World Cup: Round 4, Day 3 (Tiebreaks)
It's no longer a 3G network, but two of the Gs - Gelfand and Gashimov - survived. For Gashimov it was pretty easy, beating Caruana in the first two rapid games and drawing the third, but for Gelfand it was only in the 6th tiebreak game, the second in their blitz mini-match, that sufficed to knock off Vachier-Lagrave. As for the third G, Grischuk went down 2-0 to Jakovenko in their blitz mini-match.
As for the feel-good story of Wesley So, this chapter has come to an end, as Malakhov wiped him out 3-0 in the rapid games. Finally, in one of history's dullest matches, Bacrot forgot to draw the ending of their fourth rapid game, and was eliminated by Ponomariov. We can all wake up now.
Games of note: the first Caruana-Gashimov game was really wild, and my impression when I first saw it was that Gashimov had fallen into some amazingly deep tactical preparation. Impressively, Gashimov took the material, held on, and won. In the first Malakhov-So game, So looked outclassed, but he was right back in game two, pushing all the way. Unfortunately, he pushed a bit too hard and committed an act of chess hara-kiri.
All four blitz games (from Jakovenko-Grischuk and Gelfand-Vachier Lagrave) were very interesting. Starting with the first blitz round, Grischuk with White seemed to have the better deal: two weak black pawns to only one of his own, but somehow it was White's weaknesses that wound up being more significant. Meanwhile, Gelfand, with Black, had an extra pawn in return for significant suffering. It took him quite a while, but he finally overcame everything and could start trying to use his pawn - only to blunder with 46...Bc7+?? He was extremely fortunate that he could still draw after that, and it's a testament to his competitive character that he came back and won in the next game - and impressively too. As for Grischuk's second game, he was pressing hard and had some chances - only to fall comically into mate at the very end.
We're down to the final eight now - all from the countries of the former USSR! (Gelfand is not an exception: he has lived in Israel for about a decade, but he's from Belarus.) Here are the pairings:
Gelfand - Jakovenko
Mamedyarov - Karjakin
Gashimov - Ponomariov
Svidler - Malakhov
Who's the favorite? Mamedyarov has at least one advantage: he should be well-rested, as he hasn't had to play a single tiebreak! (Ironically, Akobian played twice as many games in the first round as Mamedyarov has the entire event.) Better still, he has had two days off, thanks to Laznicka's absurd 13-move draw. Gelfand is the top seed and highly experienced, and Svidler's résumé is just as impressive. Ponomariov can boast of having won one of these before - for the FIDE World Championship, no less. Karjakin was a semi-finalist back in 2007 and won one of this year's super-tournaments, so his credentials are pretty good too. Only Jakovenko and Malakhov are slight outsiders, but not much, especially since Jakovenko was rated as high as 2760 earlier this year. Whatever happens, let's just hope the chess is good!
(Games here.)
Reader Comments (5)
If history of FIDE KO events provides some clues, Malakhov's chance to win the event may be as good as anyone's!? For example in 2002, players seeded #1,4,5,6,7,9,15 and 19 reached the quarter final, the eventual winner was Ponomariov (#19/8 in the nomenclature below). Since Las Vegas 1999, winners were
1999: Khalifman (#36/7)
2000: Anand (#1/1)
2002: Ponomariov (#19/8)
2004: Kasimdzhanov (#28/6) [seeds #58 and 73 reached the quarter finals!]
2005: Aronian (#3/2)
2007: Kamsky (#11/4)
In 2009, seeds 1,2,3,7,9,12,13,22 are still in. And years as 2000 and 2005 seem to be exception rather than rule!?
"In the first Gashimov-So game, So looked outclassed, but he was right back in game two, pushing all the way. Unfortunately, he pushed a bit too hard and committed an act of chess hara-kiri."
Gashimov hasn't played So... so who did you mean?
Daniel: Couldn't resist a "So" pun, could you? Just be careful...you might reap what you So. So there! Anyway, I was referring to Malakhov-So, and have fixed the text.
Thomas: Interesting list, but I have some quibbles. (Me? Really?) First, we shouldn't omit the 1997 event, when the #1 seed (Anand) won. He lost in what pretended to be the final to Karpov, but that doesn't really count. Next, while 2002 was a surprise, the other semi-finalists were the sorts of players you'd expect: Ivanchuk, Anand and Svidler. 2004 was a definite surprise, but 2007? Kamsky was a former world championship finalist. It's far from shocking. Even Khalifman wasn't such a big shock in 1999 - Kasparov did NOT include him in the list of "tourists".
Anyway, while it would be surprising if Malakhov won (though maybe a little less surprising after today's success), the spread from top-seeded Gelfand to him is only 51 points. That's significant, but it isn't a chasm. Let's put it this way: you're probably better off in a bet on Malakhov vs. Gelfand as the winner (with any other winner voiding the bet) than you are taking Gelfand vs. the field, and maybe even Gelfand + Gashimov vs. the field.
I was just giving bare ELO facts, and indeed I forgot 1997: So "empirically", Gelfand (#1) OR Gashimov (#2) have a 50% chance to win the event - Svidler (#3) has just been eliminated.
Regarding Kamsky, it depends to what extent his early results are still meaningful given his long break from chess. This may be assessed differently on either side of the Atlantic Ocean (no personal criticism implied). I guess by now it is safe to say that, in his second career, overall he didn't quite reach, or at least didn't maintain the level of his first career. Before the tournament, he was still one of my (10-20) favorites - essentially "because he did it before" in this very format.
Kamsky's own words:
- interview on the tournament webpage: Q "After your victory at the World Cup 2007 your career has been on a climb…" Kamsky: "And now I am experiencing a descent… Like Kramnik says, it is high time to draw a conclusion. There is only one difference: Kramnik has drawn them, I have not yet… "
- from an Azeri webpage (quoted by mishanp on Dailydirt): "Kamsky said he'll keep playing chess until he's 40 (he's 35 now). He also mentioned he still had the same off-the-board distractions as during the Topalov match, though he didn't specify what they were. He's not especially happy with the US chess federation, but won't switch."
- posting on Dailydirt earlier today (sounds authentic): "With regards to my results, gotta admit the criticism. The match vs. Topalov was very demoralising, especially all the circumstances around the match and my personal life during that time period, but I dont want to sound as a sore loser, so yeah, I lost the match. Relax :) Now, I'm trying to recover and it takes me longer than some 20 year olds who have no obligations other than chess."
More briefly on the others: Ponomariov was a 19-year young rising star in 2002, so maybe he was the least surprising surprise winner. Khalifman: Hmm, maybe Kasparov didn't put him on his list of tourists because (even) he didn't want to use such words for a fellow Russian?
Comments:
First, I was giving predictions based on pre-quarterfinal standings, not semis.
Second, I think Kamsky is capable of the earlier results, but with two qualifications. First, I don't think he can sustain his best level as long as he could before, both because of the layoff but also for the sorts of reasons you mentioned. Second, his openings have been poor, but when he had Sutovsky there to dump a truckload of fresh new stuff for him to use, it made a big difference.
Third, Khalifman: I don't think Kasparov was being nice or patriotic; he simply knew that Khalifman was a very strong player, though sometimes lacking in ambition and self-discipline.