Tomashevsky new European Champion
19 March 2009, 11.56 CET | By Peter Doggers | Filed under: Reports | Tags:
Phew – after some huge technical problems ChessVibes is back online. In the meantime, Evgeny Tomashevsky won the gold medal at the European Championship in Budva, Montenegro. The Russian grandmaster defeated his compatriot Vladimir Malakhov in the final of the tiebreak matches; Baadur Jobava (Georgia) won bronze.
The 10th European Chess Championship, an 11-round Swiss, took place in Budva, Montenegro from March 5th (day of arrival) until March 19th (day of departure) 2009. It was organized by the Montenegro Chess Federation under the auspices of the City of Budva and the European Chess Union.
After no less than 11 grandmaster had finished on shared first position (scoring 8/11), yesterday the tiebreaks were played to decide on the medals, and on who would qualify for the FIDE World Cup. The six players with the lowest tiebreak points played a minimatch  with 15 minutes + 5 seconds increment and then an armageddon game (White five minutes on the clock, Black four, and White must win) in case of a tie. The winners would then play against the three players with the highest tiebreak points, while the two players in the middle (Tomashevsky and Navara) played against each other.
European Championship 2009 | Tiebreaks
| Match | G1 | G2 | Armageddon | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GM Nyback, Tomi | 0 | ½ | ½ | |
| GM Malakhov, Vladimir | 1 | ½ | 1½ | |
| GM Grachev, Boris | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| GM Guseinov, Gadir | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| GM Kobalia, Mikhail | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| GM Jobava, Baadur | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| GM Jobava, Baadur | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
| GM Sokolov, Ivan | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| GM Inarkiev, Ernesto | ½ | ½ | 1 | 2 |
| GM Guseinov, Gadir | ½ | ½ | 0 | 1 |
| GM Malakhov, Vladimir | ½ | ½ | ½ | 1½ |
| GM Naiditsch, Arkadij | ½ | ½ | ½ | 1½ |
| GM Tomashevsky Evgeny | ½ | 1 | 1½ | |
| GM David Navara | ½ | 0 | ½ | |
| GM Jobava Baadur | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| GM Tomashevsky Evgeny | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| GM Malakhov Vladimir | 1 | ½ | 1½ | |
| GM Malakhov Vladimir | 0 | ½ | ½ | |
| GM Malakhov Vladimir | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| GM Tomashevsky Evgeny | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| GM Jobava Baadur | 1 | ½ | 1½ | |
| GM Inarkiev Ernesto | 0 | ½ | ½ |
Baadur Jobava (bronze), Evgeny Tomashevsky (gold), Vladimir Malakhov (silver)
Tiebreak games
The European Championship is a qualification event for the next World Cup. According to FIDE regulations and the decision of the ECU Board, 22 players would qualify, and for this tiebreaks were necessary as well. Boris Savchenko, Konstantin Sakaev, Nikitia Vitiugov, Tigran L. Petrosian, Liviu-Dieter Nisipeanu, Constantin Lupulescu and Alexander Motylev qualified. Georg Meier, Friso Nijboer, Sergey Fedorchuk, Artyom Timofeev, Sanan Sjugirov, Mateusz Bartel and Rauf Mamedov qualified directly.
Photos © Nebojsa Baralic
Links:
 ShareThis
|  Print
|
Wow, Malakhov beat himself in the semi! Must have been hell for him in time trouble. Especially if he had to move to the other side of the board for each move of the pieces.
Tomashevsky win makes me a bit sad. Of course it seemed to have been very exciting and that is the main thing maybe .But he won by luck and really did not deserve it If you look at his 11 games. His result was really nothing special. He managed to avoid playing opponents with high ratings. round 3 to 6 were 4 draws against opponents w lower ratings. Then he won a crucial game by walk over against Ulf Anderson in the 7th round Beside getting a free point he got a day’s rest which was enough with some luck to win the whole thing after 2 wins and 2 draws also against lower rated opponents.
Last year when Tiviakov won it gave the same feeling.
The only fair way is using tpr in case of tiebrake if walkover you dont gain any rating.
Sorry, this seems to be the right place to put these
Questions:
1. The rules state that they could alter the schedule of the tie-breaks, in order to have them all in one day. But they did much more than that, they changed the tie-break system, didn’t they?
2. Why have the 12th-18th players been exempted of the tie-breaks? That could not have been because of lack of time, as the tie-breaks for WCC only started in the afternoon… (And even if it was because of time, it’d look unfair, because they had 7,5 points, as the others — 19th to 34th — and the rules seem to impose tie-break games for all with the same points).
3. Was it to classify 22 players to the WCC, as writen everywhere, or 22+3 medal winners=25, as it looks like?
4. In the FIDE site we have that there will be 46 players from Europe. Here are 22 (or 25?), but how exactly does one classify the reminders?
Can anyone here enlight this unfair-looking or not understandable issues?
Thanks.
@Didrik Soderberg
I find that minimization of Tomashevsky’s merit deeply absurd. Anyone there playing better chess than him (in all aspects, of course) would be the champion. He was simply the best (even if sometimes by beeing the “least worse”) at those moments!
Agreed, this tournament was beastly. You simply do not win it through ‘luck’. As with all players you ride whatever comes your way.
I’ve been watching Tomashevsky for a while and he is a very talented and solid player.
@Castro
I am not sure about the exact details, but about 23 European players had already qualified from last years Championship. Including Nyb?§ck and Grachev from this years top group, and Bologan plus Papaioannou who did not play in playoffs for this reason, I assume.
Didrik Soderberg has a point of being “a bit sad”, or at least “deeply absurd” is an overly strong reaction to his post. Tomashevsky faced his first top 10 player in the very last round of the tournament (an ‘expected’ draw given the circumstances, but his game against Grachev was fought out). The main ’scandal’ was his walkover against Andersson – of course he cannot be blamed …. the question was asked before: still noone knowing why Andersson left the tournament half-way??
Simply, such a huge Swiss tournament isn’t the ideal way to find a worthy(?) European champion. It would be better to have a sort of qualifying system followed by a round-robin of the (10-16?) players who prevailed. Quite time- and sponsor-consuming, but that’s about how the Russian champion is determined. In any case, it would be quite ridiculous to determine a world champion in a similar way – well, the former knockout system had related elements of luck, including Armaggedon games if needed.
And (@freeindeed’s last sentence): This stands loose from the fact that Tomashevsky is a ‘decently strong player’ – but his 2664 rating is more relevant than his European champion title.
Thomas (no family of Tomashevsky
)
I just meant really he was lucky in pairings, walk over and the last game.
But maybe also it is a matter of strength savings strategies also. Looking at Tomashevskys draws, 3 draws were under 20 moves and 2 were 30 moves..Only last draw game round 11 was fought out against Grachev in 40 moves .
I get the impression that after 9 rounds the players must be completely exhausted and in the final rounds and tie brakes the most refreshed has clearly the best chance.
how else explain also all short draws on top boards on round 11. A win would give a very good chance to become champion so why draw and have a minimal chance.?
It could be a money thing also.
The sad thing seems to be that no players in in the lead after 5 to 8 rounds can keep the lead to the final bell.
Probably the best strategy is keeping about 1 point behind the lead and then play on top the last rounds.
Maybe swiss gambit a loss in first round is actually the best strategy if you analyze it deeply. ha ha
.
One possible reason for short last round draws on top boards was World Cup qualification. Is it a coincidence that Nyb?§ck and Grachev played the longest games, because they had already qualified in 2008?
“Swiss gambit” is still risky – like any gambit (except the Queen’s gambit
). At least in the last round you will have to play ‘all or nothing’ against a strong opponent – maybe less so in the present case because tiebreaks (Buchholz) isn’t all too relevant.
and/or 
] ? Financially spoken, it SEEMS to be attractive, but here also one shouldn’t forget about the World Cup appearance fees (there is prize money even if you lose in the 1st round).
And about all or nothing: As Api already mentioned, World Cup qualification was presumably relevant. In other words, for the players tied for 1st place before the last round, a win could mean all (European champion), a loss nothing (out of the top 22) and a draw secures something (World Cup qualification). In such a situation, who cares too much about winning the tournament [
@Thomas
You may be right about my “deeply absurd” comment. It’s maybe my shortness of english vocabulary again, but all in all I don’t think it can be taken as insultuous anyway.
As for your
“Simply, such a huge Swiss tournament isn‚Äôt the ideal way to find a worthy(?) European champion”
I disagree, though I understand what you meen, and I end up agreeing in an unexpected side aspect:
The problem is that the Swiss should have been “huger”!
People insist in the lie and the non-sport and nonsense of having “Swiss” tournaments that don’t have the required minimum number of rounds, hence it is an abuse to call them “Swiss”, because they can only be fully reliable (and called “Swiss”) if they have as many rounds as the sq. root of the number of players plus one. THAT is the problem.
With that number of players, we should have a Swiss tournament IF we had at least 18 rounds. Maybe difficult? Yes. Imposible? No! It should be quite more interesting, and there would never have been 11 players at first place, and if (in the remote case of) anyone should be tied for first in the end, surely they would be just two or three (and have all played each other, which is a sure sign that the “Swiss” worked…)
This should be a classic chess tournament, and it was decided on blitz games. That is where I agree with your “non-ideal way” of a championship.
@Didrik
In coherence with my previous sayings, I disagree with your “after 9 rounds the players must be completely exhausted “. Some (few) may be exhausted, but only if they are ill. You must manage your streghs through the tournament, and they are professionals. In the 19th century, already there were tournaments with 20 and more rounds, and the time controls were… forever! Anyway, it is always the survival of the best fitted
I think you and Api and Thomas are right about the posible money and WCC qualification reasons too, but I insist in my wish for a true Swiss tournament and think everything would be more true and easy.
About the “Swiss gambit”, it can work, sure! Sometimes even doble or triple gambit! But of course anyone being clearly ahead of the field (say, a Fischer, most of the times) wouldn’t need or profit with that
I was forgeting something important!
If we want a Swiss tournament for 300+ players, and it should provide some (22? 25?) places of some qualification for other tournament, then the minimjum number of rounds must be even greater then the demanded 18 of the regular Swiss! It should be calculated, but maybe we would have about 25 rounds for this tournament, in order to be fully reliable.
I know, it’s another of my unpopular opinions, but I’ll stick to it, hehe.
Castro, it seems we have different usages of the word “huge” – and as far as I can tell (I am also not a native speaker) both are correct. With “huge” I meant number of players, and the huge rating span (unrated to 2700). With “not huge enough” you mean not enough rounds. I agree more rounds would mean more direct encounters between the top players – during 11 rounds, there were only 11 between the final joint leaders.
But I am not even sure if more rounds would lead to less players sharing 1st place in the end, looking at how the tournament evolved: After 3 rounds there were 9 players left with 100%. From round 4-9, there were consistently between 1 and 3 leaders, then again 9 after round 10 and 11 in the end.
This is probably because the tournament was also a World Cup qualifier, and for many players reaching the top 22 and then staying there was the primary objective. In other words, once you reach +5, you can safely start drawing all of your games. With 18 rounds, maybe +7 would be required, and then same procedure.
And more rounds is not impossible, but don’t forget that players (or their federations) had to pay their own expenses. And amateurs were also welcome and had to take holidays to participate.
I see two solutions:
1) separate the championship issue from the qualification issue, and let the top 22 (or in the present case 25) play five more rounds to determine the overall winner, while everyone else can already go home. But I am not even sure how many of the top 25 would be interested or even able to stay longer (they may have other commitments such as club games).
2) make the tournament smaller, allowing only those rated above 2500 to participate in the top group – this is the Aeroflot system, here combined with other groups for weaker players. A minor inconvenience is that this rules out upsets as the one by FM Rasulov from Azerbaijan (rating 2391, performance 2665 – consistently playing on the top boards before losing his last two games).
@Thomas
)
Yes, the WCC qualification could always be a little problem, even with the necesary number of swiss rounds, but I still think it would be a minor problem, and not enough to separate European Championship from WCC qualification.
You’re right about some players and/or federations could have hard time getting to participate in a 18 or more round tournament. But 99% of them would manage it, if THAT was THE championship, I’m sure.
As for so many people tied for first places, it looks imposible for me, as long as the minimum number of sessions were implemented (this is crucial, I believe), moreover because the draw and swiss-gambit strategies become more and more dangerous, as the tournament advances, especialy for those really strong players, who would have “time” to soon run away from the most part, and also play among them (and those are the ones we want to qualify). Then, draws in 10, 20 or 30 moves, when you can “safely” play for a win (at least safely try for 30 or 40 moves more) are absolutely not to be recomended.
I also understand your idea of “replicating” the Aeroflot-type. First I must say that not even Aeroflot have the minimum number of rounds, and so it is also unfair and against the swiss system proven merits. I say it is NOT a well organized tournament because of that, and surely no “Swiss” at all, in essence.
And finaly, I think that, even if it is interesting to have tournaments with that kind of ELO “apartheid”, it surely is not absolutely necesary for all (huge) tournaments, and that there should be the courage to put up a (huge) true swiss tournament for 300. If European Championship, so be it!
The essence of the Swiss system includes precisely that: Everybody playing all the time (except byes), regardless of the playing strengh, never being eliminated.
And obtain a reliable final standings, not for first nor for just part of the players, but aproximately for all (always with far less rounds then round-robin, of course
(And how I wish someone could answer compreensively my 4 questions above!)
Castro, I think your questions were already answered as comprehensively as possible – only a tournament organizer or European Chess Federation official maybe could give more detail
Questions 1+2 (related): I already wrote that the tiebreak procedure was not quite according to the written rules, but still fair in my opinion.
Question 3: Three players among the top 25 were already qualified for the World Cup from the previous European championship.
Question 4: See above, both Budva 2009 and Plovdiv 2008 were qualifying tournaments.
On your previous post: “99% of them would manage it” (playing 18 or even more rounds) !?
Let’s have a look how many players managed it for the 11-round tournament, I will make a small geographic tour:
Netherlands – 9 players, including 6 GM’s, exceptionally high compared to other countries in terms of both quantity and quality of players. Does anyone know why? Generous support from the federation? Cheap flights from Amsterdam?
England – 4 players, among them 1 GM. Maybe Adams and Short will not bother packing their suitcases and touching a pawn if they don’t get an appearance fee, but what about, for example, David Howell?
Belgium – NO players (to my knowledge, they don’t have a single very strong player, but zero participation is still surprising)
France – 3 players (2GM’s). For Bacrot and Vachier-Lagrave, see Adams + Short above? Fressinet was playing, but there most be more potential participants.
Germany – 6 players (4GM’s, 1 IM, 1 ‘tourist’ rated 1910). Naiditsch and Meier were successful, I was potentially missing [list is incomplete, of course] Gustaffson, Fridman, Baramidze, Luther, German champion Arik Braun, … .
This should be enough, no need to look at other countries … so why do you think an 18+ rounds tournament with similar conditions (still no appearance fees, but higher expenses) would be more attractive?
Of course maybe we should think I implyed no exctly “similar conditions”. I stressed if it was THE championship, meaning maybe it’s statute should be risen somehow. Difficult? Maybe some good ideas are wanted… Imposible? Believe what you want
The answers to my questions (as comprehensively as possible): Thanks! Ok, maybe only the organizers know the (crucial, sometimes) details.
But, by the way, why is it “the tiebreak procedure was not quite according to the written rules, but still fair”, in your opinion, for instance in the particular detail of letting players 12th to 18th out of tie-breaks? (And that is perheaps the most suspicious “detail”, for me).
Moreover:
Being “not quite according to the written rules” the tie-break procedures, how to explain to a player that is now feeling injusticeded/discriminated by them, that anyway they are fair??
It looks like a simple lie to me, maybe good for a nice protest! How would you support that opinion of yours?
Castro, rather than merely complaining about the current system and asking for “good ideas”, you should come up with some … . I can give you a hint: money (thus sponsors) is presumably the main issue for professional players – who can blame them, they have to earn a living from chess. And the statute of the European champion will only rise if the strongest players actually participate. What would be the statute of a world championship, when hardly any of the players rated above 2700 participate? Budva had Vallejo Pons (2702) and Akopina (2700), 19(!!) stronger players were absent.
On your second point (tiebreak procedures for World Cup qualification): Maybe the very fact that (to my knowledge) noone protested indicates that the applied procedure made some sense. Simply spoken, 7.5/11 isn’t quite the same as 7.5/11 if the opponents were very different. In terms of rating performance, all players ranked 12th to 18th had >2700, #34 Savchenko had only 2596.
Thomas, I was not “merely complaining” (or realy complaining at all). I was answering to your near to “atempt to prove” (facts and figures!) that my idea would be unrealistic. (Why is that lots of times I can’t explain myself, or someone is implying something not contrary to my words? Bad english it must be!
)
Sure, money always help. There we might have many interesting ideas. But also (for instance!) even more qualifying places for WCC (and others), in comparison to other qualifying events…? Who knows? I think it’s mainly a matter of will (from they who decide this things), and you seem to adopt the other not so difficult position: “I don’t think so, Castro, show me or be wrong”
Very interesting fact you found out, about the 12th to 18th performances (I’m not double-checking, I’m believing you). Very wise, and nice insight, too. I only think that the written rules are far from necessary to bend or break, on this case, unless someone showed me otherwise.
One thing is to improvise, where the rules are confuse or omise. Other is to go by the oposite of the written rules, especialy if not absolutely necesary. On this last case, things like great performance differences should (absolutely) count for nothing, and it would always be shameful, illegal and protestable, right?
*something contrary
If to organize such a tournament in a fair way, only “Russians” (former USSR)+Topalov could have won. Don’t you think so?
Maybe you forgot Carlsen … . But anyway, it is arguably more difficult and/or more prestigious to become Russian champion than European champion !!???
@Thomas: Sure, I remember the gold boy. I wish he’ll enjoy his time later on… later. As for your remark, that’s true: taking into account the number of them… It’s much easier to become the European champ. You know, in old times it was much easier to get an International GM, than the USSR GM. Ridiculous?
Castro, I also have to sleep once in a while (I am in the same timezone as this website). Anyway, I think I understood what you mean – your English was not a major issue, at least as this occasion – but simply disagree. Just a few closing statements:
1) More qualifying spots for the World Cup wouldn’t help in my opinion. I think it has become clear that combining European championship and World cup qualification doesn’t help to find the most worthy European champion (because for many players, the former appears to be the main tournament objective). And the championships are already the only qualifiers.
2) On tiebreaks, another suggestion: maybe the players themselves were asked, and agreed with the chosen procedure?
BTW, the facts I gave (also the number and names of players from different countries) are from chess-results.com.
@Thomas (sorry for this habit of numbering, it mainly helps me)
1. Why would you talk to me about your sleeping habits??
No one is forced to write here, I was just finding it strange that (seemingly, by waking up in the midle of the night?) you came here answering a post writen after mine.
“Finding it strange” (and trying to find out if your intention was to answer me)! NOT criticizing, NOR claiming anything (of course)!
2. I’m sorry, even if I’m the only one (it doesn’t matter), I’m always sorry when someone sharing a discusion with me suddenly goes the way of “closing statements”. Many would see that as a stupid win on a discusion, and rejoice. I just feel sorry.
3. You may be right (and I be wrong) about the “qualifying spots” idea. For now, It is just that, ONE idea.
I obviously disagree with “it has become clear that combining European championship and World cup qualification doesn‚Äôt help to find the most worthy European champion”, because of what I said earlier about trying something new (real Swiss), and believing that would be enough to fairly reach both goals.
(I think you meant “the latter”, when writing “the former”).
4. Yes, maybe the players were asked, and maybe they agreed. In that case it would be fully acceptable, sure. And in that case, it’s “a pity” we don’t get to know. But what if otherwise? Would you agree that it would look ilegal and protestable? (That I am repeating).
5. I was not making irony about your gathered facts! I was indeed trusting and complimenting you! I simply wasn’t in the mood of going to chess-results.com at that moment!
6. I am also genuine in saying I’d like to see your opinions/information on my ideas on the Mtel-Sofia article (and you have also been there).
Please try to give me more of a benefice of a doubt, I’m also not here to destroy.
Castro, no problem with numbering – I have the same habit, and it also helps me in my reply … . Here we go:
1. Writing a short comment (just before going to sleep …) is one thing, a longer answer is something else.
2. “Closing statements” was not meant to claim victory in the discussion, only indicating that ‘everything has been said’ from my side. The rest is actually mostly repetition.
3. Of course I meant “the latter” (WC qualification) – players tied for 1st place before the last round had to make the following “choice”:
- Winning would improve your chances to become European champion (for what it’s worth, see below), but losing would endanger the World Cup qualification.
- Drawing would secure World Cup qualification.
“The rest is history”, and the same last-round situation would occur if there had been more rounds to play.
BTW, obviously “European champion” does not at all mean “strongest player from Europe” – too many strong(er) players were absent. Indeed, several of them were/are playing Amber at the same time, and probably didn’t hesitate for a second between the two events.
4. At least “illegal” seems to be the wrong word. No regular court would accept such a claim, just like one cannot contest any decisions by football arbiters (yellow cards, red cards, penalties, declined goals, ….). So the other question which court would be responsible (Montenegro? home country of player X? home country of a FIDE official? European court?) is already redundant … .
5. I mentioned the source mostly for other people. While this turned out to be a “private discussion”, still others are ‘listening’ … .
6. I generally agree with your statements on the Sofia rule, though you got some details wrong. But for the moment I have no time to explain in detail, now I will leave to play some over-the-board chess … .
Hi Thomas,
I believe you know, Leonid Stein was well above the Botvinnik “mafia” (well, the latter were really strong players…), which ruled the chess world until a fluctuation called “Fisher” appeared. So, citing the Chessgames: “he (Stein) would have qualified (as a Candidate) if not for a rule restricting the number of candidates from one country”. Do you think a fair system should get rid of the “national quotes” or keep them
? Cheers
Vosuram, I really don’t know which of my comments you are referring to … . My comment about Russian vs. European championships was rather a compliment to Russian chess – both concerning the overall strength of the field (including lots of names virtually unknown outside of Russia) AND the fact that they somehow motivate the “well-known names” to participate. For example, the field included Svidler and Morozevich (both absent at the European championship – well for Morozevich, Amber was probably more attractive …). As far as I remember, the only absent “top top player” was Kramnik – at the time he was world champion (at least by his own definition), maybe he didn’t want to risk his reputation by finishing 2nd, 3rd or worse in his own country!?
Concerning your specific question, I am unsure … . In any case, the candidates tournament system guaranteed that whoever got the right to challenge the world champion was duly qualified because he had eliminated everyone else (directly or indirectly) in a long and gruelling procedure. Maybe “national quotes” made sense after all to keep the ‘rest of the world’ interested as long as possible?
P.S.: Both Leonid Stein and Botvinnik (and even Fischer) were before my own time … .
I think the national and continental “quotes” must always hold, otherwise for instance, in a candidates tournament for 64 players, one would hardly ever have a south-american (since Najdorf or Mecking), and never an african, for the time being. If Russia (or former USSR) got to have maybe 10 names there, it was more then enough. For some reason their country represented a whole zonal…
Particularly as for Stein (and if there isn’t also some “tricky” reason), of course he would have played (maybe more than one) candidates, if he was from Burkina-Faso. Being from USSR, it was quite harder, sure. And Fischer isn’t to blame for that either!
@Thomas
)
Here we go… (helping to close… or not)
1. I understand
2. I understand (though I think you didn’t, completely: I didn’t mean YOU “claiming victory”
3. It looks like we’ll keep our different opinions, because I realy believe in the goodness of more rounds, even for the dilemma you very well mentioned. OK.
4. So you say you’re aware of my strugling English, and even say it is no obstacle to your understanding, and then change your 2nd go on an answer for an explanation on why my word “illegal” is not well aplied?? A smile!
5. Yes, of course.
6. Looking forward (for that and for all your other interesting interventions).
[...] Tomashevsky emerged as the winner and so he repeated his success earlier this year, when he gold medal at the European Championship in Budva, Montenegro. As always, the tournament [...]