2012 Chess Olympiad
Reports | January 08, 2008 2:06

[lang_nl]Drietal wint Hastings, Williams GM[/lang_nl][lang_en]Three-way tie at Hastings, Williams GM[/lang_en]

[lang_nl]Tien ronden Hastings waren niet genoeg om ?ɬ©?ɬ©n winnaar aan te wijzen: uiteindelijk is de 83e editie van het Chess Congress gewonnen door het drietal Mamedov, Malakhatko en Neverov. Dit na enkele teleurstellend korte remises in de laatste ronden. Een vrolijkere herinnering aan het toernooi is het feit dat Simon Williams er virtueel de 2500 passeerde en dankzij voldoende gescoorde GM-resultaten (zijn derde won hij 2 jaar geleden in Hastings!) nu zijn felbegeerde titel heeft veiliggesteld. Steve Giddins doet verslag van hoogte- en dieptepunten.[/lang_nl][lang_en]Ten rounds in Hastings were not enough to point out a clear winner: the Chess Congress' 83rd edition was won by Mamedov, Malakhatko and Neverov. A disappointing final phase was marked by several very short draws in the last few rounds. A better memory will be the fact that Simon Williams managed to take his rating over 2500 and in possession of enough GM norms (his third was scored two years ago in Hastings!), he earned the title. Steve Giddins reports on the ups and downs.[/lang_en]

[TABLE=95]

[lang_nl]Verslag ronde 7: Nergens wordt een profeet zo miskend...

Met drie overwinningen op de vier topborden pakten de heren Williams, Malakhato en Mamedov de leiding na 7 rondes van de Hastings Masters. Williams kwam een stapje dichter bij de GM-titel door in een lange partij van Neverov te winnen. Na een ongebruikelijke opening (1.e4 c5 2.Pf3 e6 3.b3 b6 4.c4) stond zwart vroeg in het middenspel veelbelovend, maar daarna verzwakte hij en moest hij verdedigen in een dame+loper-eindspel.

In het diagram kan Neverov remise maken met zetten als 49...Df1+ en 49...d6. In plaats daarvan deed hij een fatale poging tot tegenspel met 48...a5? en verloor na 49.bxa5 Dc4 50.a6 b4 51.Da5 b3 52.Db6 Db5 53.Dd8 Dxc5 54.a7 Dd6 55.Db8 De6+ 56.Kh4 Dg8 57.Db4 De6 58.Bf5 Dg8 59.Lxd7! Lxd7 60.De7+ Kh8 61.Dxf6+ 1?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú0

Mamedov versloeg Greet in ook een lange pot, waarin zwart lange tijd goed leek te staan. Het cruciale moment kwam op zet 37:

Zwarts pionnencentrum staat onder druk, maar 37...Tf3! had hem nog in de partij gehouden, met als pointe dat 38.Pxe5? faalt op 38...Da7+ 39.Kh1 Pxe5 40.Txe5 Tf2 41 Dg1 Db7, en zwart wint. In plaats daarvan speelde Greet het mindere 37...Tf5? en na 38.Kh2 De6 39.Lxc6 Dxc6 40.Txe5 had wit een pion gewonnen die hij uiteindelijk zo'n 25 zetten later verzilverde.


Verslag ronde 8: Sta op, Sir Simon!

Zoals de vaste lezers van deze verslagen zullen weten, zijn snelle remises op de vier (live) topborden niet erg populair, en zeker niet bij bepaalde figuren uit West-Londen. Maar gisteren was een 12 zetten durende remise een van de meest welkome resultaten van het toernooi dit jaar. De korte ontmoeting tussen Williams en Malakhatko bracht Simon de felbegeerde paar ratingpunten die hij nog nodig had om zijn rating boven de 2500 te tillen, en daarmee de grootmeestertitel te verdienen. Sommigen waren bang dat hij misschien zijn doorgaans maximalistische aanpak zou doorzetten, en volledig voor de winst zou gaan, maar in plaats daarvan koos hij voor een meer rationele aanpak en op zet twaalf mompelde hij het woord 'remise', iets wat niet vaak van zijn lippen komt. Malakhatko was niet in de stemming om hem teleur te stellen en de handen werden geschud, wat betekent dat Engeland een nieuwe grootmeester heeft.

Terwijl dit gebeurde, waren het de buitenlandse spelers die de koppositie grepen in de Masters-groep. Mamedov overleefde een mindere stelling om vervolgens Hebden met zwart te verslaan, terwijl Chatalbashev gebruikmaakte van zijn expertise in de Moderne Benoni. In de vijfde ronde had hij al een mooie demonstratie gegeven van de kracht van de zwarte stelling, maar gisteren toonde hij de andere kant van de medaille, in vergelijkbaar indrukwekkende stijl.

Chatalbashev,Boris (2581) - Satyapragyan,Swayangsu (2404) [A70]
Hastings Masters (8.3), 04.01.2008
1.d4 Pf6 2.c4 e6 3.Pf3 c5 4.d5 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.Pc3 g6 7.h3 Lg7 8.e4 0?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú0 9.Ld3 Bd7 10.0?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú0 10.a4 ziet er natuurlijker uit als reactie op zwarts zet, maar Chatalbashev voert een centrale strategie. 10...b5 11.Te1 c4 12.Lc2 Te8 13.a3 Pa6 14.Lf4 Db6

15.e5 Dit blijkt een nieuwe zet te zijn, zover ik het kan zien, maar hij is erg logisch. Zwart heeft een meerderheid op de damevleugel in deze variant maar wit in het centrum en Chatalbashev cre?ɬ´ert snel een vrije d-pion, Zijn plan is vervolgens heel simpel: deze pion door laten lopen in het midden van de zwarte stelling. 15...dxe5 16.Pxe5 Pc5 17.Df3 a5 18.d6! Energiek wordt het basisplan doorgevoerd. Na 18...Dxd6 19 Pxg6 wordt de zwarte koningsstelling opgeblazen. 18...Le6 19.Tad1 b4 20.Pa4 Db5 21.Pxc5 Dxc5 22.La4! Allemaal erg logisch. Wit richt zijn stukken op het veld d7, de plek waar de d-pion heen wil. Nimzowitsch schreef dat een vrijpion van de tegenstander een gevaarlijke crimineel is, die achter slot en grendel gehouden moet worden. Het lijkt erop dat zwart vergeten is de cel goed op slot te doen. 22...Tf8 23.Lg5 Pg4 Een ingenieuze poging om de problemen tactisch op te lossen, maar het faalt. 24.hxg4 Lxe5 25.Lc6 Ta6

26.Txe5! De beslissende klap. Nu kost de matdreiging zwart de dame. 26...Dxe5 27.Lf6 Dxf6 27...Dc5 28.Df4 leidt tot mat. 28.Dxf6 Txc6 29.axb4 axb4 30.De7 Tcc8 31.d7 Tcd8 32.Dxb4 Lxg4 33.Td4 Lxd7 34.Dd2 1?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú0


Verslag ronde 9: Hastings-tradities worden in ere gehouden - Wat een schande!

Hastings is een toernooi waar traditie altijd belangrijk is geweest, maar sommige tradities zijn beter dan andere. Gisteren was een dag waarop minder prettige tradities aan het licht kwamen.

Nu dat we bij de laatste twee rondes van het toernooi zijn beland, verwachten de toeschouwers een stijging van de spanning want de spelers strijden om de hoogste prijzen. Helaas, zoals zo vaak, gebeurt het tegenovergestelde en stellen de koplopers zich tevreden met remises onderling, om hun positie te behouden. Na het schandaal van vorig jaar hier in Hastings, toen drie van de vier topborden binnen dertig minuten klaar waren, hadden we gehoopt dat het dit jaar anders zou zijn. Maar nu al zijn er tekenen dat we hierin teleurgesteld zullen worden. In ronde 9 had Nidjat Mamedov (Azerbeidjan) op het topbord een ogenschijnlijk ideale situatie. Een halfje voorprong op de rest, en met de witte stukken. Dat lijkt toch een uitgangspositie waarin je een poging gaat wagen het toernooi te winnen? Met een punt zo hij wel heel erg dicht bij de de trofee zijn met nog ?ɬ©?ɬ©n ronde te gaan. Maar wat gebeurt er? De op zeker spelende Azeri speelt 7 rustige ontwikkelingszetten en biedt remise aan, wat (overbodig om te zeggen) opgetogen wordt aangenomen!

Werkelijk triest. Ik ken geen meer cynische tak van sport dan boksen, maar zelfs in die wereld is het al decennia gemeengoed dat een deel van de verdiensten kunnen worden ingehouden bij boksers die niet alles geven in de ring. Het wordt echt tijd dat we een vergelijkbaar systeem gaan instellen voor grootmeesters die startgeld ontvangen en vervolgens weinig energie steken in hun aanwezigheid als het erom gaat. Natuurlijk kan Hastings haar eigen versie van de zogenoemde Sofia Regel instellen - remises onder de 50 zetten uitbannen - maar onze versie zou dan om bepaalde redenen natuurlijk de Battle Regel heten!

Gelukkig zagen we wel vechtschaak op de andere drie liveborden. Malakhatko voegde zich bij de koplopers door Pavlovic te verslaan. Het was laatstgenoemdes 44e verjaardag en het is een oude traditie bij het schaken dat men altijd slecht speelt op de eigen verjaardag. In de jaren zeventig was Bill Hartston een van de slachtoffers hiervan, aangezien zijn verjaardag altijd midden in het Brits Kampioenschap viel. Nadat hij een aantal belangrijke partijen had verloren op de bewuste dag, besloot hij uiteindelijk om zijn 'offici?ɬ´le verjaardag' steeds op een rustdag te gaan vieren en de eigen verjaardag te negeren. Toen hij daar eenmaal mee begonnen was, won hij op drie 'verjaardagen' op rij!

Pavlovic had een iets andere aanpak. In plaats van wat cadeautjes te verwachten van de als eerste geplaatste speler was het Pavlovic zelf die als eerste iets weggaf, in de vorm van het Benk?ɬ? Gambiet. Maar zwart kwam al vroeg in het middenspel in de problemen en het offer van twee stukken voor een toren bleek ook niet te helpen. Ondertussen was Simon Williams bezig met een andere minder fijne traditie, namelijk dat je altijd, als je je grootmeestertitel hebt verzekerd, je eerste partij verliest. Hij kon ook niet breken met deze traditie want hij werd op niet mis te verstane wijze door Nick Pert van het bord gezet:

Pert,Nicholas (2539) - Williams,Simon Kim (2475) [A43]
Hastings Masters  (9.3), 05.01.2008
1.d4 Pf6 2.Pf3 c5 3.d5 b5 4.Lg5 Dit is het favoriete anti-Benk?ɬ?-systeem van een aantal Engelse spelers, vooral Hebden en Arkell.  4...Db6 5.a4! Hebden geeft hier meestal de voorkeur aan 5.Lxf6 maar de tekstzet zou weleens sterker kunnen zijn. 5...b4 ziet er nu niet aantrekkelijk uit aangezien Pbd2-c4 met tempowinst zal volgen, maar Simons antwoord bekoort ook niet erg. 5...bxa4 6.Pc3 Dxb2 7.Ld2

Men is er meer gewend dat Simon wit heeft in dit soort stellingen. De directe dreiging is 8.Tb1 Da3 9.Pb5, dus zwart is gedwongen om nog meer tijd met zijn dame te verliezen. 7...Db6 8.e4 d6 9.e5 Gaat verder in energieke stijl. Zwart komt binnenkort onder druk under langs de diagonalen f3-a8 en a4-e8. 9...dxe5 10.Pxe5 e6?! 10...a6 11.Df3 Pbd7 lijkt verplicht, maar zwart staat al heel slecht. Na de tekstzet is het in hogere zin verloren. 11.Df3 Dc7 12.Lb5+ Kd8 12...Pbd7 13.d6 Db8 14.Tb1 is beslissend. 13.Pc4 Ld6 14.Lg5 14.Pxd6 wint ook, maar Pert geeft de voorkeur aan het langzaam opvoeren van de druk. 14...Tf8 15.0?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú0?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú0 Lb7 16.Pe4 Lxd5 17.Pcxd6 Dxd6

18.Txd5! Dxd5 19.Td1 Kc7 20.Txd5 Pxd5 21.Dg3+ Kb7 22.Dd6 1?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú0


Verslag ronde 10 report: Schaamteloos

Soms word je er niet blij van als je gelijk krijgt:

Mamedov,Nidjat (2565) - Malakhatko,Vadim (2596) [A00]
Hastings Masters (10.1), 06.01.2008
1.e4 e5 2.Pf3 Pf6 3.Pxe5 d6 4.Pf3 Pxe4 5.Pc3 Pxc3 6.dxc3 Le7 7.Lf4 Pc6 8.Dd2 Le6 9.0?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú0?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú0 Dd7 10.Pg5 Lxg5 11.Lxg5 f6 12.Le3 0?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú0?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú0 13.Le2 The8 14.The1 a6 ?Ǭ??¢‚Ǩ‚Äú?Ǭ?

Let op, dit meesterwerk duurde en duurde... tot wel 25 minuten speeltijd, wat het een ware marathon maakte vergeleken met Mamedovs 9 minuten durende prestatie van de dag ervoor. Even teleurstellend was de remise in 15 zetten tussen Lalic en Flear op bord vier. Bij een overwinning was een van beiden op de gedeeld eerste plek ge?ɬ´indigd in plaats van gedeeld derde tot en met oneindigde. Maar de Carpathian Warrior was wit en Flear had blijkbaar weinig vertrouwen in zijn winstkansen met zwart en dus eindigde ook deze partij na ongeveer een halfuurtje.

Gelukkig hadden de andere twee witspelers op de liveborden wel een bepaalde dosis innerlijke kracht. Jones won mooi tegen Nick Perts Franse Verdediging, en op heel originele wijze:

Wit heeft al een pion geofferd en gaat nu verder in va banque-stijl: 14.Ph7!? Dh4 15.Lf4 Lf8 16.Lg3 De7 17.Dg4 Pb4 18.Lb5+ Ld7 

19.Pf6+?! Opnieuw fantasievol, maar waarschijnlijk niet correct. 19...gxf6 20.exf6 Dxf6? Wits hoofdidee is dat 20...Dd8? verliest wegens 21.Txe6+, maar in plaats daarvan lijkt de aanbeveling van de computer 20...h5! zwart voordeel te geven. De tactische pointe is dat zwart na 21.Dh3 verder kan gaan zoals in de partij met 21...Dxf6 22.Le5 en nu 22...Dh6, wat de toren op h8 verdedigt, terwijl hij na 21.fxe7 hxg4 22.exf8D+ Txf8 zijn extra pion behoudt. 21.Le5 Dg5 22.Lxd7+ Kxd7 23.Dxg5 hxg5 24.Lxh8 Het resultaat van de complicaties is dat wit een kwaliteit meer heeft tegen een pion, maar dankzij het sterke centrum heeft zwart genoeg tegenspel. De partij eindigde in remise na 24...Tc8 25.c3 dxc3 26.Lxc3 Pc6 27.Td1 Lc5 28.g3 b5 29.Kg2 d4 30.f4 gxf4 31.gxf4 f6 32.Le1 Kd6 33.Lh4 Tf8 34.Tde1 Pd8 35.Lg3 Kd5 36.h4 Ld6 37.h5 Th8 38.Lh4 Le7 39.Th1 Txh5 ?Ǭ??¢‚Ǩ‚Äú?Ǭ?

Bij de andere toppartij overspeelde Chatalbashev Neverov vanuit de opening, en bereikte snel een eindspel met een gezonde pluspion. Toen ging het vreselijk mis:

Hoewel de extra vrijpion op dit moment geblokkeerd wordt, moet wit hier uitstekende winstkansen hebben. Het ging verder met 27.Tbb7 g5 28.Lg3 Pd8 29.Tb5 f6 30.Pd2 Ta2 31.f4? Wit hoopt zijn loperpaar te activeren maar deze zet leidt tot ruil van meer pionnen, wat de winstkansen doet verminderen. exf4 32.exf4 Pe6 33.fxg5 Pxc5 Het beste waar wit nu nog op kan hopen is een eindspel van 2 tegen 1 op dezelfde vleugel, wat nauwelijks te winnen is. Maar het wordt nog erger... 34.Tc7 Te8+ 35.Kd1? 35.Kf3 is beter. Td8 36.Tbxc5 Tdxd2+ 37.Ke1 hxg5 38.Tb5 Txg2 Opeens heeft wit geen pluspion meer, maar eentje minder. Ook nu nog moet het kleine aantal pionnen de remise garanderen maar ongetwijfeld geschrokken van de plotselingen ommekeer verloor de Bulgaar uiteindelijk zijn laatste pion en werd toen langzaam omgebracht. 39.Kf1 Tgc2 40.Txc2 Txc2 41.h4 g4 42.Tf5 Tc4 43.h5 Kf7 44.Ta5 Lh6 45.Lh4 Tc6 46.Ta7+ Ke6 47.Th7 Lf4 48.Tg7 Kf5 49.Ta7 Tc1+ 50.Kg2 Tc2+ 51.Kf1 Th2 52.Ta5+ Le5 53.Lg3 Txh5 54.Lxe5 fxe5 55.Kg2 Kf4 56.Ta1 Th3 57.Ta8 Tg3+ 58.Kf2 Tf3+ 59.Kg2 e4 60.Tf8+ Ke3 61.Tg8 g3 62.Ta8 Kd4 63.Td8+ Kc4 64.Tc8+ Kd4 65.Td8+ Kc3 66.Te8 Te3 67.Te7 Kd2 68.Te8 Te1 69.Kxg3 e3 70.Td8+ Ke2 71.Kg2 Ta1 72.Tb8 Ke1 73.Th8 Ta7 0?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú1

Een tragedie voor Chatalbashev maar Neverovs volharding valt alleen maar te bewonderen. Het is het derde jaar op rij dat hij gedeeld of ongedeeld eerste wordt in Hastings en in alle edities deed hij dat door de laatste ronde te winnen terwijl zijn rivalen bezig waren snel het punt te delen. Misschien is er toch nog wat gerechtigheid in deze wereld?

En zo is er weer een Hastings ten einde. Zoals altijd waren het tien geweldige dagen, waarvan iedereen die erbij betrokken was, plezier had. Maar het is een schande dat voor de tweede keer op rij het leeuwendeel van het prijzengeld verdeeld is onder cynische ex-Sovjet-GM's die profiteren van een praktijk die in veel andere sporten gewoon als valsspelen/op een akkoordje gooien wordt beschouwd. Schaken, en zeker Hastings, zal nooit serieuze, commerci?ɬ´le sponsors trekken voordat de gesel van de non-partijen verdwijnt. Voor nu zeg ik gedag voor weer twaalf maanden, en ik hoop dat jullie je vermaakt hebben met de coverage van het 83e Hastings International Chess Congress.

Steve Giddins

P.S. Nog een laatste puntje dat ik bijna vergat. Er waren hier in Hastings een paar avonden wat extra evenementen georganiseerd, waaronder een serie 'Master Classes' waarin een van de GM's een uurtje of wat met een demonstratiebord een aantal amateurpartijen bespreekt. Ik heb begrepen dat onze Azerische held, de heer Mamedov, gevraagd was Master Class op de vooravond voor de laatste ronde te doen. Hij weigerde en gaf als reden: "Morgen heb ik een belangrijke partij." Is die man niet geweldig?

Links:

[/lang_nl][lang_en]Round 7 report: A prophet is not without honor

Three wins on the top four boards saw Messrs Williams, Malakhato and Mamedov assume the lead after round 7 of the Hastings Masters. Williams moved a step closer to his GM title, by winning a long game against Neverov. An unusual opening (1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.b3 b6 4.c4) saw Black achieve a promising early middlegame, but he then weakened and found himself defending a queen and bishop ending.

In the diagram, Neverov should be drawing with a move such as 49...Qf1+ or 49...d6. Instead, he made a fatally optimistic bid for counterplay with 48...a5? and lost after 49.bxa5 Qc4 50.a6 b4 51.Qa5 b3 52.Qb6 Qb5 53.Qd8 Qxc5 54.a7 Qd6 55.Qb8 Qe6+ 56.Kh4 Qg8 57.Qb4 Qe6 58.Bf5 Qg8 59.Bxd7! Bxd7 60.Qe7+ Kh8 61.Qxf6+ 1?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú0

Mamedov beat Greet in another long game, where Black seemed to stand well for much of the time. The crucial moment came at move 37:

Black's central pawn mass is under pressure, but 37...Rf3! would keep him fully in the game, the point being that 38.Nxe5? fails to
38...Qa7+ 39.Kh1 Nxe5 40.Rxe5 Rf2 41 Qg1 Qb7, when Black wins. Instead, Greet chose the weaker 37...Rf5? and after 38.Kh2 Qe6 39.Bxc6 Qxc6 40.Rxe5 White had won a pawn, which he eventually converted some 25 moves later.


Round 8 report: Arise, Sir Simon!

As regular readers of these reports will know, short draws on the top four live boards are not all that popular with anyone, least of all certain boroughs of West London. But yesterday, a 12-move draw on board one proved to be one of the most well-received results of this year's tournament. The brief encounter between Williams and Malakhatko brought Simon the precious couple of rating points that he needed to take his rating over 2500, and thus earn him his Grandmaster title. There were fears that he might decide to pursue his usual maximalist approach, and go all out for the win, but instead, more rational counsel prevailed, and at move 12, he muttered the word "draw", one not often heard from his lips. Malakhatko was not in the mood to disappoint him, and the resultant handshake meant that England now has another Grandmaster.

Whilst this was happening, it was the foreign players who were taking pole position in the Masters. Mamedov survived an inferior position to beat Hebden with Black, whilst Chatalbashev was again making use of his expertise in the Modern Benoni. In round five, he had given a fine demonstration of the merits of Black's position, but yesterday he showed the other side of the coin, in equally impressive style.

Chatalbashev,Boris (2581) - Satyapragyan,Swayangsu (2404) [A70]
Hastings Masters (8.3), 04.01.2008
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.d5 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.Nc3 g6 7.h3 Bg7 8.e4 0?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú0 9.Bd3 Bd7 10.0?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú0 10.a4 looks a more natural reaction to Black's last, but Chatalbashev is pursuing a central strategy. 10...b5 11.Re1 c4 12.Bc2 Re8 13.a3 Na6 14.Bf4 Qb6

15.e5 This appears to be a new move, as far as I can tell, but it is very logical. Just as Black has a queenside pawn majority in this opening, so White has a majority in the centre, and Chatalbashev quickly establishes a passed d-pawn. His plan now is simply to push the pawn through the middle of Black's position. 15...dxe5 16.Nxe5 Nc5 17.Qf3 a5 18.d6! Energetically pursuing his basic plan. Now 18...Qxd6 19 Nxg6 would result in the destruction of Black's kingside. 18...Be6 19.Rad1 b4 20.Na4 Qb5 21.Nxc5 Qxc5 22.Ba4! All very logical. White directs his pieces at the d7-square, which is the next stepping stone for his d-pawn. Nimzowitsch wrote that an enemy passed pawn is a dangerous criminal, who should be kept under lock and key. Black seems to have forgotten to bolt the cell door. 22...Rf8 23.Bg5 Ng4 An ingenious attempt to solve his problems tactically, but it fails to do so. 24.hxg4 Bxe5 25.Bc6 Ra6

26.Rxe5! The final blow. Now the mating threats against the king will cost Black his queen. 26...Qxe5 27.Bf6 Qxf6 27...Qc5 28.Qf4 leads to mate. 28.Qxf6 Rxc6 29.axb4 axb4 30.Qe7 Rcc8 31.d7 Rcd8 32.Qxb4 Bxg4 33.Rd4 Bxd7 34.Qd2 1?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú0


Round 9 report: Traditions upheld at Hastings - What a shame!

Hastings is a tournament where tradition has always been important, but some traditions are better than others. Yesterday was a day when it was some of the less fortunate traditions of grandmaster chess than were on display.

As we enter the final two rounds of the tournament, most spectators would expect the excitement to increase, as players fight it out for the top prizes. Alas, all too often, the opposite happens, and the leaders content themselves with agreeing short draws amongst themselves, to preserve their position. After the scandal of last year's final round here at Hastings, when three of the top four games were halved out inside 30 minutes' play, we had hoped that this year would be different. But already, we have the first signs that our hopes may be disappointed. On top board in round 9, Azerbaijan's Nidjat Mamedov had what appeared to be the ideal situation. Half a point ahead of the field, and with the white pieces. Surely the perfect platform to launch a serious bid to win the tournament? A win will leave him with one hand already on the trophy, going into the final round. But what happens? The "Wary Azeri" makes 7 quiet developing moves, and then offers his opponent a draw, which, needless to say, is accepted with alacrity!

Pathetic, really. I know of no more cynical branch of sport than that of boxing, but even in that world, it has for decades been accepted practice that fighters who fail to give of their best in the ring can have part or all of their purse withheld. It is surely time we introduced a similar system for grandmasters, who receive "appearance fees" and then fail to put in much of an appearance when it matters. Of course, Hastings could also introduce its own version of the so-called Sofia Rules, banning draw offers before move 50 - except that our version, for obvious reasons, would be called Battle Rules!

Fortunately, the other three show boards all produced fighting chess. Malakhatko moved into a share of the lead, by beating Pavlovic. It was the day of the latter's 44th birthday, and it is a long-standing tradition in chess, that people always play badly on their birthday. Back in the 1970s, Bill Hartston was one who used to suffer from this, since his birthday always fell in the middle of the British Championship. After losing several key games on the fateful day, he finally hit upon the idea of emulating royalty, by celebrating an "official birthday" on the rest day in the middle of the event, and ignoring the real thing when it came along. Once he started doing this, he won three birthday games in a row!

Pavlovic adopted a slightly different approach. Rather than expecting any presents from the top seed, Pavlovic himself was the first to offer a gift, in the form of the Benko Gambit pawn. However, Black ran into trouble in the early middlegame, and a sacrifice of two pieces for a rook proved unavailing. Meanwhile, Simon Williams was facing another unfortunate tradition, which is that one always loses one's first game after securing the Grandmaster title. He too was unable to break with the tradition, being thrashed in decisive fashion by Nick Pert:

Pert,Nicholas (2539) - Williams,Simon Kim (2475) [A43]
Hastings Masters  (9.3), 05.01.2008
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 c5 3.d5 b5 4.Bg5 This is a favourite anti-Benko system of several English players, notably Hebden and Arkell.  4...Qb6 5.a4! Hebden usually prefers 5.Bxf6 here, but the text may well be stronger. Now 5...b4 is unattractive, since a subsequent Nbd2-c4 will come with tempo, but Simon's reply is also not very alluring. 5...bxa4 6.Nc3 Qxb2 7.Bd2

One is more used to seeing Simon on the white side of such positions. The immediate threat is 8.Rb1 Qa3 9.Nb5, so Black is forced to lose more time with his queen. 7...Qb6 8.e4 d6 9.e5 Continuing in energetic fashion. Black will soon come under pressure along the f3-a8 and a4-e8 diagonals. 9...dxe5 10.Nxe5 e6?! 10...a6 11.Qf3 Nbd7 looks compulsory, but Black's position is already very poor. After the text move, he is virtually lost. 11.Qf3 Qc7 12.Bb5+ Kd8 12...Nbd7 13.d6 Qb8 14.Rb1 is decisive. 13.Nc4 Bd6 14.Bg5 14.Nxd6 is also winning, but Pert prefers to pile on the pressure. 14...Rf8 15.0?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú0?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú0 Bb7 16.Ne4 Bxd5 17.Ncxd6 Qxd6

18.Rxd5! Qxd5 19.Rd1 Kc7 20.Rxd5 Nxd5 21.Qg3+ Kb7 22.Qd6 1?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú0


Round 10 report: Shameless

Sometimes it is depressing to be proved right:

Mamedov,Nidjat (2565) - Malakhatko,Vadim (2596) [A00]
Hastings Masters (10.1), 06.01.2008
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Nc3 Nxc3 6.dxc3 Be7 7.Bf4 Nc6 8.Qd2 Be6 9.0?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú0?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú0 Qd7 10.Ng5 Bxg5 11.Bxg5 f6 12.Be3 0?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú0?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú0 13.Be2 Rhe8 14.Rhe1 a6 ?Ǭ??¢‚Ǩ‚Äú?Ǭ?

Mind you, this masterpiece was dragged out to almost 25 minutes' playing time, making it a veritable marathon alongside Mamedov's 9-minute effort the day before. Equally disappointing was the 15-move draw between Lalic and Flear on board four. A win for either would have brought a share of first place, rather than a share of 3rd-Umpteenth. But the Carpathian Warrior was White, and Flear evidently did not think much of his chances of winning with Black, so that too, ended after half an hour's play.

Fortunately, the white players on the other two show boards were endowed with rather more intestinal fortitude. Jones launched himself at Nick Pert's French Defence, in highly imaginative fashion:

White has already sacrificed a pawn, and now continued in va banque style: 14.Nh7!? Qh4 15.Bf4 Bf8 16.Bg3 Qe7 17.Qg4 Nb4 18.Bb5+ Bd7 

19.Nf6+?! Once again imaginative, but possibly not sound.  19...gxf6 20.exf6 Qxf6? White's main point is that 20...Qd8? loses to 21.Rxe6+, but instead, the computer's recommendation of 20...h5! looks to give Black the advantage. This carries the tactical point that after 21.Qh3, Black can continue as in the game with 21...Qxf6 22.Be5 and now 22...Qh6, defending the rook on h8, whilst after the alternative 21.fxe7 hxg4 22.exf8Q+ Rxf8, Black retains his extra pawn. 21.Be5 Qg5 22.Bxd7+ Kxd7 23.Qxg5 hxg5 24.Bxh8 The upshot of the complications is that White has an extra exchange for a pawn, but the powerful central pawn mass allows Black to hold the balance. The game was drawn after 24...Rc8 25.c3 dxc3 26.Bxc3 Nc6 27.Rd1 Bc5 28.g3 b5 29.Kg2 d4 30.f4 gxf4 31.gxf4 f6 32.Be1 Kd6 33.Bh4 Rf8 34.Rde1 Nd8 35.Bg3 Kd5 36.h4 Bd6 37.h5 Rh8 38.Bh4 Be7 39.Rh1 Rxh5 ?Ǭ??¢‚Ǩ‚Äú?Ǭ?

In the other top game, Chatalbashev outplayed Neverov from the opening, and soon had an ending with a healthy extra pawn. Then it all went wrong:

Although the extra passed pawn is currently blockaded, White must have excellent winning chances here. Play continued 27.Rbb7 g5 28.Bg3 Nd8 29.Rb5 f6 30.Nd2 Ra2 31.f4? White hopes to gets his bishop into play, but this move leads to pawn exchanges, which do not help his winning chances. exf4 32.exf4 Ne6 33.fxg5 Nxc5 Now the best White can hope for is a 2 v 1 ending on the same side, which he would be very unlikely to win. But it gets worse... 34.Rc7 Re8+ 35.Kd1? 35.Kf3 is better. Rd8 36.Rbxc5 Rdxd2+ 37.Ke1 hxg5 38.Rb5 Rxg2 Suddenly, White has gone from being a pawn up, to a pawn down. Even now, the paucity of pawns should enable him to draw, but doubtless shocked at the turn of events, the Bulgarian eventually lost his remaining pawn, and was ground down. 39.Kf1 Rgc2 40.Rxc2 Rxc2 41.h4 g4 42.Rf5 Rc4 43.h5 Kf7 44.Ra5 Bh6 45.Bh4 Rc6 46.Ra7+ Ke6 47.Rh7 Bf4 48.Rg7 Kf5 49.Ra7 Rc1+ 50.Kg2 Rc2+ 51.Kf1 Rh2 52.Ra5+ Be5 53.Bg3 Rxh5 54.Bxe5 fxe5 55.Kg2 Kf4 56.Ra1 Rh3 57.Ra8 Rg3+ 58.Kf2 Rf3+ 59.Kg2 e4 60.Rf8+ Ke3 61.Rg8 g3 62.Ra8 Kd4 63.Rd8+ Kc4 64.Rc8+ Kd4 65.Rd8+ Kc3 66.Re8 Re3 67.Re7 Kd2 68.Re8 Re1 69.Kxg3 e3 70.Rd8+ Ke2 71.Kg2 Ra1 72.Rb8 Ke1 73.Rh8 Ra7 0?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú1

A tragedy for Chatalbashev, but one must admire Neverov's tenacity. It is the third year in a row that he has finished outright or shared first at Hastings, and in each of the last two years, he has done so by winning in the last round, whilst his rivals were busy halving out. Perhaps there is some justice in the world after all?

So, another Hastings ends. As always, it was a great 10 days, enjoyed immensely by all those involved. It is just a shame that, for the second year in a row, the lion's share of the prize money has been scooped by cynical ex-Soviet GMs, who profit from what in many other sports would be regarded as little more than match-fixing. Chess in general, and Hastings in particular, will never attract serious commercial sponsorship until this scourge of non-games is removed. For now, though, I bid you farewell for another twelve months, and hope that you have enjoyed the past 10 days' coverage of the Celebration 83rd Hastings International Chess Congress.

Steve Giddins

PS. One final point that I almost forgot. One of the evening entertainment events here at Hastings has been a series of "Master Classes", in which one of the GMs will spend an hour or so at the demo board, going over games played by the amateur players. I hear on the grapevine that our Azeri hero, Mr Mamedov, was asked to do such a Master Class on the night before the final round. He declined, on the grounds that "I have an important game tomorrow"!! Don't ya love him?

Links:

[/lang_en]

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.

SmartChess! - Revolutionize your game

2012 Chess Olympiad

Comments

Eiae's picture

Hmm, none of you considers overall tournament strategy for a pro. You put in all your energy in certain games to build up a score and try to hold against expectedly tough opponents, hopefully with a minimal cost of energy. Getting a good result and get into the prize money is top priority, not pleasing the spectators.
A guy that scores 7/10 with only 3 draws should not be subjected to silly name-calling, in my opinion. He played like a true pro, followed every rule of the game and the tournament. You can't blame a guy for playing by the rules and I see absolutely no moral problem for him either, only for the reporter.

Radu Murgescu's picture

Steve,

You are very quick to judge others' moral obligations. These "top" players are higher rated because they've put a lot more work into chess than you can imagine. What they get in return is a very meager salary, hardly competitive with any other field they cold have invested their time and efforts in. Comparing chess players to tennis or football players in their approach to the fans is ludicrous. How much should Federer charge to allow random amateurs to have their go at him in a match?

Also, the few "top" players at tournaments such as Hastings are mostly in the same boat, financially. How would beating your "teammate" to win some extra prize money at his/her expense be viewed among one's peers? If you feel unrewarded for your volunteer efforts, you are perhaps right, but don't blame the players for it. They are perhaps rewarded even less.

Steve Giddins's picture

"If you feel unrewarded for your volunteer efforts, you are perhaps right, but don?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t blame the players for it. They are perhaps rewarded even less."

Well, Mamedov, Malakhatko and Neverov each received ?Ǭ£1,666.67 for their "efforts" at Hastings. Each of the volunteers received diddly-squat. I am not a professional mathematician, but it seems to me that they were rewarded rather more than the volunteer organisers!

Steve Giddins's picture

@Arne: Your first post here includes the statement that "The players don?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t have moral obligations to anyone". I find this astounding. In the case of Hastings, nobody connected with the organisation receives any fees (including me, I might add!), only minimal expenses for those not resident in Hastings. Between them, a few local volunteers put in hundreds, probably thousands of unpaid hours every year, to enable the tournament to take place. Likewise, the local council sponsors the event, with every penny of spare money going to players, in the form of fees and prizes. And year after year, the organisers and sponsors are cheated out of the excitement that should characterise the climax of the event, as various so-called "professionals" carve up the prize fund amongst themselves, with a series of non-games. I repeat what I said in my original report - in any other area of sport, they would face criminal investigation for match-fixing.

Do you really consider that these players have no obligation to anyone? So, does that mean that throwing games, rather than just agreeing quick draws, is also acceptable, if it improves their income? And if it is not acceptable, why not, if they "do not have moral obligations to anyone"?

arne's picture

Steve, I sympathize with your point of view, but it's just not realistic. Chess is not about morality, it's about making sound judgements both in terms of chess moves and in terms of rating/money/status profit. I agree fully that this sometimes leads to intuitively 'wrong' results, but what are we going to do about it? I don't see any solution except *explicitly* changing the current rules.

Mark Huizer's picture

It might be a dilemma... make the price money lower, and the 'other' players are less interested (or even the professionals).
If you have high prizes to make it worth the risk, you also need fewer prizes, I think. Take Hastings as an example, the difference between 1st and 2nd was what... 1000 pound? Quite a big difference. But sharing for first still makes you a nice envelope, so why take the risk of having nothing for a chance of having a little more? In the end people want to make sure they have enough to pay the rent.

I guess a lot of the possible changes will make it hard for a bunch of professionals to make a living, but then again... maybe there are too many professionals?

Steve Giddins's picture

Actually, Arne / Mark. I should have thought one could argue the opposite. If players manipulate results in order to secure prize money, then maybe we should pay very low cash prizes, and put all the money into appearance fees. Then the players' income would be safe, and they should have no excuse for not fighting in the later rounds.

arne's picture

@Steve; it's an interesting idea, and this idea I think has also been applied in practice already: in the blind/rapid tournament of Monaco. There players are completely relaxed because they get a lot of money anyway, and sometimes put up great and interesting fights in the last rounds as well. But the reason this tournament can be held is because there's no rating at stake. After all, unfortunately, strong players can only maintain their status by beating weaker players, and sometimes the weaker players are not really weaker players, only on paper. This brings a risk of loss of rating and status that's prehaps not valid in the current tournament one is playing, but it is valid for the next tournaments. To avoid these risks, players will always try to settle for agreements, unless, of course, the money at stake is high enough to risk something for.

arne's picture

@Mark, I believe such a system (a small guaranteed fee or none at all) is already in business in the USA: you have very high entry fees, also for GMs, but also very high prizes. It's a very competitive and tough system (as we could expect from America) and it would surely shock many 'lazy' European professionals who are used to being pampered with guaranteed fees. Personally, I have always found it strange that the players with most chances of winning money prizes also have to pay the least in terms of entry fee: somehow it doesn't seem fair (the people with no chance to win a prize have to 'sponsor' the good guys?!), but professional chess, I'm often told by professionals, is not about fairness, but ... well, about something else I guess. Well, perhaps they're right. but I don't see a principled reason why the American system should not be applied more often here. Maybe some professional reading this can give more insight in this matter.

Mark Huizer's picture

The fact that these things happen is well known. I said before the round that I expected it to last 5 minutes, it lasted 25. But apart from legal or moral considerations... and not specifically targeting the top seeds in this tournament either...

I understand their considerations (a draw means a safe grab of the price money, which is their living). But an appearance fee is given because it gives a tournament more strength and more attraction, also for the spectators. The standard 'boring' draws between the topseeds are not what spectators like. One might expect that to have impact on their market value, or on the amount of money tournaments can collect for their fees.

The same holds (maybe even stronger) in team matches. There are a lot of players who make their living by playing matches for various countries, making team matches nothing but a contest of having the most money. But even there, standard 'contracts' will give players a fee for playing, not depending on the work delivered at all. Play a draw in 5 moves, or fight for 5 hours? You get the same fee.

I wonder where the problem lies. Is it the organizers who don't care anyway, as long as the ELO shows up? Or is it the fact that players simply don't accept any suggestion of a 'prestation dependant' fee?

If you look at sport competitions in general, you see the same effect in other sports, like football. "Result is more important than giving our fans something to look at". Well, they are paying for their tickets and your salary, right? :-) Or is sport basically so self containing that they can live without the fans/spectators?

A sport like tennis, where there is no such possibility (one wins, one loses), seems to suffer a lot less.

Perhaps the players are not to blame, since everyone like to secure their living in the safest easiest way possible. But top sport is not an environment where I'd say 'safety' should be a job guarantee. Perhaps there should be more thought given to ways to avoid it.

Have blitz playoffs to decide on the price money, instead of simply sharing perhaps. Or (for team matches) work with a small guaranteed fee and a result based bonus.

Jack Rudd's picture

I play in the Coulsdon all-play-alls, which have no prize money (although they do have appearance fees for the GMs/IMs playing). There are a number of short draws in those as well, particularly when Bogdan Lalic is involved.

arne's picture

Thorex, I agree that the moral obligations themselves cannot be part of the contract, but the implications (no short draws allowed) surely can. Besides, it's impossible to ban match-fixing even if you disallow short draws - but who cares? Match-fixing is also an integral part of the Tour de France, for example, and nobody complains about this. It's only natural that professionals tend to avoid risks and play for safe - if people don't like that, they should organize tournaments without any prize-money. Let's see how many players will come to these tournaments...

thorex's picture

Since when are moral obligations a matter of formal rules and contracts? Whether it's legal or not, it stays match-fixing.

arne's picture

I have to agree with Eiae here. It's a pity for the spectators, of course, but playing such short draws really is nothing to be ashamed of, especially if there are no official rules against it. The players don't have moral obligations to anyone, as long as this is not a clear part of their contract (as it used to be in Linares, for example.)

Eiae's picture

What I think is pathetic, is this kind of lousy "reporting".

Mamedov played only three draws in ten games and the last two were perfectly understandable strategic draws against strong players that were also contenders for first prize. This is by no means unusual in chess, whether you like it or not. Go ahead and blame the organizers or chess rules in general, but to resort to this kind of childish personal attacks against one player is just idiotic.

I really hope this will not cause any tournament organizers to not invite GM Mamedov. In fact, if I were him I would look into taking legal action against this Giddins guy.

Your comment

By posting a comment you are agreeing to abide our Terms & Conditions

Latest articles