• Hasta ahora la sensación del torneo ha sido el jovencísimo filipino Wesley So, que tras provocar (al parecer) la retirada de Ivanchuk del ajedrez en un match bastante afortunado batió en buen estilo a Kamsky (1.5-0.5) Otras sorpresas relativas son Caruana y Lázni?ka; el yanqui-americano superó en la lotería de los desempates a Lenier y Alekseev, mientras que el checo, tras batir convincentemente al Gran Moro, ganó en las semirrápidas a Bologan.

• Los emparejamientos de Octavos de Final son Gelfand - Vachier Lagrave, Grischuk - Jakovenko, Lázni?ka - Mamadyarov, Vitiugov - Karjakin, Gashimov - Caruana, Ponomariov - Bacrot, Svidler - Shirov y So - Malakhov. Ayer Svidler y Mamedjarov venciaron con las piezas negras a Shirov y Lázni?ka, respectivamente. Revisamos el remate de esta última partida:
  

• Para seguir las noticias sobre el torneo TWIC es una buena fuente, como de costumbre, y tampoco está mal revisar ChessVibes; otra opción es Ajedrez en Madrid, si no te llevas nada bien con la Lengua del Imperio. Para seguir las partidas en directo está muy bien el moderno Chess Bomb de Chessdom, con una interfaz elegante y análisis en directo de Rybka 2.2. Para seguir el cuadro del torneo te puedo recomendar por su claridad la entrada de la Wikipedia en Inglés.

• Estos días no tengo tiempo para demasiados análisis, pero mis blogueros favoritos sí: Luis Fdez. Siles comenta un final de alfiles en el que Areschenko vence elegantemente a Jakovenko, y Spraggett está siguiendo el torneo desde el papel de fan declarado de Gelfand.
  

• Como siempre que se organiza un torneo en Rusia, la web oficial tiene interesantes contenidos, pero no es lo mejor para seguir el torneo. El visor en directo no es muy bueno, pero las entrevistas (en inglés y en ruso) resultan interesantes, y el GM Shipov analiza las mejores partidas del día anterior.
  

? 20 ?????? ?? 15 ??????? ? ?????-????????? (??????) ???????? ????? ???? ?? ????????.
???????????? ??????????? ?? ??????-???????.
???????? ???????. ???????? ??????: 90 ??? ?? 40 ?????, ????? 30 ??? + 30 ??? ?? ???, ??????? ? ???????. ???????: 25 ??? + 10 ??? ?? ???. ????: 5 ??? + 3 ??? ?? ???.
?????? ????? ? 13:00 msk.

? ?????????? ????????? ??????? 23 (!) ?????????? ? ??? > 2700.

?????: ???????? – ?????????: 2-2 (½-½, ½-½, ½-½, ½-½). ????????: 2:2 (½-½, 1-0, ½-½, 0-1). ????: 3-1 (1-0, 0-1, 1-0, 1-0).

??????????? ?????? ????????? ? ??????? ???????!

? 1/2 ?????? ??????: ??????? – ????????: 0-2, ????????? – ???????: 1-1 (3-1).

? 1/4 ?????? ???????????: ??????? – ??????????: 1½-½, ???????? – ????????: 1-1 (2½-½), ????????? – ???????: 1-1 (2½-½), ??????? – ???????: ½-1½.

? 1/8 ?????? ???????????: ?????-?????? – ????????: 1-1 (2-2, ½-1½), ?????? – ????????: 1-1 (2-2, 0-2), ???????? – ??????????: ½-1½, ??????? – ???????: 1½-½, ??????? – ???????: 1-1 (2½-½), ????? – ?????????: 1-1 (1½-2½), ????? – ???????: ½-1½, ?? – ???????: 1-1 (0-3).

? ??????? ????? ???????????: ???????? – ??????: 1-1 (2½-½), ?????-?????? – ? ?????: 1½-½, ??????? – ??????: 1-1 (2-2, 0-2), ???????? – ????????: 1-1 (3-1), ??????? – ????????: 1-1 (½-2½), ?????????? – ??? ???: 1½-½, ?????? – ???????: ½-1½, ?????? – ???????: 1-1 (0-3), ?? ??? – ??????? : 1-1 (½-2½), ??????? – ????????: 1-1 (2½-1½), ????????? – ???????: 1½-½, ????? – ???? ??: 1-1 (2½-½), ??????? – ??????: 1-1 (2-2, 2-0), ??????????? – ?????: ½-1½, ??????? – ??: ½-1½, ??????? – ???????: 1-1 (0-3).

????? ? ????? ?? ?????? ??????: I ????: 1-? ????; 2-? ????; ???-?????. II ????: 1-? ????; 2-? ????; ???-?????. III ????: 1-? ????. 2-? ????. ???-?????. 1/8 ??????: 1-? ????. 2-? ????. ???-?????. 1/4 ??????: 1-? ????. 2-? ????. ???-?????. 1/2 ??????: 1-? ????. 2-? ????. ???-?????. ?????: 1-? ????. 2-? ????. 3-? ????. 4-? ????.

??????? ??????????????????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ??? CBV-????.

??????? ????????: I ????: 1-? ???? (a, b); 2-? ???? (a). II ????: 1-? ???? (a, b). III ????: 1-? ???? (a); 2-? ???? (a).

??????? ??????????????????? ?????? ??? CBV-????.

?????????? ?? ??????? ?????????: ?????? ??????????.

??????????? ????.
?????? ?????????? ??????.
????????? ???????.

?????

Are chess books getting better? Take the first volume of The Complete Hedgehog by Sergey Shipov: although I’ve read many books on the Hedgehog system, I think this is the best one by far. It’s more accessible, better explained, better written, it’s much more interesting for readers who do not play the Hedgehog at all, and it’s funny on top of that. Now, did they make such chess books in the 50s and 60s or even the 70s and 80s? I, for one, haven’t seen them too often.  

If chess books in general are really improving over time, it would be another example of the incorrectness of the widely held opinion that everything becomes worse and worse over time. (Here’s a very interesting essay on the decline of violence over time.) One of the explanations for this in the world of chess books is, of course, that there are simply more chess authors around. Another reason is that chess education has improved a lot. Yet another is that it’s much more important to write in an appealing, accessible style because of the arrival of new media such as chess videos and online lectures. I guess all are valid, and I think we should be glad that we’re living in such interesting times. These days, it’s possible to be extremely enthousiastic about a chess book almost every month.

The Hedgehog is surely one of the most difficult and fascination opening systems around, confusing and often frustrating thousands of chess fans around the world, not only club players  but also strong masters. Still, grandmaster Sergey Shipov, editor-in-chief of the well-known Russian website www.crestbook.com shows that such ignorance can actually become a force and a source of joy once you’re willing to embrace the principles of the Hedgehog with full conviction.  The Complete Hedgehog, published by Mongoose Press, is one of those rare chess books that are both enthusiastic and completely honest.

So what is the Hedgehog? I’ve never seen a better explanation than the one Shipov provides in the introduction:

Opocensky-Saemisch
Bad Pistyan 1922

Observe: four of Black’s pawns have lined up along the sixth rank (sometimes they are joined by the g- and h-pawns) and with their short, strong spines (thus ‘hedgehog’, not ‘porcupine’!), they control the fifth rank in front of then. The hostile armies complete their reorganizations inside the space set aside for them. White has four ranks, Black three. The appearance of a pawn or a piece usually signals the start of sharp conflict, in which the winner will be the one who is better prepared. Besides the outward resemblance, these kinds of setups also resemble the woodland creature in the way they deal with an enemy who is superior to them in spatial measurement: Black spends a great deal of time in strictly defensive maneuvers [sic], under cover of his pawn-spines, in order to find the right moment to leap out suddenly and bite White. (…)

The possible permutations of the Hedgehog position are huge, many of them without any real theoretical significance. Thus, for example, I remember that in my school days, when facing weak opposition, I used to play the weirdest Hedgehog positions in blitz games. For instance, I might open a game as White with 1.a3, followed by 2.b3, 3.c3, 4.d3, 5.e3, 6.f3, 7.g3, 8.Bg2, 9.Ra2, etc., regardless of what Black played, reaching a very strange and non-viable version of the Hedgehog. (…) The Hedgehog is a garden of branching paths that suddenly can come back together as one. The problem of transposing or combining variations prevents us from describing these Hedgehog setups in encyclopedic fashion – that is, move after move. So the logical approach is to divide them up, not accordin to openings, but by the pawn structure that exists after the development of the pieces is completed.

This is a lengthy quote, but some very important things can be extracted from it. First of all, the reader will note Shipov’s style: often personal and anecdotal, and he’s not afraid to make lively analogies look more than just a play with words. In this respect, I was often reminded of Ilya Odessky’s book on 1.b3, which I also reviewed and liked a lot. Is it me or are Russian authors often funnier than Western European chess book writers? Well, perhaps not: a second thing that becomes clear from the above excerpt is that Shipov adopts a completely different style than Alexander Khalifman’s book series Opening Repertoire for White according to Kramnik, which also deals (Vol. 2) with the Hedgehog.

Khalifman’s series - not exactly ‘funny’ but very good nevertheless – does use a rather ‘encyclopedic’ approach to explain openings, and from Shipov’s explanation it becomes clear why, in my mind, Khalifman doesn’t always succeed here.  (By the way, Shipov’s book unfortunately does not have a bibliography, so I don’t know whether he was implicitly referring to Khalifman here.) At any rate, Khalifman in his book does not attempt to explain what the Hedgehog really ‘is’, anyway, primarily focused as he is on variations and moves. A book that does try to explain the system from a more conceptual, almost philosophical point of view is Mihai Suba’s classic The Hedgehog. The main difference between Shipov’s and Suba’s book is, in my view, that Suba still doesn’t go all the way in describing the Hedgehog as a holistic concept that can be applied to entirely different openings than just the English after 1.c4 or 1.Nf3.

To illustrate what I mean, here are two positions from Shipov’s chapter ’Getting to the Hedgehog Opening Structure’:

These are positions from the Paulsen Sicilian and the King’s Indian Defence - both resulting in Hedgehogs. However, this is not the end of it. The fact that the Hedgehog can result from many different openings doesn’t mean it should always be expected. In fact, even one of the players aims for a Hedgehog-type setup, this is not enough. As Shipov explains:

In order to reach the required structure, one only needs to exchange Black’s c-pawn for White’s d-pawn and allow White to occupy the center. (…) I should warn my young and impressionable readers that Hedgehog structures can occur only if both sides are willing; so there’s no point in studying the Hedgehog with the aim of making it your principal system for Black, because ‘wicked’ opponents might not allow you to set it up at the board. (…) And so, obtaining the Hedgehog depends first of all on White’s desire to attack Black’s apparently passive and vulnerable position.  

This is the kind of explanation that I missed in the book by Suba, who often seems merely overjoyed by the fact that the Hedgehog should appear at all in a game, and that it should always be the right strategy. Shipov himself dismisses such wet dreams best, when he reproaches his youthful self for trying to reach the Hedgehog at all times:

No, my friends – one should not make a fetish out of the Hedgehog, striving to set it up in every situation regardless of the consequences. (…) Chess is rich in possibilities, and can’t be restricted to a catechism of spiny little beasties. 

So what exactly are the characteristics of the infamous Hedgehog – in other words, what makes it such a feared, complex and respected system? Well, you should really read the entire chapter Shipov devotes to the ‘Hedgehog philosophy’, but here are a few of Shipov’s main points:

• “In the Hedgehog, Black operates in guerilla style: avoiding direct contact, he hides in the bushes, observes his foe, waits, and then attacks at the most unexpected moment.”
• Contratry to what common chess wisdom teaches about cramped positions, in the Hedgehog, “exchanges are bad for Black, because they decrease his fighting potential.”
• “Right away, and with no regrets, I will tell you that, in the larger sense, the Hedgehog is a risky opening.”
• In the Hedgehog, Black “sets up a solid wall of pawns, behind whose protection he can arrange a universal piece placement that’s guaranteed to be a good one.”
• Psychology plays an important role: “When [White] takes over the center without a struggle, he gets a feeling of superiority, regardless of his rating. (…) It’s a drive that frequently leads to an unprepared attack.”
• “The Hedgehog displays only an insignificant part of its possibilities. Its handlers must calculate many variations during the course of the game, and consider many nuances, the vast bulk of which never will turn into actual moves. (…) Literally at every move, the players must examine Black’s possible breaks with … b6-b5 and …d6-d5, as well as White’s active possibilites. (…) So time scrambles are an objective necessity for those who play the Hedgehog.”
• “Those who feel uncomfortable in close quarters – in elevators, for example – should not be playing the Hedgehog. (…) The blood of the Hedgehogger must run cold as ice – at least, until a certain moment arrives…”

At this point, perhaps you think I am giving away the contents of the book already. Well, not exactly: all my quotes are from the first 20 pages only, and the book has over 500. The rest of the book, of course, is more concrete and deals with variations and moves. The main focus of these lines is on the so-called ‘English Hedgehog’, arising after 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 c5 3.Nf3 e6 4.g3 b6 5.Bg2 Bb7 6.0-0 Be7.

The book then divides into two main chapters: the classical continuation 7.d4 and the more modern system starting with 7.Re1. And Shipov deals wonderfully with the relevant games and variations and especially its ideas. Here’s an example of his clear way of explanations (and his talent for picking good examples):

DeFirmian-Zivanovic
Smederevska Palanka 1981

Let’s study this position carefully. The knight on c5 is pinned, the c6 square is weak: the white knight is heading there. Black’s king is far from the battlefield, so the invasion of White’s rook at d7 or d6 could be very dangerous. In addition, there’s a real weakness: the b6-pawn. White’s knight is very strong on e5; he also has a pawn majority on the queenside, with the possibility of creating a passed pawn there. All these nuances, taken together, define White’s advantage in this endgame as tangible and stable.

16…Bf8

The most natural reply. Black unpins the knight on c5 and draws the sting from the white knight’s leap to c6. In that case, Black would reply …Rd8-c8 and the rogue would be forced to retreat.

17.Bxc5! Yet another unpleasant surprise!

17…Bxc5 On 17…bxc5 White would also answer 18.Na4!, when the weak c5-pawn becomes a permanent weakness. (…)

18.Na4! A very unpleasant sortie from Black’s point of view. The ‘b6+Bc5′ construction is now under pressure.

 However, a warning seems appropriate. The book is mainly devoted to systems where after 7.Re1, Black does not play the critical moves  7…d5 or 7…Ne4 but instead strives for a ‘real’ Hedgehog with the black pawn on d6. All we read about these lines is this:

 The advance 7…d5 is the most logical move, from the standpoint of the principle of fighting for the center. After 8.cxd5, Black has two cardinally different paths. On 8…exd5 9.d4 0-0 10.Bf4 Na6, we have a standard Queen’s Indian type of structure. This is a great theme for a different thick book, and would probably also be best handled by a different author. In the variation 8….Nxd5 9.e4 Nb4 10.d4, a sharp clash of pieces begins in the center, which you may get a first-hand look at from the classic game B.Larsen-S.Gligoric, Bled 1979.

About 7…Ne4 we get just one variation and the assertion that “the continuation 7…Ne4 may be labeled perfectly safe; but it still doesn’t lead to a full-fledged Hedgehog.  The positions it produces are empty and boring – like a dinner without salt and pepper: tasteless!” To his credit, Shipov is the first to admit that this selection is biased and decided by taste rather than objectivity. Still, I can imagine readers who want to know all inside-out details of the Hedgehog will be disappointed by this omission. Shipov hasn’t written a compendium but a personal account, and readers who are more interested in objective variations only, should probably think twice before buying this book.

There are probably more things to this book that could be called a little odd: sometimes, the translation seems a bit forced (’the player of White‘ isn’t really a conventional way of indicating players). As said, there’s no bibliography and neither is there an index of variations (which is particularly impractical what with all the possible transpositions, although perhaps it’s done on purpose to avoid the ‘encyclopedia’ image). Finally, I have been unable to figure our what we are to expect from part 2. Shipov mysteriously (or vaguely, depending on your state of mind) ends the final chapter Looking into the Future, with the words “Time will tell! And everything will find its place…” and his Conclusion with “Play the Hedgehog! More to come…”. I honestly don’t know what to make of this.

But frankly, it doesn’t really matter. The Complete Hedgehog vol. 1 is a great book, probably the best ever on its subject. Shipov is a highly entertaining author, a true master in explaining ideas and the underlying stragies and psychology. And all this is written in an unmistakenly humouristic, erudite and personal style that distinguishes him from many of his predecessors; in short: Sergey Shipov is your ideal chess instructor.  Now go buy his book and enjoy your holidays.

Links

• Get yourself a copy of The Complete Hedgehog vol. 1
• Read more book reviews

We have just received from our friends at Mongoose Press in Massachusetts: The Complete Hedgehog, Volume 1.

The Hedgehog is a thoroughly modern defense where concepts and understanding are more important than plain memorization. It can be played against e4, d4 or c4 and is a respected weapon in Black’s armory.

Tal, Larsen, Karpov and Kasparov, have played this opening. Sergey Shipov draws on decades of experience playing this defense, andhas written much more than a simple opening manual full of variations.

Shipov not only explains strategic themes, typical formations and move-order subtleties, along the way he also teaches one of the most important skills in chess: how to evaluate a position.

Garry Kasparov says about The Complete Hedgehog: “I highly recommend this book because it investigates strategic concepts instead of being limited to mere reactions.”

Please have a look at this brilliant book.

Aronian and Leko are leading the Jermuk Grand Prix with 3/4 after a great fourth round, in which they both won their White games, against Kamsky and Karjakin respectively. Ivanchuk moved to shared third place thanks to a wonderful attacking game against Alekseev. Full report.

The 5th tournament in the FIDE Grand Prix Series takes place in Jermuk, Armenia. It’s a 14-player round-robin with Aronian, Jakovenko, Leko, Gelfand, Bacrot, Kamsky, Karjakin, Eljanov, Alekseev, Akopian, Ivanchuk, Cheparinov, Inarkiev and Kasimdzhanov. More info on the GP and Jermuk in our preview.

Round 4

The fourth was clearly the best round so far, with three wins and a number of interesting draws. Game of the day was Aronian-Kamsky that started with a very irregular and therefore highly interesting opening: 1.c4 g6 2.e4 e5 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nf3 Bb4+ 5.Nc3 (already a novelty!) and now after 5…exd4 the amazing 6.a3!?. Black’s king and surrounding dark squares looked shaky from the start and so credit should go to Kamsky for avoiding a mate, but Aronian finished it off anyway by liquidating to a won ending. Smooth play by the top seed!

Aronian explaining his victory with Lilit Mkrtchian next to him

Before that, Leko had scored the first victory of the day, with White against Karjakin. The tournament website suggests that the Hungarian might have been inspired by the arrival of his wife Sofi. In any case, it’s clear that Leko is clearly picking the fruits of his broad opening repertoire by now. “The best way of meeting the Petroff is to play 1.d4″ is a Shirov quote, if I remember correctly, and it might be the case for Karjakin’s Najdorf too! In a Queen’s Indian the now Russian GM got into trouble quickly and was looking at a hopeless position around move 23 already.

Signing an autograph for a young chess fan... Leko's wife Sofi on the right

Another cool encounter was Ivanchuk-Alekseev in which the Ukrainian beautifully refuted Black’s set-up with not one, but two knights on the rim. The knight is a very good defender so leaving both of them that far from the king is playing with fire, as was demonstrated in great style by Ivanchuk.

Tigran Petrosian’s live commentary is a bit disappointing (nothing at all around the star move 21.Nd5!) and makes us wondering whether Sergey Shipov’s approach of focusing one just one game isn’t preferable. Anyway, it seems that 23…Re8 might have been the decisive mistake but the position was very difficult to defend already.

Ivanchuk explaining his win with typical gestures

The draw between Bacrot and Eljanov was played out till bare kings and all in all it was quite an instructive Zaitsev Ruy Lopez, starting with the fight for the d5 square, then a rook ending and even a pawn ending to conclude with. Jakovenko and Gelfand was theory for exactly half of the game and soon after Black had equalized, the players went for a repetition.

Akopian couldn’t break through Kasimdzhanov’s Petroff despite trying hard, which included a pawn sacrifice in return for nice centralization and a silly black knight on b7. Poor Inarkiev spoilt a probably winning position for the third time in a row against Cheparinov. Watching the game live I spotted 36.Qe3! but the Russian must have totally forgottten about his g2 pawn there.

Round 4 games

Game viewer by ChessTempo

Jermuk Grand Prix 2009 | Schedule & results

All photos © Arman Kharakhanyan

Links

• Official website
• Games in PGN

The FIDE Grand Prix in Jermuk, Armenia started today with five draws and two decisive games in the first round. Cheparinov beat Jakovenko using the Four Knights while Peter Leko defeated Ernesto Inarkiev with Black in an Anti-Marshall. Full, pictorial report.

The 5th tournament in the FIDE Grand Prix Series takes place in Jermuk, Armenia. It’s a 14-player round-robin with Aronian, Jakovenko, Leko, Gelfand, Bacrot, Kamsky, Karjakin, Eljanov, Alekseev, Akopian, Ivanchuk, Cheparinov, Inarkiev and Kasimdzhanov. More info on the GP and Jermuk in our preview.

Round 1

While it’s still highly unclear whether this first FIDE Grand Prix will be concluded as planned, with no news whatsoever about the 6th and last tournament scheduled for December, the 5th event has started, and quite smoothly or so it seems, in Jermuk, Armenia. In New in Chess Magazine 2009/4 yours truly wrote that “perhaps it’s best to look at the Grand Prix tournaments like most of the participants are doing by now: as a series of individual super-tournaments with many strong players and good prize money.”

With two Grand Prix victories already in the pocket, Levon Aronian should be considered favourite to win this tournament and the GP in general. Armenia’s number one player needs to do very little to surpass Grischuk’s 2nd place in the overall GP standings: he’s just 3⅓ points behind the Russian while one more tournament result will be counted and Grischuk has already played his 4 tournaments.

Aronian started on home ground with a solid draw with the Black against Ivanchuk. With his bishop pair White kept a very small plus in a Guioco Pianissimo – apparently Ivanchuk had little appetite to test the already legendary preparation of the Aronian/Sargissian tandem in either the Marshall or the Berlin Wall.

The tournament is officialy opened with a handshake between FIDE President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov and President of Armenia Serzh Sargsyan, with Vassily Ivanchuk, Levon Aronian and all other players watching (Zahar Efimenko to the left)

Peter Leko, who lost the crucial last-round game of the previous Grand Prix in Nalchik to Aronian, must have travelled to Armenia with similar hopes and ambitions, and lived up to them immediately. After his colorless Dortmund tournament the Hungarian is showing serious business right from the start in Jermuk with a very nice black victory against Ernesto Inarkiev. A small inaccuracy by the Russian was immediately punished and although White’s bishop was trapped like a rat, Leko made use of a nice tactic to win the rook instead.

Boris Gelfand lost his White game against Pavel Eljanov in Nalchik but this time it went much better. GM Tigran Petrosian (a logical choice in a tournament that’s dedicated to 80th birth anniversary of the former world champion bearing the same name) is doing live commentary of all games and so we cannot expect the same depth of GM Sergey Shipov, who always focused on one game during the day and only then started looking at the other six. However, it’s still a bit disappointing that Petrosian couldn’t pinpoint where exactly White lost his endgame advantage.

Sergey “just married” Karjakin not only brought his wife WIM Kateryna Dolzhikova to Jermuk, but also Alexander Motylev. After obtaining Russian citizenship Karjakin can now work with strong coaches (see our interview) and after working with Yuri Dokhoian in Nalchik, he’s now got himself the 2009 Poikovsky winner working for him! It immediately paid off as Karjakin used Motylev’s idea 18…Re8 and drew quickly with Rustam Kasimdzhanov in a Queen’s Indian.

Karjakin and Kasimdzhanov at the press conference, hosted by IM Lilit Mkrtchian (2467), who celebrated her 27th birthday yesterday

Alekseev-Akopian was a highly thematical Chigorin Ruy Lopez where White trades his ‘good’ bishop for Black’s ‘bad’ one to make use of the c5 square. However, with this pawn structure Black can sometimes make use of the d4 square himself, and this is what happened.

Ivan Cheparinov had a quite successful preparation himself. Like Ivanchuk he avoided Spanish theory (in Dmitry Jakovenko’s case the Berlin Wall) and went for the Four Knights, using the interesting set-up 11.Bd2!? and 12.Bd3. Although he wasn’t prepared for this, Jakovenko reacted solidly and Black was doing fine for a long time. Only 29…Qe5? was a mistake, where he overestimating the rook endgame – Black should have played 29…dxc2.

Jakovenko and Cheparinov at the press conference

The only game we didn’t mention yet was Kamsky-Bacrot but this one can be quickly forgotten. White used an innocuous line of the Symmetrical English which can be found on the repertoires of ultra-solid grandmasters like Ribli and Andersson. Without the Sofia Rule, the players would have shaken hands around move 16 already.

Round 1 games

Click on the pairings at the top of the board to reveal a drop down list of all the games. More info on our new game viewer can be found here.

Game viewer by ChessTempo

Jermuk Grand Prix 2009 | Schedule & results

As the tournament website reports, the opening ceremony was quite spectacular last night, covered live on Armenia’s Public TV channel and witnessed by nearly 3000 people who crowded around the central pond in the quaint center of Jermuk, Armenia.

Spectators were treated to a variety of live songs, a retrospective short film about World Champion Tigran Petrosian, speeches by the President of Armenia Serge Sargsyan and President of FIDE Kirsan Iljumdzhinov as well as a clip documenting the last two Olympiad victories by Armenia’s national team.

The participants had a unique vantage point, viewing the entertainment while cruising around the pond on a motorized raft while enduring the evening cold temperatures.

The drawing of the lots took place on the raft itself

An organizer this time: GM Smbat Lputian

Peter Leko talking to special guest GM Svetozar Gligoric

Thousands of spectators in chess-loving Armenia...

...who had a beautiful view especially when it got dark...

...of the raft and the ceremonies

A big star: Levon Aronian

The two presidents playing a game themselves during the first round

Traditionally, by now, the press conferences are held with a TV screen showing the position

Also pretty typical: seconds working with laptops in a hotel lobby - Igor Kurnosov and Denis Khismatullin

All photos © Arman Kharakhanyan

Links

• Official website
• Games in PGN

I have been writing about positions with bishops of opposite colour for a while now, and today came across another example on this topic – this time from an endgame with queens. The video has annotations by Russian grandmaster Sergei Shipov, translated into English:

The final position is quite thematic, it’s as if White has an extra piece for the attack – the bishop on e4, and Black can’t defend against threats of Qh3x and Qh7x:

I am always on a search for good free chess videos to watch while exercising, the Crestbook channel on youtube is to be highly recommended.

Luca Shytaj batte il GM Drozdovsky (2620)!!

Anche Fabio Bruno a punteggio pieno. Oggi in diretta: GM Sulskis (2559) - Bruno e IM Petrov (2479) - Shytaj

Ben 38 nazioni rappresentate nell’Arctic Chess Challenge 2009, che si svolge a Tromso dal 01 al 08 agosto. Siamo in una località affascinante, la città  con oltre 50.000 abitanti più a nord nel mondo, oltre il circolo polare artico!

Tromso

In uno dei miei pochi viaggi all’estero ho avuto il privilegio di visitare la Norvegia, fino a Capo Nord e passando dall’incantevole Tromso, situata su un’isoletta tra i fiordi (con estensione sulla terraferma e su un’altra isola), riportando con piacere il ricordo dei tersi e cristallini colori del grande nord. Grandi distese inabitate, con case isolate che restituiscono la sensazione di un forte contatto con la natura. Le betulle decrescono in dimensioni man mano che ci si avvicina al circolo polare artico, fino a lasciare spazio alla tundra. Ovunque le renne punteggiano l’arcano paesaggio (e lo stufato di renna è un’esperienza gastronomica da non perdere!).

Una classica immagine composita del "Sole di mezzanotte"

E c’è naturalmente il sole di mezzanotte, anche se a Tromso il periodo è già passato (21 maggio / 21 luglio) e il sole si concede già diversi minuti sotto l’orizzonte prima di albeggiare! Tromso è stata il punto di partenza di tante spedizioni al Polo Nord. E’ una cittadina piena di vita e si dice che la somma dei posti a sedere nei vari pub, ristoranti e caffè renderebbe possibile a tutti gli abitanti di Tromso di uscire contemporaneamente (Wiki)! Il clima, in proporzione alla latitudine, è relativamente mite, anche se d’inverno i due metri di neve sono garantiti. Tromso è candidata ad ospitare le Olimpiadi Invernali del 2018 ma, soprattutto ( ), è candidata per le Olimpiadi Scacchistiche del 2014!

In questa atmosfera maestosa e quasi fatata (e non abbiamo parlato dei Troll!) si svolge una manifestazione scacchistica interessante e che comincia a vantare una buona tradizione. Siamo nella terra di sua futura maestà Magnus Carlsen, che ha partecipato, già da over 2700, nel 2006 e nel 2007, senza tuttavia arrivare alla vittoria. Nel 2006 l’inaspettata sconfitta con il vincitore Shipov frenò la corsa del fenomeno norvegese, giunto secondo con 7 su 9. Nel 2007 partecipazione di Magnus in stile quasi vacanziero, con troppe patte con giocatori (norvegesi…) più deboli, chiudendo anche stavolta a 7 su 9. Partecipazione comunque di ottimo livello e vittoria per Moiseenko davanti a Lie Kietil e Gashimov. Lo scorso anno successo per Igor Kurnosov davanti a Simen Agdestein.

Magnus e Hammer nell'edizione 2007

Successo crescente in questa edizione e prima volta oltre i 100 partecipanti, con 134 giocatori impegnati in un open integrale a sistema svizzero. Non mi sembra sia prevista un’accelerazione nel sistema di abbinamenti e questo potrebbe rendere non facile, con le nuove regole, l’inseguimento di una eventuale norma GM, con il rischio di incontrare diversi avversari con un Elo inferiore a 2200. Tabellone comunque di tutto rispetto, con quattro over 2600. I primi 16:

GM Bartosz Socko 2656

GM Igor Khenkin 2634

GM Yuri Drozdovskij 2620

GM Emanuel Berg 2610

GM Jon Ludvig Hammer 2583

GM Vadim Malakhatko 2570

GM Sarunas Sulskis 2559

GM Julian Radulski 2539

GM Allan Stig Rasmussen 2536

GM Matthew J Turner 2517

IM Ray Robson 2491

GM Amon Simutowe 2481

IM Marijan Petrov 2479

IM Kalle Kiik 2475

IM Fabio Bruno 2455

IM Luca Shytaj 2455

Emanuel Berg e Bartosz Socko

Le speranze norvegesi puntano sul giovane Jon Ludvig Hammer, coetaneo di Magnus che sta avendo una crescita importante ed è ormai vicino ai 2600. Da seguire la prova della “rising star” americana Ray Robson (15 anni il prossimo ottobre), che ha recentemente vinto il titolo USA under 20 con una performance over 2700 ed è già da alcuni anni una promessa di primissimo livello. Presente anche il “finalmente GM” Amon Simutowe (tantissime norme ma quota 2500 superata faticosamente, finora solo durante un torneo), apprezzato partecipante in diversi nostri open.

Ray Robson

Montepremi di circa 14.000 euro. Si gioca alle 15 dal primo al quinto turno, per poi passare alle 12 negli ultimi quattro turni (non chiedetemi perché  ). Tempo di gioco senza incremento, di due ore per 40 mosse e un’ora per finire la partita, una delle cadenze Fide valida per le norme. Nove scacchiere in diretta, in cui speriamo di poter seguire nei prossimi turni le prestazioni dei nostri alfieri.

Luca Shytaj ritaglia gli spazi possibili dai suoi notevoli studi universitari, viene da un torneo con segnali interessanti di buon gioco ad Andorra e potrebbe aver oliato il motore per questa gara: prima o poi…   La carriera di Fabio Bruno è ben nota, con la ripresa dell’attività agonistica dopo una quindicina d’anni e l’arrivo di grandi soddisfazioni, con il Campionato Italiano, il titolo di Maestro Internazionale e le due norme di GM già nel carniere. Il neo CT potrebbe forse riuscire a regalarsi anche il massimo titolo e sarà sicuramente preparato ed agguerrito per questa gara.

Luca Shytaj

Sito di riferimento: http://www.arcticchess.org/ 

 Aurora boreale su Tromso e un bel logo dall'edizione 2006

VISORE

In another excellent round fight in Nalchik, Evgeny Alekseev climbed to shared first place after a fine win over Sergey Karjakin. Gata Kamsky finally won again, beating Grischuk with Black, and Etienne Bacrot scored his first win of the tournament after drawing eight. The rest of the games were very interesting draws.

By Arne Moll

I have to admit that when I hear the name ‘Alekseev’, I still find myself thinking sometimes: ‘Sorry, Who?’. Alekseev is not a name as familiar yet as Aronian or Karjakin, but yesterday, the Russian showed how unfair this is. In a great game he beat young Sergey Karjakin on his own territory: the Najdorf Sicilian. For this occasion, Alekseev had prepared the little Fischer line 6.h3!? The players followed an old game Bronstein-Gufeld from 1965, but on move 12, Karjakin already played the rather strange move 12…Nc6?! after which White was able to gain the pair of bishops. Personally, I find it hard to imagine why Karjakin chose for this kind of position, for the rest of the game was a fine and instructive display of how to make use of your centralized bishops. I liked the moves 22.b2-b3 and 25.b3-b4 with the idea of gaining space on the queenside. Karjakin got a weak pawn on b5 and Alekseev won it quickly, after which Black’s counter play wasn’t sufficient to confuse the Russian, who moves into first place.

Super-theoretician Levon Aronian scored yet another opening success with Black. In a sharp Vienna Variation, 19…Rg8! was only the first new move, and it was also a strong one. Boris Gelfand, no less a theory expert himself, thought for a long time, and with a few sharp moves and an exchange sac, it looked like he refuted Aronian’s preparation, but in the end a draw was agreed on anyway, despite Black’s isolated doubled f-pawns. Aronian is simply in great shape and is still in shared first place.

In the game Eljanov-Kasimdzhanov, Black also had to accept isolated doubled f-pawns, but at least White had the same problem since his h-pawns had the same defect. One of the main features of these structures is that you control a lot of squares and this was exactly what could be seen in the current game. The subtle manoeuvring and fight for important squares reminded me of some of the classic manoeuvring games from long gone days: knights making long trips to get to the vital squares, rooks occupying outposts on open files and bishops attempting to attack weak pawns. I felt as if I was a live witness to a Capablanca or Rubinstein game! I imagine that normally it would have been Kasimdzhanov, who had the worse bishop, being the one most happy with the final result (draw), if he hadn’t hadn’t missed the win twice at the very end.

Games round 9

Vassily Ivanchuk again failed to convert a good position to a win, this time against Vladimir Akopian. As GM commentator Sergey Shipov noted, 16.f3! was the start of White’s way of make ‘elbow room’ after a quiet but interesting English Opening. I really thought Chuky was going to make it this time, but it must be said that Akopian put up a great defensive show and after some fruitless attempts to break Black’s wall, White settled for a move repetition.

If you replay the game Svidler-Leko quickly without paying attention, you might think it was just another uneventful theoretical Ruy Lopez draw, but looks deceive. First of all, the opening line, the “Anti-Marshall Marshall Gambit” with 8.h3 and 9…d5, with which both Svidler and Leko have experience, was not uninteresting. Then, as was mentioned by Shipov, Svidler could have won with the nice thematical bishop sac 27.Bxg7+! which completely destroys the defence of the black king, but the Russian either didn’t see it or didn’t calculate it well! After this missed chance, rooks and queens were swapped and a draw was agreed upon.

Bacrot scores a nice attacking victory over Mamedyarov

Last but not least, we are happy for Etienne Bacrot for scoring his first win of the tourney. This game too, reminded me of classic games from the old days, but this time it could well have been grandmaster vs. N.N. The Frenchman punished Shakhriyar Mamedyarov for his too risky opening play, a sharp Sicilian Taimanov/Paulsen hybrid in which Black was stuck with a king in the middle of the board. 12…c5 was already slightly unusual: normally, 12…Qa5 is played. Mamedyarov played Qa5 a move later, but it’s debatable whether combining it with c5 is such a good idea. As Shipov points out, 16…Bf8 was the last chance for a decent game. After that, it was just one-way traffic and after a mere 31 moves, it was all over.

Videos

A video of round 9 will be added later today.

Links

• Tournament website
• Games in PGN

In round seven of the Nalchik Grand Prix, Karjakin and Eljanov won their games, while Aronian maintained his lead. The round was also notable for the players‘ opening choices – some were unusual, some instructive and some rather strange. Update: video added!

By Michael Schwerteck

Games round 7

The greatest revelation, as far as openings are concerned, was made by Gata Kamsky. In his match with Topalov he greatly surprised his opponent by playing the French Defence for the first time in his life. Topalov decided to avoid the sharpest lines and chose 3.Nd2. The big question was: what had Kamsky prepared against the most principled move 3.Nc3? Now, after the game against Sergey Karjakin, we probably know the answer – the pawn sac line in the Winawer with the slightly unusual twist 11…dxc3 and 12…d4 instead of the well-known 11…Bd7 and 12…dxc3.

Karjakin and Kamsky at the press conference

Karjakin chose 13.Ng3 [at the press conference he admitted that Nxd4 was the critical choice, but he decided to avoid Kamsky's preparation - PD], but the opening was a success for Black who obtained dangerous compensation for a pawn. We will probably see this line more often now! The final phase of the game was weird: Kamsky had a winning attack, but somehow completely lost his head, ruined his position and finally lost on time. What happened to his nerves of steel? The French doesn’t bring him luck – he keeps getting decent positions, but his score his 0/4!

Another theoretically important game was Grischuk-Akopian, which started with 22 moves of sharp theory in the Slav 6.Ne5 line. It’s not easy to understand what attracted Akopian to play the black side, however. The position isn’t very pleasant for Black and after theory was left, he was soon much worse. Grischuk won a pawn, but then probably chose the wrong plan and misplaced his rook. Akopian managed to activate his forces and got enough counterplay for a draw.

In the clash of two Marshall Gambit experts, Bacrot-Aronian, another long theoretical line was played. As usual, the Armenian parried his opponent’s ideas pretty easily and made a comfortable draw. We have already seen a lot of games like this, where Black’s bishop pair and/or light-square blockade controls White’s queenside majority and we will probably see many similar games in the future. Yawn.

What’s even more annoying for the 1.e4 player than the Marshall Gambit? The Petroff, of course. According to Mig Greengard, every time this defence is beaten, an angel gets its wings (this is how it looks). The poor angels have to be very patient, however. This time it was Peter Svidler who couldn’t do anything to create problems for Rustam Kasimdzhanov. The Russian’s pawn sacrifice 14.b4!? was original, but as he commented himself, it was already played with the aim to make a draw. Does a devil get its horns now?

Gelfand often works together with Eljanov, and this time he lost to his young colleague

Vassily Ivanchuk is another player who has been in poor form so far. This time, after leaving theory very quickly, he got a promising position against Peter Leko, only to spoil it by missing 38…Bb3. An Ivanchuk in normal shape would never miss such a relatively simple tactical motif. A lucky draw for Leko, who had completely misplayed the early middlegame.

Evgeny Alekseev for a long time played very well against Shakriyar Mamedyarov, but he too only got a disappointing draw in the end. From a deceptively harmless Fianchetto Pirc with an early queen trade, the Russian had slowly outplayed his opponent, only to stumble shortly before the time-control (39.Kd2?). Well, „chess is brutal“ (Shipov). Sometimes.

Videos

Links

• Tournament website
• Games in PGN

Everybody has a favourite chess move. Many just love 23…Qg3. Tim Krabbé’s favourite is 16…Nc6. According to British Chess Magazine, it’s 47…Bh3. And a member of my local chess club is obsessed by the move 7.Ke3! in the Traxler Counter-Attack. These are all highly spectacular moves. My own favourite is the very modest queen-shuffle 2.Qe2.

I’m talking about the little-known Chigorin Variation of the French Defence, which arises after 1.e4 e6 2.Qe2.

I still remember the moment when I first encountered this move. I stumbled upon it in an old volume on chess strategy by Euwe and Kramer and, incomprehensibly, the authors didn’t comment on the move at all! I couldn’t understand what was going on, and was very frustrated about it. The quoted game was Chigorin-Tarrasch, 1893 and this frustrated me even more: how could such an outstanding player like Mikhail Chigorin play this absurd move?

Baffled at first, I started hypothesizing that White must have some idea with it, and I supposed (correctly, as it turned out) that it was to prevent d7-d5. But this didn’t make much sense either. First of all, Black could still play 2…d5 and after 3.exd5 Qxd5 he would have a position from the Scandinavian Defence with a rather strange Queen on e2, would he not? Secondly, even if Black couldn’t play d7-d5, it hardly seemed worth misplacing the queen just for that.

As always, things turned out to be not so easy. I started stuyding the line and discovered many things; mostly that, of course, the white king’s bishop could simply go to g2 and wasn’t so blocked after all. The game would then look much like a reversed King’s Indian. Also, if Black played Nc6-d4 at some point, chasing the queen even further over the board, the knight could be forced to retreat with tempo by c2-c3, making a nice ‘hole’ for the Queen on c2 in the process. It seemed there was actually some positional basis for Qe2 and this showed me in a profound way what a deep and rich game chess is.

Nowadays, it’s of course well-known that Qe2 and the idea to develop the bishop to g2 is a kind of prelude to later King’s Indian positions. Being a French player myself, I too sometimes face the move 2.Qe2 and in my experience, white players indeed usually strive for a quiet KID-like setup, apparently in an attempt to deviate from better known lines such as after 2.d3. Alexei Suetin, in his classic 1982 mongraph on the French, writes of the move:

It may be looked upon as the forerunner of the modern openings strategy which in semi-open systems aims at achieving a King’s Indian position with opposite colours, e.g. in the variation 2.d3 d5 3.Nd2 etc.

Similarly, Gligoric, Uhlmann and Botvinnik (The French Defence, 1975) note:

Tchigorin’s [sic] move, 2.Qe2, can transpose to the King’s Indian Attack (in which White’s queen usually plays to e2) but by playing his moves in a different order Black can bypass the K.I.A. setup and take a more aggresive stance.

And the great Kasparov, in the first part of My Great Predecessors, says the following of the line (as played in the game Chigorin-Teichmann, Hastings 1895):

Chigorin demonstrated all the basic ideas of the set-up with the X-ray bishop at g2 and symmetrical pawns on e4 and e5: restriction of the knight at c6 by c2-c3, manoeuvre of the knight to c4 (…) This was the style of the future! Many decades later the King’s Indian Attack became fashionable.

Dr. Siegbert Tarrasch (1862-1934)

Now, I must make a personal confession. Although I really love the move Qe2 for all its initial weirdness, I don’t like the stereotyped moves that usually follow after it! White often automatically plays g3, Bg2, Nf3 and 0-0, then goes for d3 and/or c3 and he reaches ‘normal’ King’s Indian structures. Played this way, the system loses all its charm, at least for me. It’s just another boring KID with reversed colours! Therefore, in this article I will take a different point of view than the (however highly esteemed) opinions quoted above. In an attempt to stop this cliché treatment of the move Qe2, I will show that Mikhail Chigorin played it with many different ideas in mind as well, and that it’s not such a boring setup at all. In fact, Chigorin played the move to deviate from stereotyped chess to force the opponent and himself to think right from the start of the game.

In 1893, the Russian Mikhail Chigorin and the German Dr. Siegbert Tarrasch, two of the strongest players of those days, played a 22-game match in St. Petersburg (Chigorin’s home town) against each other. It was not an official title match, but the stakes were high. It was a clash not just of chess giants, but of chess schools. As Raymond Keene describes the situation in The Evolution of Chess Opening Theory:

Steinitz’s games had taught the chess world much but certain eccentricities persisted in the old master’s conception of opening play, which could not satisfy an idealogue and purist such as Tarrasch. For the first time, we now see the multiplicity of Steinitzian options narrowed down and pruned. Variations and moves are ‘incorrect’ for general and logical reasons and Chigorin’s objections (in his games with Tarrasch) that his incorrect or ugly moves are actually quite viable were more or less ignored. That was until Nimzowitsch came along to renew the challenge to Tarrasch, and until (much later) Soviet writers rediscovered Chigorin as the ideological father of Russian chess, finding that his ‘ugly’ moves, too, had a scientific basis.

The final score of the match was +9 -9 =4. The games were famously analysed by Tarrasch in his masterpiece Dreihundert Schachpartien (300 chess games). In all-but-one of Chigorin’s white games, the ‘ugly’ Qe2 line was played, making this historic match the ‘creation story’ of this particular variation. But according to Tarrasch himself, Chigorin wasn’t the first to have played the move. In his comments to the first game, Tarrasch writes:

This move was no surprise for me, I had seen it already in a game by Pollock, but given it no attention. It has no other value than to prevent the usual methods of play, and to lead to a difficult, closed game for both. Such experiments are usually allowed to white without huge risks.

Tarrasch's first comment on Qe2 in his book 'Dreihundert Schachpartien'

So far, I have not been able to dig up this game by Pollock, but it must exist, as it is also mentioned in the official match book by Albert Heyde (Der Schachwettkampf zwischen Dr. S. Tarrasch und M. Tschigorin, Ende 1893).  Can a reader locate it? (Interestingly, Kasparov quotes Chigorin mentioning how he got the idea for 2.Qe2 from a game he played - as Black - against Steinitz in their 1892 match in which Steinitz also played Qd1-e2 to prevent d7-d5: ‘It was this that gave rise to my initial plan with g2-g3, Bg2 and d2-d3, which was later varied’. Didn’t Chigorin know the Pollock game while Tarrasch did? An why, if he already had the idea, didn’t Chigorin play this setup on the first opportunity he got - the second match game - in the match against Tarrasch?)

In any case, Heyde makes a very important observation about these games, which is also important for our pursuit:

The games with this opening which were played in this match are the most interesting. In these, Chigorin tries a move tried in America - by Pollock if I’m not mistaken - 2.Qe2, which is well underestimated by most players.  Admittedly, Chigorin himself did not immediately find the right continuation, since in the defence with 2…Be7, the queen move gains in strength only by means of 3.b3 and 4.Bb2.

Here’s the thing. I’ve played the logical move 2…Be7 (preparing d7-d5) myself a number of times against 2.Qe2, and on none of those occasions did my opponent go for b3 and Bb2. In all cases, White automatically went g3, Bg2 and d3, without even thinking. I find this very strange. If you play such an interesting move as Qe2, why follow up with such boring schemes?

But let’s not overhaste things. After all, Tarrasch himself didn’t play 2…Be7 until the 10th match game. In the first four games, he played 2…c5. And as already briefly mentioned, Chigorin didn’t play the g3, Bg2 and d3 setup until the second time he got the line on the board. Chigorin’s first attempt went as follows (comments are by Tarrasch):

Chigorin - Tarrasch
St. Petersburg (m/2), 1893

1.e4 e6 2.Qe2 c5 ‘With this, Black switches to a Sicilian game, in which the position of the white queen on e2 in any case can’t help the attack.’

3.Nc3 ‘This is, on account of the however insignificant threat Nb8-c6-d4, not good and lays the foundation of later problems. White should play g2-g3, as in the 4th and 6th games of the match, and not rob himself of the possibility to chase away the enemy knight with c2-c3.’

3…Nc6 4.Nf3 a6 5.g3 ‘The wing development of this bishop was of course already intended with Qe2.’

5…Nd4 6.Qd3

At this point, we get a marvellous example of Tarrasch’s famous sarcasm: ‘One sees, Chigorin has learned a lot from Steinitz, perhaps too much. In any case it was more natural to withdraw the queen to d1 and continue the game with d3, Be3, Bg2 etc.’ In the end, Tarrasch got a beautiful position indeed, but unfortunately, he got mated.

Well, never mind that Black got a good position out of the opening - what’s important for us is to note is that White wasn’t playing the typical KIA moves here. It shows that the move can also be used to achieve interesting, different kind of positions. Tarrasch himself understood this point well when he wrote, in that other famous book of his, Die Moderne Schachpartie (1916): ‘The one idea of this unusual move is that it complicates the game and makes it more difficult.’

Although Tarrasch obviously was no fan of Qe2, I think it does show that Tarrasch values the move not as a way for White to reach a certain kind of standard setup, but to make play interesting. And this can be done in many more ways than just one! In a way, Tarrasch acknowledged this also by varying his own setup as Black during the match. For instance, even though he reached a perfectly fine position (and a classic victory) in game 6 after 2…c5 3.g3 Nc6 4.Bg2 Nd4 5.Qd3 Be7, he played differently with 4…Be7 in the 8th game, ‘to take a new course as soon as possible’.

Let’s now turn our attention to the line described above by Albert Heyde.

Chigorin-Tarrasch
St. Petersburg (m/12), 1893

1. e4 e6 2.Qe2 Be7

While searching for contemporary sources in the Max Euwe Centre in Amsterdam, I discovered that at the time, opinions about how to play this line varied considerably. In the november 1893 issue of the Deutsches Wochenschach magazine, the text move is regarded as the ’simplest and securest’ reply to White’s concept. On the other hand, in the same issue of the Deutsche Schachzeitung, 2…c5 is considered ‘clearly the best answer to this untheoretical move’. 

In the end, it seems history has proven the Schachzeitung right. For instance, The Handbuch des Schachspiels by P.R. von Bilguer (1922) mentions that Steinitz considered best a setup with …c5, Nc6, d6, Nf6, Be7 and 0-0, later followed by d6-d5. Euwe (Theorie der Schaakopeningen, 1953) does likewise. Suetin (1982) and Psakhis (The Complete French, 1992) also prefer 2..c5, and so does Uhlmann (Französisch - richtig gespielt, 2004). It has also been the choice of players such as Morozevich, Bareev, Jussupow and Kortchnoi., but I wonder if it was just an ‘autoreply’ or if they actually considered 2…Be7, which I personally find more esthetic.

In the end, it seems history has proven the Schachzeitung right

3.b3 ‘A creative reply, directed against d7-d5′ - Tarrasch.

3…d5 4.Bb2 Bf6 Tarrasch’s notes are worth quoting in full:

The normal development would have been 4…Nf6, after which Black must ruin his king’s side by means of 5.exd5 exd5 (5…Qxd5 is not good for Black) 6.Bxf6 gxf6. Because of this, I chose the bishop’s move in all games with this opening. This further provokes the advance of the e-pawn, which is almost always more unpleasant for Black on e4 than on e5. In general, central pawns are best advanced only two squares, and because of this 4…d4 isn’t good; White would attack the pawn several times with c2-c3, Nf3 etc, and the end force the exchange.

An interesting discourse, but it’s interesting that Chigorin appears not to have intended 5.exd5 at all! In three later games, he chose 5.Nc3 or 5.e5. The latter move, by the way, was also played against Grandmaster Rafael Vaganian in 1998. It seems these positions have not lost all relevance after all…

5.e5 Later in the match, Chigorin deviated with 5.Bxf6. But according to Kasparov, who analyses some of these games in his already mentioned My Great Predecessors vol. 1, taking the bishop is inferior to the text.

5…Be7 This position also occurred in the 14th match game. On both occasions, Chigorin played

6.Qg4 after which Tarrasch played the amazing 6…Bf8

A unique position: on move 6, Black has ‘completed’ his bishop manoeuvre with Bf8-e7-f6-e7-f8! According to Tarrasch,  this is better than weakening the king’s side with g7-g6. He writes: ’One can’t blame the bishop now for making four moves; of course, taken together these are wasted. But because of the move e4-e5 Black has the opportunity to develop play on the queen’s side well, and start an attack there, while not much can happen to him on the king’s side.’

In my opinion, this manoeuvre also shows that Siegbert Tarrasch wasn’t only the dogmatist he has often been called , but also, like Chigorin, an empiricist who liked to experiment. Recall the Keene quote, or what Robert Wade (in his well-known book Soviet Chess) had to say about it:

Dogmatic as benefits a teacher and a methodist, Tarrasch tried to explain chess in an uncomplicated mechanical fashion rather similar to the way in the same period that the universe was explained. Just as small exceptions upset the rules to which the universe supposedly conformed, small exceptions required the rules propounded by Tarrasch to be modified. Chigorin was a non-confirmist, just as Nimzowitsch became in the days of the twentieth century preceding World War I.

Well, that may be so, but I fail to see what’s so ‘conformist’ about making four bishop moves in your first six moves, ending up on f8 anyway! (By the way, in an internet game from 2004, Alexander Repritsev played 6.h4!? against the well-known grandmaster Sergey Shipov, so we’ll never know if the grandmaster analyst also intended Tarrasch’s non-comformist move Bf8…)

But this wasn’t the end of it. The idea of attacking g7 by means of Qg4 inspired Chigorin in 1899 to play (against Showalter) the even more radical 3.Qg4!?! after 2…Be7. The game continued in ‘Winawer style’: 3…Nf6!? 4.Qxg7 Rg8 5.Qh6 and White won - all of which goes, I hope, to show the potential versatility of the move Qe2.

And even if Black doesn’t play 2…Be7 but the more popular 2…c5, White can still play differently than a standard King’s Indian Attack setup with Nf3 and g3. This time, it was Géza Maróczy who found out how. In early 1904, after 2…c5 he played the move 3.f4 against Swiderski, postponing the development of the white squared bishop to a more suitable moment.

Two months later, during the famous Cambridge Springs 1904 tournament, Chigorin himself caught Maróczy’s idea and tried it two times (against Showalter and Marco). He lost both games, though, and generally was in poor shape in those days. (He did win $67,50 for his final result, according to the tournament site.)

Still, despite this bad experience with 3.f4, the move was regularly seen in tournament pratice. It was employed by Paul Keres in the 1930s, and after that occasionally used by strong players. Admittedly, most white players later went for a KIA setup anyway (but now with the standard move f4 included already), but not always. Canadian IM Lawrence Day, for instance, has played the position with considerably more gusto, trying, after 3.f4 Nc6 4.Nf3 g6 the move 5.Na3!? and after 4…Nge7 our good old plan 5.b3!? And as a perfect example of how the system can be played in a creative fashion, consider the beginning of the following game:

Day - Stonkus
Toronto open 1995

1.e4 e6 2.Qe2 c5 3.f4 Nc6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.c3 b5 6.g4!? Nxg4 7.Qxb5 Be7 8.Rg1 Bh4+ 9.Ke2

and White won.

Now, according to my database, 3.f4 is still only White’s third most popular move behind 3.Nf3 and 3.g3, but not too long ago, it has also caught the attention of the creative British top grandmasters Nigel Short and Luke McShane. Short employed the move twice in his 1997 FIDE knockout match against Viktor Kortchnoi, while McShane, too, has played it against Kortchnoi. (Short told me that he had played the move mainly because he ‘must have been desperate’. Well, even better, for apparently he hoped that  Chigorin’s move would somehow bring back his usual creativity!)

Nigel Short, who admitted playing 2.Qe2 only because he was desperate...

The strong Belarus grandmaster Alexei Fedorov has also played 3.f4, and guess what - he played b2-b3 two moves later. I consider all of this sufficient proof that Chigorin’s Qe2 is not just ’some move’ to enter a King’s Indian Attack in a less theoretical way, but has independent value as a system. However, to my knowledge, no monograph or theoretical survey has ever been written about the variation in over 100 years! Why is this?

Is it because White’s move still just looks too silly to take seriously, as Tarrasch used to think? Or is it because people think it’s just another boring (when you’re playing black) or easy (as white) way to arrange your pieces without actually having to think the first few moves? I hope I have convinced you that this was not the fate Chigorin intended his variation. He played it as a way to start a chess game in an interesting, creative way. When I first saw the move Qe2, I thought it was a great big mystery.

Now I know it still is.

Chess is a difficult game. Not only because you have to make good moves, but also because you have to stay alert for many hours. However hard you’ve worked before, one tiny lapse of concentration can destroy hours of labour. This sadly happened to Gata Kamsky in the fifth round of the Nalchik Grand Prix against Vladimir Akopian. Of course, all over the internet people immediately reacted as if they didn’t understand what had happened.

By Arne Moll

It’s very common these days: as soon as the blunder’s been made, people act as if it’s the weirdest thing in the world. Using lots of question marks and exclamation marks, they are quick to point out the correct path and show their incredulity. Of course, it’s especially easy to notice blunders when you’ve got an engine running in the background, but even without it, many chess fans on such moments seem to forget that grandmasters are still human, and that chess is still a human game.

The first to experience this was Vassily Ivanchuk. One of the pre-tournament favourites and definitely a favourite of the ChessVibes team, he just isn’t making the right moves in this tournament. I’m afraid there’s not much to say about the game. Playing a not too enterprising QGD with White, the Ukrainian badly blundered at move 22 against Rustam Kasimdzhanov, who finished him off within a few moves. Well, let’s look at things from the bright side: at least the former FIDE World Champion is getting properly into the tournament now, moving to zones in the ranking where he belongs.

As we’ve already noted in a recent issue of ChessVibes Openings, the German GM Jan Gustafsson plays an important role in modern day opening theory. In Nalchik, he’s Peter Leko’s second. No wonder, then, that Leko came excellently prepared against Alexander Grischuk in Gusti’s pet line, the always exciting Anti-Moscow Slav (once again showing, by the way, how untrue the stereotype is that Leko is a boring player!). To an outsider like me, all these games look pretty exciting - until you realize the guys have been following theory for 20 moves or so already. Not in this game, however, in which the Leko/Gusti team had apparently prepared a novelty at move 16 already. The move 16…c5 looked logical enough (even to me), and it led to a sharp position that seems not to have been out of balance, allowing Grischuk to hold on to his leading position in the tournament. I guess with hindsight it’s easy to dismiss such games as uninteresting, but that is a gross underestimation of the amount of work that has gone into it. In my opinion, deep opening preparation is always interesting, even if the result is sometimes ‘only’ a solid draw.

Gusti’s influence could also be felt in the game Alekseev-Aronian. In yet another Marshall Attack (also a speciality of Gusti’s), the players followed for some time the game Volokitin-Gustafsson from last year’s Bundesliga until Aronian deviated with the new move 16…Qf5!? instead of the usual Qh5. The idea of advancing the h-pawn to weaken g3 worked out excellently, and Aronian obtained an easy draw in the Marshall, as we’re used to by now.

Sergey Karjakin is working together with Kasparov’s ex-second Yuri Dokhoian and also came well prepared for his game against Shakhriyar Mamedyarov. In sharp Taimanov Sicilian, his move 8.Qg3!? was already new (previously, 8.Bf4 had been tried), and led to an optically very pleasant position. It’s not clear where Karjakin could have played better, because although his position looked extremely attractive despite having sacrificed his central e-pawn, Black defended excellently and comfortably cruised towards a draw. Sergey Shipov suggested 16.Ne4 (instead of 16.h4) as a natural way to gain advantage, and I think 15.Bf3 deserves attention as well. We’ll probably see this line again some time soon!

Speaking of Kasparov, the opening in the game between Etienne Bacrot and Pavel Eljanov (a Zaitsev Ruy Lopez) reminded one of the great fights between Kasparov and Karpov. Bacrot chose the now-topical 12.d5 and for a long time, the players the game Carlsen-Navara from last year’s FIDE Grand Prix in Baku. In this line, White wants to prove his bind on the white squares against Black’s pair of bishops. Bacrot sacrificed his e-pawn to gain total control over the white squares and the diagonal a2-g8 in particular, but somehow there wasn’t a forced win as Black got his game together just in time. Crazy sacs on f7 or h7 didn’t work out for White, and in the end Bacrot had to settle for a move repetition.

Peter Svidler faced an extremely sharp and no doubt home-prepared line against Boris Gelfand but achieved a shaky draw in the end. What started as a quiet Moscow Slav soon turned into a tactical position where Gelfand unleashed the spectacular 18…Bh3!? setting lots of practical problems for White. Svidler handled it in a principled, but very risky way, exposing his king and ruining his pawn structure. It seems Gelfand missed a couple of excellent chances in the double rook ending, but in the position was drawn anyway.

Akopian and Kamsky at the press conference

However, he, too, wasn’t the sharpest chess player in the world anymore after such a tough game, and Kamsky managed to stay alive and even missed a study-like draw where a single Knight draws against Rook + Bishop. The game went on mercilessly and Akopian got a position where KBR+P vs. KR had to be won by sacrificing the last pawn. As a result, Akopian reached a theoretically won KRB vs. KR endgame, but according to the tablebase he misplayed it at several points. Of course, such an endgame is always difficult, especially after all previous emotions, and at move 93 he allowed a simple stalemate which Kamsky then… missed as well, losing in a few more moves after all.

Of course, the moment will be recorded in the cabinet of chess curiosities, but please let’s not be so surprised that this sort of thing happens in top tournaments as well. Anyone who’s ever had to defend (or win) this particular ending (at whatever level) knows how extremely exhausting a job this is, especially when the pressure has been so high in the previous hours. So, let’s applaud both Akopian and Kamksy for a marvellous and instructive game, reminding us once again that we’re all human and that that is precisely why we love the game of chess so much!

Videos

Links

• Tournament website
• Games in PGN

After a marvellous start of 2/2 Levon Aronian was held by Sergey Karjakin, who announced earlier this week that he will play for Russia in the near future. Main reason is the less reward for the big results the Ukrainian team achieved in last few years, for example winning the 2004 Olympiad. (Video added!)

By IM Robert Ris

It doesn’t look like this big news affects Karjakin’s play, outplaying Armenian’s number one in an Anti-Marshall after the latter made a few inaccuracies. Grischuk managed to defeat Rustam Kasimdzhanov and is currently the sole leader with 2½/3. The third round showed a lot of exciting chess. One doesn’t see four decisive results so much anymore these days, while we shouldn’t forget to mention that the other three games were also interesting to follow for the audience.

In line with his solid chess style, Etienne Bacrot reacted with the solid 12.d5 after Peter Svidler went for the Chigorin Variation of the Ruy Lopez. According to current theory, this riskless approach doesn’t promise White anything special, which was proved once more by Svidler. On move 36 the players agreed to a draw in a position where both couldn’t hope for anything more.

The f3-Grünfeld is still one of Shakh Mamedyarov’s favourite pet lines. During the Aeroflot Open in Moscow, the Azeri was shocked by a 21-move loss against Igor Kurnosov and accused the Russian of cheating during the game. This time, his opponent Gata Kamsky decided not to fall into his preparation, and deviated with 7…Nc6 from the aforementioned game, accepting a rather passive position. With 15.Qe5! Shakh went for a pleasant ending thanks to his space advantage. Nevertheless, the ever-tough American defended accurately and so the game ended peacefully.

Grischuk: the new leader after three rounds

Well, time to have a look at the decisive results. Tournament leader Levon Aronian faced with Black a harmless looking Anti-Marshall. The Armenian was the first one to deviate from his rapid game one month ago against Carlsen in Nice, but again found himself soon in a worse position. Both players didn’t show their best play, but it mostly affected Aronian who mishandled a drawish rook endgame to finish it off with a huge blunder.

As Svidler drew already, only Alexander Grischuk could overtake the lead from Aronian. These last few months, Grischuk seems to be in an extremely good shape. After sharing the first place in the third GP in Elista, the Moscovite last February won his first elite tournament in Linares.
In a Queen’s Gambit Accepted, Rustam Kasimdzhanov tried to copy an old game he played himself against Dutch GM Harmen Jonkman with White. Grischuk improved on Kasim’s play with 12.Rc1, intending to weaken Black’s position with the standard Na4 before starting a pawn storm on Black’s king. Kasim achieved much too late sufficient counterplay in the centre, so that Grischuk could easily convert his second win of the tournament.

The game between Evgeny Alekseev and Pavel Eljanov brought an interesting Ragozin, which recently came back into the spotlights. Black’s ambitions were very quickly revealed when he played the most aggressive possibility 9…c4. Typically for this opening, Black is trying to create counterplay on the queenside, while White is doing his job on the other flank. Optically it looked very promising for Black, but things turned out the other way. Black had to choose allowing White blocking the c3 square or force matters with 21…c3 himself. Eljanov went for the latter, but found himself in big trouble when it became clear that he couldn’t keep his b2-pawn. After picking it up, Alekseev had an easy task bringing the full point back home.

Commentator GM Sergey Shipov, who celebrated his 42nd birthday on Friday

Videos

• Tournament website
• Games in PGN

Update Peter Doggers, 14:08 (or rather 16:08 here in Nalchik):

Karjakin - Dokhoian (!) first time they work together
Leko - Gustafsson
Alekseev - Sakaev
Eljanov - Efimenko
Aronian - Sargissian
Kasimdzhanov - D.Fridman
Gelfand - Huzman
Akopian - Galdunts
Bacrot - Pelletier (ironically the nominated player of Montreux, where originally this 4th would have been held).

Now in its tenth consecutive year, the annual “Ciudad de Dos Hermanas” 2009, the biggest and best online blitz tournament is set to be hosted March 13th to 21st yet again on the Internet Chess Club. You can play one of the qualifiers till and including Wednesday.

The cash prize fund amounts to EUR 7,600 (about $9,600), with Euro 2,000 (roughly $2,500) first prize, plus additional class prizes and ICC membership prizes for amateur players. Entry is completely FREE for all but you DO need to be a member of ICC to play!

This is one of the most important Internet chess tournaments in the world with the last three editions boasting an entry of over 4,000 players from all over the world. Will two-time winner IM Jorge Sammour-Hasbun make it a third successive victory this year, or will one of the many top grandmasters who have played in the past, such as Shahriyar Mamedyarov, Tigran L. Petrosian, Gata Kamsky, Hikaru Nakamura, Kiril Georgiev, Jan Gustafsson or Sergey Shipov stop his winning run?

As in previous editions, the playing system will be twelve 12-round Swiss qualifiers (3 minutes per game). Qualifiers are held twice a day from March 13th to March 18th, with the finals being held on March 20th & 21st. The 12 qualifier winners plus the 20 best scores qualify to the 32-player KO final.

Even if you are not aiming to win a prize, this tournament gives you a unique chance to face world class players! Make sure to register early! Your registration is valid for all qualifiers, but you do not need to play all. Full rules, guidelines and registrations can be found at our special Dos Hermanas website.

John Henderson
ICC

Gata Kamsky had great winning chances in the 7th game of the match, but Topalov skilfully complicated the position which proved very effective against Kamsky’s habit of getting into time trouble. So Topalov goes through to face Anand after winning this match 4.5 – 2.5. Even though some might say that 8 games for a match like this is not long enough, it was still a very entertaining event to follow. I enjoyed following the live broadcast on ICC’s chess FM during the last game, and if you speak Russian I also strongly recommend watching Sergei Shipov’s great video commentary of each game.

In a slightly worse position that was probably tenable, Gata Kamsky blundered horribly today dropping a healthy pawn. He then decided to try his luck in a queen endgame two pawns down, but the American had to resign at move 51. In the Challenger’s Match in Sofia, Veselin Topalov now leads 3-2.

The Kamsky-Topalov World Championship Semi-Final Match takes place February 16th to 28th in the National Palace of Culture in Sofia, Bulgaria. The Challenger’s Match consists of eight games and possible tie-breaks and has a prize find of US $250,000 which will be shared equally by the players. The winner qualifies for a World Championship Match against Viswanathan Anand.

Game 5
To the surprise of many chess fans and journalists, Topalov played with the white pieces today, and not Kamsky. Even after the fifth game had finished, match regulations on the official website still quoted the rule:

“The colors shall be reversed after game 4. (The player getting the white color in game 1 shall play game 5 with the black color).”

This idea was borrowed from the Anand-Kramnik match of last year, the idea being that there wouldn’t be just one player profiting from a White game after a rest day.

However, during the negotiations that took place in November in Dresden, this idea was abandonded for being too complicated for such a short match, and so an amendment to the rules had been signed by all parties prior to the match, but this hadn’t (and still hasn’t) made it to the official website.

A funny consequence of all this was that online commentator Sergey Shipov, who always annotates the game live in Russian at Crestbook, had mixed up the names of the players and was discussing reasons for Topalov to chose the French, and recognizing the style of Sutovsky in Kamsky’s handling of that opening!

Unfortunately there’s not much more to say about the game than what you’ve already read in the intro. Just when the worst was over for Kamsky, he blundered a pawn and then he had to make a choice between two evils: continuing with a pawn down in a hopelessly passive position or going for a queen ending with two pawns down. He chose the latter, but this was clearly lost too, as was shown by Topalov, who finished the game off accurately.

A huge setback for the Kamsky team, who again have to deal with the situation of being one down. But on the positive side, they have two Whites to work on against just one left for the Topalov team.

The fifth game Topalov-Kamsky

Photos © Ivan Stoimenov - courtesy of the official website

Links:

• More background info
• Report of game 1
• Report of game 2
• Report of game 3
• Report of game 4
• Official website
• Games in PGN
• Chess.FM blog
• Chess Life Online with Ian Rogers blogging

The third round of Corus 2009 promises to be full of razor sharp opening battles. Will Jan Smeets hold on to his leading position with the Botvinnik Variation? Just like yesterday, ChessVibes will provide regular updates and photos.

Clearly, the game to start with is Loek van Wely vs. Jan Smeets: a very interesting Botvinnik Variation indeed! Smeets deviated from a rapid game Van Wely-Shirov, Monaco 2005 with 19…Bxe7 and produced a novelty on move 21: before, 21…Qc6 was always played in this position. Both players seems to follow Rybka’s main line after this. Its evaluation, meaningless though it may be, is +.0.52 for White after 27.Re2! (Instead, Loek already chose for perpetual check.)

Another game to follow closely is Ivanchuk-Radjabov, where Black avoided the main lines by going for 9…Ne8, which was answered by the not so popular 10.a4; 12.Bg5 seems to be the new move here. And what to think of the tactical endgame Aronian and Stellwagen are playing? After 18 moves, a surprisingly dynamic balance seems to have been established. Carlsen-Movsesian is a very principled Bishops vs. Knights fight, reminiscent of some classic Chigorin games.

It looks like a tough round in general, with games that basically still have to start. Karjakin-Wang Yue and Adams-Dominguez are the always-exciting Sicilians of this round. Finally, today’s Ruy Lopez comes from Movsesian and Kamsky. That game is analysed live (in Russian) by Sergey Shipov.

Schedule & results Grandmaster Group A

Corus 2009 Grandmaster Group A | Round 2 Standings

Schedule & results Grandmaster Group B

Corus 2009 Grandmaster Group B | Round 2 Standings

Schedule & results Grandmaster Group C

Corus 2009 Grandmaster Group C | Round 2 Standings

				1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14
1	Bosboom,M	2418	+973	*											1	1		2.0/2
2	Harika,D	2473	+266		*				½		1							1.5/2	1.75
3	Romanishin,O	2533	+171			*	½							1				1.5/2	1.25
4	So,W	2627	+110			½	*									1		1.5/2	0.75
5	Hillarp Persson,T	2586	+137					*		½					1			1.5/2	0.75
6	Iturrizaga,E	2528	+170		½				*								1	1.5/2	0.75
7	Pruijssers,R	2444	+310					½		*							1	1.5/2	0.75
8	Gupta,A	2569	-70		0						*		1					1.0/2	0.50
9	Giri,A	2469	-7
http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/corus-r3-sharp-opening-battles-ahead/
Mon, 19 Jan 2009 14:25:58 +0000
Corus R2: Movsesian and Adams honouring Anderssen
In the second round of the Corus Chess Tournament, we can look forward to some very interesting games. In Group A, opening preparation ranges from long-forgotten 19th century gambit lines to the most topical variations. ChessVibes will keep you updated throughout the day. We can’t help kicking off with Movsesian-Adams, where a true tribute to the great Adolf Anderssen (1818-1879) seems to take place. White played an extremely obscure gambit line (5.d4) in the Italian Opening, which was played with both White and Black by Anderssen. Indeed, Movsesian and Adams are following Anderssen-Fleissig, Vienna 1873 and Von Mickwitz-Anderssen, Frankfurt 1878! Adams’ move 11…Nc6, however, was not played by Anderssen. Another interesting-looking game is Stellwagen-Carlsen, a sharp Berlin Wall. Jan Smeets is taking a quiet approach against Karjakin’s Najdorf (no sharp Qd2, g4 lines today) and, as always, Ivanchuk’s game looks very entertaining already, too. Over on Susan Polgar’s site you can follow the game Dominguez-Kamsky live, while Sergey Shipov is liveblogging the duel between Aronian and Radjabov (in Russian). In Group B, keep an eye on Kasimdzhanov-Navara for another sharp Grunfeld, and Werle-Volokitin with similar things happening as in yesterday’s game between Ivanchuk-Smeets. And in Group C, we already love Bosboom’s (who beat Howell yesterday) setup against his compatriot Nijboer. Stay tuned!       Schedule & results Grandmaster Group A Round 1 - Saturday 17.01.2009 D. Stellwagen - S. Movsesian ½-½   M. Carlsen - T. Radjabov ½-½   L. Aronian - Wang Yue ½-½   V. Ivanchuk - J. Smeets 0-1   S. Karjakin - A. Morozevich 1-0   L. van Wely - L. Dominguez ½-½   G. Kamsky - M. Adams ½-½   Round 2 - Sunday 18.01.2009 S. Movsesian - M. Adams   L. Dominguez - G. Kamsky   A. Morozevich - L. van Wely   J. Smeets - S. Karjakin   Wang Yue - V. Ivanchuk   T. Radjabov - L. Aronian   D. Stellwagen - M. Carlsen   Round 3 - Monday 19.01.2009 M. Carlsen - S. Movsesian   L. Aronian - D. Stellwagen   V. Ivanchuk - T. Radjabov   S. Karjakin - Wang Yue   L. van Wely - J. Smeets   G. Kamsky - A. Morozevich   M. Adams - L. Dominguez   Round 4 - Tuesday 20.01.2009 S. Movsesian - L. Dominguez   A. Morozevich - M. Adams   J. Smeets - G. Kamsky   Wang Yue - L. van Wely   T. Radjabov - S. Karjakin   D. Stellwagen - V. Ivanchuk   M. Carlsen - L. Aronian   Round 5 - Thursday 22.01.2009 L. Aronian - S. Movsesian   V. Ivanchuk - M. Carlsen   S. Karjakin - D. Stellwagen   L. van Wely - T. Radjabov   G. Kamsky - Wang Yue   M. Adams - J. Smeets   L. Dominguez - A. Morozevich   Round 6 - Friday 23.01.2009 S. Movsesian - A. Morozevich   J. Smeets - L. Dominguez   Wang Yue - M. Adams   T. Radjabov - G. Kamsky   D. Stellwagen - L. van Wely   M. Carlsen - S. Karjakin   L. Aronian - V. Ivanchuk   Round 7 - Saturday 24.01.2009 V. Ivanchuk - S. Movsesian   S. Karjakin - L. Aronian   L. van Wely - M. Carlsen   G. Kamsky - D. Stellwagen   M. Adams - T. Radjabov   L. Dominguez - Wang Yue   A. Morozevich - J. Smeets   Round 8 - Sunday 25.01.2009 S. Movsesian - J. Smeets   Wang Yue - A. Morozevich   T. Radjabov - L. Dominguez   D. Stellwagen - M. Adams   M. Carlsen - G. Kamsky   L. Aronian - L. van Wely   V. Ivanchuk - S. Karjakin   Round 9 - Tuesday 27.01.2009 S. Karjakin - S. Movsesian   L. van Wely - V. Ivanchuk   G. Kamsky - L. Aronian   M. Adams - M. Carlsen   L. Dominguez - D. Stellwagen   A. Morozevich - T. Radjabov   J. Smeets - Wang Yue   Round 10 - Wednesday 28.01.2009 S. Movsesian - Wang Yue   T. Radjabov - J. Smeets   D. Stellwagen - A. Morozevich   M. Carlsen - L. Dominguez   L. Aronian - M. Adams   V. Ivanchuk - G. Kamsky   S. Karjakin - L. van Wely   Round 11 - Friday 30.01.2009 L. van Wely - S. Movsesian   G. Kamsky - S. Karjakin   M. Adams - V. Ivanchuk   L. Dominguez - L. Aronian   A. Morozevich - M. Carlsen   J. Smeets - D. Stellwagen   Wang Yue - T. Radjabov   Round 12 - Saturday 31.01.2009 S. Movsesian - T. Radjabov   D. Stellwagen - Wang Yue   M. Carlsen - J. Smeets   L. Aronian - A. Morozevich   V. Ivanchuk - L. Dominguez   S. Karjakin - M. Adams   L. van Wely - G. Kamsky   Round 13 - Sunday 1.02.2009 G. Kamsky - S. Movsesian   M. Adams - L. van Wely   L. Dominguez - S. Karjakin   A. Morozevich - V. Ivanchuk   J. Smeets - L. Aronian   Wang Yue - M. Carlsen   T. Radjabov - D. Stellwagen     Schedule & results Grandmaster Group B Round 1 - Saturday 17.01.2009 Hou Yifan - R. Kasimdzhanov 0-1   K. Sasikiran - E. l’Ami ½-½   D. Reinderman - F. Vallejo Pons 0-1   N. Short - J. Werle ½-½   A. Volokitin - F. Caruana ½-½   H. Mecking - Z. Efimenko 0-1   A. Motylev - D. Navara 0-1   Round 2 - Sunday 18.01.2009 R. Kasimdzhanov - D. Navara   Z. Efimenko - A. Motylev   F. Caruana - H. Mecking   J. Werle - A. Volokitin   F. Vallejo Pons - N. Short   E. l’Ami - D. Reinderman   Hou Yifan - K. Sasikiran   Round 3 - Monday 19.01.2009 K. Sasikiran - R. Kasimdzhanov   D. Reinderman - Hou Yifan   N. Short - E. l’Ami   A. Volokitin - F. Vallejo Pons   H. Mecking - J. Werle   A. Motylev - F. Caruana   D. Navara - Z. Efimenko   Round 4 - Tuesday 20.01.2009 R. Kasimdzhanov - Z. Efimenko   F. Caruana - D. Navara   J. Werle - A. Motylev   F. Vallejo Pons - H. Mecking   E. l’Ami - A. Volokitin   Hou Yifan - N. Short   K. Sasikiran - D. Reinderman   Round 5 - Thursday 22.01.2009 D. Reinderman - R. Kasimdzhanov   N. Short - K. Sasikiran   A. Volokitin - Hou Yifan   H. Mecking - E. l’Ami   A. Motylev - F. Vallejo Pons   D. Navara - J. Werle   Z. Efimenko - F. Caruana   Round 6 - Friday 23.01.2009 R. Kasimdzhanov - F. Caruana   J. Werle - Z. Efimenko   F. Vallejo Pons - D. Navara   E. l’Ami - A. Motylev   Hou Yifan - H. Mecking   K. Sasikiran - A. Volokitin   D. Reinderman - N. Short   Round 7 - Saturday 24.01.2009 N. Short - R. Kasimdzhanov   A. Volokitin - D. Reinderman   H. Mecking - K. Sasikiran   A. Motylev - Hou Yifan   D. Navara - E. l’Ami   Z. Efimenko - F. Vallejo Pons   F. Caruana - J. Werle   Round 8 - Sunday 25.01.2009 R. Kasimdzhanov - J. Werle   F. Vallejo Pons - F. Caruana   E. l’Ami - Z. Efimenko   Hou Yifan - D. Navara   K. Sasikiran - A. Motylev   D. Reinderman - H. Mecking   N. Short - A. Volokitin   Round 9 - Tuesday 27.01.2009 A. Volokitin - R. Kasimdzhanov   H. Mecking - N. Short   A. Motylev - D. Reinderman   D. Navara - K. Sasikiran   Z. Efimenko - Hou Yifan   F. Caruana - E. l’Ami   J. Werle - F. Vallejo Pons   Round 10 - Wednesday 28.01.2009 R. Kasimdzhanov - F. Vallejo Pons   E. l’Ami - J. Werle   Hou Yifan - F. Caruana   K. Sasikiran - Z. Efimenko   D. Reinderman - D. Navara   N. Short - A. Motylev   A. Volokitin - H. Mecking   Round 11 - Friday 30.01.2009 H. Mecking - R. Kasimdzhanov   A. Motylev - A. Volokitin   D. Navara - N. Short   Z. Efimenko - D. Reinderman   F. Caruana - K. Sasikiran   J. Werle - Hou Yifan   F. Vallejo Pons - E. l’Ami   Round 12 - Saturday 31.01.2009 R. Kasimdzhanov - E. l’Ami   Hou Yifan - F. Vallejo Pons   K. Sasikiran - J. Werle   D. Reinderman - F. Caruana   N. Short - Z. Efimenko   A. Volokitin - D. Navara   H. Mecking - A. Motylev   Round 13 - Sunday 1.02.2009 A. Motylev - R. Kasimdzhanov   D. Navara - H. Mecking   Z. Efimenko - A. Volokitin   F. Caruana - N. Short   J. Werle - D. Reinderman   F. Vallejo Pons - K. Sasikiran   E. l’Ami - Hou Yifan     Schedule & results Grandmaster Group C Round 1 - Saturday 17.01.2009 T. Hillarp Persson - R. Pruijssers ½-½   D. Howell - M. Bosboom 0-1   F. Nijboer - W. So 0-1   O. Romanishin - A. Bitalzadeh 1-0   A. Giri - F. Holzke ½-½   A. Gupta - D. Harika 0-1   E. Iturrizaga - M. Leon Hoyos 1-0   Round 2 - Sunday 18.01.2009 R. Pruijssers - M. Leon Hoyos   D. Harika - E. Iturrizaga   F. Holzke - A. Gupta   A. Bitalzadeh - A. Giri   W. So - O. Romanishin   M. Bosboom - F. Nijboer   T. Hillarp Persson - D. Howell   Round 3 - Monday 19.01.2009 D. Howell - R. Pruijssers   F. Nijboer - T. Hillarp Persson   O. Romanishin - M. Bosboom   A. Giri - W. So   A. Gupta - A. Bitalzadeh   E. Iturrizaga - F. Holzke   M. Leon Hoyos - D. Harika   Round 4 - Tuesday 20.01.2009 R. Pruijssers - D. Harika   F. Holzke - M. Leon Hoyos   A. Bitalzadeh - E. Iturrizaga   W. So - A. Gupta   M. Bosboom - A. Giri   T. Hillarp Persson - O. Romanishin   D. Howell - F. Nijboer   Round 5 - Thursday 22.01.2009 F. Nijboer - R. Pruijssers   O. Romanishin - D. Howell   A. Giri - T. Hillarp Persson   A. Gupta - M. Bosboom   E. Iturrizaga - W. So   M. Leon Hoyos - A. Bitalzadeh   D. Harika - F. Holzke   Round 6 - Friday 23.01.2009 R. Pruijssers - F. Holzke   A. Bitalzadeh - D. Harika   W. So - M. Leon Hoyos   M. Bosboom - E. Iturrizaga   T. Hillarp Persson - A. Gupta   D. Howell - A. Giri   F. Nijboer - O. Romanishin   Round 7 - Saturday 24.01.2009 O. Romanishin - R. Pruijssers   A. Giri - F. Nijboer   A. Gupta - D. Howell   E. Iturrizaga - T. Hillarp Persson   M. Leon Hoyos - M. Bosboom   D. Harika - W. So   F. Holzke - A. Bitalzadeh   Round 8 - Sunday 25.01.2009 R. Pruijssers - A. Bitalzadeh   W. So - F. Holzke   M. Bosboom - D. Harika   T. Hillarp Persson - M. Leon Hoyos   D. Howell - E. Iturrizaga   F. Nijboer - A. Gupta   O. Romanishin - A. Giri   Round 9 - Tuesday 27.01.2009 A. Giri - R. Pruijssers   A. Gupta - O. Romanishin   E. Iturrizaga - F. Nijboer   M. Leon Hoyos - D. Howell   D. Harika - T. Hillarp Persson   F. Holzke - M. Bosboom   A. Bitalzadeh - W. So   Round 10 - Wednesday 28.01.2009 R. Pruijssers - W. So   M. Bosboom - A. Bitalzadeh   T. Hillarp Persson - F. Holzke   D. Howell - D. Harika   F. Nijboer - M. Leon Hoyos   O. Romanishin - E. Iturrizaga   A. Giri - A. Gupta   Round 11 - Friday 30.01.2009 A. Gupta - R. Pruijssers   E. Iturrizaga - A. Giri   M. Leon Hoyos - O. Romanishin   D. Harika - F. Nijboer   F. Holzke - D. Howell   A. Bitalzadeh - T. Hillarp Persson   W. So - M. Bosboom   Round 12 - Saturday 31.01.2009 R. Pruijssers - M. Bosboom   T. Hillarp Persson - W. So   D. Howell - A. Bitalzadeh   F. Nijboer - F. Holzke   O. Romanishin - D. Harika   A. Giri - M. Leon Hoyos   A. Gupta - E. Iturrizaga   Round 13 - Sunday 1.02.2009 E. Iturrizaga - R. Pruijssers   M. Leon Hoyos - A. Gupta   D. Harika - A. Giri   F. Holzke - O. Romanishin   A. Bitalzadeh - F. Nijboer   W. So - D. Howell   M. Bosboom - T. Hillarp Persson     Links: Tournament website Games in PGN: Group A, Group B and Group C
http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/corus-r2-movsevian-and-adams-honouring-anderssen/
Sun, 18 Jan 2009 13:42:01 +0000
11.05.2007. Superturnament Wijk-aan-Zee, 2007"
In this PDF collection there are all parties of superturnament of the XX category completed the other day Wijk-aan-Zee with the notes of experts of chess sites CrestBook.com ? ChessZone, including online-notes of grand master Sergey Shipov (CrestBook.com). For lovers to study games in ChessBase we recommend to get CBV version
http://www.chesszone.org/lib/lib.html
2007-05-11
Mundial de Bonn 2008 (10)
DÉCIMA PARTIDA: Por fin ganó Krámnik una partida (!). Fischer diría que hubo amaño para contentar a los compungidos organizadores alemanes de este Mundial. Lo cierto es que Volodia tiró la caña y Anand entró en una línea de su colega y posible ayudante para este Campeonato, Magnus Carlsen, que la había jugado a nivel magistral en tres ocasiones. Krámnik venía esta vez bien preparado para la ocasión y salió con ventaja. Pero ¿por qué no jugó Anand la aparentemente simple jugada 22…Cc4 con chances de tablas, jugada clamada esta tarde por todo el ICC?. Pasen y vean y mientras tanto, esperaremos ahora al miércoles 29 de Octubre para ver la undécima partida. Allí unas tablas, con blancas, le valdrían al GM hindú afincado en España desde 1994, para retener su título, ¡pero nunca se sabe!... . Resultado tras la décima partida: Anand 6 – Krámnik 4. Kramnik,V (2772) - Anand,V (2783) [E20] World Chess Ch Bonn Bonn (10), 27.10.2008 [ICC y Rybka 3 32-bit] Rybka 3 32-bit es manejada aquí por Jiménez,A. 1.d4 Cf6 2.c4 e6 3.Cc3 Ahora Krámnik no quiere ir por f3. 3...Ab4 Defensa Nimzoindia. Una de las aperturas más importantes de este match. 4.Cf3 c5 contragolpe normal en el centro. 5.g3 Diagram La idea de Oleg Romanishin, también favorita del gran Kaspárov. 5...cxd4 [5...Ce4 6.Dd3 Da5 7.Dxe4 Axc3+ 8.Ad2 Axd2+ 9.Cxd2 Cc6 10.d5 Cd4 11.Ag2 Cb3 12.Td1 Dxa2 13.De5 0-0 14.Dc3 con buena compensación por el peón. Romanishin.] 6.Cxd4 0-0 [6...Ce4!? jugada de Tiviákov, la próxima estrella invitada de nuestro IX Torneo Internacional de Ajedrez Villa de El Sauzal (!?). 7.Dd3 Da5 8.Cb3 Cxc3! 9.Ad2 Ce4 10.Dxe4 Axd2+ 11.Cxd2 0-0 12.Ag2 Cc6 13.De3 d5 14.0-0 d4= Piket-Tiviakov, Groninga 1998.] 7.Ag2 d5 lucha eterna por el centro. 8.cxd5 [8.Db3 Axc3+ 9.Dxc3 e5 10.Cb3 d4 11.Da5 De8 12.0-0 Cc6= Helgi Olafsson-Lobron, Olimpiada de Erevan 1996.] 8...Cxd5 [8...exd5+/=] 9.Db3! Diagram El último grito de la teoría moderna... . [9.Ad2 Cxc3 10.bxc3 Ae7 11.Tb1 Cd7 12.0-0 (12.Axb7 Axb7 13.Txb7 Dc8! 14.Tb1 Cb6 con buen juego por el peón.) 12...Cb6 13.Af4 Cd5 14.Db3 Cxf4 15.gxf4 Kasparov-Salov, Linares 1990. Ahora 15...Ad6 16.e3 e5=] 9...Da5 a lo que Anand "casualmente" contesta con la jugada predilecta de Magnus Carlsen, que la ha usado a nivel magistral tres veces. Lo cierto es que se dice que Anand ha estado "minuciosamente" entrenando con el joven astro noruego, preparando este Mundial... . ¡Así que estamos ante otra de las casualidades de la vida!. [9...Cc6 10.Cxc6 bxc6 11.0-0 Da5 12.Ad2 Axc3! 13.bxc3 Aa6 14.Tfd1 Dc5 15.e4 Ac4 16.Da4 Cb6 17.Db4 Dh5 18.Ae3 Ae2 19.Td2 Tab8= van Wely-Short, Wijk aan Zee 2000.] 10.Ad2 sobredefensa de c3 10...Cc6 desarrollo dinámico (!?). 11.Cxc6 típico en el estilo de Krámnik. [11.Cc2 Axc3 12.bxc3 Dc7 13.Da3 Ce5 14.Axd5 exd5 15.Af4 f6 16.0-0 Df7 17.Ce3 Ah3 18.Tfd1 g5 19.Axe5 fxe5 20.f3 e4 21.Dc5 exf3 22.exf3 Tae8 23.Txd5 h6 24.Te5 Dxf3 25.Dc4+ Rg7 26.Txe8 Txe8 27.Dd4+ Rg6 28.Dd3+ Te4 29.Te1 Rh5 0-1 Beliavsky,A (2650)-Ivanchuk,V (2740)/Belgrade 1995/CD PDR] 11...bxc6 12.0-0 Axc3 13.bxc3 para conservar la pareja de alfiles. 13...Aa6 14.Tfd1!? Una sutileza de la posición. 14...Dc5 que Anand responde a velocidad de vértigo. 15.e4 quitándole un punto fuerte al caballo. 15...Ac4 16.Da4 Cb6 17.Db4 fiel a su estilo, Krámnik plantea el cambio de damas para quedarse con la pareja de alfiles y mejor estructura de peones. 17...Dh5 Anand obviamente lo rechaza... . [17...Dxb4 18.cxb4 Tfd8 (18...Tad8 19.Ae3 Txd1+ 20.Txd1 Axa2 21.Ac5 Tb8 22.Ta1 Ac4 23.Txa7 h6 24.f4 Ab5 25.Tc7 Ca8 26.Te7 Cb6 27.Af3 Cc4 28.f5 exf5 29.exf5 Cd2 30.Ag2 Cb3 31.Tc7 Cxc5 32.bxc5 Rf8 33.g4 Td8 34.Axc6 Axc6 35.Txc6 Re7 36.Rf2 Td2+ 37.Rg3 Td3+ 38.Rf4 Td4+ 39.Re5 Txg4 40.Tc7+ Re8 41.c6 Tg2 42.Tb7 Te2+ 43.Rd6 Td2+ 44.Rc7 Tc2 45.Rb6 Txh2 46.f6 gxf6 47.Tb8+ Re7 48.c7 Tc2 1-0 Volzhin,A (2485)-Epishin,V (2620)/Elista 1996/CBM 056) 19.Ae3 e5 (19...Ab5 20.Txd8+ Txd8 21.Axb6 axb6 22.a4 Ta8 23.a5 Rf8 24.e5 Re7 25.f4 bxa5 26.bxa5 Rd7 27.Rf2 Rc7 28.Re3 Aa6 29.Tb1 Ab7 30.Ta1 Aa6 31.Tb1 1/2-1/2 Fish,G (2435)-Shipov,S (2540)/Yalta 1996/EXT 1998) 20.Txd8+ Txd8 21.Af1 Ab5 22.Tc1 f6 23.Axb5 cxb5 24.Tc7 Cc4 25.Axa7 Td1+ 26.Rg2 Ta1 27.Ac5 Txa2 28.Tb7 Cd2 29.Txb5 Cxe4 30.Ae3 Tb2 31.Tb8+ Rf7 32.Tb7+ Rg6 33.g4 h5 34.gxh5+ Rxh5 35.Txg7 Txb4 1/2-1/2 Wells,P (2530)-Lalic,B (2600)/Szeged 1997/CBM 062; 17...Db5 18.Ae3 Ca4 19.Td4 Dxb4 20.cxb4 Ab5 21.Tc1 e5 22.Td7 a5 23.bxa5 Txa5 24.Tc2 Taa8 25.Af1 Tfd8 26.Axb5 cxb5 27.Te7 Te8 28.Tb7 Teb8 29.Te7 Te8 30.Txe8+ Txe8 31.Rg2 f6 32.Rf3 h5 33.g4 hxg4+ 34.Rxg4 Rf7 35.h4 g6 36.a3 Te7 37.h5 gxh5+ 38.Rxh5 Tb7 39.Tc6 b4 40.axb4 Txb4 41.Rg4 Rg6 42.f3 Tb3 43.Ad2 Tb6 44.Tc8 Cb2 45.Tg8+ Rh7 46.Tc8 Rg6 47.Tg8+ Rh7 48.Tc8 Rg6 1/2-1/2 Ward,C (2485)-Ochsner,T (2305)/Copenhagen 1997/EXT 2000] 18.Te1N Diagram Novedad de la partida. Evita ...Ae2. [18.Ae3 Ae2 19.Te1 Cc4 20.Dc5 Tfd8 21.e5 Cb2 22.Dxc6 Cd3 23.Dxa8 Txa8 24.Axa8 Cxe1 25.Txe1 a5 26.Tb1 h6 27.Tb8+ Rh7 28.Ae4+ g6 29.Tb7 Rg7 30.Rg2 Aa6 31.Ta7 De2 32.h4 a4 33.a3 Ab5 34.Ta5 Dc4 35.Ad4 Db3 36.Ac5 Ac4 37.Ae7 Dd1 38.Af6+ Rh7 39.Ta8 Df1+ 40.Rh2 Dxf2+ 41.Ag2 Dxg2+ 42.Rxg2 Ad5+ 43.Rf2 Axa8 44.Re3 Ad5 45.Rd4 g5 46.c4 Ag2 47.h5 Af3 48.c5 Rg8 49.Rc4 Rf8 50.Rb5 Axh5 51.c6 Re8 52.Rb6 Af3 53.Rc7 g4 54.Rd6 h5 55.Ag5 Ag2 56.Rc5 Af3 57.Rb5 Ae4 58.Af6 Af3 59.Rc5 Ag2 60.Rd6 Af3 61.c7 Ab7 62.Ad8 Ac8 63.Rc6 Aa6 64.Af6 Ac8 65.Ag5 Aa6 66.Ae3 Ac8 67.Ac5 Aa6 68.Ae3 1/2-1/2 Bacrot,E (2664)-Grischuk,A (2732)/Cap D'Agde FRA 2003/The Week in Chess 469; 18.Af4 c5 (18...Ae2 19.Te1 c5 20.Db3 e5 21.Ac1 Tac8 22.a4 Ac4 23.Db2 Dg6 24.a5 Cd7 25.Td1 Dc6 26.Ah3 Ae6 27.Axe6 Dxe6 28.Ae3 Tc7 29.Da2 Dxa2 30.Txa2 Cf6 31.f3 Tfc8 32.Tb2 Rf8 33.Rf2 Re7 34.Ag5 h6 35.Axf6+ Rxf6 36.Td6+ Re7 37.Td5 f6 38.Re3 g5 39.c4 Tc6 40.Tb5 Re6 41.f4 T6c7 42.Rf3 h5 43.Re3 gxf4+ 44.gxf4 h4 45.f5+ Rf7 46.Rf3 Rg7 47.Tb1 Rh6 48.Td6 Tc6 49.Te6 Txe6 50.fxe6 Te8 51.Tb7 Txe6 52.Txa7 Td6 53.a6 h3 54.Rg4 Td3 55.Ta8 Rg7 56.Rf5 Td6 57.Ta7+ Rh6 58.Tf7 Td2 59.a7 Tf2+ 60.Re6 Ta2 61.Rxf6 1-0 Grischuk,A (2726)-Gelfand,B (2733)/Mexico City MEX 2007/The Week in Chess 672) 19.Db2 (19.Da5 e5 20.Ae3 Ae2 21.Te1 Cc4 22.Da6 Cxe3 23.Txe2 Cxg2 24.Rxg2 Tad8 25.Tae1 Td7 26.Db5 Tfd8 27.Dxc5 f6 28.Dc4+ Df7 29.Dxf7+ Rxf7 30.Tb1 Tc8 31.Tc2 Tc4 32.Tb4 Tc5 33.Rf1 a5 34.Ta4 g5 35.Re2 g4 36.Ta3 Tdc7 37.Tc1 h5 38.Rd3 Td7+ 39.Re3 Tdc7 40.Tb3 Tc4 41.Rd3 Ta4 42.Tc2 Td7+ 43.Re3 Tc7 44.Tb5 Re6 45.Tb6+ Rf7 46.Ta6 Rg6 47.Ta8 Rf7 48.Ta6 Rg6 49.Td6 Rf7 50.Rd3 Re7 51.Td5 Re6 52.Td8 Rf7 53.c4 Ta3+ 54.Rd2 Ta4 55.Rd3 Ta3+ 56.Rd2 Ta4 57.c5 Txe4 58.Rd3 Ta4 59.Td6 Re7 60.Ta6 Td7+ 61.Rc3 Tdd4 62.Rb2 Tab4+ 63.Rc1 a4 64.Tc3 Tbc4 65.Rc2 Te4 66.Ta7+ Re6 67.c6 Rd6 68.c7 Rd7 69.Txc4 Txc4+ 70.Rd3 Td4+ 71.Re3 f5 72.Ta6 Rxc7 73.Tf6 Te4+ 74.Rd3 Td4+ 75.Re3 Te4+ 76.Rd3 Td4+ 77.Rc3 f4 78.Tf5 Te4 79.Rd3 Td4+ 80.Rc3 1/2-1/2 Cheparinov,I (2670)-Carlsen,M (2714)/Khanty-Mansiysk RUS 2007/The Week in Chess 683) 19...Tad8 20.Txd8 (20.Te1 Td7 21.h3 h6 22.a4 Aa6 23.Da2 Tfd8 24.a5 Cc4 25.Af1 e5 26.g4 Dg6 27.Axc4 exf4 28.Ad5 f3 29.c4 h5 30.Rh2 Df6 31.Tg1 hxg4 32.Tab1 Axc4 33.Dxc4 Df4+ 34.Tg3 Txd5 35.Dxd5 Txd5 36.exd5 c4 37.Td1 c3 38.d6 c2 39.Td3 Dc4 40.Te3 Dc6 41.Td3 Dc5 0-1 Jakovenko,D (2710)-Carlsen,M (2714)/Moscow RUS 2007/The Week in Chess 679) 20...Txd8 21.f3 f5 22.exf5 Dxf5 23.Te1 Dd5 24.Da3 Dc6 25.Dxa7 Ta8 26.De7 Cd5 27.Dd6 Dxd6 28.Axd6 Cxc3 29.Axc5 Txa2 30.Af1 Axf1 31.Rxf1 Rf7 1/2-1/2 Bacrot,E (2691)-Carlsen,M (2775)/Biel SUI 2008/The Week in Chess 717] 18...c5 este peón podrá ser atacado con posterioridad por el alfil blanco de casillas negras (!?)...> GM Andrés Rodríguez. ICC. 19.Da5 Tfc8 20.Ae3 Ae2! jugada principal. 21.Af4 saliendo de la amenaza directa ...Cc4. 21...e5?! trayendo un nuevo peón a casillas negras que luego podrán ser atacados. GM Andrés Rodríguez. [21...Ad3 22.Tad1 Ae2 23.Tc1 (23.Td2? Cc4-/+) 23...Ad3= Rybka.] 22.Ae3 Diagram ICC: no doubt in this match, Anand rocked Kramnik with great match strategy and great prep. Vishy broke Vlad's back in the two wild Merans and held his own in the technical positions (where Vlad was thought to have some edge). [22.Axe5 Dxe5 23.Txe2 Cc4 24.Da6 Dxc3 25.Tee1+/=; 22.Ac1!? GM Andrés Rodríguez.] 22...Ag4? Pero, ¿por qué?. ¿No le vale a Anand con las tablas?. Pero si hasta yo que soy un "patzer" forzaría el cambio de piezas entrando con el caballo en c4... . ¡VIVA FISCHER!. (n.d.l.r.). [22...f6 23.h3 Ad3 24.Axc5 Cc4 con compensación. Rybka.; Y ahora viene el dilema creado entre todo el ICC en la tarde de hoy: ¿por qué no 22...Cc4! GM Andrés Rodríguez y otros... . Veamos un ejemplo: 23.Da6 Cxe3 y ahora da lo mismo para la valoración general tomar el alfil negro, de torre que de dama: (23...Td8 24.Axc5 Tdc8+/=) 24.Txe2 (24.Dxe2 Dxe2 25.Txe2 Cxg2 26.Rxg2+/= pero muy difícil de concretar. GM Andrés Rodríguez.) 24...Cxg2 25.Rxg2+/= y es muy difícil que el blanco tenga una gran ventaja a largo plazo como para ganar. GM Andrés Rodríguez.] 23.Da6! controlando c4 [23.Axc5 Cc4!] 23...f6? para posicionarse en la diagonal a2-g8 con dama y alfil controlando c4, pero un plan que resultará ser inútil por lo que se va a ver en la partida. [23...h6 24.Tab1 Ae6 25.Af1+/=] 24.a4!+/- Diagram 24...Df7 25.Af1! Por fin vemos a Volodia, jugando como una máquina... . 25...Ae6 todas las últimas jugadas fueron realizadas por Anand después de estar mucho tiempo pensando, lo que demuestra que no estaba muy contento con su posición. [25...Tc7 26.a5 Ac8 27.Dd3 Cd7 28.Tab1 Cf8 29.Dd5 Ab7 30.Dxf7+ Rxf7 31.Axc5+/-] 26.Tab1 [26.Teb1 De8 27.a5 Cd7 28.Tb7+/-] 26...c4? debilitando permanentemente a su caballo como opte por avanzar con la jugada que sigue... . [26...Tab8 27.Tb5+/- (27.a5!?) ] 27.a5! Ca4 no es nada fiable esta casilla para las negras. [27...Cd7 28.Tb7+- De8 29.Txa7 y el peón pasado es muy peligroso.] 28.Tb7 De8 Diagram 29.Dd6!! hecha muy rápida. Plantea dos amenazas: Te7 y Db4. Anand decidió ahorrarse el sufrimiento y abandonó en esta posición. [29.Dd6!! Td8 30.Db4 Dc6 31.Te7 Rh8 32.Ta1+-] 1-0 Recibid un cordial saludo, Angel Jiménez Arteaga aarteaga61@gmail.com
http://ajedreztenerife.blogspot.com/2008/10/mundial-de-bonn-2008-10.html
Mon, 27 Oct 2008 22:31:00 +0000
Other sites for World Championship coverage
It's not as if I want to send people away, but it is the world championship, after all, and for an event of this magnitude, more is generally better. So here are some other places you can find coverage: The official site (One interesting article I commend to you is Artur Jussupow's match preview. [Unfortunately, a direct link is impossible - for some reason, all sub-links, no matter the topic or language, are hidden.]) The Week in Chess (with a new format) (Games briefly annotated by IM Malcolm Pein.) ChessPro (Game 1 is annotated here, in Russian.) Chessdom (Live annotations by GM Dmitrov.) Crestbook (GM Sergei Shipov's site; game 1 is here.) Europe Echecs (French language; game 1 video coverage here.) ChessVibes (Game 1 pictures, comments by IM Merijn van Delft and at some point tonight a video, here.)
http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/posts/1224024430.shtml
2008-10-14T22:10+00:00
<< SEARCH MORE
Concept by Valerio Tirri :: Powered by Portaneo :: Yourchess.net :: :: Share :: Tags