World Cup 2011: Round 4, Day 2: Brilliancy Time
Wednesday, September 7, 2011 at 2:05PM I don't know if this will go into the pantheon with 47...Bh3!! and moves of that ilk, but the coup de grace administered by Peter Svidler against Gata Kamsky is at least a contender, especially considering that he did it against a great player in an important event. Here's the situation: White to move has just played 26.Nc6xb8:
Perhaps Kamsky expected 26...Qxh6, when after 27.Nc6 Kg7! Black has sufficient compensation for the exchange, but not more. And no doubt he was ready for 26...Qg3, when 27.Nc6 would win, were it not for a strong move that equalizes. It turns out that that same strong move is even better when played immediately: 26...Re2!!
Fantastic! Black is down a rook, and puts a second rook en prise on an empty square. Of course, its virtue is clear if White doesn't take the rook - Black crashes through on f2. The crucial point is that if White does take the rook, Black plays 27...Qg3 and White is helpless against the threat of ...Qxg2#. When the queen was on c2, Nc6 was an adequate reply to ...Qg3, but now Nc6 is just a spite move.
So Kamsky played 27.Qc3, and resigned after 27...Rxf2 28.Nc6 Rxf1+, as 29.Kxf1 Qf2 is mate and 29.Kh2 Rxa1 gives Black an extra rook and pawn with mate on the way.
That gave Svidler a 2-0 victory in the match, and he will play the winner of tomorrow's tiebreaker between Judit Polgar and Leinier Dominguez. Dominguez won game 1 yesterday and had a very promising position today, but at a crucial moment made the wrong choice and suffered for a long time. It took Polgar 112 moves, and she made at least one crucial error and a large number of inaccuracies in converting her advantage, but she kept plugging away to win the game.
She was not alone in fighting back from a defeat in the first game - Peter Heine Nielsen did it as well, grinding out a victory against Vugar Gashimov in 113 moves! (The game went one move longer but a few seconds shorter than Polgar's victory.) A third comeback hero was Alexander Grischuk, who finally stopped the Vladimir Potkin steamroller with some nice tactics on the white side of a Classical French.
In addition to those matches, two others will go to tiebreaks; namely, the two that saw draws in yesterday's games. Ponomariov-Bruzon was a "correct" draw, while Ivanchuk-Bu Xiangzhi had some ups and downs before the point was split after 95 moves. (It's some round when that's only the third-longest game.)
Finally, in addition to Svidler, two other players assured themselves of a rest day tomorrow. David Navara was always doing fine against Yaroslav Zherebukh, but fine turned into winning after the latter blundered with 28...Rf6?? Still, despite losing the match 2-0, the 18-year-old Zherebukh accounted himself extremely well in this tournament, and one would expect to hear a lot more from him in the next few years to come.
Finally, Jakovenko-Radjabov was a short draw, the only one today (and only the third draw in eight games and fifth in the sixteen games played in the round overall!), and that sent Radjabov through to the quarterfinals. It's not that Jakovenko pulled a Morozevich and gave up without an effort, but that he was, if anything, a bit worse in the final position and without any real winning prospects (though he could have continued a bit anyway).
So at this point none of the quarterfinal matches are set. Here's a recap: Svidler won his match and is waiting for the winner of Dominguez-Polgar. The winner of Ponomariov-Bruzon will play the winner of Gashimov-Nielsen. Radjabov will play the winner of Ivanchuk-Bu Xiangzhi, and Navara will play the winner of Grischuk-Potkin.
The official site is here, and today's games (with my comments) are here. Note: I will cover the Kamsky-Svidler game in much greater depth for my ChessVideos show this week (those are free and available to the general public, for those of you who might be new to the site), which should be posted online tomorrow or Friday. (Fear not, there will be an announcement on this site once it's up.)
Svidler, World Cup 2011, brilliancy in World Cup 2011
Reader Comments (14)
A somewhat ironic detail about the Dominguez-Polgar game is that just when Polgar finally managed to find the winning idea with …Bf1, she committed a three-fold repetition (the same position occurs after moves 95, 105 & 107 by White), which would have allowed Dominguez the draw had he spotted it…
I'm not a fan of this format as the mechanism for choosing 3/8 of the candidates, but it is a wonderful event for spectating. I was tense just from watching Judit try to win that ending; I can't imagine how much pressure she must have been feeling herself.
I should mention that GM Ian Nepomniachtchi was commenting on the games the whole day today along with GM Shipov and he saw the move Re2!! well in advance. He first tried Qg3, then Re2 but then quickly realized that these moves have to be switched. His calculation is lightning fast, I was in awe listening to him yesterday and today.
There was a three-fold repetition in Dominguez-Polgar (moves 95, 105, 107), but it was probably impossible for Dominguez to keep track of it.
Ooops – I should rather have said that Polgar executed the winning idea right *after* the threefold repetition occurred.
Dennis, note that Dominguez missed a threefold repetition -- after White's Rh2 on moves 95, 105, and 107.... oops.
Ivanchuk - Bu: 23... Nbc6?? 24.Nc3?? 24.N1d2! and Black's queen ends up trapped).
Wow - I thought Svidler would trounce Kamsky but that's something else.
As for Polgar, I see from chessgames.com she's been on the receiving end of R+B vs R but back in 1990... but in today's game was the starting point a win or 'theoretical' draw?
[DM: Not sure why you'd think Svidler would trounce Kamsky - their ratings are basically identical and Kamsky had a career plus score against him.
As for the Polgar ending, your question was answered in my notes to the game.]
Giving Heine's 58.Rxh5 two questionmarks is totally irrasjonal and should be replaced by one since the position is clearly winning anyway as Heine himself states at Danish Chess Union's webpages.
Anyway, your comment's and high level annotation is greatly appreciated - keep up the good work Dennis!
[DM: I was on the fence with that one, and I still am. It is winning anyway, but a move that makes you work another two hours to win a game that could be won immediately, especially in such a long and exhausting tournament, is a major error. I have no objection to your calling it a one question-mark move though. :)]
A real brilliancy by Svidler! One of the reasons why we love chess.
Talking about the Dominguez-Polgar game, it looks like they had 3 times the same position on the board (move 95, 105 and 107 after White's move): good for Judith that Dominguez did not noticed that (anyway she deserved the tie-breaks for believing until the end and making it happen, indeed).
Engines claim that Ivanchuk had something much better than the silent draw offer 24.Nc3, namely 24.N1d2 Qc2: 25.Rc1 trapping the black queen: 25.-Qd3 (25.-Qb2: 26.Nb1!) 26.Be3 Ng4 27.Rc3 - though 27.-Nf2: 28.Qf2: Ne5 29.Bb6: Rc8 30.Rd3: Nd3: 31.Qd4 Nf4 (the Stockfish line) might be unclear or at least difficult to convert: scattered white pieces and potentially vulnerable king.
Polgar's "107.-Bf1!! At last!" could have been too late - if Dominguez had claimed a threefold repetition after (or, according to the rules, before making) his 107th move.
In the game Ivanchuk - Bu white missed a winning line: 24.N1d2 Qxc2 25.Rc1 Qxb2 26.Nb1 and the black queen is trapped.
Ah yes Dennis I see the Polgar game should have been a draw.
As for Svidler, I have it in my mind that he is underrated and a stronger player than Kamsky and he does have a plus score now. And I believe he has had a higher peak rating.
Since you took into account Nielsen's extra 2 hours of work, shouldn't you also take into account the time trouble both players were in when he made the move 58.Rxh5? I think it doesn't deserve the ?? if you took into account that at that time they had less than 2 minutes left on the clock.
[DM: "The fact that a player is very short of time is to my mind, as little to be considered as an excuse as, for instance, the statement of the law-breaker that he was drunk at the time he committed the crime." - Alekhine.]