{"id":2857,"date":"2025-02-17T21:17:09","date_gmt":"2025-02-17T20:17:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/skolasachu.com\/?p=2857"},"modified":"2025-02-17T22:15:51","modified_gmt":"2025-02-17T21:15:51","slug":"wijk-aan-zee-2025-world-champion-won-and-left-with-silver","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/skolasachu.com\/en\/wijk-aan-zee-2025-mistr-sveta-zvitezil-a-odjel-se-stribrem\/","title":{"rendered":"Wijk aan Zee 2025: the world champion won, and left with silver"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u00a0\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\u201eWhat mysterious contradiction did the author put in the article's title? Has he also stopped caring about truthful article headlines and lies in them as if printing?\u201c a reader might ask. Or are even traditional classical tournaments affected by the vices of modern FIDE events? Not at all! I am only referring to blitz tiebreaks, which have become an essential part of them for some time now. This year's very strong tournament was completely dominated by the youth, and despite an incredible number of serious mistakes and outright blunders, it was one of the most interesting tournaments in recent years! The tension on the board in some games was palpable, and the number of theoretical novelties could not be counted on the fingers of one hand! Many were naturally curious about the new world champion. Well, since in chess one can freely discuss without risk, the opinions of experts and amateurs differed like day and night. In the first part, we will focus on so-called active serious mistakes, the spice of practical chess at all levels, which proliferate and multiply without problems even in the strongest tournaments...<\/p>\n

The games of the last round will be completed, and if there is a tie for first place, the winner is decided by a 3+2 blitz. According to standard historical models, however, in such a case the Sonneborn-Berger tiebreak was used or the first place was simply shared. (A classic example is the 1979 Montreal tournament, where the then world champion Anatoly Karpov and Mikhail Tal shared first place). And so, just like last year left<\/strong> the current world champion<\/strong> from the tournament with silver<\/strong> in his pocket, when in the old-fashioned way<\/em> Wijk would have won again! Blitz simply does not (yet?)<\/em> work.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Final results of this year's main tournament.<\/em><\/p>\n

Risk is reward? Not always!<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

Let's first look at the very end, the decisive blitz game that decided the official winner of this year's Wijk. (Just a reminder that last year four players reached the tiebreak and the lucky winner \u2013 though one hesitates to call him the champion \u2013 was eventually Wei Yi.) \u201eBlitz games are not analysed!\u201c<\/em> my coach \u0160tefan Gross used to say fondly... he was not alone. Oh, where are those snows of yesteryear! The last and decisive blitz became probably the most analysed on all possible platforms, so we cannot pass it by either.<\/p>\n

In a threatened position, with less than half a minute on the clock, Praggnanandhaa played 30.Nb5?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Can you find the continuation leading to a win?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

https:\/\/skolasachu.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/Zaver-3-blic-Pragg-Gukesh-Sagar.mp4<\/a><\/video><\/div>\n

With an extra minute on the clock, 24 seconds for White, and a distant passed pawn more in a minor-piece endgame, everything seemed so clear to me that while watching the live broadcast I picked up the phone, went away and made myself a coffee; and when I returned\u2026<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Display of blunders<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

Contemporary tournaments are indeed characterised by an unusual number of so-called active blunders regardless of whether the time control is classical. I have observed this trend for quite some time and no one will convince me that it is merely a subjective feeling influenced simply by the fact that engines nowadays can easily detect even more hidden \u2013 less obvious blunders or by the fact that games are more publicised. Well yes, many viewers enjoy this. Their subconscious, in my opinion, positively accepts this irrefutable fact! \u201eCan a 2700-plus grandmaster really play like this?\u201c<\/em> everyone wonders inwardly, and many even think: \u201eI certainly wouldn\u2019t make such a blunder in a serious game!\u201c <\/em><\/p>\n

Let us first look at the most glaring mistakes of this year\u2019s edition. Would you be able to properly punish the supergrandmasters for the oversights they committed?<\/p>\n

Let us start with the most glaring and at the same time perhaps the most terrible blunder in the entire Masters tournament. \u201eBlunders come in pairs!\u201c<\/strong>, could be the title of an entire book collecting similar tragedies.<\/p>\n

In the game of round 4 Erigaisi vs. Fedosejev<\/strong> White had already gained a decisive advantage earlier, which due to a certain inaccuracy later produced<\/em> only a greater advantage.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

In the position of the left diagram Black captured the bishop on f5. After three minutes of thinking (sic) the brilliant young Indian, who has already surpassed the 2,800 mark, made a terrible mistake. Can you punish him for the tactical blunder 27.Nxf5??<\/span> ?<\/strong> How would you actually continue your game instead?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Arjun\u2019s tragic moments occur at the 4th minute of Sagar\u2019s video.<\/p>\n