Gibraltar Rd05: Peace and War

1/29/2017 – Emil Sutovsky and Ju Wenjun were leading the tournament with 4.0/4. Behind them were a pack of super elite grandmasters on 3.5/4. The top board clash between Sutovsky and Wenjun ended in a tame draw. However, that was the only peaceful result of the round. All the top players including Caruana, Nakamura, Adams were able to win their games. Gelfand, however, lost to David Anton Guijarro. We have an illustrated report withpictures, videos and analysis.

ChessBase 14 Download ChessBase 14 Download

Everyone uses ChessBase, from the World Champion to the amateur next door. Start your personal success story with ChessBase 14 and enjoy your chess even more!


Along with the ChessBase 14 program you can access the Live Database of 8 million games, and receive three months of free ChesssBase Account Premium membership and all of our online apps! Have a look today!

More...

Photos by John Saunders and Sophie Triay

Gibraltar 05: Halfway down the line

The biggest chess open in the world currently, the Gibraltar Masters, has reached the halfway mark. After four rounds of play, GM Ju Wenjun and ACP President, GM Emil Sutovsky were leading the tournament with a perfect score of 4.0/4. As round five of the ten-round event began, Ju Wenjun was heading closer to reaching the 2600 rating mark and becoming the sixth woman in the history of the game to have reached that feat. With only three points to gain, she sat down to play against Sutovsky. Behind these two who had a perfect score, a strong league of Grandmasters including the likes of Mickey Adams, Hikaru Nakamura and MVL was roughing it out to catch them in the lead. There was blood anticipated over the chessboard.

To the disappointment of the crowd, Ju Wenjun agreed to a draw against Emil Sutovsky in just 15 moves of a Grunfeld Defence

[Event "Gibraltar Masters 2017"] [Site "Caleta ENG"] [Date "2017.01.28"] [Round "5.1"] [White "Ju, Wenjun"] [Black "Sutovsky, Emil"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [ECO "D85"] [WhiteElo "2583"] [BlackElo "2628"] [PlyCount "29"] [EventDate "2017.01.24"] 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5 5. e4 Nxc3 6. bxc3 Bg7 7. Nf3 c5 8. Be3 Qa5 9. Nd2 Bd7 10. Nb3 Qxc3+ 11. Bd2 Qb2 12. Bc1 Qc3+ 13. Bd2 Qb2 14. Bc1 Qc3+ 15. Bd2 1/2-1/2

Knowing that the spectators would be disappointed with the result, Emil Sutovsky went into the commentary room and explained to the commentators Simon Williams and Jovanka Houska that he felt bad about having taken a draw so early. He further explained that he might have ended in a worse position if he hadn’t taken the repetition at that point. Not to mention the fact that he was taken by surprise by Wenjun’s opening choice.

“The tournament situation sometimes dictates what you do” – Emil Sutovsky

What Wenjun had to say...

Although the top board game was a quick and disappointing draw, it sent a wave of motivation for the players trying to catch Wenjun and Sutovsky in the lead and there were quite a few decisive results on the top boards.

Hikaru Nakamura crushed the Venezuelan GM Eduardo Itturizaga Bonelli in just 28 moves of a Queen’s Indian Defence on board 3.

[Event "Gibraltar Masters 2017"] [Site "Caleta ENG"] [Date "2017.01.28"] [Round "5.3"] [White "Nakamura, Hikaru"] [Black "Iturrizaga Bonelli, Eduardo"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "E18"] [WhiteElo "2785"] [BlackElo "2652"] [Annotator "Sagar,Shah"] [PlyCount "55"] [EventDate "2017.01.24"] 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. g3 Bb7 5. Bg2 Be7 6. O-O O-O 7. Nc3 Ne4 8. Bd2 Bf6 9. Rc1 d6 10. d5 Nxd2 11. Nxd2 e5 12. b4 a5 13. a3 axb4 14. axb4 Na6 15. Qb3 Bg5 16. e3 f5 17. f4 Bf6 18. fxe5 Bxe5 19. Nf3 Kh8 (19... Bf6 {Keeping the bishop could have been better.}) 20. Nxe5 dxe5 21. Nb5 Qd7 22. Qc3 Rae8 23. Rcd1 Rf6 24. e4 fxe4 25. Bxe4 c6 $2 {Black's position was worse, but this just hastens the end.} (25... Qf7 $16) 26. dxc6 $1 Rxf1+ 27. Rxf1 Bxc6 28. Qf3 $1 $18 {The move that Iturrizaga had missed. There's a mate on f8 and the c6 bishop is hanging.} 1-0

The board 4 encounter between Michael Adams and the Women’s World Champion Hou Yifan was a long tumultuous battle that ended in a victory for the English Grandmaster.

[Event "Gibraltar Masters 2017"] [Site "Caleta ENG"] [Date "2017.01.28"] [Round "5.4"] [White "Adams, Michael"] [Black "Hou, Yifan"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "A33"] [WhiteElo "2751"] [BlackElo "2651"] [Annotator "Sagar,Shah"] [PlyCount "139"] [EventDate "2017.01.24"] 1. c4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e6 6. a3 Bc5 7. Nb3 Be7 8. e4 O-O 9. Be2 b6 10. O-O Bb7 11. Be3 d6 12. f4 Rc8 13. Rc1 Nb8 14. Qd3 a6 15. Nd4 Nc6 16. b4 Nxd4 17. Bxd4 Nd7 18. Qg3 Bf6 19. Rfd1 Qc7 20. Bxf6 Nxf6 21. e5 dxe5 22. fxe5 Nd7 23. Rd6 f6 24. exf6 Rxf6 25. Bd3 Rcf8 26. Rd1 g6 27. Be2 Nc5 $5 28. Qe3 (28. bxc5 Qxc5+ 29. Kh1 {It's a question what Hou Yifan had in mind here.} Rf2 30. Rg1 Bxg2+ 31. Rxg2 Rf1+ 32. Bxf1 Rxf1+ 33. Rg1 Rxg1+ 34. Qxg1 Qxd6 35. Qe3 $16 {White is clearly better.}) 28... Rf2 29. Qxf2 Rxf2 30. Kxf2 Kg7 $2 31. bxc5 Qxc5+ 32. R1d4 $6 (32. Kf1 {Would have ended the game immediately.} Qe3 33. R1d3 $18) 32... Bd5 $1 {Black is back with a fighting chance.} 33. Rd7+ Kh6 34. Ke3 Bc6 35. Ne4 Qxa3+ 36. Kf2 Qf8+ 37. Bf3 Bxd7 38. Rxd7 Qc8 39. Ra7 Qxc4 {This should be close to a draw now.} 40. h4 Qd4+ 41. Kg3 Qe5+ 42. Kh3 Qf5+ 43. Kg3 Qe5+ 44. Kh3 Qf5+ 45. Kh2 Qf4+ 46. g3 Qxf3 47. Rxh7+ $5 Kxh7 48. Ng5+ Kg7 49. Nxf3 {Even this is not an easy position to win.} a5 50. g4 a4 $2 {The critical mistake of the game.} (50... Kf6 $1 {would have led to a draw.}) 51. Nd4 $1 a3 (51... Kf7 52. Nb5 {Stops the pawns and just wins.}) 52. Nxe6+ Kf6 53. Nd4 Ke5 54. Nc2 Kf4 55. Kh3 a2 56. g5 b5 57. Na1 b4 58. Nb3 Ke5 59. h5 gxh5 60. Kh4 Kd5 61. g6 Kc4 62. Na1 Kc3 63. g7 Kb2 64. g8=Q Kxa1 65. Qc4 Kb2 66. Qxb4+ Kc2 67. Qa3 Kb1 68. Qb3+ Ka1 69. Kg5 h4 70. Qc2 1-0

The Spaniard, David Anton Guijarro got the better of the former World Championship Challenger, GM Boris Gelfand after the Israeli Grandmaster made an inaccuracy one move before reaching the time control in an English Opening.

Fabiano Caruana had to fight a long arduous battle against Mikhail Antipov to secure victory in an Accelerated Dragon.

Sethuraman drew a complicated game against…

…the ultra-artistic Vadim Zvjaginsev

[Event "Gibraltar Masters 2017"] [Site "Caleta ENG"] [Date "2017.01.28"] [Round "5.6"] [White "Zvjaginsev, Vadim"] [Black "Sethuraman, S.P."] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [ECO "C24"] [WhiteElo "2679"] [BlackElo "2637"] [Annotator "Sagar,Shah"] [PlyCount "61"] [EventDate "2017.01.24"] 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. d3 Nc6 4. Nc3 Bb4 5. Nf3 d5 6. exd5 Nxd5 7. Bd2 Bxc3 8. bxc3 Bg4 9. h3 Bh5 10. O-O O-O 11. g4 (11. Re1 f6 12. Bb3 Kh8 {The position should be around even.}) 11... Bg6 12. Re1 Re8 13. a4 h6 14. a5 e4 15. dxe4 Bxe4 16. a6 $1 {I like this move. It softens up the c6 knight and makes the next idea possibele.} bxa6 17. Bg5 $5 {A very original move that launches a discovered attack on the knight on d5. The threat now is to take on e4.} (17. Bxh6 {doesn't work because of} Nb6 $1 $15 (17... gxh6 $2 18. Rxe4 $16)) 17... Nf6 $1 {Sethuraman sidesteps the danger.} (17... hxg5 $2 18. Rxe4 $1 Rxe4 19. Bxd5 $16 {White will recover the material with interest.}) 18. Qxd8 Raxd8 19. Bxf6 gxf6 20. Nd4 Nxd4 21. cxd4 Rxd4 22. Bxa6 {The position is just equal.} Re5 23. c3 Rd8 24. f4 Re6 25. Bf1 Ra8 26. Bc4 Ree8 27. Ra6 Kg7 28. Rea1 f5 29. Rxa7 fxg4 30. hxg4 Rxa7 31. Rxa7 1/2-1/2

GM Lalith Babu is standing strong against the storm of elite GMs the Gibraltar Masters is throwing at him. This time he drew against Vassily Ivanchuk…

…who was caught musing around after the game.

Game of the day

There were quite a few grueling encounters in round five. But the one that stood out from the rest was Veselin Topalov’s game against Deac Bogdan-Daniel.

With the hope of reaching a solid position, Topalov chose to play the Catalan. But him being him; and him being awesome, the position turned wild in no time. In just 25 moves, Deac was on his knees!

[Event "Gibraltar Masters 2017"] [Site "Caleta ENG"] [Date "2017.01.28"] [Round "5.12"] [White "Topalov, Veselin"] [Black "Deac, Bogdan-Daniel"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "E04"] [WhiteElo "2739"] [BlackElo "2572"] [Annotator "Sagar,Shah"] [PlyCount "49"] [EventDate "2017.01.24"] 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. g3 dxc4 5. Bg2 Bd7 6. Ne5 Bc6 7. Nxc6 Nxc6 8. e3 Qd7 9. O-O Rd8 10. Qe2 e5 11. Nc3 Be7 12. dxe5 Nxe5 13. Bxb7 Bb4 (13... O-O {And Black has a fine position out of the opening.}) 14. Rd1 Nd3 15. e4 Bxc3 16. bxc3 Qb5 $1 {Deac is playing quite accurately.} 17. e5 Nd5 $6 (17... O-O $1 18. exf6 Qxb7 19. Qg4 g6 $17 {And Black is better. This should haveen preferred by Deac.}) 18. Rb1 $1 Nxc3 $2 {The most natural move actually turns out to be a blunder.} (18... Qc5 $1 $11) (18... Qxb1 19. Bc6+ Rd7 20. Bxd7+ Kxd7 21. Qg4+ $18) 19. Qf3 Qxe5 (19... Nxb1 20. Bc6+ $18) (19... Qxb1 20. Bc6+ Ke7 (20... Rd7 21. Bxd7+ Kxd7 22. Qg4+ $1 (22. Qxf7+ $2 Kc8 $19) 22... Ke7 ( 22... Kc6 23. Qxc4+ $18) 23. Bg5+ f6 24. exf6+ gxf6 25. Rxb1 $18) 21. Bg5+ $18) 20. Qc6+ Kf8 21. Bb2 $1 Ne2+ 22. Kg2 c3 23. Ba3+ Kg8 24. Qe4 c2 25. Rxd3 { A brilliant game by Veselin Topalov.} 1-0

Beh, I’m a bit too old for such positions he says. 

Top pairings and results of Round 5

Ti. Name FED Rtg Pts. Res. Pts. Ti. Name FED Rtg
GM Ju Wenjun CHN 2583 4 ½-½ 4 GM Sutovsky Emil ISR 2628
GM Howell David W L ENG 2655 ½-½ GM Vachier-Lagrave Maxime FRA 2796
GM Nakamura Hikaru USA 2785 1-0 GM Iturrizaga Bonelli Eduardo VEN 2652
GM Adams Michael ENG 2751 1-0 GM Hou Yifan CHN 2651
GM Anton Guijarro David ESP 2650 1-0 GM Gelfand Boris ISR 2721
GM Zvjaginsev Vadim RUS 2679 ½-½ GM Sethuraman S.P. IND 2637
GM Akobian Varuzhan USA 2633 ½-½ GM Short Nigel D ENG 2675
GM Lagarde Maxime FRA 2594 1-0 GM Fressinet Laurent FRA 2660
GM Caruana Fabiano USA 2827 3 1-0 3 GM Antipov Mikhail Al. RUS 2580
GM Lalith Babu M R IND 2587 3 ½-½ 3 GM Ivanchuk Vassily UKR 2752
GM Blomqvist Erik SWE 2574 3 ½-½ 3 GM Svidler Peter RUS 2748
GM Topalov Veselin BUL 2739 3 1-0 3 GM Deac Bogdan-Daniel ROU 2572
GM Vazquez Igarza Renier ESP 2572 3 0-1 3 GM Yu Yangyi CHN 2738
GM Vitiugov Nikita RUS 2724 3 ½-½ 3 GM Huzman Alexander ISR 2557
GM Schroeder Jan-Christian GER 2550 3 ½-½ 3 GM Naiditsch Arkadij AZE 2702
GM Cuenca Jimenez Jose Fernando ESP 2492 3 0-1 3 GM Matlakov Maxim RUS 2701
GM Cheparinov Ivan BUL 2689 3 1-0 3 GM Libiszewski Fabien FRA 2545
IM Dragnev Valentin AUT 2492 3 1-0 3 GM Kovalenko Igor LAT 2684
GM Shankland Samuel L USA 2674 3 ½-½ 3 GM Debashis Das IND 2472
GM Ganguly Surya Shekhar IND 2657 3 0-1 3 GM Stefanova Antoaneta BUL 2512
GM Piorun Kacper POL 2651 3 1-0 3 IM Paehtz Elisabeth GER 2468
GM Gupta Abhijeet IND 2645 3 1-0 3 IM Ider Borya FRA 2463
IM Kobo Ori ISR 2482 3 0-1 3 GM Edouard Romain FRA 2613
GM Maze Sebastien FRA 2613 3 1-0 3 IM Mannion Stephen R SCO 2326
GM Arakhamia-Grant Ketevan SCO 2370 3 ½-½ 3 GM Vocaturo Daniele ITA 2606
GM Gopal G.N. IND 2579 ½-½ 3 IM Carlstedt Jonathan GER 2413
IM Khademalsharieh Sarasadat IRI 2452 0-1 GM Fridman Daniel GER 2594
GM Womacka Mathias GER 2435 1-0 GM Gledura Benjamin HUN 2589
GM Kaidanov Gregory S USA 2572 ½-½ IM Wemmers Xander NED 2424
GM Grigoriants Sergey RUS 2564 1-0 WIM Shvayger Yuliya ISR 2413
FM Guerra Rivera Salvador ESP 2389 0-1 GM Donchenko Alexander GER 2559
GM Muzychuk Anna UKR 2558 1-0 FM Pustovoitova Daria RUS 2407
GM Mastrovasilis Athanasios GRE 2551 ½-½ IM Docx Stefan BEL 2405
GM Muzychuk Mariya UKR 2546 0-1 IM Batchimeg Tuvshintugs MGL 2390
GM Spraggett Kevin CAN 2542 1-0 IM Milliet Sophie FRA 2387
GM Del Rio De Angelis Salvador G ESP 2527 ½-½ FM Garriga Cazorla Pere ESP 2386
GM Lemos Damian ARG 2516 ½-½ FM Mihajlov Sebastian NOR 2384
GM Narciso Dublan Marc ESP 2508 ½-½   Henderson De La Fuente Lance ESP 2380
IM Aryan Chopra IND 2503 ½-½ FM Kozak Adam HUN 2376
WGM Tsolakidou Stavroula GRE 2387 0-1 IM Kollars Dmitrij GER 2500
IM Liang Awonder USA 2496 0-1 FM Shachar Ehud ISR 2374
IM Godart Francois BEL 2381 1-0 IM Bellahcene Bilel FRA 2493
IM Batsiashvili Nino GEO 2492 1-0 IM Derakhshani Dorsa IRI 2370
IM Lazarne Vajda Szidonia HUN 2364 0-1 IM Krysa Leandro ARG 2491
IM Steinberg Nitzan ISR 2486 1-0 IM Welling Gerard NED 2314
IM Sahl Bjarke NOR 2363 ½-½ IM Santos Ruiz Miguel ESP 2484
IM Salomon Johan NOR 2470 1-0 IM Vuilleumier Alexandre SUI 2347
WGM Papp Petra HUN 2352 1-0 GM Riff Jean-Noel FRA 2468
IM Almagro Llamas Pablo ESP 2466 ½-½ FM Tate Alan SCO 2309
IM Javakhishvili Lela GEO 2455 1-0   Villar Reymundo Juan Antonio PER 2212
GM Cramling Pia SWE 2454 1-0   Skutta Bernd Dr. GER 1957
GM Oparin Grigoriy RUS 2625 2 1-0 2 FM Rakesh Kumar Jena IND 2335
GM Istratescu Andrei FRA 2593 2 1-0 2 FM De Haan Eric NED 2319
FM Lombaers Peter NED 2314 2 0-1 2 GM Gunina Valentina RUS 2524
FM Wantiez Fabrice BEL 2312 2 0-1 2 GM Mikhalevski Victor ISR 2504
IM Esserman Marc USA 2468 2 1-0 2 FM Lopez Mulet Inigo ESP 2304
IM Kantans Toms LAT 2456 2 1-0 2 WGM Pourkashiyan Atousa IRI 2303
IM Cheng Bobby AUS 2452 2 1-0 2 FM Loh Zachary AUS 2291
  Gluhovsky Mark RUS 2263 2 0-1 2 IM Kantor Gergely HUN 2448
GM Zhukova Natalia UKR 2447 2 1-0 2 FM Bach Matthias GER 2264
IM Zatonskih Anna USA 2443 2 ½-½ 2 FM Sanchez Jerez Emilio Miguel ESP 2257
WIM Pratyusha Bodda IND 2247 2 0-1 2 GM Khotenashvili Bela GEO 2430
IM Sarkar Justin USA 2428 2 ½-½ 2   Serarols Mabras Bernat ESP 2242
GM Sundararajan Kidambi IND 2420 2 1-0 2   Vea Odin Blikra NOR 2234
FM Damia Angelo ITA 2233 2 1-0 2 IM Karavade Eesha IND 2418
IM Kuipers Stefan NED 2414 2 1-0 2   Bujnoch Radek CZE 2233
IM Vega Gutierrez Sabrina ESP 2406 2 ½-½ 2 WIM Heinemann Josefine GER 2227
FM Ladron De Guevara Pinto Paolo ESP 2386 2 1-0 2   Galmandakh Badrakh MGL 2215
IM Herman Matthew J USA 2383 2 1-0 2 CM Herbold Manfred GER 2198
  Veltkamp Gerben NED 2166 2 1-0 2 FM Jessel Stephen IRL 2382
WGM Gara Ticia HUN 2378 2 0-1 2   Tscharotschkin Michael GER 2190
WGM Soumya Swaminathan IND 2375 2 1-0 2   Mueller-Dehn Christian Dr. GER 2170
IM Omar Noaman UAE 2369 2 1-0 2   Behrendt Clemens GER 2121
  Gonzalez Gonzalez Alfonso ESP 2162 2 0-1 2 FM Thavandiran Shiyam CAN 2367
  Burrows Martin P ENG 2124 2 ½-½ 2 GM Paehtz Thomas GER 2365
FM Smith Andrew Philip IRL 2152 2 0-1 2 IM Siva Mahadevan IND 2356
IM Bellin Robert ENG 2353 2 1-0 2   Dasaolu Rotimi NGR 2051
  Wilson Matthew R ENG 1791 2 0-1 2   Kulkarni Rakesh IND 2344
FM Perez Garcia Alejandro ESP 2398 1-0   Semprun Martinez Fernando ESP 2174
IM Nomin-Erdene Davaademberel MGL 2378 1-0   Aroven Mikael SWE 2172
  Chan Kim Yew MAS 2152 ½-½ IM Szabo Bence HUN 2378
IM Sodoma Jan CZE 2344 1-0 FM Alberto Manuel ANG 2168
FM Gulamali Kazim USA 2341 1-0   Seyfried Claus GER 2152
  Finsterwalder Sebastian GER 2130 1-0 GM Bellon Lopez Juan Manuel ESP 2339
IM Piasetski Leon CAN 2327 1-0   Herzwurm Robert GER 2143
  Suez-Panama Gilles FRA 2010 0-1 FM Webb Laurence E ENG 2313
  Broekman Willem NED 1997 1-0 IM Povah Nigel E ENG 2298
  Hamer Martyn ENG 2039 0-1 FM Buchenau Frank GER 2274
FM Bergstrom Rolf SWE 2268 1-0   Agbabishvili Lali CAN 2095
WIM Kantane Anna POL 2259 1-0   Korning Peter SWE 2080
FM Plotkin Victor CAN 2253 1-0   Hewson Brian Wr ENG 2055
  Gillis Onieva Celia ESP 1966 0-1 FM De Francesco Klaus GER 2252
FM Bannink Bernard NED 2244 ½-½   Berrocal Ruiz Valentin ESP 2042
  Newbry Benjamin J USA 1879 0-1 FM Cordes Hans-Joerg Dr. GER 2242
  Christophe-Hayot Romain FRA 1784 0-1   Pinho Paulo POR 2220
IM Gluckman David RSA 2215 1-0   Byrn Carsten DEN 2003
  Verneuil Pascal FRA 2215 0-1   Amgalanbaatar Ravdanlkhumbuu MGL 1988
FM Baert Andy BEL 2210 1-0 FM Press Shaun PNG 1970
CM Osuna Vega Enrique ESP 2181 ½-½ ½   Cramling Bellon Anna SWE 1954
IM Saravanan V. IND 2306 1 1-0 FM Gluckman Paul RSA 1831

Pairings and results of all

Top pairings Round 6 on 2017/01/29 at 15.00

Ti. Name FED Rtg Pts. Res. Pts. Ti. Name FED Rtg
GM Nakamura Hikaru USA 2785   GM Lagarde Maxime FRA 2594
GM Adams Michael ENG 2751   GM Ju Wenjun CHN 2583
GM Sutovsky Emil ISR 2628   GM Anton Guijarro David ESP 2650
GM Short Nigel D ENG 2675 4   4 GM Caruana Fabiano USA 2827
GM Vachier-Lagrave Maxime FRA 2796 4   4 GM Gupta Abhijeet IND 2645
GM Topalov Veselin BUL 2739 4   4 GM Howell David W L ENG 2655
GM Yu Yangyi CHN 2738 4   4 GM Piorun Kacper POL 2651
GM Matlakov Maxim RUS 2701 4   4 GM Akobian Varuzhan USA 2633
GM Sethuraman S.P. IND 2637 4   4 GM Cheparinov Ivan BUL 2689
GM Stefanova Antoaneta BUL 2512 4   4 GM Zvjaginsev Vadim RUS 2679
GM Ivanchuk Vassily UKR 2752   4 IM Dragnev Valentin AUT 2492
GM Svidler Peter RUS 2748   GM Spraggett Kevin CAN 2542
GM Lagno Kateryna RUS 2530   GM Vitiugov Nikita RUS 2724
GM Gelfand Boris ISR 2721   IM Steinberg Nitzan ISR 2486
GM Naiditsch Arkadij AZE 2702   IM Salomon Johan NOR 2470
IM Kollars Dmitrij GER 2500   GM Shankland Samuel L USA 2674
GM Fressinet Laurent FRA 2660   IM Javakhishvili Lela GEO 2455
IM Batsiashvili Nino GEO 2492   GM Iturrizaga Bonelli Eduardo VEN 2652
GM Hou Yifan CHN 2651   GM Cramling Pia SWE 2454
GM Vocaturo Daniele ITA 2606   GM Womacka Mathias GER 2435
GM Fridman Daniel GER 2594   IM Godart Francois BEL 2381
IM Krysa Leandro ARG 2491   GM Lalith Babu M R IND 2587
GM Debashis Das IND 2472   GM Blomqvist Erik SWE 2574
IM Carlstedt Jonathan GER 2413   GM Grigoriants Sergey RUS 2564
GM Donchenko Alexander GER 2559   GM Arakhamia-Grant Ketevan SCO 2370
IM Batchimeg Tuvshintugs MGL 2390   GM Muzychuk Anna UKR 2558
GM Huzman Alexander ISR 2557   WGM Papp Petra HUN 2352
FM Shachar Ehud ISR 2374   GM Schroeder Jan-Christian GER 2550
GM Kovalenko Igor LAT 2684 3   3 GM Zhukova Natalia UKR 2447
IM Cheng Bobby AUS 2452 3   3 GM Ganguly Surya Shekhar IND 2657
IM Kantor Gergely HUN 2448 3   3 GM Oparin Grigoriy RUS 2625
GM Khotenashvili Bela GEO 2430 3   3 GM Istratescu Andrei FRA 2593
GM Antipov Mikhail Al. RUS 2580 3   3 GM Sundararajan Kidambi IND 2420
GM Gopal G.N. IND 2579 3   3 IM Kuipers Stefan NED 2414
GM Deac Bogdan-Daniel ROU 2572 3   3 WGM Soumya Swaminathan IND 2375
IM Docx Stefan BEL 2405 3   3 GM Kaidanov Gregory S USA 2572
IM Wemmers Xander NED 2424 3   3 GM Vazquez Igarza Renier ESP 2572
FM Garriga Cazorla Pere ESP 2386 3   3 GM Mastrovasilis Athanasios GRE 2551
FM Mihajlov Sebastian NOR 2384 3   3 GM Del Rio De Angelis Salvador G ESP 2527
GM Gunina Valentina RUS 2524 3   3 FM Ladron De Guevara Pinto Paolo ESP 2386
  Henderson De La Fuente Lance ESP 2380 3   3 GM Lemos Damian ARG 2516
FM Kozak Adam HUN 2376 3   3 GM Narciso Dublan Marc ESP 2508
GM Mikhalevski Victor ISR 2504 3   3 IM Herman Matthew J USA 2383
FM Thavandiran Shiyam CAN 2367 3   3 IM Aryan Chopra IND 2503
IM Siva Mahadevan IND 2356 3   3 GM Cuenca Jimenez Jose Fernando ESP 2492
IM Santos Ruiz Miguel ESP 2484 3   3 IM Omar Noaman UAE 2369
  Kulkarni Rakesh IND 2344 3   3 IM Kobo Ori ISR 2482
FM Tate Alan SCO 2309 3   3 IM Esserman Marc USA 2468
IM Paehtz Elisabeth GER 2468 3   3 IM Sahl Bjarke NOR 2363
IM Mannion Stephen R SCO 2326 3   3 IM Almagro Llamas Pablo ESP 2466

Get the complete results and pairings: Masters + Challengers A + Amateur A

Tania Sachdev and Stuart Conquest dancing before the battle of Sexes!

About the author

Aditya Pai is an ardent chess fan, avid reader, and a film lover. He has been an advertising copywriter and is currently pursuing a Master's in English Literature at the University of Mumbai. He loves all things German and is learning the language. He has also written scripts for experimental films.

The games will be broadcast live on the official web site and on the server Playchess.com. If you are not a member you can download a free Playchess client there and get immediate access. You can also use ChessBase or any of our Fritz compatible chess programs.
 

Discussion and Feedback Join the public discussion or submit your feedback to the editors


Discuss

Rules for reader comments

 
 

Not registered yet? Register

Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 1/31/2017 08:46
@ koko48 :

When a commentator resorts to insults ("wordy drivel", "spam and mindless fluff", "exposed as a liar and a fraud", "you're intellectually outgunned", "Debating you is like a heavyweight fighting a flyweight, or a GM playing a 'C' player", "if you argue with me again just for the sake of argument (...), I'll take you apart at the joints"), one thing is clear, and that is that he has completely run out of arguments (...in fact, you never stated any real argument, so it is in fact even worse than that...).

Everyone can see for himself that you didn't demonstrate anything anywhere, and that, furthermore, you even lied (notably about the fact that there weren't any comparatively weaker grandmasters in the "3 - 1" tournaments), having no coherent arguments to state.

So everyone can judge by himself... and I don't think that you will find many persons to follow you with such arguments...

In fact, you have simply showed what you are : a person that resorts to lies and insults when he is completely out of arguments... you really don't show yourself in a very favorable light indeed !...
koko48 koko48 1/31/2017 08:21
More wordy drivel, that's all we ever get from you on these threads...A lot of words, and no substance

You asked me for a demonstration of the effects of football scoring, then when I provide it you don't even look at it...Instead you respond with more paragraphs of spam and mindless fluff...Because you've been proven wrong, and exposed as a liar and a fraud when you claimed you "followed EVERY ONE of the top-level tournaments using this 3 - 1 scoring system"

My suggestion: Don't pick a fight with someone when you're intellectually outgunned. Debating you is like a heavyweight fighting a flyweight, or a GM playing a 'C' player...and if you argue with me again just for the sake of argument (as you've done more than once), I'll take you apart at the joints...Again
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 1/31/2017 07:36
@ koko48 :

I didn't see your last post until now, so I didn't answer it.

I don't think it is very interesting to check the details of all these past editions of the London Chess Classic. I suppose that, as for the 2010 London Chess Classic, Short, McShane and Howell where under 2700 (and probably under 2650, for some of them), so this musn't change what I said before.

As for the rest, you still don't demonstrate ANYTHING in terms of numbers.

And it is irrelevant to affirm that the games where interesting :

On the one hand, when you mix grandmasters with very different levels, as in the 2010 London Chess Classic (and I suppose the level difference was approximately the same in the 2009 and 2011 tournaments), there always are less draws.

And, on the other hand, if you simply take, for example, the very recent Tata Steel tournament (in which there were grandmasters of rather different levels, even if the difference wasn't as important as in the 2010 London Chess Classic, for example), you can see for yourself that there were very few short draws (I can't say exactly how much, because, for me, short draws are not things that bother me at all, so I don't count them). And the scoring was the traditional "1 - 1/2" scoring.

In particular, it is one more time rather funny, because you say, about the "3 - 1" scoring system : "There are no short draws among the leaders in the last rounds, as are commonplace under traditional scoring". And, in the last edition of Tata Steel, on the last round, there were only 2 draws out of 7 games, these draws being respectively 53 and 63 moves long ! Not exactly what I would call short draws !!!

So, clearly, it is quite possible, in tournaments with traditional scoring, to have a VERY animated last round (...and the 2017 Tata Steel tournament is simply the last top-level tournament, so you can't say that I deliberately chose this tournament because the results suit me particularly well...). The last round of this last edition of the Tata Steel tournament is in fact the exact opposite of your hypothesis : a PARTICULARLY animated last round (...and, by the way, the last round of the 2010 London Chess Classic that you cite as an example was rather the contrary, with 3 draws out of 4 games in its last round...).

In fact, what stands to reason is that, if the players play in a more "win-oriented" manner, it will have statistical consequences. And these statistical elements are the ONLY elements that can prove that the "3 - 1" scoring system really changes anything, when it is implemented in a tournament. And the other arguments don't prove anything at all...


As for that : "You will also notice that in both the 2009 and 2011 editions, at least three or four players had a chance to win the tournament, or tie for first, going into the last round....Another benefit of football scoring", I simply don't agree that, if it is true that the "3 - 1" scoring system has this effect, it is a positive effect : I don't see at all why, if a player completely dominates a tournament, it would be a problem if he wins the tournament in advance. If he is clearly better, it is normal that he wins the tournament in advance, and with a significant margin, and I don't see at all why it would be a good thing to avoid this. The "problem" is with the other players that don't play sufficiently well, and not with the rules !
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 1/31/2017 06:39
@ koko48 :

- "If you need a demonstration (...) take a look at the 2010 London Chess Classic"

You cite only one tournament, so this simply doesn't have any significance.

I remind you what I said : "(...) in SEVERAL of these "3 - 1" tournaments (...)". I didn't say : "(...) in ALL of these "3 - 1" tournaments (...)". So it is completely illogical to answer with one isolated tournament.


And, furthermore, what you affirm (one more time...) is false !!!

This is what you said :



« "I have followed EVERY ONE of the top-level tournaments using this 3 - 1 scoring system"

No you have not, and that much is clear. It's made even clearer by your following statement:

"in several of these '3 - 1' tournaments, there were several comparatively weaker grandmasters"

No, that had nothing to do with it. And if you really had "followed EVERY ONE of the top-level tournaments using this 3 - 1 scoring system" - as you spuriously claimed - you would know that

The London Chess Classic under the football scoring, was an elite eight player field. If you need a demonstration -(since you obviously won't look it up for yourself) take a look at the 2010 London Chess Classic: (...) The field was Carlsen, McShane, Anand, Kramnik, Nakamura, Adams, Howell, and Short

Howell may have been the lowest rated GM in that field, but there were no easy players... »



In the 2010 London Chess Classic, there were two 2800+ players (Anand - 2804 - and Carlsen - 2802) ; at the other end, there were Short (2680), McShane (2645), and Howell (2611).

So, out of 8 players, there where 3 under 2700, two of them being even under 2650 !!

And you affirm that what I say ("in several of these '3 - 1' tournaments, there were several comparatively weaker grandmasters") isn't true ?!?!?

The question is, clearly : "what is, for you, a "weaker grandmaster" ? If a nearly 200 elo gap isn't sufficient, I really wonder what you would want ? A 2000 Elo grandmaster ???

And, as you say : "The London Chess Classic (...) was an elite eight player field.", it seems that you consider a grandmaster under 2650 to be an "elite player" ??? (...as there where two of them in this tournament, they represented one quarter of the players, which is quite a significant number...)

All this is really more than strange...


- "The proof is in the games, it does not require statistical proof...although if you require mathematical proof you should be able to figure it out for yourself, the mathematics is elementary...."

If you can't demonstrate what you affirm, it hasn't any interest, and isn't worth anything. And you will certainly not convince anyone with vague formulas such as this one.

By the way, it is really rather funny : as you are completely unable to demonstrate anything on this subject, you even go to the length of affirming that a demonstration isn't useful : "(...) it does not require statistical proof (...)". When you run completely out of arguments, you seem to be totally unable to admit it !...
koko48 koko48 1/31/2017 05:36
@Petrarlsen If you require more proof, and are not convinced from one tournament, here is the 2009
London Chess Classic (Carlsen, Kramnik, Adams, Howell, McShane, Ni Hua, Nakamura, Short):

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?page=1&tid=70344

And the 2011 London Chess Classic (Kramnik, Nakamura,Carlsen, McShane, Aronian, Anand, Short, Howell, Adams)

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?page=2&tid=76213

The 2011 edition had nine players, so there are even more games for you to consider

Again, I defy you to locate ONE short GM draw in either of these tournaments...even among the highest rated players

You will also notice that in both the 2009 and 2011 editions, at least three or four players had a chance to win the tournament, or tie for first, going into the last round....Another benefit of football scoring

The leaders still have to play for wins in the last rounds....There are no short draws among the leaders in the last rounds, as are commonplace under traditional scoring
koko48 koko48 1/31/2017 05:03
"I have followed EVERY ONE of the top-level tournaments using this 3 - 1 scoring system"

No you have not, and that much is clear. It's made even clearer by your following statement:

"in several of these '3 - 1' tournaments, there were several comparatively weaker grandmasters"

No, that had nothing to do with it. And if you really had "followed EVERY ONE of the top-level tournaments using this 3 - 1 scoring system" - as you spuriously claimed - you would know that

The London Chess Classic under the football scoring, was an elite eight player field. If you need a demonstration -(since you obviously won't look it up for yourself) take a look at the 2010 London Chess Classic:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?page=1&tid=72655

The field was Carlsen, McShane, Anand, Kramnik, Nakamura, Adams, Howell, and Short

Howell may have been the lowest rated GM in that field, but there were no easy players...and the point is even when the strongest super GMs played against each other, they played each and every game until there was no play left

Look at the games...Really, look at them....Tell me if you can find one short GM draw in that tournament...even among the top players

The proof is in the games, it does not require statistical proof...although if you require mathematical proof you should be able to figure it out for yourself, the mathematics is elementary....Obviously in a 3-1 system both players have more to lose by drawing, and they have more impetus to play for a win

Common sense, really...And the real proof is 'in the pudding'...The games themselves
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 1/31/2017 04:17
@ koko48 :

"(...) once again you're contesting a point having done no research, and with no information"

At this point, this is rather ridiculous...

YOU are affirming something (that this 3 - 1 scoring system is useful).

So YOU have to prove your point.

It is very simple, common sense logic.

Contrary to what you affirm, I have followed EVERY ONE of the top-level tournaments using this 3 - 1 scoring system, without being AT ALL convinced that this system improved anything in these tournaments (and I've already said it to you, so, when you say that I am "contesting a point having done no research, and with no information", you know perfectly well that what you affirm is downright false - in fact, I don't see at all which information you possess that I don't have on this matter).

But the question isn't in vague affirmations ("The PROOF is out there...you haven't seen it only because you haven't looked for it", etc.) ; it is a question of number : can you PROVE (one more time...) statistically that this scoring system changed anything ?

It stands to reason that, if this system has REALLY for a consequence that the players play differently, avoiding draws more than usually, it MUST have measurable and statistical consequences.

As YOU are affirming that this system is useful, it is up to YOU to demonstrate its usefulness.

So, I'm waiting for your demonstration...

And, by the way, don't forget to take into account in your demonstration that, in several of these "3 - 1" tournaments, there were several comparatively weaker grandmasters : this factor necessarily decreases significantly by itself the number of draws, without having to invoke the scoring system or any other reasons...
koko48 koko48 1/31/2017 01:39
@ Petrarlsen We've been through this before. And once again you're contesting a point having done no research, and with no information

"As for the 3 - 1 scoring system, I have never seen any PROOF that this system really changes anything"

You haven't 'seen any proof' because you haven't looked at the games played under this system....As I suggested to you previously

So at the risk of sounding redundant, I'll suggest again...Look at the games played under this format, particularly some of the older London Chess Classics (there were other tournaments around then that used football scoring...I believe Bilbao did one year, and I know I'm missing at least one)

The PROOF is out there...you haven't seen it only because you haven't looked for it
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 1/30/2017 06:09
@ koko 48 : In the present case, in view of the general situation, as I said already, the problem is not with the games, but with some "chess spectators" that "(...) are ALWAYS grumbling at everything !..." !!

There are plenty of interesting games in this round ; if you want to concentrate precisely on THE short draw, between all the "top games", it is clearly that, in fact, you are searching for a reason to criticize something... And when you search for something to criticize, you always find something, in the end !...

As for the 3 - 1 scoring system, I have never seen any PROOF that this system really changes anything... This is a question of statistics, and not of opinions, and it stands to reason that, before implementing universally a significant change, you must PROVE that it will be useful... and as there has been quite a lot of tournaments played with this system, if it is really useful, it must not be so difficult to prove it...

In this case, the onus of proof is obviously on the proponents of this system... and, for the moment, they don't seem to have much to give us in terms of proof !...
koko48 koko48 1/30/2017 03:46
The point is, these non-games are considered 'normal' in chess....just standard procedure...part of the strategy

And that's the problem...No other sport has so many non-games as chess...If you want to know why many people consider chess boring and drawish, look no further

And the culprit, as it has always been, is the traditional 0 - 1/2 - 1 scoring system
tiltedrager tiltedrager 1/30/2017 10:01
i found the chessbase's reporter for this event is quite lazy with his annotating and the reports for this event is nothing but leaflets
Ekkamai Ekkamai 1/30/2017 05:28
What's more annoying is that Chessbase adds this 15 move draw game diagram, videos, player pictures and makes a "sensation" out of it. Seriously? That's your top story? Who is your editor?
Ekkamai Ekkamai 1/30/2017 05:19
I find it rather odd that players have to kind of "explain themselves" when they make a quick draw. First of all it's a tournament and you need to make strategic decisions for your tournament based on many factors - your tournament strategy, particular opponent, colour, your mental and physical shape that day, mood, etc. Everything is done according to the rules of tournament, which were not violated by making a draw, were they?

And don't forget that players play for themselves, not for the spectators. In fact, F*** the spectators - don't like, don't watch! Just like in any other sport.

Events where spectators are important: circus, concert, performance, TV shows, etc. Go watch those if you want entertainment. Sport is different breed.
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 1/30/2017 04:18
Personally, I'm not at all annoyed by a game such as the Yu Wenjun - Sutovsky game.

It's a "normal game" (a draw by repetition and not a short draw by mutual agreement), and, in an open tournament like this tournament, there are dozens of games (...no shortcoming of games to study for anyone...), so I don't see at all where the problem can be.

Indeed, I'm under the strong impression that some "chess spectators" are ALWAYS grumbling at everything !...
noble6 noble6 1/29/2017 09:32
Just a small detail that was not mentioned and it might be of interest :

GM BOGDAN-DANIEL DEAC IS 15 YEARS OLD!!!!
koko48 koko48 1/29/2017 06:06
Quick draws will never end in chess until they bring back the football scoring
jenyes jenyes 1/29/2017 02:54
"The biggest chess open in the world currently, the Gibraltar Masters, has reached the halfway mark..."

This is not accurate. The World Open in the US is the largest open tournament in the world. The Gibraltar Masters is the strongest open tournament in the world.
1