The Daily Update: Gelfand Wins Leon; Parity in Poikovsky
Monday, June 7, 2010 at 1:08AM The first two days of the Leon rapid tournament were excellent, and the finale only build on what came before. Gelfand pulled out a 4-2 victory the hard way, coming back from a loss in game 3 to win in game 4, forcing tiebreaks, and then winning the tiebreaker 2-0. Having four decisive games is pretty nice to start with, but by far the most amazing game of the series was the first one - an absolutely insane draw that was thrilling from start to finish. I have to do a show on this game somewhere, but only after I've really done my best to figure things out on my own. See for yourselves here, if you haven't already.
The Karpov tournament in Poikovsky was more mundane, as usual. For the fourth time in five rounds, there were only two decisive games*; for the third time, it was Karjakin and Jakovenko figuring in. In rounds 2 and 4 they were winners, but this time they lost (to Vitiugov and Sokolov, respectively). So we have a five-way tie for first between Vitiugov, Sutovsky, Jakovenko, Riazantsev and Karjakin. They're half a point ahead of two players, Bologan and Motylev, and then the other five players are just one more half a point behind. In other words, the distance from first to last in this oddly symmetrical tournament is one point.
* Mad props, as they used to say, to the pairs Sutovsky-Motylev, Bologan-Riazantsev and Jobava-Rublevsky, who managed to draw their games in 21, 13 and 15 moves, respectively. These guys are making a great case for the Sofia rules, but I still prefer my solution: issue a warning, and then don't invite them back for two years - as in don't invite them back to any round-robins, anywhere, for two years. The occasional short draw is one thing, but this tournament is loaded with them. Of the 30 games, six have gone fewer than 20 moves, and three more have been drawn in under 30.
Reader Comments (7)
How was the "Advanced Chess" feature implemented? I can't find a good enough description of it. Was it in effect for the blitz games as well?
Regarding short draws, has anyone suggested having the contestants replay from a randomly selected position out of a list of thousands prepared before the event? The player who had Black in the original game would get a special 5 minutes to choose which side to play, then play would resume with the original game's clock times. What's different now is that we can get reliable enough computer analysis on the reference positions (with various engines, even) to ensure that they are reasonably balanced.
Are you sure that it was Advanced Chess? It used to be, but I thought they gave that up several years ago. (I did see it called Advanced Chess somewhere - ChessVibes, I think - but it's not impossible that they're just wrong.)
Your suggestion about short draws is interesting, but that seems necessary only in the context of Petroff/Marshall despair rather than that of lazy guys wanting a day off. Top-level computer chess and humans like Topalov, Carlsen and Aronian show that normal chess is far from played out when the participants are willing to fight.
The Leon tournament homepage (still!?) has the somewhat pretentious title ADVANCEDCHESSLEON 2010 [their all-capitals] http://www.elajedrezdelfuturo.com/ - but I was watching live including the video feed and players didn't consult engines during the games.
Regarding short draws in Poikovsky, I wonder if some players may be sick. There are essentially three "lazy" players (Bologan, Jobava and Motylev), and it seems that today Onischuk-Bologan wasn't played at all.
Nothing mentioned at what seems to be the only onsite report at www.chesspro.ru (Google-translated as far as I am concerned, so are the quotes), only some sarcastic comments:
"In the third game day something happened which was to be expected: started a short draw.
And this was to be expected in terms of two factors: first, the participants have no obligations regarding the "Sofia" and similar rules, and secondly, too homely atmosphere at the tournament. True, the comfort - it cuts both ways: can arrange for early peace talks, but can customize and uninhibited fight to the last bullet. In Poikovsky sometimes happens, and that."
"Two very different analysis: RYAZANTSEV with Naidich dismantle what was on the board, and Motylev with Vityugovym - what could be. But it is interesting and so, and others."
(Ryazantsev-Naiditsch was a crazy draw with mutual queen sacrifices, Motylev-Vitiugov was suddenly drawn on move 16 right after white went for opposite castling.)
The Chesspro reports also have lots of pictures and usually one analyzed game per round.
Dennis and Thomas, thanks. It's not just the official site, also ChessBase have been labeling it an "Advanced Chess event" in the bold header paragraph of their stories, such as here. However, your answers convince me that the labels in the ChessBase Big 2010 disk are correct---Leon was "Man+Comp" only in 1998--2002. Well, I was also querying this because of certain stats I've taken from the games...stats that match "normal" rapid and blitz events. Plus, I see I had already classified Leon 2009 as a normal rapid event. Plus-plus, I just noticed that in Anand vs. Vallejo Pons, 2008, Anand agreed a match-winning draw where engines show he can force mate, which wouldn't happen in freestyle..
Short draws have alwyas been a problem for chess as long as they concern sponsorship - imagine a well known company wanna invest a lot of cash in chess (or at least at one define tournament).So this company makes everything possible to attract people to visit this chess tournament or at least to watch it via internet.At last people are coming/watching and what are they seeing?Two friendly guys playing 15-20 very well known moves and then the players just agree on a draw.This is not what the crowd wanna see..The people wanna see more action, they wanna see some blood to be spillt.
I have been thinking about not allowing to draw if more than a half of the points for each player are still on the board.And by points I mean this:
Queen = 10 pts
Rook = 5 pts
Bishop & KInight = 3 pts
Thus beeing said, one could calculate that each player starts with 32 points(if we agree not to put pawns into account).So as long as a player has more than 16 pts he is not allowed to agree on (offer a) draw, unless there is a perpetual.It might also be considered some other number ot points (lower for sure), f.e. 10 (which would be 2 rooks or a single queen) or 11 (2 minor pieces and a rook).
Imo the problem with these short draws lies in the fear of not losing the game.Now let's take that 13 moves drawn game.Let's asume some guy with 2200 rating was playing black and he got exactly the same position against Bologan.Would Bologan then offer a draw?Furthermore would he agree on one?I doubt that...
He would think he can still win this just because he's the much higher rated player and he will either outplay the other guy or just the 2200 one would blunder it badly.However when Bologan faces someone who has nearly the same rating, he is just afraid of losing the game, so he rather go on the safe road and grab the half point.The fear to find out exactly how good your oppenent is when u both are theiretically equal is what provides so many short draws.If FIDE manage to find a way to deal with this I'm sure chess will get more & more sponsors, with larger & larger fees for the players.Btw I have nothing personal against Bologan, it just happened that he was involved in that 13 moves draw with white, I use his name just as example.
Oh and it's good to see once again Dennis saying a good word for Topalov (about his fighting chess).I guess now when my contryman is defeated, people will start again seeing not only his bad sides (I completly agree that Topa/Danailov have done a lot of [baloney - DM], but their whole presence in the chess world should not be considered only as negative).
Pencho,
(1) On draws: The suggestion is futile, though it may provide spectators a little more entertainment than these quickie draws do. Once you make a rule that half the material must be traded, the players will look up at each other, or speak beforehand, and rapidly swap the pieces. So the rule can be thwarted, just as Astrakhan made a mockery of the Sofia rules. On the flip side, it rules out some perfectly reasonable draws, say, by perpetual check in the middlegame. When players want to draw, they will make a draw. Since draws can often be legitimate, I think the right thing is for the organizers to take control. There are players who always or almost always fight, there are some who reliably fight, even if they take the occasional day off, and then there are those who almost never fight. Just let the latter group know they're not going to get invited, and their behavior will likely change.
(2) On Topalov: I've repeatedly praised his fighting spirit, and have done so both before, during and after the match. (And his skill too, though that goes without saying for anyone with such a high rating.) I've always been happy to praise the chess player, just as I've criticized the man for his poor sportsmanship. No offense, but I don't feel the need to say "but he's a great fighter" every time I mention him, especially if the context has nothing to do with his actually playing chess.
P.S. False accusations and crude language - even when (slightly) veiled - will lead to a loss of commenting privileges.
I know that my idea about avoiding draws is far from best, however it was meant to illustrate that there are enough options how to deal with short draws.I'm sure that if FIDE realy wants to change this, they will find a way.
My point was that it's in players' intrest not to make such short draws.A lot of GMs have admitted that it's hard to make living only by platying chess, unless u r in top 30 (or therearound), which is just sad cause in many other sports, players that do not belong among the best still get more than enough money.Note that I mean sports like tennis, cylcling etc, I leave the big guys like football, basketball, hockey(in USA at least) on a side.The only way to get better fees for the players is to make more people watching chess, which would attract new sponsors and we all know that more sponsors mean more money.
I don't realy think I insulted you in any way, nor I meant to accuse you in anything.If you felt that way I'm realy sorry, I didn't mean that.I was just glad to see you are praising Topalov once again.Still you might want to agree that u have criticized Topalov quite a lot in the past on your blog, here's this little quote of yours "..occasional criticisms of Topalov's and Danailov's misbehavior over the years probably has chased off Topalov fans - or more accurately, perhaps, Topalov apologists..".I hope u can understand now why I was pleased to see a good word about Topalov.