Morozevich has been doing great since his long lay off. He defeated Svidler in the final round to finish 2nd in the Russian superfinal 2011.
Final round results
| Morozevich, Alexander | – Svidler, Peter | 1-0 |
| Galkin, Alexander | – Kramnik, Vladimir | 0-1 |
| Nepomniachtchi, Ian | – Karjakin, Sergey | ½ |
| Timofeev, Artyom | – Grischuk, Alexander | ½ |
Final standings
| 1. | Svidler, Peter | g | 2739 | 5 | 2869 |
| 2. | Morozevich, Alexander | g | 2694 | 4½ | 2820 |
| 3. | Karjakin, Sergey | g | 2788 | 4 | 2754 |
| 4. | Grischuk, Alexander | g | 2746 | 4 | 2760 |
| 5. | Kramnik, Vladimir | g | 2781 | 4 | 2755 |
| 6. | Nepomniachtchi, Ian | g | 2711 | 3 | 2665 |
| 7. | Galkin, Alexander | g | 2598 | 2 | 2574 |
| 8. | Timofeev, Artyom | g | 2665 | 1½ | 2492 |
Official website: http://www.russiachess.org
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
I am happy for morozevich, congratulate Svidler.
Now that I am talking here, I have a question to ask, one I haven’t figured out an answer to. For instance recently I played this french exchange game in, I wonder if the g6 system is reasonable. I haven’t really been refuted, and I’ve felt I’m less passive in it that other bishop placements, though I’m aware white might not allow me to play so, though I might try it still if he quickly plays Nf3, Bd3 and 0-0 (here he didn’t play for instance c3, but played Bg5), I might end up losing a pawn but might gain activity, anyway, this game went:
Nah, I thought to manually change the notation, but in twenty moves I made 2 mistakes, better to just relay it in this format:
1. e2-e4 e7-e6
2. g1-f3 d7-d5
3. e4xd5 e6xd5
4. d2-d4 g8-f6
5. c1-g5 g7-g6
6. f1-d3 f8-g7
7. o-o o-o
8. b1-c3 c7-c6
9. h2-h3 a7-a6
10. f1-e1 c8-e6
11. c3-a4 b7-b6
12. d1-d2 f8-e8
13. f3-e5 d8-c7
14. g5-h6 g7-h8
15. f2-f4 c6-c5
16. d4xc5 b6xc5
17. c2-c3 b8-d7
18. e5xd7 e6xd7
19. d3-c2 a8-b8
20. e1xe8+ d7xe8
21. b2-b3 e8xa4
22. b3xa4 c7-c6
23. g2-g4 b8-b2
24. d2-d1 c5-c4
25. f4-f5 c6-b6+
26. g1-f1 f6-e4
27. d1-f3 b2xc2
28. h6-e3 h8xc3
29. f5xg6 h7xg6
30. e3xb6 e4-d2+
31. f1-e2 d2xf3+
32. e2xf3 c3xa1
33. a4-a5 c2-d2
34. f3-f4 c4-c3
35. f4-e3 d5-d4+
36. b6xd4 d2xd4
37. e3xd4 c3-c2+
38. d4-c5 c2-c1+
39. c5-b6 a1-d4+
40. b6xa6 c1-b2
41. a2-a4 d4-e5
42. h3-h4 b2-b8
43. h4-h5 b8-c7
44. h5xg6 c7-c6+
45. a6-a7 e5-d4+
46. a7-b8 f7xg6
47. g4-g5 c6-d7
48. a5-a6 d4-e3
49. a4-a5 e3-d4
50. a6-a7 d4-e5+
So I wonder if this way of playing is plausible?
To complement the question there, often I’d play with black 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. exd5 exd5 4. Nf3 g6 (ok?) 5. Bd3 Bg7 6. 0-0 (and then it’s either Ne7 or) Nf6 7.Re1+ Be6 8.Ng5 (queen to cover let’s say) Qd6 9. Nxe6 fxe6. Then my rook will have an open line, but I have a backward pawn. If the pawn is not conquered until endgame it is not a problem, and I think I have my play. I might surrender this pawn and get my play on the f-file and queenside. Is this a bad position? (relating I guess to 4… g6)
And either before or after castling, kf7 has many time come. It is hard to use the f-file only, and queenside play means the king must protect this pawn. But if there is not a stumble in the opening, it has been a win for black or a draw, in this situation, I have been blasted out too.
Way to go Moro ! I am glad he is back,
I love going over his games. Good luck in the future and keep those crazy tactics and ideas coming.