Ponomariov, Robson Win Match Openers
The St. Louis Chess Club is sponsoring a pair of concurrent matches featuring their resident stars Hikaru Nakamura and Ben Finegold taking on outstanding opponents. In Nakamura's case, it's 2002 FIDE Champion Ruslan Ponomariov of Ukraine, while Finegold is facing 16-year-old American GM Ray Robson, who was a late substitute for Viktor Korchnoi.
I was there for the first game (and even participated in the live video commentary for 15-20 minutes during the second hour with Jenn Shahade and John Donaldson), but I'm not going to take any responsibility for jinxing the locals, who both lost. Ponomariov-Nakamura was a King's Indian, and "Pono" did what few of Nakamura's previous opponents could do: make progress on the queenside without allowing Black a whiz-bang smash-'em-up attack on the kingside. Ponomariov seemed to be better even before 21...Nf6, but there's no question about the situation afterwards - the move was an error, and after 22.Nxd4 exd4 23.e5 White was probably winning. It took a long time to convert, though, as the game went 70 more moves, with Nakamura only throwing in the towel when mate was imminent in the king + bishop + knight vs. king ending.
Finegold-Robson also saw the loser suffer a long time before the metaphorical axe finally fell. Finegold played the 2.c3 Sicilian, and chose the little-known 12.cxd4 (12.Qxd4 is well-known and deeply worked out). As a long-term approach, it doesn't look very good for White, but Finegold hoped that Black's difficulties in unraveling on the kingside would give him some chances. Maybe there are some improvements to be found, but by move 21 (if not sooner) it seems clear that White's approach had failed. After 21.a3 White has no attack, but plenty to worry about - he has gaps on the light squares on the queenside and his isolated d-pawn is a passive target, while Black's powerfully centralized queen and control of the c-file give him a large and persistent advantage. Maybe with computer-like defense White can hold such a position (though I doubt it), but for humans it's practically impossible against a player with strong technique. Robson was up to the task, and finished the game with a mating attack.
Fortunately for Nakamura and Finegold, these aren't Candidates' matches, and they'll have a bit more time to fight their way back. More info on the Club site, here.
On another note, I'd like to say that the club is really beautiful. It's large (three stories), bright, elegantly furnished, very well-maintained and in a nice area as well. One can only hope that the club thrives for many years to come, and becomes a model for similar clubs elsewhere.
Reader Comments (4)
Saw you on the Video, thought you did very well. You deserved the exposure to those who do not know you. Liked Donaldson's commentary he try's to put the variations he see's into a strategic context. A bit less theatrical than Maurice Ashley, but a little more educational.
[DM: Is anyone as theatrical as Maurice Ashley when it comes to chess commentary? I think when it comes to trying to draw in an audience only barely familiar with chess, the chew-the-scenery style of commentary is appropriate, but with events with a more experienced audience the serious approach is more useful. Anyway, thanks for watching!]
It's always a tough decision for me to watch the events on ICC with great chess commentary but with a 10 second delay between the video and audio (which makes the commentary difficult to follow), or to watch the live video with Maurice and Jen who focus less on chess instruction. I usually go with the live video when it's available since the delay that ICC has (I'm not sure it it's always there, but I've noticed it several times) is just too unbearable. So it's good to see a commentator who focuses on the chess like Donaldson does. However, I must say that when Maurice does analyze variations I really enjoy it since he has a very exciting chess style, so he always looks at the most interesting lines. I also agree with Dennis that Maurice's commentating style is more appropriate for people that aren't serious chess players. If you're not a good chess player watching two strong GM's analyze positional nuances would be pretty boring...
I also watched you in the video :0) It's a great website, and awsome lectures from ben finegold if i'm not mistaking (In one of them he analyses a game he played against you, the same game you analysed on chessvideos). The comment styles are indeed very different. I enjoy the style of Maurice, note that in his analysis of previous games on the website he "guessed" a lot of the moves played, and explained them quite well (So not really just a chew the scenery). What i did miss was a longer look at the current position. A lot of the time i feel the commentators jump in the moves without looking a decent while at the position. From a personal point of view, i tend to remember more if they first describe the position, then say some general things, then give candidate moves which look interesting, then go over one, give an evaluation, go back again and revise their opinion, analyse another candidate move etc. and in the end explain why they prefer the choice they made and the main difference. One example in the games of the video was when nakamura was thinking verry long for Kh7 or Kh8. Another one, was the endgame, they should've shown the basic idea instead of just saying it. That makes it easier for players to understand the purpose of some moves e.g. the youtube video of karpov analysing.
I do have to say, i'm a big fan of Dennis aka "chessmind"!
ps: Do compare the analysis of the game vs finegold, it's very interesting to compare yours.
Wish you all the best,
Steven.
Just had to say I too saw you on the live feed. This site and chessintranslation are my favorite chess sites. Thank you for all the work you put into this blog. It is much appreciated.