World Cup 2011: Round 2, Day 1
Wednesday, August 31, 2011 at 11:57AM With most of the favorites through, the matches are going to be more closely contested from here on out. Unsurprisingly, there were a lot of draws today, and some were quite short - apparently some players have decided to save energy and make their big push in the rapid playoffs in a couple of days.
That's not at all to say that no one tried; far from it, and the ultimate fighter today was Vassily Ivanchuk, who with Black squeezed Evgeny Alekseev for 97 moves until a blunder finally popped out and he won. Other big guns collecting the full point were Vugar Gashimov (I annotate this game), Teimour Radjabov and Alexander Morozevich. Some 2700s lost, too, including Alexei Shirov (to Vladimir Potkin - I've annotated that game), Etienne Bacrot (to Anton Filippov), and - in unbelievable fashion - Francisco Vallejo Pons, to Lazaro Bruzon. That one almost has to be seen to be believed, so that game also appears in the annotated game link.
All the Americans (and all the "honorary Americans" as well) drew their games.
Links: Official site (with excellent live video coverage) here, Wikipedia brackets here (scroll down), and the three games I annotate are here. (Real annotations, too, at one point verging on the Hübnerian. You're welcome.)
Schliemann, World Cup 2011, blunders in World Cup 2011
Reader Comments (4)
Thanks indeed, Dennis! I had wondered how Gashimov could respond to 6...Nxe4, but I wasn't expecting such a detailed and helpful answer anywhere in the public eye. I shouldn't have underestimated you!
Crowther at TWIC suggested the likely continuation after 8...dxc6 as 9. Qxd8 Bxd8 10. Nbd2 Ng4 11. Bg5 +/=, although in the absence of both theory and praxis all opinions are a bit suspect. Instead of 10... Ng4 you give 10... Nd7 11. O-O, but I wonder what your opinion is of the Crowther-inspired 11. Bg5 in this line? I don't see how the black knight's residence on d7 instead of g4 makes much difference in the evaluation.
After the knight sac, I examined the alternative 19... Qe8 with the intention of removing the painful g6 thorn in his side. However, white still wins after 20. Rh8+ (why not sac the whole box of pieces?) Kxh8 21. Qh3+ Kg8 22. Qe6+ (Bxf6 Qxg6 resuscitates black) Rf7 and white's position is so dominant that he has time to calmly play the non-forcing but nevertheless deadly 23. Rh1, threatening 24. gxf7+ Qxf7 25. Rh8+ Kxh8 26. Qxf7 +-. Black might hope to escape to an inferior but playable endgame with 23... Nh7 24. gxf7+?! Qxf7 25. Qxf7+ Kxf7 26. Bxe7 Kxe7 27. Rxh7, but white can instead play 24. Rxh7! Kxh7 25. gxf7 Qd8 26. Qxe7 +-. Of course my analysis could be far off the mark; what are your thoughts?
Again, thanks for your excellent and helpful analysis of these 3 games.
[DM: 19...Qe8 20.Rh8+ wins, as you say, and 20.Bxf6 is even more efficient - if Black recaptures, then Rh8+ is even more effective, while 20...Qxg6 21.Bxe7 gives White an extra piece (and pawn, for the moment) and an attack. About your line, it all makes sense for a while: 20.Rh8+ Kxh8 21.Qh3+ Kg8 22.Qe6+ Rf7 23.Rh1 (winning), and now you propose Nh7, suggesting that Black is relatively okay after 24.Rxh7 Kxh7 25.gxf7 and so on. But better is 25.gxh7, taking the king.
As for Crowther's suggestions, I think he just wanted to offer some quick thoughts for his readers; they shouldn't be taken as serious analysis. (For one thing, he didn't have any time for that - he had to keep the site up to date and offered brief comments on all 32 games.)]
Vallejo Pons- Bruzon [65.Rg3 Ra1+ 66.Kf2 (66.Kh2?? Rh1# ) 66...g1Q+ 67.Rxg1 Nh3+ 68.Ke3!! (68.Kg2 Nxg1 69.a8Q (Nd4! =) Rxa8 70.Kxg1 Ra4
68 Kg2 Ng1 ; 69 Nd4 draws too, with more time than two minutes on the clock of course.
[DM: Correct! White must still be careful though: After 68.Kg2 Ng1 69.Nd4 Ke5 70.Nb3? loses to 70...Rxa2 71.Kg1 Ra2 with mate in 28 with mutually perfect play, according to the tablebase. But 70.Nc2! Rxa7 71.Kxg1 allows the knight to be safely reunited with the king, however, and there it's a draw.]
Bruzon's 58..g5 instead of taking the f6 pawn was very canny!
Hubnerian levels of analysis? I'm getting a headache just thinking about it. Plus, now you need to worry about Kasparov calling you a Nihilist.
[DM: Verging on the Hübnerian. It's so difficult to sustain that level of detail that one might almost believe that the "Hübner" was a mythical creature.]