Man, that was a weird match. Gelfand played to trap Grishuk in every game. Grishuk was at least trying to win with an attack.

For a while it would look like Grishuk would win, but then allowed himself to get trapped, or perhaps it was a trap all along, hard to tell. He played this solid looking ..b6, but I wondered why not retreat that bishop back somewhere, to e6 or f7, let White take the b-pawn and keep bearing down on White’s king a bit more.

Grishuk resigns with 45 seconds, but I don’t understand why since it’s bishop, and knight for rook and a pawn I believe.


8 thoughts on “Gelfand?

  1. No, sorry, a piece down, since the knight fork vanishes. And Gelfand has the two bishops, and Grischuk had no time.

  2. Frankly, with all my sympathy to Grischuk, I didn’t like his strategy (though it worked for him) to draw all classic games, then win in quick ones.
    You can’t be a finalist playing this way, and you can’t beat Anand with it too.

  3. Grishuk took more chances, whereas Gelfand kept the draw in hand at all times (which he said in so many words of his last game himself).

    I think Grishuk made a big mistake in not thinking he could sit back and draw it and then go to the rapids. He said that …Rh5 was his only active try, but I think he could have sat on his derriere and waited out the draw, then play his best blitz in the rapids.

    It was apparent that this game would be won by one side or the other.

    Now it must be completely obvious to Anand that Gelfand is playing safely and waiting for the other person to over-reach. The only excitement to come from that match was on Grishuk’s part, I am afraid. Anand will most likely take care of Gelfand. Grishuk gave Gelfand a lot of time on his clock.

    I was surprised that Grishuk had such a gloomy view of his position and thought that Gelfands move 13.b3, or whichever move it was on, was some kind of powerful novelty. I can almost assure him that passive play by Gelfand is not novel for Gelfand. hehe. I don’t think Grishuk’s position was losing as much as he felt it was, the different tries. I think he didn’t manage his clock well and began to play on the queenside too much, which gave White’s pieces a purpose besides just sitting over there.

    Yes, I admire Grishuk’s courage, but he went for the win as Black, which is more risky. Grishuk was great at seeing the tactical complications, but the time spent on strategy may have walloped him more. I have to believe he made one too many rook moves, and one too many pawn moves on the queenside.

    21…Nd5 is maybe where he got into trouble (my guess). How about 21…Nb4 (controlling the d5 square), 22.Bf3 Ra5, 23.e4 c6. Then Black would like to trade pieces on d5 (same idea Grishuk had), but without all the negative complications. See why that should work? If Bf3 Ra5, Qd2 is not hitting Nb4 because Nc3 is in the way, so Black has time to play …Ra5-a8 before any Nb4 retreat, should one be necessary. This is what I’m thinking, anyway.

  4. Grischuk is a poker player, and played to enhance his odds by heading for blitz where he is perhaps the strongest in the field. Gelfand however is a mean blitz player himself, so Grischuk stopped chucking his Whites in the final. Congrats to Gelfand.

    “I already mentioned the first time I lost a Candidates Match to Short, in 1991… [he described it as the most painful defeat of his career] At that time, by the way, among the match losers were Ivanchuk, Anand, myself and Korchnoi… I remember as if it were today the closing ceremony at which Korchnoi sat between me and Ivanchuk. And he said: “guys, don’t get upset, you’ve got every chance of becoming World Champion. I reached my peak playing in Bagio, aged 47… Then I played another match for the World Championship when I was 50. In this hall here there are lots of guys who shout that they’re going to be world champion, or promise they will be. They haven’t got a hope, while you’ve got every chance. So work on it and everything will be OK”. I remembered Victor’s words and continue to work, not thinking about results, but about the process of improvement itself.” Gelfand,

  5. Thanks for the link, Katar! I did check out a few of those Crestbook articles. It has interesting to hear Karpov’s take on past world champions in that one article. Anand is a product of the computer generation. haha. I think Anand is a great positional player, tactical/positional player. I would study his games if I were to study any of those from the current generation of players.

  6. Hey Linux Guy!

    I think the process for picking contenders was flawed. They should have just picked the top 8 rated players after Anand (and Carlsen after he dropped out).

    Kamsky and Gelfand are not even in the top 15! (of course I am not even in the top 1,000,000!!) I think it would have been much more exciting to see Nakamura and Ivanchuk in there!

    Just think if either of those two had made it through? I think Anand-Nakamura(or Ivanchuk) sounds like a much more exciting match then Anand-Gelfand (I draw therefore I win)

    Maybe Carlsen was right? Maybe the whole thing is a bit of a mess!

  7. “(I draw therefore I win)” LOL!

    Carlsen should have been able to win that, but I think it was more interesting the way it went.

    Maybe next cycle they will manage to find a dwarf GM, or one that swallows swords, just to keep it interesting. It was interesting to watch “young master Grishuk”. 😉 Perhaps he and Gelfand held my attention and got me to think about playing better chess. 😀

    I can’t believe they are going to make us wait until next year for the Final.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s