
Sasikiran - Adams
Kamsky - Mamedyarov

Games, with my comments, here.

It took them a few rounds to get going, but ChessVibes has started posting MTel videos - see "Morning at MTel" and "Journalist material" for the first two entries.

Here's the story, as published in this morning's Chess Today:

(Sofia, May 13, 2007) The Chess Grand Slam first edition (2008) is now completed, with five tournaments: Corus Wijk aan Zee (The Netherlands, January 11-27th), Linares (Spain, February 15th – March 9th), M-Tel Masters Sofia (Bulgaria, May 6-18th), Mexico City (June 21st – July 6th) and the Final Masters in Bilbao (Spain, September 15-27th).

The Mexico City candidature, supported by its Town Council, has been unanimously accepted during the Grand Slam Chess Association meeting in Sofia, as it fulfils all the required conditions.

The Bilbao Final Masters will have the winners of the other four Grand Slam tournaments. The total prize fund of the Final Masters in Bilbao will be 400.000 euros approximately.

It's surprising in principle that the annual Dortmund tournament isn't part of the Grand Slam, but rather than speculate I'll ask my readers if they can recall reading a reason why it was excluded.

Round 4 Results:

Mamedyarov - Nisipeanu 1/2-1/2
Kamsky - Adams 1/2-1/2
Sasikiran - Topalov 0-1

Today the spectators enjoyed two lively games. First to finish was Mamedyarov-Nisipeanu. The latter played another crackpot opening - the Blumenfeld Gambit - but if there's a bust, Mamedyarov didn't find it. My software thought White could gain an edge in that game with 13.Nxe4 Qd5 14.Nf2, but then I (not my software - humans aren't yet obsolete!) came up with 14...c4!! 15.fxe5 Bc5, after which the electronic piranha was unable to do better than draw with White. After Mamedyarov's 13.fxe5, the game was drawn more or less by force, and odds are Nisipeanu had the whole game prepared in advance.

Next to finish was Sasikiran-Topalov, won convincingly by the latter. Sasikiran lost the thread early in the middlegame, and Topalov's energetic play led to a rapid denouement.

Finally, there was Kamsky-Adams. The game was in the standard range from += to = through Black's 22nd move, when Kamsky took a risk to liven things up. It turned out to favor Adams, but accurate defense resulted in a knight and two pawns vs. knight and one pawn ending. The ending looked drawn, but Adams dragged it out for another 48 moves (to move 94) without making a shred of progress.

Standings after Round 4:

Mamedyarov 3
Adams 2.5
Nisipeanu, Sasikiran 2
Topalov 1.5
Kamsky 1

Pairings for Round 5:

Nisipeanu - Sasikiran
Topalov - Kamsky
Adams - Mamedyarov

Games, with my comments, here.

Fred Reinfeld was an American master best known for saturating the market with beginner's book after beginner's book. Several generations of U.S. players learned their basic principles from his works, truisms like "castle early and often" and that bishops are better than knights in endings with passed pawns on both sides.

Part of "growing up" as a chess player is coming to realize that these are just rules of thumb, not laws. Exceptions abound, and necessarily so, as these rules of thumb often bump up against each other. Excellence in chess, as with any other non-trivial human endeavor, is incapable of being reduced to a handy set of rules.

That said, those rules of thumb are taught for a reason, and numerous losses have resulted from their violation. In fact, all of today's games saw the losers fall afoul of these rules.

Results for Round 3:

Adams - Nisipeanu 1-0
Mamedyarov - Topalov 1-0
Kamsky - Sasikiran 0-1

In a Tarrasch French (still no Philidor) with 4...Qxd5, Nisipeanu, with his king still in the center of a board filled with pieces, provocatively encouraged Adams to sacrifice a piece. Adams obliged, receiving as compensation two pawns, permanent pressure, and the safety net of perpetual check whenever he wanted it. Unsurprisingly, Nisipeanu eventually gave ground under the pressure and lost.

Likewise, Topalov ignored the wisdom of the ages, opening the position with his king in the center against a better developed opponent. While Nisipeanu's choice might have led to an objectively equal (though practically dangerous) position, Topalov's did not. White was better from the get-go, and by move 22 at the latest Black was lost. A nice crush by Mamedyarov.

Finally, in an equal to marginally worse ending against Sasikiran, Kamsky (probably in time trouble), allowed his opponent to get a bishop vs. knight ending with each player having his own passed pawn on the opposite side of the board. This situation almost always favors the side with the bishop, and this case was no different. (It goes without saying that Kamsky knows this; what he probably lacked was time to spot the good alternatives that were open to him.)

Results after Round 3:

Mamedyarov 2.5
Adams, Sasikiran 2
Nisipeanu 1.5
Kamsky, Topalov .5

Pairings for Round 4:

Mamedyarov - Nisipeanu
Kamsky - Adams
Sasikiran - Topalov

Games, with my comments, here.

Evgeny Bareev has been among the world's best players for over a decade, and is best known for his positional chess. Still, he's not incapable of winning flashy games when the mood strikes, as you can see here.

Round 2 Results:

Nisipeanu - Kamsky 1/2-1/2
Sasikiran - Mamedyarov 1/2-1/2
Topalov - Adams 1/2-1/2

Three good, correct games, and three draws. It happens! Today's efforts can be replayed here, with my notes.

Standings After Round 2:

Mamedyarov, Nisipeanu 1.5
Adams, Sasikiran 1
Kamsky, Topalov .5

Pairings for Round 3:

Adams - Nisipeanu
Mamedyarov - Topalov
Kamsky - Sasikiran

Predictions?! Yes, round 1 is over, but I'll still offer my forecast for the event as I thought about it last night. That way when it goes completely wrong, we can all have a good laugh. So here goes:

Topalov: His form since the Kramnik match hasn't been magnificent, but he's still a clear favorite if he's in good form. There's also an extrinsic motivation for Topalov to do well: if he can regain the top rating, it will put pressure on FIDE to find a way to include him in the world championship later this year; if he continues to fall into the pack, leaving him out becomes easier.

Mamedyarov: Clearly the second favorite, and a player who, along with Aronian and Radjabov, is waiting in the wings for his chance to become one of the "three tenors". I don't see Mamedyarov finishing below second.

Adams: He has been near the top of the pile for a decade or so, and while his results are always solid, he never seems to win super-events. I don't see that changing here.

Kamsky: I'm still not sure that this is the mid-90s edition of Kamsky, in part because he still doesn't play that regularly. He's getting close though, and if he's in good form, his openings are ready and T & M falter, he might pull it off.

Nisipeanu: A very entertaining player who burst on the scene in the 1999 FIDE k.o. in Las Vegas, he remains relatively untried at the elites-only level. On a personal level, having just reviewed Bauer's The Philidor Files, I'm hoping to see Nisipeanu trot out the Philidor against the top guys.

Sasikiran: It will be interesting to see India's #2 in big-time chess. I would be surprised if he (or Nisipeanu) threaten, but the experience will be invaluable.

****************

Now to round 1.

Round 1Results:

Topalov - Nisipeanu 0-1
Adams - Sasikiran 1/2-1/2
Mamedyarov - Kamsky 1-0

Topalov-Nisipeanu started the tournament in a newsworthy way, as Topalov overpressed, missed a tactic, and lost. This used to happen to Topalov pretty regularly, prior to his big surge, and has been happening again this past year. His maximalism often breaks his opponents down, but against strong defenders and when he's off-form he sometimes self-destructs.

Adams-Sasikiran was a relatively quiet affair. The game was balanced for a long time, and Adams' attempt to complicate with 33.Rxd5 was nicely handled by Sasikiran: draw.

Mamedyarov-Kamsky was a peculiar game. Kamsky played a rare line in the Slav, and quickly found himself in a very difficult position. Rather than suffer passively, he chose to sac a piece. He was objectively lost as a result, but the position was just messy enough to keep the game going, and it proved psychologically astute as well. With a decisive material advantage, Mamedyarov wanted to avoid complications at all costs, even when it probably would have sped up the win. The result, I suspect, was that he became a bit lazy in his calculations and let Kamsky get away with more than he should have.

Even so, Mamedyarov was still winning before his 35th move, but Kamsky was still kicking. One of Kamsky's great strengths has always been his fighting spirit, and it was clear that Mamedyarov would have to put him away - Kamsky wasn't going to do the job for him. Unfortunately, Mamedyarov picked about the worst time to do something active, and fell for a tactical trick that cost him two pieces for a rook. This was probably the result of time trouble, and the resulting position was only a bit better for Mamedyarov. And then it ended: 1-0! I'm guessing this was a win on time; if not, Kamsky's resignation was the bizarre conclusion to a peculiar game.

Trivia note: after 12 moves, Mamedyarov had moved all eight of his pawns. Is this a record, at least for big-league chess?

Standings after Round 1:

Mamedyarov, Nisipeanu 1
Adams, Sasikiran .5
Kamsky, Topalov 0

Pairings for Round 2:

Nisipeanu-Kamsky
Sasikiran-Mamedyarov
Topalov-Adams

Games here.

Armenia has been a chess power for many years, and if anything their future looks even brighter than its illustrious past. Tigran V. Petrosian has been dead for more than 20 years, sadly, but Levon Aronian is a major threat to the title (as evidenced by his big rating and his 4-2 victory in rapid chess over Vladimir Kramnik this past week). Another very promising young star is Gabriel Sargissian, and he’ll be the subject of this week’s show.

Sargissian is 24 and 2651 – very impressive by almost any standard, but not quite world-class. He seems, however, to be on the rise, perhaps in part thanks to his close working relationship with Aronian. This work culminated in a dominating performance earlier this year in the Ruy Lopez memorial event in Zafra, Spain. He won the tournament, an 8-player round robin, by an absurd 2½ point margin, scoring 6.5/7 and achieving a 3021 performance rating. While it’s practically impossible for him to maintain such a standard, that he’s even capable of such a performance bodes well for his future. Will he give Aronian a run for his money, as the strongest Armenian player? Only time will tell.

Meanwhile, we’ll have a look at a game from this Ruy Lopez memorial event, appropriately enough, a Ruy Lopez. Sargissian was Black against Indian GM Krishnan Sasikiran, and played the now almost obligatory Marshall Gambit threat. Sasikiran chose 8.h3, and the game went down more classical channels. As anyone knows who has studied the classical Ruy, one of the key issues concerns the d5 advance – for both White and Black! As we’ll see, the question ‘d5, or not d5?’ proved crucial in this game. White first rejected the d4-d5 option, probably mistakenly, and then Black faced the …d6-d5 option himself on more than one occasion. We’ll delve more deeply into this thematic question this Thursday night (9 pm ET, as usual), and in the process enjoy seeing Sargissian quickly and convincingly outplay his 2700 opponent, and with the black pieces.

It’s must-see chess for fans of the Ruy Lopez – see you there!

(Directions for watching the show are here.)

I've had some fun lately, picking on the Philidor Counter-Gambit (most recently here), but there are healthier versions of the Philidor. Those who are interested in learning more are encouraged to take a look at Michael Goeller's massive (certainly by blog standards) literature review here. Pride of place in his review goes to Christian Bauer's The Philidor Files, a new, excellent book I've reviewed for Chess Today.

See here. The tournament starts Thursday, May 10, and runs through Sunday, May 20. (Tuesday, May 15 is the one and only rest day.) The participants are

Veselin Topalov (2772)
Shakriyar Mamedyarov (2759)
Michael Adams (2734)
Gata Kamsky (2705)
Liviu-Dieter Nisipeanu (2693)
Krishnan Sasikiran (2690)

This is a very strong tournament, obviously, but the field seems lower-rated than usual, and than e.g. Linares, and I'm not sure why. Kramnik's non-participation is to be expected (the tournament is organized by Silvio Danailov), but why no Anand, Aronian, Morozevich, Ivanchuk, Leko, or Svidler? Just curious. (Honestly!)

Tournament website here.

Here is a nice review article, taking a look back at the (in)famous 1997 Kasparov-Deep Blue match. While those of us who followed the match are quite familiar its controversies, the article does add to the purely chess lore with an IBM business factoid. Thanks, at least in part, to the big PR boost from winning the match, IBM went from having only 70 of the top 500 supercomputer systems and none of the top 10 (at the time of the match) to 236 of the top 500 and 4 of the top 10 (in the most recent ranking).

So it's worth a quick look, for two reasons: first, for its intrinsic interest; second, to reward the paper for publishing good stories on chess.

NM James West continues to support his favorite version of the Philidor Counter-Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 f5 4.Nc3 fxe4 5.Nxe4 d5(?!/?)), and I keep going after it. This is his reply to my previous post on the gambit, and here's my analytical reply.

The third and final day of the Kramnik-Aronian rapid match in Yerevan saw two draws - the only two of the match - but what draws! Both games were full of fight, saw rough, dynamic equality most of the way through, followed by first Kramnik and then Aronian having and missing forced wins. If anyone wondered whether Aronian is among the super-elite, this match answers that question with a resounding "yes!"

The games, with my comments, are here.

As far as I can recall, no one (except maybe Kasparov, but in blitz) has ever defeated Kramnik three times in a row. Until today, that is. Aronian built off yesterday's game 2 win by defeating the world champion in games 3 and 4, thereby clinching at least a tie in the match. Very impressive!

Both games followed yesterday's grind-'em-down trend. In game 3, Kramnik played an old Andersson favorite against the Hedgehog, but Aronian defended well. The position was about even, but in his desire to press Black's queenside Kramnik missed a nice tactic. Black won the exchange for a pawn and gradually won the ending. In game 4, a Shirov-Shabalov gambit in the Semi-Slav, Aronian achieved a position with a stable center and chances to build on the kingside, and Kramnik couldn't figure out how to stop the slow train. Just as Aronian was starting to crash through on the kingside, Kramnik tried to buy off the attack, but some neat tactics made the material losses too heavy.

Games here.

Every now and then, I find myself interested in the Modern Benoni. It's a fun and dynamic opening, but it has its drawbacks, too. One well-known problem is the Taimanov Variation (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.f4 Bg7 8.Bb5+!), which has led many Benoni fans to either give it up or to try various move-order tricks, like 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6. If White plays 3.Nc3, Black will go for the Nimzo-Indian, but if White avoids it with 3.Nf3 Black plays 3...c5 and avoids the Taimanov. (This approach was pretty effective in the 1980s, when 4.Qc2 was unpopular and White players feared the so-called Hübner Variation against 4.e3. Since the early 90s, though, it hasn't worked as well.)

It's not as if the Taimanov Variation is fatal, but it's still nice to avoid it, and thus the search for move-order tricks continues. One idea I had one night, as I waited for sleep to overtake me, was 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 a6. White often (but not always) plays a4 in response to ...a6, so this looks at first like a very simple solution. On the other hand, there's the variation 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.f4 Bg7 8.e5, which is okay for Black - but just barely. Returning to my pre-sleep musing, I continued, after 6.e4 a6, with 7.f4 b5 8.e5. There was a little more mental analysis (on 8...Ng4, I think), but that was the end of it.

To my surprise, the position after 8.e5 showed up in a game from last night's Chess Today: Lalic-Laurent, from a recent open tournament in France. Black, a player with the very decent FIDE rating of 2399, chose 8...b4, and you can figure out the rest for yourself. (The mystery is why Laurent didn't figure it out in advance, since the line through 8.e5 isn't hard for a 6...a6 player to figure out. Even I did!)

The second game seems more successful innovating from the lower-rated player. In a sharp line of the Open Sicilian where White normally castles long, our hero castled short instead and still hacked his opponent to pieces. (Quite well, but it could have been even more beautiful - see the notes.)

Here are the games.

World champion Vladimir Kramnik and Armenian super-GM Levon Aronian started their three-day, six-game rapid match (25' + 10") in Yerevan today, and it's off to a great start. In game 1, Kramnik played 1.e4, allowed the Marshall, and with some neat tactics found his way to a won rook ending. Game 2 saw a much quieter opening (a Slav that led quickly to an endgame), but as in game one the player with the White pieces demonstrated good technique to grind out the win.

Match website here, a pre-match interview with Aronian is here, and the games (with my comments) are here.

This looks like a good idea, though the project seems to be in its infancy. It's worth a look now; hopefully it will develop into one of the regular chess hubs.

Link.

I brought up the subject of hybrids in chess and sports in a post yesterday, and now this pops up: a soccer/chess hybrid - coming soon (May 15) to a soccer field near you (if you live in Sofia, Bulgaria).

What's next?

Team tournaments often fly under the typical chess fan's radar, but it's worth paying attention to this one. The event runs from May 1-12 (this might mean May 2-11 in terms of actual play) in Sochi, and features such stars as Morozevich, Ivanchuk, Shirov, Gelfand, Grischuk, Karjakin, Volokitin, Bareev, Khalifman, Rublevsky, Tkachiev, Bologan, and the ageless wonder, aka Korchnoi.

Tournament site here (in Russian), games in .pgn here.

...is the title of an article in Slate about young Americans and chess. (Link here.)

HT: Rob Bernard and Brian Karen (in a virtual dead heat!)

Tigran Petrosian, the ninth world champion, was renowned for his skill in snuffing out his opponent’s attacking possibilities before they even entered the other player’s mind. But sometimes – especially against a player like the eighth world champion, Mikhail Tal – preemptive measures don’t work, and then one must defend. Or rather, find a way to trump the opponent’s attack. That can mean evacuating the king, trading off the attackers, putting enough defenders between the king and the attackers, or – as in this week’s game – trying to mate the opponent’s king first!

That’s what we have in this week’s game. Petrosian, with Black, began peacefully enough, playing the Caro-Kann. Tal played the sort of crazed attacking chess that has made him a huge fan favorite for fifty years, castling long, and the race was underway. It’s a wonderfully entertaining game (and just wait until you see some of the lines in the analysis!), showing Petrosian in the atypical role of attacker – a role he played magnificently in this game.

You really don’t want to miss this one, so remember to mark this Thursday night at 9 pm (ET) on your calendars. See you then.

(Directions for watching the show are here.)

Just a quick update this time around. His post is here, my counter-analysis here.

The first thing you think about when you see the word "hybrid" is probably a car. That's to be expected, but hybrids aren't just on the road - they're in the chess and sports and chess worlds (and their intersection), too. There's chess boxing (first you develop neural connections, then you destroy them), there's the hybrid regular chess/Chess960 tournament coming in Mainz this July. (Examples can be multiplied with ease: e.g. the annual Amber blindfold & rapid tournament and the occasional practice of playing off ties in matches and tournaments with blitz games.)

In sports, hybrids are as old as the decathlon and pentathlon, but there's something new: a tennis hybrid! In the tennis world, Swiss player Roger Federer has been a dominant #1 for several years, but when Thetis dipped him in the river Styx, she neglected to take Rafael Nadal, on clay courts, into account. Everything Federer has been on non-clay courts (especially grass), Nadal has been - and more - on clay. Relatively few tournaments are played on clay each year, so Federer's grass and hard court supremacy has kept him at number one overall. But that's arguably a quirk of fate; if clay had turned out to be the most popular surface, it might have been Nadal receiving consideration for the title of greatest player ever, with Federer the pesky number two.

Is there some neutral way to decide? Here, at last, we come to the punchline of the post - check out this link. The picture there looks like a month-late April Fools' joke, but it seems to be on the up-and-up. It's an interesting experiment and a clever publicity stunt, but I wonder: does this really answer the question of which of the two is the greater player overall (ignoring problems with making judgments based on a single match), or does it just tell us who is better on a weird new hybrid court?

Link.