Intel Speed Chess Grand Prix. LONDON. - Ivanchuk wins the final. GAMES.

186 views
Skip to first unread message

M.D.Cr...@bradford.ac.uk

unread,
Sep 4, 1994, 6:50:40 AM9/4/94
to
Intel Speed Chess Grand Prix. LONDON.
-------------------------------------

1st ROUND

WEDNESDAY. 31 August 1994
----------
2pm Kasparov 0.5-1.5 Pentium Genius
4pm Short 1 - 1 Nikolic [Speed playoff Nikolic ]
7pm Korchnoi 2 - 0 Morezevich
9pm Adams 1 - 1 Anand [Speed playoff Anand]

The speed playoff games were both drawn. [6 mins to white, 5 to black,
draw odds.] Anand and Nikolic qualify.

THURSDAY 1 September 1994
--------
2pm Kramnik 1 - 1 Adianto [Speed playoff Kramnik]
4pm Mainka 1 - 1 Vyzhmanavin [Speed Playoff Vyzhmanavin]
7pm Malaniuk 0 - 2 Tkachiev
9pm Akesson 0.5-1.5 Ivanchuk

Kramnik and Vyzhmanavin qualify from the Speed playoff.

2nd ROUND

FRIDAY 2 September 1994
------
2pm Pentium Genius 2 - 0 Nikolic
4pm Korchnoi 0.5-1.5 Anand
7pm Kramnik 1.5-0.5 Vyzhmanavin
9pm Tkachiev 0.5-1.5 Ivanchuk

SATURDAY 3 September 1994
--------
SEMI-FINAL

2pm Pentium Genius 0 - 2 Anand
4pm Kramnik 1 - 1 Ivanchuk

The playoff was Kramnik 1/2 Ivanchuk so Ivanchuk qualifies
because Black had draw odds (in return for a time disadvantage
of White 6 mins - Black 5 mins.)

FINAL

7pm Anand - Ivanchuk

The final was conducted in the following manner.
A two game series of 25 mins per side games. When
this was tied, there was a two game series of
5 minute per side games. When this was tied there
was a 6 minutes to white and 5 minutes to black game
where black got draw odds for tie-breaking purposes.
Ivanchuk won the first 5 minute game, got an overwhelming
position in the second 5 minute game (he missed mate in
one.) and then lost on time. The 6-5 playoff contains
a number of neat tactical tricks from Ivanchuk.

Adam Black did a superb job in UK Teletext to bring
us the games from INTEL. However there were a few
errors in the gamescores (I'm unsure as to the
correctness of game 4.3 below for instance.) Perhaps
there will be an official posting sometime. I also
missed a few of the 6-5 tie-break games.

Mark Crowther

25 mins per side
----------------

GAME 1 Ivanchuk 1/2 Anand
GAME 2 Anand 1/2 Ivanchuk

5 mins per side
----------------

GAME 3 Ivanchuk 1-0 Anand
GAME 4 Anand 1-0 Ivanchuk

6 mins to white - 5 mins to black.
----------------------------------

GAME 5 Anand 1/2 Ivanchuk

Ivanchuk wins on tie break.

[Event "PCA INTEL Speed Chess Grand Prix"]
[Site "London ENG"]
[Date "1994.09.03"]
[Round "4.1"]
[White "Ivanchuk, Vassily"]
[Black "Anand, Viswanathan"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 g6 4. Bxc6 dxc6 5. d3 Bg7 6. h3 Nf6 7. Nc3 O-O 8.
Be3 b6 9. Qd2 e5 10. Bh6 Qe7 11. O-O-O Nh5 12. Bxg7 Kxg7 13. Ne2 Qf6 14. Qe3
Be6 15. Kb1 Nf4 16. Nxf4 Qxf4 17. Qxf4 exf4 18. d4 cxd4 19. Nxd4 c5 20. Nxe6+
fxe6 21. Rd7+ Rf7 22. Rhd1 Rf8 23. e5 g5 24. R1d6 Rxd7 25. Rxd7+ Rf7 26. Rd6
Re7 27. g4 fxg3 28. fxg3 g4 29. hxg4 Kh6 30. Rd8 Rg7 31. Re8 Rxg4 32. Rxe6+ Rg6
33. Rd6 Kg5 34. e6 Kf6 35. Rd7 h6 36. Rxa7 Kxe6 37. a4 Kd5 38. Ra6 Re6 39. Ka2
h5 40. Kb3 Re3+ 41. c3 Kc6 42. a5 Kb5 43. Rxb6+ Kxa5 44. Rg6 Kb5 45. Rg5 Rf3
46. Kc2 Kc6 47. b4 cxb4 48. cxb4 Rf2+ 49. Kc3 Rh2 50. Kc4 Rc2+ 51. Kd4 Rh2 52.
Ke5 Kb5 53. Kf6+ Kxb4 54. Kg6 Rh3 1/2-1/2

[Event "PCA INTEL Speed Chess Grand Prix"]
[Site "London ENG"]
[Date "1994.09.03"]
[Round "4.2"]
[White "Anand, Viswanathan"]
[Black "Ivanchuk, Vassily"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 O-O 8. c3
d5 9. exd5 Nxd5 10. Nxe5 Nxe5 11. Rxe5 c6 12. Re1 Bd6 13. g3 Qd7 14. d3 Qh3 15.
Re4 Qd7 16. Nd2 Bb7 17. Re1 c5 18. Ne4 Be7 19. Qh5 Kh8 20. Ng5 Nf6 21. Qh3 Qc6
22. f3 c4 23. dxc4 bxc4 24. Bc2 Bc5+ 25. Kf1 h6 26. Ne4 Ba7 27. g4 Rae8 28. g5
Nd5 29. gxh6 g6 30. Bg5 f5 31. Nd2 Ne3+ 32. Bxe3 Rxe3 33. Qg3 Rf6 1/2-1/2

[Event "PCA INTEL Speed Chess Grand Prix"]
[Site "London ENG"]
[Date "1994.09.03"]
[Round "4.3"]
[White "Ivanchuk, Vassily"]
[Black "Anand, Viswanathan"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B31"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 g6 4. Bxc6 dxc6 5. d3 Bg7 6. h3 e5 7. Be3 b6
8. Nc3 f6 9. Qd2 Be6 10. O-O-O Ne7 11. Bh6 O-O 12. g4 Nc8 13. Bxg7 Kxg7
14. Nh4 Nd6 15. Ng2 Nb5 16. f4 Nd4 17. Rdf1 b5 18. Kb1 Qa5 19. b3 c4
20. Rf2 b4 21. Ne2 c3 22. Nxd4 exd4 23. Qc1 Qc5 24. f5 Bg8 25. g5 a5
26. Re1 fxg5 27. Qxg5 Kh8 28. Nf4 gxf5 29. Qh6 Bf7 30. Qf6+ 1-0

[Event "PCA INTEL Speed Chess Grand Prix"]
[Site "London ENG"]
[Date "1994.09.03"]
[Round "4.4"]
[White "Anand, Viswanathan"]
[Black "Ivanchuk, Vassily"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B17"]

1. e4 c6 2. Nc3 d5 3. d4 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nd7 5. Bc4 Ngf6 6. Ng5 e6 7. Qe2
Nb6 8. Bb3 h6 9. N5f3 c5 10. Bf4 Nbd5 11. Be5 Qa5+ 12. Nd2 b5 13. dxc5
Bxc5 14. Nf3 O-O 15. O-O-O Bb7 16. g4 Nd7 17. g5 Nxe5 18. Nxe5 Nc3
19. Qg4 Nxa2+ 20. Bxa2 h5 21. Qxh5 Qxa2 22. Nb3 Bxf2 23. Rd3 Rac8
24. Rh3 Rxc2+ 25. Kxc2 Rc8+ 26. Kd1 Qb1+ 27. Ke2 Qe4+ 28. Kxf2 Rc2+
29. Kf1 Qf4+ {???? 29. ...Qxh1# is much stronger.}
30. Nf3 Kf8 31. g6 Qc4+ 32. Kg1 Qxb3 33. Qe5 Rc1+ 34. Kf2
Qc2+ 35. Ke3 Qb3+ 36. Ke2 Qc4+ 37. Kf2 Qc2+ 38. Ke3 Qb3+ 39. Kf4 Rc4+
40. Nd4 Qxh3 41. Qb8+ Rc8 42. Qd6+ {White won on time} 1-0

[Event "PCA INTEL Speed Chess Grand Prix"]
[Site "London ENG"]
[Date "1994.09.03"]
[Round "4.5"]
[White "Anand, Viswanathan"]
[Black "Ivanchuk, Vassily"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "B01"]

1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qa5 4. g3 Nf6 5. Bg2 e5 6. Nge2 Bd6 7. O-O
O-O 8. d4 Nc6 9. Bg5 exd4 10. Bxf6 dxc3 11. Bxc3 Qh5 12. Nf4 Qxd1
13. Raxd1 Bf5 14. Rd2 Bxf4 15. gxf4 Rad8 16. Rfd1 Bxc2 17. Rxd8 Rxd8
18. Rxd8+ Nxd8 19. Be5 c6 20. Bh3 Ne6 21. f5 Ng5 22. Bg4 Bxf5 23. Be2
Be4 24. Bb8 a6 25. f4 Ne6 26. Kf2 f5 27. Ke3 h6 28. h4 g5 29. fxg5 hxg5
30. h5 Kg7 31. a4 Kh6 32. a5 Ng7 33. Kd4 c5+ 34. Kxc5 Nxh5 35. Kb6 g4
1/2-1/2

Darse Billings

unread,
Sep 4, 1994, 1:28:38 PM9/4/94
to
M.D.Cr...@bradford.ac.uk writes:

>Intel Speed Chess Grand Prix. LONDON.

>[...]



>The speed playoff games were both drawn. [6 mins to white, 5 to black,
>draw odds.] Anand and Nikolic qualify.

>[...]



>The playoff was Kramnik 1/2 Ivanchuk so Ivanchuk qualifies
>because Black had draw odds (in return for a time disadvantage
>of White 6 mins - Black 5 mins.)

>[...]



>FINAL

>7pm Anand - Ivanchuk

>The final was conducted in the following manner.
>A two game series of 25 mins per side games. When
>this was tied, there was a two game series of
>5 minute per side games. When this was tied there
>was a 6 minutes to white and 5 minutes to black game
>where black got draw odds for tie-breaking purposes.

>[Ivanchuk wins the tiebreak and the title]

Does anyone else think this tiebreak system is really dumb?

Giving draw odds in exchange for 6-5 time odds must be an *enormous*
advantage for Black, especially at that level of competition. Black can
play a very safe, dull style, and White will be forced to take all the
risks. In fact, the advantage may be so large that it affects the way
the previous games are played as well. I would be very surprised if
Ivanchuk wasn't fully aware of his "Ace in the hole" during the final
and semi-final matches.

Not only is the tie-break unfair, but it also encourages boring "play
for the draw" chess. The games may still be decisive, because of the
clock, but the moves played may be less exciting than would otherwise
be the case. The fact that White is forced to take chances in the last
game doesn't qualify as exciting chess either, in my opinion, because
those risks may be contrived or even downright stupid (but forced).

So what are the alternatives? Here is a suggestion: assign different
tiebreak values to the different kinds of draws. This may apply to just
the final speed game, or could be applied to all draws occurring during
the match. Here are some ideas for assigning tiebreak values:

Stalemate: 1.00 for the player forcing the stalemate
(0.00 for the player who cannot make a legal move)

Perpetual Check: 0.70 for the checking player (0.30 to the defender)

Three-fold Repetition: 0.55 for the player initiating the
sequence (0.45 for the player who accepts the repetition)

Draw by the Fifty Move rule: 0.50 for each player, *or* 0.51 for
Black (draw odds) if a decisive result is absolutely essential

Draw by agreement: 0.50 for each player, *or* allow the two
players to negotiate an agreement from 0.00 to 1.00 for each
(must add to 1.00 and not to be divided beyond hundredths)

This last idea is an interesting option for regular chess tournaments.
Instead of just offering a draw, the offering player also specifies a
tiebreak value for the game. For example, the player defending the weak
side might say "I offer a draw and will give you 0.60 of the tiebreak
point", and then hit his clock. The opponent might reply "I will accept
for 67% of the tiebreak" (or the rule might be that she either accepts
the offer, or makes a move and then offers a new deal).

So far, these tiebreak values do not affect the main result of a draw,
which is still one half of a point for each player. Ultimately, it
might be interesting to use these values as the actual result of the
game. It could help avoid the necessity of tiebreaks to decide
tournament prizes, and would add a healthy new element to the game.

Cheers, -Darse.
--
Go is better than Chess. Poker is more lucrative. Sex is more fun.

Darse Billings, 7 kyu; 2065 CFC; meaningless IRC sb/hand ratios:
(rayzor on IRC) Hold'em +0.22 ; HiLo Omaha +0.36

Christopher F. Chabris

unread,
Sep 5, 1994, 2:21:30 AM9/5/94
to
da...@cs.ualberta.ca (Darse Billings) writes:

>Does anyone else think this tiebreak system is really dumb?
>
>Giving draw odds in exchange for 6-5 time odds must be an *enormous*
>advantage for Black, especially at that level of competition. Black can
>play a very safe, dull style, and White will be forced to take all the
>risks. In fact, the advantage may be so large that it affects the way
>the previous games are played as well. I would be very surprised if
>Ivanchuk wasn't fully aware of his "Ace in the hole" during the final
>and semi-final matches.

Normally the toss for colors is done again before the blitz tiebreak
game, so neither player has an "ace in the hole" during the 25-minute
games (or the extra two blitz games in the recent Anand-Ivanchuk final).
The only real problem with this tiebreak system seems to be that the
toss-winners choose Black more than half the time, suggesting that Black
does have the advantage (although I haven't examined the results of the
6-5 games to verify this), and thus that winning the toss gives you good
chances of winning the match on average. Perhaps the situation could be
remedied by making the odds 6-4 instead. The basic idea is not unsound,
however, and is a quick but not completely random way to determine a
winner in a fixed amount of time, an important consideration for events
of this nature.

-Chris

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages