Reports | August 21, 2009 2:48

Alekseev, Aronian, Gelfand and Inarkiev win in Jermuk

Jermuk GPIn the 10th round in Jermuk Alekseev and Aronian reduced their gap with the leaders Ivanchuk, Leko and Kasimdzhanov to half a point. Inarkiev finally won a game, against Bacrot.

The 5th tournament in the FIDE Grand Prix Series takes place in Jermuk, Armenia. It's a 14-player round-robin with Aronian, Jakovenko, Leko, Gelfand, Bacrot, Kamsky, Karjakin, Eljanov, Alekseev, Akopian, Ivanchuk, Cheparinov, Inarkiev and Kasimdzhanov. More info on the GP and Jermuk in our preview.

Round 10

With three rounds to go, anything can happen in Jermuk with three leaders at 6.5 points, two chasing at 6 at two more at 5.5. Together with Alekseev, top seed Aronian is back to half a point behind leaders Ivanchuk, Leko and Kasimdzhanov.

Alekseev was the first winner of the day thanks to a blitzkrieg in a Berlin Wall agains Eljanov, who missed the nice trick 28.Nxg7! in an already difficult position. Aronian's victory was hard-fought and a deserved one, exploiting only minor inaccuracies by Jakovenko in a Hedgehog. Cheparinov seems to be experiencing a total collaps; the Bulgarian lost to Gelfand and scored only half a point in the last six rounds. Inarkiev, on the other hand, finally scored a victory, against Bacrot.

Round 10 games

Game viewer by ChessTempo

Jermuk Grand Prix 2009 | Round 10 Standings


Jermuk Grand Prix 2009

Jermuk Grand Prix 2009 | Schedule & results

Links

Share |
Peter Doggers's picture
Author: Peter Doggers

Founder and editor-in-chief of ChessVibes.com, Peter is responsible for most of the chess news and tournament reports. Often visiting top events, he also provides photos and videos for the site. He's a 1.e4 player himself, likes Thai food and the Stones.

Chess.com

Comments

CAL|Daniel's picture

No V i'm not talking about Rybka though indeed rybka had him up by +12 at one point in the game....

I'm talking about there being no time pressure and blundering into a draw perpetual that most patzers would see instantly. It is very unbelievable for a World Class, WC Challenger, Top 10 rating, 2700 super GM to make this kind of 1200 mistake.

And indeed everyone blunders, but this kind of blunder from this kind of player is usually 1/100000000 games unless there is some other pressing factor like zeitnot.

V's picture

Both GM's blundered, what's so unbelievable? That Leko didn't use Rybka's first line? :)

Castro's picture

Everybody blunders, but indeed Leko's game seemed completely won (we know things are not that simple, sure). Kamsky and Karjakin also seem to have lost yet another chance.

Thomas's picture

I wonder for how long Leko thought about 53.gh4:, which allowed an amazing move repetition: white can prevent perpetual check or drive the black queen away from its dominant position on d4, but not both. Or what did he miss? Surely he didn't expect that the bishop was a free present ... .

Instead, it seems that 53.Ra3, simply ignoring the bishop, wins quite easily. Black's passed pawn on d3 is more dangerous than the bishop ... .

CAL|Daniel's picture

unbelievable leko blew that game.

Castro's picture

I totally disagree it was an easy-to-be-sure perpetual, and think that both entered it without 100% sure (maybe also because of time). Let alone a patzer!
Come on, get humble!
Anyway, both players certainly also saw that the position after 53.Ra3 Be7(I think) could be far from an easy win (specialy from the human point of view).
Objectively, and knowing all we know now, Ra3 would be better (and, of course, never risking loss, anyway). I agree on that.
But I think Leko gambled (with just draw and win alternatives, and so the gambling is also "safe"), not seeing that after the forced 63.Qc7 (because Ra1 was imposible) the perpetual would strike again, and in an unavoidable form.

Castro's picture

In order to avoid a silly pleonasm, I should write something like
"the checks would strike again, and in an unavoidable form"
or (more poetic)
"the shadow of the perpetual would strike again, and in an unavoidable form"
:-)

CAL|Daniel's picture

No i'm not criticizing him for not continuing in a complicated position. I'm criticizing him for playing a 1200 level blunder.

Latest articles