Links

This form does not yet contain any fields.
    1948 World Chess Championship 1962 Candidates 2.c3 Sicilian 2.f4 Sicilian 2011 European Team Championship 2011 Russian Championship 2012 Capablanca Memorial 2012 Chess Olympiad 2012 European Women's Championship 2012 London Chess Classic 2012 U.S. Junior Championship 2012 U.S. Women's Championship 2012 US Championship 2012 Women's World Chess Championship 2012 World Rapid and Blitz Championships 2013 Alekhine Memorial 2013 Beijing Grand Prix 2013 European Club Cup 2013 European Team Championship 2013 FIDE World Cup 2013 Kings Tournament 2013 London Chess Classic 2013 Russian Championship 2013 Tal Memorial 2013 U.S. Championship 2013 Women's World Championship 2013 World Blitz Championship 2013 World Championship 2013 World Rapid Championship 2013 World Team Championship 2014 Capablanca Memorial 2014 Chess Olympiad 2014 Rapid & Blitz World Championship 2014 Russian Team Championship 2014 U.S. Championship 2014 World Championship 2014 World Rapid Championship 22014 U.S. Championship 60 Minutes A. Muzychuk A. Sokolov aattacking chess Abby Marshall Accelerated Dragon ACP Golden Classic Adams Aeroflot 2010 Aeroflot 2011 Aeroflot 2012 Aeroflot 2013 Agrest Akiba Rubinstein Akiva Rubinstein Akobian Alejandro Ramirez Alekhine Alekhine Defense Aleksander Lenderman Alekseev Alena Kats Alex Markgraf Alexander Alekhine Alexander Grischuk Alexander Ipatov Alexander Khalifman Alexander Morozevich Alexander Onischuk Alexander Stripunsky Alexandra Kosteniuk Alexei Dreev Alexei Shirov Alexey Bezgodov Almasi Amber 2010 Amber 2011 Amos Burn Anand Anand-Carlsen 2013 Anand-Gelfand 2012 Anand-Gelfand World Championship Match Anand-Topalov 2010 Anastasia Bodnaruk Anatoly Karpov Andrei Volokitin Andrew Martin Andrew Paulson Android apps Anish Giri Anna Ushenina Anna Zatonskih Anti-Marshall Lines Anti-Moscow Gambit Antoaneta Stefanova apps April Fool's Jokes Archangelsk Variation Arkadij Naiditsch Arne Moll Aron Nimzowitsch Aronian Aronian-Kramnik 2012 Artur Yusupov Astrakhan Grand Prix 2010 attack attacking chess Austrian Attack Averbakh Baadur Jobava Bacrot Bangkok Chess Club Open Bazna 2011 Becerra Beliavsky Benko Gambit Bent Larsen Berlin Defense Biel 2012 Biel 2014 Bilbao 2010 Bilbao 2012 Bilbao 2013 bishop endings Bishop vs. Knight Blackburne blindfold chess blitz blitz chess Blumenfeld Gambit blunders Bobby Fischer Bologan Book Reviews books Boris Gelfand Boris Spassky Borislav Ivanov Borki Predojevic Boruchovsky Botvinnik Botvinnik Memorial Breyer Variation brilliancy British Championship Bronstein Bronznik Brooklyn Castle Browne Brunello Budapest Bundesliga California Chess Reporter Camilla Baginskaite Campomanes Candidates 2011 Candidates 2011 Candidates 2012 Candidates 2013 Candidates 2014 Capablanca Carlsen Caro-Kann cartoons Caruana Catalan Cebalo Charlie Rose cheating Cheparinov chess and education chess and marketing chess cartoons chess history chess in fiction Chess Informant chess lessons chess psychology chess ratings chess variants Chess960 ChessBase DVDs ChessBase Shows ChessLecture Presentations ChessLecture.com ChessUSA ChessUSA blog ChessVibes ChessVideos Presentations Chigorin Variation Chinese Chess Championship Christiansen Christmas Colle combinations Commentary computer chess computers correspondence chess Corsica Cyrus Lakdawala Danailov Daniil Dubov Dave MacEnulty Dave Vigorito David MacEnulty David Navara Davies Deep Blue Deeper Blue defense Delchev Ding Liren Dmitry Andreikin Dmitry Gurevich Dortmund 2010 Dortmund 2011 Dortmund 2012 Dortmund 2012 Dortmund 2013 Dortmund 2014 Doug Hyatt Dragoljub Velimirovic draws dreams Dreev Dutch Defense DVD Reviews DVDs Dvoirys Dvoretsky Easter Edouard Efimenko Efstratios Grivas endgame studies endgames Endgames English Opening Esserman Etienne Bacrot European Club Cup 2012 European Individual Championship 2012 Evgeni Vasiukov Evgeny Sveshnikov Evgeny Tomashevsky Exchange Ruy Fabiano Caruana Falko Bindrich farce FIDE Grand Prix FIDE ratings Fier fighting for the initiative Finegold Fischer football Francisco Vallejo Pons Fred Reinfeld French Defense Ftacnik Gadir Guseinov Gajewski Gaprindashvili Garry Kasparov Gashimov Gata Kamsky Gelfand Gelfand-Svidler Rapid Match Geller Geneva Masters Georg Meier GGarry Kasparov Gibraltar 2011 Gibraltar 2012 Gibraltar 2013 Gibraltar 2014 Giri Grand Prix Attack Greek Gift sacrifice Grenke Chess Classic 2013 Grinfeld Grischuk Grob Gruenfeld Defense Grünfeld Defense Gulko Gunina Guseinov Gustafsson Gyula Sax Hans Ree Harika Dronavalli Haworth Hedgehog Hennig-Schara Gambit Henrique Mecking HHou Yifan highway robbery Hikaru Nakamura Hilton Hjorvar Gretarsson Hort Horwitz Bishops Hou Yifan Houdini 1.5a Howard Staunton humor Humpy Koneru Ian Nepomniachtchi Icelandic Gambit Igor Kurnosov Igor Lysyj Iljumzhinov Ilya Nyzhnyk Imre Hera Informant Informant 113 Informant 114 Informant 115 Informant 116 Informant 117 Informant 118 Informant 119 Informant 120 insanity Inside Chess Magazine Ippolito IQP Irina Krush Ivan Sokolov Ivanchuk J. Polgar Jacob Aagaard Jaenisch Jaideep Unudurti Jakovenko James Tarjan Jan Timman Jay Whitehead Jeremy Silman Jimmy Quon John Grefe John Watson Jon Lenchner Jonathan Hawkins Jonathan Speelman Jose Diaz Judit Polgar Julio Granda Zuniga Kaidanov Kalashnikov Sicilian Kamsky Karjakin Karpov Karsten Mueller Kasimdzhanov Kasparov Kavalek Ken Regan Keres KGB Khalifman King's Gambit King's Indian King's Tournament 2010 Kings Tournament 2012 Kirsan Ilyumzhinov KKing's Gambit KKing's Indian Klovans Komodo Korchnoi Kramnik Kunin Larry Evans Larry Kaufman Larry Parr Lasker Lasker-Pelikan Latvian Gambit Laznicka Le Quang Liem Leinier Dominguez Leko Leonid Kritz lessons Lev Psakhis Levon Aronian Lilienthal Linares 2010 Loek van Wely Lombardy London 2009 London 2010 London 2011 London Grand Prix London System Lothar Schmid Luke McShane Macieja Magnus Carlsen Main Line Ruy Malakhov Malcolm Pein Mamedyarov Marc Arnold Marc Lang Marin Mariya Muzychuk Mark Crowther Marshall Marshall Gambit Masters of the Chessboard Mateusz Bartel Max Euwe Maxime Vachier-Lagrave McShane Mega 2012 mental malfunction Mesgen Amanov Michael Adams Miguel Najdorf Mikhail Botvinnik Mikhail Tal Mikhalchishin Miles Minev miniatures Miso Cebalo MModern Benoni Modern Modern Benoni Moiseenko Morozevich Morphy Movsesian Müller music Nadareishvili Naiditsch Najdorf Sicilian Nakamura Nanjing 2010 Navara Negi Neo-Archangelsk Nepomniachtchi New In Chess Yearbook 104 New York Times NH Tournament 2010 Nigel Short Nikita Vitiugov Nimzo-Indian NNotre Dame football Norway Chess 2013 Norway Chess 2014 Notre Dame football Notre Dame Football Nov. 2009 News Nyback Nyzhnyk Olympics 2010 Open Ruy opening advice opening novelties Openings openings Or Cohen P.H. Nielsen Parimarjan Negi Paris Grand Prix passed pawns Paul Keres Pavel Eljanov pawn endings pawn play pawn structures Pesotskyi Peter Heine Nielsen Peter Leko Peter Svidler Petroff Philadelphia Open Phiona Mutesi Pirc Piterenka Rapid/Blitz Polgar Polgar sisters Polugaevsky Ponomariov Ponziani Potkin poultry Powerbook 2011 problems progressive chess QGD Tartakower QQueen's Gambit Accepted queen sacrifices Queen's Gambit Accepted Queen's Indian Defense Radjabov Ragger rapid chess Rapport Rashid Nezhmetdinov rating inflation ratings Ray Robson Regan Reggio Emilia 2010 Reggio Emilia 2011 Reshevsky Reti Rex Sinquefield Reykjavik Open 2012 Richard Reti Robert Byrne robot chess Robson Roman Ovetchkin rook endings RReggio Emilia 2011 rrook endings RRuy Lopez RRuy Lopez sidelines Rubinstein rules Ruslan Ponomariov Russian Team Championship Rustam Kasimdzhanov Ruy Lopez Ruy Lopez sidelines Rybka Rybka 4 S. Kasparov sacrifices Sadler Sakaev Sam Collins Sam Sevian Samuel Reshevsky Sao Paulo/Bilbao 2011 Sao Paulo/Bilbao 2012 satire Savchenko Schliemann Scotch Four Knights Searching for Bobby Fischer Seirawan self-destruction Sergei Tiiviakov Sergey Karjakin Sergey Shipov Shakhriyar Mamedyarov Shankland Shipov Shirov Short Sicilian Sinquefield Cup sitzfleisch Slav Smith-Morra Gambit Smyslov Spassky spectacular moves Speelman sportsmanship Spraggett St. Louis Invitational stalemate Staunton Stockfish Stockfish 4 Stonewall Dutch Suat Atalik Super Bowl XLIV Sutovsky Sveshnikov Sveshnikov Sicilian Svetozar Gligoric Svidler sweeper sealer twist Swiercz tactics Tactics Taimanov Tal Tal Memorial 2009 Tal Memorial 2010 Tal Memorial 2011 Tal Memorial 2012 Tal Memorial 2012 Tarjan Tarrasch Tarrasch Defense Tashkent Teimour Radjabov Terekhin The Chess Players (book) The Week in Chess Thessaloniki Grand Prix Three knights Tigran Petrosian Tim Krabbé time controls Timman Timur Gareev Tomashevsky Tony Miles Topalov traps TWIC types of chess players Ufuk Tuncer underpromotion Unive 2012 University of Notre Dame upsets US Championship 2010 US Championship 2011 USCF ratings USCL V. Onischuk Vachier-Lagrave Vallejo van der Heijden Van Perlo van Wely Varuzhan Akobian Vasik Rajlich Vasily Smyslov Vassily Ivanchuk Vassily Smyslov Velimirovic Attack Veresov Veselin Topalov video videos Vienna 1922 Viktor Bologan Viktor Korchnoi Viktor Moskalenko Viswanathan Anand Vitaly Tseshkovsky Vitiugov Vladimir Kramnik Vladimir Tukmakov Vugar Gashimov Vugar Gashimov Memorial Wang Hao Wang Yue Watson Welcome Wesley Brandhorst Wesley So Wijk aan Zee 2010 Wijk aan Zee 2011 Wijk aan Zee 2012 Wijk aan Zee 2013 Wijk aan Zee 2014 Wil E. Coyote Wilhelm Steinitz Willy Hendriks Winawer French Wojtkiewicz Women's Grand Prix Women's World Championship World Champion DVDs World Cup World Cup 2009 World Cup 2011 World Cup 2011 World Junior Championship World Senior Championship WWijk aan Zee 2012 Yasser Seirawan Yates Yermolinsky Yevseev Yu Yangyi Yuri Averbakh Yuri Razuvaev Zaitsev Variation Zaven Andriasyan Zhao Xue Zug 2013 Zukertort System Zurich 1953 Zurich 2013 Zurich 2014

    Entries in Navara (6)

    Sunday
    Sep112011

    World Cup 2011: Round 5 Tiebreaks: Ivanchuk, Grischuk Advance to the Semis

    It seems like 2001 all over again, and not just because today is the 10th anniversary of 9/11. In the 2001/2 FIDE World Championship in Moscow, the semi-finalists were Ruslan Ponomariov, Peter Svidler, Vassily Ivanchuk and Viswanathan Anand. Ponomariov faced Svidler and Ivanchuk faced Anand. Fast forward ten years, and it's practically the same thing. Anand "graduated" to become the current world champion (not in 2001/2 - Ponomariov won that event, beating Ivanchuk in the final - but in 2007), but the other three are at it again. Not only are they all back in the semis, the bracketing is even the same: Ponomariov faces Svidler, and the winner will face Ivanchuk if he wins. Interesting, Anand's "place" is taken by Alexander Grischuk, who was a semi-finalist in the 2000 FIDE world championship. It's nice to see that these "old-timers" can still play!

    Ponomariov and Svidler had already qualified in "regular time", defeating Gashimov and Polgar, respectively. Today's pairings saw Grischuk - who was quite fortunate not to lose yesterday - take on David Navara and Ivanchuk face off against Teimour Radjabov.

    In the first rapid round, Navara had White but got nothing against Grischuk's Caro-Kann, and should have reconciled himself to a fairly sterile equality after 15.0-0 0-0. Instead, he played 15.Bd3?!, either overlooking or underestimating 15...d4. Three moves later, he was lost, and although the game went to move 43 Navara never came close to saving it. Speaking of extending the game, Radjabov pushed and pushed and pushed and pushed against Ivanchuk. Rightly so, as he was the exchange ahead, but he was never winning. After White's 64th move it was a rook and pawn vs. bishop and pawn ending that was drawn according to the tablebase, and Ivanchuk held the balance all the way to the end on move 120.

    In the second rapid round, Black again had the better of things in the Grischuk-Navara game. Navara even managed to reach a queen and knight ending a pawn up, but with all the pawns on one side Grischuk managed to hold. The game was drawn, and Grischuk progressed to the semis. Ivanchuk got "revenge" against Radjabov, as this time it was he who kept up the slow torture. By move 52 he had made decent progress, but against best play the win - if any - would have remained a long ways off. Radjabov, probably in time trouble, committed a huge tactical oversight, and resigned on move 54, having blundered a piece for nothing.

    Now that we're down to the final four, it's worth remembering that although the final places matter for money, the main competitive objective is not to win this tournament but to make the top three. The finalists and the winner of the match between the losing semi-finalists all qualify automatically for the next series of Candidates matches (the Candidates' winner will play for the world championship against the winner of next year's title match between champion Viswanathan Anand and his challenger, Boris Gelfand). Winning in the semi-finals punches one's ticket to the Candidates, but a loss isn't the end of the dream.

    So we have Ponomariov-Svidler and Ivanchuk-Grischuk, and it's a good time for another round of predictions: who will these matches, the final, and the third-place match?

    Event site (with video coverage) here, today's games, with generally brief comments, here.

    Saturday
    Sep102011

    World Cup 2011: Round 5, Day 2: Svidler, Ponomariov Advance to the Semis

    We had another round like we're used to at the World Cup, with lots of fight and lots of wins. There were also plenty of mistakes - chess mistakes and mental errors too, which is to be expected near the end of such a long tournament.

    Vassily Ivanchuk was in the best shape of anyone after the first day of round 5, as he had defeated Teimour Radjabov while all the other games were drawn.  No more. Radjabov devised an enterprising piece sacrifice in a quiet-looking Symmetrical English, and it worked like gangbusters. Soon Radjabov regained the material (and then some) while enjoying strong attacking chances as well. Ivanchuk was crushed, and so they're off to tiebreaks tomorrow.

    Judit Polgar was also in good shape coming into the round, having drawn easily with Black on day one. She enjoyed a reasonably promising position in today's game after sacrificing a pawn to set up a strong position where her light-squared bishop was extremely strong while Svidler's dark-squared bishop was correspondingly passive. Maybe at one moment she could have enjoyed a small advantage (and likewise Svidler too may have missed some chances earlier), but most of the way equality was the most she could have hoped for, and that was certainly true on her 30th move. Polgar should have played 30.Qh5, inviting a repetition, but instead hoped for more. Unwarrantedly. Svidler was able to consolidate his extra pawn and take care of his king's problems, and when Polgar continued to play as if she was better, Svidler counterattacked, winning almost immediately.

    Simply put, Polgar lost her objectivity, and it cost her the game. Oddly, assuming Mark Crowther has transcribed her comments at the post-game press conference correctly, Polgar began by lamenting that "my luck was not with me today". That seems somewhat ungracious, slightly absurd after the colossal servings of luck she received in the Dominguez match, and odd considering her easy draw with Black yesterday despite mistakenly preparing to have White. (I think her point was that because she had an extra day of White preparation, Svidler decided to play 1...c5 rather than 1...e5 in their game, and in that way she was "unlucky". Svidler offered a different explanation in the press conference, but since Polgar got a very good position in the middlegame in any case, it's again hard to see what this "luck" business is all about.) Even aside from all of that, I can't see any way in which she was unlucky in the last game. She just got greedy, overpressed and lost. There wasn't some long combination she had seen that didn't work because of some ingenious resource Svidler hadn't seen but found at the last second. She just pushed where there was nothing to be had, and her opponent was able to use his trumps to win.

    Ruslan Ponomariov also won with Black to advance to the semis; he and Svidler will reprise their battle from the semi-finals of the 2002 FIDE World Championship. (Ponomariov won the title, and by implication their match as well.) He got there by grinding out a very long victory in a knight vs. bishop ending. There were a lot of errors, as is to be expected (tired opponents without a lot of time to think), but Ponomariov's win was the most logical result given the game's general trend.

    Finally, David Navara should have also qualified for the semi-finals today. He had done a great job of outplaying Alexander Grischuk from an equal opening, but at the last second, by his own admission, he got careless. 49.Nc3 would have won a second pawn and rendered the win trivial; instead, his 49.Ke5 allowed Grischuk to escape.

    Tomorrow, then, the Ivanchuk-Radjabov and Grischuk-Navara matches go to tiebreaks. No rest for the players, commentators or bloggers!

    Official website (with video coverage) here, today's games (with my comments) here.

    Monday
    Sep052011

    World Cup 2011: Round 3 Tiebreaks

    We're down to 16 players in the World Cup (remember, the top three qualify for the next Candidates event), and one of them is...David Navara, who pulled out the match against Alexander Moiseenko. In the first rapid game, Navara won a tough rook ending when Moiseenko wrongly retreated with 53...Kf6; it seems that the active 53...Kg4 54.c5 Kf3 55.Rb2 Rh4 speeds Black's counterplay just enough to hold the game.

    The adventures weren't over yet, and as in yesterday's game, the trouble came on move 35. (This time it was a purely chess problem, fortunately.) In a complicated Gruenfeld, White enjoyed a space advantage but Black had sufficient counter-chances thanks to his passed b-pawn. Navara should have played either 35...Qb8, preparing ...Ra2 with an eye to moving the passer further down the board, or at least 35...Bxc4 to avoid some structural damage and giving White a potentially useful passed e-pawn. Instead, his 35...Na5 gave White tremendous activity, and the b-pawn never became a factor; indeed, it was soon lost, along with the game.

    So it was on to a shorter time control, and with Black again Navara managed to obtain a material advantage. They eventually reached an ending where Navara had rook + f- and h-pawn vs. rook, where the rule of thumb is that the weak side should draw unless his king is cut off on the first rank. Moiseenko's king was cut off, but Navara's king was stuck on the h-file, in front of his h-pawn, so it was still a theoretical draw. With limited time to think, however, such an ending is difficult to play without errors, and Moiseenko went astray. His 74.Kf1 allowed Navara to execute a straightforward plan that allowed his king to successfully escape from its dungeon, and he was +1 once again. This time, he kept his lead and even increased it, winning pretty easily on the White side of a 4.Qc2 Nimzo-Indian.

    In other action, Ivanchuk completed his comeback against Sutovsky, winning both rapid games. In the first, Sutovsky seemed unable to decide if he wanted to play aggressively with White or solidly, and in the end that's what killed him. In a position that didn't really call for h4-h5 Sutovsky played it, then took on g6, and then castled, only to discover that Black could start a dangerous attack with ...Kg7 and ...Rh8. You might think Sutovsky would be discouraged, but he played the first half of the next game very well and stood clearly better with Black. With 27...Qc2 he'd have maintained the advantage, but from this point on he started slipping (probably in time trouble), and Ivanchuk's passed a-pawn decided the game.

    So an upset was avoided there, but not in the Zherebukh-Mamedyarov match. In the first rapid game, Zherebukh crushed Mamedyarov when the latter's attempt at a queenside attack only served to open lines for White's better developed forces. (23...c4? was the main culprit.) In the second game Mamedyarov dutifully pushed for a long time, but never came close to a win. Zherebukh drew the game and won the match.

    In Ponomariov-Efimenko the favorite won. Ponomariov won game 1 with Black, grinding out a win from an initially equal ending, and then gave Efimenko a charity draw in the second game, forcing perpetual in a dead won position.

    Kamsky advanced, keeping U.S. hopes alive in the event (and of course, his own pre-retirement hopes as well), defeating Nepomniachtchi. In an equal ending in game 1, Nepomniachtchi's slightly careless (or was it provocative?) 26.Rd2 was met by the strong exchange sac 26...Rxe3! It was a genuine sacrifice, and while the payoff wasn't immediate it eventually came. Kamsky reached a clearly winning position, but then he got sloppy and allowed his opponent to reach a clearly drawn rook vs. rook and pawn ending. I'm not sure what the clock situation was, but the increments should have been enough to draw what is usually the third elementary rook endgame given in the textbooks (after the Lucena and Philidor positions). Nepomniachtchi went for a more complicated drawing method but got confused and lost. In the rematch, Nepomniachtchi tried the Hippo with Black, but Kamsky maintained control and won that game too.

    Other winners: Svidler beat Caruana 2-0, Nielsen likewise beat Parligras 2-0, and in a pair of (relatively minor) upsets Potkin beat Vitiugov and Bruzon defeated Le Quang Liem by 1.5-.5 margins. In both cases the match winner first won with Black and drew with White.

    Finally, Dominguez and Lysyj played 6 quick draws, saving energy but wasting the day until the Armageddon game. Dominguez had White and the need to win, and win he did.

    So here are the pairings for round 4, which starts tomorrow (higher-rated player listed first; note that the pairings are given in bracket order, so the winner of the first match will play the winner of the second; the winner of the first quartet plays the winner of the second, and so on):

    Dominguez - Polgar
    Kamsky - Svidler

    Ponomariov - Bruzon
    Gashimov - Nielsen

    Ivanchuk - Bu Xiangzhi
    Radjabov - Jakovenko

    Navara - Zherebukh
    Grischuk - Potkin

    Links: Official site (with video coverage) here, and the games discussed above (with my comments) are here.

    Sunday
    Sep042011

    The Moiseenko-Navara Draw: Honorable, Or Not?

    In the last post, I gave the details of the very strange Moiseenko-Navara draw as I understood them at the time; now, further details are available. (Have a look here [HT: Mark Crowther].) In brief, on move 35 Navara wanted to move his bishop from e7, but first touched his king on f7 in what seems to be universally accepted as an accident. Moiseenko noted at the time that Navara touched the king and had to move it, but then chose not to insist. Later, so that he wouldn't be viewed as someone who won in an unfair way, Navara offered a draw in a position that was by that moment trivially won. Had he won the game, he would have won the match on the spot and guaranteed himself at least another $7200.

    It is claimed by some parties that this was an example of good sportsmanship, of honorable action, first by Moiseenko and then by Navara. I'm afraid I disagree. Article 4 of the FIDE Laws of Chess, "The act of moving the pieces", makes repeated reference to the player deliberately moving a piece. If it was really clear, as it seems to have been from the players' statements, that Navara accidentally brushed the king on the way to moving the bishop, then Moiseenko is no more being honorable than I would be if I saw someone I knew to be very intelligent adult type "you" as "yuo" and maintained that she really wasn't so stupid as to misspell a first-grade word. This is not an act of supererogatory magnanimity on my part or Moiseenko's, but a trivial display of basic decency. It's hardly even a positive act; it's more like avoiding a really negative behavior.

    For different reasons, I don't think Navara acted properly either. By the rules of the game and by correct sporting norms, he deserved to win. Furthermore, if he has a second or seconds and they are receiving a percentage rather than a purely flat fee, they are thereby entitled to at least the cut they would have received had Navara won. (Of course, he might still qualify, but if he doesn't?) There is something morally attractive about Navara's putting competitiveness on such a low level, but I don't believe it should have been trumped in this case. This isn't like Azmaiparashvili's making a move and hitting the clock against Malakhov some years ago and then requesting (and receiving!) a take-back. Navara had nothing to be ashamed of or any reason to fear that anyone would think of less of him.

    Just to be clear, I'm not claiming that either player acted dishonorably, though if Moiseenko pointed out that Navara "had to" move the king, knowing all the while that it was an accident, before regaining his sportsmanship and retracting the claim, then in that case it would have been a dishonorable initial act on his part. If that's the case, it would be an instance of good sportsmanship by him to resign the match without playing tomorrow. That scenario aside, I wouldn't claim that either player acted dishonorably, but all the same Moiseenko shouldn't have said anything if he believed it was an accident and Navara shouldn't have let his opponent off the hook.

    But maybe I'm wrong. What do you think?

    Sunday
    Sep042011

    World Cup 2011: Round 3, Day 2: Maybe Chess Players Really Are Crazy

    There were some real surprises today, and they ran from one end of the pairing table to the other.

    On board 1, the top seed is out. Sergey Karjakin lost to Judit Polgar yesterday, and was unable to make any headway on the white side of an Open Ruy today. Polgar played well, drew comfortably, and advanced to the round of 16.

    On board 2, Emil Sutovsky reminded us of two things: first, why we love watching his chess; second, why he hasn't gone further in the chess world. With the white pieces and needing only a draw against Vassily Ivanchuk, whom he upset yesterday, you'd expect Sutovsky to choose something solid. Not passive, but solid. So what does he do? 1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nc3 d6 4.f4 Nf6 5.Nf3 0-0 and now not 6.Bd3 but 6.e5 Nfd7 7.h4. It's not that this is a bad line, but it's absurdly committal. Stranger still, a bit further on he went into a line that scores well for Black and that the computer likes for Black as well. The resulting position was an utter mess - just what Sutovsky would have wanted if he had been the one in the must-win situation, but not helpful in his actual circumstances. Sutovsky erred early on, and Ivanchuk played very accurately (though not quite perfectly) and won an impressive game.

    Mamedyarov - Zherebukh and Efimenko - Ponomariov were short draws by players who would apparently prefer to settle things in tomorrow's tiebreaks.

    Gashimov - Tomashevsky saw White get nothing from the opening or the middlegame, but Gashimov ground him down in the ending to win the game and the match.

    Back to the bizarro world. Alexander Morozevich lost a very exciting game to Alexander Grischuk yesterday, so with White you just know he's spoiling for revenge. Win, or at least come home on your shield. Get knocked down six times, get up seven. Eye of the tiger, rage against the dying of the light, etc., etc., etc. Okay, let's see what happened:

    Morozevich-Grischuk: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Qc2 d5 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bg5 h6 7.Bxf6 Qxf6 8.a3 Bxc3+ 9.Qxc3 0-0 10.Nf3 Bf5 11.e3 Rc8 12.Rc1 (still theory) 1/2-1/2.

    Somewhere, the caricature of Peter Leko is spinning in its grave.

    Radjabov - Bacrot saw Radjabov win to advance to the next round. It's interesting that Radjabov plays such sharp and principled openings with Black, but with White is playing the slow systems of the Italian Game. Then again, he's succeeding with it, so why not? He came out of the opening with an edge thanks to his extra space, and Bacrot's attempt to neutralize it by sacrificing the exchange didn't succeed, as Radjabov showed good technique to win the endgame.

    Nepomniachtchi - Kamsky: Nepomniachtchi equalized the match, winning a Gruenfeld-like line of the Symmetrical English. White obtained two advantages out of the opening: the bishop pair and one giant pawn island against Black's two islands. From there, Nepo won a textbook game, restricting Black's position more and more, tying Kamsky up and breaking through on the queenside. They're off to playoffs tomorrow.

    Svidler - Caruana was a short draw; they too will continue to tiebreaks tomorrow.

    Jobava - Jakovenko went into a sideline of the Botvinnik System, and while Jobava never had an advantage, the game was pretty close until 33.c4? As Jakovenko had won the first day, maybe Jobava felt he had to do something radical there to avoid a draw. In any case, the pawn sac didn't help him, and Jakovenko won, sweeping their mini-match 2-0.

    Vitiugov - Potkin was a draw, but unlike many of the other drawn games in 1-1 matches, they played a real game. That's not to say that either player was ever in trouble though: Potkin comfortably equalized with Capablanca's system against the Reti, and had the slightly more comfortable half of the draw. Off to the tiebreaks.

    Nielsen - Parligras: An 18-move draw: playoffs for them.

    Bruzon - Le Quang Liem: A 6.Be3 e5 7.Nf3 Najdorf where Bruzon obtained a serious, at times winning advantage. There seem to be small inaccuracies here and there by both players, but White was clearly better (or more) from the opening through move 33. Here, perhaps in time trouble, Bruzon played two very strange moves: 33.h3? (the Ng4 wasn't in trouble and there were no back rank issues, so this is just an important loss of a tempo) Rxc2 34.b3? (allowing Black to eliminate the dangerous pawn on b7). The best move was 33.Rfe1 (33...Rxc2 34.Rxe4), with the subtle idea of meeting 33...Nd6 with 34.Red1! However, even the more obvious and human moves 33.b3 and 33.c3 would have maintained good winning chances as well. After the moves in the game, Le escaped and drew, and he and Bruzon will also play tomorrow.

    Moiseenko - Navara: I'd love to tell you what happened in this game, but as of this writing there's still some question. Navara failed to convert a winning position yesterday, and it seems he has done so once again today - though not the way you might think. (I doubt any of my readers could even invent such a story.) On move 55, Navara promoted a pawn to a queen, leaving him with just that queen against Moiseenko's rook and e3-pawn. A pawn on that square does not give its possessor a fortress, and on move 73 Navara captured the pawn. Queen vs. rook is a theoretical win for the strong side starting from any normal position, but against strong defense the side with the queen had better know what he's doing, or the 50-move rule will become a factor. And so it was here - it took Navara 32 moves to make four moves' worth of progress. From moves 106 on, however, Navara played perfectly and Moiseenko didn't, and on move 114 (after the move 114...Kd6-c6), with an imminent and obvious mate coming (in four moves), White resigned.

    Or did he? The arbiter put the White king on d4 and now a Black king placed on e5 would indicate that Black won. (For those who wonder why game scores sometimes have bizarre final moves, it's because of the idiotic design of the DGT boards, compounded by incompetent/inadequately trained arbiters. I would love to fire the people at DGT who refuse to create a design that sidesteps this issue and all the ruined and ambiguous game scores this design flaw creates...alas. Obviously the idea of putting a small switch on the side of the board with results for a White win, a Black win and a draw, with a confirmation button, is far too complicated. [No doubt other methods are possible, but isn't that simple enough?] Rant over, until next time.) Anyway, rather than putting the Black king on e5, the arbiter put it on d5. (The way it works is this: the kings go on the central squares. Put both kings on white squares: White wins. Both on black squares: Black wins. Opposite colors: draw.) So a draw?

    I assumed this was just a tired or inattentive arbiter inadvertently showing once again why the DGT design is so hopelessly stupid, but the real story seems to be that it really was a draw. But how? One hypothesis that was kicked around was that Navara misread the scoresheet and offered a draw, thinking that the 50-move rule had come into effect even though only 40 moves (actually 42) had been played. But apparently that isn't it either. Rather, according to Pavel Eljanov's tweets, Navara had accidentally touched a piece in the middlegame and asked his opponent what to do. His opponent just said to make any move he wanted, and he did. But according to those tweets, this occurred in the middlegame, so why did he wait until he had mate in four to offer a draw out of guilt? And in any case, why would he have felt any guilt at all? The touch-move rule covers only cases where one intends to move a piece; when a piece is touched by (physical, not mental!) accident there's no obligation to move it at all. (Maybe this happened in time trouble, and felt that his action caused an improper distraction to his opponent?) Crazy. Anyway, they're off to tiebreaks tomorrow. (HT to Mark Crowther for supplying me with some sources on the controversy.)

    Bu Xiangzhi - Abhijeet Gupta was also absurd, but in a purely chess-related way. Their first game was drawn, and today Gupta enjoyed the advantage in an a quasi-endgame with queens and opposite-colored bishops. I don't think he was ever winning (though 46...Qc1+ 47.Ke2 Qh1 gives him excellent chances, and later 50...Bf4, aiming to put the bishop on e3, would put White on the ropes), but he had enduring pressure in a position he couldn't possibly lose. (Which means, of course, that he did lose it.) The climax of the game came after Bu's ingenious 58.g3! Whether this is best or not is unclear, but it confused Gupta. After 58...hxg3 59.Kg2 Qxb4 (59...Bxb4 was better) 60.Qd8+ it's a draw after either 60...Kf4 or 60...Kh6, but after Gupta's 60...Kh5?? 61.f4! it was time to resign. White threatens both 62.Qg5# and 62.Qh8#, and neither capture on f4 saves Black: 62...Bxf4 63.Bd1+ Kh6 64.Qh8+ Kg5 65.f4#, or 62...Qxf4 63.Bd1+ Kh6 64.Qh8+ Kg5 65.h4+ Qxh4 66.Qd8+ wins the queen. Bu advances to the round of 16.

    Lysyj - Dominguez: White avenged his loss on the previous day, grinding out a win in an ending with knights and opposite-colored bishops. It looks as if Dominguez might have been able to save the game with 54...Ne4+, though it's hard to believe. After 55.Bxe4 fxe4 Black seems to have a kind of fortress: White's knight can't move without dropping the c-pawn (which doesn't make the a-pawn's life a safe one either) and if his king goes to the fifth rank Black has ...e3. So maybe 55.Bxe4 isn't good, but if he doesn't take the knight Black plays 56...Nc5 and White's queenside pawns will disappear. Anyway, even if White has a study-like win after 54...Ne4+, it was Black's best chance. Dominguez preferred to bring his king to f6, to prevent White from playing Kg5, but this simply lost a piece: after 56.Ng3 Black has no defense to the idea of Be6/Bb7 followed by c8Q. They'll have tiebreaks tomorrow.

    The official site (with terrific, replayable video coverage) is here, while a quick source to look at the games (useful to make full sense of the notes above!) is here.

    Wednesday
    Jan192011

    Navara Presents His Game vs. Wojtaszek

    The game David Navara vs. Radowslaw Wojtaszek may be from the B Group of Wijk aan Zee, but this is a very high-class game with both players over 2700. Players of this level obviously prepare deeply and calculate extremely well, but there's more to their ability than that. Watch these videos of Navara presenting the game, especially the endgame phase, and I think you'll also be impressed by their ability to think schematically as well. Navara may be a bit clumsy with the pieces, but the elegance of his thinking is remarkable.

    HT: ChessVibes