Tweet
2500+ Fide-rated aging Canadian GM Kevin Spraggett extended his comments about last round game Plotkin - Calugar. After his first post (next day after the end of the tournament) I didn't feel the necessity to explain here what really happened in this game. But now I feel like I have no choice.
One strong Canadian chessplayer described Kevin Spraggett after I told him I had never seen this famous Canadian GM "You don't know him? Good for you... You didn't lose anything". Probably this is right.
Here some details from Spraggett's blog I would like him and his permanent readers to pay attention for.
1. My name is Victor Plotkin (and not Potkin). Vladimir Potkin is a very strong Russian GM, current Europian champion. If Spraggett spent so much time analysing my last round game and it's chess and psychological issues he could check the right spelling of my name. I always thought my family name is pretty simple, Spraggett, for example is more complicated. But who cares about some 2200 player...
2. My chess level doesn't allow me to judge the chess content of his article. He also analysed 7 X 7 crosstable for 7 highest-rated players of the tournament. Too many mistakes made by Kevin in his analysis raise some questions about his ability to to something else except playing chess and blogging. As a Master of Math I can say Spraggett failed on simple data management test.
And now to Plotkin - Calugar game.
Before last round it was pretty clear that I must win to achieve something in this tournament. Win could give me FM title (for sure) and 250 CAD (probably part of it) prize. Draw could give me FM title only in unlikely case: Kleinman beats Sambuev with black or draws and win possible play-off for IM title against Shiam or Jung. No offence to Michael, he had a great tournament, but I estimate the probability of this scenario as very low.
So OK, I play white against about the same-rated opponent with whom I had pretty positive score before. Positive score is good, white is good but I also realized few factors not in my favour.
1. Atrhur had a very good tournament as well as pretty solid Canadian Junior and 1-st place on Hart House tournament (beat Sambuev with black in the last round). This Canadian Closed I was really impressed by his fighting spirit. Having 4 out of 5 he declined draw against Gerzhoy, second highest-rated player (Arthur lost, but it doesn't matter).
Young players usually don't improve their strenth permanently, they alternate "accumulation period" with "jumping period" there they can gain 100 rating points for a short period of time. It was absolutely clear for me that I play against very fast-improving junior.
2. Again, draw probably couldn't give anything to me, but not to Calugar. Draw - and he wins FM title and prize, win - may be IM title (in some cases after play-off) and prize. His situation was much better not only by 0.5 point but also psychologically. Arthur could expect me to play unusually risky, which increases his chances for win and IM title.
To be more clear I'll try to translate these factors to the language of probability. If game Plotkin - Calugar is played in the regular situation, let say in the first round of Canadian Closed, the chances should be 40 % for white's win, 30 % for a draw and 30 % for black's win. (It's just an example, white supposes to have some advantage even between 2200 players). But in this particular case the probability is changing from 40-30-30 to, let say, 45-5-50. In other words, by playing for win almost in any position, I increase my chances by 5 % only, but black adds 20 %. Again, this is just rough estimation, I don't want to argue too much about it.
So before the game I estimated my chances to win as 45 %, not so bad, but still less than 50 %. Game started, Sicilian with 2. c3, Arthur surprised me by playing 2... Kf6 and not 2... d5, as he usually plays against me. At this point I absolutely agree with chess content of Spraggett's blog: white got slightly better position, black equalized, the game transfered after move 40 to queen ending, which was about equal. From move 41 to move 60 the position remained equal, I had few options to force a draw by repetition, but didn't even think about it. Even if I have very slim chance to win why should I draw? What can I lose? 7.5 rating points? And the same time I can win 166 CAD prize and title. Honestly, I want to see one, just one competitive chess player about my rating (I am not talking about 2500 GM versus 2500 GM) who forces draw in my situation.
Few times I had pretty similar circumstances (last or before last round, equal endgame, must-win tournament situation). Here couple of examples:
1. 2005, Minneapolis, USA. I have 4 out of 8, equal queen ending against 2200 USCF player, win may be gives me class prize. I won this game, but didn't get prize... I shared 4th place for U2300, third prize was 5000 USD.
2. 2005, Tartu College. 3 out of 4, knight ending against IM R.Livshits. We both played for win, he sacrificed knight for 2 pawns. I won this game with just less than 10 seconds left on my clock (no increment).
3. 2009, Moscow, Aeroflot - Open. I have 3 out of 7, 5 out 9 give the prize. I play with black against 2370 Russian FM. Dead-draw endgame, different colour bishops, 6 pawns each. He offers me a draw... I felt pretty uncomfortable to decline a draw against a much higher-rated opponent. But I must win... I was very surprised how poor can be 2370-player in endgame. He made at least 5 obvious mistakes. Unfortunately I lost next game against WGM O.Bodnaruk.
4. 2009, Hart House. I have 3 out of 4 and in the last round play against ... Arthur. Pretty equal ending, my B + 5 pawns against his N + 5 pawns. Draw gives nothing, so I refuse repetition and play for win. Calugar outplays me, gets absolutely winning position, but misses an easy win... Draw.
5. 2010, Hart House. 2.5 out of 4. Equal rook ending against Michael Kleinman.
I have to win to share 3-rd prize... Somehow I won this position.
6. 2011, Moscow, Aeroflot - Open. 4.5 out of 8. Win gives me like 200+ EURO (about 300 CAD). I play against 2150 player with black. Petrov with 4. Kc3. R+B+pawns endgame. Opponent offers me a draw, I suspect I am slighly worse (Rybka shows -0.2 for black, that means I was right about it). But I must win... I won this game.
I didn't write about these games to show my greatness in chess or in endings. I just wanted to show that playing equal endings for win is sometimes my only chance to achieve something in tournament. And the statistics was pretty good. With Arthur this approach didn't work twice... What can I say? May be he just plays endgame better.
Generally I believe if I don't play equal endgame for win my rating must be well below 2200 (FIDE, not CFC).
Come back to our game. I just blundered 60... Qf1, after which I had no practical chances. Spraggett mentions 61. Qe8 as the only way for a draw. Theoretically he is right. But playing on 30-sec increment I am not able to find it... Sorry.
Now about wording. Although my English isn't so good (probably you can find a lot of mistakes in my post) I understand the meaning of the word "cheating". Spraggett didn't use it, but his sentence "both players should be forfeited" has about the same meaning. In my opinion cheating in this case is agreement made before or during the game between 2 players. In this agreement loss of one player is compensated by the winner (share of the prize money, promiss to lose next game...) Draw agreement made before the game is kind of "grey area" . It's not illegal, but still sounds bad. Playing for win in equal endgame position is not a cheating. If Spraggett wants CFC to investigate this case - OK, I am ready, no problem. I also want FIDE to check his unjustified cheating accusations.
Couple of words about Mr. Louis Morin. With CFC rating of 1985 he shouldn't use words like "absurdity" about players 400+ points stronger then him. I couldn't imagine myself writing these words about 2650 FIDE-rated players. As a human I understand his interest of some kind of "scandal ", but still recommend him to choose other words.
One strong Canadian chessplayer described Kevin Spraggett after I told him I had never seen this famous Canadian GM "You don't know him? Good for you... You didn't lose anything". Probably this is right.
Here some details from Spraggett's blog I would like him and his permanent readers to pay attention for.
1. My name is Victor Plotkin (and not Potkin). Vladimir Potkin is a very strong Russian GM, current Europian champion. If Spraggett spent so much time analysing my last round game and it's chess and psychological issues he could check the right spelling of my name. I always thought my family name is pretty simple, Spraggett, for example is more complicated. But who cares about some 2200 player...
2. My chess level doesn't allow me to judge the chess content of his article. He also analysed 7 X 7 crosstable for 7 highest-rated players of the tournament. Too many mistakes made by Kevin in his analysis raise some questions about his ability to to something else except playing chess and blogging. As a Master of Math I can say Spraggett failed on simple data management test.
And now to Plotkin - Calugar game.
Before last round it was pretty clear that I must win to achieve something in this tournament. Win could give me FM title (for sure) and 250 CAD (probably part of it) prize. Draw could give me FM title only in unlikely case: Kleinman beats Sambuev with black or draws and win possible play-off for IM title against Shiam or Jung. No offence to Michael, he had a great tournament, but I estimate the probability of this scenario as very low.
So OK, I play white against about the same-rated opponent with whom I had pretty positive score before. Positive score is good, white is good but I also realized few factors not in my favour.
1. Atrhur had a very good tournament as well as pretty solid Canadian Junior and 1-st place on Hart House tournament (beat Sambuev with black in the last round). This Canadian Closed I was really impressed by his fighting spirit. Having 4 out of 5 he declined draw against Gerzhoy, second highest-rated player (Arthur lost, but it doesn't matter).
Young players usually don't improve their strenth permanently, they alternate "accumulation period" with "jumping period" there they can gain 100 rating points for a short period of time. It was absolutely clear for me that I play against very fast-improving junior.
2. Again, draw probably couldn't give anything to me, but not to Calugar. Draw - and he wins FM title and prize, win - may be IM title (in some cases after play-off) and prize. His situation was much better not only by 0.5 point but also psychologically. Arthur could expect me to play unusually risky, which increases his chances for win and IM title.
To be more clear I'll try to translate these factors to the language of probability. If game Plotkin - Calugar is played in the regular situation, let say in the first round of Canadian Closed, the chances should be 40 % for white's win, 30 % for a draw and 30 % for black's win. (It's just an example, white supposes to have some advantage even between 2200 players). But in this particular case the probability is changing from 40-30-30 to, let say, 45-5-50. In other words, by playing for win almost in any position, I increase my chances by 5 % only, but black adds 20 %. Again, this is just rough estimation, I don't want to argue too much about it.
So before the game I estimated my chances to win as 45 %, not so bad, but still less than 50 %. Game started, Sicilian with 2. c3, Arthur surprised me by playing 2... Kf6 and not 2... d5, as he usually plays against me. At this point I absolutely agree with chess content of Spraggett's blog: white got slightly better position, black equalized, the game transfered after move 40 to queen ending, which was about equal. From move 41 to move 60 the position remained equal, I had few options to force a draw by repetition, but didn't even think about it. Even if I have very slim chance to win why should I draw? What can I lose? 7.5 rating points? And the same time I can win 166 CAD prize and title. Honestly, I want to see one, just one competitive chess player about my rating (I am not talking about 2500 GM versus 2500 GM) who forces draw in my situation.
Few times I had pretty similar circumstances (last or before last round, equal endgame, must-win tournament situation). Here couple of examples:
1. 2005, Minneapolis, USA. I have 4 out of 8, equal queen ending against 2200 USCF player, win may be gives me class prize. I won this game, but didn't get prize... I shared 4th place for U2300, third prize was 5000 USD.
2. 2005, Tartu College. 3 out of 4, knight ending against IM R.Livshits. We both played for win, he sacrificed knight for 2 pawns. I won this game with just less than 10 seconds left on my clock (no increment).
3. 2009, Moscow, Aeroflot - Open. I have 3 out of 7, 5 out 9 give the prize. I play with black against 2370 Russian FM. Dead-draw endgame, different colour bishops, 6 pawns each. He offers me a draw... I felt pretty uncomfortable to decline a draw against a much higher-rated opponent. But I must win... I was very surprised how poor can be 2370-player in endgame. He made at least 5 obvious mistakes. Unfortunately I lost next game against WGM O.Bodnaruk.
4. 2009, Hart House. I have 3 out of 4 and in the last round play against ... Arthur. Pretty equal ending, my B + 5 pawns against his N + 5 pawns. Draw gives nothing, so I refuse repetition and play for win. Calugar outplays me, gets absolutely winning position, but misses an easy win... Draw.
5. 2010, Hart House. 2.5 out of 4. Equal rook ending against Michael Kleinman.
I have to win to share 3-rd prize... Somehow I won this position.
6. 2011, Moscow, Aeroflot - Open. 4.5 out of 8. Win gives me like 200+ EURO (about 300 CAD). I play against 2150 player with black. Petrov with 4. Kc3. R+B+pawns endgame. Opponent offers me a draw, I suspect I am slighly worse (Rybka shows -0.2 for black, that means I was right about it). But I must win... I won this game.
I didn't write about these games to show my greatness in chess or in endings. I just wanted to show that playing equal endings for win is sometimes my only chance to achieve something in tournament. And the statistics was pretty good. With Arthur this approach didn't work twice... What can I say? May be he just plays endgame better.
Generally I believe if I don't play equal endgame for win my rating must be well below 2200 (FIDE, not CFC).
Come back to our game. I just blundered 60... Qf1, after which I had no practical chances. Spraggett mentions 61. Qe8 as the only way for a draw. Theoretically he is right. But playing on 30-sec increment I am not able to find it... Sorry.
Now about wording. Although my English isn't so good (probably you can find a lot of mistakes in my post) I understand the meaning of the word "cheating". Spraggett didn't use it, but his sentence "both players should be forfeited" has about the same meaning. In my opinion cheating in this case is agreement made before or during the game between 2 players. In this agreement loss of one player is compensated by the winner (share of the prize money, promiss to lose next game...) Draw agreement made before the game is kind of "grey area" . It's not illegal, but still sounds bad. Playing for win in equal endgame position is not a cheating. If Spraggett wants CFC to investigate this case - OK, I am ready, no problem. I also want FIDE to check his unjustified cheating accusations.
Couple of words about Mr. Louis Morin. With CFC rating of 1985 he shouldn't use words like "absurdity" about players 400+ points stronger then him. I couldn't imagine myself writing these words about 2650 FIDE-rated players. As a human I understand his interest of some kind of "scandal ", but still recommend him to choose other words.
Comment