World Cup R3.2: Polgar eliminates Karjakin, Morozevich throws in towel

Judit Polgar eliminated top seed Sergei Karjakin from the World Cup in Khanty-Mansiysk. The Hungarian drew here second game with the black pieces comfortably to reach a score of 1.5-0.5. Alexander Morozevich and David Navara both surprised the chess world; the former needed to win his white game against Alexander Grischuk and duly offered a draw after twelve moves while the latter offered a draw against Alexander Moiseenko, a few moves before a forced mate.
General info
| The 2011 FIDE World Cup is a 128-player knock-out taking place August 27-September 20 in Khanty-Mansiysk, Siberia. The tournament delivers three participants for the next Candidates tournament/matches, as part of the new World Championship cycle. Except for the final, all rounds have 2-game matches at the FIDE time control: 90 minutes for 40 moves followed by 30 minutes to finish the game, with a 30-second increment from the first move. In case of a 1-1 tie, on the third day of the round there's a tie-break with rapid games and if necessary blitz games and an Armageddon. More info here. | ![]() |
Round 3.2
The second day of the World Cup's third round was a crazy one, really crazy. It started already about an hour into the round, when at the board of Alexander Morozevich and Alexander Grischuk the pieces were already put back into their starting position. While commentators GM Konstantin Landa and WGM Anna Sharevich had just started commenting upon this game, it took them a while to realize what had happened. At that point several players were looking at this board; Baadur Jobava, who was sitting next to it, looked surprised, Bacrot turned around to look what happened, Radjabov walked to the board, Dominguez came by and checked one of the score sheets... As it turned out, Morozevich had offered a draw after twelve moves!
At the press conference Grischuk said:
As much as you or anyone else I'm surprised, much more than any of you. No idea what happened. First I thought I misheard it, I thought I was still sleeping or dreaming, I still cannot understand what happened and why.
Landa asked Grischuk if he had asked his opponent about it.
I don't think it's very correct to ask immediately,
Grischuk replied and then decided to show his white game of the day before, which he described as "one of the most interesting games I played in recent years."
The biggest story, however, was the game Moiseenko vs Navara. At move 55, the Czech GM had reached a winning ending with Black: queen vs rook and e-pawn (on e3). At move 73 Navara won the e-pawn, so queen vs rook remained. According to the tablebase, from the starting position it was a mate in 25 but Navara at first didn't make much progress: at move 106 it was still 21 moves to mate with perfect defence. After that things went much better and on move 114 the following position was reached: Moiseenko-Navara Khanty-Mansiysk, 2011
Here the game finished, and to everyone's surprise the result turned out to be a draw. Thanks to WhyChess we know that GM Sergey Shipov, who is in Khanty, posted on the Crestbook forum (the emphasis is Shipov's):
I talked to Moiseenko after his game against Navara – they DREW! What happened was as follows: in the first time trouble Navara accidentally touched one of his pieces and if he moved it he’d lose a piece. Moiseenko pardoned him that touch in a short dialogue. It seems a sense of guilt weighed on David and then, having achieved a won position, he considered it wasn’t possible for him to win and offered a draw. All in all, they’re going to play tiebreaks tomorrow. David Navara and Alexander Moiseenko are the noblest representatives of the chess world. Let’s remember their names…
However, this is not the whole story. You can still watch the incident in the video from the organizers, where at 16:01:55 (right after the press conference with Judit Polgar) we see an overview shot, and at 16:01:58 David Navara makes a move.
The interesting thing is that it's hardly visible that Navara touches a piece that he doesn't play; instead he makes a move without hesitation. Therefore, if he did touch a different piece while executing this move, it couldn't have been deliberate. And this is the key word, as we can read in the FIDE regulations:
Article 4.3 "(...) if the player having the move deliberately touches on the chessboard (...) one or more of his own pieces, he must move the first piece touched which can be moved.”
In the video it is clear that Moiseenko didn't just 'pardon' Navara; he first points out to his opponent that he touched a different piece (an act by Moiseenko that is questionable, taking into account the rules) and then apparently says 'let's play on'. The first thing Navara does (so not his opponent!) is call for the arbiter, who tells them to continue. Apparently Navara couldn't stop thinking about the whole incident and felt it was morally wrong much to win a game in which he had done something wrong (which wasn't the case). Navara, who possesses a strong sense for justice combined with the highest form of modesty, proved once again that he is a remarkable and wonderful person, but someone needs to explain to him that in Khanty it's about winning. :-) Judit Polgar comfortably drew her black game with Sergey Karjakin using the Open variation of the Ruy Lopez. This way the Hungarian qualified for the next round, and eliminated the top seeded player, with remarkable ease. At the press conference she said:
Of course I'm incredibly happy and I think I also played pretty well and I took my chances. I put a lot of pressure on Sergey. I have to calm down tomorrow to be ready for the next round!
Judit's trick? Her husband is staying at home taking care of the kids (the oldest just started school) and this way "I can stay calm knowing that everything is going well at home". As the famous saying goes, behind every great woman... ;-)
Vassily Ivanchuk is still in the competition. He levelled the score against Emil Sutovsky, who used a remarkable strategy with White: play as aggressively as possible! Sutovsky-Ivanchuk Khanty-Mansiysk, 2011 [Notes by Arne Moll] 1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nc3 d6 4. f4 Nf6 5. Nf3 O-O 6. e5 Nfd7 7. h4 The sharpest possible way to answer the Pirc. 7... c5 8. h5 cxd4 9. hxg6 dxc3 10. gxf7+ Rxf7 11. Bc4 e6 12. Ng5 cxb2 13. Bxb2 Qa5+ 14. Ke2 14...Nf8 A new move, but hardly an improvement. Theory recommends 14... d5 and Black should be OK. 15. Nxf7 Kxf7 16. f5!?
A bold attempt, but probably not an entirely correct one. The materialistic 16. Qxd6 Nc6 17. Raf1 looks more promising, although Black seems to survive after 17... Kg8 18. Rf3 Bd7 19. f5 Qa4. 16... Bxe5! Simple and strong. Now White's attack looks kind of artificial; for the rest see the game viewer below. Bu Xiangzhi and Abhijeet Gupta seemed to be steering to a second draw, and thus a tie-break, until the following happened. Bu Xiangzhi-Abhijeet Gupta Khanty-Mansiysk, 2011 [Notes by Arne Moll]
60...Kh5?? Horrible. Both Kh6 and Kf4 still led to a draw. 61. f4 Opening up the deadly diagonal d1-h5 for the bishop. Black resigned.
Games round 3.2
Game viewer by ChessTempo
| Name | G1 | G2 | R1 | R2 | r3 | r4 | B1 | B2 | SD | Tot |
| Round 3 Match 01 | ||||||||||
| Polgar, Judit (HUN) | 1 | ½ | 1.5 | |||||||
| Karjakin, Sergey (RUS) | 0 | ½ | 0.5 | |||||||
| Round 3 Match 02 | ||||||||||
| Ivanchuk, Vassily (UKR) | 0 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| Sutovsky, Emil (ISR) | 1 | 0 | 1 | |||||||
| Round 3 Match 03 | ||||||||||
| Zherebukh, Yaroslav (UKR) | ½ | ½ | 1 | |||||||
| Mamedyarov, Shakhriyar (AZE) | ½ | ½ | 1 | |||||||
| Round 3 Match 04 | ||||||||||
| Ponomariov, Ruslan (UKR) | ½ | ½ | 1 | |||||||
| Efimenko, Zahar (UKR) | ½ | ½ | 1 | |||||||
| Round 3 Match 05 | ||||||||||
| Tomashevsky, Evgeny (RUS) | ½ | 0 | 0.5 | |||||||
| Gashimov, Vugar (AZE) | ½ | 1 | 1.5 | |||||||
| Round 3 Match 06 | ||||||||||
| Grischuk, Alexander (RUS) | 1 | ½ | 1.5 | |||||||
| Morozevich, Alexander (RUS) | 0 | ½ | 0.5 | |||||||
| Round 3 Match 07 | ||||||||||
| Bacrot, Etienne (FRA) | ½ | 0 | 0.5 | |||||||
| Radjabov, Teimour (AZE) | ½ | 1 | 1.5 | |||||||
| Round 3 Match 08 | ||||||||||
| Kamsky, Gata (USA) | 1 | 0 | 1 | |||||||
| Nepomniachtchi, Ian (RUS) | 0 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| Round 3 Match 09 | ||||||||||
| Caruana, Fabiano (ITA) | ½ | ½ | 1 | |||||||
| Svidler, Peter (RUS) | ½ | ½ | 1 | |||||||
| Round 3 Match 10 | ||||||||||
| Jakovenko, Dmitry (RUS) | 1 | 1 | 2 | |||||||
| Jobava, Baadur (GEO) | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| Round 3 Match 11 | ||||||||||
| Potkin, Vladimir (RUS) | ½ | ½ | 1 | |||||||
| Vitiugov, Nikita (RUS) | ½ | ½ | 1 | |||||||
| Round 3 Match 12 | ||||||||||
| Parligras, Mircea-Emilian (ROU) | ½ | ½ | 1 | |||||||
| Nielsen, Peter Heine (DEN) | ½ | ½ | 1 | |||||||
| Round 3 Match 13 | ||||||||||
| Le, Quang Liem (VIE) | ½ | ½ | 1 | |||||||
| Bruzon Batista, Lazaro (CUB) | ½ | ½ | 1 | |||||||
| Round 3 Match 14 | ||||||||||
| Navara, David (CZE) | ½ | ½ | 1 | |||||||
| Moiseenko, Alexander (UKR) | ½ | ½ | 1 | |||||||
| Round 3 Match 15 | ||||||||||
| Gupta, Abhijeet (IND) | ½ | 0 | 0.5 | |||||||
| Bu, Xiangzhi (CHN) | ½ | 1 | 1.5 | |||||||
| Round 3 Match 16 | ||||||||||
| Dominguez Perez, Leinier (CUB) | 1 | 0 | 1 | |||||||
| Lysyj, Igor (RUS) | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Photos © FIDE | Official website
Links
Latest articles
-
8 hours 33 min ago
-
17 hours 42 min ago
-
18 hours 4 min ago
-
1 day 8 hours ago
-
1 day 13 hours ago
-
2 days 7 hours ago
-
2 days 15 hours ago
-
3 days 8 hours ago
-
4 days 14 hours ago
-
4 days 16 hours ago
-
5 days 17 hours ago
-
6 days 7 hours ago
-
6 days 8 hours ago
-
1 week 10 hours ago
-
1 week 1 day ago
-
1 week 1 day ago
-
1 week 2 days ago
-
1 week 3 days ago
-
1 week 3 days ago
-
1 week 3 days ago








Comments
Brecht
1 year 8 months ago
Permalink
Where is Carlsen ? is he never a true contender then? he didnt even participate?
Garrett
1 year 8 months ago
Permalink
Carlsen will automatically qualify for the Candidates by rating. He has no need to compete here.
S3
1 year 8 months ago
Permalink
That's pretty sick imo. Qualification based on a number instead of performance in a qualifying event.
Thomas
1 year 8 months ago
Permalink
Yeah but the "number" (not just Carlsen's but also for the other rating qualifiers) is the result of performances in other events. Would you want the World Cup with its elements of chance (tiebreak "lotteries", opponents that you face and those you happen to avoid) to be the only qualifier for the candidates event? If there had been a follow-up to the FIDE Grand Prix Series, it might make sense to abandon the idea of rating qualifiers, but not in the current situation.
Regarding Greco's comment: It's well-established that Morozevich is talented - of course more than anyone posting here. It's also well-established that he often fails when it matters most, that he is inconsistent and erratic. Call it nervous or even mental problems - IMO Greco is right that Moro, while a very strong GM, isn't exactly WCh material (and may not really care himself).
Greco
1 year 8 months ago
Permalink
Exactly i dont deny the mans gift but to me he has proven time and again he doesnt have what it takes to go all the way up..maybe with age that will change...but i doubt it...
Nima
1 year 8 months ago
Permalink
Nice that you judge what Moro is or is not capable of. When you get to that level, you can do better.
Greco
1 year 8 months ago
Permalink
lol i keep hearing the level argument all the time..so from that perspective most people cant judge anybodys performance in chess or any other activity-sport unless they are equal or better than them???
Al
1 year 7 months ago
Permalink
So, why is it all the blame in Morozevich's draw offer? it was a draw offer, and if Grishuk wanted to fight, then, why did he accept that offer? to me, the fault should not be thrown only to Moro but also to Grishuk... Maybe there was a previous agreement between the two, who knows?
Al
1 year 7 months ago
Permalink
So, why is it all the blame in Morozevich's draw offer? it was a draw offer, and if Grishuk wanted to fight, then, why did he accept that offer? to me, the fault should not be thrown only to Moro but also to Grishuk... Maybe there was a previous agreement between the two, who knows?
noone
1 year 8 months ago
Permalink
Ok how many saw what happened in the navara game? We do not know how serious was the touch. And anyway ahahahaaaa weaklings will get crushed. That is the law of the nature Navara you weakling.
Boost
1 year 8 months ago
Permalink
Video on the official web (time about 16:02) shows the "incident". Navara makes a distinct move with bishop but Moiseenko claims an accidental touch of king - I don't see any reason why Moiseenko received the price.
Septimus
1 year 8 months ago
Permalink
Weakling? No sir. It takes guts to offer a draw when you have ALREADY won.
The only weakness I see is in your ridiculous statement.
casa
1 year 8 months ago
Permalink
Moro is a genius. His mind works differently from ours.
Chess Fan
1 year 8 months ago
Permalink
Yeah right.
He is obviously very gifted in chess but there are many others who more consistently show better results than him. So why this hype about him?
I, of course, love it when he produces those master pieces like he did in his last win against Grischuk. I am not contradicting anything here. He should have fought like Topolov, Carlsen etc. and not offered a draw on move 12. He is definitely better than that.
noone
1 year 8 months ago
Permalink
If I was Moiseenko I would prepare all night and crush Navara like a bug.
Septimus
1 year 8 months ago
Permalink
Spoken like a true douche! Bravo!
Septimus
1 year 8 months ago
Permalink
If I were Moiseenko, I would show up tomorrow, shake hands with Navara, wish him the best of luck and walk out the playing arena with my head held high.
Brecht
1 year 8 months ago
Permalink
I remember Fischer just walked away from the chessboard in a World Champion Match! declaring the light was too low, and throwing away an important point!
I think Morozevich is the reincarnated Fischer!! He'll come back and sweep everybody off the board....
My two cents!
christos
1 year 8 months ago
Permalink
This would not be consistent with Moiseenko's character.
If he were prepared to do that, he would not have insisted that Navara had touched his King and should play it in the first place.
christos
1 year 8 months ago
Permalink
Actually, I just saw the video and it looks confusing to me.
Navara made a normal move. The image is not very clear but it is obvious that he could only have touched the King in passing and by accident.
Moiseenko did not seem to insist, he only said a word or two to Navara and let the whole thing pass. He did not call the arbiter.
Then it was Navara who called the arbiter (!), but he did not really have a request to make, did he?
Someone should explain to Navara what fair play is. To me it means that the best man should win, but this did not happen today. Navara did not break any rules. This is not fair play, it is crazy play.
Jonas
1 year 8 months ago
Permalink
Navara is a savant.
Knallo
1 year 8 months ago
Permalink
---deleted---
Arctor
1 year 8 months ago
Permalink
Fair play means the best man should win?
Louis XXII
1 year 8 months ago
Permalink
Article 4.3 of the Fide Laws of Chess (now there's an oxymoron!) says
"... if the player having the move deliberately touches on the chessboard ... one or more of his own pieces, he must move the first piece touched which can be moved."
Obviously, there was nothing deliberate in Navara's touching of his king.
To even mention it as was bad sportmanship of Moiseenko. He tries to justify this by pointing out the amount of money at stake. Now that's not an oxymoron, just a moron.
Jhoravi
1 year 8 months ago
Permalink
There's one thing you guys should consider. David Navara was formally diagnosed as Autistic... Seriously.
Nima
1 year 8 months ago
Permalink
Interesting point, but what has it got to do with this situation?
S3
1 year 8 months ago
Permalink
It has nothing to do with it and it's an excaggeration as well. Probably he would feel bad after winning and therefore he drew. He values his dignity and morals over chess results. I think that shows a high degree of civilisation especially considering he is a succesful sportman. So let it rest and stop talking about the man as if he can't read.
Jonas
1 year 8 months ago
Permalink
---deleted---
Bob
1 year 8 months ago
Permalink
a) disrespectful gossipmongering and ignorant comment
b) irrelevant
c) Apologise.
Bob
1 year 8 months ago
Permalink
Further to the above comment, which I wrote hastily: I just hate speculation about peoples' personal issues in public fora. Just because people are brilliant chess players, and therefore in the public eye, in my opinion does not give everybody the right to pronounce diagnosis about them like this. I don't think you'd like it much if you were them.
Rodzjer
1 year 8 months ago
Permalink
Chessvibes,
The comment to which I'm reacting, should have been moderated!
Brecht
1 year 8 months ago
Permalink
I once heared that also Bill Gates and Einstein, Mozart and Michelangelo were autistic...mmm many genuises seem to be autistic....
If it is good for chess...bring them on!
MJul
1 year 8 months ago
Permalink
I don't think so about Michelangelo. But Mozart no, studying his partitures and life: no, no and no.
How ever, Einstein and Bill Gates are qualified as Asperger.
Chess Fan
1 year 8 months ago
Permalink
Yes, lots of geniuses are supposed to have Asperger. I do not know whether the four that you mentioned did, but I would take and go by MJul's seemingly well researched comment.
Chess Fan
1 year 8 months ago
Permalink
Very funny.
BTW, I think you mean 21 and 22 (38-16).
Eiae
1 year 8 months ago
Permalink
What you're saying is you have moral problems.
Clifford
1 year 8 months ago
Permalink
Moiseenko has form in this area. At the Isle of Man Open in 2004 he took back his 31st move against Ghaem and played another. He would have got away with it, despite Ghaem's protestations, except that an independent witness had seen the incident. Moiseenko's 'defence', after he was caught, was that he had written down a different move to the one he played and wanted to change to that one.
Thomas
1 year 8 months ago
Permalink
It will remain a matter of opinion whether Navara's behavior was (excessive) fair play, or just plain stupid. But we shouldn't bash Moiseenko: The incident you mention was seven years ago, and yesterday's first incident occurred in (mutual?) time trouble. Apparently Moiseenko first insisted - in some sort of reflex!? - that Navara should move the king, but corrected himself immediately.
At the end of the game, what should he have done? Decline Navara's draw offer saying "no, I deserve to lose!". BTW, Grischuk could also have declined Morozevich's draw offer - would that have been unprofessional or stupid?!
S3
1 year 8 months ago
Permalink
Maybe it's all a matter of opinion, but Navaras behavior was defenitely not stupid. He made his own decision and can decide for himself what he finds most important. Obviously he cares more about other things than about lowering his chance to proceed to the next round. Thus his decision makes perfect sense. And with that he played a beautiful game that was anything but stupid as well.
Septimus
1 year 8 months ago
Permalink
Perhaps for the first time in the history of CV, I agree with Herr S3.
RG
1 year 8 months ago
Permalink
Draws offers in ridiculous situations like this should either be disallowed by the arbiter or the players involved should be subsequently sanctioned by FIDE. This kind of thing is not serious sporting competition.
gg
1 year 8 months ago
Permalink
Moiseenko could of course have resigned, I'd never even imagine accepting a draw offer with king against king and queen after just having been outplayed in a normal game. Yes, Grischuk could also have declined Moro's draw offer, but I think that situation was a bit different.
Remco G
1 year 8 months ago
Permalink
In defence of Moiseenko, these games are extremely tense and many people remember the rule as "touch move", not "accidental touch move". He may have thought for a moment that he just fairly won $7000 when he thought he saw Navara touch the king, and then realized that it would be stupid and let Navara play on. He would have been wrong, but it would still have been honourable of him. Anyway, I've seen no evidence that he did it all on purpose.
I'm sure Navara meant well but of course he really didn't have to. Let's hope they play some great games in the playoff :-)
Remco G
1 year 8 months ago
Permalink
And secondly, _if_ Moiseenko actually thought he was right and that he had been honourable in letting Navara play on, that would have made the rest of the game much harder psychologically for him -- when he was worse he would constantly be thinking of the chance he voluntarily gave away.
gg
1 year 8 months ago
Permalink
I saw it all more the way some Whychess posters did:
"Watch the video on time 16:02 and recognize board Navara-Moiseenko. Set the HD quality and full screen. There is clearly visible that Navara moved his bishop normally to d6. If there was a king touch, it was clear accident and NOT intention. Fair play prize to Moiseenko? It is a joke !! Unbelievable…."
"I watched the video footage closely and there is clearly a fluid and straight movement by David to make his move and he did NOT touch his king or such directly."
http://www.whychess.org/en/node/1689
I don't think Moiseenko seriously can have believed that he had let Navara get away with breaking the rules.
brabo
1 year 8 months ago
Permalink
Every day I see amateurs not knowing the rules but a professional from that calibre (+2700) not knowing a simple a touch rule, no I can't believe that.
I believe that Moiseenko knew very well that Navara is autistic and tried to unbalance him by mentioning the accidental touch. It is a dirty trick which in the end worked out well and has certainly nothing to do with good sportmanship. I feel pity for Navara as he clearly isn't up to such psychological battles. I prefer that the chesspieces talk.
Remco G
1 year 8 months ago
Permalink
Perhaps, but where is the evidence?
brabo
1 year 8 months ago
Permalink
Moiseenko also knew very well that it is impossible to proof that he deliberately tried to unbalance Navara so he will always get away with such actions. After the game he continued to play the role by still pretending in the interview that he never heard about the accidental touch rule as he clearly stated that he made a very nice gesture to his opponent.
To consider giving a man like Moiseenko a special price for good sportmanship is absurd.
gg
1 year 8 months ago
Permalink
The day after I still don't get the whole thing and Chessbase agreeing with the version of other sites:
"Moiseenko insists that his opponent touched the king first. According to the rules, Navara had to move the king, but each of those moves would lead to his loss. Realizing that Navara made a careless mistake, Moiseenko did not force him to obey the rules"
If Navara had accidentally touched his king (and few seem to agree with Moiseenko's version that he even did that), also Moiseenko admits that it was by accident if it indeed happened. Still Chessbase and others keep insisting that also an accidental nudge means breaking the rules, and that Moiseenko was a gentleman for not "forcing Navara to obey the rules". Weird but I'll just let it go now :-)
Septimus
1 year 8 months ago
Permalink
Justice has been done. David Navara crushed Moiseenko today!
Pages
Your comment
By posting a comment you are agreeing to abide our Terms & Conditions