Position after 52…Rb4
GM Anand (2798) – GM Ivanchuk (2781) [C89]
02.09.2008 – Bilbao Grand Slam – Round 1
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0–0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0–0 8.c3 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Rxe5 c6 12.d4 Bd6 13.Re1 Qh4 14.g3 Qh3 15.Be3 Bg4 16.Qd3 Rae8 17.Nd2 Re6 18.Qf1 Qh5 19.f3 Rf6 20.Qe2 Bxf3 21.Nxf3 Rxf3 22.Bxd5 Qxd5 23.Bf2 Rf6 24.b3 Qf5 25.Rad1 h5 26.Rd3 h4 27.Re3 Rg6 28.c4 hxg3 29.hxg3 bxc4 30.bxc4 c5 31.Qf3 Qh3 32.Qg2 Qd7 33.dxc5 Bxc5 34.Re4 Qc7 35.Kh2 Rh6+ 36.Kg1 Rf6 37.Be3 Rd8 38.Kh2 Bxe3 39.R4xe3 Rh6+ 40.Kg1 Qc5 41.Qf2 Qh5 42.Qg2 Rd2 43.Re8+ Kh7 44.R8e2 Qc5+ 45.Qf2 Rxe2 46.Rxe2 Qxc4 47.Qf5+ g6 48.Qe4 Qc5+ 49.Kg2 Rh5 50.Rc2 Qb6 51.Rd2 Rb5 52.a4 Rb4 53.Qe7 Qc6+ 54.Kh2 Rb7 Black is doing well but Ivanchuk is in time pressure…55. Qh4+ Kg7 56. Qd4+ f6 57. a5 g5 58. Qd5 Qb5 1/2
Live video feed by ICC: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/chess-fm-live
Ivanchuck is going to lose on time.
Draw agreed
It’s a draw. Why? Ivanchuk has a better position. But doesn’t the rule says after the first 40 moves the players have 60 minutes each to finish the game. The game is not close to being finished and Ivanchuck only has 22 seconds yet. Anand should win on time. What am I missing?
Anand should have won the game on time…..the generous Anand awarded Ivanchuk a draw.Carlsen will be fearing to play Anand….Carlsen has lost to Anand in almost all previous meetings.
Ivanchuck needs to watch his time. After barely making the 40th move with seconds left on the clock. He took about 30 minutes (!!) on the 41st move. It hurts to see him lose/draw games like this.
If you watched the webcam, you could see that at the end Ivanchuk said something to the arbiter (probably that this is a draw) and Anand noded the head. They shook hands, but remain seated. The arbiter that Ivanchuk talked too left and only when he returned the score sheets were signed and the game was definatelly over. It looked like the arbiter has gone somewhere to check if he can allow the draw.
I do not see why Anand could not play on and let Ivanchuk just run out of time. It makes sense. If they do not want this, they should use increment. This stuff ruins chess.
Rule 5 –
“Players are not allowed to agree draw without arbiter´s permission. In case both players request it to him, the arbiter will make his decision after consulting with a technical assistant.”
So the only way this happened was both Anand and Ivanchuk both requested a draw to the arbiter, and the arbiter accepted. Very classy of Anand to agree on this draw.
A nice gesture of Anand. He is the gentleman of chess. Also, he must be the first #1 in the world that is easy going, with a “normal” personality.
“Also, he must be the first #1 in the world that is easy going, with a “normal” personality.”
Everyone forgets Max Euwe, because he seems overshadowed by Capablanca and Alekhine, but there was a period when he was calculated to be no. 1, and he seemed a perfect gentleman.
Besides, I’ve never heard anything against Smyslov as a decent human being
Kochnoi would have told Ivanchuk to chew on his bishop.
How come Ivanchuk manages his time so badly. I am the sort to do that too but thought that profeesionals would not be that bad. Ivanchuk could have won if he made faster decisions say after move 40.
He still spent 1 minute a move right until 20 seconds left!
Note the new scoring system in this tournament. By agreeing to a draw Anand gives up 2 points instead of 1/2 points.
Also, this is a very prestigious tournament.
Wonder if Euwe/Smyslov would do the same (I do agree that both are nice examples of non-egoistic chanpions).
As much as I would like to see Ivanchuk wins this tournament, if he does not manage his time better it won’t happen. He has to be more pratical, can’t hope to analyze every possible variations given this kind of time control.
Don’t forget, there is the 10.2 rule in the FIDE Laws of chess:
10.2 If the player, having the move, has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may claim a draw before his flag falls. He shall stop the clocks and summon the arbiter….www.fide.com/info/handbook?id=124&view=article
what Viktor said above is incomplete. the player also has to show that his opponent was making no attempt to win the game. There is no way Ivanchuk can claim that Anand was making no effort to win the game. so article 10.2 does not apply.
It does apply if Anand himself says he is making no attempt to win- ie he was defending Ivanchuk here. That covers that technicality. You can’t argue then.