Candidates Tournament, Round 9: Gelfand Beats Aronian, While Carlsen Holds Off Kramnik And Leads
With five rounds to go, Magnus Carlsen finished today's round of the Candidates with a double dose of good news. First, though under serious pressure from Vladimir Kramnik, he managed to survive a pawn down to keep a full point lead over the ex-champion. Second, Levon Aronian, with whom he (Carlsen) was tied coming into the round, lost to Boris Gelfand. That leaves Carlsen in clear first with three white games left and no more games against his main rivals. Good news for him, and bad news for Aronian and Kramnik.
In the other games, Vassily Ivanchuk played more quickly against Teimour Radjabov, and was rewarded with his first win of the tournament. Finally, the game between Peter Svidler and Alexander Grischuk was a spectacular draw that was far more interesting (if less competitively significant) than the Kramnik-Carlsen and Gelfand-Aronian battles. You can check it out, with my notes, here.
Standings After Round 9:
1. Carlsen 6
2. Aronian 5.5
3. Kramnik 5
4-5. Gelfand, Grischuk 4.5
6. Svidler 4
7. Ivanchuk 3.5
8. Radjabov 3
Round 10 Pairings (Wednesday; Tuesday is a rest day):
- Carlsen - Gelfand (Gelfand is 2-0 this cycle; but 3-0?)
- Aronian - Ivanchuk (Also interesting, now that Ivanchuk seems to have realized that practicality has its place.)
- Radjabov - Svidler
- Grischuk - Kramnik (Kramnik is rapidly running out of opportunities, and may have to take some risks with the black pieces.)
Reader Comments (2)
Unaware of the specifics of the agreement between Dennis and Chessbase, it seems to me that the sentence:
"...you could if the ChessBase service was working" should be "would work if ChessBase were serving".
All you say about the opening of Ivanchuk-Radjabov is that Rfc1 is a "TN". How is it a TN - what makes it better than previous attempts, if anything? And since it is such a natural and thematic move, how can it be a TN anyway - why wasn't it played already if it is good?
[DM: All an "N" (I didn't write "TN", though it's the same thing) means is that it's the first time a move has been played in a particular position. It doesn't mean it's necessarily significant or better than what came before. Sometimes it is, sometimes it's not. And there don't have to be many predecessors; just one. Sometimes it's an earlier move that's more significant, and although it may not have been a novelty it might have been very rare and not yet been a part of mainstream theory. Such was the case here: it was Ivanchuk's 12.Be2 that was a bit off the beaten path; 12.Bd3 and 12.c4 are the more mainstream theoretical lines.]