Excellent Canadian Open, Spoiled

[Felix Dumont]

Re : Excellent Canadian Open, Spoiled

According to Nalimov's tablebases, it is winning. But finding it over the board can be hard, especially with all the pressure.

[Jonathan Berry]

Re: Excellent Canadian Open, Spoiled

Isn't EZ's point that the side with the R+p "can't find the draw"? i.e. that the R+p player lost, thereby allowing the other player to get a 1/2 point more than the position deserved?

The original post contradicts itself, so I took the liberty of looking at the final crosstable and finding the only result involving a co-winner of the under-2000 and a master rated 400 or so points higher than himself. That game ended in a draw.

It could be that, as in the movie, what we had here was a failure to communicate.

[Terry Chaisson]

Re: Excellent Canadian Open, Spoiled

Is this the game. Looks like a hard one to win after raeching the Q vs R+P ending, but I'm not a master. Maybe someone else can figure it out. I do find the insinuation that foul play happened offensive because I know the master who failed to win and he did play for 95 moves trying to win.

[Event "Canadian Open Chess Championship"]
[Site "Toronto"]
[Date "2010.07.18"]
[Round "9"]
[White "Bharat, Arjun"]
[Black "Mackinnon, Keith"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[WhiteELO "1841"]
[WhiteTitle ""]
[BlackELO "2280"]
[BlackTitle ""]
[Source "MonRoi"]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Bg5 c5 5.d5 h6 6.Bh4 Bxc3 7.bxc3 d6 8.Nf3 Qe7 9.e3 Nbd7 10.Be2 e5 11.Qc2 g5 12.Bg3 e4 13.Nd2 Kd8 14.h4 Rg8 15.hxg5 hxg5 16.Rh6 Kc7 17.O-O-O Ne5 18.Nb3 b6 19.Nd2 Bf5 20.Rdh1 Bg6 21.Rd1 Kb7 22.Kb2 Rh8 23.Rhh1 Rae8 24.a4 a5 25.Qb3 Nfd7 26.Ka2 f5 27.Qb5 Rxh1 28.Rxh1 Rb8 29.Nb3 Kc7 30.Nd2 Be8 31.Bh5 Nf6 32.Bxe8 Qxe8 33.Bxe5 dxe5 34.f3 Qxb5 35.axb5 exf3 36.Nxf3 g4 37.Ng5 Rg8 38.Rh6 Rxg5 39.Rxf6 Rh5 40.Kb3 g3 41.Re6 f4 42.exf4 exf4 43.Rf6 Rh4 44.Ka3 Kd7 45.Rxb6 f3 46.gxf3 Rg4 47.fxg4 g2 48.Ra6 g1Q 49.Kb2 Qxg4 50.Rxa5 Qxc4 51.b6 Qxd5 52.Rb5 Qb7 53.Kb3 Kd6 54.c4 Kc6 55.Ka2 Qa6 56.Kb3 Kb7 57.Rxc5 Kxb6 58.Rb5 Kc6 59.Rd5 Qa1 60.Rb5 Qd4 61.Rd5 Qb6 62.Rb5 Qe3 63.Kb4 Qd4 64.Kb3 Qd3 65.Kb4 Qc2 66.Rc5 Kd6 67.Rd5 Ke6 68.Kc5 Qc3 69.Kb5 Qb3 70.Kc5 Qe3 71.Kb4 Qh6 72.Kc5 Qf8 73.Kd4 Qb4 74.Re5 Kd6 75.Rd5 Kc6 76.Kd3 Qb2 77.Rb5 Qc1 78.Rd5 Qd1 79.Kc3 Qe1 80.Kb3 Qc1 81.Rb5 Qb1 82.Kc3 Qa2 83.Rd5 Qa3 84.Kd4 Qb4 85.Kd3 Qb3 86.Kd4 Qb2 87.Kd3 Qf6 88.Rb5 Qf3 89.Kd4 Qf4 90.Kc3 Qe3 91.Kb4 Qf2 92.Kb3 Qe1 93.Rd5 Qb1 94.Kc3 Qc1 95.Kb3 Qb1 1/2-1/2

[Roger Patterson]

Re: Excellent Canadian Open, Spoiled

Isn't EZ's point that the side with the R+p "can't find the draw"? i.e. that the R+p player lost, thereby allowing the other player to get a 1/2 point more than the position deserved?

Well, most such positions are in fact lost for r+P although the win can be quite difficult. Strong players have failed to win Q vs R so failing to win Q vs R+P can hardly be considered suspicious

[Ed Zator]

Re: Excellent Canadian Open, Spoiled

R+P drew against the Q, allowing the cowinner to tie with the
section winner

It looked to me that the Q just had to park itself
behind the P and wait for the other side to run out
of moves. Was it difficult technique? I don't know.

Still Hal Bond did not seem interested, and the posting
of the official standings probably means it wasn't even
looked at.

That is the issue, not so so much whether the
final position was easily drawable - an appeals committee
with some strong players would have to decide that.

[Roger Patterson]

Re: Excellent Canadian Open, Spoiled

It's not up to me to prove anything, so your remark "unconvincing" is simply not relevant.

It's up to the organizers to investigate any suspicious outcomes in the last round, or at least those brought to their attention. They didn't do that.

you are the one making allegations. So, you need to present an apriori plausible case. So far, you have refused to do so. You claim it's suspicious but what you have said so far does not make me believe you.

[John Upper]

Re: Excellent Canadian Open, Spoiled

Isn't EZ's point that the side with the R+p "can't find the draw"? i.e. that the R+p player lost, thereby allowing the other player to get a 1/2 point more than the position deserved?

[Jonathan Berry]

Re: Excellent Canadian Open, Spoiled

In Encyclopedia of Chess Endgames 1989, Queen volume, position 324, Radulov vs. (Guillermo) Garcia Gonzalez, Leningrad 1977 is Q vs. R and c-pawn on the 4th rank, and it is a draw. Most such positions are wins, but still....

There are many reasons why a player might offer a draw. He might, for example, have a flight to catch. In that case, a draw might be a good result for him.

I once had a game where, quite early on, I had the choice between a draw by repetition and another move. I rashly chose the other move, which resulted, the very next move, in my opponent trapping my queen. As all sorts of self-destructive thoughts were curling through my head, my opponent offered a draw. I could accept, or resign. I accepted. My opponent said that he didn't like to win a game that way.

Players offer draws, sometimes even in winning positions. That alone is not evidence of foul play.

[Ed Zator]

Re: Excellent Canadian Open, Spoiled

It's not up to me to prove anything, so your remark "unconvincing" is simply not relevant.

It's up to the organizers to investigate any suspicious outcomes in the last round, or at least those brought to their attention. They didn't do that.

[Roger Patterson]

Re: Excellent Canadian Open, Spoiled

your complaint that someone managed to draw a R+BP vs Q ending and that this is somehow entirely unfair is entirely unconvincing regardless of the rating and/or time situation of the opponent.

You could of course post a position but really, winning that endgame (I presume you mean with the queen) can be quite difficult and perhaps undoable if you have never studied the technique. Of course, your post is unclear about what happened (draw, win, loss?) and likewise unclear as to what you think should have happened.

The opinion of casual observers about particular positions is completely unreliable.

[Ed Zator]

I would like to congratulate the organizers of the Canadian 2010 Open
for the best run and most memorable Canadian Open ever in Toronto in my lifetime!

Unfortunately, for me and others in contention in the under 2000 section, it was spoiled by questionable last round results.

The game that gave the co-winner 6 points had him with a rook and pawn versus a queen in the endgame, which still drew!

You mean to tell me that a master rated 400 points over his opponent, and with 15 minutes on his clock to his opponents 3, can't find the draw that a casual observer was able to see? A rook and bishop pawn still on its 4th
rank!

The full point would only have given him only 6.5, one ninth of the 1,500
dollar prize, whereas the cowinner with his free half point netted $750 as a result.

The free point also cost us 5.5 pointers at least $100 each, and the other
cowinner $250.

It's too bad that Hal Bond would not even address my complaint, even walking away the first time I broached the topic, and not even taking my
concerns very seriously.

It is up to the organizers if they are going to allow last rounds between different sections, to make sure that all the results are on the level, and
to investigate any suspicious ones.

They did not do that, and that spoiled it for me.