After dropping the first game to IM Irina Krush, GM Vladimir Akopian (2700) from Armenia scored 7.5 points in the next 8 games to win the Gibraltar Chess Festival.
A number of players tied for second with 7 points including GM Nakamura, GM Sutovsky and GM Areshchenko.
Here is the official website.
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
Unfortunately Irina Krush lost today. They were saying that a draw would have given her a men’s GM norm. she played a kind of super wild opening for black. No one was too thrilled from the opening and sure enough she lost.
It just got me wondering about Swiss-system tournaments. It was not just Akobian who took an early loss and then did well in Gibralter. This seems to be what Nakumara did, and even Korchnoi, who started off poorly then started running through the field until he got ‘Krush’ed. I’m certain there are others.
Is there any real analysis out there? What I mean is that if it is more common for players to win, or take top prizes in Swisses by losing points early and then running through an easier field, it just makes me feel that the players who win early are sabotaging their chances! But this seems ridiculous.
I use to direct college tournaments, and I remember when I ran a 6 round Swiss a player dropped his first two games only to take the section prize by winning the next 4.
I know that it can happen both ways, but if it is MORE common for winners to lose points early and proceed to clean up, then I think that this points to a flaw in this sort of pairing system. No, I’m not offerring an alternative now – really haven’t tried to work anything out. If it’s the best we’ve got, then so be it.
They call losing the first game a gambit. I forget the name of the gambit. I won once by losing the first game. It really works well. But it is tricky. You dont want to lose again.
It also can be a big help to draw the first game. That avoids all the strong people who won the first game.
Who remembers the name of this gambit. It might be called a swiss gambit because it is a swiss tournament.
I think this gambit is most effective in large tournaments. With a bit turnout, the strong guys are going to be at the top battling each other and knocking each other out. Maybe this is why the pros do a lot of draws and just barely win their sections.
Look what happened in Corus C section this year. One player lead the entire tournament and lost out in the last round.
Akobian lost to Krush in the first round and then won the tournament.
Nakamura lost in first round of the US Championships but then lost a 2nd time and so it did not work for him that time.
Corus C was a closed tournament
We used to call losing the first one or two games and then winning the rest against weaker competition playing the “Swiss Gambit.”
I’ve never heard of this Swiss Gambit thing before, or thought of it before; until whilst watching this tournament.
I was following Mickey Adams and quite early on it occurred to me that if he’d not done so well to start with he’d have had a much earlier journey to at least getting the same score. I’d been giving it quite some thought, before reading this thread, and had also started to wonder if possibly the swiss system is flawed.
So its interesting, and I have to admit I’m a little pleased that, the same idea has been posted here and there was actually a name for it 🙂
This line of thinking that early defeat helps to rake more points at the end might be right for 2400-2550 players. But for Akopian, if he happened to beat Krush, his hext opponent would have likely been another 2400 rated player instead 2200 he got. For 2700 rated player like Akopian it should not make much difference. These monsters use to have simuls with a bunch of 2400 players and score big. Plus, Akopian convincingly beat sole leader Sokolov in round 8 and then in 23 moves child prodigy Kuzubov. Hats off!
Well it is the Swiss Gambit. But I do not think that Akobian purposely lost his first game. I agree on that. It is more usual for the top players to win against weak players and then take draws against the strong ones. So basically they give up the points later in the tournament.
But sometimes it works really well.
OK, now I have some hard data for analysis:
Akopian lost in round 1 and finished at 7½. The average rating of his opponents was 2441.
Nakamura also lost in round 1 but finished at 7 and the average rating of his opponents was 2450.
Sutovsky also finished at 7 but didn’t lose until round 3, and his opponents had an average rating of 2507.
Adams finished one point off the leader at 6½ but won his first three games, and his opponents had an average rating of 2559.
Does this ‘prove’ anything? I don’t know, which is why I’m asking for opinions. It looks to me that poor Adams ‘punishment’ for winning his first three games was to face opposition of average strength over 100 points higher than Akopian, the winner. Also, though Sutovsky and Nakamura had very similar tournament results, Nakamura lost earlier and his opposition was more than 50 points weaker.
I understand that players are paired in rating order in a Swiss, and maybe the disparity can be completely explained away in this manner.
I just picked these four players as an example. Of course, perhaps more results could be analyzed, and maybe more conclusions drawn.
I am not proposing or ‘accusing’ anyone of throwing games (too many conspiracy theorists at this blog), and I don’t wish to denigrate Akopian’s fine tournament result. I don’t think that the rating disparity is his ‘fault’. But if there is fault to be found, then I think it lies in inadequacies in the Swiss pairing system.
I can think of a few modifications to the Swiss pairing system that might make tournament matches more equitable and ‘fair’. I’d post a few if this thread goes anyplace. Otherwise, hope the information above is at least of interest.
(meow)
The average rating of Zhu Chens opponens is 2596!!
She got the toughest draw in the tourney!!