[lang_nl]Topalov nadert Ivanchuk[/lang_nl][lang_en]Topalov narrows gap with Ivanchuk[/lang_en]
16 May 2008, 18.37 CET | Last modified: 17:35 | By Peter Doggers | Filed under: Reports | Tags:
[lang_nl]Wie had dat gedacht. Vassily Ivanchuk ging vandaag langs de rand van de afgrond tegen de nummer laatst van de ranglijst Bu Xiangzhi maar hield het net aan remise. Topalov won van Cheparinov en is hem op een halfje genaderd; Aronian is echt zichzelf niet en verloor met wit van Radjabov.[/lang_nl][lang_en]Who would have guessed that? Vassily Ivanchuk was very close to a loss against numer last Bu Xiangzhi, but just managed to draw. Topalov beat Cheparinov and is now half a point behind; Aronian is clearly not himself here and lost with White against Radjabov.[/lang_en]
[lang_nl]De kortste partij van de dag was Topalov-Cheparinov, waarin de meester gehakt maakte van de leerling. L’Ami en Cheparinov besloten licht verrassend voor het Grünfeld-Indisch en Topalov had geen enkele behoefte om de Nederlands/Bulgaarse voorbereiding te testen; hij koos voor de zijvariant met 5.Ld2. Zo wilde het dat de twee al op zet 9 op nieuw terrein waren; 9.Le2 was gespeeld in een partij van Unzicker (met zwart) uit 1969! In plaats van 11…c6 stel ik 11…f5 voor want ‘Delroy’ (zoals GM Jonathan Rowson de witte d-pion in de Grünfeld noemt) werd erg snel erg sterk, de zwarte stelling in tweeën splijtend. 12.Lg5! en 16.h4! waren sterk en 18.b4! en 21.a6! helemaal - Topalov op zijn best. De echte fout lijkt 23…bxa6 te zijn; de actieve witte toren viel beslissend binnen.
Ondertussen was Ivanchuk dus in grote problemen geraakt. In een Egel (vanuit het Engels) had hij de sterke zet 26.Pa4! gemist, waarna wit groot voordeel kreeg in het eindspel met allebei een paard en een toren. “Toch zag ik nergens waar wit kon winnen,” zei Ivanchuk. En inderdaad, het is bijna niet voor te stellen, maar het is waarschijnlijk allemaal remise. Een voorbeeld, voor de eindspelliefhebber: 49. Txa6 (49. Kc3 Te2 50. Txa6 Txf2 51. Td6 f3 52. Td1 Kf4 53. Kb3 Te2 54. a6 Te3+ 55. Kc4 f2 56. Tf1 Kg3 57. b5 Ta3 58. Kb4 Ta2 59. Kb3 Ta5 60. Kb4 Ta2 61. Kb3 Ta5) 49… Txb4 50. Ta8 (50. Kc3 Ta4 51. Kb3 Ta1 52. Ta8 f3 53. a6 Kf4 54. a7 Ta6) 50… Tb3+ 51. Kd4 Txh3 52. a6 Ta3 53. a7 Kg4 54. Tg8+ Kf3 55. a8D+ Txa8 56. Txa8 Kxf2 57. Th8 f3 =.
Aronian speelde vandaag weer zwakker dan we van hem gewend zijn en de journalisten beginnen zich tijdens de persconferentie af te vragen of er iets scheelt, maar Aronian antwoord dan dat er niks aan de hand is. Hoe dan ook, Radjabovs Konings-Indisch blijft een goede manier om op winst te spelen en vooral tegen aangeschoten wild! 17.Lb2 was nieuw en lange tijd was er weinig aan de hand (wit stond steeds een fractie beter) tot Aronian in opkomende tijdnood veel onnauwkeurigheden beging. Zijn kwaliteitsoffer was al wat shaky (na gewoon 32.Lxe4 Txa4 33.Dc2 Tb4 34.Tb1 is er weinig aan de hand) en 39.Tg3? was direct verliezend.[/lang_nl][lang_en]The shortest game of the day was Topalov-Cheparinov, in which the master crushed the pupil. L’Ami and Cheparinov had decided for the slightly surprising choice of the Grünfeld-Indian and Topalov apparently wasn’t up for testing the Dutch/Bulgarian preparation; he went for the 5.Bd2 sideline. And so after move eight the players had already left theoretical waters; 9.Be2 was played in an Unzicker game (he was Black) from 1969! Instead of 11…c6 I propose 11…f5 because in the game, “Delroy” (as GM Jonathan Rowson calls the white d-pawn in the Grünfeld) became very strong very quickly, splitting the black forces into two camps. 12.Bg5! and 16.h4! were strong, and so were 18.b4! and 21.a6! - Topalov at his best. The real mistake seems to be 23…bxa6; the active White rook entered the enemy’s camp decisively.
Meanwhile, Ivanchuk had gotten into big problems. In a Hedgehog (from the English) he had missed the strong move 26.Na4!, that yielded White a big advantage in the ending with rook, knight and pawns for both sides. Still, Ivanchuk “didn’t see where White was winning.” And indeed, it’s hard to believe but the rook ending seems to be drawn all the time. An example, for the endgame lovers: 49. Rxa6 (49. Kc3 Re2 50. Rxa6 Rxf2 51. Rd6 f3 52. Rd1 Kf4 53. Kb3 Re2 54. a6 Re3+ 55. Kc4 f2 56. Rf1 Kg3 57. b5 Ra3 58. Kb4 Ra2 59. Kb3 Ra5 60. Kb4 Ra2 61. Kb3 Ra5) 49… Rxb4 50. Ra8 (50. Kc3 Ra4 51. Kb3 Ra1 52. Ra8 f3 53. a6 Kf4 54. a7 Ra6) 50… Rb3+ 51. Kd4 Rxh3 52. a6 Ra3 53. a7 Kg4 54. Rg8+ Kf3 55. a8=Q+ Rxa8 56. Rxa8 Kxf2 57. Rh8 f3 =.
Aronian again played a lot weaker today than he normally does, and at the press conference the journalists are starting to ask him whether everything’s all right. Aronian says everything’s fine but it’s hard to believe. Anyway, Radjabov’s King’s Indian remains a good way to play for a win, especially against somebody who’s out of shape. 17.Bb2 was new and actually White was doing fine for a long time, but in upcoming timetrouble Aronian played a lot of inaccurate moves. His exchange sacrifice already looked a bit shaky (after the simple 32.Bxe4 Rxa4 33.Qc2 Rb4 34.Rb1 he seems to be OK) and 39.Rg3? lost instantly.[/lang_en]
M-Tel Masters 2008 Round 8 Standings
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | ||||||
| 1 | Ivanchuk,Vassily | 2740 | +253 | ** | 1½ | 1½ | 1 | 1 | 1½ | 6.5/8 | 2989 |
| 2 | Topalov,Veselin | 2767 | +155 | 0½ | ** | ½ | 11 | 11 | 1 | 6.0/8 | 2925 |
| 3 | Radjabov,Teimour | 2751 | +28 | 0½ | ½ | ** | ½ | ½1 | ½1 | 4.5/8 | 2778 |
| 4 | Cheparinov,Ivan | 2696 | +6 | 0 | 00 | ½ | ** | ½½ | 11 | 3.5/8 | 2702 |
| 5 | Aronian,Levon | 2763 | -219 | 0 | 00 | ½0 | ½½ | ** | ½ | 2.0/8 | 2541 |
| 6 | Bu Xiangzhi | 2708 | -224 | 0½ | 0 | ½0 | 00 | ½ | ** | 1.5/8 | 2487 |
[lang_nl]Indeling ronde 9 & 10:
Xiangzhi, Bu - Topalov, V
Ivanchuk, V - Aronian, L
Radjabov, T - Cheparinov, I
Topalov, V - Radjabov, T
Cheparinov, I - Ivanchuk, V
Aronian, L - Xiangzhi, Bu
Mijn videomateriaal verschijnt weer in apart. Hier de video’s van Europe-Echecs:[/lang_nl][lang_en]Pairings rounds 9 & 10:
Xiangzhi, Bu - Topalov, V
Ivanchuk, V - Aronian, L
Radjabov, T - Cheparinov, I
Topalov, V - Radjabov, T
Cheparinov, I - Ivanchuk, V
Aronian, L - Xiangzhi, Bu
My video material will be published separately again. Videos by Europe-Echecs:[/lang_en]
[lang_nl]
Links:
- Toernooiwebsite
- Partijen in PGN
[/lang_nl][lang_en]
Links:
- Tournament website
- Games in PGN
[/lang_en]
It’s quite normal that the people out there don’t get the chinese names right and I don’t blame them.
But how can the organizer of a tournament that big not get it? Or did Bu want it like that, having his first name displayed? Because I just saw in the video (thanks as usual for the coverage btw!) that at his table there is written “Xiangzhi”, what is his first name…I suppose he is to polite to “protest”/doesn’t care, but I think a tournament organizer should get it right.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s not a big deal, it’s just quite funny that even the officials keep calling Bu Xiangzhi or Hou Yifan, “Xiangzhi” and “Yifan”, that’s their first names.
I find this a bit shameful for tournament officials, somebody should explain them how chinese names are being written. 
I have no problems with Veselin, but Vassily deserves to win!
So anyway, hope Vassily will win this and not Veselin.
@Michel:
The most famous example of this is Anand, which is the World Champion’s first name. If you want to be polite, it’s Mr. Viswanathan.
He had indicated long ago that he had no problem with being called ‘Anand’.
I like Ivanchuck, but I like Topalov more. But whoever wins those two are making the show
“The most famous example of this is Anand, which is the World Champion’s first name. If you want to be polite, it’s Mr. Viswanathan.”
Not really. I remember reading an interview of his on this matter.
He said: “I am Anand. My father is Viswanathan”
It must be difficult fo Cheparinov to play against his “boss”…
After their first game there were some rumours, suspicions, because he had a very good game..
Today he was swept of the board in a rather harmless line of the Grünfeld, although Topalov played very well. Let´s see what happens in the last rounds…
@Michel. I don’t know Chinese, but I do know these naming conventions for Chinese names are quite confusing and complicated, not only for Western people but sometimes also for Chinese people themselves. There is also a practical problem that there are not that many ‘active’ family names in Chinese, thus giving rise to much confusion and identification problems. That’s where the ‘given name’ comes in handy. So it doesn’t surprise me that the officials didn’t get it ‘right’, especially when ‘right’ is quite a confusing word in this context.
@ arne
It is true that there are not so many “active” family names in chinese, but there aren’t 20 Bus playing at the same tournament- and if there would be, they could just write “X. Bu”/”Bu X.” or the whole name “Bu Xiangzhi”/”Xiangzhi Bu” (western way). I mean, if there are several players called Smith they do that too and don’t only use their first names…
And I have to disagree with you: The naming conventions in chinese might be confusing and complicated, but this here is just the way you write it, nothing complicated about that.
) possbility that you are right…
If your name would be “Arne Smith” then in chinese it would be written “Smith Arne”, just written other way round (same in Korean btw and in Japanese (although Japanese also write their names western style sometimes)).
I don’t expect tournament organizers to know all chinese naming conventions, but I do expect them to inform themselves a bit…it would have been very easy to ask somebody.
I by the way don’t speak chinese myself, so there is a (very very small of course
But then maybe the chinese players are so used to it that they don’t care or maybe they even prefer it that way (in this case I take back my “accusations” towards the officials
)…who knows.
Didn’t know that about Anand btw. So in Hindi you also write/say the family name first?
I believe Vishy’s name is Tamil, not Hindi. Viswanathan is strictly speaking not a family name, but a patronymic (his father’s name), just like the Olafsson in the Icelandic name Fridrik Olafsson tells you his father was called Olaf.
(I have been told that Icelandic people sometimes laugh when they see names like Scarlett Johansson on the credits of a movie, because to them her last name suggests a man.)
@Michel.You say: ‘nothing complicated about that’. Well, I had a look on wikipedia, and before I knew I was lost in some highly complicated and technical discussions.See for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)/Names.
I’m not an expert so I have no idea what the linguistic verdict on these issues is, but it seems to me the conventions are way too complicated for a tournament organisation to bother understanding (and remember, we’re not talking English, but Bulgarian, a Slavonic language and script that may have still different notions on how to write names - as in Russian, for example).
But of course, these issues are nothing new. What about Romario, Ronaldo and other stars? Officially, these are their first names, but do we really care? Should we? And should soccer organisers or shirt-manufacturers really care about these issues? It seems hardly worth the effort, especially when things are really not that clear.
You were looking at a Wikipedia talk page, Arne, where editors discuss complicated cases and exceptions. But the general idea is not too difficult - see the first paragraph of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_name :
“Personal names in Chinese culture follow a number of conventions different from those of personal names in Western cultures. Most noticeably, a Chinese name is written with the family name (surname or last name) first and the given name next, therefore “John Smith” as a Chinese name would be “Smith John”. For instance, the basketball player who is commonly called Yao Ming would be addressed as “Mr. Yao”, not “Mr. Ming”.”