Millionaire Chess

[Wayne Komer]

Re: Millionaire Chess

Millionaire Chess

October 11, 2015

Rank after Round 7

1-3 Le, Quang Liem 6
1-3 Yu Yangyi 6
1-3 Lenderman, Aleksandr 6
4-13 Nakamura, Hikaru 5.5
4-13 McShane, Luke 5.5
4-13 So, Wesley 5.5
4-13 Bareev, Evgeny 5.5
4-13 Shimanov, Aleksandr 5.5
4-13 Azarov, Sergei 5.5
4-13 Popilski, Gil 5.5
4-13 Kamsky, Gata 5.5
4-13 Caruana, Fabiano 5.5
4-13 Kaidanov, Gregory 5.5
______

Millionaire Chess 2015
Round 6, Oct. 10, 2015
Lenderman, Aleksandr – Bareev, Evgeny
D11 QGD Slav

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. g3 g6 5. Bg2 Bg7 6. Qb3 O-O 7. O-O a5 8. cxd5 a4 9. Qd1 cxd5 10. Nc3 Qa5 11. Ne5 Nc6 12. e3 e6 13. Nd3 b6 14. Bd2 Qa6 15. Qc2 Bd7 16. Rfc1 Rfc8 17. Bf1 Qa7 18. Qd1 Bf8 19. Be1 Be8 20. f3 h5 21. Rc2 Qb7 22. Rac1 Na5 23. Ne5 Nd7 24. Nb5 Nxe5 25. dxe5 Bxb5 26. Bxb5 Rc5 27. Qe2 Nc4 28. Bxc4 dxc4 29. Rxc4 Rxe5 30. Rc7 Qb8 31. Rd7 Ra7 32. Rd3 Ra8 33. Rcd1 Rc5 34. e4 Qe8 35. Bc3 Bg7 36. Bxg7 Kxg7 37. Rd7 Rac8 38. Qe3 b5 39. e5 R5c7 40. Rxc7 Rxc7 41. Rd2 Qe7 42. Kg2 Rc5 43. Qf4 Rc4 44. Rd4 Rc2+ 45. Rd2 Rc4 46. Rd4 Rc2+ 47. Rd2 ½-½
______

Chessbomb’s stockfish gives Le as having a considerable advantage when he takes the draw. My engine says they are equal.

Millionaire Chess 2015
Round 6, Oct. 10, 2015
Nakamura, Hikaru – Le, Quang Liem
D37 QGD, Hastings Variation

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Be7 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. Bf4 O-O 6. e3 Nbd7 7. c5 Ne4 8. Qc2 f5 9. h3 c6 10. Bd3 b6 11. cxb6 axb6 12. O-O Bb7 13. Ne2 Bf6 14. a4 Qe7 15. Qb3 Rfc8 16. Rfc1 c5 17. Bb5 c4 18. Qc2 Bc6 19. Bxc6 Rxc6 20. Nd2 Nxd2 21. Qxd2 Rcc8 22. Nc3 Bg5 23. Bh2 Nf6 24. f3 Ne8 25. Qe2 Nd6 26. Kh1 Bf6 27. Rf1 Qd7 28. Rad1 Rf8 29. g4 g6 30. Qg2 Bg7 31. Be5 Rad8 32. Qg3 Qe7 33. Bxg7 Qxg7 34. Kg2 Nb7 35. Ne2 Ra8 36. Ra1 Qd7 37. Nf4 Na5 38. Kh1 Nb3 39. Rad1 Rxa4 40. Rg1 Qe8 41. Qh4 Ra7 42. Qh6 Rg7 43. Nh5 Ra7 44. Nf4 Rg7 45. Nh5 ½-½

Millionaire Chess 2015
Round 7, Oct. 11, 2015
Bareev, Evgeny – Shankland, Samuel
A04 Reti (English Symmetrical)

1. Nf3 c5 2. g3 Nc6 3. Bg2 Nf6 4. O-O e5 5. e4 Be7 6. Nc3 d6 7. d3 O-O 8. a3 b6 9. Rb1 Nd4 10. Nd2 Bg4 11. f3 Be6 12. Nc4 Qd7 13. f4 exf4 14. gxf4 Rad8 15. Ne3 g6 16. f5 gxf5 17. exf5 Nxf5 18. Nxf5 Bxf5 19. Bg5 Rfe8 20. Qd2 h6 21. Bxh6 Bg6 22. Bg5 Nh7 23. Bxe7 Qxe7 24. Rf2 Qg5 25. Qxg5 Nxg5 26. Nd5 Kg7 27. Rbf1 Re5 28. Nf4 Rh8 29. c3 Re3 30. Rd2 Ne6 31. d4 cxd4 32. cxd4 Rh4 33. Nxe6+ Rxe6 34. Rc1 Be4 35. Bxe4 Rexe4 36. d5 Rd4 37. Rcd1 Rxd2 38. Rxd2 Rh5 39. Kg2 Re5 40. Kf3 f5 41. h4 Kf6 42. Rd1 a5 43. Rd2 b5 44. Rd1 Re4 45. Rh1 Rd4 46. h5 Kg7 47. Rg1+ Kh7 48. Rg5 Rxd5 49. Kf4 Rd2 50. Rxf5 Rxb2 51. Rd5 Rb3 52. a4 bxa4 53. Rxa5 a3 54. Ke4 Kh6 55. Kd5 Rd3+ 56. Kc4 Rh3 ½-½

I don’t know what to say about the following game. Any comments?

Millionaire Chess 2015
Round 7, Oct. 11, 2015
McShane, Luke – Nakamura, Hikaru
B90 Sicilian, Najdorf, Byrne Attack

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 Ng4 7. Bc1 Nf6 8. Be3 Ng4 9. Bc1 ½-½
______

Millionaire Chess 2015
Round 7, Oct. 11, 2015
Caruana, Fabiano – Indjic, Aleksandar
B06 Alekhine’s Defence, Modern Variation

1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. d4 d6 4. Nf3 Bg4 5. Be2 e6 6. O-O Be7 7. c4 Nb6 8. h3 Bh5 9. Be3 O-O 10. Nc3 N8d7 11. exd6 cxd6 12. b3 a5 13. d5 e5 14. Nb5 f5 15. Rc1 Bxf3 16. Bxf3 e4 17. Be2 f4 18. Bd4 Nc5 19. Bxc5 dxc5 20. Bg4 Bg5 21. Qc2 e3 22. fxe3 fxe3 23. Rxf8+ Qxf8 24. Rf1 Bf6 25. Qe4 Nc8 26. Qxe3 Na7 27. Nxa7 Rxa7 28. d6 b6 29. d7 Ra8 30. Qe6+ Kh8 31. Qxb6 h5 32. Rf5 hxg4 33. Rh5+ Kg8 34. Qe6+ Qf7 35. Rh8+ Kxh8 36. Qxf7 1-0

- nice straightforward win by the Don
______

Regarding the McShane-Nakamura game:

Millionaire Chess Tournament Policies

NO EARLY DRAW RULE

The No Early Draw Rule implemented in the Open section of the Millionaire Chess Open is based on a simple concept: fans wish to see real chess games. We, the organizers, believe that the true spirit of chess competition is well served when this principle is adhered to. Anything else makes a travesty of our wonderful game, and completely disrespects the viewing public. With those considerations in mind, we require that players sign off on the following rules in order to play in this event. Our promise is that these dictums will be applied in a fair and consistent manner, with the stamp of the leadership of Millionaire Chess as well as the many decades of experience of our tournament directing staff.

The organizers understand that there are situations that occur in which a draw has to be agreed to before move 30. These situations are rare but they do occur, and if we determine that a serious effort was made in playing the game, we do have the authority to allow a draw. We will not be forcing a player to walk into checkmate or lose a pawn to avoid a draw. However understand that these situations are very rare, and should not occur often.

The penalties for breaking the following rules may be:

Forfeiture of game
Offending player will be ineligible to win a prize
Players may be banned from playing in future events

THE RULES

No game in the Open Section of the Millionaire Chess Open may be agreed drawn by the two players prior to Black having completed his/her 30th move.

If there is a situation where the two players believe that a draw must be agreed to, then only the player who wishes to accept the draw may stop clocks and request the assistance of the tournament director. The TD will then objectively decide whether or not it is appropriate to agree to a draw or whether the players must play on until move 30.

Having an “objectively” drawn or equal position does NOT allow you to agree to a draw. If this is the case, then you must play until at least move 30.

Continuous repetitions in order to get to the time control will be considered an infraction of the rules.

If the TD is unable to decide if a given situation clearly breaks the rules, he/she will consult with the chief organizer (GM Maurice Ashley) or a qualified representative. The decision reached by this body will be final.

In situations where an infraction is strongly suspected but impossible to penalize, the organizers reserve the right to prevent the players from playing in the future events. This decision is subject to written appeal.

The organizers wish to express our appreciation for players agreeing and accepting these rules. Understand that we are not asking players to go all out to win and thereby risk losing. Our sole intention is to respect our sponsor, fans and chess by attempting to get rid of early agreed draws. It is our privileged intention to make the event as enjoyable and as rewarding experience as possible for all the participants as well as for the thousands of fans who will be following the event. Your signature establishes your full understanding of these rules and your agreement to comply with them in play and in spirit.

_______

Rounds 8 and 9, tomorrow, October 12

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: Millionaire Chess

My understanding is that the players explicitly agreed to the "no draws in 30-move rule", but especially if they were compensated for their appearance at the tournament, then they (particularly McShane, since he was White) should have been told that they would have to play a different move (for example a different one than either Be3 or Bc1). If that draw stands then surely literally any repetition should be allowed to stand.

[Louis Morin]

Re : Re: Millionaire Chess

My understanding is that the players explicitly agreed to the "no draws in 30-move rule", but especially if they were compensated for their appearance at the tournament, then they (particularly McShane, since he was White) should have been told that they would have to play a different move (for example a different one than either Be3 or Bc1). If that draw stands then surely literally any repetition should be allowed to stand.

Anyway this rule is unapplicable since players could agree to repeat the position again and again until move 30.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: Re : Re: Millionaire Chess

Anyway this rule is unapplicable since players could agree to repeat the position again and again until move 30.

They already explicitly say that you can't in the rules, evidently.

"Continuous repetitions in order to get to the time control will be considered an infraction of the rules."

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Millionaire Chess

My understanding is that the players explicitly agreed to the "no draws in 30-move rule", but especially if they were compensated for their appearance at the tournament, then they (particularly McShane, since he was White) should have been told that they would have to play a different move (for example a different one than either Be3 or Bc1). If that draw stands then surely literally any repetition should be allowed to stand.

Yes, Maurice Ashley alluded to this when, after describing this game as making chess "look like a farce", he nevertheless said the draw had to stand because "we could not prove intent". Well, they are never going to prove intent.

McShane said part of what went into it from his side was a long game played the previous night, and that he was "tired". Ashley ripped into him for this, saying that if Super Bowl players said after 1 quarter that they were tired, and agreed to just split the game with no further play, there would be fan riots. But Ashley can equally be ripped for not standing firm on the anti-draw rules that were laid out. Both players should have been forfeited, regardless of intent. Nothing else would have sufficed.

This event was already in trouble. Ashley acknowledged the failure once again to get live television coverage, and said "hopefully we can weather the storm" which obviously means this may be the last Millionaire Chess Open. The investors must already be plotting their escape from this debacle, and now this 9-move draw. I think that puts the last nail in the coffin.

The only real and viable solution to the draw problem is to find a way to eradicate draws altogether. When you realize you have a problem and the problem could be fatal, you make changes. But instead everybody involved in running chess is as spineless as both these players were in this game. Status quo to the very end!

[David Ottosen]

Re: Millionaire Chess

Yes, Maurice Ashley alluded to this when, after describing this game as making chess "look like a farce", he nevertheless said the draw had to stand because "we could not prove intent". Well, they are never going to prove intent.

If the organizers were not willing to forfeit them for that game, the anti-draw rule is pointless. I wonder if they expose themselves to a lawsuit if Naka wins by whoever finishes second, claiming Naka should never have been in the final anyways and the organizers were negligent in not enforcing their rules.

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: Millionaire Chess

If the organizers were not willing to forfeit them for that game, the anti-draw rule is pointless. I wonder if they expose themselves to a lawsuit if Naka wins by whoever finishes second, claiming Naka should never have been in the final anyways and the organizers were negligent in not enforcing their rules.

Exactly. This is the poster child game the rule was meant to eliminate. This was a softball and the organizers failed to hit it out of the park (how about those Jays, eh). This was their chance to enforce the rule and convince everyone they were serious, and they failed.

Good luck trying to enforce the rule now!

[Hal Bond]

Re: Millionaire Chess

Tournament rules cannot supersede the laws of chess. This is the problem. If this event was not rated it could be a different story. The Chief Arbiter of the Dresden Olympiad made the same mistake about early draw claims and had to back off.

The only angle I can think of is Article 11.1

The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute.

Perhaps the matter will be revisited along this line.

[Vlad Dobrich]

Re: Millionaire Chess

Ejecting the players from the event for taking an early draw would be a draconian over-the-top penalty. But then there must be some penalty in order for the rule to exist in the first place.
In this case there was such an opportunity. Since a play-off was needed to select the fourth participant in the Monday Prize play-off, what I would have done was to bring the total contestants down to eight by lot - choosing four players to play an elimination round in pairs, the losers being eliminated and the winners joining the other six to make an eight player knock-out event where a winner would appear after three rounds of play. What the tournament arbiters (or organizers) did was to create two round-robin events to determine two finalists who would then compete for the one spot available in the Monday Prize Play-off. And that could have resulted in further ties - and more play-offs?
The penalty? Nakamura and McShane would have been paired in the elimination round - thus each, in effect getting a half ejection penalty.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: Millionaire Chess

Ejecting the players from the event for taking an early draw would be a draconian over-the-top penalty. But then there must be some penalty in order for the rule to exist in the first place.
In this case there was such an opportunity. Since a play-off was needed to select the fourth participant in the Monday Prize play-off, what I would have done was to bring the total contestants down to eight by lot - choosing four players to play an elimination round in pairs, the losers being eliminated and the winners joining the other six to make an eight player knock-out event where a winner would appear after three rounds of play. What the tournament arbiters (or organizers) did was to create two round-robin events to determine two finalists who would then compete for the one spot available in the Monday Prize Play-off. And that could have resulted in further ties - and more play-offs?
The penalty? Nakamura and McShane would have been paired in the elimination round - thus each, in effect getting a half ejection penalty.

An elegant solution, but not enough, imo. Maybe they keep the half-point but can't play in the playoffs at all. Though I am sympathetic to Nakamura as why should have have to play something different when he's Black, and White has mainline moves that don't repeat?

If both are allowed to stay in the tournament but not fight for 1st-4th, they are still eligible for the consolation money (5th etc.). The thing is that the other players, who are even more tired because they played all seven rounds, are at a serious disadvantage in the playoffs. They didn't get hours to rest up in preparation. So and Le could have done the same (made an early repetition) and maybe So would have qualified given the extra rest.

On an unrelated note, it seems to me that Caruana really should practice his fast time controls more. So many tournaments have some aspect of blitz/rapid chess in them that I think it is seriously hurting his chances in these things.

[Wayne Komer]

Re: Millionaire Chess

Millionaire Chess

October 12, 2015

I admit to being baffled by the playoffs in Millionaire Chess. Therefore, I give in whole, the explanation of Round 7 by Mike Klein at:

https://millionairechess.com/million...day-had-it-all

Part 1

Round Seven

The players reported for the final in "regulation" before the cutoff. The round would determine which four players in each section advance to a four-player knockout final. GM Le Quang Liem led all players by a half-point.

Not more than a few minutes into the round came the big early event of the day: a disputed draw between GM Luke McShane and GM Hikaru Nakamura. The issue wasn't between the two themselves -- they both wanted their nine-move draw to stand. The aggrieved party was the tournament organizer and the rules in place.

The repetition came after neither player felt comfortable varying his moves.

None of the actions were in dispute -- the issue became whose rules took precedence. FIDE rules don't seem to preclude the game from ending drawn, but rules specific to Millionaire Chess disallow draws before move 30 (only in the open section). Players had to sign their agreement to the stipulation.

The wording says that players won't be compelled to continue play if doing so forces players to "walk into checkmate or lose a pawn to avoid a draw." The rules invoke the interpretation of GM Maurice Ashley, the co-organizer, to decide on the viability of available alternatives (the players also cannot repeat several dozen times just to get to move 30).

GM Maurice Ashley hosts the first of several meetings with arbiters, players and emissaries. After more than 90 minutes and phone calls to FIDE officials and arbiters around the world (Chicago and Canada were the two places specifically mentioned), Ashley "cajoled" them to play but when they balked he reluctantly allowed the game to stand as played. He wasn't happy about it.

"When I hear chess players talk about making draws, I know draws are possible," he told Chess.com. "What are you about? Are you about making draws or playing the game? The attitude should be to win the game."

Nakamura mostly paced while his stepfather took up his case. Ashley agreed with the characterization that this was a "sporting" vs "promotion" issue. He felt especially strong that potential sponsors would shun chess due to early draws.

In the mind of McShane, there was a lot more going on than was seen in those nine moves.

"From my point of view, the intent of the rules is very clear," McShane told Chess.com. "They want us to play fighting chess. By nature both Hikaru and myself are wanting to play fighting chess. But we're also competitors. We have to do the practical thing in this situation... I completely respect the initiative of the organizers to discourage this thing. It's not a great day for chess, but what are the alternatives?"
More meetings followed more phone calls. "What's important is that I've played six games in three days," said McShane. "I'm a fighter but I'm not a lunatic. To enter into a line that I'm not comfortable with against the number-two player in the world, that's not a sensible thing to do."

McShane had played in the World Open and D. C. International this year, so he had some recent experience with long tournament days.
"Look, it's tough playing two games in a day," said McShane. "That weighs on your nervous system. There's only so much you can cope with."

One other issue is who should vary moves if the game was forced to continue?

"From a moral point of view, you might say that I'm White, I should play on, but Hikaru is number two so maybe he should play on," McShane said.

On air he added, "You've got to know what you're doing. If you're going into a position like [sic] and you don't know what you're doing, it's not pretty... To take reckless risks, that's not necessarily for me. I played Bc1 and I certainly wasn't hoping for a draw... When I played Be3 I wasn't at all sure he would play Ng4 again."

"Neither one of us was willing to cooperate and take a worse position," Nakamura said. He explained that the first rule of playing Black is to "get equality and not get a worse position... I don't think I did anything wrong certainly."

Ashley told Chess.com he wasn't sure either. "I'm not going to begrudge the players for playing their favorite move."

He added more poignant thoughts on the tournament broadcast: "It makes chess look like a farce, that's why we wrote it into the rules...

The draw rule is about making fans see real games... You don't want to make a travesty of our game by disrespecting the viewing public.

"If we're ever going to be a televisual event that garners fans from around the world we can't have these kind of games."

He repeated his admiration for both players but referred to so-called "grandmaster draws" as a "stain on our game."

The ruling comes in: Ashley allowed the draw despite personally despising it. What's the solution? Ashley offered two fixes.

"We're going to confer with FIDE and see if we can change these rules to see if something can be done about this scourge on our game," he said on air.

Later, he told Chess.com that he is very interested in GM Rustam Kasimdzhanov's idea: when two players draw, the players keep the clock times, switch colors, and begin a new game.

He will experiment with the format at the Marshall Chess Club's "No Draws Thanksgiving Tournament" in late November. He said he may bring the idea to a future Millionaire Chess Open, but he wants to "get the bugs out" first before bringing the idea to the "highest cash stakes open tournament in the world."

One of the "longer" nine-move games in history: the clock says 12 minutes have elapsed but the real-time clock was upwards of 90 minutes before the draw was confirmed. Ashley said on air that he couldn't prove collusion between the players, but he later told Chess.com his theory: "These are players I look up to. What do I think happened? I think they wanted to qualify and they thought they would be able to... They did some mathematical calculation instead of just fighting to win the game."

The Math

The two would now have to await a bevy of results to come in. Amidst the many hallway meetings deciding the previous issue, Le Quang Liem quietly played his 30 moves versus GM Wesley So, got a draw to move to 6.0/7, and was the first player to advance to the final four.

"I had no problem playing on to move 30," Le Quang Liem said of his risk-less position.

After that, GM Ray Robson got his usual crazy position but this time he came up short. By falling as White, he gave the next Millionaire Monday seat to his opponent, GM Aleks Lenderman.

The third player booking his ticket became GM Yu Yangyi, one of the final-day contenders in the inaugural event. He took out GM Axel Rombaldoni.

One other result mattered for a great many men. GM Evgeny Bareev was on 5.0/6 to start the day, and he was paired with GM Sam Shankland on 4.5/6. A win for the new Canadian would make life simple for all involved, and it nearly went down just that cleanly. But when he missed the strength of a potential f-file battery, the chance was gone.

Seldom has a missed chance affected so many. Bareev's half-point kept him in the fight but gave new life to nine other men who would have been eliminated! For the next six hours, a series of playoffs would be contested to grant one last spot in Millionaire Monday.

(to be concluded)

[Wayne Komer]

Re: Millionaire Chess

Millionaire Chess

(continued)

Part 2

The Playoff Format

The double-digit field on 5.5/7 was reduced by one before the playoff began. Israeli GM Gil Popilski declined his invitation; as a sub-2550 player, he instead chose to be automatically seeded into Millionaire Monday for the 2400-2549 rating class (more on that playoff later).

McShane's and Nakamura's handshake didn't end their chances for first after all. They were joined by Bareev, So, and GMs Aleksandr Shimanov, Fabiano Caruana, Sergei Azarov, and Gregory Kaidanov. Lastly, GM Gata Kamsky made the elite-but-not-quaint evening event -- he would attempt to win the tournament after forfeiting a game!

The players are briefed on the playoff rules. Several suggested a simple all-play-all blitz, but the arbiters stuck to the posted formats. The nine players were divided up into two groups, one five and one four players. The two pools took shape based on US Chess rating, and due to Caruana's ridiculous performance at the 2014 Sinquefield Cup, he was number one (although the current list shows Nakamura back on top). Nakamura admitted this was an advantage. He was placed in the other pool as the sitting number-two player, while GM Wesley So was back in Caruana's group as the third seed.

Almost all in attendance who read the rules expected this two-pool system, but the announcement that the event would be rapid, not blitz, came as a surprise. It seems the "human" reading of the playoff rules page is at odds with the intent of the wording.

For larger playoffs, which this certainly was, the third sentence reads "G/5 then Armageddon if necessary." But according to Ashley, this is only the avenue after initial rapids. The beginning sentence "Two groups 5RR and 4RR" doesn't specify a time control, but if you scroll down the page, it reads "All RR games - G/15 D/5."

Put more simply, there's no mention that "RR" means rapid until you get to the bottom, whereas "G/5" is paramount in each scenario.

Further complicating the clarity, the opening paragraph almost promises blitz, not rapids, as the theoretical example nearly matched the tournament exactly (emphasis mine) :

"If, for example, three players have already made it to the final four and 10 players are vying for the final spot, then most likely a blitz playoff will be used. If, however, only two players are vying for that coveted final spot, then most likely a rapid format will be chosen. The Tie-break Playoffs will end inside of 5 hours, which is the normal length of a round."

The playoffs began at about 6:30 p. m. and ended at about 11:30 p. m., so the five-hour time cap was met.

"It's a crazy playoff," Le Quang Liem said about the size. "I'm happy that I don't have to play... I will try to relax."

The final wrinkle came without any explanation from the website or methodology invoked: the winners of the two playoff pools would meet in a three-game rapid final. No one in the audience could recall hearing of an odd amount of games for a one-on-one match.

Sadly another controversy occurred in the 2400-2549 playoffs. Originally four players vied for three seats, but according to IA Carol Jarecki, after two rounds had been completed, it became clear that GM Sam Sevian should have been invited to the tiebreak. One player objected, and after an hour delay, Sevian was allowed to participate in what became a five-player round robin.

The Tiebreaks

Pool A, the five-person group, was Caruana, So, McShane, Kaidanov and Shimanov. Pool B was Nakamura, Kamsky, Bareev and Azarov, and we'll start there first.

Nakamura and Kamsky won their opening games and met in rapid game two. Kamsky dropped a piece but miraculously drew. "I'll take it," he said with a smile after the handshake.

That meant the final game would decide the pool. Nakamura won the shortest game of any in the rapids, an 11-move win as Black!

Kamsky kept pace so the two tied with 2.5/3. They had to face each other again in a two-game blitz match. Nakamura won on time in a winning position to open, then didn't have trouble in game two, agreeing to a draw in a winning position to guarantee advancement.

Kamsky wished Nakamura, his longtime rival and teammate, good luck.

In Pool A, everything hinged on the final game. Shimanov earned two points from three games (not counting his "bye" in the odd-number round robin) while So had 2.5/3.

Nakamura had played So many times previously in fast time controls -- 33 to be exact! Nakamura said this may have given him a psychological advantage.)

At 10:15 p. m. the two American teammates began. Nakamura opened with White and got some rough pawns before finding a way to repeat. When he got up for his short break, he joked to the arbiters, "You realize it wasn't 30 moves, right?!" It turned out that although not required, he had in fact made exactly 30 moves!

Game two looked very promising early on for So. A benign Berlin quickly paved way to a Romantic-era gambit that Nakamura somehow survived.

Everyone watching in person was surprised that So offered a draw; Nakamura accepted without hesitation.

Nakamura sniffled all playoff and drank tea between games. He admitted to being a little sick during the event.

Now came a bit of Vegas to the event: a coin flip to decide who got White in the third and final rapid game. Nakamura chose tails, perhaps his best move of the rapid match.

The arbiter's coin came tails and Nakamura played what he called his best game of the tournament.

"I bought home the bacon in the final round," Nakamura said. "Wesley, his problem was that he let me hang around."

A little past 11:30 p. m. the open section was finally determined.

"Wesley needs to work on his nerves," Nakamura told Chess.com.

He said his experience at the 2015 World Cup was "invaluable," especially his third-round extra-time win over GM Ian Nepomniachtchi.

[Wayne Komer]

Re: Millionaire Chess

Millionaire Chess

October 12, 2015

GM HIKARU NAKAMURA WINS 2ND MILLIONAIRE CHESS

By Lennart Ootes

Grandmaster Hikaru Nakamura has won the 2nd Millionaire Chess Open in Las Vegas by beating Le Quang Liem 1.5-0.5 in the final of Millionaire Monday.

The 27-year-old American had a fair bit more work to do than the other Grandmasters to make it to Millionaire Monday, as he didn't automatically qualify. Only the top four places in each section automatically qualify and Hikaru's quick draw with Luke McShane in the last round of the Open left him in joint 4th with several other Grandmasters. He scored 5.5 points out of the first 7 rounds and so he was one of nine players who had to fight for the final spot in Millionaire Monday. Hikaru had to face GM Wesley So in the final of the playoffs and since he came out victorious, he gained a spot in the prestigious Millionaire Monday.

Hikaru was up first against GM Yu Yanghi and scored 2.5 points in their four game match. Since GM Le Quang Liem was victorious against GM Lenderman, the battle for $100,000 was between Le Quang and Nakamura.

Since Nakamura won very convincingly against Le Quang with the white pieces in the first game of their two game match, he was in a very comfortable position going into the last round. After 30 moves, the position was clearly better for Nakamura and so he agreed to a draw and celebrated his victory early. This makes Nakamura the successor of GM Wesley So, who was the winner of the 1st Millionaire Chess Open.

At the time of this reporting, the larger field was still playing for "fifth place" -- GMs Fabiano Caruana, Wesley So and Luke McShane all headed into round nine with 6.5/8.

________

Semi-Finals

Millionaire Chess
(mm = Millionaire Monday)
Round mm-03, Oct. 12, 2015
Yu Yangyi – Nakamura, Hikaru
C67 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defence

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. O-O Nxe4 5. Re1 Nd6 6. Nxe5 Be7 7. Bf1 Nxe5 8. Rxe5 O-O 9. Nc3 Ne8 10. Nd5 Bd6 11. Re1 c6 12. Ne3 Be7 13. c4 Bf6 14. d4 d5 15. cxd5 cxd5 16. g3 Be6 17. Bg2 Qb6 18. Nxd5 Bxd5 19. Bxd5 Bxd4 20. Be3 Bxe3 21. Rxe3 Rd8 22. Qb3 Qxb3 23. Bxb3 Nd6 24. Rd1 Nc8 25. Rc1 Rd7 26. Ba4 Rd4 27. Bb3 Rd7 28. Rec3 Nb6 29. Rc7 Rfd8 30. a4 Kf8 31. a5 Nd5 32. Bxd5 Rxc7 33. Rxc7 Rxd5 34. Rxb7 Rxa5 ½-½

Round mm-04, Oct. 12, 2015
Nakamura, Hikaru – Yu Yangyi
B40 Sicilian

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. g3 Nc6 4. d4 cxd4 5. Nxd4 Nf6 6. Bg2 e5 7. Nb5 d6 8. Bg5 a6 9. Bxf6 gxf6 10. N5c3 f5 11. O-O Bg7 12. Nd2 O-O 13. Nc4 Nd4 14. Nd5 fxe4 15. Ncb6 Be6 16. c3 Bxd5 17. Nxd5 Nf3+ 18. Bxf3 exf3 19. Qxf3 f5 20. Rad1 Kh8 21. Rd2 e4 22. Qh5 Be5 23. Ne3 Qc8 24. Nd5 Qd8 25. f4 exf3 26. Rxf3 Qd7 27. Nb6 Qe8 28. Qxe8 Raxe8 29. Rdf2 Bg7 30. Rxf5 Rxf5 31. Rxf5 Re2 32. Rf2 Re1+ 33. Kg2 Kg8 34. Rd2 Be5 35. Nc4 Kf7 36. Nxe5+ Rxe5 37. Kf3 Rb5 38. b4 Ke6 39. Rd4 h5 40. Ke3 Rg5 41. Re4+ Kd5 42. a4 b5 43. axb5 axb5 44. Rd4+ Ke6 45. Rh4 Kd5 46. Kd3 Rf5 47. Rf4 Rg5 48. c4+ Kc6 49. cxb5+ Kxb5 50. Rd4 Kc6 51. Ke3 Rf5 52. h3 Rf1 53. Rh4 Rf5 54. Rc4+ Kd5 55. Rf4 Rg5 56. Kf3 Ke6 57. Re4+ Kf6 58. g4 hxg4+ 59. hxg4 Rd5 60. Ke3 Rd1 61. Rd4 Rb1 62. Rxd6+ Ke5 63. Rb6 Rb3+ 64. Kd2 Kd4 65. Kc2 Rg3 66. Rc6 Rxg4 67. Kb3 Kd5 68. Ra6 Rg1 69. Ka4 Kc4 70. Rc6+ Kd5 71. Rc8 Kd6 72. Ka5 Kd7 73. Rc2 Rg8 74. b5 Rb8 75. Ka6 Kd6 76. b6 Ra8+ 77. Kb7 Ra1 78. Rd2+ Ke7 79. Kb8 Rb1 80. b7 Ke6 81. Ra2 1-0

Final

Round mm-05, Oct. 12, 2015
Nakamura, Hikaru – Le, Quang Liem
D30 QGD, Capablanca-Duras Variation

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. Bg5 h6 5. Bxf6 Qxf6 6. Qb3 c6 7. e3 Qe7 8. Nbd2 Qb4 9. Qc2 Nd7 10. a3 Qa5 11. Be2 dxc4 12. O-O Be7 13. Nxc4 Qc7 14. b4 O-O 15. Rac1 Rd8 16. Qb3 a6 17. Bd3 Nf6 18. Bb1 Bd7 19. e4 Be8 20. e5 Nh7 21. Qe3 b6 22. Rfd1 a5 23. d5 Rxd5 24. Rxd5 exd5 25. Nxb6 Rd8 26. Nxd5 Qb7 27. Nxe7+ Qxe7 28. bxa5 Ra8 29. a6 Nf8 30. Bd3 Ne6 31. Nd4 Nxd4 32. Qxd4 Rd8 33. Qc3 c5 34. Bf1 Rd5 35. Qa5 Bc6 36. a7 Ba8 37. Rb1 Kh7 38. Rb8 c4 39. Qa6 Rd2 40. Rxa8 Qc5 41. Rh8+ Kxh8 42. a8=Q+ 1-0

Round mm-06, Oct. 12, 2015
Le, Quang Liem – Nakamura, Hikaru
A15 Neo-Catalan

1. c4 e6 2. g3 d5 3. Bg2 Nf6 4. Nf3 dxc4 5. Qa4+ Bd7 6. Qxc4 c5 7. O-O Bc6 8. Rd1 Nbd7 9. Qc2 Rc8 10. Nc3 b5 11. d3 a6 12. e4 Be7 13. Bf4 O-O 14. a4 Qb6 15. Qe2 Qb7 16. Nd2 Bd8 17. axb5 axb5 18. Nb3 Bb6 19. Bd6 Rfe8 20. Na5 Bxa5 21. Rxa5 b4 22. Nb1 Qb6 23. Ra1 e5 24. f4 c4+ 25. Qf2 Qxf2+ 26. Kxf2 cxd3 27. Nd2 Ng4+ 28. Kg1 Ne3 29. Rdc1 Nxg2 30. Kxg2 ½-½
_______

"I couldn't even imagine I would be in second place," Le Quang Liem told Chess.com. He said that going pro after college was still only a "possibility."

How about the champion? He's been pro for a while now, but is experiencing the most accomplished year of his career.

"I'll probably go eat a nice dinner with Kris," Nakamura said, referring to his second, Kris Littlejohn, who rejoined the Nakamura team recently after a hiatus. "It's very important you have a good connection with whoever you work with," Nakamura explained. "When you have that kind of chemistry it helps."

The pairing is working well. Nakamura's 2015 has now included wins in Gibraltar, Zurich, St. Louis and now Las Vegas, in addition to qualifying for the 2016 Candidates Tournament through the FIDE Grand Prix.

He told Chess.com that his decision to play in Las Vegas instead of the 2015 World Rapid and Blitz Championship wasn't really a decision at all. Nakamura registered for Millionaire Chess while still playing in Gibraltar back in January. "I thought the blitz and rapid would be in June," he said.

Financially, it turned out to be the right decision. Even a double-win in both events in Berlin would "only" earn $80,000, which is 20 percent less than his giant check will read from Las Vegas. Nakamura insisted money wasn't important -- he said he'd save and invest most of it.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Millionaire Chess

Millionaire Chess

October 12, 2015

Not more than a few minutes into the round came the big early event of the day: a disputed draw between GM Luke McShane and GM Hikaru Nakamura. The issue wasn't between the two themselves -- they both wanted their nine-move draw to stand. The aggrieved party was the tournament organizer and the rules in place.

The repetition came after neither player felt comfortable varying his moves......

McShane: "I'm a fighter but I'm not a lunatic. To enter into a line that I'm not comfortable with against the number-two player in the world, that's not a sensible thing to do."

This is like the #100 tennis player in the world playing Djokovich and saying "I'm not comfortable serving to him, it's not a sensible thing to do" and refusing to put a ball into play.

In tennis, this would result in forfeiture of the match. You simply MUST put the ball in play on your serve, and you only have a limited time to do it.

This is what chess needs, rules that force game play rather than abandonment of game play. It could simply be a rule change that says 3-time repetition is a LOSS for the player who creates the 3rd repetition. I would also make stalemate a LOSS for the stalemated player. This should make all K&P vs. K endgames won for the superior side, or a draw if the superior side cannot hang onto the extra Pawn (i.e. creating a 3rd repetition would lose).

The ONLY draws would be from no mating material (i.e. K vs K) and the 50-move rule. No agreed draws ever.

McShane is a TOTAL WUSS and should be barred from tournaments for 6 months.

[David Ottosen]

Re: Millionaire Chess

I completely respect the initiative of the organizers to discourage this thing. It's not a great day for chess, but what are the alternatives?"

Lol. I cannot imagine a more completely disingenuous statement - he obviously does not respect the initiative of the organizers, and he knows exactly what the alternatives are. Fine, the players cannot be forfeited as it violates the laws of chess. Millionaire chess would have made a massively stronger statement by letting the result stand and expelling them both from the tournament as a result, an action I believe cannot be against any FIDE law.

In all honesty, it would likely have also brought more publicity to the game than anything they did with the tournament itself - "World #2 and American chess champion ejected from million dollar chess tournament for lack of effort" makes an amazing mainstream headline.