"Sasikiran and Timman share the lead with 6/8 and their game in the final round will decide who wins Sigeman Chess Tournament 2005. Lets all hope that the fantastic fighting spirit that has characterized the tournament will last all the way through the last round and that we will not see a quick draw." This is what the official site stated after the 8th round of Sigeman. A better end to a tournament could not have been scripted. The two leaders were headed for a no holds, barroom fight for first place. The result? An 11 move draw with queens still on board. I appreciate a hard-fought draw as much as the next guy, but this fishy, probably prearranged under the board stuff is a disgrace to organized chess. Applause to Nakamura for his sparkling win against Davor Palo in the last round and his refusal to accept a draw in the previous round against the co-winner Timman even though he was a piece down! Naka played down to two lone kings (you can look it up in the score)! before acceding to a split the point. Naka may have come in third, but he's first in my book. In the future I think he will be a formidable player, because he is someone that can't be "negotiated" with. You simply have to play the young man.
Well, maybe I was wrong about the sponsors. I was interested in what the official site would say about the last round: "To the disappointment of a number of spectators Timman and Sasikiran chose a quick draw after 11 moves that gave them shared first place with 6½/9.
Instead, Palo and Nakamura provided the entertainment. Palo, who had to win to become a grandmaster, looked like he was getting there when Nakamura chose a passive setup that gave Palo a clear advantage. The unfortunate 14.f4? threw it all away and Nakamura finished things off swiftly. With 14.Ne6 Be6 15.Qe6 f4 (it was to stop this move that Palo played f4) 16.cd cd 17.Bc1! Bd4 (perhaps Nakamura had a better move here? otherwise white is simply a pawn up) 18.Nb5 Be5 (18.- Bc5? 19.b4) 19.Rd1 Nc8 20.Nd6! Bd6 21.Bd2! Palo could have won brilliantly.
Nakamura scored 6/9 and got third place. The seemingly unnecessary loss to Sasikiran proved decisive. On the other hand, he was lucky not to lose against Timman. It might have been more exciting for the audience had Timman beaten Nakamura, since this would have forced Sasikiran to win in the last round."
Notice that the site referred to the "disappointment" of a number of fans. I'd say "outrage" might be a better word. Notice, also, that the final, peaceful conclusion between Timman and Sasikirin is laid at the doorstep of Nakamura, when the site says, "It might have been more exciting...had timman beaten Nakamura, since that would have forced Sasikiran to win..." the author also refers to the "seemingly unnecessary" loss To Sasikiran. In other words, only Naka is to blame. In fact, Naka was the only one willing to fight out each game, unbalance the position, even if sometimes it was to his disadvantage, providing interesting, entertaining games for the spectators. Timman and Sasikiran should be raked over the coals for taking money on false pretenses. Both are very good players, but don't use their skills in playing each game for what its worth, preferring to split the cash on the eleventh move and run out the door.
Nakamura walked pass me once. It was at nationals a couple weeks ago. I was going to the food court and he was walking in the other direction with a soda, guess that proves he's human 😛. Anyway, I don't see why they draw so quickly, just play on, if you lose you lose, big deal, at least you tried. And if you win, that's just a bonus 😛.
Josh
Buddy2: here is what your eye might have missed from the official site:
"Despite the somewhat disappointing finish, this year's tournament contained some great fighting chess and many nice games. Nakamura showed great spirit and is welcome back to Scandinavia any time."
i think it comes down to the tournament construction.
if the players can mutually benefit by agreeing to an early draw then of course they will.
the tournament should be constructed so that they do no such thing ... they should both be left wanting the best they can possibly get from the final game{s}.
here at rhp, strong players often draw in the first round(s) - big deal - but in the final round they will be fighting to the death!
Originally posted by buddy2This is harsh. When it is your livelihood you are playing for you are likely to do what brings the most cash. It is easy to forget they do this for a living. If they were being paid to play fighting chess it would be a different story but they're not, they are paid to win the tournament.
Both are very good players, but don't use their skills in playing each game for what its worth, preferring to split the cash on the eleventh move and run out the door.
It is easy to criticise.
"you are likely to do what brings the most cash." Then why didn't either go for double their prize money? No, they both took the easy way out. It's not a good omen for them or for the sport their livelihood depends on. Criticism is fine where it's deserved, and in this case it is. Expressing one's displeasure can often bring change for the better. We hope in Sigeman's case,they will find way to improve for next year. Look at it this way. Nakamura got third place prize money. If Timman or Sasikirin had lost (a possibility if they fought). He would share second place. More prize money. so, in effect, they could have gauged Naka out of x amount of money.
this quick draw is easy to explain. If you played a long tournament as a GM (with all other GM's like this tournament), with many long games, you might not be able to keep up mentally. Especially if you're older (like Timman, but I do not know Sasikiran's age). If they played on in this game for very long, they can't prepare good for the next tournament.
Sasikirin is 24. Timman, I guess, is around 40. Nakamura is 17. Either they should shorten the tournament (fewer players) or create rules encouraging real contests in each round. Of course it's exhausting, nine rounds, but part of a tournament is to see who has the mental and physical stamina to come out on top. I like the reward for win philosophy of English football (1, draw; three win). I know this punishes the hardfought draw, but the wayit is now encourages no-contest situations. There are bigger issues here than the individual player, that is the future of the sport we love. We want the drama, the tension, the exhaustion after a battle at the chessboard to encourage the younger set coming up and more and better tournaments. By the way, I know it's difficult, but I have yet to hear of a chessplayer in a tournament collapse from the mental effort. I watched the games at Sigeman on the webcam out of curiosity and I was surprised to find out you would rarely see the two players at the board together. It was move, then walk around, maybe have a drink or snack, come back, move again, etc.
Originally posted by buddy23 points for a win, 1 for a draw would have made no difference whatsoever here. Nak would still have been too far behind to catch the leaders.
Sasikirin is 24. Timman, I guess, is around 40. Nakamura is 17. Either they should shorten the tournament (fewer players) or create rules encouraging real contests in each round. Of course it's exhausting, nine rounds, but part of a tournament is to see who has the mental and physical stamina to come out on top. I like the reward for win philosophy of E ...[text shortened]... her. It was move, then walk around, maybe have a drink or snack, come back, move again, etc.
I also don't see what's wrong about coasting in the final round if you are so far ahead of the field that you can do so. Timman and Sasikiran both have bills to pay - they earned the right to makea quick draw by producing some great chess for the rest of the tournament.
You can also blame Nakamura btw - he went insane looking for a win from a worse position against Sasikiran. If he had drawn, then Sasikiran would have had to fight in the last game.
Originally posted by SiskinI think a draw should score a zero. A win should score a point. Just my thoughts.
The should use the rhp scoring system (copied from football, original idea was by the great Jimmy Hill I believe) of 3 pts for a win 1 for a draw. A load of quick draws will get you nowhere.
Originally posted by GalaxyShieldI played Nakamura at the World Open years ago when he was only rated 1900 but was beating most A players. He was so small that he had to sit on his feet to reach the chess pieces. And when he moved a piece he wrapped his entire hand around it (yeah, that's how tiny his hand was!). Like he couldn't pick it up with his fingers... had to use the whole hand.
Nakamura walked pass me once. It was at nationals a couple weeks ago. I was going to the food court and he was walking in the other direction with a soda, guess that proves he's human 😛. Anyway, I don't see why they draw so quickly, just play on, if you lose you lose, big deal, at least you tried. And if you win, that's just a bonus 😛.
Josh
Anyways, I lost a fighting game to him, felt bad about it at the time (almost as bad as losing to No1maurader), but two months later he beat his first Grandmaster!