Russian Superfinal Report, Part four
On the final round, by Misha Savinov
Last rounds are often associated with low voltage of struggle and dull draws
in most games. One of my colleagues had a suspicion that at least two games
would end peacefully in about two hours. A brave man, he did not hesitate to
support his opinion with fair amount of money. This looked like a safe bet
from his point of view; however, the reality was cruel to him and perhaps bright
for the rest of us. Each of the remaining five games had its own intrigue,
and none of the grandmasters with white intended to take a break.

Grischuk vs Kasparov in the final round
For Grischuk, playing Kasparov was a rare challenge. “Shooting the Sheriff”
in the ultimate round would no longer give him title chances. But it could
certainly add a flavor of dissatisfaction to Kasparov's victory and become
a long-term investment for Grischuk's credibility in top level chess, especially
among the organizers of various strong tournaments. As for Kasparov, any positive
result would allow him to counterbalance his bad performance at the European
championship in order to remain above 2800. Remaining undefeated in such dense
tournament was also highly regarded by itself.
It is curious to recall that after the opening ceremony all players gathered
with the arbiters and organizers to decide that in case of tie for the first
place, the fate of the title should be decided not according to a tiebreak
of any sort, but in a match. The authors of this initiative were... Kasparov
and Grischuk! Perhaps their unwillingness to take chances and confidence in
own skill could be seen from that initiative as clearly as from the tournament
table...

Boris Spassky listens in on the Kasparov press conference
Kasparov talked about this game at the press
conference, so I would just mention that Grischuk obtained a powerful initiative,
seemed close to a win, but Garry escaped by sacrificing a pawn and gaining
the initiative in return. That was sufficient to make a draw.
As the round developed, I approached some of the experts with set of questions
about the championship. First Evgeny Najer, grandmaster and
one of Motylev's seconds in this event.
MS: Did you expect such a confident victory by Kasparov?
EN: No. He obviously had good chances to win by definition, but one couldn't
guess that both Svidler and Morozevich would be in a poor shape. They played
weaker than in Krasnoyarsk 2003 (a previous Russian championship, 1st Svidler,
2nd Morozevich – M.S.) It would be intriguing to see Kasparov, Morozevich
and Svidler all in top shape in a tournament.
MS: Kasparov also seemed to start the tournament not in his best form...
EN: There were two different Kasparovs. In the beginning of the tournament
it was Garry that we unfortunately are getting used to see in a last couple
of years, but after the game against Tseshkovsky it was a completely different,
a much stronger and confident one. Although before that transformation he have
also played extremely well in certain periods, for example, in a middlegame
against Motylev.
Objectively, most favorites approached the championship with somewhat declined
strength. Even Grischuk, who showed good results, but played far from his best.
Maybe he just recovered a little after the Olympiad, but not more. Dreev looked
better than others. Motylev also improved after a very bad start. However,
the evaluation of their performances largely depends on this round’s
games – both have Black against very tough opposition.
MS: A question for you as one of Motylev's helpers. Did you notice that
Alexander receives opponents from Kasparov's hand, so to speak? One plays Kasparov,
and on a day after faces Motylev.
EN: Personally I noticed that only towards the end of the event. I have no
idea whether it actually helped Alexander or the opposite, but the major factor
which affected the outcome was his own play in any case.
MS: Were you impressed by any games played at the championship?
EN: I am trying to recall Kasparov's victories... Against Svidler it was too
simple. The game against Bareev deserves attention, although the play was somewhat
shaky. Naturally, I was more focused on Motylev's games. I like Dreev-Motylev
encounter. The play was interesting until the very end.
In principle, it was an interesting tournament. When there are no short draws,
when everybody was fighting and there were always interesting ideas and concepts
in games. However, in my opinion, there were no brilliant and flawless wins,
no classical masterpieces. For that to happen, both players should be in a
great form, showing powerful chess.
MS: Could you tell based on championship results, which of the upper leagues
was stronger, the one in Tomsk, or the one in St. Petersburg?
EN: Although I played in Petersburg, I never supported the common opinion
that it was a stronger tournament. I think the Tomsk qualifier was at least
no weaker. Maybe in Petersburg the players were more experienced, more solid,
it was more difficult to win a certain game. But in Tomsk there were many aggressive
youngsters, and they created a violent feeling.
MS: How did you like Korotylev's performance here?
EN: I was surprised that he did not prepare anything special in the opening.
He plays the same lines as usual. The same Sicilian, which, in my opinion,
does not suit his style. But Alexey seems to be well-prepared psychologically,
which is also important. And, apparently, his general level of play is higher
than his rating.
MS: There were some speculation regarding possible quick draws in this
round. What do you think?
EN: I think all five games will be fighting. Svidler needs to win to improve
his standings. We don't expect a draw offer from Morozevich, either...
I also spoke with Mikhail Ulibin, grandmaster and spectator
at the Super Final.
MU: Maybe even Kasparov himself did not expect such a decisive lead! He had
a difficult year, not winning more than one game in each of his three competitions.
Frankly speaking, I was sure that he would win more than once in Moscow, but
such a large winning margin is of course surprising. And yet, we're talking
about Kasparov! One should be prepared to any surprise coming from this great
player.
MS: What were in your opinion a critical moments in this tournament?
MU: Winning already in round one surely helped Kasparov a great deal. And
the turning point were the games against Dreev and especially against Tseshkovsky,
which Garry did not play well, but won nevertheless thanks to a good fortune.
After that game, Kasparov's +5 could not surprise anybody. His strength is
well-known to all, and with confidence and good fortune one could do wonders...
MS: Which games impressed you most?
MU: I would single out Korotylev-Grischuk. Perhaps White did not play the best
moves, the whole strategy was too risky. But I think the main reason of Grischuk's
defeat was that he simply did not expect such aggressive play by Korotylev.
High rated players often expect their much lower rated colleagues playing for
a draw from the start, and Alexey's daring play came as an unpleasant surprise.
Overall Grischuk had a decent tournament, he is still in the top three and
will remain there, but yesterday his play was weak.
MS: What do you think about the formula of the event?
MU: I believe this tournament should be formed differently. As you see, three
invited players declined invitations. Such tournaments do not have an absolute
value for them, and it is different for those passed through a tough qualification.
I think it would be fair to invite the three winners of previous championships
plus one highest rated player, and to determine the rest of the field in qualifications.
Such system would only improve the championship.
MS: What is your score against Kasparov?
MU: The score is 4:4. +1 =2 –1. However... all games were played in
simuls (smiles).

GM Mikhail Ulibin with chess trainer Mark Dvoretsky
Next in line was Mark Dvoretsky, distinguished trainer, international
master (a spectator)
MD: Kasparov's lead is so great because his main rival is not in good shape.
I mean Morozevich. Kasparov’s play was unconvincing in the beginning,
he scored more than his positions suggested. Then he felt a fair wind, which
affected both in his own games against Dreev and Tseshkovsky, and in his rivals
losing points. He became unstoppable. Grischuk followed Kasparov for a long
time, showing rather poor play. Alexey Dreev was in good form, but his loss
against Kasparov knocked him down.
The bad start of Sasha Motylev is an explainable surprise. He is a wonderful
player, one of the best in a generation. His chess is very deep and interesting,
and he is also a very nice person. He is, in my opinion, ready to show top
results. Unfortunately, he was unable to complete the required preparation
for this championship because of the offer that he could not turn down. I mean
playing in Corsica. Alexander performed quite well, earned decent money, but,
of course, lost a lot of energy and did not prepare for the Super Final. His
play in the beginning was terrible, but his strong character and great potential
made the difference as the event proceeded. Today, however, I think he'll lose.
But nevertheless he avoided a complete disaster and even will gain some rating
points.
MS: What is your assessment of creative results of the Super Final?
MD: When the top players fight, there are always interesting games... I have
a theory, which I explained in one of my books. Games of chess are as interesting,
brilliant and outstanding, as an annotator them! There are always deep and
beautiful moves, but showing their depth and brilliance is quite a challenge,
it requires mastery. For example, the Candidates Tournament in Zurich 1953
was hardly a more brilliant competition than the Candidates Tournament of 1959
in Yugoslavia. But the tournament book on the latter event was written colorlessly,
standardly and overall failed to impress in spite of the fact that there were
true masterpieces among the games. Zurich 1953 is a classic known to everybody.
This championship is the same story – the impression would depend on
annotator.
MS: Books about tournaments became rare nowadays...
MD: Unfortunately, public interest in now over focused on openings, therefore
most books published are about the initial stage of the game. As a consequence,
almost everyone now plays the opening like a grandmaster, but afterwards many
begin to perform like candidate masters.
MS: Do you think the formula of the championship needs a correction?
MD: This is not a principled matter. The essence of the formula is a compromise
between invited and qualified participants, and the number of both could be
argued. I only don't understand why there was no list of candidates? The absence
of it led to a messy situation before the event. There should definitely be
a candidates list, and in this case no withdrawals would affect the tournament.
Also the invitations should be based on certain sporting principle –
it's either rating, or membership in the national team, or something else.
We should avoid inviting "a name" for no apparent reason. The principle
of inviting should be announced far in advance.
Personally I would like to see more people participating. In Soviet times
there were 16, 18 participants, and nobody complained about the length of event.
Return of the Jedi
That is what we could call round eleven. The top players finally struck back:
Bareev, Svidler and Morozevich won their games to return to the 50% mark. Neither
the solid Dreev, nor the talented Motylev or the aggressive Korotylev managed
to hold them back.

Morozevich outplayed Motylev's King's Indian
A draw against Svidler could have made Dreev equal second with Grischuk, but
Peter defeated his teammate in crushing style, leaving a strong impression
that Rauzer Sicilian is not playable at all.

The modern plan with 11.Ne2 and 13.Nd4 leaves Black without any threats for
Q-side counterplay, while White simply advances his K-side pawns. Curiously,
a structure after Black's 20th move called for a joke by Nikitin: “There
is an old saying that no matter what a Russian constructs, there will always
be a tank in the end. Well, no matter what opening Dreev plays, it is always
a Caro-Kann!”
Alexander Sergeyevich Nikitin returned to the tournament for the first time
since round six. He missed that round for some personal reason, and did not
come to rounds 7-10, saying "Kasparov wins without me, I better stay home!"

Peter Svidler analysing his final round game
Svidler also managed to underscore his tiredness by missing relatively simple
mating continuations twice during the final stage of the game. It was easy
to notice his relief about this tournament finally being over.

Evgeny Bareev ready to outplay Alexey Korotylev in round 11
Evgeny Bareev could not leave the tournament without classical win à la
Bareev. He caught his opponent in the opening, and it was not some devilish
tactical trap, but rather a superior positional understanding. Converting structural
advantage requires a lot of patience, together with precise calculation in
the critical moments of the struggle. Bareev was never in a hurry, and sacrificed
an exchange when it was appropriate. Black resigned on 58th move in view of
White's powerful passed pawns.
Final standings

Anatoly Karpov presented his historic rival Garry Kasparov with a unique chess
set from his collection – a special gift for new champion of Russia!
Vitaly Tseshkovsky got the best game prize for his Round three effort against
Morozevich. Morozevich-Dreev was called the most beautiful game, and Dreev
received his trophy as well. Those left without main prizes were compensated
with equivalent of $500 for each point.
After the closing ceremony there was a dinner. Everybody relaxed and chatted,
while only some remote journalists were busy finishing and sending their reports,
interviewing the players and chess politics. Let's pretend we don't know the
recent developments of FIDE Championship match and just return to the Vasilyevsky
Restaurant in Hotel Rossija to enjoy the party and hope best...

Alexey Korotylev and his girlfriend

Alexey Dreev and his shining bronze medal

Tseshkovsky and Spassky