Round one report
The tournament had a promissing start, with three fighting games, although
only one of them was decided. Anand’s hyper-modern play eventually prevailed
against Bacrot’s classical strategy, in a game where several moments
remain open for further analysis. Ponomariov could not convert his minimal
but stable advantage against Kamsky’s stubborn defence. Topalov’s
original handling of the Sicilian put Svidler in an unpleasant position, but
further simplifications resulted into a peacefull end.
Round 1: Thursday, May 11, 2006 |
| Peter Svidler |
½-½
|
Veselin Topalov |
Ruslan Ponomariov |
½-½
|
Gata Kamsky |
Etienne Bacrot |
0-1 |
Vishy Anand |
|
All games so far in
PGN
The following games, annotated by GM Mihail Marin, can be replayed on
a special JavaScript
board, in a new window. Note that you can scroll the notation (without
scrolling the board) and click on it to replay the game.
Bacrot,E (2708) - Anand,V (2803) [E12]
Mtel Masters Sofia BUL (1), 11.05.2006 [Mihail Marin]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.Nc3 Bb7 5.Bg5
For decades, White's previous move has been usually played with the idea of
continuing with 5.a3 . The development of the bishop to g5 has been a more
common reaction against 4...Bb4, but the past year has featured a surprising
boom of the variation played in this game. 2006 seems to be a continuation
of this new trend. In fact, we shouldn't really wonder about that. Unlike the
Nimzo Indian, where White has tried numerous systems of development, the QI
has basically developed along two main variations: the fianchetto (Rubinstein)
system and the a3 (Petrosian) system. True, in his golden years, Tony Miles
was remarkably successful with the relatively rare 4.Bf4, but, curiously, he
did not find too many followers. Quite naturally, people seem to become bored
about such a restricted area of investigation (just two main variations in
a whole opening), which looks like a reasonable explanation of the rise in
popularity of 5.Bg5.
5...h6 6.Bh4 Be7 The most solid continuation. As we shall see, both
opponents had some experience with this line, although it consisted only of
rapid and blitz games. The more ambitious 6...g5 7.Bg3 Nh5 8.e3 Nxg3 9.hxg3
Bg7 is not without strategical risk: Black seriously weakens the king side
light squares. While the weakness of the h5-square is obvious, the status of
the f5-square recquires some explanation. For the moment, this square is safely
defended by the e6-pawn, but given the fact that one of White's main strategic
ideas consists of closing the diagonal for the b7-bishop by means of d4-d5,
the eventual exchange e6xd5, making f5 an excellent outpost for the white minor
pieces, cannot be discarded. Here is a game where this nuance was of decisive
importance: 10.Qc2 (This is probably better than 10.Bd3 when
after 10...Nc6 White already has problems finding a good square for
the queen, in view of the possible knight jump to b4. 11.a3?! is definitely
too slow. After 11...g4! 12.Ng1 f5 13.Nge2 h5 I managed to solve the
problem of the h5- and f5-squared in a very convenient way in the game Ravi-Marin,
Calcutta 1997. The game continued 14.Nf4 h4 15.Qa4 h3
Analysis diagram
when Black's chain of pawns from d7 to h3 certainly looks impressive. In fact,
I do not remember having obtained a similar structure in any other game.
)
10...Nc6 11.0-0-0 Qe7
(Even though this could have meant a slight
delay in development, the same plan based on
11...g4!? would have deserved
consideration.
) 12.g4! Now, Black has to look forcounterplay on other
areas of the board. 12...Nb4
(Unfortunately, the thematical pawn break
12...h5?! 13.Rxh5 Rxh5 14.gxh5 g4 fails to
15.Qh7! when Black cannot
obtain the desired consolidation of the king side.
; In case of
12...0-0-0
White can already prevent this tactical operation by means of
13.Rh5 when
the rook is not easy to expell from h5.
) 13.Qd2 c5 14.d5! exd5 Here it
is! In order to avoid being left with a passive bishop on b7, Black has to weaken
the f5-square in chronical way. 15.a3 dxc4!? With the g-pawn just one step back,
this piece sacrifice would have ensured Black excellent play, but the way it
is the situation remains double-edged. 16.axb4 cxb4 17.Nb5 d5 18.Nbd4 and the
knight soon landed on f5, putting considerable pressure on Black's position and
restricting his attacking possibilities in the game Ponomariov-Kramnik, Sofia
2005 which was eventually won by White.
Analysis diagram
I suspect that this game was one of the main reasons for 5.Bg5 becoming popular.
7.e3. White also adopts a harmonious system of development. Previously,
Bacrot had been successful with 7.Qc2 , which prepares the occupation of the
centre by means of e4. The game continued 7...d6 (This neutral move
is an indirect, rather subtle, way to question the viability of the early development
of the queen to c2. The most natural way of starting the counterattack against
White's centre is 7...c5 ; while 7...d5 could eventually transpose
to a sharp variation of the Tartakover system of the Queen's Gambit Declined.)
8.e4 Nbd7 9.Be2 c5 Now that the d4-square has been weakened, the attack
against the white centre practically forces White embark in the following complications.
10.d5 Otherwise, Black would simply capture on d4 obtaining a comfortable version
of the Hedgehog, not only because of White's loss of tempo (e3-e4) but also
because of the slightly misplaced h4-bishop. 10...exd5 11.exd5 Nxd5 12.Nxd5
Bxh4 13.Nxh4 Qxh4 14.Nc7+ Ke7 15.Nxa8 Bxg2 16.Rg1 Bxa8 17.Rxg7 Ne5 with a complicated
position, where Black's stability on dark squares offers him reasonable compensation
for the exhchange, Bacrot-Ivanchuk, FIDE GP Dubai 2002. White eventually won
after an interesting fight. 7...Ne4. From the point of view of the general
rules of development, this knight jump might seem illogical in a moment when
many of Black's pieces are still on their initial squares. However, in the
absence of direct contact between the chains of pawns reduces to a certain
extent the significance of development in the classical meaning of this notion.
Besides, if Black intends to display his forces along the first three ranks,
any simplifications are most welcome. The alternatives consist of attacking
the enemy centre with either ...c5 or ...d5, eventually after castling. 8.Nxe4
The exchange on e7 with 8.Bxe7 would solve Black's problems of development
after 8...Qxe7 9.Rc1 d6 followed by Nd7, as in the game Mamedyarov-Anand, Reykjavik,
blitz 2006. 8...Bxe4 9.Bg3!? Now, Black needs some extra-time to complete
his development. The other side of the coin consists of the fact that White's
dark-squared bishop can easily become his most passive piece, if the thematic
break c4-c5 will not be possible to carry out at the right moment. 9...d6
This is a very rare move, which can eventually transpose to the more common
9...0-0 . However, we shall soon see that Anand had no intentions of castling
short. 10.Bd3
10...Bb7!? Black preserves his active bishop from exchange at the cost
of losing one more tempo. Previously, 10...Bxd3 11.Qxd3 Nd7 had been played.
The only game where this position was seen continued with 12.d5?!
(By
prematurely defining the central structure, White allows his opponent obtain
adequate counterplay. The more retratined
12.0-0 should be preferred when
12...0-0 would transpose to a game played with the 9...0-0 move order:
13.e4 Bf6 14.e5 Be7 15.Rad1 Qc8 16.d5 with active play for White, although
Black managed to survive in Gelfand-Leko, Monte Carlo 2005.
) 12...e5!
Black does not fear placing another pawn on a dark square. In fact, the white
bishop is more passive thatn his black colleague. 13.e4 0-0 14.h4
(restricting
the black bishop but weakening the king side light squares. In case of
14.Nd2
Bg5 eventually followed by ...Bxd2 and ...f5 Black would have easy play.
)
14...Qc8 15.Nd2 Nc5 16.Qc2 Qg4 17.b4 Nd7 18.Nf1 f5 with sufficient counterplay,
Azmaiparashvili-Rozentalis, Ermioni Argolidas 2005]
11.0-0 Nd7 12.e4 Bf6!?
[This is the first new move of the game. Just two days earlier, 12...0-0
had been played, with the continuation 13.Qe2 Bf6 14.Rad1 e5 15.d5 a5 16.b3 Re8
17.a3 Nf8 when White's active possibilities were restricted by the bad placement
of the g3-bishop, Carlsen-Sasikiran, Sarajevo 2006. By refraining from castling,
Anand intends to take advantage of this detail by more direct means.]
13.Rc1
[The plan of preparing the pawn break c5 will prove too slow. Black seems
to be able to hold his own in case of the more resolute 13.e5!? for instance
13...dxe5 14.dxe5 Bxf3 15.Qxf3 Nxe5 16.Bxe5 Bxe5 17.Rfe1 Bd4!
(It is
imperative to maintain the d-file defended. In case of
17...Bxb2?! 18.Rxe6+!
fxe6 19.Bg6+ Ke7 20.Qf7+ Kd6 21.Rd1+ White would recuperate the sacrificed
material maintaining a strong attack.
) 18.Be4 (The only way to take advantage
of the slight lead in development) 18...0-0!
(Black has no time to remove
the rook from the attacked square with
18...Rb8?! because of
19.Bc6+
Ke7 20.Rad1 with deadly pins along the central files or 19...Kf8 20.Rxe6
)
19.Bxa8 Qxa8 and the strong centralised bishop keeps Black out of the danger
of losing.; However, the simple developing move 13.Qe2 , connecting rooks and
making the threat e5 more realistic deserves serious attention, for instance
13...g5?
(In fact, Black should probably refrain from this plan and play
13...0-0 which would transpose to the game from Sarajevo.
) 14.e5!
(As always, an attack on the wing is best answered by a counter-blow in the centre.)
14...Bxf3 15.gxf3 with strong initiative in the centre.
13...g5!?
Suddenly, White's minor pieces from the king side start feeling insecure. To
a certain extent, the position starts becoming similar to that from the memorable
6th game of the final match of the World Championship between Anand and Karpov,
back in 1998. Instead of questioning White's domination in the centre, Black
starts a very concrete plan on a restricted wing area. Although Anand managed
to win the game with White, thus equalising the score, he might have understood
the objective merits of Black's approach. 14.Bb1 The bishop is passively
placed here and it could become vulnerable in case of mass simplifications. It
is hard to tell whether White's play was marked by indecision or he simply relied
on the fact that his considerable advantage of space in the centre would offer
him sufficient chances to beat off Black's original play. He could have chosen
between the pawn sacrifice 14.c5!? ; and 14.e5 which would have been probably
answered by 14...g4 with unclear consequences. In case of the opening of the
position, White's advance in development could become a telling factor. 14...h5
15.h3 Rg8 16.b4
The continuation of the same policy. White ignores the immediate threats and
builds up an impressive queen side position. This was the last moment to switch
to the alternate approach by opening the position in the centre somehow, in accordance
with the principle that in case of attacks on opposite wings, the speed of action
is of vital importance.
16...g4 17.hxg4 hxg4 18.Nh2 Bh4!
Not only questionning White's stability on the king side, but also preparing
the development of the queen on an active square. 19.Bf4! A rather
subtle antidote to Black's simple attacking action. By avoiding the contact
of the bishops and depriving the enemy queen of the important g5-square, White
leaves his opponent with problems defending the courageous g-pawn and completing
the development at the same time. In case of 19.Nxg4 Bxg3 20.fxg3 Qg5 White
would have problems defending his king side.; Consolidating the g3-square with
19.Rc3 would solve only part of the problem because after 19...Qg5 followed
by long castle and the doubling (or trippling) of major pieces along the h-file
the white king would be in serious danger.
19...Bg5 By pursuing the enemy bishop, Black aims to get some stability
on dark squares and, possibly more important than that, prevent the capture
on g4 with the knight. Black's development was not sufficient to play the generally
desirable 19...g3 because of 20.fxg3 Bxg3 21.Bxg3 (21.Qh5!?) 21...Rxg3
22.Qh5 Qe7 23.Ng4 with strong pressure against the f7-pawn and the brutal threat
of driving the rook on the passive a3-square with Kh2.; Black had a reasonable
alternative in 19...Qf6 when after 20.g3 Bg5 21.Nxg4 Qg7 22.Bxg5 Qxg5 23.f3
0-0-0 the vulnerable position of the enemy king would have probably offered
Black adequate compensation. 20.Qxg4 Qf6 21.Be3! Another fine bishop
retreat, maintaining the tension and thus leaving Black with the same problems
of completing his development. In case of 21.Bxg5? Rxg5 followed by long castle
and Rh8 Black's attack would have been too strong. 21...Bxe3 [This
release of the tension is an interesting, but probably not entirely adequate
attempt to change the course of the game. Once again, normal play would have
offered Black compensation for the pawn, for instance 21...0-0-0 22.f4 Bh4
and White faces problems defending his numerous weaknesses, such as the g4-
and g3-squares and the e4-pawn, not to speak about his king.] 22.Qxg8+ Ke7
23.Qxa8! More ambitious than 23.fxe3 Rxg8 24.Rxf6 Nxf6 25.d5 c6!? when
Black's more flexible structure would entitle him to hope for equality in spite
of the missing pawn. 23...Bxa8 24.fxe3 Qg6
White has two rooks and a pawn for a queen, which means a considerable material
advantage. However, his pieces are not too well coordinated, which invites him
to prudence in the next phase of the game.
25.Rf4?! A hardly noticeable
inaccuracy, marking the turning point in the game. Obviously, White has to defend
his e4-pawn somehow, but the rook is unstable on f4. After the safer 25.d5 White
would have retained a solid position, with possibilities of coordinating his
pieces.
25...e5! 26.Rf5 Qh6! After these strong moves, White has problems
keeping his position together. The queen is a very dangerous fighting unit when
facing a disorganized army.
27.Re1 Relatively best. 27.Ng4 would have
lost the important d4-pawn after 27...Qg7 28.Nf2 exd4 , leaving Black with an
excellent outpost for his knight on e5.
27...exd4 28.exd4 Qd2 White's
queen side pawns were not given the chance to really start an attack in this
game. On the contrary, they will fall one after another victims of the greedy
black queen.
29.Nf3 Qxb4 30.Rc1 Bb7 31.Rb5 Qa3 32.Re1 Qc3 33.Rb3 Qxc4
White has lost two pawns and his coordination has not become much better.
His positionmight be still holdable, but Black's play is much easier in any
case. 34.Bd3 Qa4 35.Rc3 c5 Eliminating one more element of the enemy
centre and making the e5-square available to the knight. 36.Bc4 Qb4 37.Rcc1
cxd4 38.Nxd4 Ne5 39.Nf5+ Kd7 40.Bd5 Bxd5 41.exd5 Qf4 42.Rf1
42...Nf3+!? By simplifying the position even more Black not only ensures
himself the win of another pawn, but also removes from the position the possibility
of unexpected tactical complications. 43.gxf3 Qxf5 44.f4 Or 44.Rcd1
Qc2 winning either the a2- or the d5-pawn. 44...Qxd5 45.f5 Qd2 46.f6
White puts all his hopes in this far advanced pawn. However, the f7-pawn will
be impossible to capture with a rook because the exposed position of the king
will always offer Black the possibility of a double attack. 46...b5 47.Rce1
Kc6 48.Ra1 Qd4+ 49.Kg2 Qb2+ 50.Kg3 b4 51.Kg4 Attacking the f7-pawn with
the king is also quite utopic. 51...d5 52.Kg5 Qg2+ 53.Kh4 Kd6 54.Kh5 a5
White has no defence against the systematic advance of the black pawns.
0-1. [Click to replay]
Former FIDE world champion Ruslan Ponomariov (Ukraine)
Ponomariov,R (2738) - Kamsky,G (2671) [C88]
Mtel Masters Sofia BUL (1), 11.05.2006 [Mihail Marin]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0–0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0–0
8.h3 Bb7 9.d3 d6 10.a3 Qd7 11.Nc3 Nd8 12.d4 exd4 13.Nxd4 Re8 14.Nf5 Ne6 15.Qf3
Bf8 16.Be3 c5 17.Nd5 Bxd5 18.Bxd5 Nxd5 19.exd5 Nc7 20.Bd2 Rxe1+ 21.Rxe1 Re8
22.Rxe8 Nxe8 23.b3 g6 24.Nh6+ Bxh6 25.Bxh6
In spite of the relatively advanced stage of the game, this position is not
new: it had been seen less than two weeks earlier in the game Ivanchuk-Grischuk,
Sochi 2006. 25...f6 The aforementioned game continued with 25...Qe7
featuring a similar scenario: Black managed to hold a slightly inferior position.
Apparently, Kamsky was not aware of this detail, given the fact that he had
consumed considerable amount of time until this moment, which left him in slight
time trouble. 26.c4 Kf7 27.Qd3 Ke7 28.g4 Kd8 29.Kg2 Kc8 30.Bd2 Nc7 31.Bc3
Qf7 32.Qf3 Ne8 33.Qe4 Nc7 34.Kg3 Kd7 35.Ba5 Qe8 36.Kf3 Qxe4+ 37.Kxe4 bxc4 38.bxc4
Ne8 39.Bd2 Ke7 40.Kd3 Kd7 41.Kc3 Kc7 42.Kb3 Kb6 43.Bh6 Kb7 44.h4 f5 45.gxf5
gxf5 46.Bg5 Kc8 47.h5 Kd7 48.Kc3 h6 49.Bxh6 Nf6 50.Kb3 Nxh5 51.Ka4 Nf6 52.Bf4
Ng4 53.Bg3 f4 54.Bxf4 Nxf2 55.Bg3 Ne4 56.Bf4 Kc7 57.Kb3 Kd7 58.Kc2 Nf2 59.Kd2
Ne4+ 60.Kd3 Nf2+ 61.Ke2 Ne4 62.Kd3 Nf2+ 63.Ke2 Ne4 64.Kd3 ½–½. [Click
to replay]
US grandmaster on comeback course: Gata Kamsky
Svidler,P (2743) - Topalov,V (2804) [B80]
Mtel Masters Sofia BUL (1), 11.05.2006 [Mihail Marin]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e6 7.f3 b5 8.Qd2 b4
Topalov remains faithfull to his pet variation. 9.Nce2 e5 It might
seem that compared to a genuine Najdorf, where ...e5 is played in one move,
Black loses a tempo. However, the situation is less simple than that: the d5-square
is weakened only after the c3-knight has been driven away. 10.Nb3 Nc6 11.Ng3
Being a former 1.d4-player, Kramnik preferred last year against the same
Topalov 11.c4 , in order to increase his influence in the centre. However,
this was a double edged decision, leaving Black with the possibility of organizing
a blockade on c5 (Kramnik-Topalov, Sofia 2005). 11...Be6 12.0–0–0 Qc7 13.f4
h5!
Apparently, Topalov likes to advance this marginal pawns in the Sicilian.
Against Leko, in Morelia, he did it at an early stage in order to prevent the
customary g4, while against Nisipeanu, with the occasion of their recent match
held in Bucharest, he pursued the same aim as in the present game: to question
the stability of the g3-knight. True, in that game the other White knight had
landed on this unfavourable square. 14.h4 a5 15.f5 Bd7 16.Kb1 Rb8 17.Be2
Na7 This knight had jumped on this square for the sake of rapid development,
but after the definition of the contours of the position it was no longer well
placed here. 18.Bxa7 Qxa7 19.Qd3 Bb5 20.Qf3 Bc6 21.Nd2 Qc5 22.Nb3 Qb6 23.Nd2
Be7 24.Nc4 Qc5 25.Ne3 a4 26.Bc4 Finally, White has managed to take the
d5-square under observation, but in the meanwhile Black has made obvious queen
side progress. 26...Bd8 27.b3 Bb6 28.Rd3 axb3 29.cxb3 Ra8 30.Rc1 Qa5 31.Rc2
Ke7 32.Nd5+ Bxd5 33.Bxd5 Rac8 34.Rxc8 Rxc8 35.Bc4 Rh8 36.Rd2 Qc5
In spite of the presence of opposite-coloured bishops, Black's position remains
preferable because of his more flexible pawn structure and the safer position
of the king. Svidler will manage to approach the safety zone by means of successive
exchanges. 37.Qd1 Ba7 38.Rc2 Qe3 39.Bd3 Bc5 40.Qf3 Rd8 41.Be2 Qf4 42.Nxh5
Qxh4 43.Nxf6 gxf6 44.g3 Qg5 45.Qg4 Rh8 46.Qxg5 fxg5 47.Bg4 Kf6 48.Rc1 Rh2 49.Rc2
Rh6 50.Rc1 Bf2 51.Rd1 Kg7 52.Rd3 Bd4 53.Kc2 Kf6 54.Rd2 Rh1 55.Rd1 Rh8 56.Kd3
Rc8 57.Ke2 Rc3 58.Rd3 Rc5 59.Bf3 Ke7 60.Rd2 Rc3 61.Rd3 Rc8 62.Rd2 Rh8 63.Kf1
Rc8 64.Ke2 Rg8 65.Kf1 Rh8 66.Rc2 Bc5 67.Kg2 Kf6 68.Be2 Rh7 69.Rc1 Rh8 70.Rc2
Rh7 71.Rc1 Rh8 ½–½. [Click
to replay]
|
Mihail
Marin, 41, Romanian Grandmaster, three times national champion
(1988, 1994, 1999), nine times member of the Olympic team, participant
in two Interzonals (Szirak 1987 and Manila 1990). In 2005 Marin was
the second of Judit Polgar at the FIDE world championship in San Luis.
Highest rating: 2604. Author of the ChessBase opening CDs English
1.c4 e5 and The Catalan Opening and the books: Secrets
of Chess Defence, Secrets of Attacking Chess and Learn from
the Legends. Graduate from the Polytechnic Institute Bucharest
(Specialty Electrotechnic) in 1989.
|
If you have enjoyed the
commentary provided by GM Mihail Marin you should try the following training
CDs by the same author. They are amongst the best in our ChessBase
Shop. Get them now:
Picture gallery
The President of the Republic of Bulgaria Georgi Parvanov (speaking), officially
opening the M-Tel Masters 2006.
Photographers doing their thing at the Oscar ceremony
Josef Vinatzer, CEO of Mobiltel (right) presents Veselin Topalov the tournament
logo
Editor of the chess Magazine "64", Alexander Roshal, who is also
the initiator of the Chess Oscar, praises Veselin Topalov for winning it
Chess Oscar
for Topalov: the FIDE World Champion Veselin Topalov receives
the trophy at the official opening ceremony of the tournament.
Ruslan Ponomariov at the drawing of colours
Start of round one. World-famous Brazilian writer Paolo Coelho made the first
move of the M-Tel Masters 2006. It was 1.e2-e4, played by Peter Svidler plays
with the white pieces against Veselin Topalov.
Schedule and results
Round 1: Thursday, May 11, 2006 |
| Peter Svidler |
½-½ |
Veselin Topalov |
Ruslan Ponomariov |
½-½ |
Gata Kamsky |
Etienne Bacrot |
0-1 |
Vishy Anand |
|
|
Round 2: Friday, May 12, 2006 |
Veselin Topalov |
|
Vishy Anand |
Gata Kamsky |
|
Etienne Bacrot |
Peter Svidler |
|
Ruslan Ponomariov |
Games –
Report |
|
Round 3: Saturday, May 13, 2006 |
Ruslan Ponomariov |
|
Veselin Topalov |
Etienne Bacrot |
|
Peter Svidler |
Vishy Anand |
|
Gata Kamsky |
Games –
Report |
|
Round 4: Sunday, May 14, 2006 |
Veselin Topalov |
|
Gata Kamsky |
Peter Svidler |
|
Vishy Anand |
Ruslan Ponomariov |
|
Etienne Bacrot |
Games –
Report |
|
Round 5: Monday, May 15, 2006 |
Etienne Bacrot |
|
Veselin Topalov |
Vishy Anand |
|
Ruslan Ponomariov |
Gata Kamsky |
|
Peter Svidler |
Games –
Report |
|
Round 6: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 |
Veselin Topalov |
|
Peter Svidler |
Gata Kamsky |
|
Ruslan Ponomariov |
Vishy Anand |
|
Etienne Bacrot |
Games –
Report |
|
Round 7: Thursday, May 18, 2006 |
Vishy Anand |
|
Veselin Topalov |
Etienne Bacrot |
|
Gata Kamsky |
Ruslan Ponomariov |
|
Peter Svidler |
Games –
Report |
|
Round 8: Friday, May 19, 2006 |
Veselin Topalov |
|
Ruslan Ponomariov |
Peter Svidler |
|
Etienne Bacrot |
Gata Kamsky |
|
Vishy Anand |
Games –
Report |
|
Round 9: Saturday, May 20, 2006 |
Gata Kamsky |
|
Veselin Topalov |
Vishy Anand |
|
Peter Svidler |
Etienne Bacrot |
|
Ruslan Ponomariov |
Games –
Report |
|
Round 10: Sunday, May 21, 2006 |
Veselin Topalov |
|
Etienne Bacrot |
Ruslan Ponomariov |
|
Vishy Anand |
Peter Svidler |
|
Gata Kamsky |
Games –
Report |
|
