Ukranian GM Vassily Ivanchuk has announced his retirement from chess. The startling statement came hot on the heels to his embittering loss to 16 year old grandmaster Wesley So in the FIDE World Cup, currently underway in Khanty-Mansiysk. The World Cup is a FIDE World Championship qualifying event using a knockout format.

Ivanchuck, with the White pieces, lost the first game of the mini-match and managed to only draw the second game, eliminating him from the event.

Immediately after his elimination, Ivanchuk said, “In the first game all went okay, I was about to win. I was almost sure that I am winning! And then –  then I just went crazy. At one point I could make a perpetual, but my position seemed to me to have perspective, and I decided to continue playing. Perhaps the decision was right, if it were not for time trouble. Having two minutes against ten you are doomed to failure. So the result is obvious: an inadequate estimation of the situation which led to a tragedy. In the second game I was trying to keep a balance, but I missed something. My opponent, by the way, played very badly.” (as reported on the ChessBase website and the official FIDE site for the event). Ivanchuk went on to say, “I am sure that from now on I should forget about any serious aims in chess. I don’t need anything from chess anymore. I will start new life with new goals. Chess — I will become just a chess fan now. I will follow chess, will follow the games of my ex-colleagues.”

Vassily Ivanchuk was one of the brightest stars of the chess world during the “Kasparov era” of the late 1980’s and 1990’s. He astounded the chess world with his meteoric rise. Rated below 2400 in 1986, by the year 1990 he’d topped 2600 Elo.  By 1992 he’d passed the 2700 rating plateau, joining the ranks of the “super GMs”. In 2007 he hit his highest Elo rating (2787) at age 38.

Now, at age 40, GM Ivanchuk appears ready to call it a day.

Here’s the first game of the mini-match with GM So from the World Cup:

Ivanchuk,V-So,W
FIDE World Cup, 2009

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. exd5 exd5 5. Bd3 Nf6 6. Nge2 O-O 7. O-O Bg4 8.
f3 Bh5 9. Nf4 Bg6 10. Nxg6 hxg6 11. Bg5 c6 12. f4 Qb6 13. Na4 (13. Bxf6 gxf6
14. Ne2 f5 15. Bxf5 gxf5 16. Ng3 Re8 17. Nxf5 Re6 {Guth-Sharavdorj, Berlin-ch 1997}) 13… Qxd4+ 14. Kh1 Ne4 15. c3 Nf2+ 16. Rxf2 Qxf2 17. cxb4 f6 18. Qg4 fxg5 19. Qe6+ Kh8 20. Nc5 Qxb2 21. Qh3+ Kg8 22. Qe6+ Kh8= 23. Rf1 Qf6 24. Qh3+ Kg8 25. g3?? (25. Ne4 dxe4 26. Bc4+ Rf7 27. Qc8+ Kh7 28. Qh3+ Kg8=) 25… Re8 26. Nxb7 gxf4 27. Rxf4 Re1+ (27… Qe6 28. Qxe6+ Rxe6 {With a similar position to 29…Rxe6 in the text — the White King is on g2 in the actual game)}) 28. Kg2 Qe6 29. Qxe6+ Rxe6 30. Nc5 Re7 31. b5 Nd7 32. Nxd7 Rxd7 33. bxc6 Rd6 34. Bb5 Re8 35. Rd4 Kf7 36. Rf4+ Ke6 37. Rg4 Ke5 38. Kf3 Rf6+ 39. Ke3 {White plays one last move and resigns due to 39…Kd6 with a winning endgame.} 0-1

The opening citation in the above game was located in just moments using ChessBase 10 and the Mega Database, both available from ChessCentral.

LATE BREAKING NEWS: GM Wesley Yo has just eliminated GM Gata Kamsky from the World Cup. We’ll have more on this story later.

Have fun! — Steve

In case you missed the news, the FIDE World Cup is being played right now in Khanty-Mansiysk, Russia. The event began on Nov. 20th and will run until December 15th. The World Cup is part of the qualifying cycle for the 2011 FIDE World Chess Championship.

I found it interesting that the World Cup has become a “knockout” event (in which a loss eliminates a player), rather than a traditional swiss system tournament. The format for this event is as follows: the first six rounds consist of two games contested between each pair of players with winners advancing to the next round. The seventh round consists of four games. The time control is ninety minutes for the first forty moves followed by a 30-minute “sudden death” period. The timers use the “Fischer increment” in which each player has thirty seconds added to his time after each move.

It’s easy to understand why the event uses the “knockout” format: players gain nothing by playing for a draw rather than for a win. The knockout format encourages players to go all-out in each game. In digging around through some databases, I discovered that the 1991 World Cup (the first World Cup I looked at) had actually ended in a tie between Anatoly Karpov and Vassily Ivanchuk (10.5 out of a possible 15 points). Their last round game was a draw, though, to the players’ credit, they did fight it out — the game lasted forty-five moves with a dead level position at the time the draw was agreed upon.

So far in the 2009 World Cup there have been a few upsets. When you take a look at the games from this event and compare players’ ratings, it’s important to note that the Elo rating system gets “stingier” with points the higher one advances in the ratings. For example a 1600-rated player beating an 1800-rated player in a club event is no big deal — it happens all the time. But at the grandmaster level, a 200 point rating differential is a whopping great gulf, more akin to an 1100-rated player whipping up on that 1800-rated player in a club event. That’s what makes this first round game so much fun, a game in which Yu Yangyi (rated 2527) schools 2718-rated Sergei Movsesian on how to play the White side of a Sicilian Defense:

Yu Yangyi-Movsesian
FIDE World Cup, 11/21/09

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. Nc3 Qc7 6. Be3 a6 7. Qd2 Nf6 8.
O-O-O Be7 9. f3 h5 10. Kb1 b5 11. Qf2 d6 12. h3 Bb7 13. Bd3 h4 14. Nxc6 Bxc6
15. Rhe1 b4 16. Ne2 e5 17. Bb6 Qb7 18. Nc1 {This is where it begins to come
off the track for Movsesian. The White Bishop’s presently not hurting much on
b6, so Black should ignore it. Castling Kingside or setting up a b-file
battery with …Rb8 would have been more productive.} Nd7 19. Ba5 {Now we see the problem with …Nd7 — it gave up space while not gaining any back.} O-O 20. Bc4 Rfc8 {I’m not sure why. The move …Nc5 would gain space and put some pressure on White’s side of the board. Even the …Rab8 battery idea could still be valid.} 21. Nd3 Ba4 22. Bb3 Bxb3 23. axb3 {Wow! Opening the a-file into his own castled position looks like risky play by White, but there’s no immediate danger.} Qb5 24. Bxb4 a5 25. Ba3 a4 26. Nb4?! {This should have been fatal. The move b3-b4 locks in the dark-squared Bishop, but also sews up the King’s castled position.} axb3 27. cxb3 Nc5 28. Nd5?? {Another “wow” move. 28.Qe3 keeps things sewed up and is far less risky than the text move.} Bg5 29.b4 Ne6?? {And Black hands the game back to White! Why retreat the Knight? Either…Na4 or …Nb3 would keep the pressure on White’s King. Now White will wriggle free.} 30. Nb6! Rxa3 31. bxa3 Rc3 32. Qb2 Rd3 33. Nd5 Nd4 34. a4 {Some nice defensive play by White, and now neither side has any real advantage.} Qc4 35. Rc1 Qa6??  {Movsesian completely misses 35….Bxc1 to win back the Exchange…} 36. Rc3 {…and now it’s too late.} Rd2 37. Qa3 Ne2 38. Rc7 Rd3 39. b5 Qa5 40. Qxd3 Qxe1+ 41. Ka2 Qf2 42. Rc2 Nc1+ 43. Ka3 Qg1 {Black is down material and doesn’t want to swap pieces. If Black had played …Nxd3, White would have replied Rxf2 with a better endgame.} 44. Qc3 Qd1 45. b6 Nd3 46. b7 Qb1 47. Qxd3 {Playing Qc8+ guarantees a second Queen, but pretty much any reasonable White move ensures a win. Black is strictly on auto-pilot now.} Bc1+ 48. Rxc1 Qxd3+ 49. Nc3 {White will get his Queen back next move, so Black resigns.} 1-0

If you want to learn more about the FIDE World Cup, the official website is http://www.ugra-chess.ru/eng/main_e.htm

By the way, a good way to find and play through games of previous World Cups is to consult the ChessBase Mega Database 2009, which is the perfect companion to ChessBase 10, Fritz12, and Rybka3.

Have fun! — Steve

Mihir Bhuptani poses behind his trophy with coach Chris Torres.

Wall Chart. 2009 CalChess State Grade Level: Kindergarten (standings)
#    Name/Rtng/ID    Rd 1    Rd 2    Rd 3    Rd 4    Rd 5    Tot
1    Jack Chin    B  16    W    6    B    4    B    2    W    5
unr.   14288146           1.0     2.0     3.0     4.0     5.0     5.0
2    Gia Peterson    B  18    W  10    B    9    W    1    B    6
539   14164190   (533)        1.0     2.0     3.0     3.0     4.0     4.0
3    Amy  L Chan    B  11    W  12    bye      W  14    B    9
131   14115781           0.0     1.0     2.0     3.0     4.0     4.0
4    Soorya Kuppam    B  13    B    7    W    1    W    9    B  12
unr.   14267883           1.0     2.0     2.0     2.5     3.5     3.5
5    Bryan Mathia Wong    -  21    -  20    B    6    W  11    B    1
190   14018447   (185)       X1.0    X2.0     2.0     3.0     3.0     3.0
6    Beaumont Zhang    W  14    B    1    W    5    B  10    W    2
unr.   14285194           1.0     1.0     2.0     3.0     3.0     3.0
7    Ben Rood    B  19    W    4    B  11    W  17    B  14
unr.   14239084           1.0     1.0     1.0     2.0     3.0     3.0
8    Jake Marshal    W    9    W  13    B  10    B  18    W  19
unr.   14262494           0.0     1.0     1.0     2.0     3.0     3.0
9    Advait Budaraju    B    8    W  11    W    2    B    4    W    3
unr.   14276583           1.0     2.0     2.0     2.5     2.5     2.5
10    Chinguun  Bayaraa    B  15    B    2    W    8    W    6    B  11
unr.   14271324           1.0     1.0     2.0     2.0     2.5     2.5
11    Aaron Ng    W    3    B    9    W    7    B    5    W  10
unr.   14302925           1.0     1.0     2.0     2.0     2.5     2.5
12    Ryan Sheng    bye      B    3    -  15    W  13    W    4
unr.                              0.5     0.5     1.5     2.5     2.5     2.5
13    Antarish  Rautela    W    4    B    8    W  19    B  12    W  18
unr.   14246081           0.0     0.0     1.0     1.0     2.0     2.0
14    Muthiah Panchanatham    B    6    W  16    W  17    B    3    W    7
unr.   14301750           0.0     1.0     2.0     2.0     2.0     2.0
15    Allen Yan    W  10    W  18    -  12    —-    —-
unr.   14284164           0.0     1.0     1.0    U1.0    X2.0     2.0
16    Ansh Gandhi    W    1    B  14    W  18    B  19    B  17
unr.   14288606           0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0     1.0     1.0
17    Christopher Tan    —-    W  19    B  14    B    7    W  16
unr.   14004206          U0.0     1.0     1.0     1.0     1.0     1.0
18    Julie Ganzorig    W    2    B  15    B  16    W    8    B  13
unr.   14269131           0.0     0.0     1.0     1.0     1.0     1.0
19    Dominic Pang    W    7    B  17    B  13    W  16    B    8
unr.   14287075           0.0     0.0     0.0     1.0     1.0     1.0
20    Bayarra Chinguun    —-    -    5    —-    —-    —-
470   1427134            U0.0    F0.0    U0.0    U0.0    U0.0     0.0
21    Nico Tribuzio    -    5    —-    —-    —-    —-
unr.   14278903          F0.0    U0.0    U0.0    U0.0    U0.0     0.0

Wall Chart. 2009 CalChess State Grade Level: 1st Grade (standings)
#    Name/Rtng/ID    Rd 1    Rd 2    Rd 3    Rd 4    Rd 5    Tot
1    Josiah P Stearman    W  20    B    9    W    7    B    2    B    3
1176   14006506           1.0     2.0     3.0     3.5     4.5     4.5
2    Arun  G Khemani    B  11    W  18    B    4    W    1    B    7
1008   13912844   (975)        1.0     2.0     3.0     3.5     4.5     4.5
3    Solomon Ge    W  21    B  15    W    5    B    6    W    1
845   14154077           1.0     2.0     3.0     4.0     4.0     4.0
4    Hari Kris Kumaran    W  26    B  23    W    2    B  19    W  13
511   14207485           1.0     2.0     2.0     3.0     4.0     4.0
5    Mihir Bhuptani    B  31    W  13    B    3    B  12    W    8
404   14082402           1.0     2.0     2.0     3.0     4.0     4.0
6    Zachary Greco    B  12    W  19    B  22    W    3    W  15
704   13838986   (709)        1.0     1.0     2.0     2.0     3.0     3.0
7    Selena Wong    B  22    W  16    B    1    W  24    W    2
505   13951716           1.0     2.0     2.0     3.0     3.0     3.0
8    Estella Wong    W  23    B  25    B  19    W  14    B    5
438   13951722           0.0     1.0     2.0     3.0     3.0     3.0
9    James Pflaging    B  24    W    1    B  14    W  20    B  22
292   14201972           1.0     1.0     1.0     2.0     3.0     3.0
10    Avyay Varadarajan    B  13    W  14    W  28    B  23    B  24
272   14241318           0.0     0.0     1.0     2.0     3.0     3.0
11    John Andrew Chan    W    2    B  28    W  13    B  26    B  17
159   14044313           0.0     1.0     1.0     2.0     3.0     3.0
12    Charlie Jones    W    6    B  30    B  17    W    5    B  18
unr.   14239152           0.0     1.0     2.0     2.0     3.0     3.0
13    Hari Stoyanov    W  10    B    5    B  11    W  18    B    4
unr.   14239167           1.0     1.0     2.0     3.0     3.0     3.0
14    Luke Zhao    W  15    B  10    W    9    B    8    W  19
unr.   14282042           0.0     1.0     2.0     2.0     3.0     3.0
15    a Miles Olive Manga    B  14    W    3    B  16    W  21    B    6
221   14120178   (221)        1.0     1.0     1.5     2.5     2.5     2.5
16    Nicholas Evenden    B  27    B    7    W  15    W  17    B  21
unr.   14292651           1.0     1.0     1.5     1.5     2.5     2.5
17    Rowen Barnes    W  19    B  26    W  12    B  16    W  11
363   14202048           0.0     1.0     1.0     2.0     2.0     2.0
18    Pradyumn Acharya    W  30    B    2    W  23    B  13    W  12
263   14043477           1.0     1.0     2.0     2.0     2.0     2.0
19    Ben Levinson    B  17    B    6    W    8    W    4    B  14
214   12825995           1.0     2.0     2.0     2.0     2.0     2.0
20    Amirah Moham Rafi    B    1    W  24    W  29    B    9    W  25
211   14142190           0.0     0.0     1.0     1.0     2.0     2.0
21    Greg Kornguth    B    3    bye      W  25    B  15    W  16
102   14240170           0.0     1.0     2.0     2.0     2.0     2.0
22    Tommy Koh    W    7    B  29    W    6    B  27    W    9
unr.   14283820           0.0     1.0     1.0     2.0     2.0     2.0
23    Janya Budaraju    B    8    W    4    B  18    W  10    W  28
unr.   14276577           1.0     1.0     1.0     1.0     2.0     2.0
24    Marcus Lee    W    9    B  20    W  27    B    7    W  10
unr.   14292672           0.0     1.0     2.0     2.0     2.0     2.0
25    Srinjo Chatterjee    bye      W    8    B  21    W  30    B  20
259   14124605           0.5     0.5     0.5     1.5     1.5     1.5
26    Thomas Yu    B    4    W  17    B  30    W  11    W  27
unr.   14260586           0.0     0.0     0.5     0.5     1.5     1.5
27    Enkhj Gomboluudev    W  16    -  31    B  24    W  22    B  26
291   14079545   (291)        0.0    X1.0     1.0     1.0     1.0     1.0
28    David Pena    —-    W  11    B  10    W  29    B  23
unr.   14298048          U0.0     0.0     0.0     1.0     1.0     1.0
29    William  Adams    —-    W  22    B  20    B  28    W  30
unr.                             U0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0     1.0     1.0
30    Sean Bochaton    B  18    W  12    W  26    B  25    B  29
unr.   14287081           0.0     0.0     0.5     0.5     0.5     0.5
31    William Adams    W    5    -  27    —-    —-    —-
unr.                              0.0    F0.0    U0.0    U0.0    U0.0     0.0

Wall Chart. 2009 CalChess State Grade Level: 2nd Grade (standings)
#    Name/Rtng/ID    Rd 1    Rd 2    Rd 3    Rd 4    Rd 5    Tot
1    Rayan Taghizadeh    B    7    W    8    B    4    W    3    B    5
1537   13880825           1.0     2.0     3.0     4.0     5.0     5.0
2    Om Chinchwadkar    W  15    B  19    W    5    B  10    W    9
1236   13796783   (930)        1.0     2.0     2.0     3.0     4.0     4.0
3    Anthony Zhou    W  14    B    9    W    6    B    1    W  13
972   14202012           1.0     2.0     3.0     3.0     4.0     4.0
4    Dante Peterson    W  25    B  20    W    1    B  12    W  14
888   14164184   (869)        1.0     2.0     2.0     3.0     4.0     4.0
5    Bryce M Wong    W  23    B  31    B    2    W  16    W    1
819   13644104   (830)        1.0     2.0     3.0     4.0     4.0     4.0
6    Kevin Zhu    B  13    W  12    B    3    W    7    B  16
1097   14033094           1.0     2.0     2.0     2.5     3.5     3.5
7    Serafina Show    W    1    B  27    W  31    B    6    B  18
590   13964624           0.0     1.0     2.0     2.5     3.5     3.5
8    Ojas Arun    W  26    B    1    W  17    B  13    W  20
675   14192020           1.0     1.0     2.0     2.0     3.0     3.0
9    Joanna Liu    B  30    W    3    W  20    B  22    B    2
674   14090307           1.0     1.0     2.0     3.0     3.0     3.0
10    Maximo T Tribuzio    W  27    B  28    B  16    W    2    W  22
667   14138998           0.5     1.5     2.0     2.0     3.0     3.0
11    Howard Leona Tang    B  31    W  32    B  22    W  24    B  23
651   14247262   (653)        0.0     1.0     1.0     2.0     3.0     3.0
12    Daniel # George    W  17    B    6    B  24    W    4    W  19
646   13996856   (649)        1.0     1.0     2.0     2.0     3.0     3.0
13    Bruce Liu    W    6    B  26    W  18    W    8    B    3
575   14180487           0.0     1.0     2.0     3.0     3.0     3.0
14    Alvin J Zhang    B    3    W  29    W  19    B  25    B    4
562   13969710           0.0     1.0     2.0     3.0     3.0     3.0
15    Alexander Wong    B    2    W  24    B  26    W  17    B  27
588   14169745           0.0     0.0     1.0     1.5     2.5     2.5
16    Phillip Chin    W  28    B  18    W  10    B    5    W    6
520   13975164           1.0     2.0     2.5     2.5     2.5     2.5
17    Abtin Olaee    B  12    W  21    B    8    B  15    W  25
unr.   13739495           0.0     1.0     1.0     1.5     2.5     2.5
18    Derek Hua    B  21    W  16    B  13    B  27    W    7
846   14164403           1.0     1.0     1.0     2.0     2.0     2.0
19    Warren Xu    B  29    W    2    B  14    W  21    B  12
819   14180466           1.0     1.0     1.0     2.0     2.0     2.0
20    Arthur Fargher    B  32    W    4    B    9    W  31    B    8
592   14046070           1.0     1.0     1.0     2.0     2.0     2.0
21    Edward Liu    W  18    B  17    W  29    B  19    B  31
505   13955684           0.0     0.0     1.0     1.0     2.0     2.0
22    Seiji Minowada    —-    B  23    W  11    W    9    B  10
476   13994577   (478)       U0.0     1.0     2.0     2.0     2.0     2.0
23    Niko Duffy    B    5    W  22    B  32    W  30    W  11
294   14204066           0.0     0.0     1.0     2.0     2.0     2.0
24    Michael Ryaboy    —-    B  15    W  12    B  11    W  28
unr.                             U0.0     1.0     1.0     1.0     2.0     2.0
25    Douglas Zeller    B    4    W  30    B  28    W  14    B  17
506   13994651           0.0     0.5     1.5     1.5     1.5     1.5
26    Emmanuel Maria    B    8    W  13    W  15    B  29    W  32
129   14191288           0.0     0.0     0.0     0.5     1.5     1.5
27    Kimberly Liu    B  10    W    7    B  30    W  18    W  15
unr.   14268494           0.5     0.5     1.5     1.5     1.5     1.5
28    Nichol Cardarelli    B  16    W  10    W  25    B  32    B  24
900   13743705           0.0     0.0     0.0     1.0     1.0     1.0
29    Parker Ra Bizjack    W  19    B  14    B  21    W  26    B  30
222   14178157           0.0     0.0     0.0     0.5     1.0     1.0
30    Fraser Coleman    W    9    B  25    W  27    B  23    W  29
unr.   14291113           0.0     0.5     0.5     0.5     1.0     1.0
31    Jason Haas    W  11    W    5    B    7    B  20    W  21
unr.   14239125           1.0     1.0     1.0     1.0     1.0     1.0
32    Jonathan DeMiguel    W  20    B  11    W  23    W  28    B  26
unr.   14292048           0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0

Wall Chart. 2009 CalChess State Grade Level: 3rd Grade (standings)
#    Name/Rtng/ID    Rd 1    Rd 2    Rd 3    Rd 4    Rd 5    Tot
1    Michael Wang    W  20    B  22    W    5    B    4    W    2
1397   14224170           1.0     2.0     3.0     4.0     4.5     4.5
2    Leyton Ho    B  19    W    6    B    9    W    8    B    1
1340   13850433           1.0     2.0     3.0     4.0     4.5     4.5
3    Seaver Dahlgren    B  25    W  12    B    8    W    7    B  11
1245   13590882           1.0     2.0     2.0     3.0     4.0     4.0
4    Anirudh Seela    B  27    W  14    B  11    W    1    B  10
1210   13813698           1.0     2.0     3.0     3.0     4.0     4.0
5    Leonar Cardarelli    B  28    W  16    B    1    W  23    B  18
1015   13518341           1.0     2.0     2.0     3.0     4.0     4.0
6    Justin J Tan    W  37    B    2    W  20    B  17    B    9
828   13736756   (819)        1.0     1.0     2.0     3.0     4.0     4.0
7    Evan Baldonado    W  26    B  13    W  10    B    3    W    8
1219   13730688           1.0     2.0     3.0     3.0     3.5     3.5
8    Lawrence Wong    W  29    B  41    W    3    B    2    B    7
970   13706652           1.0     2.0     3.0     3.0     3.5     3.5
9    Lance Finley    W  36    B  15    W    2    B  16    W    6
1022   14225241           1.0     2.0     2.0     3.0     3.0     3.0
10    Desiree Ho    B  31    W  18    B    7    W  24    W    4
931   13601087           1.0     2.0     2.0     3.0     3.0     3.0
11    Julia Schulman    B  32    W  21    W    4    B  15    W    3
829   13880501           1.0     2.0     2.0     3.0     3.0     3.0
12    Drake Lin    W  43    B    3    B  24    W  31    W  19
699   13826475           1.0     1.0     1.0     2.0     3.0     3.0
13    Jimmy Ro Schaffer    B  38    W    7    B  27    W  18    B  24
696   13975838           1.0     1.0     2.0     2.0     3.0     3.0
14    Jonathan Ko    W  30    B    4    W  26    B  19    W  29
687   13590368           1.0     1.0     2.0     2.0     3.0     3.0
15    Ian Matthew Wong    B  40    W    9    B  28    W  11    B  32
676   14095037           1.0     1.0     2.0     2.0     3.0     3.0
16    Lindsay Kornguth    W  39    B    5    W  36    W    9    B  26
651   14176920           1.0     1.0     2.0     2.0     3.0     3.0
17    Ridd Ranjithkumar    B  21    W  31    B  40    W    6    B  27
602   14008290           0.0     1.0     2.0     2.0     3.0     3.0
18    Suleyman Saib    W  42    B  10    W  41    B  13    W    5
555   13738554           1.0     1.0     2.0     3.0     3.0     3.0
19    Sainath Kesari    W    2    B  37    W  21    W  14    B  12
546   13698342           0.0     1.0     2.0     3.0     3.0     3.0
20    Al Neumann-loreck    B    1    W  32    B    6    B  22    W  35
530   13914794           0.0     1.0     1.0     2.0     3.0     3.0
21    Alexander Makhratchev    W  17    B  11    B  19    W  30    B  23
unr.   14266942           1.0     1.0     1.0     2.0     3.0     3.0
22    Rohith Kolli    B  33    W    1    B  25    W  20    W  38
753   13793474           1.0     1.0     1.5     1.5     2.5     2.5
23    Aaron Lin    W  41    B  24    W  29    B    5    W  21
636   13511436           0.0     1.0     2.0     2.0     2.0     2.0
24    Ian Cheng    B  35    W  23    W  12    B  10    W  13
530   14040572           1.0     1.0     2.0     2.0     2.0     2.0
25    Aditya Krishnan    W    3    B  43    W  22    B  26    W  33
496   14069218           0.0     1.0     1.5     1.5     2.0     2.0
26    Eric Chang    B    7    W  33    B  14    W  25    W  16
433   14033108           0.0     1.0     1.0     2.0     2.0     2.0
27    Michael Manguyen    W    4    B  39    W  13    B  41    W  17
422   13973241   (424)        0.0     1.0     1.0     2.0     2.0     2.0
28    Owen Sherry    W    5    B  42    W  15    B  35    W  41
392   13977600           0.0     1.0     1.0     1.0     2.0     2.0
29    Andrew # Paul    B    8    W  35    B  23    W  40    B  14
379   14232850   (383)        0.0     1.0     1.0     2.0     2.0     2.0
30    Akshay Gharpure    B  14    W  40    -  38    B  21    W  39
365   14061928           0.0     0.0    X1.0     1.0     2.0     2.0
31    Jeffrey Deng    W  10    B  17    W  42    B  12    W  40
362   13983473           0.0     0.0     1.0     1.0     2.0     2.0
32    Sara Kaushik    W  11    B  20    W  39    B  36    W  15
290   13878041           0.0     0.0     1.0     2.0     2.0     2.0
33    Rini Vasan    W  22    B  26    W  43    B  34    B  25
195   13683505           0.0     0.0     0.5     1.5     2.0     2.0
34    Diego Pena    -  45    B  36    bye      W  33    B  43
106   13739007          F0.0     0.0     1.0     1.0     2.0     2.0
35    Bhagvat Maheta    W  24    B  29    W  37    W  28    B  20
unr.   14261657           0.0     0.0     1.0     2.0     2.0     2.0
36    Arvind Ragunathan    B    9    W  34    B  16    W  32    B  37
397   14081744           0.0     1.0     1.0     1.0     1.5     1.5
37    Haakon Black    B    6    W  19    B  35    B  43    W  36
275   13971636           0.0     0.0     0.0     1.0     1.5     1.5
38    Pranav Acharya    W  13    bye      -  30    bye      B  22
119   14043483           0.0     1.0    F1.0     1.5     1.5     1.5
39    Nishant Yadav    B  16    W  27    B  32    W  42    B  30
unr.   14203413           0.0     0.0     0.0     1.0     1.0     1.0
40    Mathias Hall    W  15    B  30    W  17    B  29    B  31
unr.   14282900           0.0     1.0     1.0     1.0     1.0     1.0
41    Andrew Ng    B  23    W    8    B  18    W  27    B  28
unr.   14302931           1.0     1.0     1.0     1.0     1.0     1.0
42    Shivani Seshan    B  18    W  28    B  31    B  39    -  46
unr.   14266606           0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0    X1.0     1.0
43    Keya Jonnalagadda    B  12    W  25    B  33    W  37    W  34
192   14117882           0.0     0.0     0.5     0.5     0.5     0.5
44    Vikram Vasan    —-    —-    —-    —-    —-
1318   12937705          U0.0    U0.0    U0.0    U0.0    U0.0     0.0
45    Justin Su    -  34    —-    —-    —-    —-
882   13758233          F0.0    U0.0    U0.0    U0.0    U0.0     0.0
46         —-    —-    —-    —-    -  42
unr.                             U0.0    U0.0    U0.0    U0.0    F0.0     0.0

This weekend I am enjoying my duties as a coach at the CalChess Grade Level Championship in Stockton. I will be posting tournament crosstables, games and photos both nights of the tournament. This blogger is extremely grateful that Calchess President Tom Langland performed the chief tournament director duties.

Below is a very instructional game played by  Srinath Goli (Mission San Jose Elementary School) who demonstrated to his opponent why masters prefer 4. c3 rather than 4. O-O in the  Italian Game. This game is a real gem and is the best performance I have seen from Srinath to date.

[Event "Grade Level Championship"]
[Site "Stockton"]
[Date "2009.11.21"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Li, Jack"]
[Black "Goli, Srinath"]
[Result "0-1"]
[PlyCount "84"]
[TimeControl "g60"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. O-O Nf6 5. Nc3 d6 6. d3 Bg4 7. Bg5 Nd4 8. Nd5 Nxf3+ 9. gxf3 Bh3 10. Re1 h6 11. Nxf6+ gxf6 12. Be3 Rg8+ 13. Kh1 Bg2+ 14. Kg1 Bxf3+ 15. Kf1 Bxd1 16. Raxd1 Bxe3 17. Rxe3 Qd7 18. b3 O-O-O 19. a4 f5 20. Bb5 Qe6 21. Bc4 Qf6 22. Rf3 f4 23. b4 Qh4 24. Bxf7 Rg7 25. Be6+ Kb8 26. Rh3 Qf6 27. Bf5
Rdg8 28. Ke2 Rg1 29. Rxg1 Rxg 30. f3 a6 31. Kf2 Rg5 32. c4 h5 33. b5 axb5 34. axb5 h4 35. Rxh4 Ka7 36. Rh3 Rxf5 37. exf5 Qxf5 38. Kg2 Qxd3 39. Rh8 Qxc4 40. h4 Qxb5 41. Kh3 Qd7+ 42. Kg2 Qg7+ 0-1

[Event "13 OIBM"]
[Site "Bad Wiessee"]
[Date "2009.11.03"]
[Round "4.12"]
[White "Nguyen, Piotr"]
[Black "Hertneck, Gerald"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A29"]
[WhiteElo "2360"]
[BlackElo "2513"]
[Annotator ",PIONGU"]
[PlyCount "65"]
[EventDate "2009.09.??"]
[EventType "swiss"]
[EventRounds "9"]
[EventCountry "GER"]

1. c4 {It’s very surprising that I played it against GM. So far I have scored
rather badly with the English Opening.} ({Basically I use} 1. f4 {versus GMs.})
1… e5 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 d5 ({I was concerned about} 3… c6 {a bit}) 4. cxd5
Nxd5 5. Nc3 {but this particular system suits me very much since I play
Accelerated Dragon with Black.} Nb6 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. O-O Be7 8. a3 ({One year ago
I invented} 8. a4 a5 9. Nb5 {and beat about 2400 player in game P.Nguyen – M.
Nurkiewicz, Warsaw-ch 2008. But I don’t trust it so much anymore and now I
came up with completely different idea.[%cal Yd2d4]}) 8… O-O 9. b4 Re8 {
Although I knew that GM G.Hertneck plays this move (and scored well) somehow I
didn’t prepar anything and already I had to think over the board.} (9… Be6 {
is main continuation then I wanted to play} 10. Rb1 {and now Black has to
weaken himself with …a6 or …f6.[%cal Gb4b5]}) 10. d3 (10. Rb1 Bf8 11. d3
Nd4 12. Ne1) 10… Bf8 11. Bb2 {it looks pretty natural} a6 {I don’t find it
very clever but my opponent didn’t want to repeat his game since he was afraid
of my preparations (which in fact didn’t exist)} (11… a5 12. b5 Nd4 13. Nd2
a4 14. e3 Ne6 15. Qc2 Nc5 16. d4 {V.Gavrikov – G.Hertneck, Austria 2005}) 12.
Rc1 Nd4 13. Nd2 {a normal move} ({but it’s worth to consider} 13. Ne4) ({or}
13. Nxd4 exd4 14. Ne4 {well, basically evaluation of this position is quite
important.}) 13… c6 {making …Bg4 possible and basically limiting bishop on
g2. But does …c6 and …a6 mix well here?} ({Black would like to go} 13…
Bg4 $4 {but it drops b7-P} 14. Bxb7 $16) 14. e3 Nb5 15. Nc4 {quite primitive…
offering exchange of knights. It just leads to dull equality but it is exactly
what I wanted that day – let Grandmaster struggling to make something out of
nothing.} (15. Nb3 $142 {is objectively stronger when White keeps small edge.})
15… Nxc3 16. Bxc3 Nxc4 17. dxc4 Qg5 $5 {playing for a ‘win’} (17… Qxd1 {
should be just drawn without big effort from any side.}) 18. Qc2 Qh5 19. c5 f6
{quite good move; Black has good position and doesn’t have to force matters
neither show how exactly he wants to develop.} 20. a4 {this move is rather
useful but sometimes it can turn out to be weakening to potential …a5.} Bf5
21. e4 ({I was also considering} 21. Be4 {after which interesting and very
important type position arises} Bh3 22. Rfd1 f5 23. Bh1 e4 24. Rd7) 21… Be6
22. Bd2 $1 {regrouping pieces to better squares} Qf7 23. Rb1 Red8 24. Rfc1 h5
25. Be3 h4 26. Bf1 (26. f3 $142) 26… Qh5 27. Rb2 {multipurpose move} hxg3 $6
{unnecessarily releasing the tension} (27… Bg4) 28. hxg3 Bg4 $4 29. Qb3+ $1
Kh8 (29… Qf7 30. Bc4 {is horrible}) 30. f3 $1 {clearing the 2nd rank[%csl
Rg4][%cal Yb2h2,Yh2h8,Gf3g4]} Bxf3 31. Rh2 {[%csl Rh5,Rh8][%cal Gh2h8]} Qxh2+
32. Kxh2 Bxe4 33. Qe6 {Till that day I have always been thinking that my first
victory over GM would be much more sophisticated…} 1-0

[Event "13 OIBM"]
[Site "Bad Wiessee"]
[Date "2009.11.04"]
[Round "5.5"]
[White "Parligras, Mircea"]
[Black "Nguyen, Piotr"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "C07"]
[WhiteElo "2547"]
[BlackElo "2360"]
[Annotator ",PIONGU"]
[PlyCount "81"]
[EventDate "2009.09.??"]
[EventType "swiss"]
[EventRounds "9"]
[EventCountry "GER"]

1. e4 e6 {my favourite opening which has been neglected recently.} ({I also
considered} 1… g6 {but he uses too many systems against it and I wanted to
prepar something by myself.}) 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 c5 4. Ngf3 ({main move is} 4.
exd5 Qxd5 5. Ngf3 cxd4 {just transposing}) 4… cxd4 5. exd5 (5. Nxd4 {isn’t
challanging} Nf6 {and Black is OK.} ({or} 5… Nc6)) 5… Qxd5 6. Bc4 Qd6 7.
O-O Nf6 8. Nb3 Nc6 9. Nbxd4 Nxd4 10. Nxd4 a6 11. Bb3 ({The main continuation
here is} 11. Re1 {after which there’re many wild and complicated variations.
There’s much theory nowadays and Black seems to be holding well.} Qc7 12. Bb3
Bd6 13. Nf5 Bxh2+ 14. Kh1 O-O 15. Nxg7 Rd8 $1 {etc.}) 11… Qc7 12. Qf3 Bd6 13.
h3 (13. Kh1) 13… O-O 14. Bg5 b5 $1 {This is very interesting pawn sacrifice
introduced to practice by IM A.Ornstein back to 1982. The commentator GM
Michael Prusikin gave even ‘!!’ and wrote: “was für ein Zug! Statt f6 zu
decken, schmeiß er ihm noch einen Turm hin. OK, der Turm ist nicht wirklich zu
nehmen und der Zug war der Geschwindigkeit nach zu Hause vorbereitet, aber
trotzdem cool, immerhin ist das Bauernopfer absolut echt:”} (14… Nd7 {should
also equalise according to IM J.Watson}) (14… Bh2+ 15. Kh1 Be5 {is thought
to be good too.}) 15. Bxf6 {if not this then only Black can be better.} (15.
Qxa8 $2 Bb7 16. Qxf8+ Kxf8 {in this position queen should prove much stronger
than the pair of rooks. “Black’s attack continues” – IM J.Watson}) 15… gxf6
16. Qxf6 Be5 17. Qh4 Bb7 18. c3 Kh8 {Black’s move are terribly simple. Just
hammer down the g-file. “zwei starke Läufer und die offene g-Linie scheinen
absollut ausreichende Kompensation zu geben” GM M.Prusikin} 19. Bd1 ({Critical
test is} 19. f4 Rg8 20. Rf2 Bd6 $1 {“A creative idea of the strong
correspondence player John Knudsen” – IM J.Watson “Play the French 3rd
edition” everyman 2003} (20… Bxd4 $6 21. cxd4 Rg6 22. f5 $1 exf5 23. d5 $14 {
Yudasin – Ornstein, Trnava 1983})) (19. Bc2 $6 f5 20. Rae1 Bh2+ $1 21. Kh1 Qg7
22. f3 Bg3 $15 {IM J.Watson}) 19… Rg8 (19… Rad8 {was interesting idea but
it’s just too slow.}) 20. Bf3 Rg6 {it’s best square for the rook – there’re
some ideas of …Rh6, …Bf6 and also g7 square is free for Black’s queen.} 21.
Bxb7 $8 {it looks like an only move in this position} Qxb7 22. f3 {weakening
dark squares… Black’s bishop become a monster. But can White improve?} (22.
g3 {doesn’t look encouraging} Rag8 23. Kh2 $8 f5 $40 {and Black has enormous
pressure}) 22… Rag8 (22… f5 23. g4 Qg7 {may be an improvement} 24. Qf2 Rg8)
23. g4 f5 {I played this rather quickly because I thought there’s no way to
defend against …Qg7 followed by …Rh6 and …Rxh3 when White collapses.
Also it looks very flexible, Black just puts more pressure down the g-file
while keeping options for queen and bishop still open. Ideas like …Bb8 with .
..Qc7 or …Ba7 and …e5 came to my mind as well.} ({but} 23… Bf4 {was
worth looking at[%cal Gg6h6]}) 24. Rae1 Qg7 25. Kg2 {And here I had hard nut
to crack…} (25. Nc6 $2 Bd6 {and White achieved less than nothing}) {Now I
realised that …Rh6 isn’t so good as I expected… After long thinking I
understood that in fact White doesn’t threaten anything at the moment that’s
why I went} 25… b4 $5 {weakening White’s structure.} ({Unexpectedly} 25…
Rh6 $6 {doesn’t win as one might think some moves ago} 26. Qxh6 $1 {I
completely missed this idea before} (26. Qf2 $4 fxg4 ({even} 26… Rxh3 $19)
27. fxg4 (27. hxg4 Rh2+) 27… Rxh3 $19 {is crushing}) 26… Qxh6 27. Rxe5 $132
{and White seems to have pretty good chances.}) (25… Bxd4 26. cxd4 Qxd4 {
looks like an easy way for small edge (GM M.Parligras believed it is during
our post mortem) but in fact if we consider pawnstructure then we can come to
conclusion that position is just level.} 27. Qf2 $11) (25… fxg4 {might be
tricky} 26. fxg4 ({now recapturing to the centre} 26. hxg4 {is weaker in view
of} Bxd4 27. cxd4 Qxd4 $15 {and now} 28. Qf2 $4 {fails to} Rxg4+ {#7}) 26…
Bxd4 27. cxd4 Qxd4 {and Black has smallest of all edges.}) 26. Rf2 bxc3 (26…
Rh6 27. Qxh6 Qxh6 28. Rxe5 Qc1 29. Rc2 Qb1 {[%csl Ra2]}) (26… Bf6 $2 27. Qg3
f4 28. Qh2 Bh4 29. Qxf4 $1 $14 {and this is just very good for White}) 27. bxc3
Rh6 28. Qxh6 Qxh6 29. Rxe5 Qc1 {targeting c3-P} (29… Rg6 30. Rfe2 Qc1 31.
Nxe6) 30. Rc2 Qd1 31. Rxe6 fxg4 $6 {Why to release the tension…? but one
thing is we were both in time trouble (though my opponent was in bigger)} ({
immediate} 31… Qd3 {clearly improves.}) 32. hxg4 Qd3 33. Kg3 a5 $11 34. Rc6
Qf1 $1 35. Re2 Qg1+ 36. Kh3 Qh1+ 37. Kg3 Qg1+ 38. Kh3 Qh1+ 39. Kg3 Qg1+ 40. Kf4
{40th move reached, 30 minutes added but there’s nothing else than draw by
perpetual…} Qc1+ 41. Kg3 $11 {and finally we agreed to share the point.}
1/2-1/2

In round 7 Vassily Ivanchuk punishes Boris Gelfand’s small inaccuracies with authority. Now Ivanchuk and Anand are just a half game behind Kramnik.  Below is Ivanchuk’s win followed by a game where the opening line was first played.

[Event "Tal Memorial"]
[Site "1:06:33-0:46:33"]
[Date "2009.11.12"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "7"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Ivanchuk"]
[Black "Gelfand"]
[ECO "A06"]

1.d4 d5{notes by Chris Torres} 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 Bg4 5.h3 Bxf3 6.Qxf3 e6 7.Nc3 Nbd7 8.Bd3 dxc4 9.Bxc4 Bd6 10.O-O O-O 11.e4 e5 12.d5 Nb6 13.Bd3 cxd5 14.exd5 h6 15.Be3 Rc8 16.Rac1 Nc4{This mistake will cost Gelfland the pawn on a7. Gelfland should have played 16…Bc5} 17.Bxc4 Rxc4 18.Qe2 Rc8 19.Bxa7 b6{Another error. Gelfland should have played 19…Qa5.} 20.Nb5 Rc5 21.Rfd1 Qd7 22.Nxd6{Ivanchuk should have continued with 22.Rxc5 Bxc5 23.a4 Qb7. 24.a5 with a powerful advantage. His slight error allows Gelfland more drawing chances.} Qxd6{Gelfland failed to find the best variation. 22…Rxc1 23.Rxc1 Qxd6 24.a4 Nxd5 25.Rd1 Qc6 26.Qb5 Qxb5 27.axb5 Ra8 seems to aim toward a draw.} 23.Rxc5 Qxc5 24.Qe3 Qc2 25.Qb3 Qxb3 26.axb3 Rd8 27.d6 b5 28.f3 Ra8 29.Be3 Nd7 30.Rd5 Rb8 31.f4 exf4 32.Bxf4 f6 33.Rd2 Kf7 34.Kf2 Ke6 35.Ke3 Rc8 36.Kd4 g5{36…b4 seems stronger. Play could continue 37.g4 Rc6 38.Re2 Ne5 39.Bxe5 fxe5 40.Rxe5 Kxd6. Ivanchuk punishes Gelfland’s small inaccuracies with authority.} 37.Re2+ Ne5 38.Bxe5 fxe5+ 39.Rxe5+ Kxd6 40.Rxb5 Rc2 41.g4 Rxb2 42.Rb6+ Kc7 43.Kc3  1-0

[Event "?"]
[Site "Pardubice"]
[Date "1994.??.??"]
[White "Murdzia,Piotr"]
[Black "Krasenkov,Mikhail"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "A06"]

1. Nf3 d5 2. d4 c6 3. e3 Nf6 4. c4 Bg4 5. Nc3
e6 6. h3 Bxf3 7. Qxf3 Nbd7 8. Bd3 Bd6 9. O-O
O-O 10. e4 dxc4 11. Bxc4 e5 12. d5 Nb6 13. Bb3
Nfd7 14. a3 c5 15. Qg4 Kh8 16. Bg5 f6 17. Bd2
c4 18. Bc2 Bc5 19. h4 Bd4 20. h5 Nc8 21. g3
Nd6 22. Rab1 b5 23. Ne2 a5 24. Kg2 Bc5 25. f4
f5 26. exf5 Nf6 27. Qg5 Nf7  0-1

Today Kramnik  was able to win his game multiple times do to inaccurate play on both his and Ponomariov’s part.  I am in shock that the same Kramnik that missed 19.Qxh7+ played such a precise endgame.  Thanks to Ponomariov, Kramnik was able to pull ahead of Anand and is now in first place all by himself.

[Event "Tal Memorial"]
[Site "0:10:33-0:08:33"]
[Date "2009.11.11"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "6"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "V Kramnik"]
[Black "R Ponomariov"]
[ECO "D38"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

1.d4 e6{Nots by Chris Torres} 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.Bg5 Nbd7 6.cxd5 exd5 7.e3 c5 8.dxc5{Kramnik elects not to develop his bishop to e2,d3 or b5 and instead plays a sharp variation that leaves his King in the middle of the board.} Qa5 9.Rc1 Ne4 10.Qxd5 Nxc3 11.bxc3 Bxc3+ 12.Kd1 O-O 13.Bc4 Nf6 14.Bxf6 Bxf6 15.Ke2 b5{I think this is a mistake. Perhaps Ponomariov could have played: 15…Be6 16.Qe4 Rae8 17.Rhd1 Bh3 18.Qxb7 Bxg2 19.Qd7 Rb8 20.Bb3 Rbd8 21.Qa4 Qc7 22.Rxd8 Rxd8 with equal chances} 16.c6 Ba6 17.Qf5 Qa3{This is a serious mistake. Ponomariov shpould have played:17…Bb2 18.Rc2 g6 19.Qc5 Ba3 20.Qg5 Be7 21.Qe5 Bd6 and the players are dead even.}  18.Bd3 Rfd8 19.c7{I can’t beleive Kramnik missed 19.Qxh7+ Kf8 20.c7Qxa2 21.Kf1. Its is always very interesting to see the mind of a chess genius play tricks on itself.} Qxa2+ 20.Nd2 Rxd3{Ponomariov is right back in the game thanks to Kramnik’s mistake on move 19.} 21.Qxd3 b4 22.Kf3 Bb7+{This is not accurate. Ponomariov should have played 22…Qa5 23.Qd6 Bb7 24.Ke2 Ba6 25.Ke1 Rc8 26.f3 Be5} 23.Kg3 h5 24.h3{f4 would be better. Play could continue 24…Rc8 25.Rhd1 Qe6 26.Rhd1 Bc6 27.Qc4 Rxc7 28.Qxb4 Qg4 with Kramnik clearly superior.} Qa5 25.f4 Rc8 26.Nc4 Qa6 27.Ne5 Qxd3 28.Nxd3 Bc3 29.Rhd1 a5 30.Nc5 Rxc7 31.Na4 Be4 32.Rd6{Kramnik makes a huge mistake. Luckily Ponomariov does not punish him with 32…Bc2! 33.Nxc3 Rxc3 34.Rb6 Rc4 35.Rb8 Kh7 36.Rb5 a4 37.Rxb4 Rxb4 38.Rxc2 a3 39.Ra2 Rb3 40.e5 Rxe3 41.Kf4 Rb3 42.Ke5 Kh6 43.h4 g6 44.fxg6 Kxg6 45.Kd4 Kf6 46.Kc4 Re3} Kh7{Missed the opportunity for 32…Bc2! see previous note} 33.Ra6 h4+ 34.Kh2 Rd7 35.Nc5 Re7 36.Rxa5 Bd2 37.Rc4 f5{This is a horrible mistake. It must be Kramnik’s lucky day! Play should have continued with 37…b3 38.Nxb3 Bxa5 39.Nxa5 Re6 40.Rd4 f5.} 38.Nxe4 fxe4 39.Rh5+ Kg6 40.Rg5+ Kf6 41.Rc6+ Kf7 42.Rf5+ Kg8 43.g4 Re8 44.Re5 Rb8 45.g5 Kh7 46.Re7 Bxe3 47.Rh6+ Kg8 48.Rg6 Bd4 49.Rge6 Kh7{It really is Kramnik’s lucky day. Ponomariov should have played 49…Bc5 and now Kramnik will punish him.} 50.f5 Bc5 51.Re8 Rxe8 52.Rxe8 b3 53.Kg2 Be3 54.Rxe4{The moves that follow are beautiful to watch. Even god using Deep Rybka would not have had a chance. I love the final position. Zugzwang anyone?}  Bxg5 55.Rb4 g6 56.Rb7+ Kh6 57.fxg6 Kxg6 58.Kf3 Bd2 59.Kg4 Be1 60.Rxb3 Bg3 61.Rf3 Be1 62.Re3 Bf2 63.Re6+ Kf7 64.Kf5 Bg3 65.Re4 Bf2 66.Kg5 Bg3 67.Re2 Kg7 68.Re7+ Kf8 69.Kf6 Bf2 70.Re6 Bg3 71.Kg6 Bh2 72.Re4 Bg3 73.Kf6 Bf2 74.Kg6 Bg3 75.Re2 Bd6 76.Kg5 Bg3 77.Kf6 Bf4 78.Re4 Bd6 79.Rd4 Bc7 80.Kg6 Bg3 81.Re4  1-0

(Table below aquired from http://www.chess.co.uk/twic/chessnews/events/tal-memorial-2009)

One of the strongest chess tournaments ever assembled moved to Russia’s Red Square today. Viswanathan Anand demonstrated to the world that he is not satisfied to “rest on his laurels” but is willing to use whatever means necessary to defeat his challengers at the Tal Memorial. The first 21 moves are considered book.  It is very difficult to tell exactly where Leko went wrong and how Anand’s 30.h3 clinched the victory.  Please enjoy our current World Chess Champion at his finest.

[Date "2009.11.10"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "5"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Viswanathan Anand"]
[Black "Peter Leko"]
[ECO "D43"]
[WhiteElo "2788"]
[BlackElo "2752"]
[PlyCount "90"]

1. d4 d5{notes by Chris Torres} 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. Bg5 h6 6. Bh4 dxc4 7. e4 g5 8.
Bg3 b5 9. Be2 Bb7 10. O-O Nbd7 11. Ne5 Bg7 12. Nxd7 Nxd7 13. Bd6 a6 14. a4
e5 15. Bg4 exd4 16. e5 c5 17. Re1 Nxe5 18. Bxe5 O-O 19. Bxg7 Kxg7 20. Ne2
f5 21. Bh5 f4 22. Nxd4{a rarely played idea invented by Kasimdzhanov} cxd4 23. Re6 Bc8{23…Bc8 seems to be good enough to draw. Rf6 is the alternative which could lead to 24.Qe1  Rxe6  25.Qxe6  Qc7  26.Re1  d3  27.Re5  d2  28.Rf5  d1Q+  29.Bxd1  Rf8  30.Rxf8  Kxf8 which is complicated but equal} 24. Rg6+ Kh7 25. axb5 Rf6 26. Rxf6
Qxf6 27. Qc2+ Bf5 28. Qxc4 Rc8 29. Qd5 axb5 30. h3{The little move which changes it all. All of a sudden Anand is winning.}  Kh8{Rc7 is an alternative. However… if Anand continues 31.Ra8  Be6  32.Qd6 31. Qxb5 Rf8 32. Ra6 Rd7  33.Qc6  Re7  34.Ra6  d3  35.Qd6  Kg7  36.Bg4  d2  37.Qxd2 he will still win} 31. Qxb5 Rf8 32. Ra6 Qg7 33. Rd6{Anand uses fantastic technique for the remainder of the game to seal Leko’s fate.} d3 34. Qb6 Qe5 35. Bg6 d2 36. Bxf5 Qxf5 37. Qd4+ Kh7 38. Qxd2
Rf7 39. f3 h5 40. Rd5 Qg6 41. Qa5 Rg7 42. h4 Qb1+ 43. Kh2 Qxb2 44. Rxg5
Rxg5 45. Qxg5 1-0

Germany,

This summer instead of going on holidays, a group of researchers from the University of Trier in Rhineland-Palatinate, studied the experimental introduction of chess in elementary school for the new academic year.

The results show that 6 years old children that have begun to learn how to play chess learn more easly not only math but also German grammar.

In other words researchers proved that children who play chess are doing better during all the years of the primary school.

For this reason chess are now considered as an established educational method in Germany’s  primary schools.

Chess help children develop logic and represents a great workout for their brain; chess can also useful to facilitate the integration of foreign scholars (more than eight million students in Germany are immigrants or children of immigrants).

This new method of using chess to improve students’ performances in traditional disciplines like grammar and math is now used in all the primary schools of the Germany.

The biggest problems for the teachers was when children learned how to play chess and started to beat them.  We must say that this  a clear evidence of how the pupils can overcome their masters.

For this reason now teachers are assisted by regular chess players during the “chess hours”.

I don’t know if you live in Germany or not, the fact is that scientific evidences show that chess are a great educational game and can help children to develop not only math capabilities, but also grammar and literacy skills.

The video below shows World Chess Champion Susan Polgar playing chess vs. the young students of a German school.

Mission San Jose Elementary School Summer Chess Camp

Come and train with the 2009 National Champions!

June 22 – June 25, June 29 – July 2, & July 6 – July 9

^{This class is brought to you by the Torres Chess and Music Academy, a non-profit corporation.}

The Torres Chess and Music Academy, a 501c (3) non-profit organization, is pleased to be running a very special chess camp designed by nationally renowned chess instructor Chris Torres.  This camp will feature instructors with decades of chess teaching experience in a format that is fun, competitive and educational.  Attendees will receive the best training available and take part in USCF rated tournaments with awards given at the end of each week. 

This class will meet from 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM, Mondays through Thursdays, June 22 to July 9 at Mission San Jose ES, 43545 Bryant St. Fremont, CA 94539.  The fee for this class is $170.00 for one week, $280 for two weeks, or $390 for all three weeks.

APPLY ONLINE AT CHESSANDMUSIC.COM

Name of child: _______________________________________   Grade:  ____  

Parents (Guardian) name(s):  _____________________________________

Address:  ____________________________________________________

City: ________________________________   California Zip:  __________

Telephone:  (___) _________   E-mail:  _____________________________

USCF ID: ______________   Rating:  _______ Date of Birth: ___/___/______              

 CHESS SKILL LEVEL—PLEASE CHECK APPROPRIATE BOX

1 Absolute Beginner-doesn’t even know the pieces                    

1 Beginner-knows the names of the pieces and that is about all

1 Intermediate Beg-knows how to play and how to castle           

1 Advanced Beginner-knows how to play & even knows en passant

1 Experienced-has taken chess lessons                                      

1 Tournament-has played more than 25 games in US Chess Federation tournaments

$_______ TOTAL PAID

I, hereby, as a Parent/Guardian of the child named above have read all the requirements and give my child permission to participate in the TCAMA Program held at Mission San Jose ES. I recognize that this program is under the direction of the TCAMA and is no way connected to MSJE or the Fremont Unified School District and only the TCAMA can be held legally responsible for this program.

Signature of parent or guardian: _______________________   Date: __/__/__

To apply online, or for more information on the TCAMA, please visit CHESSANDMUSIC.COM, or contact Chris Torres at (661)699-8348, or chesslessons@aol.com.

The checks should be made payable to The TCAMA Inc. The fees for the chess program are nonrefundable after the class has begun. No refunds will be given for unscheduled student absences.

Please make the checks out to TCAMA Inc. and Mail them to:

The Torres Chess and Music Academy, 1832 Walnut Grove Ct., Oakley, CA 94561

MSJE Chess Team 2008-2009

I have received several inquiries as to why this blog has not been updated as frequently. In answer to these questions, I have responded with a seemingly lame excuse of ”devoting all my time to teaching future chess champions.”  Now for the proof:

 The chess players at the Mission San Jose Elementary School chess club achieved results beyond compare during the 2008-2009 school year. Winning a championship section at the Calchess State Scholastic Championships is always a result that speaks volumes about a chess program’s over-all quality. MSJE took first place in the k-3 championship section, the k-5 championship section and the k-6 championship. Since players can only compete in one team section, Mission San Jose talent was spread out rather than concentrated.  As impressive as sweeping the Calchess State Championships in 2009 was, placing first in the K-6 championship section at United States Chess Federation’s National Championship is, perhaps,  a more impressive feet.  According to the USCF, no other school from California has ever won this title.

   Congratulations to the players and their families who put forth a herculean effort. The coaching staff at MSJE includes Head Coach Joe Lonsdale,  the legendary Richard Shorman, and Chris Torres (President of the Torres Chess and Music academy.)

Annotated games and MSJE player features will be added soon.

Its decided and written on stone wall that Vishwanathan Anand is the first world champion in all 3 formats of chess

1. Classical chess
2. Tournament chess
3. Rapid Chess

Its an excellent day for Indian Chess where Vishwanathan Anand has retained his world championship by drawing his 11′th game against Kramnik.

After the loss in 10′th game it was evident that kramnik will go out in 11′th and 12′th game where anand just needed 1/2 point for winning the match.

Anand sprung a surprise of 1. e4 (he was deploying d4 with white in every game in this match), which was answered well by kramnik by throwing back surprise of super sharp Sicilion-Najdorf variation.

The 11′th game was played beautifully by these two players where the position was unclear till the exchange of queen happened.
Anand forced exchange of queens by posing a mate threat on last row. After this game was not at all bad for white; in fact white had little bit of advantage in this game.

Anand has silenced his critics who were doubting his ability in classic chess match format by comprehencively beating kramnik by a margin of 2 points with one game still remaining.

Vishy has given an awesome Diwali gift to entire Indian Chess world and he will scale to great heights after this.

I would dare to make a statement he could have also beaten Big K (Kasparov) in this match looking at his current form.

Bring on Topalov next year .. and we will see another great win by Vishy.

The game was covered with commentary by GM Susan Polgar here

Chessdom has covered the complete game 11 with GM Dimitrov here

Predictors Foiled by Wontons

The USCL predictors didn’t see the chameleon nature of the Scorpions in Week 9 – we came up hissing.

Ed Scimia wrote, “Chicago vs. Arizona: This is a huge match for the Blaze, while the Scorpions are only mathematically alive for a playoff spot. Much like Seattle, I think Chicago will come up big knowing they need the win. Prediction: Chicago 2.5, Arizona 1.5 “  But a chess match is just four guys playing four games – no way for the squad to cross-energize itself with stunning coups.

The Lime of the Bionic variety similarly went astray predicting Chicago 3 Arizona 1. Newcomer MatanP picked Chicago 2.5, and Ron Young hedges his with “probably” but went for Chicago 2.5 also.  Arun Sharma said, “Like previous matches, it’s clear who this match holds more meaning for given each team’s respective playoff hopes. Add to that the fact that Van de Mortel and Tate have both been playing quite well this season, and Ginsburg and Rensch have been struggling, I think this one’s easy to call. Chicago 3 – 1.”    Indeed, on paper, it was easy to call.   But we had an “X” factor!

What none of them knew was that our team ate a marvelous Chinese food meal before the game!  This boosted us (well, almost all of us) by adding 150 ELO points to each player.  Crab wontons, shrimp with orange peel, and other gourmet items normally only seen in World Championship matches.  It is absolutely critical to eat well (but not eat too much) before a match! I am not advocating here Feldsteinian eating-noisily-and-messily-at-the-board.  This “X” factor propelled us (well, three of us) into other-worldly Caissic strength.   So the next time a Scimia or a Young or a Sharma or even a “MatanP” (who??) sits down and ponders, ponder this:  will we be nourished by crab wontons?

The matches themselves

Chicago vs Arizona

1. GM Nikola Mitkov (CHC) vs IM Rogelio Barcenilla (ARZ)  0-1
2. IM Mark Ginsburg (ARZ) vs IM Jan van de Mortel (CHC)  1-0

Sicilian Dragon

1.e4  c5  2.Nf3  d6  3.d4  cxd4  4.Nxd4  Nf6  5.Nc3  g6  6.Be3  Bg7  7.f3  0-0  8.Qd2  Nc6  9.0-0-0   Nxd4 9…d5 is a whole other story.  I witnessed a game Josh Friedel-Warren Harper where white won fairly convincingly after 10. exd5 Nxd5 11. Nxc6 bxc6 12. Bd4 e5 13. Bc5. I don’t know the last word, though.

10.Bxd4  Be6  11.Kb1  Qc7  12.Nd5  Bxd5  13.exd5  Rfc8  14.Rc1  Qd7  15.g4  b5  16.c4 Black is theoretically OK after 16. g5.  16. h4 is possible but after 16…Qb7 I only see 17. c4 transposing back to the game.

16…Qb7  17.h4  bxc4  18.Bxc4  Rc7 The daring 18…Nxd5!? looks to be playable.  After 19. Bxg7 Nb6! 20. Bxf7+ Kxf7 21. Bc3 the computer says, believe it or not, 21…Ke8!? to hit f3.  It’s hard to believe, but the king seems to be finding light square safety on d7.  On the other hand, 18…a5?! 19. h5! looks good for white.

19.b3?! Not very impressive.   The non-human 19. Qa5! is a good choice.  The direct 19. h5!? Rac8 20. Qd3 is also possible with very sharp play. If 20. Qd3 Qb4 21. a3 Qa4 22. Bb5! gives white a good ending.

19…Rac8 19…a5!? 20. h5 a4!? with a crazy position is thematic.

20.Qb2  h5? This is a game-ending mistake.  20…a5! is correct.

21.gxh5  Nxh5  22.Bxg7  Nxg7  23.h5! Now white wins.

23…Rxc4 The point is 23…gxh5 24. Rhg1 (or 24. Rcg1) f6 25. Rxg7+! Kxg7 26. Rg1+ and white mates after 26…Kf7 27. Qg2.  White wins a piece and the game after the prosaic 26…Kh8 27. Qc1 e5 28. Qh6+ Rh7 29. Qxf6+ Rg7 30. Ba6!

24.Rxc4  Rxc4  25.bxc4? White could have saved time and energy with 25. h6! Nh5 26. bxc4 Qxb2+ 27. Kxb2 Kh7 28. Re1! and it’s over.  I didn’t spot the nice 25. h6! at all.

25…Qxb2+  26.Kxb2  gxh5  27.Kb3 Going for the a-pawn is simple enough.  Black is not in time.

27… Kh7  28.Kb4  Kg6  29.Kb5  Nf5  30.Ka6  Ne3  31.Kxa7  Nxc4  32.a4  e6  33.Ka6  Kg5  34.Kb5  exd5  35.a5  Nxa5  36.Kxa5  h4  37.Kb4  Kf4  38.Rxh4+  Kxf3  39.Kc3  f5  40.Kd2  f4  41.Rh6  Kg2  42.Rg6+  Kf3  43.Rxd6  Ke4  44.Ke2  f3+  45.Kf2  d4  46.Rd8  d3  47.Rd7  Black resigns 1-0

3. IM Emory Tate (CHC) vs FM Daniel Rensch (ARZ)  1-0
4. NM Joel Johnson (ARZ) vs Ilan Meerovich (CHC)  1-0

were fairly interesting.  I will go over some of them in a day or two after I recover from the verdammt drive to and from Mesa, AZ.

Chess Dregs

For a jaw-dropping sleaze maneuver, see this non-profit’s victimization tale. It’s hard to believe people would behave like this (perhaps learned in a bad MBA program or the perpetrator is otherwise hard-up for cash?).  Symptomatic of society in general or just an aberrant small piece of poop dropped on Illinois Chess by a diseased seagull?

Corporate Chess and Bridge News

In merger talks certain to doom both companies, National Master Stephen Feinberg and his Cerberus private equity firm are trying to merge Chryster and GM. This ‘maneuver’ is another question mark following the question mark move of Cerberus acquiring Chryster in the first place (and a share of the toxic GMAC).     And I cannot understand how bridge player Warren Spector avoided being on Anderson Cooper’s heavily watched video series “10 Most Wanted Culprits of the Collapse.” A young guy groomed to be the successor of the (now down-in-flames) Bear Stearns (with plenty of aloof energy) is more to blame than his sedentary bridge-playing boss, Jimmy Cayne.  Have you noticed a trend?  Chess and bridge are disasters in the corporate setting.

Update: Chrysler Doomed – Checkmate

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — Chrysler LLC plans to reduce its white-collar workforce by 25% by the end of the year, the company said in an announcement Friday.

The cuts, about 5,000 workers in total, will come from Chrysler’s salaried and supplemental workforce. Chrysler has about 18,500 white-collar workers.

Do Cerberus cronies suffer?   I think not.

As Peter M. De Lorenzo (author of “The United States of Toyota”) states,

“As I mentioned last week, the Cerberus infatuation with the auto biz is so done that they can’t wait to unload Chrysler, a humiliating admission from the self-proclaimed Masters of the Universe and an emphatic indictment of the formerly unimpeachable Cerberus brain trust/posse. That the automobile business is unlike any other in the world was completely lost on Cerberus managers. And the fact that they entered the fray at the exact wrong moment in history is indisputable. But more on that in a moment.”

At least chess gets some good PR here – masters of some sort of Universe.

The championship chess board in Bonn has become a form of torture for Vladimir Kramnik. After loosing game 6, Kramnik has just six games left and is down three full points. A loosing streak against a world champion is very hard to fix. In Kramnik’s case, achieving a win against Anand must seem like a desperate dream of freedom for a convict walking the “green mile.”

Below are my comments for game 6: 

[Event "Anand-Kramnik World Championship Match"]
[Site "0:52:33-0:51:33"]
[Date "2008.10.21"]
[EventDate "2008.10.14"]
[Round "6"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Anand"]
[Black "Kramnik"]
[ECO "E34"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "2"]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Qc2 d5 5.cxd5 Qxd5 6.Nf3 Qf5 7.Qb3 Nc6 8.Bd2
O-O 9.h3 b6 10.g4 Qa5 11.Rc1 Bb7 12.a3 Bxc3 13.Bxc3 Qd5 14.Qxd5 Nxd5
15.Bd2 Nf6 16.Rg1 Rac8 17.Bg2 Ne7 18.Bb4 c5 19.dxc5 Rfd8 20.Ne5 Bxg2
21.Rxg2 bxc5 22.Rxc5 Ne4 23.Rxc8 Rxc8 24.Nd3 Nd5 25.Bd2 Rc2 26.Bc1 f5
27.Kd1 Rc8 28.f3 Nd6 29.Ke1 a5 30.e3 e5 31.gxf5 e4 32.fxe4 Nxe4 33.Bd2 a4
34.Nf2 Nd6 35.Rg4 Nc4 36.e4 Nf6 37.Rg3 Nxb2 38.e5 Nd5 39.f6 Kf7 40.Ne4
Nc4 41.fxg7 Kg8 42.Rd3 Ndb6 43.Bh6 Nxe5 44.Nf6+ Kf7 45.Rc3 Rxc3
46.g8=Q+ Kxf6 47.Bg7+  1-0
3…Bb4 Kramnik employs the Nimzo-Indian again.

4. Qc2 Anand chooses the most popular reply.

9. h3 Here we go again. Another novelty from Anand. This seemingly innocent pawn move is the predecessor for a pawn thrust to g4.

10. g4 Anand takes the risky route by starting a kingside attack with the intention of  castling the long way.

11. Rc1 Anand plays the best move and threatens playing a3.

11…Bb7 Kramnik avoids Anand’s double discovered threats.

15…Nf6 A preventative move stopping Anand from playing e4. However, Kramnik should have  tried 15… Rfd8 16.Bg2 Na5 17.Bxa5 Nf4…

17…Ne7 Kramnik moves his knight so that it will not be pinned.

18. Bb4 Anand directs his bishop stop Kramnik from playing c5.

18…c5 Kramnik decides to play aggressively and push the pawn anyway.

20. Ne5 Anand is showing his world champion form.

21…bxc5 Kramnik not so much(see previous note.) This is an unfortunate mistake by the  Russian. Better was Nc6 22.Nxc6 Rxc6 23.Rg3 Rdc8 24.Rd3 Nd5.

22. Rxc5 Anand punishes inaccuracy by profiting a pawn.

24. Nd3 Obviously Anand is not going to play 24.Bxe7 Rc1 mate!

25…Rc2 A strong move but if Anand can activate his rook he will win.

26. Bc1 Anand plans on moving his king to d1.

29. Ke1. This move is very hard to understand. Possible improvements are the natural 29.Rg1  and 29.e3 Nc4 30.Re2 Rd8.

30…e5 Kramnik missed the strategic 30…a4. Unfortunately he spots this move at the wrong  time.

33…a4 This is a terrible mistake that Anand quickly punishes. Better would have been  33…Re8.

35. Rg4 Anand plays the second best move. The strongest continuation was 35.e4 Re8 36.Kf1  Nxe4 37.Bh6.

41. fxg7 Anand would have had an easier time if he had played 41.Rxg7+ Ke6 42.f7. However,  all roads lead to Rome for Anand.

Kramnik is Bewildered.

Kramnik has, for all intensive purposes, lost this match. Perhaps, only now can he start playing  great chess as Spassky did against Fischer once the pressure had been lifted from the Russian’s shoulders.

Vishwanathan anand is showing absolute great match preparation and is out doing kramnik in his own style of play.

simply outstanding games by anand where he is not hesitating to take risks and playing for win in almost every match.

We have seen a quite dull draw in game 4. After which anand has won game 5 with black by deploying the same preparation with which he had won game 3.
Kramnik chose to play the same meran-exchange variation of slav in game 5 also and anand again deployed novelty (per say shuffling of moves) and got better of kramnik.

so far with 3 white games anand has deployed 1. d4 and not his usual kings pawn opening. This must have surprised kramnik and it shows that he and his team was not prepared to answer anand’s d4 opening.

Probably this also shows what kind of preparation must have gone through at this level by each players.

Anand likes complex positions and kramnik likes slow-steady-methodological play where he build up advantage and takes it through.

Anand has won game 3 and 5 using complex razer sharp positions and game 6 he won almost in Kramnik style. (slow positional play)

After game 5 loss with white pieces kramnik was again pushed by anand in new position where kramnik was not comfortable. Kramnik tried holding fort with his solid defense, however anand manages to better him in the endgame squeezing full point and taking the lead to 4.5 to 1.5.

This must have left kramnik wondering about what wrong he is doing in this match.
Kramnik is falling into the novelties and in turn getting into a time trouble in almost every match.

I think next 6 matches kramnik will try to push for wins and he might consider that he has nothing to loose from here.

But all the best vishy for future games. Keep the match interesting even if it is going to be one side affair.

Game 6 went something like this:

(1) Anand,V (2783) – Kramnik,V (2772) [E34]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Qc2 d5 5.cxd5 Qxd5 6.Nf3 Qf5 7.Qb3 Nc6 8.Bd2 0-0 9.h3 b6 10.g4 Qa5 11.Rc1 Bb7 12.a3 Bxc3 13.Bxc3 Qd5 14.Qxd5 Nxd5 15.Bd2 Nf6 16.Rg1 Rac8 17.Bg2 Ne7 18.Bb4 c5 19.dxc5 Rfd8 20.Ne5 Bxg2 21.Rxg2 bxc5 22.Rxc5 Ne4 23.Rxc8 Rxc8 24.Nd3 Nd5 25.Bd2 Rc2 26.Bc1 f5 27.Kd1 Rc8 28.f3 Nd6 29.Ke1 a5 30.e3 e5 31.gxf5 e4 32.fxe4 Nxe4 33.Bd2 a4 34.Nf2 Nd6 35.Rg4 Nc4 36.e4 Nf6 37.Rg3 Nxb2 38.e5 Nd5 39.f6 Kf7 40.Ne4 Nc4 41.fxg7 Kg8 42.Rd3 Ndb6 43.Bh6 Nxe5 44.Nf6+ Kf7 45.Rc3 Rxc3 46.g8Q+ Kxf6 47.Bg7+ 1-0

Woman Grandmaster Susan polgar was covering game 6 live here:

Chessdom has covered the complete game 6 with GM Dimitrov here:

Personally i like Susan polgar’s blog more than that of any other. (Even official fide site is putting susan’s commentary straight on their site).

The complete game can be played back from here :

Aruna and Viswanathan Anand

Kramnik must be feeling miserable. Anand has beaten him with the black pieces once again. Now down two full points with 7 games to go, Kramnik must take considerable risks if he is to have any chance at becoming world champion again. Taking these risks could easily backfire and have the effect of causing this match to become a total blow-out. Below is game 5 of the 2008 World Chess Championship with my analysis:

[Event "Anand-Kramnik World Championship Match"]
[Site "0:12:33-0:45:33"]
[Date "2008.10.20"]
[EventDate "2008.10.14"]
[Round "5"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Kramnik"]
[Black "Anand"]
[ECO "D49"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "2"]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Bd3 dxc4 7.Bxc4 b5 8.Bd3 a6 9.e4 c5 10.e5 cxd4 11.Nxb5 axb5 12.exf6 gxf6 13.O-O Qb6 14.Qe2 Bb7 15.Bxb5 Rg8 16.Bf4 Bd6 17.Bg3 f5 18.Rfc1 f4 19.Bh4 Be7 20.a4 Bxh4 21.Nxh4 Ke7 22.Ra3 Rac8 23.Rxc8 Rxc8 24.Ra1 Qc5 25.Qg4 Qe5 26.Nf3 Qf6 27.Re1 Rc5 28.b4 Rc3 29.Nxd4 Qxd4 30.Rd1 Nf6 31.Rxd4 Nxg4 32.Rd7+ Kf6 33.Rxb7 Rc1+ 34.Bf1 Ne3 35.fxe3 fxe3  0-1

15…Rg8 This is where Anand deviates from game three. In game three Anand played 15…Bd6 and 16…Rg8. In game five he reverses the order.

17. Bg3 Had kramnik played 17.Bxd6 Qxd6 18.Rfd1 e5 19.Rxd4 Qxd4 20.Nxd4 Bxg2 and Anand would  have been able to repeat the position for a draw.

18. Rfc1 Kramnik had several interesting alternatives including my choice of 18.Nxd4 f4     19.Nxe6 fxe6 20.Qxe6+ Kf8 21.Qf5+. 

18…f4 This is the reason why Anand played f5.

22. Ra3 Kramnik misses the critical 22.Bxd7 Kxd7 23.b4.

27. Re1 Kramnik’s other choices of Rd1 and b4 deserve a second look. 27.Nxd4 Qxd4 28.Rd1 Nf6  29.Rxd4 Nxg4 30.Rd7+ Kf8 31.Rxb7 Rc1+ 32.Bf1 does not need explanation.

29…Nxd4 Kramnik blunders and looses the game. 29.Nd2 d3 30.a5 Rс2 31.Bxd7 would have been  preferable. Kramnik’s chances of winning the World Championship may have just evaporated.

“Morphy…I think everyone agrees…was probably the greatest of them all.” (Bobby Fischer)

This years chess match between Viswanathan Anand and Vladimir Kramnik takes place 150 years after one of the greatest world championship matches in history. In 1858, the two best chess players in the world, Paul Morphy and Adolph Anderssen, battled in Paris to determine which player was the greatest. When Morphy arrived in Paris to play Anderssen, he was stricken with a severe flu. His medical treatment was typical for the time period and included being leeched and drained of four pints of blood. Paul Morphy was so weak that he played the match from his hotel bed. Despite the disadvantage of playing while ill, Morphy won the match with a 7-2 score. Many chess writers refuse to admit that Morphy was the world champion. The logic these writers use to deny the fact is rooted in their attitude of European supremacy and is easily refuted by  chess historians. Below are the games from the match. If you are an improving chess player who has not seen these chess treasures, you have your homework.

[Event "It Paris"]
[Site "It Paris"]
[Date "1858.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Paul Morphy"]
[Black "Adolf Anderssen"]
[ECO "C52"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "144"]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.O-O
Nf6 8.e5 d5 9.Bb5 Ne4 10.cxd4 O-O 11.Bxc6 bxc6 12.Qa4 Bb6
13.Qxc6 Bg4 14.Bb2 Bxf3 15.gxf3 Ng5 16.Nd2 Re8 17.Kh1 Nh3
18.f4 Qh4 19.Qxd5 Nxf2+ 20.Kg1 Nd3 21.Bc3 Nxf4 22.Qf3 Nh3+
23.Kh1 Ng5 24.Qg2 Rad8 25.Rg1 h6 26.Raf1 Qh3 27.Qc6 Qd7 28.Qg2
Bxd4 29.Bxd4 Qxd4 30.Nf3 Qd5 31.h4 Ne6 32.Qg4 Qc6 33.Rg2 Rd3
34.Qf5 Red8 35.Qf6 Qd5 36.Qf5 Rd1 37.Rxd1 Qxd1+ 38.Kh2 Rd3
39.Rf2 Re3 40.Nd2 Re2 41.Qxf7+ Kh8 42.Ne4 Rxf2+ 43.Nxf2 Qd5
44.Ng4 Qxa2+ 45.Kg3 Qb3+ 46.Kh2 Qc2+ 47.Kg3 Qc3+ 48.Kh2 Qc6
49.h5 a5 50.Nf6 gxf6 51.Qxf6+ Kg8 52.Qg6+ Kf8 53.Qxh6+ Ke8
54.Qg6+ Kd7 55.h6 Qd5 56.h7 Qxe5+ 57.Kg1 Ng5 58.h8=Q Qxh8
59.Qxg5 Qd4+ 60.Kf1 a4 61.Qf5+ Kc6 62.Qc8 Kb5 63.Ke1 c5
64.Qb7+ Kc4 65.Qf7+ Kc3 66.Qf3+ Qd3 67.Qf6+ Kb3 68.Qb6+ Kc2
69.Qa7 Qc3+ 70.Ke2 a3 71.Qa4+ Kb2 72.Qb5+ Qb3 0-1

[Event "Paris m"]
[Site "02"]
[Date "1858.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[White "Adolf Anderssen"]
[Black "Paul Morphy"]
[ECO "C77"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "88"]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.d3 Bc5 6.c3 b5 7.Bc2 d5
8.exd5 Nxd5 9.h3 O-O 10.O-O h6 11.d4 exd4 12.cxd4 Bb6 13.Nc3
Ndb4 14.Bb1 Be6 15.a3 Nd5 16.Ne2 Nf6 17.Be3 Re8 18.Ng3 Bc4
19.Nf5 Bxf1 20.Qxf1 Ne7 21.N3h4 Nxf5 22.Nxf5 Qd7 23.Bxh6 gxh6
24.Qc1 Bxd4 25.Qxh6 Re1+ 26.Kh2 Ne4 27.Bxe4 Rxe4 28.Qg5+ Kf8
29.Qh6+ Ke8 30.Nxd4 Qd6+ 31.Qxd6 cxd6 32.Rd1 Kf8 33.Rd2 Rae8
34.g4 R8e5 35.f3 Re1 36.h4 Rd5 37.Kg3 a5 38.h5 Kg8 39.Kf2 Re8
40.Kg3 Kh7 41.Kf4 Re7 42.Kg3 f6 43.Kf4 Re8 44.Kg3 Re7 1/2-1/2

[Event "Paris"]
[Site "Paris"]
[Date "1858.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Paul Morphy"]
[Black "Adolf Anderssen"]
[ECO "C65"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "41"]

1.e4 {Notes by Lowenthal} e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.d4 Nxd4
5.Nxd4 exd4 6.e5 c6 {A weak move and the cause of all
subsequent embarrassment.} 7.O-O cxb5 8.Bg5 {Much stronger
play then taking the Knight at once.} Be7 {The only correct
reply. If ...h6 White can play either Re1 or exf6 and in each
case win with ease.} 9.exf6 Bxf6 {...gxf6 would have been
equally bad, for White's reply would have been Qxd4, with a
won game.} 10.Re1+ Kf8 11.Bxf6 Qxf6 12.c3 d5 13.cxd4 Be6
14.Nc3 a6 15.Re5 Rd8 16.Qb3 Qe7 17.Rae1 {Vigorously and ably
followed up.} g5 {Apprehensive of the advance of the f pawn.}
18.Qd1 Qf6 19.R1e3 Rg8 {Losing the game offhand; it was
previously, however, past all recovery.} 20.Rxe6 1-0

[Event "Paris m"]
[Site "04"]
[Date "1858.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Adolf Anderssen"]
[Black "Paul Morphy"]
[ECO "C77"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "102"]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.d3 Bc5 6.c3 b5 7.Bc2 d5
8.exd5 Nxd5 9.h3 O-O 10.O-O h6 11.d4 exd4 12.cxd4 Bb6 13.Nc3
Ndb4 14.Bb1 Be6 15.a3 Nd5 16.Be3 Nf6 17.Qd2 Re8 18.Rd1 Bd5
19.Ne5 Qd6 20.Qc2 Nxd4 21.Bxd4 Bxd4 22.Nxd5 Qxe5 23.Nxf6+ Qxf6
24.Qh7+ Kf8 25.Be4 Rad8 26.Kh1 Bxb2 27.Rab1 Rxd1+ 28.Rxd1 Qxf2
29.Qh8+ Ke7 30.Qh7 Be5 31.Bf3 Qg3 32.Kg1 Qg6 33.Qxg6 fxg6
34.Bb7 Rb8 35.Bxa6 c6 36.Kf2 Bd6 37.Rd3 Kd7 38.Ke2 Ra8 39.Bb7
Rxa3 40.Bc8+ Kc7 41.Rd1 Ra2+ 42.Kf3 Bc5 43.Be6 Rf2+ 44.Kg3 Rf6
45.Rd7+ Kb6 46.Bg4 Bd6+ 47.Kh4 c5 48.Bf3 c4 49.Rxg7 Rf4+
50.Bg4 c3 51.g3 Rxg4+ 0-1
[Event "Paris"]
[Site "05"]
[Date "1858.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Paul Morphy"]
[Black "Adolf Anderssen"]
[ECO "B01"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "107"]

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Nf6 3.d4 Nxd5 4.c4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Bf5 6.Nf3 e6 7.Be3
Bb4 8.Qb3 Bxc3+ 9.bxc3 Be4 10.Nd2 Bc6 11.Bd3 Nbd7 12.Qc2 h6
13.O-O O-O 14.Rae1 b6 15.h3 Qc8 16.Kh2 Kh8 17.Rg1 Rg8 18.g4 g5
19.f4 Qf8 20.Rg3 Rd8 21.Nf3 Bxf3 22.Rxf3 Qd6 23.Kg2 Nh5
24.fxg5 hxg5 25.gxh5 g4 26.hxg4 Rxg4+ 27.Kf1 f5 28.Qf2 Ne5
29.dxe5 Qxd3+ 30.Qe2 Qe4 31.Bf2 Qc6 32.Rd1 Rxd1+ 33.Qxd1 Qxc4+
34.Qd3 Qxa2 35.Rg3 Qc4 36.Qxc4 Rxc4 37.Rg6 Rc6 38.c4 a5 39.Ke2
Rxc4 40.Rxe6 Rc2+ 41.Kf3 a4 42.Rg6 Rc4 43.Rg1 a3 44.e6 a2
45.Ra1 Re4 46.Rxa2 Rxe6 47.Kf4 Rd6 48.Kxf5 Rd5+ 49.Kg4 b5
50.Ra8+ Kh7 51.Ra7 Rd7 52.Bg3 Rg7+ 53.Kh4 Rf7 54.Rxc7 1-0
[Event "Paris m"]
[Site "06"]
[Date "1858.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Adolf Anderssen"]
[Black "Paul Morphy"]
[ECO "A00"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "84"]

1.a3 e5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e3 Be6 6.Nf3 Bd6 7.Be2
O-O 8.d4 Nxc3 9.bxc3 e4 10.Nd2 f5 11.f4 g5 12.Bc4 Bxc4 13.Nxc4
gxf4 14.exf4 Qe8 15.O-O Qc6 16.Qb3 Qd5 17.Rb1 b6 18.Qa2 c6
19.Qe2 Nd7 20.Ne3 Qe6 21.c4 Nf6 22.Rb3 Kf7 23.Bb2 Rac8 24.Kh1
Rg8 25.d5 cxd5 26.cxd5 Qd7 27.Nc4 Ke7 28.Bxf6+ Kxf6 29.Qb2+
Kf7 30.Rh3 Rg7 31.Qd4 Kg8 32.Rh6 Bf8 33.d6 Rf7 34.Rh3 Qa4
35.Rc1 Rc5 36.Rg3+ Bg7 37.h3 Kh8 38.Rxg7 Rxg7 39.Rc3 e3
40.Rxe3 Rxc4 41.Qf6 Rc1+ 42.Kh2 Qxf4+ 0-1
[Event "Paris"]
[Site "07"]
[Date "1858.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Paul Morphy"]
[Black "Adolf Anderssen"]
[ECO "B01"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "49"]

1.e4 {Notes by Lowenthal} d5 {We consider this mode of evading
an open game as decidedly inferior to either ...e6 or ...c5,
(the French and Sicilian openings) though but some short time
ago it was in high repute, and was even adopted by
Mr. Staunton at the Birmingham meeting.} 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5
{...Qd8 is frequently played, but the move in the text is
preferable.} 4.d4 e5 5.dxe5 Qxe5+ 6.Be2 Bb4 7.Nf3 {Sacrificing
a pawn to obtain a more speedy development of his pieces.}
Bxc3+ 8.bxc3 Qxc3+ 9.Bd2 Qc5 10.Rb1 Nc6 11.O-O Nf6 12.Bf4 O-O
{Attempting to defend the c pawn would only have led him into
difficulty.} 13.Bxc7 Nd4 14.Qxd4 Qxc7 15.Bd3 Bg4 16.Ng5 Rfd8
17.Qb4 Bc8 {There appears to be no other mode of saving the
pawn; for if ...b6, White would have taken the h pawn with the
knight, and won a pawn.} 18.Rfe1 a5 19.Qe7 Qxe7 20.Rxe7 Nd5
{This is an instructive position} 21.Bxh7+ Kh8 22.Rxf7 Nc3
23.Re1 Nxa2 24.Rf4 Ra6 25.Bd3 1-0
[Event "Paris m"]
[Site "08"]
[Date "1858.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[White "Adolf Anderssen"]
[Black "Paul Morphy"]
[ECO "A00"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "101"]

1.a3 {Notes by Lowenthal} e5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5
5.e3 Be6 6.Nf3 Bd6 7.Be2 O-O 8.d4 Nxc3 9.bxc3 e4 10.Nd2 f5
11.f4 {Taking means to stop the further advance of the f pawn,
which he evidently apprehended might prove objectionable. The
range of the adverse King's Bishop is also contracted by this
move.} Qh4+ 12.g3 Qh3 13.Bf1 Qh6 14.c4 c6 15.c5 Bc7 16.Bc4 Nd7
17.O-O b5 18.cxb6 axb6 19.Qb3 Rfe8 20.Bb2 b5 21.Bxe6+ Qxe6
22.Qc2 Qd5 23.Rfc1 Ra6 24.a4 Rea8 25.axb5 Qxb5 26.Qc4+ Qxc4
27.Nxc4 Rxa1 28.Bxa1 Nf6 29.Bc3 Ra2 30.Bd2 Nd5 31.Kf1 Bd8
32.Ke1 Be7 33.Rb1 h6 34.Ne5 c5 35.dxc5 Bxc5 36.Rb5 Nxe3 {Very
prettily played.} 37.Rxc5 Ng2+ 38.Ke2 {If Kd1, Black would
equally have pushed on the e Pawn.} e3 39.Nf3 g6 40.Rd5 Kf7
41.Rd6 Kg7 42.h4 exd2 43.Rxd2 Ra4 {This mode of securing the
draw is highly ingenious; his opponent cannot prevent it, play
as he may.} 44.Kf2 Nxf4 45.gxf4 Rxf4 46.Rd4 Rxd4 47.Nxd4 Kf6
48.Ke3 g5 49.h5 Ke5 50.Nf3+ Kf6 51.Nd4 1/2-1/2
[Event "Paris m"]
[Site "Paris m"]
[Date "1858.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Paul Morphy"]
[Black "Adolf Anderssen"]
[ECO "B44"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "33"]

1.e4 {Notes by Lowenthal} c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.Nxd4 e6
5.Nb5 d6 {This is better than ...a6; but even now the King's
Bishop is shut in, and the Queen's Pawn rendered weak.} 6.Bf4
{Correctly played, compelling the advance of the e-Pawn, which
leaves the Queen's Pawn weak and unsupported.} e5 7.Be3 f5
{...a6 would have been sounder play, but even then the game
would have been in favor of the first player.} 8.N1c3 {A fine
conception.} f4 {Had Black played ...a6, White's reply would
still have been Nd5, with a winning game.} 9.Nd5 fxe3 10.Nbc7+
Kf7 11.Qf3+ Nf6 12.Bc4 {The attack is now irresistable.} Nd4
13.Nxf6+ d5 {If the Bishop had been interposed, White would
have taken it, checking; and on Knight retaking have played
Nd5 discovering check, and won without difficulty.} 14.Bxd5+
Kg6 {Had the Queen captured the Bishop, White would have taken
with Knight, discovering check, and have remained eventually
with a Pawn ahead and a winning position.} 15.Qh5+ Kxf6
16.fxe3 {Ne8+, seemingly a good move, is only in appearance,
as Black might have taken it when placed there; and on White
taking Queen, have answered with ...Bb4+, obtaining a winning
game.} Nxc2+ 17.Ke2 1-0
[Event "Paris m"]
[Site "10"]
[Date "1858.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Adolf Anderssen"]
[Black "Paul Morphy"]
[ECO "A00"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "153"]

1.a3 e5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e3 Be6 6.Nf3 Bd6 7.Be2
O-O 8.O-O Nxc3 9.bxc3 f5 10.d4 e4 11.Nd2 Rf6 12.f4 Rh6 13.g3
Nd7 14.Nc4 Bxc4 15.Bxc4+ Kh8 16.Ra2 Qe7 17.a4 Nf6 18.Qb3 c6
19.Be6 Re8 20.Bc4 Ng4 21.Rg2 Rb8 22.Be2 Nf6 23.c4 b6 24.Bb2
Qf7 25.Qc2 Be7 26.Bc3 Rg8 27.a5 Bd6 28.axb6 axb6 29.Ra1 g5
30.fxg5 Rxg5 31.Ra8+ Rg8 32.Qa4 Rxa8 33.Qxa8+ Qe8 34.Qxe8+
Nxe8 35.c5 Bc7 36.Bc4 Kg7 37.cxb6 Bxb6 38.Rb2 Bc7 39.Rb7 Kf6
40.Bb4 Rg6 41.Bf8 h5 42.Kf2 h4 43.gxh4 Rg4 44.h5 Rh4 45.h6
Rxh2+ 46.Kg1 Rh3 47.Bf1 Rg3+ 48.Kf2 Rg4 49.Bc4 Rh4 50.Bg8 Bd6
51.Bxd6 Nxd6 52.Rd7 Ne8 53.h7 Kg5 54.Re7 Nd6 55.Re6 Nc4
56.Rxc6 Nd2 57.Ke2 Rh2+ 58.Kd1 Nf3 59.Rc7 Kg6 60.d5 f4 61.exf4
e3 62.Re7 e2+ 63.Rxe2 Rh1+ 64.Kc2 Nd4+ 65.Kd2 Nxe2 66.Kxe2 Kg7
67.Ke3 Re1+ 68.Kd4 Rf1 69.Ke5 Re1+ 70.Kf5 Rd1 71.Be6 Rd4
72.Ke5 Rd1 73.f5 Rh1 74.f6+ Kxh7 75.Kd6 Ra1 76.Ke7 Ra7+ 77.Bd7
1-0
[Event "Paris m"]
[Site "11"]
[Date "1858.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Paul Morphy"]
[Black "Adolf Anderssen"]
[ECO "C00"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "71"]

1.e4 {Notes by Lowenthal} e6 2.d4 g6 3.Bd3 Bg7 4.Be3 {The
student cannot fail of observing that in almost every French
game Mr. Morphy plays his Bishops to e3 and d3, and they
appear well placed here, and come into efficient action when
called upon. It is a novelty, however, in Chess play, and
will, doubtless, meet with attention at the hands of authors
on the game.} c5 5.c3 cxd4 6.cxd4 Nc6 7.Ne2 Nge7 8.O-O O-O
9.Nbc3 d5 10.e5 f6 11.f4 fxe5 12.fxe5 a6 13.Qd2 Nb4 14.Bg5
Nxd3 15.Qxd3 Bd7 16.Qh3 Qe8 17.Ng3 Rc8 18.Rxf8+ Qxf8 19.Rf1
Qe8 20.Qh4 Nf5 21.Nxf5 gxf5 22.Rf3 {This Rook is now well
posted, and ready for effective co-operation with the rest of
the attacking pieces.} Bb5 23.Rg3 {Rh3 would have been weak,
while by the move in the text White gains an undeniable
advantage in position.} Rc7 24.Bf6 f4 {This, says Mr. Morphy,
appears the only move to ward off the attack, if 24...Kh8
25.Rxg7 Rxg7 26.Nxb5 Qxb5 27.Qh6 Qd7 28.h4 Qf7 29.h5 Qc7 30.a3
Qd7 31.Kf2 Qf7 32.Kf3 Qc7 33.g3 Qd7 34.Qxg7+ Qxg7 35.h6 Qxf6
36.exf6 Kg8 37.Kf4 Kf7 38.Ke5 and must win.}- 25.Qxf4 Qf8
26.Nxb5 axb5 27.Qh6 Kh8 28.Rxg7 Rxg7 29.Kf2 {Contemplating the
exchange of pieces, and the bringing of the King to attack the
isolated Pawns; the game, however, was an easy one to win.}
Kg8 30.Qxg7+ Qxg7 31.Bxg7 Kxg7 32.Kf3 b4 33.g4 b6 34.h4 b5
35.Ke3 b3 36.a3 1-0