Some games from round 1 of the 2007 World Cup
Here's what you'll find. From day 1, I've picked out three games that (a) reached tablebase positions, but (b) failed to conclude as they ought to. In Zhao Zong Yuan-Carlsen, White failed to hold a rook and pawn vs. rook and pawn ending, though it must be said that the drawing ideas were subtle. The game Inarkiev-Peralta was staggering: Black needed only give mate with bishop and knight against king - a task the average club player can cope with - but he "lost" (drew) on time, despite a 30-second increment! The third game, Galkin-Bartel, saw Galkin win with bishop and pawn against bishop when Black failed to hold a known theoretical ending. Chess is tough.
From day 2, we return to more positive chess. Three games with nice tactical sequences are featured: Ponomariov-El Gindy, Pridorzhini-Wang Yue, and Tkachiev-Balogh.
Day 3, on the other hand, returns to the bad - or perhaps more accurately, the bizarre. (Or the ugly, for those who like movie titles.) First up is the Short-Baramidze game, where Short lost despite starting the game with a time advantage of 25 minutes to 56 seconds. Ouch. We conclude with the second weirdest game of the tournament (I don't think Inarkiev-Peralta will be topped), Tomashevsky-Mamedov. In this game, Mamedov hung his queen in the most obvious way. It's probably not a blunder in the traditional sense, but some sort of psychological malfunction: maybe he thought he had played the moves in the opposite order, or a priori rejected his opponent's capture of the queen on the grounds that he had a zwischenzug gaining a rook. The only problem is that for something to count as an in-between move, there must be something both before and after relevant to the combination. The problem, as you'll see, is that the "after" part didn't exist!
Link.
From day 2, we return to more positive chess. Three games with nice tactical sequences are featured: Ponomariov-El Gindy, Pridorzhini-Wang Yue, and Tkachiev-Balogh.
Day 3, on the other hand, returns to the bad - or perhaps more accurately, the bizarre. (Or the ugly, for those who like movie titles.) First up is the Short-Baramidze game, where Short lost despite starting the game with a time advantage of 25 minutes to 56 seconds. Ouch. We conclude with the second weirdest game of the tournament (I don't think Inarkiev-Peralta will be topped), Tomashevsky-Mamedov. In this game, Mamedov hung his queen in the most obvious way. It's probably not a blunder in the traditional sense, but some sort of psychological malfunction: maybe he thought he had played the moves in the opposite order, or a priori rejected his opponent's capture of the queen on the grounds that he had a zwischenzug gaining a rook. The only problem is that for something to count as an in-between move, there must be something both before and after relevant to the combination. The problem, as you'll see, is that the "after" part didn't exist!
Link.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- The 2007 World Cup is over: Kamsky draws game 4, wins the match!
- World Cup, Final Round, Game 3: Kamsky escapes
- World Cup Finals, Day 2: Kamsky takes the lead...
- World Cup, Round 2: An Interim Report
- Some games from round 1 of the 2007 World Cup
- World Cup, Round 1 Summary
- World Cup, Day 1 Results
- The next BIG event: the World Cup starts tomorrow
Posted by Dennis Monokroussos on
Tuesday November 27, 2007 at 1:46am
Curious about your comments in the Mamedov game. How is it possible to have three successive novelties for Black ?
I could see the first and third (if the second move transposed to something), but how could the second move be a novelty if the first one was ? (or do White do the transposing ?)
It's unusual for that to happen, of course, but it's surprisingly easy. Here's a quick demonstration of how it's possible to have three (or indefinitely many novelties in a row). Games 1-3 are pre-existing games, and game 4 is a brand new one. As you can see, the first novelty in game 4 occurs when it varies from game 1 on move 1, the second novelty has it varying from game 2 on move 2, and the third, likewise, varies from game 3 on move 3.
Game 1: 1.d4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 etc.
Game 2. 1.Nf3 d6 2.d4 Nf6 etc.
Game 3: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 etc.
Game 4: 1.d4 d6N 2.Nf3 c5N 3.e4 Nf6N etc.
Note also that a new move doesn't have to produce a new position, as can be seen from another entry:
Game 5: 1.d4 c5 2.Nf3 d6N etc.
Game 5 follows game 1 through White's second move, but while Black's second move varies from game 1, it also transposes to the position after White's second move in game 4.
Oddly enough, I did have N+N vs lone pawn come up once. Fortunately, neither of us knew that a mate even existed. That was a LONG time ago.
The win I keep meaning to learn now is Q vs R, with best play for the weaker side.