Olympics, Round 10: Ukraine Still Leads With a Round to Go
Ukraine rolled France today, 3.5-.5, and enter the last round with a one point lead over Russia 1, which defeated China 2.5-1.5 (thanks to an endgame win by Grischuk over Wang Hao). They've already played, so the Russians do not have their fate in their own hands going into the last round.
Ukraine will face Israel, who defeated the US 3-1 and are in clear third a point behind Russia 1. The match was hard-fought on three of the boards, but was essentially decided by the Sutovsky-Kamsky massacre on board two. (Not a nice way for Kamsky's erstwhile second to repay his former employer!)
Russia 1 will face Spain, which beat Georgia 3-1. Tied with Spain in fourth place are Poland and Hungary (facing each other) and France and Armenia (ditto). In an easier to read format, these are the top last round pairings:
1. Israel (16) - Ukraine (18)
2. Russia 1 (17) - Spain (15)
3. Poland (15) - Hungary (15)
4. France (15) - Armenia (15)
Everyone else is out in the cold, when it comes to the team medals. Of course, individual performances are interesting too. You can find a list of the players ranked by their performance ratings so far on this page; interestingly, Ivanchuk is only #2, behind Sutovsky! Aronian, who is fourth on the list, won today while Topalov lost, and that should put him at #3 on the Live Top List once it takes today's results into account. Also dropping, though still #1, is Carlsen, who was demolished today by Kalmykian youngster Sjugirov in just 25 moves. (Well, there's always fashion modeling if that whole chess thing doesn't work out.)
Other games of possible interest: Shirov defeated Jobava in an utterly spectacular game, and Magem's win over Pantsulaia was flashy too. The Smeets-Short game was pretty weird: Short played the Caro-Kann, which I didn't think was part of his repertoire, and Smeets of course responded with the Short Variation of the Advance. The ending was surprising, too. Short had king, g- and h-pawns against king and h-pawn, with no blockaded pawns, and didn't win. Maybe there was no win there (I haven't checked the tablebases or even spent the time to work it out on my own), but if there isn't it's an unusual situation.
Official site here, all the interesting information on this site.
Reader Comments (12)
I was surprised by the Smeets—Short ending, too, especially when the tablebases confirmed it’s a draw with best play. It turns out that having the White’s pawn on h2 is critical: On h3, for example, Black can always arrange to play g5, h5, h4 under favorable circumstances, and win the h-pawn. On h2, however, the same plan doesn’t work, of course, because White can plonk his King on h1 and wait for g3 or stalemate. So long as White waits (as Smeets did) for g4 before playing h3, it’s a draw.
This is a case where you should make sure you have witnesses to your loud and clear “j'adoube” if you feel the need to adjust your pawn on h2 :).
Tablebases confirm that the pawn ending was always drawn after 46.Kxf3. With the white pawn on h3 (or further) rather than h2, it's a win for black instead.
Very interesting - thanks to you both!
I started to write exactly what Grant did---stalemate and all---and there's nothing wrong with it. But now set up this position:
FEN:
8/6pp/5k2/8/5K2/8/7P/8 w - - 0 1
White King f4, pawn h2; Black King f6, pawns h7,g7.
The only move to draw is not to J'adoube the h-pawn, but to saunter it commitally yet confidently up to h4! Hence there are other dynamics going on---oppositions and out-flanking maneuvers. This is the best "Ah" I've had from a tablebase in the past month, and makes me appreciate what John Nunn has data-mined in them all the more.
As for Kamsky's game, I caught it in Susan Polgar's ChessBom/Chessdom window this morning just as he played 22...Qc8. I saw he was in trouble, and thought to myself that the reason for the retreat rather than the engine's preference of 22...Qc6 was the chance of a ...Ng5 or ...Nf4 cheapo. Next move Sutovsky played 23.f4?, which indeed opens the door for 23...Ng5!!, seemingly forcing a perpetual. But Kamsky played instead the abject 23...Nc5 leading to piece trades and death. Not to pick on a super-GM having an otherwise fine tournament, but in my scientific work the dependence of consecutive moves is a potential thorny issue. I put a comment to that effect right after the move in Susan's blog here.
Anyone any idea what the GM Norm is in the Olympiad? I am guessing Ireland's Sam Collins (yeah, they guy who drew with Grischuk in round 1) will get his 3rd GM Norm. All he has to do then is get his rating above 2500 to become Irelands FIRST EVER GM. Go Sam!
[DM: There is no *the* GM norm, because the players are facing different opponents. So it's the standard story: you have to face 3 GMs, play at least 8 games and have a 2600 PR, if I recall correctly. Btw, Ireland already has a GM, and a real one, too: Alexander Baburin.]
I must admit I saw the pawn ending and assumed it was just won. You learn something new every day. A few thoughts about the Olympiad.
[1] Topalov's performance has been poor but his all action style has always had it's ups and downs. Carlsen's play has been more odd and disturbing. His opening choices in the games against Sedlak, Sjugirov and particularly Adams suggest either;
[a] Someone who is very unhappy with life or
[b] A player who has been on such a good run that arrogance has taken over. If so is there anybody around him now able to bring him back to reality.
[2] The USA team has played well but the weakness was obvious before the tournament. On board 4 Shulman is an excellent grandmaster but not at the smae level as players on board 4 for the very top teams. In light of this the reluctance to try the up and coming Hess is disappointing.
[3] Ivanchuk , heroic
from Carlsen's blog: "I tried an unusual Caro-Kann variation against young Sjugirov but was worse after the opening."
'young' Sjugirov!?! [snip], these kids grow up so fast!
[DM: Sure, why not "young" Sjugirov? Carlsen's just 19, but Sjugirov is 16!]
It seems that Sam Collins (current TPR 2589) would still need a win against GM Zhang Zhong tomorrow to get his final GM norm. But Italian IM Brunello (draw against Svidler) seems to have secured a GM norm, and maybe Canadian Thomas Roussel-Roozmon (TPR exactly 2600).
Can Collins do with a draw? Remember if its close enough to 2600 they might grant it ala Shankland.
A@ mike twyble at 2) you're nuts. Shulman has proven again and again he is one of the strongest players in the US on the level of Nakamura Kamsky and Onischuk. Did you even watch the US Championships this year? Really if you want to pinpoint any reason for the US's 'poor' (say what? results look pretty good to me!) performance. I would point out the politicing of hte USCF board in replacing a very strong alternate Akobian and placing him as 'coach' with an Alternate Hess who the US has noticably only played 4 times and Twice against very very weak teams. They needed Akobian. Unfortunately, the US politicians constructed a crazy formula that put more emphasis on age than performance and rating so Hess was able to win out on this absurd formula due to his age.
Daniel,
We might all be nuts, with as much time as we spend on chess, but let's not single anyone out like that - it tends to escalate things. :)
I didn't follow the USCF politics (I've tried to avoid that for the past 20 years), but had noticed Akobian's absence and was unpleasantly surprised by it. Hess is a good and talented player, but I didn't have the impression that he had surpassed Akobian at this point. By the way, he has only played three times; his fourth game will be in the last round.
As for Shulman, I'm inclined to split the difference between the two of you. He's a very solid player, but the top three boards seem a bit stronger than he is. Of course that doesn't translate into their winning every event ahead of him, but the rating gap between them and him isn't trivial.
I wasn't pointing out any player as 'weak,' I would never do that. Thats what set me off in the first place, Shulman is definitely strong.
But in the end, you're probably most correct - we're all nuts for following chess this much.
Regarding the US team, maybe some people had too high expectations because they overperformed at past team events, and possibly because Nakamura wrote on his blog that - form permitting - they could fight for gold. Not this time - they were seeded 9th to finish 9th, just like Armenia was seeded 6th to finish 7th. No need to search for scapegoats among either players or federation officials!?
But if you want to blame someone, it could also be boards 1 and 2. In matches which the USA didn't win, the players scored as follows:
Nakamura 1/4 (losses against Wojtaszek and Wang Hao)
Kamsky 1/4 (losses against Grischuk and Sutovsky)
Onischuk 2/4 (loss against Karjakin, win against Macieja to save the match)
Shulman 2/4 (win against Li Chao to save the match, loss against Mikhalevski)
Of course for the top boards the federation "did what they could", and my list is arguably unfair to Nakamura and Kamsky: over the entire tournament, they won a few rating points while Onischuk and Shulman lost a few points. Medal winners either have all four players in good form, or one or two in excellent form.