The Chess Mind

Author: Dennis Monokroussos.
This is a blog for chess fans by a chess fan who is more than a chess fan - other topics do creep in from time to time, per my interest.
All material here is copyrighted, and may not be reproduced without my prior permission.
MTel Masters, Round 1
There weren't any whiz-bang games, but all the games were long and decisive. Both the locals - Topalov and Cheparinov - won, and they were joined in the winner's circle by Ivanchuk.

Radjabov - Ivanchuk was a balanced game most of the way, with Radjabov having a slight edge at a few points, but the decision to play 31.Rd5 was self-destructive. Maybe he wasn't losing there, but the trend was negative and by move 38 at the latest he was lost.

Aronian - Topalov started without any problems for White, but Topalov's play offered a nice demonstration of "Capablanca's Rule", that queen and knight typically work better together than queen and bishop.* Topalov's 36th move was especially interesting: a brilliant rook sacrifice initiating an 11-move combination resulting in a winning knight vs. bishop ending. It was a very nice idea, but it has to be said that it was an error - see the game page for details.

Finally, Cheparinov - Bu Xiangzhi was a nice case of light-squared domination by White. Especially instructive was Black's mistaken decision to open the position up with 26...g6 and 27...f5. Black possibly hoped to achieve counterplay with the break, but it didn't really happen. Worse, White's knight was able to reach f5, with great effect.

For round 2, these are the pairings:

Topalov - Ivanchuk
Bu Xiangzhi - Radjabov
Aronian - Cheparinov

Links and videos here; the games with my comments here.

* Whether this really deserves the status of "rule" is disputable - I believe John Watson has called this into question in Secrets of Modern Strategy. Still, while there are always loads of exceptions to such rules of thumb, there's enough to it that it deserves consideration.
Posted by Dennis Monokroussos on Friday May 9, 2008 at 2:21am
Srinivas Patri (mail):
I fail to understand why people keep implying that drawn games are "non-decisive". They state that only games that end in 1-0 or 0-1 results are "decisive".
5.9.2008 11:04am
Dennis Monokroussos:
An interesting point. A drawn game has been decided, after all, so it seems you're right. On the other hand, it's not in the least difficult to understand why people make this mistake. One big motivation is probably the "+-" (or "-+") symbol. There are other linguistic reasons too: we say of a draw that the game was not decided in anyone's favor. There's probably a terminological hangover from boxing, when a non-knockout winner is awarded the "decision" (whether unanimous, majority or split), while a draw isn't described as a decision of any sort.
5.9.2008 11:17am