The Chess Mind

Today's results:

Radjabov - Anand 1/2-1/2
Carlsen - Aronian 0-1
Grischuk - Dominguez 1/2-1/2
Ivanchuk - Wang Yue 1/2-1/2

Radjabov - Anand was a continuation of their prestige match in the Anti-Moscow Gambit, and their first draw in the variation. Radjabov varied from their earlier games; ironically, he did so by choosing a continuation that has fallen into desuetude. Anand was prepared (or did a good job solving his problems at the board), and it was Radjabov who had to work for the draw.

Carlsen - Aronian has me eating my words. A few weeks ago, after Carlsen's last round loss at Corus to Wang Yue, I defended Carlsen's technical abilities. That game wasn't representative, I argued, but the sort of lapse that can happen to anyone pushing too hard in a must-win situation. I'm not sure I was wrong about the particular situation, but Carlsen's blowing a theoretical draw against Aronian (not for the first time) has determined my dinner menu for tonight, and gives GrenfellHunt "I told you so" rights, at least for now. Here's dinner:



Grischuk - Dominguez saw the tournament leader (Grischuk) get into serious trouble when his anti-Grünfeld passer went from strength to weakness. Fortunately for him, Dominguez made a couple of inaccuracies and Grischuk slid out to a drawn ending.

Finally, Ivanchuk - Wang Yue was another scintillating Petroff (not!). Ivanchuk came up with a TN (theoretical novelty) that was a TL (theoretical lemon), but demonstrating the sort of technique Carlsen didn't, at least today, he managed to save a pawn-down rook ending.

Standings after Round 8:

1. Grischuk 5.5
2-3. Ivanchuk, Aronian 4.5
4-5. Carlsen, Anand 4
6. Dominguez Perez 3.5
7-8. Wang Yue, Radjabov 3

Round 9 Pairings:

Ivanchuk - Radjabov
Wang Yue - Grischuk
Dominguez - Carlsen
Aronian - Anand

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

Today was a rest day in Linares, so I decided to take one myself, especially after all the two-a-days with the Topalov-Kamsky match. But it's time to post the results and games, since round 8 - the first game of the second cycle - begins in the morning (about 10 hours from now).

Three games were drawn today, and Ivanchuk finally cashed in a winning position, taking over Aronian's spot in second place. To recap the games:

Anand-Grischuk: In a sharp Saemisch KID (via an Anti-Grünfeld move order) Anand realized that his king was at least as endangered as his opponent's, and he quickly liquidated to a drawn rook and pawn ending.

Aronian-Ivanchuk: Also a King's Indian, but of a very different sort. Aronian may have been winning at one moment, but when he missed a tactical opportunity Ivanchuk gained the attacking chances. Aronian "won" a pawn, but Black's kingside buildup won the game.

The other two games were fairly dull: in both Radjabov-Carlsen and Dominguez-Wang Yue the games started and remained balanced throughout.

Standings After Round 7:

1. Grischuk 5
2-3. Ivanchuk, Carlsen 4
4-5. Aronian, Anand 3.5
6. Dominguez Perez 3
7-8. Radjabov, Wang Yue 2.5

Round 8 Pairings:

Radjabov - Anand
Carlsen - Aronian
Grischuk - Dominguez
Ivanchuk - Wang Yue

Tournament site here; games with my comments here.

There was a game played recently in the championship of one of the clubs here, and it turned out to be instructive - unintentionally so, from the participants' perspective. The players reached a knight vs. bishop ending, with the knight side enjoying a clear extra pawn. Despite this advantage, which should be enough to win, the game wound up as a draw. How did this happen?

Several factors were at work. A bit of time trouble was one of them, but there's not much to say about that in this context. Another factor may have been a lack of understanding about how to arrange the pawns on both sides of the board. We will look at that aspect of the ending with some care. Finally, a third factor was at play, one which can afflict a player at any stage of the game.

To grasp it, think of an analogy. Suppose someone arranges your couch so it's right in the middle of your living room, practically dividing it in half and make it difficult to get to the other side - or anywhere else, for that matter. If that happened, would you leave it there indefinitely, squeezing around or climbing over it? Of course not! You'd rearrange the furniture for your convenience and purposes. Man was not made for the sofa, but the sofa for man.

But when it comes to the placement of one's chess pieces, that common-sense adage is often overturned. If a piece is well placed, then players will often treat it like an immovable object, even if it gets in the way of everyone else doing their job. This is essentially what happened in this game, and while it cost the player with a knight half a point in his game, it can save us points in ours.

Enough preview - you can see the real thing here. It's free and available on-demand, so have a look!

The final game of the Topalov-Kamsky Candidates Match wasn't pretty, but it was very exciting. In a sharp, generally inferior position Topalov gambled on Kamsky's time shortage, and it paid off. Kamsky could have won, but with little time to think he played "instinctive" moves against a Topalov cheapo, and instead of equaling the scores found himself out a rook and out of the match. Neither player showed his best chess in the match, but what Topalov brought to the table proved good enough on this occasion, and he is now slated to face Anand for the title. (This match will allegedly take place some time this year, but I wouldn't be surprised if it happens in early 2010.)

For a look at the lively game that clinched the match, have a look here.

With my comments, of course. Revisit the relevant posts, here and here.

Going into the last round, Armenian GM Arman Pashikian was in the driver's seat at the Aeroflot Open. He led by half a point and had the white pieces going into the last round. It didn't matter, as French super-GM Etienne Bacrot beat him. Surprisingly, the only other member of the large chase pack to win a game was Ukranian GM Alexander Moiseenko. Bacrot and Moiseenko split the prize money (as far as I know), but Bacrot won the bigger prize - the automatic entry into the Dortmund super-tournament in July - because he had more games with Black.

To this I say: too bad. Bacrot has been an elite GM for years now and has already been a part of the super-tournament circuit. He's strong enough to get invites based on rating and reputation, but for Moiseenko this was the opportunity of a lifetime. It's also too bad because having outsiders makes the tournament more fun. If they do well, it's a Cinderella story, and even if they struggle it's interesting too - the other players are motivated to try hard against him, and that keeps things lively.

Of course, this doesn't mean that Bacrot should surrender his invitation. And winning this event was a real accomplishment for anyone, 2700 or not. Congratulations!

Today's round just finished, and the effect on the standings was considerable. Grischuk and Aronian came into the round tied for first. They were paired, and Grischuk won. He's now +3 and leads by a point, and if he keeps up this pace it will be the greatest triumph of his career. Aronian is tied for second with Carlsen, who was better all the way against Anand, but only defeated him with considerable difficulty. Ivanchuk should have been part of that second-place tie, but he accepted a draw in what looked like a winning position, after the time control, against Dominguez. Finally, Wang Yue-Radjabov was a draw. Radjabov was a little worse throughout, but wasn't in danger and the players called it a day when neither side could make any progress.

Standings after Round 6:

1. Grischuk 4.5 (2946 TPR!)
2-3. Carlsen, Aronian 3.5
4-5. Ivanchuk, Anand 3
6. Dominguez Perez 2.5
7-8. Wang Yue, Radjabov 2

Tomorrow's round completes the first cycle; here are the pairings:

Round 7 Pairings:

Radjabov - Carlsen (Dragon, anyone?)
Anand - Grischuk (a good chance for Anand to get right back in the mix)
Aronian - Ivanchuk
Dominguez - Wang Yue

Tournament site here; games here.

The US Championship takes place from May 7-17, 2009 in St. Louis, Missouri, and according to an email I received a couple of days ago, "A $64,000 bonus in memory of late chess champion Bobby Fischer and a jackpot bonus for a clear first-place winner have been added to the prizes being awarded at the 2009 U.S. Chess Championship." The latter prize (it's $5,000) is fine and within reach, but what about the $64k bonus? All you need to do is go 9-0. I think only one player will seriously attempt it (Nakamura; I don't think even Kamsky will really push for it) and I don't think his chances are very good. The donation is a nice gimmick, but I think there's a less than 1% chance that the money will be paid. In fact, I predict that the money will be safe by round 5 at the latest. We'll see.

New York 1924 was one of the greatest chess tournaments of the first half of the 20th century. Three world champions (Lasker, Capablanca and Alekhine) participated, three world championship match losers (Marshall, Janowski and Bogoljubow) joined in as well, and the rest of the supporting cast was impressive, too. Many games from that event are famous (flip through the games from that event in your database or in the outstanding, recently republished book of the tournament by Alexander Alekhine, and you're liable to find some you've seen before) and deservedly so. This week, however, we'll look at a game from that event which you probably have not seen.

The participants in this particular battle are Dawid Janowski (1868-1927) and Edward Lasker (1885-1981). The former, as noted above, played in a world championship match, losing badly to Emanuel Lasker. As for Edward Lasker (a distant relative of his namesake), he's reasonably well-known in American chess circles, as he lived the vast majority of his life in the U.S.A., but he's not as well known elsewhere. In 1924, neither player was a threat to win the championship, but both were elite players - neither man was there out of charity.

As for the game: I first saw it when I was in my early teens and maybe sooner, and I haven't forgotten it to this day. More than the games that won brilliancy prizes or the Capablanca-Tartakower rook ending (the one that's in almost every book on rook endings ever written), this game has stuck in my mind. That's because the players (especially Janowski) were operating in the realm of fantasy. Forget about correct, "professional" chess; these guys decided to go on an adventure. See it for yourself tonight - Wednesday night at 9 p.m. ET (that's Thursday at 3 a.m. CET) - and join in the adventure. You'll be glad you did.

(To watch, show up at the scheduled time, go to the Broadcast Room and look up Janowski-Lasker under the Games tab. Double-click on it and you're ready to watch.)

Ivanchuk-Anand was a peculiar game. Anand tried to improve on Black's play in the game...Anand-Kramnik from the world championship match last fall. Remarkably, his novelty was a bad move, and Ivanchuk quickly obtained a big advantage. Eventually they reached a rook ending where White was winning, but the adage about all rook endings being drawn carried the day (with a little help from Ivanchuk and a great defensive effort by Anand).

By contrast, Grischuk-Carlsen wasn't much of a game. The players followed known Sveshnikov Sicilian theory for a long time, and Grischuk, apparently underprepared once again from a theoretical standpoint, was unable to prove anything. Carlsen drew easily - his fifth draw in this tournament, continuing his trend from Corus where he split the point in his first nine games. (For those who remember Julie Kavner's most famous role, pre-Marge Simpson, you might catch the allusion if we start to dub the young Norwegian "Carlsen the Drawman".)

Dominguez Perez-Radjabov was a Dragon Sicilian. Radjabov sacrificed the exchange for a pawn, and as more and more pieces were traded off the better it turned out to be for Radjabov. His advantage wasn't very great most of the way, but on move 54 he missed a real chance to push Dominguez to the edge. After that, he had nothing special and White forced a draw by repetition.

Finally, Wang Yue-Aronian was also drawn by repetition, albeit in just 26 moves. White seemed to have a pull, but Aronian quickly neutralized it. Maybe they could have continued what would have been a trench war, but they were probably right to call it a day and get ready for the next round.

Speaking of which, here are the pairings for round 6:

Wang Yue - Radjabov
Ivanchuk - Dominguez Perez
Grischuk - Aronian
Carlsen - Anand

Standings after Round 5:

1-2. Aronian, Grischuk 3.5
3. Anand 3
4-5. Carlsen, Ivanchuk 2.5
6. Dominguez Perez 2
7-8. Wang Yue, Radjabov 1.5

Tournament site here; games here.

Charles Hertan's Forcing Chess Moves. I don't think it was the best book of 2008, but it's not a bad work either. More about this and the other candidates here. (And do check out the site's other offerings - Tuesday night/Wednesday morning is when they put up most of the new material for the week.)

Most of the leaders drew (a chance for Dortmund is nice, but sure money seems to be nicer), but Pashikian beat Kurnosov to take over clear first in the Aeroflot Open. Pashikian has 6 points out of 8, with Bacrot, Moiseenko, Weigi Zhou, Kurnosov, Predojevic, Zhigalko, Potkin and Jianchao Zhao just half a point behind. One round to go!

Ever since I was interviewed as a teenager by the local paper and saw the "reporter" regularly change and ignore my answers my esteem for the fourth estate has been pretty low, and little I've seen since then has changed my general opinion. (Here's an example from that first interview. Q: Who are some of your idols? A: As a Christian, I don't have idols, but some players whose chess I admire include.... Print version: Some of Dennis' idols include....) It would be unfair to tar all members of the media with the same brush, and I have known and been interviewed by conscientious individuals whose desire for a story doesn't trump the mandate to speak and write the truth and the value of doing good in the world. All too often, though, the story - or ideology - comes first.

I offer this as a preface to an old Dick Schaap story about Bobby Fischer (scroll down that page to find it), which Jim West has kindly transcribed on his blog. Even the article's header is offensive: "Whatever Happened to Bobby Fischer? Our Peripatetic Reporter Pursues an Old Friend". Read the article for yourself, and when you're done, if you pray, thank God that you don't have "friends" like this.

(HT: Brian Karen)

Veselin Topalov had no problems achieving a draw with Black today in game 6 of his Candidates Match with Gata Kamsky. Wisely eschewing the Closed Ruy for a Caro-Kann, he equalized very quickly and even enjoyed a slight initiative for most of the game. With two games to play, Topalov leads the match 3.5-2.5. Tomorrow is a rest day, and on Thursday Topalov will have a chance to close it out with the White pieces.

Game 6, with my comments, can be replayed here.

We continue our just-the-facts coverage of the Aeroflot Open, but with a little bonus today. First of all, sole leader Kurnosov 1.0* drew his game, but so did his closest rivals. He therefore maintains his half-point lead with 5.5/7; Pashikian, Predojevic, Moiseenko, Jinchao Zhao, Zhigalko and Tomashevsky are half a point behind.

Second, while I read rumors or at least wistful hopes that a few hours' cooling off would lead Mamedyarov to seek re-entry into the tournament, nothing of the sort seems to have happened; he's out.

Third, the bonus. In game 3 of the Topalov-Kamsky match, Kamsky played an interesting new gambit (or at least new in Mega2009); already we're seeing followers and improvements. Konstantin Maslak tried it again in round 7 of Aeroflot; Evgeny Bareev had something new prepared, and he went on to win. Here (without notes) is the game.

* Note for the link-checking impaired: "Kurnosov 1.0" is a wry jab at Mamedyarov, not an accusation of Kurnosov.

It's a seriously weird match! Topalov had looked pretty unimpressive the last couple of games, and with his win in game four Kamsky had taken over the match initiative. That's how it seemed, but today, in game five, everything changed.

First, Topalov gave up on 1.d4, having achieved nothing or less against Kamsky's Grünfeld. So against 1.e4, what does Kamsky do? He plays the French for the first time in his career. Topalov played the Tarrasch, and the two went into a main sideline, if I can put it that way, where Kamsky was apparently completely unprepared. After burning a fair amount of time, Kamsky chose a reasonable if rare plan, but one that allowed Topalov the chance to torture him and his isolated pawn indefinitely.

White enjoyed an edge most of the way, but Kamsky had been making some progress when he made an outright blunder. A few moves later, he blundered a second pawn (or else he believed that that particular ending gave him chances that weren't any worse than some of the other endings just one pawn down), and with some accurate moves Topalov wrapped things up. The score is now 3-2 for Topalov, with three games to go. Game six is tomorrow.

Game five (with my comments) can be replayed here; the match site is here.

From the game Solodovnichenko-Laxman, Gurgaon Open 2009:



Black has just grabbed a bishop with 32...Nc5xe4; how should White recapture? The answer is here.

Looking through my fridge tonight, I found some leftovers from the Corus festival I thought might be of interest. They weren't from the Group A event, which was covered in depth at the time, but from the B and C tournaments instead. Have a look here, and remember not to heat these leftovers in the microwave - your computer might explode.

A few days ago I presented these positions for your solving pleasure:


Vladimir Akopian 2009; White to move and mate in three


Gady Costeff, The Problemist 2009; White to move and draw.

The solutions are here.

(N.B. You can also find the solution to the Costeff study, along with two more from the Corus study competition, here.)

There hadn't been many short draws in previous rounds, but it was still nice to see three of today's four games end with a winner. Anand defeated Wang Yue very smoothly on the White side of a Slav - probably using an idea he had prepared for Kramnik. Radjabov lost to Grischuk, self-destructing with White in a Queen's Indian with a modified version of Polugaevsky's d5 pawn sacrifice. Carlsen-Ivanchuk was a relatively quick and uneventful draw, but Aronian-Dominguez was just the opposite. Aronian slowly but surely ground out the win in 92 moves after about 7 hours of play. His extra exertions shouldn't cause him too much of a problem for the next round, as that won't occur until Tuesday; Monday is the tournament's first rest day.

Standings after Round 4:

1-2. Aronian, Grischuk 3
3. Anand 2.5
4-5. Carlsen, Ivanchuk 2
6. Dominguez Perez 1.5
7-8. Radjabov, Wang Yue 1

Round 5 Pairings:

Dominguez - Radjabov
Wang Yue - Aronian
Ivanchuk - Anand
Grischuk - Carlsen

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

Apparently it's not only Aeroflot that has some controversy. According to this reliable report, there's this letter by Veselin Topalov's manager Silvio Danailov:

Gata Kamsky is not using computer assistance, and we protest this behavior strenuously. The Topalov team had spent months preparing to exploit the holes in Rybka's program, finding long forced wins against all its major opening lines. We demand that Kamsky immediately cease his independent behavior, and encourage him to use his rest area on a more regular basis. This rest area is equipped with a high speed internet connection and a powerful computer with Rybka installed on it.

It is also suspicious how little water Kamsky drinks during the games. Perhaps Kamsky's lack of thirst and the corresponding lack of need for elimination is giving him an unfair advantage. This matter requires further investigation.

Who would have thunk it?

Here's an update, based on but going beyond what's in the previous post and the comments thereto. You can find Shakhriyar Mamedyarov's account of what happened in his game with Igor Kurnosov in that post (or here); here's my take on it and why I don't think he has a very good case:

(1) Mamedyarov's comment about Kurnosov's reaction to his 12th move is implausible, at least taken as evidence that Kurnosov found the move surprising on its merits. 12.d5 isn't as common as 12.Rxh5, but it is a well-known move there, and has been played by no less a player than Konstantin Sakaev (a very well-known theoretician whose rating was 2664 when he played the move in 2003). If Kurnosov was surprised, it might be because his home research into the line revealed that it was less promising than 12.Rxh5.

(2) There are seven games with 12.d5. Of these, six continued with 12...Ne5, all continued 13.Bh6, five with 13...Nec4 14.Qg5 Rf7. Two continued with 15.Bxc4 Nxc4, and one included 16.Rd4. So, since others were able to reach this position, it's not so odd that a 2600 GM like Kurnosov could too - even if we assume he hadn't prepared any of this beforehand.

(3) 16...Qd6 was a good move, developing a piece that can help out on the kingside and getting rid of one of White's main attackers. But it isn't anything brilliant, and 16...Nxb2 was also good for a significant edge. In fact, depending on how long I let Rybka think about it, those two moves will rank differently. First 16...Nxb2 is preferred, then equal, but 16...Qd6 takes a lead for a little over a minute on my mediocre computer. From about 1:20 to 2:40, the two moves are equal, and then 16...Nxb2 takes and keeps the lead.

(4) After 16...Qd6 17.Bxg7, 17...Rxg7 is obvious. 18.Qxh5 threatens both mate on e8 and the knight on c4. This sequence is pretty obvious and of course must have been seen prior to Black's 16th move. Thus his next move is pretty obvious, 18...Qf4+, which not only generates counter-threats but gives him ...Qf8 in response to Qe8+.

(5) After 18...Qf4+ 19.Kb1, 19...Bf5 is easy to find, too. It develops a piece, covers the back rank, overprotects h7 and threatens to win at least a piece with ...exf3+. There is an obvious problem with 19...Bf5 though - it walks into 20.fxe4, grabbing a pawn and stopping the threat with tempo. It's useful for Black to take e4 away from White's pieces, though, and as for the tempo, he regains it on the next move with 19...Bg4 - definitely an obvious move.

(6) 21...Qd2 was also a nice move. It doesn't require Rybka, but while I can imagine a GM missing it or at least not finding it in advance on a given occasion, it's also a move I could find on a decent day.

Summary: I don't find the argument from surprise (on move 12) compelling at all. There are a couple of Kurnosov's moves that were good (19...Bf5 and 21...Qd2) and if he disappeared after every move, that's not a good thing. On the other hand, neither move was that fantastic (19...Bf5 20.fxe4 Bg4 was a good concept not requiring deep calculation, and likewise 21...Qd2 is obviously strong the moment one considers it).

So on a 1-10 scale, with 10 being an airtight case for Mamedyarov and 1 pure, groundless paranoia, I'd give this about a 3. Maybe further details will come out (does Kurnosov have a history of cheating? Is he an exceptionally poorly prepared player? Does he usually take tons of time on the clock?), but based on what I've seen so far, I don't think Mamedyarov has a very good case.

Here's the game itself, with my comments.

I heard allusions to this earlier, but never really got the story and didn't see anything about it on TWIC or ChessBase. Fortunately, "Andrey" has come to the rescue - this by email:

Dennis, a scandal happened today at the Aeroflot Open. I'm not sure when English speakers will be able to get a translation of what's going on, so I translated Mamedyarov's letter after today's round.

" Today, Feb 22 2009, I played Igor Kurnosov. During the game, after every move my opponent was taking his coat and leaving the playing venue to go to a restroom. After my suspicions I offered a draw on move 14, he refused. First 11 moves were played fast, my 12th move was a surprise for my opponent and his remaining moves matched Rybka, which helped him win quickly.

Because of my suspicions, caused by nonstandard behavior of Igor Kurnosov, I file a protest and withdraw from Aeroflot Open."

I hope Andrey or others will keep us posted on further developments, and if there's a URL for the original, I'd appreciate having that sent in the comments.

Two events just finished: the Nancy Chess Festival in France and the Pfalz Open in Germany. The first, a round robin event, was won by Indian GM Pentala Harikrishna with 7/9, a point ahead of up and coming German GM Georg Meier. The latter event was won by Dutch GM Sergei Tiviakov with a fine 7.5/9 score, half a point ahead of nine players with 7: Bogner, Kuzubov, Borovikov, Drozdovskij, N.Mamedov, Sulskis, Buhmann, Gharamian and Kempinski. With his performance in the tournament, Tiviakov has jumped into the 2700 club for the first time in his career (though he was 2699 once, in 2005; now, on the live top list, he's 2706). Congratulations!

(HT: Chess Today)

Meanwhile, in the Aeroflot Open, Igor Kurnosov is in clear first with 5/6, half a point ahead of Jinchao Zhao, Alexander Moiseenko and Arman Pashikian.

Four draws, that is, though all were reasonably hard fought.

Round 3 Results:

Aronian - Radjabov 1/2-1/2
Dominguez Perez - Anand 1/2-1/2
Wang Yue - Carlsen 1/2-1/2
Ivanchuk - Grischuk 1/2-1/2

Co-leader Aronian played an interesting g3 + e4 hybrid against Radjabov's King's Indian. He gained the bishop pair and some extra space, but he was unable to increase the edge. Radjabov was defending throughout, but succeeded, drawing in 42 moves.

In Dominguez-Anand, the World Champion bounced back from yesterday's loss with a comfortable endgame draw today. The game was a near-repeat of a line Anand had against Leko last year, and although he won that game, he had been in some difficulties earlier. Today, neither side had any real problems and point was comfortably split in 41 moves.

Wang Yue-Carlsen was a battle of the grinders. Fittingly, the queens came off on move 15, and after that the advantage see-sawed the rest of the way. First it was equal, then Carlsen was slightly better, than Wang Yue had the edge, then Carlsen and then, at the end of the first time control, it was Wang Yue who had whatever winning chances there were. With some time to think, Carlsen found a very convincing way to hold the draw, and the game concluded in a repetition on move 57.

Ivanchuk-Grischuk had a truly bizarre moment in the opening. It was a 4.Nf3 Nimzo-Indian that followed the line in the Kramnik-Anand match. Ivanchuk repeated Kramnik's novelty (from the one game the latter won), and in reply Grischuk thought for something like 50 minutes! Granted, Grischuk is also a poker professional, but still - he's not even aware of games played in a world championship match?? To his credit, he did better than Anand, and managed to hold a slightly inferior position for a long time, eventually splitting the point on move 65.

Standings after Round 3:

1-2. Aronian, Grischuk 2
3-6. Dominguez Perez, Carlsen, Anand, Ivanchuk 1.5
7-8. Radjabov, Wang Yue 1

Round 4 Pairings:

Radjabov - Grischuk
Carlsen - Ivanchuk
Anand - Wang Yue
Aronian - Dominguez

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

Gata Kamsky won game four of his Candidates Match against Veselin Topalov, tying the eight-game match at 2-2. Tomorrow is a rest day, and in game five Kamsky will have White again.

Today he used the White pieces to great effect. Topalov played the Zaitsev Variation against the Ruy Lopez, probably assuming Kamsky would head into the super-sharp main lines. If so, the assumption proved unfounded. Kamsky chose a sideline that kept the center closed, and the maneuvering game that followed better suited the American's strengths than his rival's. White's position always seemed more promising, and although Topalov's stubborn defense made the game last 73 moves, Kamsky had been in control for a long, long time.

The match is thus tied, but the momentum is completely in Kamsky's favor. Topalov has achieved nothing with the White pieces, and his choice of the Zaitsev looks less than inspired. It's surprising that Topalov, who has made great contributions to Najdorf theory with both colors, has avoided this so far. Sutovsky, Volokitin and Najer (Kamsky's seconds) are an impressive bunch, but I can't imagine Topalov being afraid to face them in a Najdorf in a normal encounter. Since the Najdorf at least seems to be more in keeping with Topalov's style than his opponent's, his repertoire choices are looking strange. We'll see if he agrees on Monday.

Meanwhile, here's game 4, with my comments.

It had been a while since his last set of reviews for TWIC, but there are a couple of new installments. IM John Watson reviews a first pile of opening books here, and a second pile here.

After 5 rounds of the Aeroflot Open (the A1 group), the leaders are:

1-3. Mamedyarov, Kurnosov, Moiseenko 4
4-12. Sargissian, Bacrot, A. Zhigalko, S. Zhigalko(!), Tomashevsky, Jianchao Zhao, Kazhgaleyev, Safarli, Pashikian 3.5

That's the story for Viswanathan Anand. He won a very nice game in round 1, and was on his way to a second fine win today, against Levon Aronian. Anand sacrificed a pawn in the opening, and then Aronian sacrificed a piece for a couple more pawns and some dangerous attacking chances. Despite the dangers, Anand defended perfectly and was within range of a winning advantage. Unfortunately, it was still a position with a small margin of error, and when he went wrong, it was enough to decide the game. Aronian wound up with five pawns for a piece, and he was able to convert his material advantage.

That put Aronian in first, and he's joined there by Alexander Grischuk, who outplayed Wang Yue on the White side of a Slav. Black's position had long been difficult, and when he overestimated the drawing possibilities in the opposite-colored bishop ending his difficult position turned into a lost one.

The other two games were drawn, and taken together they present an irony. Carlsen-Dominguez was a 17 move draw and Radjabov-Ivanchuk went to move 42, but the former was riveting and the latter a snoozefest. No big chances were missed in either game, though, so the results were appropriate.

Round 2 Results:

Anand - Aronian 0-1
Carlsen - Dominguez Perez 1/2-1/2
Radjabov - Ivanchuk 1/2-1/2
Grischuk - Wang Yue 1-0

Standings After Round 2:

1-2. Aronian, Grischuk 1.5
3-6. Dominguez Perez, Carlsen, Anand, Ivanchuk 1
7-8. Radjabov, Wang Yue .5

Round 3 Pairings:

Aronian - Radjabov
Dominguez Perez - Anand
Wang Yue - Carlsen
Ivanchuk - Grischuk

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

The Catalan (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.g3 and other move orders) has a reputation for being stodgy, and it's not wholly undeserved. There are lines where the position is simple and free of complications, with nary an attack nor even a tactic on the horizon. That's true, but there are lines in practically every opening (possibly excepting 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5??) where that's true. It's also true, however, that there are lines in the Catalan that are as sharp as any Najdorf, where both kings are threatened, material is imbalanced and the structure is crazy.

In my ChessVideos show this week, we'll get a bit of both. The Catalan is a rich opening, and although we're focusing on just one variation, it's a line that has a little of everything. I think you'll both entertained and instructed, and if you're not careful, you might consider taking up the Catalan for yourself.

The show is here, it's free and it doesn't require any special software.

This has been a good match for the Black pieces so far. Topalov varied from game 1's Grünfeld with 4.Qb3, but Kamsky was ready for it. In fact, it was Kamsky's turn to innovate, and his novelty was a big one. The position grew very dynamic and complicated, and if anything Kamsky might have missed a chance for an advantage. Topalov did very well to survive the mess, and the game petered out into an endgame where Black's superior minor piece and White's better pawn structure balanced each other.

A very good game for Kamsky, who also managed to avoid serious time trouble. Can he build on this momentum with the White pieces tomorrow? If so, it will be the first time in the match White has achieved anything.

Game 3, with my comments, can be replayed here; match site here.

More about the passing of Indonesian GM Edhi Handoko here. R.I.P.

(HT: Chess Today)

It's sad that an event of this caliber can't be covered properly - it's trumped by Linares and the Topalov-Kamsky match, of course - but it's worth keeping an eye on the goings-on at the Aeroflot Open. With so many players, many of whom are elite GMs, there are bound to be exciting and theoretically significant games. Here, though, I'll limit my coverage to occasional coverage of the leaderboard. Right now, after three rounds, it looks like this:

1. Kurnosov 3
2-5. Moiseenko, Mamedyarov, Tomashevsky, Grachev 2.5

It's still very early, but bear in mind that the winner gets automatic entry to the Dortmund super-tournament in July.

Three of the four games were drawn, but it wasn't a bad round.

Anand - Radjabov 1-0
Aronian - Carlsen 1/2-1/2
Wang Yue - Ivanchuk 1/2-1/2
Dominguez - Grischuk 1/2-1/2

Anand-Radjabov was a Sveshnikov Sicilian that followed earlier games until Radjabov's 28th move. The game was approximately equal, but Anand's position was easier to play thanks to his superior minor piece (an excellent knight vs. an underemployed bishop). A few inaccurate moves by Radjabov were enough, and Anand's Q+N duo ran circles around the enemy Q+B. It was a nice, textbook-style win for the World Champion.

Aronian-Carlsen was an Open Catalan where White enjoyed full control over the dark squares, Black enjoyed full control over the light squares, and where that was that.

Wang Yue-Ivanchuk was another draw-by-blockade, this time in a Bogo-Indian. It wasn't exciting, but it was instructive, and anyone who plays either side of the line in the game should have a look.

Dominguez Perez-Grischuk was the liveliest draw, predictably so, since it was a Poisoned Pawn Winawer. First Dominguez had chances for an edge, and then Grischuk obtained the better game. While he could have won a pawn in two different ways at and near the end of the game, the position would still be drawn, so the players called it a day.

Standings After Round 1:

1. Anand 1
2-7. Aronian, Carlsen, Dominguez, Grischuk, Ivanchuk, Wang Yue .5
8. Radjabov 0

Round 2 Pairings:

Anand - Aronian
Radjabov - Ivanchuk
Carlsen - Dominguez
Grischuk - Wang Yue

Tournament site here; games with my comments here.

And here are the first round pairings:

Anand - Radjabov
Aronian - Carlsen
Wang Yue - Ivanchuk
Dominguez - Grischuk

Predictions? (Try to make them before the round 1 results are evident.) I think Anand, Aronian, Carlsen and Radjabov will compete for the top places, and I'll go with Anand for the tournament win.

At 10 a.m. ET/4 p.m. CET. The players are:

Viswanathan Anand
Vassily Ivanchuk
Magnus Carlsen
Teimour Radjabov
Levon Aronian
Wang Yue
Alexander Grischuk
Lenier Dominguez Perez

It's a double round-robin with rest days on February 23, February 27 and March 4, with play continuing through March 7. It looks to be a promising event, and it will be interesting to see how Anand does in a regular event - with the exception of the disaster in Bilbao last year, he hasn't played in a classical tournament in a long time.

The good news for chess fans is that today's game, like yesterday's, was dynamic and full of fight. The bad news is that today's game, like yesterday's, saw Kamsky seem seriously unprepared relative to his opponent, and once again burning up time almost from move 1. The reason this is bad news (unless you're a strong Topalov fan) is that it bodes poorly for a competitive match. While Kamsky was able to rise to the occasion yesterday, he really self-destructed today.

In a Classical Ruy (by way of the Berlin), Kamsky chose a line that initially seemed likely to result in a quick draw. After spending loads of time, though, he chose an interesting pawn sac and the position grew more complex. Unfortunately, Kamsky spent too much time creating the complications, which meant that when they arose he didn't have time to navigate through them. By move nine he had used half his time; by move 15, all but 13 minutes. He still had some chances to bail out into a comparatively calm position, but he pressed on, and unsurprisingly the mistakes started coming. His 16th, 17th, 19th and 22nd move were all inaccurate, and after the last one his position was lost. Having less than four minutes to make it to move 40 didn't help, and Kamsky either resigned or lost on time after Topalov's 32nd move. Topalov thus leads the match, scheduled for eight games, by a 1.5-.5 score.

I'm sure Kamsky can make a competitive match of it, but not if he has to keep fighting his opponent's prep and time trouble in every game. Kramnik couldn't do it against Anand, and so far there doesn't seem to be any reason to think Kamsky will fare any better in that sort of situation. The players have a rest day tomorrow, and hopefully for Kamsky's sake they'll have their charge ready for whatever games 3 and 4 have to offer.

Meanwhile, here's game 2, with my comments.

Match website here.

When it comes to mastery in attack and in utilizing the initiative, few players in chess history can hold a candle to the Russian-French great Alexander Alekhine, the fourth world chess champion. An inspiration to Kasparov, Shirov and many others, Alekhine's ability to whip up complications was without parallel in his day, and equaled by few after him.



Alekhine produced sparkling games against opponents of all levels, from local players who couldn't hold a candle to him all the way up to the best of the best. Case in point: Alekhine's game from the 1923 Carlsbad tournament against the legendary Akiba Rubinstein. Rubinstein was among the very best for well over a decade, and at one point was probably the strongest player in the world. Unfortunately, he never got the chance to play for the title, but he is rightly famous even today as one of the all-time greats.

Rubinstein defeated Alekhine in some beautiful games too, but not this time. Here we see Alekhine at his finest: creative play in the opening, middlegame play all over the board (this is an Alekhine trademark), and brilliant combinations leading to a decisive advantage. It's a power performance, and like many of Alekhine's games it offers a little clinic on attacking chess.

I hope you're curious about this game; if so, you're heartily encouraged to tune in about 19 and a half hours from now when I present it on the Playchess server. The show begins at 9 p.m. ET Wednesday night (that's 3 a.m. Thursday morning, CET) and is free to Playchess members. To watch, log on at the right time, go to the Broadcast room, find Alekhine-Rubinstein under the Games tab, double-click and you're there. See you soon!

Or at least, the articles that interest me this week. First, there's Karsten Müller's characteristically excellent column (permalink here), in which he addresses the important and rich endgame with rook and four pawns against rook and three where all the pawns are on the same side.

Second, there's a wonderful story, on video, of Yasser Seirawan remembering David Bronstein and his impressive 1990 crush of Walter Browne. It's very much worth watching.

The first game of the Veselin Topalov - Gata Kamsky Candidates Match was drawn, and it's good to report that there was a lot of action on the board and none (as far as I know) off of it. Kamsky had Black in the first game and bravely stuck to one of his sharp mainstays, the Grünfeld Defense. It's an especially dangerous choice against Topalov, who loves to attack and is known for his fantastic preparation, and sure enough the Bulgarian produced a novelty.

That move was 17.e5, a very direct attacking approach that caused Kamsky to think for about 50 minutes. Some players try to meet novelties with the most principled reply, while others look for a way to reach a manageable position, even if it's one where they might be slightly worse. Kamsky chose the latter approach, and it worked perfectly. After his long think he played quickly and confidently, and by White's 27th move it was clear that his attack was running out of steam.

Topalov should have forced a probable repetition at this point with 27.Qd2; instead, his 27.h3 gave Kamsky a chance to play for a win with 27...Ng6 28.Rh5 Kg8. Perhaps Kamsky missed this move (that was Svidler's implicit guess) and was satisfied with the draw that resulted from 28...Rg8. Whatever the story, Kamsky played extremely well (move 28 excepted), and although he might be unhappy about his preparation, his form in the game was excellent. It looks like we're in for a very good match!

Game 1, with my comments, is here.

(Presumably this refers to the 80th championship of Germany, rather than the championship of an ancient German.)

This strong (by non-"Soviet" standards) national championship event finished on Sunday, and was won by Arik Braun on tiebreaks over Michael Prusikin on tiebreaks, after both finished this Swiss system tournament with 7 out of 9. Prusikin entered the last round with a lead, but while he drew his final game, Braun defeated Baramidze with Black. Here's the end of that game:



It's Black to move; what's the best finish? Click below for the answer.

Here's a mate in three by the 1999 FIDE "Vice Champion", Vladimir Akopian:



That was the warmup. For a real workout, try this challenging study from composing GM Gady Costeff:


The Problemist 2009

It's White to move and draw.

These studies come from recent ChessBase articles; the first one is here and the latter here. Please don't post the solutions in the comments - I'll do that in a few days.

The game starts tomorrow at 3 p.m. Sofia time (8 a.m. ET).

Here's a 25-minute audio interview with Magnus Carlsen, reviewing his performance at the recently completed Corus tournament.

The Aeroflot Open in Moscow starts tomorrow, and in addition to the prize fund the winner gets the added bonus of automatic entry into the Dortmund super-event in July.

And of course, the Gata Kamsky-Veselin Topalov match starts tomorrow as well, in Sofia, Bulgaria. It's eight games long, and the winner will play Viswanathan Anand for the world championship later this year (at least that's the plan).

It's being broadcast on a live feed, right now, which you can watch here.

Posting has been light of late - especially the last couple of days - but it's in part because there will be a flood of big chess activity starting tomorrow, and in part because I played in the US Amateur Team Championship (Northern branch) this weekend. My team was in contention for first, but was defeated by the event's deserving winners in the last round. My play was reasonable (+3 =2), and although there weren't any games worthy of showing off, I think it was a successful tune-up event after a little layoff.

Anyway, there should be plenty of blogging this week, so stay tuned!

Featured topics: the Winawer Poisoned Pawn, a Scotch king and pawn ending, sacrificing the queen for minor pieces, and more. Have a look - it's free and requires no special software.

A brief interview, here.

There are some chess magazines whose primary value is for kindling, but New In Chess isn't one of them. Their coverage of the top tournaments, complete with annotations by the creme de la creme of the chess is world, is outstanding. Their special interest features are unfailingly colorful, and their regular columns are a pleasure as well - at least mostly so. One columnist whom I sometimes find grating is Kasparov, who continues to fight old battles ad nauseum. Except for those who have just started reading chess literature, there is probably no one who has been around the chess scene for any length of time who is unaware of Kasparov's undying affection for Kramnik, and Kasparov usually manages to take another shot against his great successor every couple of months.

Happily, in this issue Kramnik replies to Kasparov's charges, and pretty convincingly. I might attempt to summarize his argument later, but I'd rather whet readers' appetites in the hopes of encouraging them to check out this fine magazine.

Speaking of "gracious" top players, the epigram at the start of an interview with Veselin Topalov is this: "At the moment there is only one rival, Anand." That said, he's not quite as cocky about the Kamsky match as you might think:

Q: "And the match against Kamsky, is that something you look forward to?"

A: "Oh, yeah, I will prepare seriously for that one, of course. It will not be as easy as many people think. Now the opinion is that it's a match with a clear favourite, but I'll have to be fully concentrated."

Combine this with reports on the Olympiad, the Nanjing Super-GM tournament, the Elista Grand Prix and the rest, and it's a purchase worth making. Now if only some other chess magazines were anywhere near this good...

[N.B. This isn't a paid or compensated endorsement - I just like the magazine in general and have for more than 20 years, and I wanted to highlight this particular issue.]

Linares (no longer Morelia/Linares) starts next week, and Magnus Carlsen is among the participants. Even though he is already one of the world's absolute elite, currently #4 on the FIDE rating list and #3 on the Live Top List, he is just 18 years of age. (Be very afraid, chess world!)



2008 was a banner year for the young Norwegian, and we'll take a look at one of his many great games from that time period. He finished tied for second in the season-ending Bilbao Masters, and among his three victories was a power win over Levon Aronian. In a theoretically significant Semi-Slav (that's a redundancy nowadays) Carlsen introduced a dynamic, even shocking pawn sacrifice for the initiative. Aronian defended well for quite a while, but not long enough! It is very difficult to hold up against a prolonged initiative, and Carlsen did well by never allowing his opponent to come in reach of a stable position.

Ultimately, Aronian cracked. Carlsen had a neat tactic prepared, and Aronian's first slip was fatal. Yet it's the game as a whole that is impressive: a fine opening concept, a lively middlegame involving play all over the board, and a nice tactic to bring home the point. This is how contemporary chess is played, and Carlsen is one of its leaders.

We'll look at this game tomorrow night - Wednesday night - on ChessBase's Playchess.com server, and I hope I'll see you there. The show is free for Playchess members; just log on at 9 p.m. ET (that's Thursday morning at 3 a.m. CET for my European viewers), go to the Broadcast room, look up Carlsen-Aronian in the Games list, double-click, sit back and enjoy!

American GM (by way of Ukraine) Alexander Onischuk entered the last round of the Moscow Open with a half-point lead. As the top seven boards all drew in the last round, Onischuk finished the round where he started - in clear first. Impressive! Tiviakov, Inarkiev, Nepomniachtchi, Korotylev and Iordachescu were half a point behind; and a group of 17 players were another half point back. I suspect many of these players will stay put for the Aeroflot Open; it will be interesting to see who played into form and who is now too tired for another nine games.

Ah, the fun never ceases. According to this ChessBase article, Topalov and Kamsky are up to their usual tricks. For Topalov (and/or Danailov), that means bashing Kramnik (even when irrelevant and in the absence of publicly accessible evidence): "When asked about and obstacles on the way to organizing the match in Sofia, Danailov says that it would not have happened at all if Kramnik had beaten Anand at the World Championship in Bonn." If Kramnik was so almighty, why didn't he manage to secure himself a spot in the current world championship cycle? Why did he "allow" Topalov to arrange the Kamsky match in the first place?

As for Kamsky, it used to be that he - or rather, his father - tended to be a wee bit suspicious of his opponents. This hasn't seemed to be the case lately, but now - at least according to Danailov - Kamsky is bringing, or wants to bring, a Mossad agent to check the playing venue. Normally I'd say this crosses the line from prophylaxis to paranoia, but there are further factors to consider. At first, one might think this is a great idea to nip any shenanigans in the bud, and given what we saw in the Kramnik-Topalov match, that's not such a bad idea. What would normally be paranoia might just be good sense when dealing with Danailov. But upon further reflection, I fear Kamsky might be making a blunder. By employing an intelligence expert, Kamsky might ensure that Topalov isn't cheating, but now he's opening himself up to accusations that he, Gata Kamsky, is trying to cheat. Who better to help than an agent of one of the world's greatest intelligence agencies? And then there's level three: maybe Kamsky wants to disturb Topalov by getting him to think along these lines.

Hopefully I'm reading too much into this, and the match will come off smoothly without any explosions from either side. Both players and their teams will behave, and the winner will go on to face Anand in a match where everyone behaves like gentlemen. I'm not sure about this optimistic picture, but for the sake of chess and its reputation, let's hope it turns out well.

Predictions?

Extreme drug testing.

HT: Nick Funnell

In the brief lull between Corus and the whirlwind starting just over a week from now, we look for little stories here and there of general interest.

One such concerns the most promising female star on the horizon, Hou Yifan, who is already at age 14 a full grandmaster. There's a profile of her here.

In a different direction, some long-time readers might recall that I once took issue with the claim that there either isn't such a thing as talent, or that its role is minimal. Those who proffer this thesis put in its place the role of hard work (e.g. the 10,000 hour rule). This either/or claim seems to me mistaken and obviously so, but for all but the extreme outliers it's putting in the time that counts above all. And so despite what I take to be its anti-talent bias, this 2006 article strikes me as worth reading. One point in particular seems especially worth bearing in mind, and that's the focus on "deliberate practice":

It's activity that's explicitly intended to improve performance, that reaches for objectives just beyond one's level of competence, provides feedback on results and involves high levels of repetition.

Further,

Elite performers in many diverse domains have been found to practice, on the average, roughly the same amount every day, including weekends.

The lessons for chess improvement are clear (I hope!), and whether such practice takes one to the top or not, it is the path to becoming a stronger player. (A practice routine consisting primarily of bullet, blitz, chess videos [unless they're used interactively], and books of the "Winning with the xyz opening" is not.)

It has been a long time since I did a show on the (in)famous Berlin Wall, but as the first one was better received than one might expect, it seemed worthwhile to offer a second presentation on the opening that helped Kramnik dethrone Kasparov. So here it is, free and available on-demand. Enjoy!

Going into the last round of the Gibraltar Gibtelecom Chess Festival, there was a five way tie for first between Vugar Gashimov, Peter Svidler, Hikaru Nakamura, Pentala Harikrishna and Vadim Milov, each with 7/9. The last round pairings were Nakamura-Gashimov, Svidler-Harikrishna, and Avrukh (6.5)-Milov. Nakamura-Gashimov was drawn, but Svidler and Milov won to force a two game 10 10 playoff. (Ten minutes each, with ten second increments after every move.) Svidler won both games, so he's the champ!

Tournament site here.

To wit: Vugar Gashimov, Peter Svidler, Hikaru Nakamura, Pentala Harikrishna and Vadim Milov, each with 7/9. For more, check on the tournament site, which has the games, commentary and plenty of videos.

It's a very old game, going back to 1872, but the remarkable contest between Carl Hamppe and Philipp Meitner has not lost its power to amaze chess fans. Almost immediately the game goes into full action mode as Meitner, with Black, sacrifices a piece on move 3(!!). That's just for starters, too. Black throws more wood on the fire - a queen, a knight, and a bishop all offer their lives for the sake of the attack. White chips in as well, giving up a piece, but the main hero for White is the intrepid king. All alone, it ventures as far as c6, and yet somehow it does not die. Astonishing!

Even more surprising is just how well this game holds up, 137 years later. Analysts and their "assistants" have gone deeper, but almost every move has stood the test of time. Computer have therefore given this game a double benefit: a confirmation of its class, and, thanks to the wonderful variations that have been discovered in recent times, the opportunity to increase fans' enjoyment. You'll get to see some beautiful lines tonight, lines I hope will inspire you to create your own masterpieces in the 19th century mode.

So you're invited to join me tonight on the Playchess.com server. We begin at 9 p.m. ET (3 a.m. CET). The show is free for Playchess members; all you have to do is go to the broadcast room at the starting time, click the games tab and double-click on Hamppe-Meitner. See you there!

...can be found here, on this correspondence chess page.

If you're not Indian (and perhaps even if you are), chances are you haven't seen the 1977 film The Chess Players. It's a period piece set in 1850s India, and (at least as the film presents it) the British are set to go from extortionists to overlords of a last independent Indian province. A good chunk of the movie is directly related to the political intrigue, of course, but around half focuses on two Indian noblemen completely obsessed by the game. The movie is enjoyable in its own right, and for us as chess players the depiction of the nobleman will only add to the enjoyment. (Perhaps it might be wise, when watching, to rate one's obsession with the game on a 1-10 scale, taking its (anti-) heroes as a 9 or 10. Mental health practitioners are waiting to take your call.)

The events mentioned in the previous post have their attraction, no doubt, but for most of us the biggest interest comes from super-events like Corus. Happily, in addition to a number of "normal" events, this month will see a Mega-Open, a super-GM tournament, and a long-awaited Candidates Match.

The first is the Aeroflot Open in Moscow, probably the world's strongest annual open event. The tournament gains extra prestige in that its winner is automatically seeded into the super-GM event in July in Dortmund. Aeroflot starts on the 16th.

The forthcoming Super-GM round-robin has been called the "Wimbledon" of chess and once, by Kasparov - to his regret - the World Championship of tournaments. I'm speaking of Linares, of course, which starts on the 18th.

Finally, our Candidates event is the eight-game match between Topalov and Kamsky. It will occur in Sofia and run from the 16th to the 28th. It's a pity the match will be so short, but it's better than nothing. The winner will go on to face world champion Viswanathan Anand in a title match sometime this year. (We'll see about that.)

Looks like a great month!

I mentioned the Gibraltar Gibtelecom Chess Festival a few days ago. With three rounds to go, Gashimov leads with 6/7; Beliavsky, Harikrishna, Svidler, Milov, Lopez Martinez, Ganguly trail by half a point (and there might be two more in the chase pack, depending on how a couple of ongoing games come out).

Another strong open tournament is also ongoing: the Moscow Open. At least 80 GMs are participating, including Dreev, Tiviakov, Sargissian, Areshchenko, Timofeev, Guseinov, Onischuk, Inarkiev, Zhang Zhong, Grachev and Savchenko, to name just those over 2650. There are also some big names under that mark as well, so you might want to keep an eye on that event.

Along with Corus (and the Super Bowl, the Australian Open, and a microscopically small local chess event I won) there was still another event this past weekend: the Bundesliga. Rounds 10 and 11 were played on Friday and Sunday, respectively. With many strong players elsewhere the lineups weren't as impressive as we've grown used to seeing the past few years, but that's not to say that no one of note was playing. Among the best of the best there were Nisipeanu, Naiditsch, Fressinet and especially Shirov, who won both his games, the latter in attractive style. Have a look.

In Group A, we entered today's final round with a six-way tie for first, but when the smoke cleared only one player was left standing: Sergey Karjakin. Most of the leaders had the extra challenge of dealing with the black pieces, so however much ambition they might have had, Movsesian and Aronian achieved nothing in the opening against Kamsky and Smeets, and had to settle for draws. (Indeed, Aronian was worse against Smeets, but the latter continued his perplexing course of unambitious chess, often offering draws in superior positions.)

Radjabov, however, had the white pieces against Stellwagen, and even achieved an advantage. He spent too many moves temporizing, however, and his opponent was starting to get the edge. Radjabov bailed out and offered a draw, and Stellwagen followed the Smeets model and accepted.

That left Dominguez and the two young superstars, Karjakin and Carlsen. Last year at this time, I thought they would both continue to progress together, and bemoaned the disparity in their publicity in the chess press. Both had their accomplishments and were of almost the same age, but the ink and bytes devoted to Carlsen overwhelmed that given to Karjakin. As it turned out, 2008 was a banner year for Carlsen, who at one point almost made it to #1 in the world ratings, while Karjakin struggled and even lost points. 2009, however, looks like what I had expected.

Since it finished first, let's start with Dominguez-Karjakin. If some of the other leaders seemed more guided by prudence than ambition, the same cannot be said for Dominguez. He burned all his bridges on a kingside attack, and although it was justified, it meant that when he made some errors, the result was a very lost position. Karjakin defended brilliantly, took his chances, and won the game.

Finally, there's Carlsen, who had to beat Wang Yue to tie Karjakin for first. If Dominguez tried to win with head-hunting, Carlsen's preferred modus operandi is sitzfleisch: head for a technical position, do nothing better than the opponent, and wait for the errors. Wang Yue is pretty good at that kind of chess too, but Carlsen is the pro at that nowadays. It was working, too, as Carlsen transformed White's (Wang Yue's) comfortable opening edge into a superior endgame even before the first time control. A mistaken decision just before the time control, however, allowed Wang Yue to equalize, and then the Chinese player even managed to achieve an edge.

It was Carlsen's turn to defend, and he rose to the challenge, achieving a drawn position. The draw might not yet have been his for the asking, but it was pretty straightforwardly there until the last move of the second time control. I'm not sure if Wang Yue's 60th move deliberately set a trap or did so only "en passant", but Carlsen fell for it, big time. It was a great little tactic, and after it there was no way to come back.

Karjakin therefore took clear first and reminded the chess world that he is still a force to be reckoned with.

Final Group A Standings:

1. Karjakin 8
2-4. Aronian, Radjabov, Movsesian 7.5
5-6. Carlsen, Dominguez Perez 7
7. Kamsky 6.5
8-10. van Wely, Wang Yue, Smeets 6
11-14. Ivanchuk, Stellwagen, Adams, Morozevich 5.5


In Group B, it seemed as if no one wanted to win the event. Maybe it was a coincidence, or maybe the leaders choked like dogs at an obedience school run by the Marquis de Sade. Whatever the explanation, it was ugly. One co-leader, Kasimdzhanov, managed to achieve a lost position in 16 moves by move 16 against Motylev and was unable to save the game. Volokitin, half a point back, was worse all the way, but in a still very defensible position lost on time making his last move. That left Short - Kasimdzhanov's co-leader - and Caruana - like Volokitin half a point back, and they were paired. Short was fine throughout and winning after the first time control. Unfortunately for him, he apparently talked himself out of the obvious and strong 47...cxd2 and uncorked 47...Nh4+??, after which only very accurate play would even let him save the draw. He did in fact defend very well, finding a near-miracle draw until blundering again with 57...Qb5+?? (57...Qd3+ forced a perpetual). For Caruana it's a great triumph, and gives him automatic qualification into the Group A tournament next year.

Final Group B Standings:

1. Caruana (send him back!) 8.5
2-4. Short, Motylev, Kasimdzhanov 8
5-6. Volokitin, Vallejo Pons 7.5
7. Efimenko 7
8. Navara 6.5
9-10. Reinderman, Hou Yifan 6
11. L'Ami 5.5
12. Mecking 4.5
13-14. Werle, Sasikiran 4


In the generally draw-averse C Group (Final stats: just 25 draws in 91 games!), So naturally made an exception, splitting the point with Howell in 19 moves to clinch clear first. As with Caruana, he too gets an automatic berth into the next group for the 2010 event. So's draw meant that Giri could not catch him even if he won, but he didn't in any case. It was a long game, but he could only draw with Harika, so he finished a point out of first. After losing the last two rounds to fall out of contention for first, Hillarp Persson bounced back, crushing Bosboom in a short and attractive game and thus catching Giri in a tie for second.

Final Group C Standings:

1. So 9.5
2-3. Hillarp Persson, Giri 8.5
4-5. Gupta, Howell 7.5
6. Holzke 6.5
6. Harika 6
8-12. Bitalzadeh, Nijboer, Bosboom, Pruijssers, Iturrizaga 5.5
13. Leon Hoyos 5
14. Romanishin 4.5


The tournament website is here; Group A games, with my comments, are here.

After writing the previous post and preparing to edit my saved post on the final round of the Corus tournament, I noticed this old unfinished post on a very similar topic. Given the thematic unity, this looks like a good time to finish it (with some modifications).

*****

Last summer I watched the U.S. Olympic Track and Field Trials, and saw for the umpteenth time one of the most common and foolish errors an athlete can make. Even when I was a teenager, I was taught to run through the finish line, not just to it. (A helpful trick, for those of you who run, is to imagine the finish line is 5-10 meters further away than it really is.) Yet time after time, even world-class athletes slow down before the finish line, throwing away medals, qualifying spots and records in the process. Carl Lewis threw away an easy world record in the 200 meters years ago when he ran the last two meters with his hands up, Tyson Gay probably threw away a 100m world record in the Trials (after nearly blowing qualification in a previous heat for the same reason) when he put on the brakes about 7 meters before the tape, and further examples can be multiplied indefinitely.

The most poignant case came in the final event of the women's heptathlon, the 800 meters. While neither Lewis nor Gay lost first place in the aforementioned races, the heptathlon case was a big deal. This is not a glamour event - heptathletes are not receiving million dollar appearance fees nor much recognition. The Olympics is their big show, both competitively and as a chance to earn a good payday for their athletic prowess. Before winning in the Olympics, one must first qualify for the Olympics, and to qualify for the U.S. team, one must finish in the top three.

After six of seven events, the first two places were out of reach, but the race for third was very close - only 20 points separated Virginia Johnson from the third-placed Diana Pickler. Johnson would have to defeat Pickler in the 800 meters by about 1.5-2 seconds to surpass her, and she had her chance. Pickler stayed on her shoulder through about 600 meters, but then Johnson kicked it into gear. Pickler didn't fold, but coming down the homestretch Johnson's lead was at or close to what she'd need.

One is sure that Johnson has been told - many times - to run through the tape, and after years of training and with her dream in sight one would think she would be motivated to push out every last bit of energy to get that coveted third spot. One would think that, but one would be wrong. She started easing up at the very end, while Pickler ran with desperation. Johnson won the race by .71 seconds, but only gained ten points on her rival, finishing ten little points behind. Not much, but it's the difference between gaining the Olympics and waiting four more years.

Why did she slow up? At least five possible answers come to mind: outright stupidity, poor training, a lack of motivation, fatigue and overconfidence. Let's consider each.

1. Outright stupidity. Those of us used to yelling at our TV screens might offer this "explanation", but it's not really likely. One need not be a rocket scientist to learn to run hard to the end of a race, and it's highly unlikely in any case that the huge percentage of athletes guilty of this fundamental error are mentally challenged.

2. Poor training. This can be subdivided in at least two sub-answers: poor coaching and poor practice. The poor coaching explanation posits that her coaches never told her to finish strong, or at least failed to emphasize it on a regular basis. The poor practice explanation suggests that when she ran practice 800 meters (or other races), she'd often pull up prematurely, thus developing a bad habit. The former seems very unlikely - even I as a very amateur participant in track in my younger years knew how to finish; it's almost inconceivable that the coaches and trainers of a world-class athlete could fail to make such a point. It does seem possible to me that she developed bad habits in training, though, for which her coaches and trainers might deserve some blame.

3. A lack of motivation. If qualifying for the Olympics, when the goal was so close she could almost taste it, failed to motivate her, then she might be a zombie.

4. Fatigue. As the saying goes, fatigue makes cowards of us all. It might be that this, together with another explanation (like #5), could be a contributor to Johnson's finish.

5. Overconfidence. I'm not sure if there was a Jumbotron or other overhead monitor she might have been able to look at, but maybe she felt she had done enough to win and eased up, thinking the job was done. This could be part of the story, though if it is her allowing herself to ease up was unwise. If she had been right, she'd have gained very little - maybe her heart would reach its resting pulse rate a second earlier? If, on the other hand, she was wrong - or even in danger of being wrong - she was risking many years of hard work for practically nothing.

The moral here isn't limited to track and field. Look at Turkey's great last-minute comebacks in the 2008 European soccer (or as some confused souls call it, "football") championships - was it just magic that their opponents could shut them down for 85 minutes or more, only to be defenseless in the last 1-5 minutes of a game? Or take (American) football: fans have all seen some joker showboating as he neared the end zone, only to be tackled before the goal line or to have the ball stripped away.

And finally, this happens in chess, too, and for the same reasons that applied in the track and field case. When we train, solving tactics problems, for example, do we feel we've done a "good enough" job when we find the key move and the basic idea, even if we've missed some crucial tactical point? If so, we should strive for more self-discipline. As Alexander Suvorov (may have) said, "Hard training - easy combat; easy training - hard combat."

Likewise, fatigue can be a factor. The moral there is to acquire healthy habits, obviously - exercise, eat intelligently (at least/especially during a tournament) and try to get enough sleep. Our opponents want to win; that's fine, but let's not help them!

I was rooting for the Pittsburgh Steelers to win the "Super" Bowl over the Arizona Cardinals, and win they did - barely - by a 27-23 score. Yet their players consistently exhibited such stupid and undisciplined behavior in the game that I find myself unable to enjoy the victory. Why is it so hard for professionals to behave like professionals?

Any one or any team can lose a competition. The opponent can be stronger or in better form, may have achieved an edge in preparation - you name it. And we all make mistakes. It's painful, though, to see a loss that results from self-inflicted stupidity. There's a lot we can't control, but we shouldn't allow ourselves to falter over areas where we do have control.

The chess lesson? Here's one. When you lose games, think not only about the particular chess reason why the game got away, but about what kind of error you made. Categorize it. In Edmar Mednis's book How to Beat Bobby Fischer, he presents all of Fischer's losses (in serious games) from 1958-1972 and creates a brief taxonomy of losing factors. Sometimes Fischer lost because he tried too hard to win and sometimes he was careless, but usually he was simply outplayed.

What about us? It's a good exercise to think about how we lose games - what are the trends there? (Alex Yermolinsky has a good discussion of this in The Road To Chess Improvement.) If one is outplayed, that's fine. As Fischer said after a loss to Spassky in 1992, sometimes you give the lesson and sometimes you get one. If the culprit isn't the opponent so much as ourselves, then we have something serious to work on. I've known players who shrug off losses by saying that their opponent was lucky. That's a good coping strategy during a tournament, and it may even be true that the opponent was lucky. But a person who is consistently losing games and "explaining" them as bad luck is going to continue losing games he shouldn't.

So what's the real explanation? If one tends to underestimate the opponent, then cultivate a more respectful attitude. Huge upsets are possible in chess and happen on a regular basis. One strategy is to get into the habit of asking what one's opponent is up to, what the point of their last move happened to be. If the problem is time trouble, there are ways of combating that too. If it's regularly blowing endgames, study endgames. In short, one should strive to be a meta-thinker - someone who thinks about one's thinking. (And not only about one's mistakes and weaknesses, but about one's strengths, too, as well as the opponent's strengths and weaknesses.)

Of course, this is a great lesson outside of chess, too, but that's a sermon for another day.