Two more draws on third day Candidates semi-finals
In Kazan, Russia yet again both games ended in a draw. On the third day of the FIDE Candidates semi-finals, Alexander Grischuk switched to 1.e4 but was held to a draw by Vladimir Kramnik in a Petroff. Gata Kamsky played the ambitious 6.Be3 e5 7.Nb3 against Boris Gelfand's Najdorf and both players got their chances in a very sharp game.
General info
The Candidates matches take place May 3-27 in Kazan, Tatarstan, Russia. Levon Aronian (Armenia), Shakhriyar Mamedyarov (Azerbaijan), Teimour Radjabov (Azerbaijan) and Veselin Topalov (Bulgaria) were knocked out in the quarter-finals by Alexander Grischuk (Russia), Boris Gelfand (Israel), Vladimir Kramnik (Russia) and Gata Kamsky (USA) respectively. The semi-final matches consist of four games; there are six games in the final. The winner qualifies for a World Title match against Vishy Anand next year. More info here; tie-break rules here.
Semi-finals, day 3
This third day of the semi-finals in Kazan was a day of contrasts. There was one short and dull draw, between Alexander Grischuk and Vladimir Kramnik, and there was one great fight, between Gata Kamsky and Boris Gelfand. Both are examples of modern chess.
Grischuk-Kramnik was yet another case of deep preparation by the ex-World Champ (maybe even the full game again), and Grischuk not pushing for too long. The only interesting part about the matter was that Grischuk switched to 1.e4. More about this game below.

Grischuk and Kramnik shake hands and split the point
Kamsky-Gelfand was one of the best games so far in Kazan, perhaps not in terms of objective quality, but certainly in terms of drama and entertainment. The American grandmaster played the ambitious 6.Be3 e5 7.Nb3 line against Gelfand's Najdorf and followed up with the rare set-up 8.h3 and 9.Qf3. A few moves later White sacrificed a pawn for good compensation . Kamsky developed an initiative that was so strong, that he had a close to winning position around move 25.
After some missed chances, the tables turned. Especially 29.Qh1 was a weird one, and in fact right after the press conference Kamsky's second Emil Sutovsky asked his 'boss' how on earth he had found it! Then, for a brief moment, it was Boris Gelfand who had a winning position, but in time trouble he missed a trick by Kamsky which led to a drawn rook ending.

Boris Gelfand realizes he missed Qc5+xe3
This is what Kramnik said about his short draw (which revealed once more the deepness of his preparation and, by the way, also that besides Alexander Riazantsev, Grischuk has top GMs Etienne Bacrot and Peter Svidler as seconds):
This option was very popular with three or four years ago and I have seriously prepared it for the World Championship match with Anand. Plus, I expected it could happen here, because one of Sasha's seconds, Etienne Bacrot, recently played it against Wang Yue, and Peter Svidler played it as well. So I more or less refreshed and tested my memory."
I think 15...Re7 is a novelty. In fact, the position is quite poisonous; it is not as simple as it seems. We have spent a lot of time on working out a clear path to equality. I think 15...Re7 is a good move, which is based on specific variations; there may arise a rook ending which is also a draw. The essence of the position is that as soon as Black has time to play h6 and transfer the knight to f6, then White has no real ways left to win. The only plan is g4-g5, but firstly, it is difficult to achieve thus, and secondly, it's not clear whether it's good in the first place, because White's king position is opened up. In any case, I played very carefully. For example, my 23... Qd7 avoided g4 altogether. I offered a draw after 21 ... c6, because there, in my opinion, there's nothing special to play for. It is clear that Sasha would have liked a little something to try, but there's really nothing to try, the position is quite "concrete". It does not just equal, but, in fact, a dead draw. So we decided not to waste energy.
Grischuk was asked whether it was true that the two players were just "heading for the tie-breaks". Alexander answered:
I think we are all now witnessing the funeral of classical chess. [Then Grischuk made a remark about the many draws in draughts.] On the one hand, it is very disappointing - all the time to play such boring games, but on the other hand - maybe we're doing the right thing.

Alexander Grischuk and Vladimir Kramnik, with yet another press conference more interesting than the game itself
With this, Grischuk hinted at something he's been saying for years: that he simply likes rapid and blitz much more. In the mean time, the Russian grandmaster seems to be trying to demonstrate that also for the fans, classical chess is something from the old days.
Kramnik responded:
Personally I am "for" classical chess, but it's true that because of computers it has become difficult. As we said after the first game, at this point it's perhaps necessary to introduce some small changes to the rules. I think so far in tournaments the situation is still normal, because preparation doesn't go as deeply, and the opponent can catch you somewhere. In matches, of course, it's much harder. But still, I think, it's not the end yet! Yesterday we had a difficult game and today Kamsky and Gelfand also had a very interesting game, some new things are still coming up. But, of course, the problem is - how to get an edge with White.
Then Kramnik promised that in game 4, where he has White, he would try to look for a serious fight.
Several hours later, Boris Gelfand was also confronted with Grischuk's remark about the death of classical chess, and whether he didn't have nostalgic feelings about the old days. The Israeli grandmaster had to laugh:
Well, he says this at a moment when chess is still very much alive. Today is no exception. Nostalgia - what does it mean? Perhaps, it is necessary to initiate a lawsuit against ChessBase, for the destruction of chess? Or deny the creators of Rybka or Fritz to work, to punish them? It is useless to talk like this.

Boris Gelfand reacted level-headedly to Grischuk's
bold statement that the end of classical chess is near
Games semi-finals, day 3
Game viewer by ChessTempo
Links
Latest articles
-
1 hour 3 min ago
-
2 hours 37 min ago
-
2 hours 54 min ago
-
23 hours 8 min ago
-
23 hours 30 min ago
-
1 day 4 hours ago
-
1 day 18 hours ago
-
2 days 4 hours ago
-
2 days 5 hours ago
-
3 days 4 hours ago
-
3 days 6 hours ago
-
4 days 59 min ago
-
4 days 18 hours ago
-
6 days 2 hours ago
-
6 days 2 hours ago
-
6 days 4 hours ago
-
6 days 23 hours ago
-
1 week 6 hours ago
-
1 week 20 hours ago
-
1 week 20 hours ago















Comments
chessking
1 year 6 days ago
Permalink
It will be Kramnik vs Gelfand the runners up from 2007 fighting to challenge the winner (Anand) again.
Peter
1 year 6 days ago
Permalink
The player in top are to even thats why its so many draws.Its not many players who is superior lika it was in Karpovs time and Kasparov, Fischer.I dont think the answer is: COMPUTERANALYSE. Let them play classical until someone loose a armageddon game and sofiarule in same time, then it will not take mounths to decide a challenger.But rapid/blitz its to riskey to play and you easy do a misstake during timepressure.
finger
1 year 6 days ago
Permalink
I think you can say Anand is way ahead of the pack now... 5 years as world champ and the highest rated player at 2817.. lol and it still feels like he's a bit out of form in tournament play doesn't it?
Septimus
1 year 1 week ago
Permalink
Gelfand- Kamsky was exciting HUMAN chess. People cry about blunders, but in severe time trouble it is easy not to think like a machine. Great show for the spectators!
The 'other" game was yet another 20 move joke. Funny to see the lame excuses given by top players to mask their insipid play. Engine, analysis, theory blah blah...
Maybe these guys drawing in 20 moves should go glance at the next table. I mean what can get more theoretical than a Najdorf? Seriously guys, come up with a better excuse next time. If I were a sponsor I'd want half my money back...
calvin amari
1 year 1 week ago
Permalink
Kramnik and Grischuk are simply acknowledging that the format is a joke. It would not be unusual in a real match for neither opponent to draw blood in the first four games. And even if one did, it would hardly signify that he was the dominant player. So let's play some rapid/blitz and say that good results there merit a world championship berth! Nothing about this format will ever convince anyone who knows chess that the advancing player has established himself as the more worthy challenger - the player who, in a match with Vishy, will produce the most advanced chess and the best chance of prevailing. At some level Anand must be overjoyed by this circus. On the other hand, who is going to bid two cents to host a championship after this farce? Without a widely acknowledged worthy challenger, the value of the championship will wane. I think that FIDE has been working steadily for some time to denigrate the championship, and this is one more effective step to advance that perverse but clear goal.
Chuck
1 year 1 week ago
Permalink
It would seem that Vishy's throne is pretty much safe from these guys!
Drag Queen
1 year 6 days ago
Permalink
do not say that
Randowan
1 year 1 week ago
Permalink
Very entertaining game - I don't blame kamsky for not seeing the bxc4 shot or, later, the rg1 thingy. Qh1 was quite unexpected though!
Randowan
1 year 1 week ago
Permalink
Bxc4, not bxc4 :)
Corinne
1 year 1 week ago
Permalink
I want to see Sasha and Kamsky next round . . .
Pierre
1 year 1 week ago
Permalink
We would like to have Anand's overview of the event, such as Carlsen's.
At least give us something to enjoy.
finger
1 year 1 week ago
Permalink
yea that would be awesome if it could be arranged.. and ask who Anand's most scared of playing or looking forward to... definitely don't ask who's gonna win because he's too diplomatic ("they're all top-class players with their own specific strengths and could challenge anyone in the world...etc.") ... but ask which games were the best and his own analysis of any of them.. who looks in good form.
...not too interested in Carlsen's view.
Nic
1 year 6 days ago
Permalink
Kamsky vs Kramnik next round, meeting in a match again after 17 years since PCA 1994. Then Kamsky vs Anand, with the Shangi Nagar outcome :)
Vasili
1 year 1 week ago
Permalink
Levon Aronian could beat Vishy Anand
The Golden Knight
1 year 1 week ago
Permalink
The only wc-match that would be interesting to watch was Anand-Carlsen. Maybe London could organize an alternative "wc-should-have-been-match" when Anand has won this "warmup-tournament"?
Rousseau
1 year 1 week ago
Permalink
Sure Let Carlsen, who could not bother with these Candidate Finals, get a bye in to the WC final. Better stil, why not just give him the WC titel.
Sumit Balan
1 year 5 days ago
Permalink
LOL
onurengin
1 year 6 days ago
Permalink
Levon-Anand also would be great!!!
The only player in the cycle who can create real problems against Anand is Levon!
i.e. Kramnik has not win any game on the black side of the board against Anand!
I think it is not only the strength that determines match'squality.
That is why Levon would fit better against Anand then Carlsen does.
Magnus is not doing well against Anand in their last encounters and Vishy always seemed confortable agains Magnus.
Peter
1 year 6 days ago
Permalink
Yes i agree and one moore player who can beat Anand is Ivanchuck he had shown that sevral times.If he can hold his nerves!!
Thomas
1 year 6 days ago
Permalink
"Kramnik has not [won] any game on the black side of the board against Anand"
True as far as classical time controls are concerned (he has a few rapid and blindfold wins). But equally true that Anand won just two classical games with black against Kramnik - both from their Bonn WCh match when Vlad ran into his/their preparation and was stubborn enough to repeat the line.
Kramnik would again be a tricky opponent for Anand in a possible "rematch" - not taking anything away from Anand's success, but their previous match wasn't necessarily the very last word about their relative strength.
Kamsky got his revenge on Topalov - maybe because Topalov isn't the same player any more. After the Bonn match, Kramnik became a "different" player, not necessarily a stronger one. He can also play dynamic chess, which he proved at various occasions (if not at the ongoing candidates event).
jussu
1 year 6 days ago
Permalink
Good point about Kramnik being outplayed only in Meran - not that this anyhow diminishes the value of Anand's victory, but maybe the value of Anand-Kramnik 2008 as a predictor for a possible Anand-Kramnik 2012 is not as large as it looks. But first, of course, there is Kramnik-Grischuk 2011 to win, and then one more.
"He can also play dynamic chess" - Actually, I have no doubt that they all can if they choose to.
The Golden Knight
1 year 1 week ago
Permalink
The only wc-match that would be interesting to watch was Anand-Carlsen. Maybe London could organize an alternative "wc-should-have-been-match" when Anand has won this "warmup-tournament"?
jazzkoo
1 year 1 week ago
Permalink
A couple thoughts on these matches and the state of chess etc.:
It seems that there is a lot of thought that these matches are not so exciting and that chess is suffering from a computer/preparation overload that is ruining the game (e.g. Kamnik taking only 10 minutes to draw Grischuk the other day, statements from the players about how hard it is to find play with white, Yermolinsky stating on ICC that perhaps rapid chess is the only hope, etc).
While this all may be true it also occurs to me that some players, Topalov being a particularly good example, don't seem to have problems finding positions that are double- edged, unbalanced, difficult to play, exciting etc. Perhaps it has something to do with style of play?
Vlado
1 year 1 week ago
Permalink
Yes, it has something to do with the risks you are willing to take, too...
M K SINGH
1 year 6 days ago
Permalink
Within 10 hours , we all are going 2 confirm - an other set of draws & come on 2 rapids ...
Zeblakob
1 year 6 days ago
Permalink
Kamsky-Gelfand = Ping-pong
Bob
1 year 6 days ago
Permalink
I think it is great watching these guys, they should play a longer match sometime. Their styles really fit together!
jhoravi
1 year 6 days ago
Permalink
High level chess is interesting if and only if these guys are present.
1.Anand
2.Carlsen
3.Kramnik
4.Topalov
5.Ivanchuk
6.Nakamura
Zeblakob
1 year 6 days ago
Permalink
You forget Polgar.
Sumit Balan
1 year 5 days ago
Permalink
And Kasparov !
Michael Harrison
1 year 6 days ago
Permalink
There's no point claiming that these guys are not high quality chess players because they obviously are. The disappointing aspect of this world championship cycle is that it has no prospect of advancing chess. The prime purpose of the world championship cycle is that it pushes the boundaries by having the two strongest players battling for the supremacy of their chess ideas. The short format candidates cycle is pretty much a lottery. We need a better format!
VL
1 year 6 days ago
Permalink
No system is perfect.
1. Round robin: You try to draw the strong opps and to win the weaker, like Anand was blamed.
2. Knock-out: It is lottery, decided mostly by rapid or blitz tiebreaks.
3. Matches:
a. decided when one of the players reach for example 6 wins: It may last 3 months and the players go to hospital.
b. decided by points but if draw the champ retains his crown: unfair since it roots for the champ
c. decided by points but if draw then the rapid/blitz tiebreak: Why so long chess match is decided by an armagendon pseudo chess game?
So what? I am happy that we have now an undisputed WCh and a clear and quite fair (though not perfect) rule to choose a chalenger against him. Thank you FIDE for great job.
VL
KingTal
1 year 6 days ago
Permalink
You right no system is perfect, but the best of these is 3c.
Problem with 1 is that there probably could be prearranged draws which can affect other players and thats unfair and cheating. With 2, 3a and 3b i agree.
If a match is 10 games long and the standing is 5-5 it indicates that the players strenght is more even than just a 2-2 in 4 games, but you need a winner, so tiebreaks in rapid format seems pretty fair in a longer match. Also it worked in the past...see 60`s 70`s and 80`s...and everybody was happy, so why not use a model that worked fine?
VL
1 year 6 days ago
Permalink
Hi King Tal,
As far as I remember, in WCh cycles, rapid/blitz (3c) is used first in the 90's in the knockout with the Karpov-Anand final (which was decided by rapid). In the earlier decades they mostly used 3b for final match which saved the champ several times (ie. Botvinik-Bronstein, Kasparov-Karpov).
KingTal
1 year 6 days ago
Permalink
Hi VL,
i thought you were talking about the candidate tournaments. In the 60`s, 70`s, 80`s and even in the first half of the 90`s the players played mostly about 10 game matches. In that period there were different tiebreaks used, but my point is just to go back to this format of longer matches because it worked fine and just add rapid and blitzgames if neccesary for tiebreaks and that would be 3c. ;)
VL
1 year 6 days ago
Permalink
Hi King Tal,
As far as I remember, in WCh cycles, rapid/blitz (3c) is used first in the 90's in the knockout with the Karpov-Anand final (which was decided by rapid). In the earlier decades they mostly used 3b for final match which saved the champ several times (ie. Botvinik-Bronstein, Kasparov-Karpov).
VL
1 year 6 days ago
Permalink
No system is perfect.
1. Round robin: You try to draw the strong opps and to win the weaker, like Anand was blamed.
2. Knock-out: It is lottery, decided mostly by rapid or blitz tiebreaks.
3. Matches:
a. decided when one of the players reach for example 6 wins: It may last 3 months and the players go to hospital.
b. decided by points but if draw the champ retains his crown: unfair since it roots for the champ
c. decided by points but if draw then the rapid/blitz tiebreak: Why so long chess match is decided by an armagendon pseudo chess game?
So what? I am happy that we have now an undisputed WCh and a clear and quite fair (though not perfect) rule to choose a chalenger against him. Thank you FIDE for great job.
VL
Peter
1 year 6 days ago
Permalink
It was better as it was in the eighties when it was zon/interzon and longer matches to decide who should be the challenger.And the WC-match was every 3 year.Money rules the world and the qualites of chess is lack
LMedemblik
1 year 6 days ago
Permalink
It surely must have been written (or done) before but why not a WC fight with qualified 10 top players playing each other twice, 1 time with black, 1 time with white.
There will be less doubt about strenght or qualification issues.
Peter
1 year 6 days ago
Permalink
I predict that Grischuck beat Kramnik in rapid/blitz and Kamsky beat Gelfand in Rapid/Blitz.Kamsky is very strong rapid player and Gelfand is moore stron in classic if you compare them
patternmaster
1 year 6 days ago
Permalink
Kamsky missed the win after 29.Qh1? (29.Bc4! and Qb6+-) Anyhow, he continue to surprise us. Kamsky was #36 in May, 2010. 1 year later in May, 2011 he is already #18, and now he is #14 according to live www.2700chess.com Well done!
Drag Queen
1 year 6 days ago
Permalink
about the ratings...supose Kramnik draws all the clasical games but qualifies on tiebreaks all the way to Anand...he will lose rating points...
Henk de Jager
1 year 6 days ago
Permalink
Maybe the end of Grischuk in classical chess is nearby.
LMedemblik
1 year 5 days ago
Permalink
Final: Anand - Grischuck
Your comment
By posting a comment you are agreeing to abide our Terms & Conditions