The Chess Mind

At least it seems that way - six people share first place in Group A: Carlsen, Radjabov, Aronian, Karjakin, Dominguez Perez, and Movsesian. Only eight unlucky souls aren't in the first-place tie! Here's how they got there:

Carlsen-Smeets: Complete destruction. Smeets has been enjoying lots of fairly short draws, and against a motivated Carlsen (who began the tournament in uninspired fashion, drawing nine in a row) half the trend continued: it was short, but it wasn't a draw. With White in a Panov/Botvinnik Caro-Kann, Carlsen created weaknesses on both sides of the board, tying his opponent down everywhere. When it was time to start losing material, Smeets gave up.

Movsesian-Radjabov was a short Rossolimo Sicilian with content. Radjabov had to be careful with his king, not hurrying to castle into an attack. Only when Movsesian had allowed the center to open was it time to squirrel the king off to the kingside.

If White had won in Aronian-Morozevich he'd have taken the sole lead, but while it was a complicated and topsy-turvy game his opponent was able to hold the draw.

Karjakin-Adams was a success for the youngest-ever grandmaster, who out-thought or out-prepared the Englishman in a Zaitsev Ruy sideline. Maybe 15...exd4 is playable, but strong OTB and correspondence players have failed to prove it.

Ivanchuk-Dominguez was an easy draw for Black in a 5.f3 Anti-Najdorf. The game's primary value is to the spectators, who can see how high-level players meet this sideline.

That takes care of all the games involving leaders. The two remaining games were draws of varying interest. Stellwagen-Wang Yue was good propaganda for the Berlin, as Wang Yue was clearly better after only 25 moves. Unfortunately for him, he either missed White's fairly simple tactic or thought (wrongly, I believe) that he didn't have anything anyway, and Stellwagen escaped. Finally, van Wely-Kamsky was a very short draw.

Standings After Round 12:

1-6. Carlsen, Radjabov, Aronian, Karjakin, Dominguez Perez, Movsesian 7
7. Kamsky 6
8-10. van Wely, Ivanchuk, Smeets 5.5
11-13. Wang Yue, Stellwagen, Adams 5
14. Morozevich 4.5

We're down to the last round, so here are the pairings:

Kamsky (6) - Movsesian (7)
Adams (5) - van Wely (5.5)
Dominguez (7) - Karjakin (7)
Morozevich (4.5) - Ivanchuk (5.5)
Smeets (5.5) - Aronian (7)
Wang Yue (5) - Carlsen (7)
Radjabov (7) - Stellwagen (5)


In the B Group, the race is heating up. Short could only draw with Efimenko, so he was caught in first place by Kasimdzhanov (who beat L'Ami). Caruana could have joined the tie, but he only drew with Reinderman and was himself caught by Volokitin, who defeated the rapidly sinking Navara.

Leading Group B Standings:

1-2. Short, Kasimdzhanov 8
3-4. Volokitin, Caruana 7.5
5. Motylev 7

Key Last Round Pairings:

Motylev - Kasimdzhanov
Caruana - Short
Efimenko - Volokitin

That worked out well, didn't it?


Finally, Hillarp Persson continued his collapse, losing badly with White against So. So has thus clinched a tie for first place, and can only be caught by the surging Anish Giri, who won his fifth game in a row.

Leading Group C Standings:

1. So 9
2. Giri 8

Key Last Round Pairings:

So - Howell
Harika - Giri

N.B. The staggering wave of anti-drawism in the C Group continued: there weren't any today. That makes a total of three draws the last five rounds, and only 22 (out of 91 games) for the entire tournament! It's even more remarkable, considering how many players are out of contention for the top places, as it's common to see people finish a bad event by drawing games as quickly as possible.

Tournament website here; Group A games with my comments here.

It was an especially noteworthy day in the Corus A Group, as first-placed Aronian and second-placed Karjakin both lost, radically changing the top of the leaderboard.

Dominguez-Aronian saw a terrific piece of preparation by Dominguez, whose (near-) novelty and further analysis essentially won the game at home. That allowed Dominguez to catch Aronian in first, and they have company. Wang Yue-Radjabov looked perfectly comfortable for White for a long time, but Radjabov outplayed his opponent in the late middlegame and ending to win and join the tie for first. The fourth musketeer is the winner of van Wely-Movsesian. Van Wely had a nice position with White in an English, but between Black's KID-style attack and van Wely's time pressure mistakes, Movsesian pulled out the win.

Carlsen and Karjakin are just half a point back. The latter was already there at the start of the round, and the blowout that was the Kamsky-Karjakin game kept him there. Morozevich-Carlsen, on the other hand, was well-played by both sides, and the draw was the right result, earned by both players. Finally, the Dutch battle Smeets-Stellwagen was also drawn.

Group A Standings after Round 11:

1-4. Aronian, Radjabov, Dominguez Perez, Movsesian 6.5
5-6. Carlsen, Karjakin 6
7-8. Smeets, Kamsky 5.5
9-11. van Wely, Ivanchuk, Adams 5
12-13. Wang Yue, Stellwagen 4.5
14. Morozevich 4


In the B Group, Short kept his lead thanks to Navara's amazing self-destruction, but he's still only half a point ahead of Caruana (who beat Sasikiran) and Kasimdzhanov, whose excellent technique defeated Mecking's correspondingly bad technique.

Leading Group B Standings:

1. Short 7.5
2-3. Kasimdzhanov, Caruana 7
4-6. Volokitin, Motylev, Vallejo Pons 6.5


In the C Group, then-leader Hillarp Persson lost to the lowest-rated player in the event (Bitalzadeh) and was passed by So (who beat Bosboom). The biggest story of the day in that group, however, was Russian star Anish Giri's win, or rather what resulted from it. Although the 14-year-old was just an FM coming into the event (not all FMs are created equally [cough, cough]), the win netted him his third GM norm (and apparently the rating is taken care of too), so he now becomes the 12th youngest grandmaster of all time. (His mark: 14 years, 7 months, 2 days. More on this here.) Congratulations!

Congratulations to the whole field of the C Group, for that matter, who had just one draw today. This means that in their last four rounds, they have seen a grand total of three draws. Chess is dead, indeed.

Leading Group C Standings:

1. So 8
2. Hillarp Persson 7.5 (note: they play in the next round)
3. Giri 7


The tournament site is here (and it's a very good one), while the Group A games, with my commentary, are here.

You might remember that in round 10 of the Group A event in Corus the game Radjabov-Smeets was agreed drawn under unusual circumstances. In severe time trouble, Radjabov executed the penultimate move of the time control but knocked one of Smeets' pieces off its square, and Smeets restarted Radjabov's clock and - though this is disputed - told Radjabov to fix the piece on his own time. Radjabov's flag fell (in a winning position) and he protested, ostensibly on the grounds that Smeets spoke to him.

As far as the rules are concerned, it seems that the correct decision would have been to forfeit Radjabov, but the arbiters suggested as a compromise that the players agree to a draw, and they were amenable. You can see much more about all this here and here. What struck me most about the videos was just how implausible the players' comments were, from Radjabov's agnosticism about the rules and his claim that it's "impossible to arbitrate" such a situation, to Smeets' claim that the position on the board was irrelevant. (Yes, I'm sure he would have accepted the arbiters' draw proposal if his position had been winning.) From a purely competitive standpoint, however, I think their comments make good sense. Both players put a positive spin on what happened, which should help them maintain the right frame of mind as the tournament continues.

(Queen's Gambit Accepted, in case you were wondering.) It was only a blitz game, but it was a very entertaining one with lots of neat tactical tricks. It's also a good game for instructors to look at, to mine for the many mating patterns. Have a look; you'll be glad you did! (It's free, after all, and available on-demand.)

Humongous thanks to Jaideep, a regular reader of and commenter to this blog. In his work as a journalist, he recently had the occasion to interview Anand, and in the world of limited space and civilian readers, it turned into this. We chess players, however, get to enjoy the full course - the (barely edited) transcript of the interview, which Jaideep was kind enough to send me. It's pretty long, so get comfy; here it is.

Have a look.

(HT: Chess Today)

Another fine round, with lots of action from the leaders. First and foremost, there was Aronian's win in Aronian-Adams. The Armenian convincingly outplayed his opponent, first creating weak pawns in Black's camp and then exploiting them in a textbook-like performance.

If White had won in Karjakin-van Wely, then Aronian would have company in first. Karjakin did obtain an advantage, but wasn't able to close the deal, and so he's half a point back in clear second.

There's a four-way tie for third. Two of the four faced off in Carlsen-Dominguez. Dominguez started the round tied for first, while Carlsen had been at 50%, having drawn all nine of his games. Had Dominguez played ...Qd5 at some point (e.g. on move 29) Carlsen's streak probably would have continued, but once he opened the door the young Norwegian drove through it with a Hummer. In the end, Black was quickly flattened by an attack that went through the a1-h8 diagonal.

Another member of the fearsome foursome was a bit unlucky not to move into second. Radjabov-Smeets saw creative attacking play by White. Radjabov sacrificed multiple pieces, drove Smeets' king all over the board, and although he didn't finish as convincingly as he could have, he was still winning when he made his 39th move. In terrible time trouble, Radjabov's haste to make the move (39.Re7) pushed Black's bishop off of e8. Smeets replied by pushing Radjabov's clock and requesting that he correct the piece first. Radjabov's flag fell, and then he protested to the arbiter on the grounds that Smeets inappropriately spoke to him.

On the merits, based on the rulebook, Smeets seems to be in the right. (See Mark Crowther's useful discussion here.) Fortunately for Radjabov, the arbiters proposed that they split the baby, or at least the point, and on this occasion the Solomonic advice was followed as-is. Radjabov was both unlucky and lucky in the same game, in the same incident!

Movsesian-Wang Yue saw the last of the third placers, with Movsesian securing his spot with a fairly weak effort against his opponent's Petroff.

In the other games: Ivanchuk-Kamsky saw White press throughout, but Kamsky's patient defense and Ivanchuk's tactical lapse on move 56 let Black draw. Finally, Stellwagen-Morozevich was a bit ridiculous, with the two tailenders basically plagiarizing the round 9 game Volokitin-Kasimdzhanov from the B Group.

Standings after Round 10:

1. Aronian 6.5
2. Karjakin 6
3-6. Carlsen, Radjabov, Dominguez, Movsesian 5.5
7-8. van Wely, Smeets 5
9-12. Ivanchuk, Wang Yue, Adams, Kamsky 4.5
13. Stellwagen 4
14. Morozevich 3.5


In the B Group, Short drew and is still in clear first, but there's a big group nipping at his heels.

Leading B Group Standings:

1. Short 6.5
2-6. Navara, Caruana, Kasimdzhanov, Volokitin, Motylev 6
7-8. Vallejo Pons, Efimenko 5.5

(Not all the children are above average, but most of them are!)


In the C Group, the budding "tradition" from the last two rounds came to an end. In those rounds, six of the seven games were decisive, but not this time. In round 10, every game was decisive! Among the winners were the top three: leader Hillarp Persson, and then the prodigies So and (FM, but not for long) Giri.

Leading C Group Standings:

1. Hillarp Persson 7.5
2. So 7
3. Giri 6


Tournament website here, Group A games with my comments here.

This 10-round Swiss started yesterday (January 27) and continues through February 5. Top players include Peter Svidler, Vugar Gashimov, defending champion Hikaru Nakamura, Maxime Vachier-Lagrave and (by my count) 12 other players over 2600.

Tournament website here.

Also from today's edition of Best of the Web (last item) is a short recap of a story that has received a fair amount of attention in the American sports press lately, about a girls' basketball game that ended with a 100-0 score. Here are some background facts, aside from the score:

1. The losing team hasn't won a game in four years.

2. The winning team was a Christian school. (Not sure about the losing team.)

3. The winning school's administrators apologized afterwards for running up the score, though it was acknowledged by many that this was only so up to a point; that once they reached 100 points with about 4 minutes to play, they stopped trying to score. (Despite this, the losing team was praised, absurdly, for "limiting" the winning team to 12 points in the fourth quarter.) Going further still, they offered (maybe successfully) to forfeit the game.

4. The winning coach refused to apologize "for a wide-margin victory when my girls played with honor and integrity." He was fired the same day.

In some kids' sport leagues, there are "mercy" rules to speed or end blowouts when they reached the point of competitive absurdity, but apparently none existed here. So what should have happened here? Were the winners (Covenant School) supposed to pretend it was no longer an intrinsically competitive event? And should the coach have been fired for unapologetically running up the score (at least as far as he did)?

My view, which might not make everyone happy (though I suspect from comments on earlier posts that it will find a fair amount of agreement), is that the winners were justified and the coach shouldn't have been fired. Here are some considerations on their behalf:

1. The nature of sport is to compete, to do one's best and to strive for victory. One can do it with grace, with class, with honor and so on, but once one stops trying to achieve the sport or game's aims, one violates the nature of competition.

2. It's the losing team's (Dallas Academy's) job not to embarrass itself, not the opponent's. There's a sort of hypocrisy at play here. If they don't like the results they're getting, they should stop competing (at least against in a league where they're winless for 4 years). If the response is that they're in it for the joy and benefits of competing, then compete and live with the results!

3. If the score shouldn't be important to the winning side, why should the losing side care? Either it's irrelevant, in which case the winners shouldn't be criticized, or it does, in which case the winners still shouldn't be criticized - except for not running it up further.

4. If the winning team "calls off the dogs" (i.e. stops trying), then they're going to foster bad physical and psychological habits rather than good ones.

What about mercy and other such virtues, especially for a Christian school? I'm not sure I see the connection. Getting beat in a sport or game isn't like being beaten in real life (unless it's boxing or the like!); it's a voluntarily undertaken activity with no real damage done. And what's the threshold supposed to be? Is it "Christian" to win by 10 points, but not by 20? (In a chess game, should I refuse a resignation in under 15 moves, or stop capturing free pieces at a certain point?)

Another possible response: aren't there greater things than competition? Shouldn't they be taken into account? Sure, but what are the relevant things? The winners could offer to help the losers think about how to improve, could be encouraging and engage in other acts of kindness. But while it might have been a nice gesture to stop at 88-0 or 99-0, this doesn't strike me as something they ought to have done or that exhibits any special virtue. Let's suppose Covenant really went the extra mile in the last quarter and not only failed to score but played no defense, either. Suppose the game wound up 88-44. Wouldn't that be patronizing and a sort of lie, making it seem to the world and the Dallas players that they're better than they really are? If the Dallas supporters praised their team for "holding" Covenant to 12 points in the last quarter, when it was obvious that Covenant simply decided not to play offense the last four minutes, imagine the cloud castles they'd have constructed in the 88-44 scenario!

I think it's noble that the Dallas Academy girls have the competitive bravery to go out there and fight when their team is really out of its depth. But it's not noble for the Dallas supporters to praise them for their defense when the other team stopped trying, it's not noble for the winning school's administrators to apologize for the margin, and it's not only ignoble but hopefully illegal for them to fire the coach for not caving in on the matter. It's possible that I've exaggerated the case for 100 (or more) to nothing - there are a few points I think I've overstated. But it's nothing compared to Covenant's self-flagellation and their firing their coach.

But perhaps my gentle readers will disagree...

I offer chess lessons (interested parties write me here), and this seems like an especially auspicious time for people to sign up. Why? Read this. If the worst happens, you won't miss the money; if it doesn't, then your chess will improve. Either way, you win.

HT: Best of the Web.

The day after the rest day was a mixed bag. Three games were very hard fights that wound up with a winner, while the four draws were all fairly short. Let's start with the wins.

The most important one was Karjakin-Movsesian. Movsesian was in clear first coming into the round, but now he's tied for fourth. In the opening, Movsesian improved on his play in his round four battle with Stellwagen, a game he was lucky to draw, and soon the players reached an equal but imbalanced queen and rook ending. Movsesian was in drawing range for a long time, but Karjakin gradually outplayed him and won the queen ending. This put Karjakin in a tie for first alongside the day's other two victors, Aronian and Dominguez.

Turning to Kamsky-Aronian, the latter used the Berlin Defense, an opening he says he likes to play when he's in a winning mood (see the tournament website's report on the round). I'm a little surprised that it worked on this occasion, as I'd have figured Kamsky for a player whose patient, grinding style would be well-suited for this opening, but it wasn't this time. Aronian quickly gained an advantage, and despite some errors his victory was the normal result.

White's win in Dominguez-Stellwagen produced the third member of the leading triumvirate. Dominguez was better on the White side of a main line Winawer French, and although his technique was a little shaky around the time control, he still had (just) enough advantage to win the ending.

Turning to the draws, van Wely-Ivanchuk contributed to opening theory. In the English Four Knights with 4.g3, Black's usually defends his e-pawn with 12...f6. Ivanchuk ignored this seeming duty with the rare 12...Nd5 and van Wely got nothing. Unless 13.Na4 is strong against this move, it looks like Ivanchuk is onto something important.

Less inspiring were Morozevich-Radjabov and especially Smeets-Wang Yue. The former saw Morozevich end up as "Black" (a tempo down for nothing in a symmetrical position) just a dozen moves into the game; fortunately, the game was so staid that he drew with ease. As for Smeets-Wang Yue, the game finished in perpetual check and duplicated a 2008 game move for move.

Adams-Carlsen was more interesting. Adams played a sideline against Carlsen's Dragon, castling kingside and hoping for a little queenside pressure. Carlsen played actively, especially with 21...e5, and the game remained balanced throughout.

Standings after Round 9:

1-3. Aronian, Karjakin, Dominguez Perez 5.5
4-5. Radjabov, Movsesian 5
6-9. Carlsen, van Wely, Smeets, Adams 4.5
10-12. Ivanchuk, Wang Yue, Kamsky 4
13. Stellwagen 3.5
14. Morozevich 3


In the B Group Short drew and continues to lead by half a point, but the group of sharks ready to chomp his heels is growing.

Leading Group B Standings:

1. Short 6
2-6. Navara, Caruana, Volokitin, Vallejo Pons, Motylev 5.5
7. Kasimdzhanov 5


In the C Group only one game was drawn (for the second straight round), and that one featured Hillarp Persson, the leader. His five closest pursuers all won, so while he continues to lead, the margin has shrunk.

Leading Group C Standings:

1. Hillarp Persson 6.5
2. So 6
3-5. Gupta, Holzke, Howell 5.5


Tournament site here; Group A games, with my comments, here.

Last week, we started presenting the fantastic 1994 battle between Vladimir Kramnik and Alexei Shirov, and there was so much to see that we couldn't finish! In this game, played when the two stars were quite young (18 and 21, respectively - and nonetheless already over 2700), Kramnik had achieved a big pawn clamp on the queenside, and to avoid suffocation Shirov speculatively sacrificed a bishop.

The sac may not have been sound, but it transformed the position. Against normal play, Kramnik would enjoy a nice, stable advantage, and either win or draw with practically no danger of losing. Shirov's sac certainly increased his (Shirov's) losing chances, but it ratcheted up Kramnik's too. The position quickly spun out of control, and just as the time pressure began.

When we left, the game was just about to reach its high point, when the variations really become insane. So as fun as the game has been so far, what we'll see today or tomorrow, depending on where you are, is really amazing. So you're heartily invited to join us Wednesday night at 9 p.m. ET/Thursday morning at 3 a.m. CET for the second part of our presentation. It's free for Playchess members - just log on, enter the Broadcasts room and look for Kramnik-Shirov under the Games tab. Hope to see you there!

Here's a nice, short meditation on Ivanchuk, his love for the game, and his recently resolved trouble with FIDE.

Here's a weird statistic: in four of the eight rounds, there have been only two decisive games, and in each case one of the games was Ivanchuk's and the other Morozevich's. This was the fourth such round. Both players have been having lousy tournaments, but in Ivanchuk-Karjakin "Chuky" finally played like himself, winning a very high quality game against the then-tournament leader. Meanwhile, in Wang Yue-Morozevich, Moro demonstrated that yesterday's win was the aberration, as he once again lost without a fight. He's back to -3 and clear last.

Two draws - Carlsen-Kamsky and Radjabov-Dominguez were super-quick draws. Stellwagen-Adams was also a short draw, but this was a sadder affair than the non-games just mentioned. This one was really heating up when the players bailed out with a repetition. Generally speaking, it looks like Stellwagen and Smeets can't really believe they're here and in such company, as they've both been happy to accept draws in good positions. Indeed, that's just what happened in Movsesian-Smeets. The final position was drawish and that was the likeliest result, but Smeets could have continued without any risk and with some small hopes. With a rest day coming up anyway, he shouldn't have feared expending a bit more energy. The third Dutchman also drew, but that was a completely different story. White really should have won in Aronian-van Wely, but just as van Wely failed to convert a decisive advantage against Carlsen yesterday, so too did Aronian today. The important thing is that they battled and gave the spectators a good show.

Standings after Round 8:

1. Movsesian 5
2-5. Aronian, Radjabov, Dominguez Perez, Karjakin 4.5
6-10. Carlsen, Smeets, van Wely, Adams, Kamsky 4
11-13. Stellwagen, Ivanchuk, Wang Yue 3.5
14. Morozevich 2.5


In the B Group, the top three drew, with only a little action on the lower boards. Here are their leading standings:

1. Short 5.5
2-3. Volokitin, Motylev 5
4-7. Navara, Caruana, Vallejo Pons, Kasimdzhanov 4.5


Meanwhile, there was a bloodbath in Group C, with the only draw involving Bosboom (ironically). Hillarp Persson won and So lost thanks to a crass blunder, so the former leads the latter by a point; a group of four comprising the men's and women's junior champions (Gupta and Harika), Bosboom and Holzke (the recipient of So's blunder) are another half a point back.

Tournament site here; Group A games with my comments here.

[N.B. For those who have seen this already, fear not: it's the same post re-dated.]

I'd like to start a (probably) weekly newsletter, which will be distributed by email. Among the ideas I have for it is to include a brief theoretical article each time; answer reader questions and maybe present a reader's submitted game; have a game of the week; offer some puzzles; discuss some crucial endgame ideas, and so on. Text could be presented in .pdf attachments, and there would be accompanying .cbv and .pgn databases, so you would be able to download the material into the chess program of your choice.

Please write me here to let me know if you're interested and to offer a working, legitimate email address. I will not use it for anything not directly related to the newsletter.

Back in 2001, I had the privilege of playing GM Alexey Dreev in a (very rapid) online tournament, and the result was a very rich and full battle that ended in a draw. Last week, I looked at the opening and early middlegame of this complex contest, and this time I present the remainder. (I could have spent even more time on it, but two weeks should suffice to give a good sense of the game. Viewers are of course encouraged to go deeper on their own.)

The shows are free and available on-demand - check it out.

There were only two wins today in Group A, but they were both important for the tournament lead.

Ivanchuk-Movsesian was the most important, in that Movsesian's win put him in a tie for first with Karjakin. It was a tense battle in a Scheveningen Sicilian, and Movsesian's kingside and central play proved more dangerous than Ivanchuk's queenside demonstration. It was an impressive win by Movsesian, and so far a very impressive tournament by Movsesian as well. He has been an elite GM for a decade, but until recently never looked like a prospective member of the super-GM club. Yet here he is, ranked #11 in the world and tied for first in a "Grand Slam" event.

Morozevich-Smeets was a tragedy of sorts. Morozevich has had a horrible tournament and Smeets the event of his life, but the game went along the lines one would expect given their ratings. Morozevich pressed all the way, but with patient defense Smeets seemed to have the draw in sight. Unfortunately, he considered all temporizing moves to be equal and blundered, missing a simple tactic. That knocked him a full point off the leaders' pace, but hopefully he'll rebound soon.

The other five games were drawn, but not all draws are created equally. The main virtue of Karjakin-Aronian and Adams-Radjabov was that it reduced commentators' workloads, but the other three games were better. Dominguez-Wang Yue was no barn-burner, but it demonstrated another thematic ending of interest to Berliners. (Also, compare Wang Yue's decision to allow e6 followed by Bxc7 with my comments to Stellwagen-Carlsen from round 2. We keep you ahead of the curve here!)

Much more exciting was van Wely-Carlsen. Van Wely should have bagged his second straight win over a super-prodigy, but he mishandled his advantage and let Carlsen escape with a draw. Likewise, Kamsky-Stellwagen saw the older player - in this case Kamsky - build a winning advantage before letting a resourceful opponent escape. Stellwagen's 53...Qc1!! was especially impressive. There are some beautiful tactics in the notes to these last two games, so do check those out.

Standings after Round 7:

1-2. Karjakin, Movsesian 4.5
3-5. Aronian, Radjabov, Dominguez Perez 4
6-10. Carlsen, van Wely, Smeets, Adams, Kamsky 3.5
11. Stellwagen 3
12-14. Wang Yue, Morozevich, Ivanchuk 2.5


In the B group, the game of the day was Short-Kasimdzhanov, who shared the lead (with Navara) coming into the round. Short ground the former FIDE champ down with another of his museum openings, and now he's in clear first. Navara lost to L'Ami, and he and Kasimdzhanov are now tied for fifth! They were leapfrogged by three players - Caruana (send him back!), Motylev and Volokitin, who defeated Werle, Hou Yifan and Reinderman, respectively. Efimenko-Vallejo Pons was the round's only draw, and in the other game tailender Mecking won his first game, defeating Sasikiran.

Leading Group B Standings:

1. Short 5
2-4. Caruana, Motylev, Volokitin 4.5
5-7. Navara, Efimenko, Kasimdzhanov 4


In group C, leader So was held to a draw, and was caught in first by Hillarp Persson, who beat Iturrizaga. Gupta beat Howell and is in third, half a point behind, and Bosboom is in fourth, another half a point back. Bosboom's case was especially sad. With Black against Leon Hoyos, he played a wonderful queen sacrifice and was pressing all game long. It was a long game, but at some moment he went a bridge too far and lost. A real pity.

Leading Group C Standings:

1-2. So, Hillarp Persson 5
3. Gupta 4.5
4. Bosboom 4

Tournament site here; Group A games, with my comments, here.

There were three decisive games today, and that there been a fourth - the right fourth - there would have been a seven-way tie for first. Instead, because Carlsen-Karjakin was a draw, Karjakin keeps his half-point lead over the field for at least one more day. Carlsen was winning for a fair chunk of the middlegame, but his 29th and 35th moves were big errors that let his opponent escape.

In Movsesian-Morozevich, there was no escape to be had for Morozevich, who is rapidly approaching free-fall mode at -3. In a worse but tenable position, "Moro" either panicked or got overconfident (or simply missed something) and sacrificed a piece. Movsesian took it, made a few accurate moves, and the game was over. As a result, the winner is part of the big second-place tie.

Smeets-Dominguez was a short draw that almost completely rehashed existing theory. Dominguez no doubt enjoyed the easy day with Black, while Smeets (like Dominguez) retains the pleasure of being part of the second-place tie. As he (Smeets) is the lowest-rated player in the field - by a long way, if one doesn't count his compatriots Stellwagen and van Wely - it's hard to resist adding to one's total on the scoreboard.

Wang Yue-Adams saw the Englishman come back to 50%, winning a nice game in a Tartakower QGD. It's not easy to win with Black in that variation, but Adams' win was convincing.

Radjabov-Kamsky had the players "castling": Kamsky was half a point ahead before the round and tied for second, and now it's Radjabov who's in second, ahead of his rival. Kamsky has been playing non-critical continuations the whole tournament, but here too they "castled". Radjabov chose the rare 5.Nc5 line against the Caro-Kann, positionally outplayed his opponent and won. (Radjabov doesn't just win by confusing his opponents in the King's Indian.)

Stellwagen-van Wely was a hard-fought draw in a Najdorf sideline; finally, Aronian-Ivanchuk was a Queen's Indian that always seemed headed for a draw (which it was).

Group A Standings after Round 6:

1. Karjakin 4
2-6. Radjabov, Smeets, Aronian, Dominguez Perez, Movsesian 3.5
7-10. Carlsen, van Wely, Adams, Kamsky 3
11-12. Stellwagen, Ivanchuk 2.5
13. Wang Yue 2
14. Morozevich 1.5


In Group B, Kasimdzhanov only drew with Caruana, which let Short and Navara catch back up by beating Vallejo Pons and Reinderman, respectively (in both cases with the black pieces). The leading group is densely packed:

Leading Group B Standings:

1-3. Navara, Kasimdzhanov, Short 4
4-7. Caruana, Motylev, Efimenko, Volokitin 3.5
(In last, a little sadly perhaps but not surprisingly, is Mecking, who has just one point so far.)


In Group C, Hillarp Persson lost, with White, to Gupta, allowing So to leapfrog him into first with a win over Leon Hoyos. Bosboom bounced back from his round 5 loss, so he's well in the hunt too.

Leading Group C Standings:

1. So 4.5
2-3. Hillarp Persson, Bosboom 4


Tournament site here, Group A games with my comments here.

There was lots of action in round 5, with only three draws in the seven games. Let's get those out of the way with.

In the every day is a rest day department, Kamsky-Wang Yue was a Petroff, and Kamsky's 4.Nc4 suggested that he wasn't looking for an incisive battle either. By move 24, the players were satisfied that they had fulfilled their obligations and called it a day. Ivanchuk-Carlsen was also a 24-move non-battle, and this too was understandable. In Kamsky's case, the need to hide preparation and save strength for his forthcoming match with Topalov explains his quick draws, while Ivanchuk's good news probably left him in little mood for battle today. Finally, draw #3 was Adams-Smeets, which made a little less sense to me. In another Petroff, Adams tried a variation that had a brief flurry of popularity in 1999 before Ivan Sokolov solved it, and nothing in this game suggests it's in for a revival. Perhaps Adams hoped Smeets was too young to remember the line and too busy to have studied it; if so, his gamble failed.

On to the wins. Karjakin-Stellwagen was the most important, in that White's win put the youngster in clear first place. Stellwagen sacrificed the exchange in a Taimanov Sicilian, and while the idea didn't lose it put continuous pressure on the Dutchman to justify it. In the end, he failed to do so, and Karjakin's rooks carried the day.

Aronian-Movsesian was a convincing positional win for the first player. Early on, Movsesian chose queenside pawn weaknesses in return for a little play; unfortunately for him, Aronian was able to neutralize the compensation. Later on White managed to create further weaknesses, and Black was unable to hold it all together. Aronian is now tied for second.

In Dominguez-Morozevich, Black dared to repeat a dubious or at least dangerous idea he had used against Leko last year. It worked then, but with the chance to prep for this, Dominguez jumped all over him. Morozevich was always worse, and didn't put up much resistance either. So far, the event has been a disaster for Morozevich, who is in clear last with a -2 score.

Finally, there was the fun battle between van Wely and Radjabov, who for the sixth time in their history played a Bayonet King's Indian (five times in the last two years). Van Wely, who is always White in these match-ups, improved on a 2003 Ponomariov-Radjabov game. His novelty wasn't bad, and it was probably good strategy too to head for a somewhat older line. In any case, Radjabov failed to solve the problems at the board, and van Wely finished in style with a crushing attack.

Standings after Round 5:

1. Karjakin 3.5
2-5. Smeets, Aronian, Dominguez Perez, Kamsky 3
6-9. Radjabov, van Wely, Carlsen, Movsesian 2.5
10-13. Wang Yue, Adams, Stellwagen, Ivanchuk 2
14. Morozevich 1.5


In the B Group, one of the round 4 leaders, Kasimdzhanov, took another rest day, drawing with Black in just 14 moves. As it turned out, it was a brilliant decision, as his fellow leaders, Short and Caruana, lost to Sasikiran and Efimenko, respectively.

Leading Group B Standings:

1. Kasimdzhanov 3.5
2-7(!). Navara, Efimenko, Short, Caruana, Volokitin, Vallejo Pons 3


In the C Group, Bosboom lost to Gupta and finally fell out of first; his co-leader, Hillarp Persson, won and leads So by half a point.

Leading Group C Standings:

1. Hillarp Persson 4
2. So 3.5
3-4. Bosboom, Howell 3


Tournament site here, Group A games, with my comments, here.

In a triumph of mercy and good sense, the FIDE Doping Hearing Panel decided not to suspend Vassily Ivanchuk for not taking a doping test after his loss to Gata Kamsky at the Dresden Olympiad last year. Here's the text of their release:

Wijk aan Zee (NED), January 21, 2009

Drug testing is still relatively rare in chess. However, it does occur in various official events and was carried out during the course of the Dresden Olympiad. Unfortunately, a high proportion of the tests were scheduled during the last round and there was a lack of personnel, which lead to a procedural error: there was not a designated Doping Control Officer present at this match (USA v Ukraine).

After losing a crucial game for his country, Mr Ivanchuk was distraught. The Hearing Panel concludes that although the arbiter attempted to inform Mr Ivanchuk in English that he should accompany him for a doping test, Mr Ivanchuk apparently failed to understand the instructions, especially since English is not Mr Ivanchuk’s first language. If there had been a Doping Control Officer present, he would have immediately gone to Mr Ivanchuk’s board and there would have been communication between him and Mr Ivanchuk. In that case the outcome might have been different. Because there was no notification by the Doping Control officer, there was no refusal in the sense of the regulations.

The Conclusion:

The procedural error allied with Mr Ivanchuk’s state of mind led him unintentionally to miss the test. The Hearing Panel therefore concludes unanimously that there should be no penalty.

Here.

It's fun to see the ups and downs of the top players on a more regular basis than FIDE's trimonthly lists allow, and for that the Live Top List is just the thing. Here's the current top ten:

1. Topalov 2809.2
2. Anand 2791
3. Carlsen 2767.5
4. Radjabov 2765.5
5. Morozevich 2761.7
6. Kramnik 2759
7. Jakovenko 2752.9
8. Ivanchuk 2752.8
9. Aronian 2752.7
10. Leko 2751

It's striking to reflect on how the list has changed since fairly late last year, when Kramnik was near the top and almost every other day Carlsen, Morozevich and Ivanchuk were taking turns vying for number one. They've collapsed - some more than others - while Topalov has raced to the top and Anand enjoys a very secure second place. It's also impressive to see how Radjabov has fought into fourth place, a whisker or two away from third, after having been overshadowed by Carlsen and other talented youngsters the past few years.

Readers, who do you predict will be #1 at the end of the year? Only one guess per customer, please!

For those of you who are fans of Alexei Shirov's chess - and who isn't? - this is the quintessential "Fire on Board" game. In it, he defeats his long-time rival Vladimir Kramnik, and does so by bamboozling him with a remarkable series of blows starting from a lost position. The most famous of these shocking moves, which I won't mention now, so as to avoid spoiling the surprise, was selected by Shirov for the frontispiece to the first volume of Fire on Board, and deservedly so.

Shirov and Kramnik have been among the world's absolute elite since the early 90s, and although they were friends for a while and had very similar repertoires, they are stylistic antipodes. Kramnik tends to win his games by keeping control and accumulating small advantages, while Shirov (like his early mentor and erstwhile countryman Mikhail Tal) wins many games by outplaying his opponents in tactical complications. Our game from this week is just that kind of battle. Kramnik obtained an advantage, and when Shirov made a more serious error the advantage grew.

It was at just this moment that Shirov reached into his bag of tricks. If he did nothing he'd lose, and lose by getting squashed. So it was important to randomize the position. It might lead to a quicker loss, but the important thing was to create a situation where even Kramnik could go wrong. Shirov succeeded on both counts, as you'll see tomorrow night, to your surprise and delight. (Sorry!)

If you're a Playchess.com member (and why wouldn't you be?), you can watch the show live, for free, at 9 p.m. ET Wednesday (= 3 a.m. CET Thursday morning). Here's what you do: Log on, enter the Broadcasts room, look for "Kramnik-Shirov" under the Games tab, double-click on it, watch and enjoy. Hope to see you then!

(That's a Proto-(Rest Day), not a (Proto-Rest) Day.)

With the first official rest day coming tomorrow, several of the participants decided that if one day off is good, two days off are even better. We thus wound up with a perfect 6/6 in draws today - in Group A only, I hasten to add - though not all the games were short.

Radjabov-Karjakin was the shortest of the draws, a Slav of sorts that never really got going. Smeets-Kamsky was almost as short (22 moves to the 21 of Radjabov-Karjakin), but I think Kamsky's 21st move may have been inaccurate. If Smeets had played 22.g5, he may have had a little something, and even in the final position there was room to play. It's understandable that Smeets would call it a day, though, as he's the lowest seed and yet tied for first.

The games Stellwagen-Ivanchuk and Movsesian-Dominguez went a bit longer, but there was little danger that anyone would avoid a draw. Wang Yue-van Wely made it to move 46 without anyone obtaining real chances. Morozevich-Adams was a different story. Adams came out of the opening fine, but when he followed a correct pawn sacrifice (16...d4!) with the incorrect 18...Qb5, he was in trouble. Morozevich returned the extra pawn for various positional advantages, but after a long and accurate defense, Adams saved the game. Finally, Carlsen-Aronian saw an exchange of opening errors and an interesting piece sac by Aronian. It kept the game lively, but the sacrifice was ultimately aimed at drawing, not winning, and that's what it succeeded in doing.

Obviously enough, then, the relative standings remain unchanged:

Group A Standings After Round 4:

1-5. Karjakin, Radjabov, Smeets, Kamsky, Movsesian 2.5
6-9. Carlsen, Aronian, Dominguez Perez, Stellwagen 2
10-14. Adams, van Wely, Wang Yue, Ivanchuk, Morozevich 1.5

In Group B, two of the leaders (Short and Kasimdzhanov) remained in place, while a third (Navara) swapped places with his conquerer (Caruana).

Leading Group B Standings:

1-3. Short, Caruana, Kasimdzhanov 3
4-5. Navara, Vallejo Pons 2.5

Last, but not least...OK, but least:

Leading Group C Standings:

1-2. Hillarp Persson, Bosboom 3
3-5. Bitzaldeh, Iturrizaga, So 2.5

Tournament site here, Group A games (with my comments) here.

After three rounds, there's a three-way tie for first in the B-tournament in Wijk aan Zee as Kasimdzhanov, Short, and Navara all have 2.5/3. All three won in round 3, and the first two won in striking fashion. Those wins can be replayed here.

Another good round, and in some ways a copy of the first one. Once again there were only two decisive games, and again the losers were the top seeds, Ivanchuk and Morozevich. They lost with the same colors as in round 1, and to top it all off, Ivanchuk against lost because of time in a game where he was never worse until the losing moment. In round 1, that happened when his flag fell; this time, it was a simple blunder that did him in. Here's the roundup:

Ivanchuk-Radjabov: A King's Indian where Black's kingside play never really got going until near the time control, and even then it wasn't too serious. On the other hand, White may not have made the most of his chances, and the game might reasonably have ended in a draw after 38.Rg3. Instead, Ivanchuk blundered a piece with 38.Rxc7??, and the game was over three moves later.

Kamsky-Morozevich was an Archangelsk that saw Kamsky bow out of a theoretical dispute with 10.d3. White didn't achieve anything out of the opening - which, as I've noted more than once in covering this event, probably isn't his intention given the pending match with Topalov - but it didn't matter. Morozevich misjudged something in the early middlegame, lost several tempi, and allowed White to whip up a deadly attack without having to do anything too special. The result was a massacre.

In the draw department, Carlsen-Movsesian was an easy draw for Black in a 4.e3 Slav - White never had anything. Aronian-Stellwagen saw Black comfortably equalize in a Panov/Botvinnik Caro-Kann, and at the end of the game Stellwagen seemed to be better. I could be misassessing the final position, but unless he was in severe time trouble I think he could have played on. He had some advantage, and just as importantly, there was little risk in continuing. Karjakin-Wang Yue was a dry game where Karjakin was generally a bit better, but with one possible exception late in the game never close to a real advantage. Van Wely-Smeets was short but very lively; a main line Botvinnik Variation Semi-Slav with a strong novelty from Smeets. He drew very easily and I'm sure the entire game was prep. This game might mark the end of 19.Kxf1 in the Uhlmann Variation. Finally, Adams-Dominguez was a well-played, interesting draw in a Fischer Variation Najdorf. Adams was always pressing, but Dominguez managed to keep just enough play throughout to avoid becoming a victim of Adams' long-term assets.

Standings after Round 3:

1-5. Karjakin, Movsesian, Radjabov, Smeets, Kamsky 2
6-9. Carlsen, Stellwagen, Aronian, Dominguez Perez 1.5
10-14. Adams, van Wely, Wang Yue, Ivanchuk, Morozevich 1

Corus B Group Leaders:

1-3. Navara, Short, Kasimdzhanov 2.5
4. Caruana (Send him back!) 2

Corus C Group Leaders:

1-2. Bosboom, Iturrizaga 2.5
3-5. Romanishin, So, Hillarp Persson 2

Tournament site here, games with my comments here.

Today's play was a little quieter, but as compensation there was one more win in today's round relative to yesterday's.

Morozevich-van Wely: In a somewhat sloppy game, Morozevich took down one of his regular customers. The big culprit was van Wely's 26...Kg7, when 27.e5 gave Moro a very usable space advantage. Despite the later errors, the resulting trend was strongly in White's favor, and he eventually won.

Movsesian-Adams: Movsesian used a rare and generally unappreciated gambit in the Giuoco, and it worked out very well. White was able to use all his advantages, and even before his blunder on move 35 Adams had a poor position.

Wang Yue-Ivanchuk: A crazy game, in which the players alternated brilliant ideas and outright blunders. Ivanchuk produced a strong novelty (albeit in an almost unknown position) and Wang Yue almost immediately blundered. Several moves later Ivanchuk made a couple of errors, and then Wang Yue found some remarkable counterplay, leading to an objectively equal but ridiculously messy position. The final error was Wang Yue's: whose suicidal 20.O-O-O+ walked into a vicious attack. The game only went 25 moves, but they were eventful!

Less so Dominguez-Kamsky and especially Radjabov-Aronian. It looks like the usually feisty Kamsky is taking this tournament off, and with the match with Topalov just around the corner I can't say that I blame him. He needs to save his strength and novelties for the event that really counts.

Smeets-Karjakin was a more interesting draw, if only because it demonstrated how to successfully battle against a dangerous strategic plan. Stellwagen-Carlsen was a good battle as well, a Berlin where Black's good defense prevented White from gaining an appreciable advantage.

Standings after Round 2:

1-3. Karjakin, Smeets, Movsesian 1.5
4-11. Stellwagen, Carlsen, Radjabov, Aronian, Dominguez, Kamsky, Ivanchuk, Morozevich 1
12-14. Adams, van Wely, Wang Yue .5

In the B-tournament, 5 players lead: Kasimdzhanov, Short, Navara, Caruana and Efimenko, who each have 1.5/2. Surprisingly, the only 2-0 player between the three events is Dutch IM Manuel Bosboom, a rabid attacking player who leads the C-group.

Games here, with my notes.

Stellwagen-Movsesian was a strange game. In an English Attack, Movsesian improved on an earlier game, but then seemed to misassess his attacking prospects. After a few moves, Stellwagen was winning, and even after an inaccuracy he was still winning or nearly so at the end when a draw was agreed.

Carlsen-Radjabov was a "Tarrasch" Sicilian (1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.g3 d5 4.exd5 exd5 5.d4) that took a fascinating turn. Carlsen's 14.Bh6!? put some fire in a position that was a move or two away from dull equality (though perhaps 14.Bxd5 Bxd5 and only then 15.Bh6 might have been even better), and it introduced a very unusual sequence. Black played 14...Nxe5, and while White always had it in his power to regain the sacrificed piece (though in very different ways), he did not actually do so until 23.bxc3. Carlsen pushed all the way, but inaccuracies on moves 14 and 15 allowed Radjabov to survive.

Aronian-Wang Yue saw the popular Sokolov Defense (as Vigus has dubbed it) in the Slav. It's a very solid line, and it did its job today. Despite Aronian's novelty on move 17, Wang Yue kept the balance without too much trouble, and when Aronian erred he even managed to win a pawn. Aronian's position was otherwise very good, though, and the game ended in a draw.

Ivanchuk-Smeets had a bizarre finish, as Ivanchuk games often do - sadly. Ivanchuk had been equal or better from start to finish, but lost on time before making his 40th move (the time control).

Karjakin-Morozevich was the other decisive game in the round. Karjakin won in only 26 moves, but it wasn't so much a crush as a Morozevich lapse in a dangerous position that was ruthlessly exploited.

Van Wely-Dominguez was a long draw. Van Wely pushed for a long time, but Dominguez' patient defense sufficed.

Finally, Kamsky-Adams was the dud du jour, but with 6 interesting games here and 14 other contests in the B- and C-groups, it's not worth bothering about. Besides, it makes my life as an annotator slightly easier!

The tournament site is here (and one can find other reports on the goings-on here, here, here, here and here (if you read Russian)), while my annotations can be replayed here.

The festivities begin in less than two hours. Here are the first-round pairings:

Aronian - Wang Yue
Carlsen - Radjabov
Ivanchuk - Smeets
Kamsky - Adams
Karjakin - Morozevich
Stellwagen - Movsesian
Van Wely - Dominguez

HT: Chess Today

...Bobby Fischer died. So much was wrong in his life, but we'll always have his chess.

It's not as exciting as it was in past years, thanks to the glut of super-GM tournaments we had in 2008, but it's still a highly anticipated event for chess fans everywhere. Part of the charm is that we get three tournaments in one. There's the top tournament, a super-strong category 19 event which gets the lion's share of the attention, but the B and C tournaments are very interesting and strong as well.

This year's B-tournament, for instance, includes former FIDE world champion Rustam Kasimdzhanov, 1993 "vice champion" Nigel Short, the great Brazilian Henrique Mecking, prodigies like Fabiano Caruana and Hou Yifan, and several more players who are, have been, or are near 2700. It's a category 16 tournament, and as such is one practically anyone in the A group would be delighted to win. In fact, whoever does win it will be automatically invited to next year's A-tournament, so that helps add a little extra motivation to the contest.

The C-tournament is "only" a category 11, which isn't bad either. Among the strong youngsters in this tournament are Wesley So, David Howell and Anish Giri. Here too, the winners gets promoted; in this case to next year's B-event.

But the A-tournament is the crown jewel, and rightly so. Despite the absence of Anand, Topalov and Kramnik, it remains enormously strong. Here's the list of participants:

Vassily Ivanchuk 2779
Magnus Carlsen 2776
Alexander Morozevich 2771
Teimour Radjabov 2761
Sergei Movsesian 2751
Levon Aronian 2750
Wang Yue 2739
Gata Kamsky 2725
Leinier Dominguez Perez 2717
Michael Adams 2712
Sergei Karjakin 2706
Loek van Wely 2625
Daniel Stellwagen 2612
Jan Smeets 2601

All three events start tomorrow - at 7:30 a.m. ET (unfortunately for those of us in the U.S.)/1:30 p.m. CET. The tournament site is here.

Back in 2001 I had the chance to play GM Alexey Dreev in one of those online qualifying events, and the result was a very interesting game that wound up drawn. It was a long and intense battle, and one show isn't nearly enough to cover it properly. So this week I present part 1, which takes us through the opening and early middlegame. As I decided to play one of Tal's strange inventions - his 5.gxf3(!?/?!) in the Two Knights variation of the Caro-Kann, you'll see some of his chess as a bonus.

The show is free, available on-demand, and just a click away.

In the last month we've picked on poor Efim Geller (1925-1998) twice, showing his losses to Max Euwe and Paul Keres. As he is one of the legends of the game (as evidenced by his being one of the few non-world champions singled out for a mini-chapter in Kasparov's My Great Predecessors series), we'll use this week's show to present him in a better light.



By 1979, his career as an elite GM was drawing to a close. The Ukranian had played in six candidates events from 1953 to 1971 and narrowly missed making a seventh in 1974, but didn't succeed in making the 1977 or qualifying for the 1980 knockout matches. He had won the USSR championship in 1955, but now, as a 54 year old, his best days seemed behind him. And yet, in the 1979 Soviet Championship in Minsk, the good old days returned. After a series of seven draws, he won in rounds 8, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15 and won the tournament with an undefeated 11.5-5.5 score, a point ahead of Artur Yusupov and a further half point ahead of Yuri Balashov and (a very young) Garry Kasparov.

The game we'll look at this week - tonight, actually - is his last win in the tournament, against Alexander Beliavsky. The game, a Queen's Gambit Declined in which Geller had Black, demonstrated his excellence both as a chess player and as an analyst. As great a player as Geller was, he was at least as good as a theoretician. According to Botvinnik, the King's Indian wasn't really understood until Geller, and he made big contributions to all the major openings: the Sicilian, the Ruy Lopez, the Slav, the Queen's Gambit and so on. In the game with Beliavsky, Geller shows a very deep understanding of what seemed an innocuous position, and from there he outplays his opponent using ideas we ourselves can apply in positions with an isolated queen's pawn.

Rather than continuing to heap praise about Geller and his play, I invite you to come and see for yourself. The show is free for registered Playchess.com members, and begins tonight, Wednesday night, at 9 p.m. Eastern Time (3 a.m. CET). It's easy to tune in: just log on to the Playchess server, go to the Broadcast Room, select the Games tab and double-click on Beliavsky-Geller. That's all you need to do, and then you're ready to go.

It's not unusual, to quote Tom Jones, for a 2400 to defeat an 1800. It happens every day, no matter what they say. It is rare for the reverse to occur, but it's not that weird. Players overcoming 600 rating point gaps happens in large Swisses on a regular basis. So why is a game played on Monday won by an 1800 against his higher-rated opponent world news? The answer is that the 2400 was a (rather low-rated) GM, and the victor a 9-year-old. This coincidence, unfortunately, is what makes it a story.

It's not a great game, but it's also not a bad game by the winner. His GM opponent blundered in the opening, perhaps overconfident about his position or the rating differential, and TN'd a losing move. Still, that wasn't the end of the game, and the youngster did well to solve the initial problems and to keep his opponent under control throughout. Unless the winner becomes a world-class player someday (and while it would be stupid to rule it out, it's also true that there is no shortage of 9 year olds with even higher ratings), it's unlikely that the game will be remembered as something epochal in the way Fischer's "Game of the Century" was. But let's also give the youngster his due: he did beat a GM, and set a record in the process.

The game can be found here, and a fuller account of the event is here.

A day or two ago I presented this position, which served as a starting point for some attractive analysis by Charles Sullivan.



It's an analysis position that could have arisen from the game Fischer-Stein, Sousse Interzonal 1967, and although White has the troops threateningly massed near Black's king, finding a successful invasion route isn't so simple at all. It's not a bad position to use for analysis practice, but finding the solution (especially a full solution) without the help of computers is likely to prove challenging even for GMs. So spend some time on the position if you like, and then have a look at Sullivan's analysis here (with some abbreviations and additions, but no corrections, by yours truly) - it's attractive and worth your time to do so.

It's not Kasparov on chess, but at least it's Kasparov.

Analysis maven Charles Sullivan has written (by email) about some beautiful analysis he has done on the heavyweight battle Fischer-Stein from the Sousse Interzonal in 1967. This was the position after White's 21st move:



In this scary-looking position, Stein played 21...Nb6, but Sullivan takes a look at 21...g6 here. The variation leading to the key position for this post continues 22.Bh6 Re8 23.e6 fxe6 24.Nfg5 Qb6(? - Sullivan) 25.Qg4 Bxe4 26.Bxe4 Ne5 27.Qg3 Bf6 28.Rad1 Qa7 (not best from a computer perspective, but the position is probably lost anyway and humans aren't computers):



What is White's only clearly winning move? It's not so hard for the computer to work out, but for humans it's another story. Give it your best shot (but please don't post your results in the comments); I'll post Sullivan's analysis tomorrow.

He wasn't a chess player, as far as I know, but he was a leading Christian intellectual whose writings for First Things and elsewhere I've enjoyed and benefited from over the years. More about him, with links to many tributes and some of his work, here.

Earlier in the week I presented this position from a local event:



It's Black to move here, and this battle of the B-players continued in the way you can see here. I recommended, and still recommend, that interested readers look through this ending first and try to figure out what should have happened. There were mistakes aplenty in the game, and trying to discover them in analysis is a good way to avoid making them for ourselves in the context of a game. My own findings, which you can replay for entertainment, instruction, or to compare notes, are here.

It's quite simple, really. First, you see and maybe study the idea a little from some examples. Next, you get an opponent to spontaneously play into a situation where you can use that very tactic in a game. This is just what happened to me a couple of days ago.



This is a position from the Keres-Geller game I presented in Wednesday night's ChessBase show. Geller, to move, played 18...f6 and was bludgeoned with 19.Qh5 g6 20.Nxg6 hxg6 21.Bxg6 Qg7 22.Rd3 Bd6 23.f4, when the introduction of the rook into the attack led to a quick decision. But what if Black plays 18...Bd6, with the idea that after 19.Qh5 g6 minor piece sacrifices won't achieve anything?

Another free video for anyone who wants to watch, available on-demand. Once again, I answer viewer questions, with a starring role given to a questions on openings. Have a look!

A couple of days I presented this position



and suggested that White was in bad shape. (Not that you needed anyone to tell you!) He's a pawn down, his d-pawn needs constant supervision, and the threat of ...h6-h5 looks likely to stretch his meager resources too thin. And yet, the position really can be saved, as you can see for yourself (if you haven't already figured it out) by clicking here.

Estonian legend Paul Keres was born 93 years ago today, and although he passed away in 1975, his games are likely to be remembered as long as there are chess fans. Though he never became world champion, very few players came as close to the throne as he did, and fewer still managed to maintain such a high level for so long. From 1938 to 1965, he was probably a top five player, and he remained an elite grandmaster until he passed away ten years later. Four times he came in second in Candidates' tournaments, and in the 1965 Candidates' matches he gave the toughest fight to eventual winner Boris Spassky. In 1938 he won the AVRO tournament, which was supposed to be a Candidates' event for the winner to play a world championship match against Alexander Alekhine, but that match never occurred, and in 1948 he finished third in the world championship match-tournament won by Botvinnik. He won three Soviet championships, had a tremendous score in the many Olympiads he played in, and won the gold medal for his board in four consecutive Olympics. He won countless other competitions, was a great theoretician (especially in the Ruy Lopez), and was liked and respected by all.

After all that, one might think I was going to sell some Keres memorabilia, but not quite. I would instead like to invite you to join me later tonight (Wednesday night at 9 p.m. ET) as we take a look at one of his many beautiful games. The one I have in mind was the final game of his 1962 match with Efim Geller, and an important game it was at that. They had tied for second in the 1962 Candidates (a mere half-point behind Petrosian, who went on to win the title), and needed a playoff match to see who would be automatically seeded into the 1965 Candidates event. After seven of the eight games, the score was knotted at 3.5-3.5, with Keres slated for White in the finale. How did he do?

No points for guessing the right answer, but what counts is how he did it. Keres' win was a beautiful display of attacking chess, worthy not only of appreciation but emulation as well. I'm confident that you'll enjoy our birthday tribute to Keres, and accordingly hope to see you tonight.

(A reminder for those who might be confused by the last two weeks' shows: with the holidays behind us, we're back to our normal Wednesday (or Thursday morning, for those across the pond) schedule for the foreseeable future.)

Here.

At first thought, the question looks stupid. Of course a position can be better; if not, chess commentators from world champions on down don't know what they're talking about! On the other hand, further reflection suggests the opposite conclusion. As there are only three possible results to a normal chess game (White wins, draw, Black wins), to say that (e.g.) White is better (but not winning) is to speak falsely. Objectively, either White is winning or it's a draw, and while the annotator may not know which there isn't some sort of in-between result corresponding to his evaluation.

How then should we think about this? Robert Pearson offers some thoughts on this on his blog, and as I immediately remembered when I saw his post, I did too, several years ago, on this very blog. My general argument and approach still seem right to me, although I'm not fully happy with my denial that evaluative terms like "slightly better" are objective. I think they are in a certain sense (they are based on real factors on the board, not mere subjective preference) - it just has to be understood that it's not the board alone that's being considered, but the board together with the abilities of a competent but fallible, finite human player.

This rapid event finished last year (ancient history!), but because (some of) the games have only just become available, I've waited to announce it until now. So: the Leon World Chess Open*, and everybody has won. Okay, not quite. There were 341 players and only 8 of them managed to tie for first. With 7.5/9, they were:

1. Evgeny Bareev (first on tiebreaks)
2. Artur Jussupow
3. Alexei Shirov
4. Daniel Fridman
5. Sergey Fedorchuk
6. Renier Vasquez Igarza
7. Orelvis Perez Mitjans
8. Dragan Paunovic
9. Julio Granda Zuniga

You can find some of the games in the latest edition of TWIC (#739), and while many, perhaps most of the games are incomplete (that will be obvious as you replay them) and one (Longa Yuaca-Korchnoi) clearly corrupted, some of the games are available. Two in particular caught my eye, and both were played by Bareev. Amazingly, both games ended similarly, with simple but spectacular shots his opponents never saw coming:





In both cases, it's White to move. In the first game, Bareev-Timman, Black has just played 29...cxd4?; in the second, Bareev-Granda Zuniga, Black's last move was 37...Qe4-c6. In both cases Black was already in some trouble before Bareev's rejoinder, but their moves only made matters worse. Can you find Bareev's crushers? The solutions are at the end of the post.

* Such a pretentious title! How is it a World Open, anyway? And why stop there - why not call it the "Intergalactic Open"? Besides, the real World Open takes place in Philadelphia each year.**

** For the humor-impaired and non-native English speakers, the previous sentence was tongue in cheek. I think both tournament names are pretentious.

Bareev-Timman: The coup de grace is 30.Ng6+!, forcing mate. Black resigned, not wishing to see either 30...Qxg6 31.Qxf8# or 30...hxg6 31.Qh3/h1 followed by 31.Qxh4#.

Bareev-Granda Zuniga: The crusher is 38.Rd8+!, and once again it forced immediate resignation. Black can stave off an immediate mate with 38...Kh7 (38...Nxd8? 39.Qxg7#) 39.Qd3+ Qe4 (39...g6? 40.Rh8#), but after 40.Qxe4+ Bxe4 41.Rd7 loses a pawn, leaving him a full exchange down without a shred of compensation.

This is a position from a recent quad at one of the local clubs; it's Black to move.



First, I recommend to those who are interested that they do their best to figure out what's going on here. Next, have a look at the remaining moves, here. Try to find all the improvements you can; believe me, there are plenty (some obvious, some less so), so it's going to be a fun exercise. I'll offer my analysis in a few days.

(N.B. I'm not blocking comments on this exercise, but I'd still prefer that readers not post their analysis of this ending. You're more than welcome to add your further ideas or corrections when I post my own analysis later this week.)

In the following position, White is a pawn down and in bad shape. His d-pawn requires constant supervision, and Black is ready to get his kingside majority rolling with ...h5. What can White, to move, do?



The answer will be provided in a day or two.

Three prominent events came to a close today, all three with clear winners.

In the Aker Chess Challenge (Gjovik), this was of necessity, given the elimination format. The happy and lucky winner was Peter Svidler, who exploited a Carlsen blunder in their second game (the first was a draw) to win the event. Nakamura defeated Lie to take third, but at least Lie managed to draw the last game and avoid a total bagel for the tournament.

In the Ivanchuk-Leko rapid match, Ivanchuk continued to dominate, and today he finally broke through. In game 5, the players reached an equal (near-) ending, but Ivanchuk managed to outplay his opponent all the same. It's surprising, given what an excellent technical player Leko is, but it's not as if Ivanchuk isn't great in that realm as well, and in rapid chess practically anything is possible. Ivanchuk obtained a pull with Black in the last game as well (and with a surprising opening choice), but this time Leko held. All the same, the match has concluded with a 3.5-2.5 Ivanchuk victory. Next for him is Corus, at which time his fate is to be determined.*

Finally, the last round game Neverov-Kurnosov was drawn, so Kurnosov took clear first at Hastings with 7.5/9, half a point ahead of Neverov and Berg.

And now, two bonuses. First, the two Ivanchuk-Leko games and the decisive Carlsen-Svidler battle are here, with my (brief) comments. Second, care of Macauley Peterson, here's a video of yesterday's Nakamura-Carlsen blitz game from the playoff, with the players' comments on voice-over:



* For those who don't recall the background: Ivanchuk was asked to take a drug test after his last round loss to Kamsky at the Dresden Olympiad. Ivanchuk was in a slightly bad mood about the individual and team loss (he kicked a pillar and stormed away), and didn't end up taking the test. As a result, he could be banned from official competitions for up to two years.

Lots of chess today, lots more tomorrow, and then we get to catch our breath until Corus. (That starts the 16th or 17th.)

Aker Chess Challenge (Gjovik):

The action was great today. In round 5, Carlsen beat Svidler when the latter chose 20...Nb4(?) instead of 20...Nd4(=); Svidler's move lost a pawn for no compensation, and Carlsen finished him off comfortably. When Nakamura achieved the inevitable, beating Lie (who again had but failed to maintain a significant advantage), Carlsen and Nakamura led by half a point going into the last round.

The good news for Svidler was that he was paired with Lie, and he beat him, though not without effort. Meanwhile, Nakamura made the decision that he'd have better chances against Carlsen and Svidler in blitz than with White against Carlsen in a rapid game, and so he played the Exchange Variation against the Slav and shook hands on move 12.

Thus after the preliminaries Carlsen, Nakamura and Svidler all had 4 points, having "ouroborosed" each other (Carlsen beat Svidler, Svidler beat Nakamura and Nakamura beat Carlsen) while all three fully digested Lie. The 4-pointers needed a blitz tiebreaker, and Carlsen and Svidler advanced. Carlsen defeated both opponents, and Svidler beat Nakamura. So tomorrow Carlsen and Svidler play for first, Nakamura and Lie for third.

Reggio Emilia:

The tournament is over, but even though Ni Hua had clinched clear first yesterday, he and everyone else fought through the finish. Today he outplayed Marin on the White side of an Open Ruy, finishing with 7.5/9, a 2834 TPR and a gain of at least 12 points (according to the Live Top List, which as of this writing hadn't yet updated the figures to take today's games into account).

Zoltan Almasi finished in clear second, bouncing back from yesterday's loss by beating Shytaj with Black in a King's Gambit. His 9...f5 appears to be a novelty, at least in OTB play, and after Shytaj's 12.Qxe7+? it worked like gangbusters. (12.Bxf4 was approximately equal.) Shytaj was soundly crushed in only 24 moves.

Landa, Gustafsson and Marin tied for third, another point back. We already know what happened to Marin; as for Landa, he won when Dreev went insane trying to win an equal ending. Dreev's fighting spirit was commendable, but it's possible to have too much of a good thing. Gustafsson also won, outplaying poor Cebalo on the white side of a Bogo-Indian.

Finally, the day's only draw was Leon Hoyos-Ronchetti, but it too was a full-blooded struggle. Ronchetti was better from start almost to finish, but it wasn't enough.

Final Standings:

1. Ni Hua 7.5 (of 9)
2. Almasi 6
3-5. Landa, Gustafsson, Marin 5
6-7. Dreev, Leon Hoyos 4.5
8. Ronchetti 3
9. Shytaj 2.5
10. Cebalo 2

Ivanchuk-Leko Rapid Match:

For the second straight day, both games were drawn, but it wasn't from a lack of effort. In game 3, Ivanchuk tried for 85 moves to make something from nothing, while in game 4 he did enjoy a tangible advantage. Only his 45th move, 45...dxc5, let Leko off the hook, but that's mostly to Leko's credit rather than Ivanchuk's blame.

Hastings:

I haven't been following the event at all, but with one round to go, here are the leading standings:

1. Kurnosov 7
2. Neverov 6.5
3-5. Berg, Howell, Conquest 6

Since Neverov has White against Kurnosov in the last round, one of them will take clear first.

Last week we saw the parts of my recent game with GM Rogelio Antonio that worked out more or less to my advantage (that video is here); this week we get to see the somewhat less favorable conclusion. As I've mentioned before, experience is what you get when you don't get what you want, so here's the chance to see what lessons I was (forced) to learn.

The video is here, free and available on-demand.

Reggio Emilia:

Landa-Shytaj was a draw, and a good performance by the young outsider. Landa clearly wanted to defeat his lower-rated opponent, but only managed to get into trouble. Shytaj won a pawn, but with tough defense Landa held the draw.

In the battle of the leaders, Almasi-Ni Hua, Almasi entered the round trailing by half a point and played a sharp, win at all costs piece sac in a Sveshnikov Sicilian. Ni Hua took the material, slowly neutralized his opponent's initiative, and won the game and the tournament, a round ahead of schedule.

Marin defeated Gustafsson, but the end was very strange. Marin had an advantage, especially after Gustafsson's inaccurate final move, but he wasn't winning. Maybe Gustafsson's flag fell as he made his last move?

Cebalo had some advantage against Leon Hoyos, but could only draw.

Against Ronchetti, Dreev's 16...d5 was a very big error. As a result, he was forced to sac his queen for two minor pieces and a pawn. For no reason I can see other than rating fear, Ronchetti offered a draw, and it was probably accepted with a king-sized sigh of relief. A White win would not have been quick or easy, but had the players switched seats I think Dreev would have volunteered for a root canal sooner than offering a draw.

Standings after Round 8 of 9:

1. Ni Hua 6.5
2-3. Almasi, Marin 5
4. Dreev 4.5
5-7. Gustafsson, Landa, Leon Hoyos 4
8-9. Shytaj, Ronchetti 2.5
10. Cebalo 2

Gjovik Rapid (Aker Chess Challenge):

Carlsen-Nakamura: This was a good battle. The game was even for a long time, but Nakamura kept fighting and it paid off. White's 43rd move was an error, and two moves later Carlsen simply blundered. Nakamura's win put him ahead of Carlsen at the halfway point.

He could have been in clear first, had Lie converted his winning position against Svidler. Unfortunately for Lie, a series of errors, culminating in his last move, 37.Rxf6?? (37.Nxf7=), led to a painful loss. That ended the first cycle, and the standings at this point were Svidler 2.5, Nakamura 2, Carlsen 1.5 and Lie 0.

The end of the first cycle was not the end of the day's action, so on to round 4. Nakamura-Svidler was drawn by perpetual check. Nakamura may have been disappointed not to win with White, but as Svidler was slightly better through most of the game, it was a good result for the American.

As for Lie-Carlsen, it was a massacre. Perhaps still in shock from the previous game, he played very poorly in this one, missing many tactics I'm sure he'd have found under other circumstances.

The last two preliminary games will be tomorrow; here are the current standings, after round 4:

1. Svidler 3
2-3. Carlsen, Nakamura 2.5
4. Lie 0

Ivanchuk-Leko:

But wait, there's more! Ivanchuk and Leko are playing a rapid match, and the first two games were today. Two more games tomorrow, and then the last two on Monday.

On the front cover of Boris Avrukh's new 1.d4 Volume 1 (Quality Chess 2008):

Tired of bad positions? Try the main lines!

Not a bad resolution for the new year, that.

Gjovik, Day 1:

If I'm not mistaken, this elite 4-player rapid tournament works like this: the players have a double round robin, and at the end the top 2 players have a championship match and the tailenders duke it out for third and fourth. Today (okay, yesterday) the first two preliminary rounds were played; there will be three more tomorrow (today) and three more on Sunday. After that, the final matches will take place on Monday.

In round 1, the pairings were Svidler-Nakamura and Carlsen-Lie. (Lie is a very strong player in his own right, but in this event he's most likely chum. The joys of experience!) Svidler-Nakamura was an Advance Caro-Kann that turned out terribly for Black from the start. Svidler's excellent preparation left him the bishop pair - in a favorable setting - and very nice development, and by move 15 he was practically winning. With 18.Rxd7 the "practically" in the last sentence could be eliminated, and the rest was a matter of Svidler's very good technique.

Lie's prep looked much better than Nakamura's, and in an Accelerated Dragon he seemed to achieve equality or something near enough to it. He was quickly outplayed, however, and his exchange sac on move 29 looked a little desperate. Carlsen did a fine job of preventing Black from achieving the kind of coordination that would cause White's king serious troubles, and at the end of the day it was Black who was getting mated.

On to round 2. Svidler didn't achieve much with White against Carlsen, and their game, a Symmetrical English-cum-quasi-hedgehog, was quickly drawn. Coincidentally, Nakamura-Lie was also a Symmetrical English, and White used the a3+b4 gambit. Its theoretical reputation isn't all that stellar, but it was just the thing for the rapid game. In return for a pawn that wouldn't prove useful for many moves to come, Nakamura got to enjoy a lasting initiative, and in a rapid game that's a valuable asset. Lie generally maintained the position to the computer's satisfaction until move 32, when he blundered with 32...Bxa1 (only 32...Ng5 would keep him alive, but maybe he's even a touch better there...maybe), but in the real world humans inhabit it was a miserable position for Black to handle with little time on the clock.

So after two rounds, Svidler and Carlsen lead with 1.5/2, Nakamura is in pursuit with a point, and Lie has the opportunity to infinitely improve his score in the next round. (Games available on TWIC.)

Here's the rundown for round 7 of Reggio Emilia:

Ronchetti-Landa was fascinating. Landa gambled all on a kingside attack, but had his opponent chosen 31.Qd5, with the idea of meeting 31...Qg6 with 32.Qe4, it might have turned out poorly for him. After the move played, 31.gxh3(?), White was up no less than a rook and pawn, but not for long. They quickly reached, more or less by force, a queen and three pawns vs. two rooks and three pawns ending where Landa's queen was dominant, and he went on to win.

Dreev experienced some tough luck today. With White against tailender Cebalo, he obtained a winning position, but either panicked or blundered with 40.Qxd4(?). If he had played 40.Rb2 Black's counterattack wouldn't have legs, but Dreev's move allowed a simple perpetual.

Leon Hoyos-Marin repeated the pattern of the first two games. After Marin's blunder on move 32, Leon Hoyos found a tactic that gave him a (probably) winning position, but like Ronchetti and Dreev that wasn't enough to actually win. Marin was able to construct a fortress and draw. (It's possible that the possibility of a fortress was there all along, but I suspect it was ad hoc and not planned when Marin played his 32nd move.)

Gustafsson-Almasi was a quick draw. Disappointing, perhaps, but at least neither play has to rue a blundered half point!

Finally, Ni Hua-Shytaj saw the first-named player win and take over sole first place. Shytaj played the theoretically questionable Nimzowitsch Sicilian (1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6) and achieve a reasonable position in almost every respect. The only question is what he needed to do with his king. Rybka suggests 17...O-O with equality, but this looks like a typical case of frog-in-the-pot: the computer will find Black's position delightful until it realizes it's getting mated in x moves. However, my efforts to deliver mate proved unsuccessful, so perhaps it's playable...just. (But I doubt it, and it's certainly not a decision a normal, well-informed human will make unless the position has been analyzed beforehand.) Instead, Shytaj castled long, keeping his king safe (but not for that long) but letting White enjoy a comfy edge thanks to his extra space. That turned into an attack, which netted Ni Hua a couple of extra pawns and thus the game.

(Games available for download or online replay on the TWIC site.)

Standings after Round 7 (of 9):

1. Ni Hua 5.5
2. Almasi 5
3-5. Dreev, Gustafsson, Marin 4
6-7. Leon Hoyos, Landa 3.5
8-9. Shytaj, Ronchetti 2
10. Cebalo 1.5

The daily update is a little late (good thing I didn't resolve to blog every single day!), but I wanted to leave the previous post on top a while longer. On to a quick Reggio Emilia update. Ni Hua drew quickly with Black against Landa, and Almasi drew Leon Hoyos with White. That allowed Dreev the chance to pull even with them, if he could defeat Marin with Black. He achieved a winning position, but instead of building on yesterday's big success he lost his advantage and subsequently the game. The ending is quite nice, so I've annotated the game here. In the other games, Gustafsson could only draw with Shytaj, while Ronchetti defeated Cebalo.

Standings after 6 (of 9) rounds:

1-2. Ni Hua, Almasi 4.5
3-5. Dreev, Gustafsson, Marin 3.5
6. Leon Hoyos 3
7. Landa 2.5
8-9. Shytaj, Ronchetti 2
10. Cebalo 1