Grischuk & Galliamova are the new Russian Champions
29 December 2009, 22.07 CET | Last modified: 8:08 | By Peter Doggers | Filed under: Reports | Tags:
Finishing with a victory and a draw, Alexander Grischuk won the the Superfinal of the Russian Championship with 6.5/9. He ended half a point ahead of Peter Svidler. In the women’s section, Alisa Galliamova finished with two draws and this was enough for clear first because the Kosintseva sisters quickly drew against each other in the last round.
At Moscow’s Central Chess Club the 62nd Russian Championship Superfinal for men and the 59th Russian Championship Superfinal for women took place December 19-30. The time control in the men’s section was 1 hour and 40 minutes for the first 40 moves and then 50 minutes for the next 20 moves and then 10 minutes to end the game with an increment of 30 seconds per move starting from the first. In the women’s section it was 1 hour and 30 minutes for the first 40 moves, then 30 minutes to end the game with an increment of 30 seconds per move starting from the first. The prize fund was US $100,000 for the men and US $40,000 for the women.
Rounds 8-9
After our last report, seven rounds had been played in Moscow and in both sections still anything could happen – however not much changed in the standings. Both Grischuk and Svidler ended with 1.5/2 and so Grischuk finished half a point ahead of his closest rival. His game against Jakovenko in round 8 was yet another fine 1.e4 victory, this time against a Berlin Wall. Grischuk showed excellent preparation: thanks to a novelty on move 20, his opponent had problems from the start which he failed to solve.
Peter Svidler won an exchange against Alekseev’s Petroff, but not the game, and so he saw the gap with Grischuk increase till a full point. He did win his last game though, in an English Opening against Tomashevsky. But Grischuk, who needed a draw for clear first today, quickly equalized in a Najdorf against Alekseev, who accepted the draw offer on move 19.
Alexander Grischuk, Russian Champion 2009
Also in the women’s section nothing was decided yet after seven rounds. Galliamova’s superb 6.5/7 meant she was leading by a full point, but she had to play reigning European Champion Tatiana Kosintseva in round 8. Galliamova came under pressure, but she held the draw. Nadezhda Kosintseva defeated Bodnaruk and so she was half a point behind with one round to go.
However in this last round the Kosintseva sisters were paired against each other. Normally the two give a quick draw whenever they meet in a tournament, and this time it wasn’t different. Galliamova also drew quickly against Gunina and so the women’s tournament was decided in less than half an hour.
Tatiana (l.) and Nadezhda Kosintseva, another quick draw
Alisa Galliamova, Russian Women Champion 2009
Photos by Mark Gluhovsky and Misha Savinov – more at the official website.
Update: As was mentioned in the comments and on the official website, Natalia Pogonina, who became a mother just two months ago, had to withdraw from the tournament after 7 rounds because of illness.
Russian Championship 2009 | Superfinal, Men | Round 9 (Final) Standings
Russian Championship 2009 | Superfinal, Women | Round 9 (Final) Standings
Selection of games rounds 8-9
Game viewer by ChessTempo
Links
- Official website
- Games in PGN: Men | Women
 ShareThis
|  Print
|
What happened to Pogonina? She didn’t show up for the last two rounds after a decent start.
She has been suffering from high fever and had to be hospitalised.
One cannot calculate changes of ratings on the bases of the games which have never been played.
@ Rob Brown. Pogonina became a happy mother only 2 months ago. She failed to withstand all that lot of strain and had to leave the tournament after round 7 for health reasons.
Is it just me or does anyone else’s computer also show a big white nothing on the gameviewer? I’m happy to download something if only it said how ….greetz a regular customer…
This is what Pogonina said on chess.com:
“I had serious health issues connected with breast-feeding (my baby is just 1 months old). Played rounds 6&7 with strong fever, hardly any sleep and no preparation at all. The doctor from the ambulance said that I must quit this event immediately. First time I withdrew from a tournament in my life (r8), but there was no choice.
Will have to stay at home & undergo some treatment.”
@Wlad – “One cannot calculate changes of ratings on the bases of the games which have never been played.”
That reminds me of a doubt I have concerning norms in closed events. Suppose that Gunina, for exemple, had her 4,5/7 and had yet to face Pogonina. I know there’s a regulation talking about swiss events and last round forfeit, but what about this specific situation? would Gunina lose the chance to score a norm if she had to face Pogonina on round 8 and won by forfeit?
This was a good year for Grischuk. Is this his first appearance at the top ten spot? Whether it is the case or not, it is a great result and I am happy that he won the title with e4 games for a change. Chukey didn’t end the year 2009 in the style he hoped for, but his wife delivered instead, so there should be some light heartedness at home. And I hope a rest and good recovery for Pogonina.
Thank you ChessVibe for a year long excellence!
Fischer was right ,1e4 is the best and i hope Anand will go back to his 1.e4 ways once again !
Grischuk always looks so healthy.
I’m a BIG Fischer fan, he is the best, but not everything he told was true.
I admire his saying “1.e4 is the best”, but because of his confidence. And I play e4 too…
On this particular matter, no one can know, for the time being.
It has been fashion, time after time, some people come and say “1.d4 is the best, 1.e4 is already dominated”, but that just makes me laugh! If only they were Fischer when saying that…
As far as we know, even a move like 1.h3 could be proved to be the best, some day. Because what we know indeed on that matter is we don’t know yet! Faith is a different thin. And nowadays human “opening theory” too.
While your point is well taken, I doubt 1. h3 will be proven best.
I think all 20 possible opening moves for white lead to a draw with perfect play, hence they are all “the best”.
@T.Goto: Grischuk was already #8 on the live rating list for two days in March this year – presumably some time during the Linares tournament. This was followed by a bad result at the Russian Club Cup (2.5/7, losing 16 ELO points after gaining 15 in Linares).
And Ivanchuk and Galliamova were divorced a few years ago … .
BTW, while checking results on the FIDE rating page, strange things seem to happen for the World Cup: All rapid tiebreak games are given in the list, but all are counted as draws!!?
“This was a good year for Grischuk. Is this his first appearance at the top ten spot?”
Grischuk’s top ten appearances:
January 2003: 10th
July 2003: 6th
October 2003: 7th
April 2009: 10th
Castro, I think you make the same mistake that a certain English literature major made in a letter to Isaak Asimov. Mr. Asimov dealt with it nicely in an essay “The Relativity of Wrong”: http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
Muadhib, I cannot agree with your assumption that numerous moves could be “the best”. Take this for example: an endgame position where white has a Rook and a Bishop vs blacks Rook. The position is drawn with the best play according to tablebases. Now, would you say that “the best” move for white would be hanging his rook? The position would still remain drawn, but I don’t think any sane person would call such a move “the best”. Similarly, even if with perfect play 1. h3 draws, it certainly is not “the best” move in the starting position.
Grischuk jumps to number 9 in the world after this stellar performance! (just 1 point below Wang Yue)
$100,000 and $40,000 was not the prize fund, but the first prizes.
My information is a quote from the official website report on the final three rounds by Mikhail Savinov
“Alexander Grischuk will appear on place nine in the January 1st FIDE list, with a 2750 rating” according to Chessbase, but he is actually #15 on it. On the live rating list he is #9 though.
@pb: Simple explanation – the Russian Championship is not yet rated for the January list. I don’t know which deadlines apply for submission of rating reports (this changes constantly, and depends on whether a national championship is considered an official FIDE event), apparently it finished too late.
Grischuk is (for the fifth year in a row) not invited to Wijk aan Zee, but he does well in top events the few times he gets the chance to play in them. Three Wijk starts with great results, sole second in 2002, shared fourth (with Kramnik) in 2003 and 2005. For example Short participates in his 8th Wijk while van Wely plays for the 19th time, but Grischuk is maybe less popular for western chess audiences and sponsors. At least he will play in Linares (after winning last year and sharing second in his only start before that, when he was 17).
@Thomas and pb
Thank you for the inputs! It is too bad that Grischuk won’t be #9 on the new list, but I’ve been paying more attention to live list for quite some time.
Now I am waiting for Corus. I will be busy for the spring semester, but I will come back here and follow the games. Thank you ChessVibes!
@pb
Grischuk was invited for Corus this year, but declined the offer. Supposedly because of e busy schedule.
(source: interview tournament director in “Schaakmagazine”)
Generally, there may be two reasons why Grischuk gets less than his fair share of invitations:
1) Organizers will invite only a finite number of Russian players, and there are many to choose from … .
2) He is/was hesitating between chess and poker, or at least has such a reputation (no idea about his current preferences).
Specifically his busy schedule includes the World Team Championship from 4-13 January 2010 (Corus is 16-31 January). This could also be the reason why Aronian doesn’t play Corus: while he reportedly likes Corus a lot, he _loves_ team events for Armenia!? Only Nakamura plays both events, Karjakin planned the same but still isn’t allowed to play for Russia and was replaced by Jakovenko
@Amos
(Forgive my English)
Amos, if I had mystical tendencies, I’d become in extasis now.
As I am, I’m only greatly amazed and amused by the coincidence!
It’s the 2nd time today someone quotes Asimov “against” me!!
In one of them, Asimov was wrong, if he has been well quoted. (pls see the “Computer Skeptic No More” column end of the comments seccion, and then the “Carlsen Time interview” comments seccion, if you’re curious on that)
In your quotation, Asimov is completely right, but not like you think! You simply misunderstand me.
Of course right and wrong can be relative. I’m a little “science man” myself, so I completely subscrive Asimov’s answer to the literature expert (who, BTW, could never get to learn, teach or work on literature — nor anything! — if he blindly aplied his “know-nothing” theory.)
To add to the incredible coincidence, I had never read that article from Asimov before, and yet I myself used the “flat Earth analogy” and (a different quotation from) Socrates, on that other discusion!!
All that is almost mystical for me indeed!!
The problem is here we are not talking about science in general (nor philosophy, BTW), but the game of chess, a most pure form in games theory.
I’m not saying one can never know anything!
The “state-of-the-art” (for saying so) allow us to conduct ourselves on the day-to-day competition. And the masters know more than begginers, in what useful nowadays needs concern.
This is a very rich and potencialy deep issue, that could be discussed by specialists for long time, so let me try to refine what I said about chess, with two different but easy examples/analogies, or “short-cuts”, if you like, in order for you to see I’m still compatible with Asimov’s view.
First, you know there are some knowleges that can be absolute, right?
For instance, Tic-tac-toe is fully known, and it’s strategies completely defined. Like chess, this is a 2-players, complete information game, but much simpler. So simple it is solved, whereas chess isn’t.
If you call “initial position” to any legal posicion over the chess board (say, simply put the h white pawn on h3, say black is to play, and say the chess rules aply), you still have another game of the same nature. And (in that case) as solved as chess itself is.
Is the intuition begining to give you something?
Now, remember when you learn to play chess? You learnt how the knight moves in our beloved jumping L-shape, right?
Some time later, you got aware of the practical good idea of controling the center of the board, and lots of other stuff, so more than how the knight moves, you grew on more and more features that piece had… Things you didn’t know before, and sometimes, things that were countre-intuitive for you, even thought you knew some things before!
Imagine that famous position (you can call it “a game”) where your bare king is going to move to imprision his rival at a corner, in front of his own pawn, in order to desperatly try to save a draw, because, other than the pawn, your opponent has also a knight somewhere on the board.
For some time, you had been gathering more and more information about what a knight is, and what a knight can do.
But it is only when you discover (by yourself or by others) that — wherever on the board the knight may be — that you draw the game only if you can close the enemy’s king by choosing a squere of the same colour of the one the knight is, THAT is the moment of discovering a “pure”, abstract, rule, that was completely hidden from you before, and that may even conter your previous assesment of the whole “knight issue”. You can even teach that position to a begginer to aply without understanding!: “Same colour, believe it or not! Try it!”
I don’t say that particular chess situation does (did) that intuitional shock on you. I say that, when the full mathematical solution for chess (which, BTW, is already proved existing, as for every game of that type)
lots of surprises can happen to us!
Our information on the game now is not “wrong” in the absolute sense: It’s very positive and praticaly usefull (sorry the pleonasm), and may even be awsomely similar to the absolute one that will come.
But we never know THAT, it can even happen that, in absolute terms, White will be discovered to be in zugzwang in the inicial chess position!
Doubt it? Doubt about the probability of it (like I do), or are you sure it’s something imposible, because otherwise human present information should be already pointing at that?
)
Be carefull! You might be falling into that kind of mistake Asimov was criticising!
In pure abstract games, we’re up to strong surprises, because before being solved, all we can do is metaphoricaly aproach them, like ancient chess ideas like “White is better because he has pieces on 5 rows and black in just 4″ (not to mention like “Always give check, it can be mate”
Actually I didn’t quote Asimov (although I did refer to the ‘relativity of wrong’ piece in an earlier column) but Arthur C. Clarke and Douglas Adams. Granted, all of them were science fiction writers as well as great thinkers!
“Organizers will invite only a finite number of Russian players, and there are many to choose from …”
Yes, a pity though since he plays so well in top events and is an exciting player. He is maybe not that much worse than for example Leko, who has 34 starts in Wijk + Linares + Dortmund (35 in a month). Grischuk has in all 5 starts in the same events, and his by far worst results were the two times when he shared 4th (of 14) with the World Champion.
Grischuk did play in Amber once, but that was as rather unprepared last minute replacement, not easy in a first blindfold event. Still he finished 4th of 14, never to be invited again…
Disclaimer beforehand: I do not necessarily agree with or “endorse” organizers’ invitation policies, I just try to understand and explain them:
Whether one likes Leko and his chess or not, he was slightly but consistently stronger than Grischuk (see statistics below), hardly ever falling far below the top 10. And he has a capable manager, who has particularly close ties to the Dortmund organizers.
This is taken from the live rating list since April 2008, I mention two other players more closely comparable to Grischuk:
Leko 2739-2769, rank 5-14
Grischuk 2715-2751, rank 8-24
Ponomariov 2717-2741, rank 11-24
Shirov 2716-2764, rank 5-24
(On a longer timescale – last 5 years – the relation between Grischuk and Leko is largely the same, while Pono and Shirov had deeper lows down to 2695 and 2699, respectively on official FIDE lists)
Of the latter three, I think Ponomariov got the least top-level invitations. As an Ukrainian, he has/had to compete with Ivanchuk and Karjakin – and maybe some organizers, at least psychologically or subconciously, still consider both Ukraine and Russia as “Soviet Union”. Being ex-KO world champion didn’t help him much … .
Shirov probably got most invitations, I guess for two reasons:
1) He is Spanish (or “Spatvian”), has no competition in his chosen country and limited throughout Western Europe (Bacrot, Adams, Short, who else?). Carlsen is of course a different league, so is Van Wely for Corus – they always want one or several Dutch players.
2) His exciting chess is more widely known and appreciated, maybe also because he wrote books about his best games.
@Arne
Of course. My confusion.
Anyway, some coincidences! Thx and renewed wishes
Thanks for the updates, Linksspringer et.al. I sent a message to Ms. Pogonina. She replied and indicated that she was recovering and that it was good to play some chess again.
I wished her a Happy New Year, as I do to all of you and the hardworking staff at Chess Vibes who have made this the best site of its kind on the internet.
“I think Ponomariov got the least top-level invitations”
As Grischuk he has five starts in Linares + Corus (with worse results) but apart from that he has played in for example Sofia twice and Tal Memorial the last years. Grischuk has never played in Sofia and not in the Tal Memorial 2007-2008-2009 (in spite of it being played “at home”).
He hasn’t played that often in the Russian Superfinals either, but in some cases I think he declined to participate. He has played three Superfinals, and finished second after Kasparov, second after Moro, and finally won this year. The fields have been quite strong, and he has for example finished ahead of Svidler every time.