Biel: three decisive games
All three games were decisive in the 6th round of Biel today. Carlsen beat Pelletier and the statisticians will probably start calculating again to see if he has finally overtaken Anand on the virtual rating list.
By Arne Moll
Click here to download all games, and here to replay the games of the 6th round.
Opening lovers will certainly make a mental note of the percentage of 1.d4 games so far in this tournament: 65%. Today was no exception: all three white players opened their games with the Queen’s pawn.
Onischuk-Dominguez
Dominguez played another Grunfeld-Indian, just as he did against Pelletier in the second round. Onischuk chose the Russian system with 5.Qb3, and after 7…a6 he followed up with the slightly off-beat move 11.e5 (the more common 11.0-0 was actually played by Onischuk last year against Svidler). According to my database, 13.Rd1 was the first new move, 13.a4 having been played (without success) by Ivan Sokolov in 1994. However, Black’s extra center pawn looked slightly more useful than White’s passed h-pawn after the exchange of queens. Subsequently, the exchange of white-squared bishops definitely worked out fine for Black. He was already slightly better after move 26. Black’s position got definitely more active and it must have been tough for White from a practical point of view. And, of course, b2 was a ‘little corpse’ as we say in Dutch. Onischuk defended well and reached a completely drawn KRN vs KR endgame, which Dominguez played on extremely long. Onischuk must have been in time trouble, because he blundered horribly on move 88 (almost any other move draws easily) and sadly lost the game. Somehow, I can’t help feeling that on this kind of level, these endgames simply should be declared a draw after just a couple of obligatory moves.
Bacrot-Alekseev
To be honest I didn’t understand what Bacrot was doing in this game, until he suddenly won! It looks like he voluntarily sacced his c-pawn after a Catalan opening, but probably he miscalculated since he never got it back. Incidentally, my computer recommends 16.e4!? as a better way of getting compensation for the pawn. Bacrot tried hard to make something of it, and he definitely succeeded, since Black messed up horribly after move 30. Instead of 30…Ra8, the simple 33…Rxd6 looks simple and strong. In the game, after 34.Rxc6! Bacrot took his chance and went for a winning attack sacrificing his bishop. Suddenly, his pawns on d6 and a7 were absolutely unstoppable. A very strange game indeed, at least for me.
Pelletier-Carlsen
This game was a clash of two Queen’s Indian players. Incidentally, I know almost nothing about this opening so I have to rely entirely on my database. Recently, Carlsen has been playing 5…b5 against the b2-b3 line, but now he chose the classical Bb4+ as he played several times against Loek van Wely. Carlsen deviated from his older games with the relatively rare move 7…d5. On top level, Kramnik has played this once (in 2001), and also Grischuk has experimented with it. Carlsen deviated from known paths with the natural 14…Bb4 aiming to place his queen on the nice square f8. I have never seen this manoeuvre and it looks very elegant - but perhaps that’s just because I know who played it. The machine condemns 27.Qb6 and recommends 27.Rc1 with an equal game. However, I think Black has a nice game in any case. In the game, White’s pieces on the king’s side got terribly messed up and Carlsen profited nicely. On move 36, Carlsen showed that he is still a mortal, since he could have won immediately with 36…Rc8! with the point that 37.Qa3 fails to 37…Rxe2+! winning in all lines. Carlsen chose a more human continuation and won in a couple of moves anyway. Things look grim indeed for Pelletier, and Carlsen may be human, but his play is definitely supernatural. He leads by a point and looks to be easy cruising towards yet another tournament victory.
Standings after round 6:
1. Carlsen, Magnus 4½
2. Dominguez Perez, Leinier 4
3. Alekseev, Evgeny 3½
4. Onischuk, Alexander 3
5. Bacrot, Etienne 2½
6. Pelletier, Yannick ½
my idea of statisticians is that all fan alwasy become emotionnal at some point…
bacrot got a call phone from his wife …
i’m sure that dominguez feels good about this great vicotry … like waiting for the sick to be healthy
I do not see a reason why R + N vs. R should be considered a draw, and Dominguez gave a good reason for the opposite today. Players must fight to the end. Errors occur.
Well, alfanje, it is a fact that the endgame R+N vs R is a simple draw, the only thing you can discuss is whether it is fair to play on such a long time. Personally, I understand that you don’t give the draw immediately, but to play on for 40 moves is really a bit embarrassing for a great player like Dominguez in my opinion. I realize that ‘the winner is always right’ and that ‘chess is war’, but what happened to politeness and good manners in the Royal Game?
Yes, R+N vs R is a theoretical draw. But I have to say that Dominguez was very straightforward in his try. Almost all the moves were with a meaning, first chasing the king to the a-file. Actually I enjoyed trying to foresee the moves…
Wasn’t there a famous game where the stronger party won this endgame too? Some game maybe with Judith Polgar and Kasparov? Can’t remember which game.
Ron, you’re referring to J.Polgar-Kasparov, Dos Hermanas 1996. However, Kasparov played on because Polgar’s king was already on the edge, and was soon going to be driven to the corner as well. And this also happened in the game. With the king in the corner, the defence is pretty difficult, but usually it doesn’t come this far. I admit the difference is subtle, and Kasparov’s game has certainly set an example for people who never want to concede a draw, even when it’s theoretical. I guess it’s a matter of personal taste whether you like this development or not.
I have to disagree with my colleague here (sorry, Arne). I don’t understand why one shouldn’t be entitled to play on with an extra piece. A solid 2670 player just lost this endgame in a very straightforward manner, so how can you call it a simple draw? Time trouble? That’s his problem. He could have claimed a draw, if it were really so simple.
Well, Michael, I didn’t say the players are not entitled to play on in this endgame at all - I just said that to play on for such a long time seems a bit too much. For example, I was a live witness to the game L’Ami-Bologan, Wijk aan Zee 2007, and there L’Ami also played this endgame for a while. But after something like 25 moves and Bologan defending fine, he called it a day and offered a draw. Even then, I remember thinking L’Ami was pushing it a bit against such a great player. But remember, Dominguez played on for almost twice as long even though his opponent also defended excellently. There was nothing ’straightforward’ about it - Onischuk simply blundered, probably because he was tired. Of course Dominguez had every right to try his opponent, that’s not the point. But who, apart from Dominguez, enjoys this kind of chess? Anyway, it’s nobody’s business but his own - I guess I just wish the world was a better place than it actually is
I f Carlsen would have won this game everybody would be speaking of the great Carlsen who squeezes his rivals and takes every opportunity to fight. This is what Lernier did, and he should be congratulated for his combative and fighting spirit. Who knows, maybe the inital position in chess is a theoretical draw and this does not mean that it does not have to be played. Aguante Cuba!
I think it really depends on how you play this endgame. It’s not okay just to play around and wait for a silly blunder. But in my view, Dominguez made steady progress, step by step pushing Onischuk’s king to the edge of the board. It would have been very strange to suddenly stop midway. I wouldn’t blame him in the slightest. I’m sure Onischuk would have done the same. It’s a serious tournament, after all, not a birthday party.
Perhaps Dominguez didn’t know it to be a draw!
Come on! After all, even the starting position is drawish, does this say we have to quit with chess. If we, lets say in twenty years, will be watching another game and comparing the moves with an “ultimate-computer�, do we want the players to stop in the middlegame, if the computer shows +1.45 or mate in 57 or something like that?
As a spectator I rather like to watch the Dominguez-Onischuk game (still learning something and keeping my little brain busy) than 13 “superb” theoretical moves from a nonsense draw. It’s just a game, Miles played a6 and won (ok. not because of that) and some people play 2.Qh5 with success, so why not playing the ending R+N vs. R as long as you play fair.
what if chess is discovered to be a draw with best play?
should we not play anymore? should a draw be given after only a few moves? if oni could not draw the position, that is his problem. the rules allow for 50 moves of trying.
i agree, not the most sportsman thing to do, but how many positions have we seen that are ‘drawn’ only to be lost.
Hi Flowekraut and parick j, surely you’ll agree there’s a difference between ‘equality’ in the beginning position and ‘equality’ in a relatively theoretical endgame, or that there’s a difference between a blunder and a slightly inferior move, both of which can, in their own ways, change the ‘objective’ evaluation of a position. Or think of it this way: you can say all life is pointless, and I would probably agree - but it sure doesn’t mean we all have to shoot each other, don’t we? Anyway, if you prefer to choose to ignore this kind of shades and subtleties in chess, then it will indeed be a game of ‘black and white’ for you. I myself life to think chess can sometimes also be grey
Hi Arne, well your are right! “equality� is not always the same “equality�.
But let’s keep things simple! I am feeling now a little bit less inferior, because I once lost the same kind of ending.
I’m very impressed by the way Dominguez played this ending. The blocking with the knight on the seventh rank was instructive. He kept his opponent under pressure until he cracked. Just like in any other kind of sport. Since when is it forbidden to win a draw position? I know my colleague’s (Arne’s) preference for the Scientific side of chess, but we are talking Sport now, and the elegant way Dominguez played made it Art as well. In addition, seeing it from a scientific perspective, I would rather blame Onischuk for not drawing this ending then Dominguez for winning it.