London 2011, Round 7: Leapfrogging Leaders
Sunday, December 11, 2011 at 11:45AM Going into the round Hikaru Nakamura enjoyed a two-point lead over Magnus Carlsen, Vladimir Kramnik and Luke McShane. Not a bad place to be, and although they had already had their byes and he was about to take his in round 7, you'd still expect him to be in good shape by round's end, right?
Nope! After yet another massacre of the British (McShane counts as an honorary foreigner in this tournament), Nakamura dropped to fourth place with just two rounds to go. Magnus Carlsen was engaged in a tough tussle with Michael Adams, and despite having Black it was Adams who had the initiative much of the way. At some moment, however, Adams' queenside initiative came to an end, and in the meantime he underestimated Carlsen's sneaky threats on the kingside. Ultimately, Adams blundered with 35...Nc4, when 36.Rxd5 basically put an end to the proceedings.
Vladimir Kramnik had his way with David Howell in a QGA sideline. Howell followed theory and made natural moves, but somehow - and even Kramnik wasn't really sure what went wrong - the former world champion had a nice edge. Howell's 19...Bc6 may have been the decisive error, costing him a pawn and eventually the game.
Finally, McShane also won, and unlike his co-leaders he did it with Black. Nigel Short essayed the good old King's Gambit, but at some point got a bit too conservative. The compensation dried up and McShane took his extra material to the bank, eventually winning.
Finally, Levon Aronian failed to get anything from the opening against Viswanathan Anand, and their game was soon drawn.
Standings After Round 7 (on 3-1-0 scoring; note that Adams and Howell have played 7 games; everyone else only 6):
1-3. Carlsen, Kramnik, McShane 12
4. Nakamura 11
5-6. Aronian, Anand 7
7. Short 4
8-9. Adams, Howell 3
Round 8 Pairings:
- Anand - Carlsen (already drawn)
- Howell - Aronian
- McShane - Kramnik
- Nakamura - Short
- Adams - bye
Here's the tournament site for the London Chess Classic, and here are the round 7 games (without notes). Let me recommend ChessBase's report on the round, as it includes videos of the post-game press conferences. (Kramnik's was especially entertaining, and should prove a real eye-opener to fans who think that a super-GM's solidity has anything to do with his ability to imagine and calculate tactics!)
Perhaps even more noteworthy in that report is the brief transcript (and audio clip) of Nakamura answering questions about his working relationship with Garry Kasparov. One doesn't suspect it's going in a fantastic direction - especially after this interview.
Reader Comments (9)
Kasparov's relationships with his proteges is poor in comparison with Botvinnik (esp when the latter was considered the 'hard man' in Russian circles). In contrast - even today Botvinnik's students speak in awe of the great man.
Wow. Nakamura just doesn't seem that impressed with Kasparov's abilities, does he? (I think Naka needs to go back and study Kasparov's games a bit more deeply.)
Naka is speaking in relative terms. Kasparov’s middlegame skills were still better than 99.9999999 percent of humanity. Still, it is not a very smart thing to be saying, even if (arguably) true.
It's always interesting to read super-GMs evaluating each other, but Nakamura seems to be the outlier here. Most players (e.g., Anand) discuss Kasparov with great respect. And if you look at his matches with Karpov--well, clearly both players demonstrated tremendous skill in all stages of the game. It's possible that in the later stages of his career, though, he relied more on superior opening preparation.
Wow, this fellow thinks himself rather exceptional, doesn't he? He is so arrogant sometimes... No wonder so many people can't stand him. What did he say after a win against Shirov in Wijk? Something along the lines of "Yeah, he may have been better off playing 1... e5 against me, not the Sicilian". Now he takes it up a notch in London. "Anand is not really a 1.d4 player, so thought he wouldn't understand it as well as I do". "With Kasparov we do openings, because that's all he can do and I already know all there is to know about middlegames".
And all that even before he actually established himself as strict world elite. Many a player took the heights by surprise with a meteoric rise but quickly fell back when the "old guys" got used to his playing style and started beating him consistently. Now I don't wish that for Nakamura, that's for sure (or for anyone, for that matter), and he may have a really bright future ahead of him, but he might want to acknowledge that he still can learn something from the giants every now and then -- even if he indeed starts playing them as equals and even winning. He still isn't quite at the point at which he could suddenly stop playing chess and be certain of not getting forgotten in 50 years.
[DM: Nakamura does say some provocative things, but let's please avoid putting the worst possible interpretation on his statements or even worse, pretend he said things he didn't. The remark about Shirov was one about safety: given Shirov's tournament position at the time, it would have been a more practical decision to play more solidly with 1...e5.
Likewise, the comment about Anand didn't seem to have any arrogance in it either. Anand played 1.e4 for the overwhelming majority of his career and seldom if ever played the King's Indian with Black. So for Nakamura to point out that Anand's intuition in that particular kind of position might not be as good as his own shouldn't be terribly controversial. Anand is 40 points higher rated than Nakamura, not 400, and it isn't remarkable that there would be some positions or circumstances where Nakamura could play better than Anand. Indeed, it would be remarkable if there weren't!
Finally, Nakamura didn't say that Kasparov could only do openings or that he couldn't learn anything from Kasparov (or anyone else) in the middlegame. You might not agree with what he said or think he should have said it - I don't - but let's not invent things.]
31.Bxf5!!? would have been fun in Carlsen-Adams.
Looks like Kasparov will have to find himself a new protégé – Giri, perhaps?
It’s a bit funny (or sad?) that Howell resigned for the second time exactly on move 40 in a position where he still had countrerplay due to an inaccuracy of his opponent, though this time it was harder to spot. After Kramnik’s 40.Rc8 he could have played 40...Qf1+(!) 41.Kxf1 Qa6+ 42.Kg2 and now take on c8- White should still be winning, but it’s far from trivial. If 42...Qxc8 43.Qxc8 Rxc8 then 44.Nd4! followed by Nb5, restricting the black rook to a8 (otherwise Nc7 wins), and then marching the king to d5, advancing the K-side pawns, and winning by creating a second passer. It’s more tricky with the queens still on, after 42...Rxc8 – 43.Nd4! is still winning (this time with the basic idea of Nf5-e7), but White has to be careful about tactics – e.g., 43...Kh7 44.Nf5? (instead of Kh2!) Qc6+ 45.Kh2 Qc2. As Seirawan said on ICC, “I would be very happy if my opponent were to resign here.”
In view of that, the “cleanest” way for White to win might have been 39.e6! (instead of Kramnik’s Rxc3) 39...fxe6 (White is threatening e7; 39...Bf6 40.Ne5!) 40.Nh4! with the decisive threat of Ng6, e.g. 40...Be5 41.Ng6 Bxb8 42.axb8Q Rxb8 (42...Qa8+ 43.Qxa8 Rxa8 44.Rxb2 and White is just a piece up) 43.Rxb8+ with mate next move on f8 or h8, or 39...b1Q 41.Rxb1 Qxf2+ 42.Kh3 and there’s no continuation for Black’s attack.
im curious .. whats in it for kasparov?
is nakamura paying him?
[DM: Rex Sinquefield, the President and Chairman of the Board of the Chess Club and Scholastic Center of St. Louis, is the one footing the bill, which while undisclosed is certainly in the five-digit range.]
With regard to the question what’s in it for Kasparov, I’m pretty sure it’s not only the money, but also – and to a large extent – the feeling that he still has an important influence over the chess scene. Considering the circumstances that apparently led to the breakup between Kasparov and Carlsen (http://whychess.org/node/1904), revolving round the pressure that Kasparov put on the latter before his game with Kramnik, Kasparov’s hated rival, in Corus 2010, one might even suspect that for Kasparov it’s like playing by proxy…