John Henderson Linares Reports

Round 2 24th February 2001

KEEP ON TAKING THE TABLAS

TODAY’S report is shorter than usual. Well, the way I figure it, if the players can have a “half-day” then so can the hacks!

They said that without Kramnik and Anand there would be a lot of victories this year in Linares as the opposition would be weaker. Not so. As they say in Spanish: “Seis partidas, seis tablas”(Six games, and six draws).

We need a win and we need it quickly to liven the event up. Cast your minds back to last year. Can you remember what happened? Trying to prove to all that Alexander Dmitryevich’s defence was indeed a forced draw, Linares descended into a sort of Petroff thematic tournament (and believe me, there’s only so much you can write about the Petroff, the chess equivalent of Mogadon!).

But then again “Linares” and “tablas” are synonymous with each other. There’ s always been the battle between the supertourneos legendary organiser Don Luis Rentero (thankfully making a full recovery now after his near-fatal car crash a couple of year's ago) and the players. Rentero hates draws – especially short draws – and likes to encourage “fighting chess” at his tournament. I suppose it was a good job he wasn’t around for the second round – the sight of three draws in under 30 moves could have been enough to give him a relapse.

In the past, Rentero has tried everything to discourage this happening. He’s tried cajoling the players, he’s tried bribing them, and he’s even resorted to fining them. Yes, Linares and the draw have a lot in common. One particular trick he used to employ was taking a particular player to one side prior to the game and, showing them an envelope stuffed with pesetas in the inside pocket of his jacket, he would tell them that the envelope would be theirs at the end of the day – but only if they fought hard and made sure the game lasted more than 40 moves. Asked about this policy of “bribing” the players to perform, it’s said that he once remarked, “I’d offer them women or a Caribbean cruise, but those I haven’t got. What I have got is money.” Of course, it worked. Rentero was in charge of a tournament that bucked the trend with around two thirds of the games being decisive.

Rentero even came up with the ploy of the contracts for the players stating that they must play at least 40 moves in each round. According to Dirk Jan ten Geuzendam’s new book on Linares (more of which in later reports), the idea came about when Boris Spassky approached him to play in the 1990 tournament. The only problem Rentero had with the living legend playing was Boris’s liking for an easy life. Hell, this was the guy who once turned up for an important game in his tennis gear, racket in hand, leaving his opponent in no doubt as to where he would much rather be spending the afternoon – after all, he had booked the tennis court for the afternoon. Needless to say, the quick draw soon followed. Of course, there have been those that paid the price of refusing Boris’s novel way of hinting at an early draw: Usually they got crushed. Boris is not the sort of person you upset and get away with it. Rentero only allowed Spassky to play on the condition that he signed a contract with a clause in it that he would make forty moves in each of his games. Spassky had little say in the matter. In order to play in Linares, you had to do as Don Luis wished, and if it meant playing forty moves in each game, then so be it. Keeping to the letter of the contract, it was a decision that was to bring him to near exhaustion. Towards the end of the tournament the 10th World champion went down on his knees in front of the Don in the bar of the Hotel Anibal and pleaded with him: “What is it you want? Do you want me to die?”

Rentero liked this idea of having the power to quash those so-called GM draws, so continued to keep the “forty move” clause in the contracts for all the players from then on. This inevitably led to conflicts. If someone disobeyed, Rentero would act just as quickly as the speed in which they had agreed the draw by issuing letters slapping a fine on the offenders. Insulted, the players would threaten to leave the tournament. Of course, as the saying goes, “Money Talks” and invariably it would all be patched up again. Chess professionals have to earn a living – and Linares has always been their big payday.

Rather than bore you with all the three draws from round two, I think we’ll concentrate on the only interesting one of the day: Kasparov vs. Polgar. Kasparov wasn’t exactly happy himself that the game ended in a draw in under forty moves. Judit? She was delirious! It was her first draw with Kasparov in classical chess.

Kasparov,G (2849) - Polgar,J (2676) [B90]

1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 a6 6 Be3 Ng4 The Kasparov Variation. 7 Bg5 h6 8 Bh4 g5 9 Bg3 Bg7 10 h3 Ne5 Both these players had this position in the last round of the Corus 2000 tournament. Then, Judit played the unusual 10 ..Nf6!? and got a good game - though Kasparov won. 11 f3 Nbc6 12 Bf2 Be6 13 Qd2 After 13 Nxe6 fxe6 , Black has superb central control. 13 ..Nxd4 14 Bxd4 Qa5 15 a3 Rg8!

Castling on either wing is taboo, but the King is perfectly safe in the centre. The only problem Judit had was where to best develop the rooks: c8 was the most obvious for the queen's rook, and from g8, the king's rook stays out of harms way after the h-file is opened. 16 h4 Rc8 17 hxg5 hxg5 18 0–0–0 18 Qxg5?? Nxf3+! 18 ..Nc4 19 Bxc4 Bxd4 Awkward for Black is 19 ..Rxc4?! 20 Bxg7 Rxg7 21 Rh8+ Kd7 22 g4 , leaving problems of how to get the "fianchettoed" rook back into the game. 20 Qxd4N

White only got a small advantage after 20 Bb5+ axb5 21 Qxd4 Rc4 22 Qd2 Kd7 23 Na2 Qxd2+ 24 Rxd2 g4 25 Nb4 gxf3 26 gxf3 f6 27 Nd3 1–0 Bologan,V-Xu Jun/Beijing CHN 2000/The Week in Chess 296 (81). (80) 20 ..Rxc4 21 Qa7 Qc7 The thematic exchange sacrifice on c3 doesn't work here: 21 ..Rxc3 22 bxc3 Qxa3+ 23 Kd2 with a big White advantage. 22 Kb1 Rc5! Entombing Kasparov's queen. Kasparov's novelty of 20 Qxd4 had the idea of Qa7 in mind - trying to stretch the Black defenses - so he must have known that his queen was safe here. However, it does seem well out of place on a7. 23 Nd5 Bxd5 24 exd5 Kf8 24 ..Rxc2? 25 Rc1 Rc5 26 b4! and Black is losing very quickly. 26 ..Rc3 27 Kb2! and carnage down the c-file. 25 Rd2 Kg7

26 b4 Kasparov felt he let the game slip here. During the post mortem, both players skipped through the beginning of the game and concentrated all their efforts here. Kasparov felt that, in reflection, he should have gone for: 26 Rh5 Kf6! (Again both players felt this looked the more natural move. The alternative left Black with too many problems with her King and trouble in the ending, also. 26 ..f6 27 g4 Rc8 (27 ..Rh8 28 Rxh8 Kxh8 29 Qa8+ Qc8 30 Qxc8+ Rxc8 31 Re2 Rc7 32 c3 Kg7 33 Kc2 Kf7 34 Kd3 with the better ending.) 28 c3) 27 b4 (27 g4 Rc8 (27 ..b5 28 Qxa6 Rb8 29 f4 gxf4 30 Rf5+ Kg7 31 Rxf4 Rb6 32 Qa5 b4 33 Qa4 Rc3) 28 c3) 27 ..b5 28 Qxa6 Rc3 29 Rh6+ Kg7 30 Rh1 Rc8 31 Re1 Rxc2 32 Qxc8 Qxc8 33 Rxc2 This was just some of the many lines that Garry and Judit flicked out (to be honest, I couldn't keep up with the speed they went through the variations at) - no definite conclusion was reached at the end, though it was felt that Kasparov had "something" but maybe not enough for a win. 26 ..b5 27 Qxa6 Rc3 In the end, White has to play carefully and Black has a perpetual in hand; as ably demonstrated by the players: 27 ..Rc3 28 Re1 (28 Qxb5? Rxa3 29 Rd3 Ra2! 30 Qc6 (30 Kxa2 Qxc2+ 31 Ka1 Ra8+) 30 ..Qa7 31 Qc3+ f6 32 Rhd1 (32 Re1? Ra8 33 Kc1 Qf2! 34 Rxe7+ Kg6) 32 ..Ra8) 28 ..Rc8 29 Ree2 Qc4 30 Kb2 (30 Qa7 Rc7 31 Qd4+ Qxd4 32 Rxd4 Rxa3) 30 ..Rxc2+ 31 Rxc2 Qd4+ 32 Kc1 (32 Ka2 Qxd5+ 33 Kb2 Qd4+; 32 Kb1 Qd1+ 33 Kb2 Qd4+) 32 ..Qa1+ 33 Kd2 Qd4+ 34 Kc1 (34 Ke1 Qg1+) 34 ..Qa1+= ½–½

The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of TWIC, Chess & Bridge Ltd or the London Chess Center.

You can contact John Henderson at: jbhthescots@cableinet.co.uk