World Cup Results: Round 1, Tiebreaks
Monday, November 23, 2009 at 2:44PM Worst. Chess. Ever.
I've never seen such bad chess from great players with their eyes open, at least not in these quantities. This might be unprecedented.
But first, let me set the stage and discuss today's goings-on. Of the 64 first-round matches, 20 (not 19, as I miscounted earlier) were tied after the two "classical" games. (Or rather, what passes for classical chess now, thanks to FIDE. The time control is 90 minutes for the whole game, with 30 second increments and an additional 30 minutes given after move 40.) It used to be that the first round of tiebreakers was just two rapid (25' + 10") games, but now it's four. If it's still tied after that, then two games at 5' + 3", if still tied than another two at the same time control, and then two more, and then two more...in all, the players are given five blitz mini-matches before they are forced into an Armaggedon game where White gets 5 minutes to Black's 4 minutes + draw odds.
Of the 20 matches, seven were settled after three rapid games, and seven more ended after the fourth game. That left six matches going to blitz, of which all but one - Tregubov-Akobian - ended with a winner. That match seemed to go on forever, before Akobian won three in a row and put Tregubov out of his misery by a 9-7 score.
In the remainder of the post, I'll discuss upsets, games without blunders that caught my eye, and then finally enumerate the blunders I noted. (There may be more.) First, the upsets: Dominguez, Navara and Bacrot survived (in Navara's case with a bit of luck, as he was lost in game 4), but Sargissian lost to Li Chao, Sutovsky lost to Zhou Weiqi and Tiviakov lost to Iturrizaga. (In the other matches, the ratings were close enough that the upsets weren't that significant.)
Next, the good and the interesting. In round 1.3, Shabalov resigned after 12 moves, which struck me as a pretty clever decision. Objectively, he was lost, but he could have kept going. The decision seemed to me motivated by a desire to forget the game as quickly as possible and to rest up and prep for the next game - and it worked!
Moving on to round 1.5, I was impressed by Zhou Weiqi's technique against Sutovsky, found Shabalov-Baklan a very entertaining draw, and was both impressed and amused by Khalifman-Fier. Khalifman's strong play impressed me, while Fier deserved a (sarcastic) good sportsmanship award for continuing around 20 moves down a piece for absolutely nothing against the former FIDE World Champion. In the same round, Negi-Milov was an Evans Gambit, showing the hand of Nigel Short on the young Indian. The disastrous way the game ensued for White might have left Short wishing he could be dead for a moment so he could spin in his grave. Milov declined the gambit and obliterated Negi. Finally, Akobian-Tregubov was an excellent technical win by the American.
In round 1.6, Tiviakov had White against Iturrizaga and theoretically the better chances to win the match, but he missed the nice shot 25...Nf3! and lost the game and the match. Baklan-Shabalov was another crazy game, and at the finish Shabalov had a rook against five(!) pawns. The game was drawn, but I'd be shocked if Shabalov wasn't winning until very near the end. (To his credit, despite all the setbacks I mentioned, Shabalov went on to win this match!) Savchenko-Shulman was funny in its own way, ending with Shulman being forced to give mate with bishop and knight. One of the curious aspects of the game was that it reached a position where Shulman had bishop and knight against a single, thoroughly stopped pawn. Rather than just winning it and giving mate, though, Shulman made 25 pointless moves first and only then captured it. I find it hard to believe a grandmaster of Shulman's caliber - in fact, a grandmaster of any caliber - needs more than the 10 second increments to perform the mate, but it was pretty smart of Shulman all the same. Supposing he gained eight seconds on his clock each time, that gave him an additional 200 seconds, which could come in handy just in case he happened to find himself stumped at some moment or other. My best guess, however, is that Shulman's interest in accumulating all that time had less to do with OTB worries and more to do with taking a restroom break. (If anyone knows, confirmation would be appreciated!)
Now to the blitz rounds. In round 1.7, Akobian obtained two bishops vs. two knights, but it was a candidate for the worst bishop pair ever, and he got crushed. Andreikin-Nyback saw 1.Nc3 e5?!, and Nyback only just held on by a thread. (1...d5! is probably the best response, but anything other than 1...e5 is fine.) In round 1.8, Shabalov tried the Smith-Morra Pawn Loss Gambit against Baklan's O'Kelly Sicilian, and went on to win (though Baklan declined with 4...d3).
On to part 3: blunders! There are so many it's incredible, but rather than describe them here I'll let you see them for yourself - have a look here.
As for results and all the games, you can find them here, while pairings for round 2 are...I don't know where. If someone has seen a nice bracket chart, please post the location in the comments.
Dennis Monokroussos
Oops, accidentally left off a game. I'll add that momentarily. (Done it.)
blunders in World Cup 2009
Chess Books and "Chess" Books at the Internet Archive
There are lots of free downloads at the internet archive, including lots of chess books. Not all of the books there are especially interesting, and some (e.g. all four entries of Soviet Chess by Wade) turn out not to be of chess at all, but it's still worth a browse. (HT: Tim Cianciola.)
One entry I found interesting and then amusing was Frank Marshall's Marshall's Chess Openings. Some things he says there look reasonable, and a lower club player can get some good general ideas from the book. On the other hand, it's pretty funny to read claims like 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 is slightly better for Black, or that Black's best defense to the Ruy is 3...f5.
At a deeper level, I found the book provocative. My first reaction, especially upon seeing such categorical remarks, was to laugh at how primitive opening theory was at the time - even considering that he was writing for the general public at a time when amateur play was far more casual. But then I thought about some of my games against average club players, and realized how thin their opening knowledge really is, too, most of the time; especially when they're not in a pet opening. (One memorable tournament occurred in 2004 when, incredibly, in 6 of my 7 games I had a significant advantage by move 6!) Maybe there's a place for such primitive books in chessplayers' libraries after all. They can outgrow them, and hopefully quickly, but maybe it's a place to start.