Round 4
In the battle sure to capture the attention of the chess world for decade to come, the game Shirov-Short had us all enthralled. Shirov went on a sacrificial rampage, first tossing a Knight and then a Queen for a Rook into attack. It was gambling and swindling at its very best. Short appeared to have several chances to gain an advantage but we were unable to show a forced win for him. Shirov is to be heartily congratulated for his victory. Nisipianu- Ivanchuk was a tactical melee, which saw white playing a piece attack against Black’s King. Ivanchuk had the better chance at the end but exhaustion prevented him from properly exploiting his chances.
Topalov came prepared with a new idea against Kramnik’s Petroff Defense. It was nice too see the Petroff finally coming under some serious pressure. Pity it wasn’t enough as Kramnik while suffering kept the draw. Georgiev- Akopian was another hard fought draw. Akopian seemed to have missed a trick, which forced him to part with minor piece for a Rook. Perhaps Georgiev missed a winning moment but credit has to go to Akopian for making life as difficult as possible. A very good game. Khalifman and Gelfand played an intriguing Najdorf/Bolevslavky Sicilian. Enterprising play by both players produced a complex position neither player could solve. An interesting draw was the result. Adams – Dreev and Polgar-Zvjaginsev were short draw.
In the second day Short knew he had to defeat Shirov to stay in the competition. His choice of the King’s Gambit showed that he doesn’t have much against the Petroff defence. Still a tactical melee ensued which ended with Shirov having to play very well to draw the game. Another match that turned to normalcy was Ivanchuk-Nisipeanu. An isolated Queen pawn’s position rose which saw Ivanchuk trying to explore a slight advantage. Without determined effort he wasn’t successful and the match will be decided in a tiebreak. V. Topaov fell into a seemingly strategically lost position of the QGA Defence. Kramnik seemed to be on the verge of putting on a positional clamp and immediate qualification into the next round. Amazingly, Topalov was able to hang though and force a tiebreaker, Kramnik’s first in the competition. Akopian managed to win a pawn in a Rook ending but it seemed destined to be draw. Georgiev misplayed the ending and Akopian was the second player to qualify for the next round of play. Gelfand hit a brick wall against Khalifman’s Slav Defence. Once more he was unable to gain an advantage against this opening, circumstance which has dogged him throughout the competition. We were treated to 14 rough and tumble moves between Dreev and Adams before exhaustion stopped play. The commentators were left believing that the tiebreaker system was designed to shorten the lives of the players and spectators. The back and forth action in the match Dreev and Adams was really too much. The second series was even more eventful. Good technique and Adams had draw first blood. Needing to only a draw to qualify, Adams played a model defensive game. The Ivanchuk-Nisipeanu featured such a shocking conclusion as to be nearly indescribable. Ivanchuk blundered and resigned when he lost a piece. Movsesian is proving to be quite a talented tie break player, He badly outplayed Fedorov in the second pair of tiebreak game to claim the match. Another heartbeaker was Topalov’s loss to Kramnik. In the first game he was completely outplayed. I the second game Topalov played very well to get a won position but blundered away the game.
- Topalov (BUL) – V. Kramnik (RUS) 0.5-0.5, 0.5-0.5, 2-0
- Adams (ENG) – Dreev (RUS) 0.5-0.5, 0.5-0.5, 3-1
- Movsesian (CZE) – Fedorov (RUS) 0.5-0.5, 0.5-0.5, 2.5-1.5
- K Georgiev (BUL) – V. Akopian (ARM) 0.5-1.5
- Judith Polgar (HUN) – Zvjaginsev (RUS) 0.5-0.5, 0.5-0.5, 2-0
- Khalifman (RUS) – B. Gelfand (ISR) 0.5-0.5, 0.5-0.5, 1.5-0.5
- Nisipeanu (ROM) – V. Ivanchuk (UKR) 0.5-0.5, 0.5-0.5, 1.5-0.5
- Shirov (ESP) – N. Short (ENG) 1.5-0.5 0-0.5
Round 5
The first game games of the quarter-finals matches started slowly as the players have moved into the most stressful rounds. Now the players are playing for really big money and no one wants to make the last mistake. This stress was especially clear in the match, V. Akopian- S. Movsesian. The player of the round was A. Khalifman. With excellent preparation, he played very well against J. Polgar. Combining strategic play with tactical shot, White gains a pawn and converted this advantage into a deserving victory.
A remarkable round 5 game 2 as the unknown player Nisipeanu of Romania pulls of yet another surprise, this time as Black against one to the pre-tournament favourites, A. Shirov. A very complicated Caro-Kan middle game which saw the Spaninsh to make an unnecessary check (23.Bf4) and loss control of his devastating attack. Needing only a draw to be qualified, Khalifman played a solid game and had no trouble to achieve a draw. Akopian and Movsesian had a quite Petroff affair with an early draw. Top- rated Kramnik had a comfortable position as Black and Adams was unable to formulate an active plan thus a draw was unavoidable.
The playoffs clearly illustrated the importance of cool nerves in tense situations. Two of the coolest players of the tournament, Adams and Akopian advanced to the next stage. Although overshadowed by the Kramnik-Adams duel, Akopian-Movsesian was also very tense. The first game at g/25 was the decisive one. In the next g/25 in a must win game Movsesian played without much energy and was gradually outplayed by Akopian in a blocked position.
- Polgar (HUN) – A. Khalifman (RUS) 0.5-1.5
- V. Kramnik (RUS) – M. Adams (ENG) 1.0-1.0 (1-3)
- V. Akopian (ARM)- S. Movsesian (CZE) 1.0-1.0 (1.5-0.5)
- L. Nisipeanu (ROM) – A. Shirov (ESP) 1.5-0.5
Vladimir Kramnik, in which state of mind are you some hours after your defeat against Michael Adams?
A: My feelings are quite negative. Maybe it’s not right, but I was pretty sure that if I would manage to win against Adams, I would also win this World Championship. But I stumbled over what I considered being the last step. You can never be sure in such event. The chance of an accident is pretty high, even you are objectively stronger that some other players. In this system, it doesn’t help so much to know that you are the strongest at the rankings. You can lose even if you feel very confident.
Q: You looked rather exhausted in your tie-break against Adams?
A: Everybody is tired. But somehow, Adams managed not to blunder anything. And I started to blunder.
Q: But don’t you think that you missed your chance in the second game, when you were in a better position?
A: Yes, I failed in this second game. I already blundered, what caused the draw, in one move, despite of a better position. I had reasonable chances to win, till this mistake. I was pretty worried about the state of my mind. I started to make illogical moves. I absolutely forgot this. I was very disappointed after this game. Not really because I didn’t manage to win, but for I started to make such mistakes. I was worried that my brain was not working properly. Under such conditions, everything can happen.
Q: What do you think about this system?
A: I have no real reason to complain for myself, but I don’t like it so much. I would have pretended the same, even if I would have become World Champion, it doesn’t matter. First of all, the luck play a too high role. To win here, you just need some luck, and I hadn’t enough of it. For me, I had to play Tiviakov already in the secound round, later Topalov at the 1/8 and Adams at the quarter finals. But I am more concerned by the quality of chess…
Q: What do you mean?
A: We are used to play maximum two weeks tournaments. And suddendly, we have to compete a whole month. For me, but I don’t think I’m the only one, I could clearly feel that my level was decreasing after 12-13 days. I know how to handle 12 days, but I never had the experience for one month. You cannot play well chess after three weeks. The level is going worse at each stage. The first semi-finals games were not so good and, to tell the truth, I don’t know what will happen for the final. Everbody is playing under his level, it’s a shame, it’s not good for chess. I’m not the only one to have blundered here.
Q: So, which system would you suggest for a World Championship?
A: It depends on what the FIDE wants to do. If they consider to organize next year the same kind of event, that’s great. I would play, if it’s serious. So far I know, everybody here got his money and there have been no complains. It’s good that it happens. What is more important is that it continues to happen.
Q: There will be a new FIDE World Champion, there will be a match Kasparov-Anand. Where is the place of Vladimir Kramnik in this new constellation?
A: I just have to play and try winning the next World Chamionship. Well, it’s my fault that I couldn’t win here. I don’t know if the Kasparov-Anand match will take place or not. But why should I care? I’m not concerned, as far as I know. But I think it’s not so quite correct, especially for Shirov: he is a kind of “official” challenger, he had the right to play this match. Maybe an official right, and in any case a moral right.
Q: What will be the weight of the new World Champion?
A: I don’t see where is the problem, he will be World Champion, that’s all. With this new system, we know that maybe, it isn’t the strongest player at the moment that wins the tournament. But it’s also sometimes the case in big tennis events. The chess world is very conservative. We have to adapt to this new kind of situation and to the new World Champion. It’s doesn’t matter if he is named Kramnik, Adams or Nisipeanu.
Q: And the absence of Kasparov, Anand or Karpov?
A: It’s their own decision. If they want to play, they are welcome. If not, what can we do? The Chess World is in bad shape and would become much better if all these conversations would stop. A consensus should be found. But again, the winner in Las Vegas will be World Champion, that’s all.
Round 6
SEMI-FINALS DAYS 1+2
Vladimir Akopian put himself in charge of his match against Michael Adams by provoking and then surviving a promising piece sacrifice from Adams and going on to win as black. Adams’ sacrifice seemed to be taking him to victory but the position was pretty difficult to realise. 30. Bxe6 may have been a mistake (30. Rad1 is one possible suggestion), after 30. …Qe7 it appears that Adams is losing a bishop by force.
Although there are four games in the semi-finals a win “against serve” with black puts Akopian in a very strong position. Liviu Nisipeanu held Alexander Khalifman with black, however in time-trouble missed 38. Ra1 which seems to win on the spot.
On day two of round 6 there were two short draws (Akopian-Adams 16 moves [Adams said “I made the offer in a slightly worse position. I felt that I had little to gain by playing on. If I took any risks and lost today, it would be all over.” and Nisipeanu-Khalifman 28 moves).
DAY 3
Vladimir Akopian went through to the finals of the FIDE Chess Championships. He defeated Michael Adams after the Englishman tried a different approach and lost with White. Akopian refused a draw and finished the match after only three games winning 2.5-0.5. Akopian seemed likely to be joined by Alexander Khalifman who got a very big edge in space and development and used it to finally inflict defeat on the young Romanian L. Nisipeanu.
ROUND 6 DAY 4
Nisipeanu leveled his match against Khalifman after winning a long ending against the Russian. Khalifman looked to have a position that should have been relatively easy to hold but he drifted into a lost position.
ROUND 6 PLAYOFFS
Alexander Khalifman finally saw off the challenge of the surprise package L. Nisipeanu in the playoffs for the World Championships semi-finals. Khalifman won the first game of their playoffs but then was much worse in the second game; Nisipeanu couldn’t find a way through to win though. Khalifman qualified to play Akopian for the FIDE title starting on Sunday.
- Nisipeanu (ROM) – A. Khalifman (RUS) 0.5-0.5, 0.5-0.5, 0-1, 1-0, 0.5-1.5
- V. Akopian (ARM) – M. Adams (ENG) 1-0, 0.5-0.5, 1-0
Final
Alexander Khalifman was born January 18, 1966 in Leningrad. Six years old, little Sasha was taught chess by his father. First trainer in Leningrad Pioneer Palace was Wassili Byvshev, one of the most successful chess masters in the Soviet Union in the Fifties. Later on distance chess master and author Genady Neses became his main trainer. He supported him for more than two decades and also was at his side in Las Vegas from the quarter finals onwards.
The title of Grand Master of Chess Alexander Khalifman received in 1990. He so far reached many of the first or top ranks in highly competitive tournaments.
In 1982 he become the USSR Youth Championship and in 1984 the USSR champion Won in 1990 the New York Open and Groningen, in 1993 Ter Apel. In 1996 became Russian Champion and score another victory in 1997 at the Chess Grand Master Tournament St. Peterburg