Potpourri: American Cup, Remembering Dvoretsky, and More
Testing your chess engines, "But okay...", a "third rail" topic, and a feel-good story.
It has been a while, but we’ll do some catching up in this big post, starting with would in normal times be a huge event - the (awkwardly named) American Cup. This double-elimination tournament (or rather, tournaments: there was a women’s tournament alongside the main tournament, and its winner deserves some attention too) included most of the top U.S. players, excluding Hikaru Nakamura and Hans Niemann. Nakamura presumably preferred to spend his time streaming and preparing for the Candidates, which starts in a couple of weeks (we’ll have heavy coverage of that tournament), while Niemann is on the outs because of his damaging a hotel room last year (I think that’s when it was). But those two aside, all the big U.S. guns were involved: Fabiano Caruana, Wesley So, Leinier Dominguez, and Levon Aronian represented the over-2700 crowd (over 2800, in Caruana’s case, and all but Dominguez have been over 2800 at some point); Sam Sevian, Ray Robson, Sam Shankland, and Grigoriy Oparin rounded out the field (and the first three have all been over 2700 themselves).
The format was a series of sort-of knockout matches. The sort-of quarterfinals were four-game matches, with a slow game and a rapid game on the first day followed by the same format on the second day (though if a player clinched victory in the best-of-four game match after the third game the match would end without bothering with game 4). Match victors played match victors, while match losers contested four-game rapid matches in the elimination bracket. A second match loss meant elimination, but the ultimate winner of the elimination bracket - continually replenished by the losers of the sort-of semifinals and the sort-of finals - would bubble back up to face the winner of the sort-of final. If that player won, then the previously unbeaten player would thus also be in the elimination bracket, and so a final four-game match would take place.
In case that’s unclear, let’s imagine a four-player tournament with this format, starring players A-D. In round 1 we get A vs. D and B vs. C. Suppose A and B win their matches. They will play in the winners bracket, alternating classical and rapid games over the course of two days, while C and D will play in the losers/elimination bracket, contesting four rapid games in one day. Suppose A and C win. Then D is eliminated and B and C will play a losers bracket rapid match for the right to play A. Suppose B wins. Then A plays B again, in the winners bracket (meaning the classical-and-rapid format is in play), and this time B wins. Now both A and B have lost a match, so the championship will be decided in the losers bracket format - rapid only - and whoever wins this match wins the tournament.
That’s how it works; let’s fill in the actual details. In the quarters Caruana beat Oparin 2.5-0.5, Aronian needed a blitz playoff to defeat Sevian 4-2, So dispatched Shankland 2.5-0.5, and in the round’s one upset Robson beat Dominguez 2.5-1.5.
We’ll return to the elimination bracket later. Continuing with the winners: the semis saw Aronian again prevail 4-2 in a blitz playoff, this time against Caruana, while Robson scored his second straight upset victory, this time defeating So 3-1. In the final (“final”) Aronian put an end to Robson’s undefeated run, winning handily with a 2.5-0.5 score.
To the elimination bracket. In the first round Sevian defeated Oparin 3-1, while Dominguez needed two rounds of blitz to finish off Shankland by a 5-3 score. That meant that Oparin and Shankland were out of the event, but they were replaced in the bracket by the semifinal losers from the winners bracket - Caruana and So. So beat Sevian 3-1, while Caruana needed blitz games to defeat Dominguez, 4-2. Then So and Caruana played, with So sneaking by with a 3.5-2.5 match victory. Then Robson dropped down after losing to Aronian, and thus the So-Robson match would determine who would go back to the winners bracket. So won, 4-2, and earned a match with Aronian. (To win the tournament, So would have to win that match and then a second match; for Aronian to win, one match victory would suffice.)
In the final final, it was Aronian who triumphed, 2.5-1.5, a great success for the erstwhile world #2. It’s good to see that he can still compete successfully with the world’s best players, despite his “advanced” age (he’s 41).
The women’s event was also interesting, and for the third year in a row it came down to Irina Krush and teenager Alice Lee. Lee is only 14 years old, so while it’s not surprising that Krush defeated her in 2022 and 2023 it is impressive that Lee made the finals as a 12-year-old and again as a 13-year-old. Now an IM, she is still lower-rated than GM Krush, but clearly on her way up.
Nevertheless, in the first “final” Krush defeated her handily, 2.5-0.5, winning her fifth straight American Cup match against Lee and looking poised to win her third straight title. Lee won her one match in the elimination bracket to get a rematch with Krush, and returned the favor with a 2.5-0.5 victory of her own. They were forced to play an elimination bracket match for all the marbles, and while the games generally trended in Krush’s favor she was unable to put Lee away, and in the end, after a pair of blitz games, Lee won 4-2. Big congratulations to the youngster; hopefully this will propel her to further, greater success over the next few years.
There were plenty of interesting games in the event, of which a small selection (with my comments) is here.
Famed Russian trainer Mark Dvoretsky has been gone since 2016 (has it really been that long?!), but he has left us a great legacy with his many books, all of which can be recommended to strong and ambitious chess players. Now, happily, a book about him is available in English. The book is divided into four parts: a section of tributes (from, among others, Viswanathan Anand and Magnus Carlsen, while Garry Kasparov offers an even more substantial tribute in his Foreword). Part 2 shows 39 of Dvoretsky’s games, demonstrating to those of us who only know him as a trainer that he was a fine player as well, at one time in the top 30 or so in the world. In part 3 a number of his endgame studies are presented, and the fourth part includes some of his articles and interviews. Your mileage may vary; for me, this is a must-have (to the extent that any chess book is a “must”). (Note: if you’re interested in getting the book, you might also consider the Forward Chess version.)
Every so often I’ll see if there are any engines giving the big three (Stockfish, Dragon, and Leela) a run for their money, and this last time I came across Berserk. If you scroll down to position #6 (but don’t, not yet!) you’ll find a nice opposite-colored bishop endgame study by Ladislav Salai, Jr. On the page it says that Berserk solves the problem in 26 seconds. I have a pretty nice rig for a normal person, and, well, 26 seconds wasn’t happening. Not for Berserk, or Stockfish, or any program I have. Maybe 26 minutes? Anyway, I’d be curious if any of you manage to replicate anything even close to the advertised time. But first, do try to solve it for yourself - it’s a very nice study. (Have a look here: the first entry gives the position to solve, the second provides the solution.)
A “bleg” (a beg on the blog): as many of you probably know, GM Daniel Naroditsky is not just a terrific player (even more so in blitz and bullet), he’s also highly adept at impersonating other chess players. Not all his impersonations are equally strong, but it’s almost always pretty clear who he’s doing. With one exception, at least for me: there’s an impression, presumably of a Russian player, that always begins with “But okay…”, and I can’t figure out who that’s supposed to be. Nepo? Maybe, but I’ve heard him do an impression that’s labeled onscreen as Nepo, and it sounds different and doesn’t have the “But okay” intro. If someone knows who it’s supposed to be, please let me know.
I’m not interested in commenting on this fraught topic, but for those who dare go where angels - or at least some bloggers - fear to tread, here’s Why Do Men Dominate Chess? Enjoy.
Finally, here’s a wonderful story for Noland Arbaugh and others in his condition. Perhaps someday the technology will develop in a way that exacerbates concerns about cheating, but for now, congrats to Mr. Arbaugh and the Neuralink team.
"But, ok, ..." Maybe Kramnik? I seem to recall him saying this allot.