2018 Candidates, Round 8: Three Draws and Another Kramnik Loss
The second cycle of the Candidates got underway in round 8, and the outcome was more peaceful than in round 1. In that round, with the same pairings (with colors reversed), three games finished with a decisive result. Not this time: three games were drawn, and the one decisive result should have been the fourth draw.
The leader coming in was Fabiano Caruana, who defeated Wesley So with White in round 1. He came reasonably close with Black, too, as for the second time in this event the lame 5.Qe2 against Caruana's Petroff resulted in a very poor middlegame position for White. To So's credit, he defended exceptionally well and saved the game, using an endgame trick famously discovered by Emanuel Lasker in 1924.
Shakhriyar Mamedaryov also defeated his opponent, Sergey Karjakin, in their first round game - and that was with the black pieces - but like Caruana, he only drew in the rematch. He obtained a small advantage in a Catalan sideline, and a slight inaccuracy enabled Karjakin to achieve full equality. Wisely shepherding his strength, Mamedyarov decided to call it a day after just 30 moves.
Ding Liren and Levon Aronian drew their game in the first cycle, and drew this one, too. Their first game was a short draw, but Aronian was much better, even winning had he chosen not to repeat. This time it was Ding who failed to maximize his chances, misplaying an ending with a clean extra pawn.
Finally, Vladimir Kramnik's bizarre self-destruction continued. He defeated Alexander Grischuk in round 1, but this time nothing more than a draw was on the cards. The simplest way to achieve it was with 31...Bxc3, when the pin after 32.Bxc3 Rxc3 was of no consequence. Instead Kramnik let Grischuk keep his extra pawn, and found himself lost after the first time control. Both players were tired, however, and the evaluation kept switching between equality and a serious advantage for Grischuk. After playing one long game after another - something which was entirely Kramnik's fault the past three rounds - he was tired and by his own admission "couldn't see anything". The result was another loss, in 91 moves. It was better to spend a few extra minutes making sure 31...Bxc3 worked, and then he'd have saved himself 3+ hours of play and half a point in the tournament table. As for Grischuk, he's at +1 now and in the running for first place.
The games, with my comments, are here; here's what coming up in round 9:
- So (3) - Grischuk (4.5)
- Caruana (5.5) - Ding (4)
- Aronian (3) - Mamedyarov (5)
- Karjakin (3.5) - Kramnik (3.5)
Reader Comments (5)
Looks like Kramnik is doing an Euwe (Zürich 1953): excellent begin, then a collapse.
[DM: Sort of - but Euwe played well the whole first half of that mammoth tournament, while Kramnik went bust after losing round 4. This is becoming an epic collapse or tilt.]
I read one conjecture about Kramnik that makes at least a modicum of sense. It was the hypothesis that Kramnik has decided to, or is seriously entertaining the possibility of, retirement if he doesn't win the Candidates; with that slipping out of sight, perhaps each and every game becomes precious from the point of view of showing something special at the board. The "performance art" in the pressers would then make a certain amount of psychological sense as well.
[DM: That's pretty hard to believe, especially since the "tilt" began when he was still very much in the running. But if he does hang it up after this, you're encouraged to remind me of this comment!]
Correction -- Grischuk has lost once & won twice.
[DM: Thanks for the correction (fixed in the post), and for not pointing out how stupid I was to contradict what I wrote at the start of the paragraph! My eyes were glazing over finishing the post late at night, but that's a bit embarrassing even so. Thanks also to AlefZero, Chris, Trill, and Jeremy Kane for making the correction - and for also being gracious about it.]
This point may not be entirely relevant, but it should probably be pointed out that Emanuel Lasker was actually rather lucky to salvage a draw in that memorable endgame he had against his distant relative Edward. As Nunn and Kasparov both point out, Edward Lasker had at least a couple of forced wins, but he missed them.
On the other hand, to be fair, Emanual Lasker missed at least one win in the middlegame.
[DM: I agree: it's not entirely relevant...or even slightly relevant. It would be if Em. Lasker had goofed up the knight vs. rook and pawn ending that was the reason the game was mentioned, but that part of the game was played impeccably.]
According to Nunn, Lasker made two potentially fatal mistakes on (approx) the 71st and 75th moves, according to Nunn's book. Luckily, his namesake missed forced wins in both cases. But, to be fair, Emanuel played the remainder of the endgame "impeccably", as you stated.
[DM: Right - in other words, the part of the endgame that was relevant to the post was error-free: Em. Lasker found a great save, and Ed Lasker didn't miss any chances where it mattered with respect to the similarity with the Candidates game.]