Bilbao Round 6: Two Draws; Kramnik Wins the Tournament (UPDATED)
I'll have more later. For now, a quick recap: Shirov-Kramnik was a Nimzo-Indian where Shirov repeated the 4.f3 line he used against Kramnik successfully in Shanghai. There Kramnik played 4...c5, this time he used the 4...d5 mainline and achieved a comfortable and speedy draw.
If Anand managed to beat Carlsen he'd tie with Kramnik and force a playoff, but at one point in the early middlegame he was in danger of losing. Carlsen played the solid Breyer Variation against Anand's Ruy, but it got dynamic quickly. Carlsen was already a touch better when Anand played 22.Be3, and as far as I can tell this move was a serious error. Had Carlsen played 22...Nxd5 he would have had a serious edge. It's hard to believe both players could have missed this idea, but I haven't yet been able to figure out what they thought White had against it. Anyway, Carlsen was still in good shape after this, but Anand outplayed him and obtained serious winning chances. I don't know if he missed anything clear, but Carlsen had to play very accurately to save the game in the second time control.
So the result of the two draws is that Kramnik wins the tournament, with Anand second, Carlsen third and Shirov fourth. Anand and Carlsen both finished with 2800+ ratings (barely), and Anand will remain in the lead on the rating list.
More later.
UPDATE: It's later, so here's more. First, just for "closure" on the previous material, I still can't find anything concrete for Anand, so while Carlsen had to sweat a bit he was never lost. Now on to the usual supplementary material:
Final Standings:
1. Kramnik 10 (+2 =4)
2. Anand 8 (+1 =5)
3. Carlsen 6 (+1 =3 -2)
4. Shirov 4 (=4 -2)
The tournament site is here, and my notes to the last two games are here.
Reader Comments (5)
This was a great tournament, and it is a relief to see Carlsen's "Sitzkrieg" apprach bomb on him so spectacularly. Against players in the top 10, he can't just wait for errors in equal positions. Anand, in particular, seemed to have him on class; he was pushing in both games and ended on 75% in their mini match. I'm not sure what the issue with ...Nxd5/...Nc4 was, but this is the Breyer Ruy Lopez, so I can't imagine that either of them were unfamiliar with the idea. I'd be surprised if they hadn't seen the position before, ever if it wasn't memorized theory.
Of course, the story of the tournament is Kramnik. Mr. Plus Two he may be, but in a six-round tournament, plus two is a very impressive score! Kramnik and Anand really seemed to demonstrate their class in this tournament, and I would be far from surprised if they get another chance to contest a World Championship match before it is Carlsen's turn.
Shirov, it seems, just isn't there; this isn't the first time he's failed to compete successfully with players in the 2800 range. His sharp style lends itself to decisive results, and he really is a 2750 player. But playing down, he's unstoppable, and playing up, he's everyone's favorite opponent.
The missing players here are Topalov and Aronian; they are also both in the hopper for the WCH cycle. But we may well have just seen a round robin of the world's three strongest chess players (and Shirov).
And now we have the 1,2,3 in Nanjing! a nice bonus for the organizers. However I hope they don't draw amongst themselves and compete in shredding the 'tail'.
I note that the Bilbao scoring, once again, appears to have had no bearing on the final places. Are there any examples of where Bilbao scoring actually resulted in someone not winning clear first place who wouldn't have gotten first place with regular scoring?
It does seem like there were a lot of decisive results in this tournament. Carlsen and Shirov may help here because they both seem to be the types of players who prefer to play for the win, although they come about it from very different styles.
[DM: I don't know if there are any examples of its making a difference, but then that's as much an argument for not using it as for using it. Anyway, considering it's used just once or twice a year, the sample size isn't very significant.
Reminder to all: Please keep comments relevant to the post. If you want to bring up old axes or new ideas, write to me via the contact link.]
I don't want to continue this thread, but Thomas sent an worthy comment (via the Contact link, which is why I'm presenting it here). The following is from him, not me:
Bilbao rules never mattered for first place in top events, but could have done so at two occasions:
- Bilbao this year: Kramnik would have kept clear first place even with a loss against Shirov. At the press conference the day before, he said "as far as I understand, if Anand doesn't win I can do whatever I want" (slightly poking at Bilbao rules?)
- London 2009: Kramnik could have overtaken Carlsen with one more win (+4=2-1 beats +3=4), while he would have remained behind based on other tiebreak criteria (direct result and Sonneborn-Berger).
A bit funny IMO because Danailov sort of claims copyright for Bilbao rules, and Kramnik haters kept suggesting that Sofia and Bilbao rules work to his disadvantage.
And Linares uses "Bilbao rules" (number of wins) as tiebreaker:
In 2009, Grischuk (+3-1) won ahead of Ivanchuk (+2) and got the Bilbao invitation - Ivanchuk would have been first on Sonneborn-Berger.
Back in 2003, Kramnik's +2=10 meant second place - so far so consistent with common perceptions or cliches. But who would guess the name of the player with +4=6-2? It was Peter Leko.
Some cliches can be wrong, at least sometimes ... .
Thanks for the excellent tournament reporting, Dennis!