Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

Russian Championship Superfinal (2013) The 66th Russian Championship Superfinal was played in the Nizhny Novgorod State Museum of History and Architecture in Nizhny Novgorod, Russia, 5-14 October 2013. Rest day: October 10. Organizers: Russian Chess Federation and the Elena and Gennady Timchenko Foundation, with the support of the Government of the Nizhny Novgorod Region. Time control: 90 minutes for 40 moves, 30 more minutes to the end of the game, with a 30 second increment from move 1. No negotiated draws allowed before move 40. Games started at 3 pm, last round at 1 pm local time. Prize fund: 4.3 million rubles (~US $78,800), with 1,100,000 rubles (~US $20,000) to the winner. If players tied for first, a playoff would be held with shortened time control. Elo 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 =1 Svidler 2740 * 1 ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ 1 1 6½ =1 Nepomniachtchi 2702 0 * 1 1 1 ½ 1 ½ ½ 1 6½ 3 Vitiugov 2729 ½ 0 * ½ 1 ½ ½ 1 1 ½ 5½ 4 Kramnik 2796 ½ 0 ½ * 0 ½ 1 1 1 1 5½ 5 Andreikin 2706 0 0 0 1 * 1 ½ 1 ½ 1 5 6 Karjakin 2762 ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 * ½ ½ ½ 1 4½ 7 Inarkiev 2695 ½ 0 ½ 0 ½ ½ * 1 1 ½ 4½ 8 Goganov 2575 ½ ½ 0 0 0 ½ 0 * 1 1 3½ 9 Motylev 2676 0 ½ 0 0 ½ ½ 0 0 * 1 2½ 10 Shomoev 2579 0 0 ½ 0 0 0 ½ 0 0 * 1 Category: XVIII (2696). Chief arbiter: Anatoly Bykhovsky Peter Svidler won the Rapid playoff 1½ to ½ (Russian Superfinals (2013) (kibitz #444)) and became Russian champion for the 7th time. Vitiugov was 3rd on tiebreak. Official site: http://ruchess.ru/championship/deta... Wikipedia article: Russian Chess Championship#2013 Chess-Results: https://chess-results.com/tnr112700... Chess Siberia: http://chessib.com/russian-chess-ch... ChessBase: https://en.chessbase.com/post/ruian... TWIC: http://theweekinchess.com/chessnews... FIDE: https://www.fide.com/component/cont... Previous: Russian Championship Superfinal (2012). Next: Russian Championship Superfinal (2014). Women's section: Russian Championship Superfinal (Women) (2013)  page 2 of 2; games 26-45 of 45  Game   Result Moves Year Event/Locale Opening 26. Svidler vs Motylev 1-0 56 2013 Russian Championship Superfinal D43 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav 27. A Shomoev vs Karjakin 0-1 38 2013 Russian Championship Superfinal E21 Nimzo-Indian, Three Knights 28. Kramnik vs E Inarkiev 1-0 52 2013 Russian Championship Superfinal B20 Sicilian 29. D Andreikin vs A Goganov 1-0 36 2013 Russian Championship Superfinal D00 Queen's Pawn Game 30. Nepomniachtchi vs Vitiugov 1-0 38 2013 Russian Championship Superfinal B47 Sicilian, Taimanov (Bastrikov) Variation 31. A Goganov vs A Shomoev 1-0 60 2013 Russian Championship Superfinal A45 Queen's Pawn Game 32. E Inarkiev vs Svidler   ½-½ 41 2013 Russian Championship Superfinal E60 King's Indian Defense 33. Vitiugov vs Kramnik ½-½ 49 2013 Russian Championship Superfinal A34 English, Symmetrical 34. Motylev vs D Andreikin ½-½ 32 2013 Russian Championship Superfinal B42 Sicilian, Kan 35. Karjakin vs Nepomniachtchi   ½-½ 35 2013 Russian Championship Superfinal D85 Grunfeld 36. Svidler vs Vitiugov   ½-½ 23 2013 Russian Championship Superfinal A33 English, Symmetrical 37. Kramnik vs Karjakin ½-½ 48 2013 Russian Championship Superfinal E06 Catalan, Closed, 5.Nf3 38. A Shomoev vs Nepomniachtchi 0-1 65 2013 Russian Championship Superfinal A41 Queen's Pawn Game (with ...d6) 39. D Andreikin vs E Inarkiev   ½-½ 57 2013 Russian Championship Superfinal A30 English, Symmetrical 40. A Goganov vs Motylev 1-0 41 2013 Russian Championship Superfinal C41 Philidor Defense 41. Karjakin vs Svidler ½-½ 50 2013 Russian Championship Superfinal D85 Grunfeld 42. Vitiugov vs D Andreikin 1-0 44 2013 Russian Championship Superfinal E32 Nimzo-Indian, Classical 43. E Inarkiev vs A Goganov   1-0 51 2013 Russian Championship Superfinal E92 King's Indian 44. Motylev vs A Shomoev 1-0 55 2013 Russian Championship Superfinal B51 Sicilian, Canal-Sokolsky (Rossolimo) Attack 45. Nepomniachtchi vs Kramnik 1-0 77 2013 Russian Championship Superfinal A35 English, Symmetrical  page 2 of 2; games 26-45 of 45    REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2)   < Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 15 OF 16 ·  Later Kibitzing> Oct-16-13    perfidious: <Absentee: Now thump your chest and proclaim you won with another fit of kibitzing-diarrhea.....> Same as <Big Pawn> over at Rogoff, he needs no urging to shout his primacy from the rooftops-y'all don't believe he's great, he'll tell ya! <....Or don't. Whatever floats your boat.> The clearly preferred, though not at all likely option. Within a matter of hours, the pseudo-philosopher shall regale these pages with yet another blast of verbal flatulence. Can't wait. Oct-16-13    Everett: < alexmagnus: It's not like Carlsen wins his tournaments by huge margins. He just wins them very often.> That's right. Oct-16-13    Gypsy: <Everett: < alexmagnus: It's not like Carlsen wins his tournaments by huge margins. He just wins them very often.> That's right. > You guys realize that we can easily check links to the tables of Magnus Carlsen tournaments from his pages, right? Anyone interested can peruse those tournament results; see how often Carlsen wins and see how often those wins are by a narrow margin versus by a fairly wide margin. Fo rinstance, in the reverse order, Carlsen's four tournaments this year are: Sinquefield Cup (2013) Tal Memorial (2013) Norway Chess Tournament (2013) Tata Steel (2013) Oct-16-13    alexmagnus: <Gypsy> So what does it say? Two tournaments won and two not. Of the two won only one by a big margin, Wijk. As for the two not won - well, both were 2800+ performances. Just as I said - it are not huge winning margins which give Carlsen his rating (after all the argument was "Karpov didn't try to win by huge margins"). It is his extreme consistency (what was his last sub-2800 performance?). Which others players are lacking (the tournament winner always perform around MC's current rating - but the winners are different). Also, you forgot Candadates (won on tiebreaker). Oct-16-13    alexmagnus: Gelfam's performance in Tal Memorial was 2900 (Carlsen's: 2847). Karjakin's in Norway was 2883 (Carlsen's: 2834). So yeah, when Carlsen doesn't win tournaments, it's someone performing above his (Carlsen's!) rating who wins. Someone shining. Oct-16-13    alexmagnus: < 2883> 2886 I mean Oct-16-13    alexmagnus: Gelfand's Oct-16-13    Everett: <Stick to wrestling.> I will, thank you, in between reading up on permaculture http://www.patternliteracy.com/, trying to find time for the next Tuffte course http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/co... , solving some chess puzzles and finishing up Invisible Cities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisi.... Also raising a boy and trying to be a loving partner. So thanks for your suggestion to stick with all that. Here is an idea that you may have missed: I am requesting (albeit crassly) a more nuanced view of everything, really. The more our world sinks into stats, the more we use numbers to claim truth about anything, instead of using it as a tool to understand relationships, the less human we become. I see people becoming slaves to theorems and proofs. We need to keep them in their place, as our slaves. Here is some Rudolf Steiner inspired thinking on the matter in general. http://www.waldorftoday.com/2013/01... If the math-geek part of you got pissed off at my stained sheets post, good. Sometimes an aspersion can smack someone awake, to lift themselves from the page and smell reality (and realize they have some laundry to do). Just as math-heads are a lot more than just number crunchers, I am of course a lot more than gut feelings. As far as who is best, I don't care. I am merely playing devil's advocate to fanboy idiocy. My bio sums it up. In fact, one can argue that it is the duty of the reasonable on this site to troll fanboy idiots. Oct-16-13    Overgod: <: Regarding the study summarized here http://en.chessbase.com/Home/TabId/... with all due respect, I do not agree with its basis, essentially a comparison of best choice computer/program moves with what human players actually played. For starters, different computers and different programs would have different best choices. Perhaps that is why such a study could come to what for me looks like a weird conclusion: <According to the 20-ply Houdini, Magnus Carlsen achieved the best computer score at the FIDE Candidates Tournament 2013. Probably the greatest surprise is an excellent computer score by Alexander Grischuk, who finished the tournament with less that 50% points in the tournament table! According to the analysis, Vladimir Kramnik also played at a very high level.> I find it incomprehensible that Grischuk can play better than Aronian, Svidler, and Kramnik and yet still score less points than them.> I already wrote a bit about this in another forum. It's no accident that Grishuk rated very highly in terms of accurate play. He indeed was playing very well, except his time management was poor, so he ended up losing games on time or blundering under time pressure. But all the previous moves up to that point indicated that he was winning or at least drawing most of his games. He for example blundered a winning position against Kramnik (if memory serves) because of time pressure. It's not the mistake of Houdini to indicate that Grishuk was playing very well. It's Grishuk's mistake that he failed to capitalize on it. Maybe that will teach him a lesson and make him stronger. I also think to avoid issues such as this, players should be given a 10 or 15 second increment from move one onward. I can't stand seeing Chucky throw away games because of time trouble... It seems as if the increment serves most players well. Oct-16-13    nok: Carlsen often wins, sure enough. But for example, when he refused a 1st-clinching draw in St Louis, I thought huh, Karpov would be in the plane to his next tourn already. Compare game 24 of Karpov vs Korchnoi, 1974. Oct-16-13    alexmagnus: Karpov about that game - "the last game has its own laws"... To Carlsen, drawing in a better position is not an option, no matter the tournament situation. But he usually takes time to reach the better position - out of the opening he usually comes out equal or slightly worse. Oct-16-13    nok: My point exactly, Carlsen will try hard no matter situation and color. In that respect he resembles more Kasparov. Or it's the spirit of the times, with all the anti-draw blabber. Oct-16-13    visayanbraindoctor: <Overgod> My point is that I do not agree with the validity of the study you referred to. Another point troubles me. Why are so many people accepting such a study without critical thinking when its conclusion (with all due respect to the authors who must have worked hard but IMO based their study on wrong assumptions) looks downright illogical. As I mentioned <I find it incomprehensible that Grischuk can play better than Aronian, Svidler, and Kramnik and yet still score less points than them.> Just because it's printed in a respected chess publication? Oct-17-13    visayanbraindoctor: <Absentee> You're right regarding ratings. If you look at my profile, you'll see we share the same views on this. Oct-17-13    visayanbraindoctor: <Arcturar: The argument that the top players of Karpov's day were all weak is stupid; had Karpov not been so damn strong, his contemporaries would look just like today's top players in terms of results.> I call it the narcissistic generation syndrome. Everything in the here and now is seen as intrinsically superior to the past. Anyway, I am surprised some chess fans seem to be unfamiliar with Karpov's chess strength. Just a refresher course. If we were living in 1974, what would we rabid chess fans be seeing? Fischer has gone on self-exile. From the Soviet Union a young star rises, Karpov, looking as thin as a feather but bowling over everyone in his quest for the Title. He is about 22, roughly the same age today as Carlsen, Kajakin, Andreikin, Nepo, MVL. etc.. In that year, feather thin Karpov participates in the Nice Olympiad, beating GMs Hort, Unzicker, Schmidt, and a bunch of other lesser masters, winning the gold, and then mows down Polugaevsky, Spassky, and Korchnoi in grueling tension filled Candidates matches. Karpov 5.5 Polugaevsky 2.5 Game Collection: WCC Index (Polugaevsky-Karpov 1974) Karpov 7 Spassky 4 Game Collection: WCC Index (Karpov-Spassky 1974) Karpov 12.5 Korchnoi 11.5 (+3 -2 =19) Karpov-Korchnoi Candidates Match (1974) Just imagine any today's rising stars doing that to a Polugaevsky, Spassky, and Korchnoi who were at their prime. Carlsen could have done the same if he were age 22 but living in 1974, but I doubt if any of the others could. Oct-17-13    alexmagnus: Spassky was hardly in his prime in 1974. After the loss to Fischer he was more or less on a steady decline. Oct-17-13    nimh: It's impossible to draw any trustworthy conclusions from the latest Guid's study. They used fixed depth 20 which could be good enough in middlegames and late openings, but it's useless in endgames, as the engine reaches a certain depth quicker. Even if they had used the correct time-per-move approach, they would have found nothing more than the <accuracy> of play, not the <quality> of play. Oct-17-13    Absentee: <nimh: Even if they had used the correct time-per-move approach, they would have found nothing more than the <accuracy> of play, not the <quality> of play.> What's the difference? Oct-17-13    nok: In 1973 Spassky brilliantly won one of the strongest Soviet championships. Pretty good for a has-been. Game Collection: USSR Championship 1973 Oct-17-13    boz: <...Karpov, looking as thin as a feather but bowling over everyone in his quest for the Title.> As Camille Coudari put it in "The Great Chess Movie": "His thinness was the thinness of steel." Oct-17-13    Gypsy: < nok: In 1973 Spassky brilliantly won one of the strongest Soviet championships. Pretty good for a has-been. Game Collection: USSR Championship 1973 > Pretty good for a has been. However, Spassky himself confirms in interviews <alexmagnus> claim. <Spassky was hardly in his prime in 1974. After the loss to Fischer he was more or less on a steady decline.> Essentially, Spassky says that he 'fried' his brain during the Fischer match (such was the tension of it and stress) and that he never recovered. Even us, Mr general public, can see his subsequent decline. And I personally have no problem believing his own assessment of his play in 1974. (Czech chess journals have the Spassky interviews that I loosely paraphrase.) Oct-17-13    perfidious: <boz>: Coudari, of slender build, would know a thing or three on the topic of thinness. IIRC, it was a trait inherited from Coudari <pere>. Oct-17-13    perfidious: Fischer had that way about him-Larsen, too, was not quite the same after the affair at Denver 1971. Oct-17-13    Gypsy: In a way, it tells us how mentally tough was <Lasker>: He resigned(!) his match with Capablanca when, despite his best effort, he was facing a complete collapse and shellacking. (It is easy to forget that at the time of the score +4 =10 -0 for Capa, the match was possibly reaching only its half-way point.) Yet, Lasker stayed at his extraordinary strength till practically his dying days. Perhaps it is the fighters (Lasker, Korchnoi) who claw their way back strong, while the artists' spirit breaks. Oct-17-13    Gypsy: Ok, the original contract for Lasker-Capa (Feb. 1920) was for 30 games; but it seems that number of games was reduced to 24 before the match started. (And, of course, only 14 games were actually played.) Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 16) search thread:    < Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 15 OF 16 ·  Later Kibitzing> NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion. Please observe our posting guidelines: No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language. No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts. No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members. Nothing in violation of United States law. No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members. No trolling. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited. Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers. Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times. See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator. NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific tournament only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café. Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors. All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration. Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes! Home | About | Login | Logout | F.A.Q. | Profile | Preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | New Kibitzing | Chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | Privacy Notice | Contact Us Copyright 2001-2025, Chessgames Services LLC