THE WEEK IN CHESS 100 07/10/96 Mark Crowther --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- E-Mail mdcrowth@netcomuk.co.uk www http://www.tcc.net/gmtchess.html Tel or fax 01274 882143 [Bradford England] Produced for Thoth Communications Corporation part of Grandmaster Technologies Incorporated. --------------------------------------------------- 1) Introduction --------------- The 100th issue of TWIC is a landmark for me. The original idea was simply to collect together the basic chess news for the week. Little did I know how much it would expand and develop over the years. Now it is almost inconceivable for a top event not to be covered by the organisers on the net and this was no better illustrated than by the Olympiad itself which forms the content of this issue. There were three web-sites covering the event with original material. An Armenian Press Agency, the Official Web site and the new FIDE Planet Chess site. Two years ago I covered the event myself managing to get a disk of games from ChessAssistant but having to work out the results of most nations from that. Not that this makes life easier. There was almost an information overload during this Olympiad. Whereas two years ago I did not add the ratings of the players to games files now I do, this creates a tremendous amount of extra work above simply reporting results. I hope I have done a reasonable job of discovering just who played in the Olympiad. The appearance of so many games so quickly from the organisers inevitably means errors. I am already recieving corrections to the moves in the games files. I will try and put together some corrections for next week. The women's event is even harder as there are many more unrated players in this event. Also thus far I don't have round 6 for the women. Having all the games enables some checks to the results to be made. How do I see the future? Now I am able to work full time on TWIC I hope to gradually raise the quality and range of events covered aswell as improve the appearance of the www pages. This issue is devoted to trying to make sense of the Olympiad that has just finished with the major results and statistics aswell as an account of the politics surrounding the Olympiad. My thanks to Dadi Jonsson (http://www.vks.is/skak/olymp96.html), Jonathan Tisdall, Ian Rogers amongst others for their help with this issue. Chess Planet (http://www.chessweb.com ) a new FIDE site first published the games in raw form. I made heavy use of Carol Jarecki's USCF report and in the last few minutes before the publication of TWIC there were some interesting details from Einar S. Einarsson. Now available on my page as part of this issue are almost all the Men's games and almost all the Women's games excluding round 6 which was missing. (these sections are available in PGN and ChessBase format.) Next week there will be back to a normal issue and after the chess overload of the Olympiad I'm quite relieved! I hope you enjoy this issue. Mark 2) The 32nd Olympiad in Yerevan ------------------------------- Opening Ceremony ---------------- Armenia was the host to the 32nd Chess Olympiad. A nation that re-emerged with the break-up of the Soviet Union it has a strong sense of National identity. This nation has been troubled by the effects of a disastrous earthquake which destroyed 30% of all housing in 1988 whilst still part of the Soviet Union and by a regional conflict with Azerbaidzhan which lasted 4-5 years and only ended two years ago. The event was very much an attempt to show that Armenia was building after its past difficulties. The Olympiad has been said by many to be one of the better organised in recent memory. Hardened veterans saying that whilst a lot better than Salonika and Moscow it didn't quite match up to the heights of Manila and Dubai. Certainly the nightmare conditions of Moscow two years ago were not repeated in Yerevan. Standard chess sets, a well lit venue with plenty of space to hold the Olympiad and high quality printed bulletins were some of the luxuries available in Yerevan but not in Moscow. The full weight of the Government was behind the event to make it a success. The 32nd Chess Olympiad was officially opened in Yerevan on Sunday 15th September. The opening ceremony took place in the Tsitsernakaberd (Yerevan's Sports and Concert Complex) and was attended by the leading political figures in Armenia, President Levon Ter-Petrosian and Prime-Minister Hrant Bagratian. The event attracted 114 teams from 111 Nations to the Men's Olympiad and 74 teams from 72 Nations to the Women's event. There was confusion at the start of the event with some nations not arriving until the start of the second round and the Afghan team joining the Olympiad only in the second half. Garry Kasparov, although born in Azerbaidzhan is of Armenian extraction. He was referred to as World Champion throughout the opening ceremony and was given the honour as "Armenia's Second World Chess Champion" to light the Olympic flame. Kasparov said: "I am happy to see that at the moment when Armenia is overcoming challenges of transition and is normalising its life, the Chess Olympiad will be a landmark in this development. When the country gains the life which its people deserve the Chess Olympiad will be remembered as the first largest event due to which Armenia emerged on an international arena." Elections I ----------- In fact we soon learned that the Olympiad coincided with elections for the Armenian Government. This was not a coincidence. The dates were planned to coincide with the elections so that the ruling team could make maximum political capital out of the event. However the local people, although extremely friendly to the visitor's did comment that President Levon Ter-Petrosian was wasting IMF loans on an Olympiad when he could not provide such basics such as electricity. Kasparov played only a little at the start of the Olympiad and his play was somewhat distracted. It is reported that in this first week of the Olympiad Kasparov was campaigning for President Levon Ter-Petrosian in the run-up to the polls. The election battle was between Petrosian and former Prime-Minister Vazgem Manukyan. Petrosian has been in power for five very harsh years for the people. Only in very recent times have things started to improve a little. Before the Olympiad much had been made of the poor conditions in Armenia. Certainly in Yerevan reports of extreme food, hot water and power shortages were exaggerated. However this did not mean that there weren't problems. A large number of Western players went down with various stomach complaints and hot water the hotels was in very short supply. Ian Rogers had no hot water for the first two days and after that for only a limited number of hours a day. His guides in a neighbouring hotel didn't have any hot water. At the end of the Olympiad they understood that the hot water would be ended as soon as the players left. John Donaldson reported that on a trip on a free day out of Yerevan it became apparent that many of the country's meagre resources were concentrated in the capital and things were very basic elsewhere. When the election results were reported they returned Petrosian for another term. However there was evidence of widespread electoral fraud, monitors of the polling stations had expected Mr Manukyan to win with 55% to Petrosian's 37%. Manukyan cried foul and went to see the electoral commission in the Parliament. He was fearful of arrest and at one stage it was reported that he actually had been arrested. This brought crowds of 50,000 - 100,000 onto the streets. These events coincided with round 9 and after that the atmosphere of the Olympiad became soured. The players found it difficult to visit hotels as the city fell under virtual Marshall law. Although it is not disputed that there were protests, it is unclear how vigorous the Government reaction was. There were troops and tanks on the streets, some say that these protests were peaceful. However there are other reports of riots, especially centring around the Parliament, and that the troops fired into the crowds. Ian Rogers reports finding fresh blood outside the entrance to his hotel and also in the foyer. The owners tried to explain away as being nothing to do with the protests however Stefan Loffler went to one of the local hospitals on the night of the demos and confirmed that there were a lot of people being treated for bullet wounds. The elections were monitored by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, their preliminary report pointed to "very serious" irregularities in the election results. They were subsequently asked to leave the country by the Government. I don't know what has happened after the Olympiad broke up but there were already announcements that electricity will be cut back to 14 hours a day in November and cut off completely for some people. Elections II ------------ Of course the "real" elections we were expecting in Yerevan were those for the Governing body of chess, FIDE. Florencio Campomanes was elected FIDE President in 1982. After initially presiding over some very lucrative years (including the richest ever World Championships held in New York and Lyon in 1990) he saw the organisation plunge into increasingly more severe financial crises. The catalyst for this was the loss of the Kasparov-Short match in 1992 and with it the revenue for that match. FIDE organised its own Championships which it had to organise from its own funds. By the Olympiad of 1994 most observers saw the need for him to be removed. However amidst amazing scenes and with the support of his arch-enemy Kasparov he was re-elected. However this situation did not last and last year in an emergency meeting he resigned under pressure and was replaced by the "unknown" Kirsan Iljumzhinov. Kirsan Iljumzhinov is President of the Russian Republic of Kalmykia and has revealed himself to be a self publicist of rare gifts. His first task was to organise the FIDE World Chess Championships which Florencio Campomanes had conspicuously failed to find a sponsor for. In the end he organised it in his own republic. However this was only after announcing that the match would take place in Iraq. This caused great consternation. Also he has announced that he wishes to change the rules to the World Chess Championships. He wants a vast knockout event with at least 64 players in it. This event would be held annually and consist of mini-matches of two games followed by speed games as tie-breaks. The final would probably consist of 6 or 8 games. He claims to have found interested sponsors although at this Olympiad he has said that the idea will be postponed until next year. I can do no better than quote John Fedorowicz who said the Kirsan whilst travelling to Kalmykia as Gata Kamsky's second "your idea is bogus dude". The European Chess Federations organised a meeting last year, this was brought about by Iljumzhinov's decision to hold the FIDE Championships in Iraq. They also discussed a challenge to Kirsan Iljumzhinov. There had been widespread disquiet about the financial situation in FIDE and the honesty of officials. They particularly questioned large severance payments made to Florencio Campomanes in Moscow. (In spite of being re-elected) These payments appeared to empty an already cash strapped FIDE, of most of its remaining money. Also they felt that they wanted to clean up FIDE's reputation and did not feel that Kirsan was the right man. They protested about the unconstitutional halting of the World Championships to be replaced by the "Bogus" World Championships of Kirsan Iljumzhinov and pledged to reverse the decision and to continue the cycle which has already started. In addition to the Western European Nations, the Americans, Russians and Scandinavians agreed to put together a ticket they could all support, a clean and honest ticket. Or at least that is what they said they would do. The European meeting tried to force a situation whereby the elections would not just be for President but also for 7 other key positions. This would constitute a "ticket". The ticket they presented was: Jaime Sunye Neto (Brasil) President Einar S. Einarsson (Iceland) Deputy President Noureddine Tabbane (Tunisia) Deputy President Egon Ditt (Germany) Vice-President Steve Doyle (U.S.A.) Vice-President Andrei Makarov (Russia) Vice-President Emmanuel Omuku (Nigeria) General Secretary Gunther Loewenthal (Netherlands) Treasurer Already there was a chink in the strategy. Andrei Makarov was regarded by many as behaving disgracefully during the FIDE elections in Moscow. Hardly an auspicious start for this honest ticket. On the other hand most of the other players had reasonable reputations as organisers and in financial honesty. There was a deadline a short time later by which time all candidates should declare themselves. Barchar Kouatly also presented a ticket. So this was a straight fight between two tickets? Well no, Kirsan Iljumzhinov declared that he might stand using the precedent set by Campomanes during the 1994 elections. He immediately received support from Andrei Makarov and also from Anatoly Karpov. Karpov went as far as to say that so serious was FIDE's financial position that it would immediately go bankrupt if Kirsan was not re-elected. (is this implying that Kirsan's money is being poured into FIDE?) He said that although a good person Sunye Neto was too lightweight and didn't have the necessary contacts to get major sponsorship for FIDE events. Against this background a series of meetings started in Yerevan which would be concluded by several days of the General Assembly where delegates from throughout the World would vote on the leadership of FIDE for the following four years. The first meetings would be the central committee meetings where the most important officials meet to discuss administrative matters and items to appear on the agenda. These started on the 27th of September. At this stage things were going reasonably well for the Sunye Neto ticket. So well that there was even talk of Kirsan Iljumzhinov joining his ticket! Perhaps this was simply a way of spreading disharmony amongst their supporters. One of the early discussions in the Central Committee was about the payments to Florencio Campomanes and to Makropoulos. These payments certainly did serious harm to FIDE, but were argued by both as being correct. Makropoulos argued that his payments should be regarded in a different light to those of Campomanes as he claimed that he was owed a lot of money by FIDE but chose only to take a percentage of it. This claim according to my sources has great validity. It was the Campomanes payments that caused the greatest controversy. Steven Doyle attempted to present a report that has been available on the internet for some time but somehow had not been included in any previous FIDE minutes. Campomanes began talking across Steven Doyle making louder and louder comments which according to Carol Jarecki were answered by Doyle as he thought on his feet. This irritated Campomanes so much he accused Doyle of monopolising the conversation. He responded "you have been monopolising the discussions for the last 13 years". The report was included in the minutes and should have been voted upon at the general assembly. I have not heard what happened to the report then, I suspect it was quietly shelved. At the end of the day it was apparent that Kirsan Iljumzhinov was going to stand for President and somehow everyone calculated that he was going to win. He dished out knickknacks to the participants, these included "a souvenir Iljum watch, a little Iljum caviar, various Iljum trinkets, including a biography of him, both in book and comic book form. The book is titled something like 'Iljumzhinov's crown of thorns'." according to Jonathan Tisdall. The number of these Kirsan products must say something about the man. Discussion at the meeting turned to how many people should be on the tickets that were to be voted for. In the period of 12 hours the Sunye Neto ticket went from favourite to almost falling apart. The following day was the start of the FIDE General Assembly. Almost the entire General Assembly was taken up with arguments over the format of the elections. One might cynically say that these were delaying tactics to allow Kirsan Iljumzhinov to get the number of votes he needed to win the election. By the 30th of September Steven Doyle was being offered a place on Kirsan Iljumzhinov's ticket. He was reported by Carol Jarecki to have been offered the post of treasurer on Kirsan's ticket. He was not too happy to leave Sunye Neto's ticket. In my opinion everyone was on that ticket subscribing to an agenda of reform and I don't know how he could even consider leaving. In the end he didn't stand with Sunye Neto. Kirsan Iljumzhinov chaired the meeting. During the hours of discussion many people missed a short exchange that should have been very controversial. Prof. Kurt Jungwirth (a man who has already shown himself out of step with the European colleagues he supposedly represents) praised Campomanes and suggested he be given voting rights on the Presidential Board (as a reward for his years of service) this was accepted by the Chairman without a vote. It seems that you can't win these elections without bribing your way into office. Everyone knew that this was going on and so those who form part of the Iljumzhinov ticket know how they won the election. Perhaps those who supported the Kirsan ticket thought that by doing so they might have some influence. This is extremely unlikely. Only the alliance of a large number of countries which can actually threaten to win votes at the general assembly can exert real influence. Iljumzhinov has already shown that he rules on his own and now the Europeans and Americans have shown themselves to be soft and unprincipled he won't take seriously meetings like Utrecht anymore. Those who committed to the Sunye-Neto ticket should have stuck to their guns, even if it meant inevitable defeat. I'm sure that about 10 votes were lost simply because the ticket broke up, certainly England and the USA would not have voted for Kirsan without changing sides. As to the accusations, inevitably not easily proved, about mass and open bribery of delegates, there is increasing anedotal evidence. Little wonder that Carol Jerecki speaks of Kirsan being well supported throughout. Here are some of the stories that circulated at the Olympiad: The Ugandans admitted that they had agreed to vote for Illumzhinov in return for 10 DGT clocks. South Africa mysteriously changed sides the night before the election. The US voted for Illumzhinov in exchange for a vice-presidency. After voting against pro-Kirsan motions Ignatious Leong resigned his post as secretary and spent the night in Steven Doyle's room apparently fearing unspecified threats. Just before TWIC was due to be published I received an E-Mail from Einar S. Einarsson who was on the original Sunye-Neto ticket. He has been sick (no doubt from the same illnesses that afflicted amongst others the American team) since the Olympiad. He also admits to being sick of FIDE Politics. I heard that Egon Ditt was offered a vice-presidency but he refused. Einar says that neither he nor Egon would even consider offers of positions within the new Kirsan administration. He was taken by surprise by Steven Doyle's deal to become a Vice President. He like I regards Doyle's move as a betrayal of the Utrecht meeting and also greated Jarrett's move to be treasurer with astonishment and disapointment. It should be interesting to read Doyle's report. He confirms the mass buying of votes (I think everyone knew, so those who supported Kirsan no doubt endorse it) Campomanes held about 25 votes and Barchar Kouatly 21 votes, both bought with Kirsan's money. Other sources suggest at least $100,000 being spread around. Kouatly used some of these bought votes against Kirsan when they later fell out. Mr. Omuku who was on the original list was bought by Macropoulos. Other sources suggest that he was offered $11,000 but that he returned to cash strapped Sunye Neto to ask for $3,000 to stay on the ticket. The day before the elections Makarov left the Utrecht ticket taking the changes above the one allowed under the regulations. Noureddine Tabbane stood on Illumzhinov's ticket, another rather strange move. Mr. Einarsson describes the whole thing as Prostitution. But he adds that FIDE still needs money, even if it is laundered! The whole process was deeply depressing to him, "a time consuning caberet and just a big scandal." Here is the result of the "election". Ticket 1: 87 Votes President Kirsan Ilyimzhinov (Russia) Deputy President Georgios Makropoulos (Greece) Vice President P.T. Ummer Koya (India) General Secretary Noureddine Tabbane (Tunisia) Treasurer David Jarrett (England) Ticket 2: 44 votes President Jaime Sunye-Neto (Brazil) Deputy President Jan Banas (Slovakia) Cholid Ghozali (Indonesia) Rupert Jones (Botswana) Gunther Loewenthal (Netherlands) After the election there were four Vice Presidents nominated by Kirsan Ilyimzhinov. Nominated Vice Presidents: Andrei Makarov, Russia; Steve Doyle, USA Pedro Barrera, El Salvador V. Zakarian, Armenia. I finish with Carol Jarecki's most puzzling comments "Most delegates wanted Ilyimzhinov to win." Well the Americans and many Europeans gave me the impression that they definitely didn't want him to win before the elections.I would suggest their word is worth nothing now. She quotes Phil Haley as saying to Kirsan "I didn't vote for you but you won fair and square". Well its obvious some people attended a different Congress to Phil. The curious case of the Karpov-Kasparov "agreement". ---------------------------------------------------- On the penultimate day of the General Assembly Andrei Makarov announced he had a letter (which somehow didn't see the light of day until Karpov left Yerevan) signed by Kasparov and Karpov agreeing to a World Championship match. According to Kevin O'Connell the main points were "1. The match to be for the title of World Champion; 2. The match to be played outside of FIDE and PCA; 3. A special Organising Committee to be set up to oversee the match; 4. The contestants: the "World Champion" and the "FIDE World Champion"; 5. Not fewer than 16 games, not more than 20. 6. Procedure for tie-break games. [end of page 1] 7. Other technical details. 8. Agreement to be signed by 15 November 1996." He also says it was signed by both players. The following day after several people had been in touch with him Karpov faxed a 3 page statement to Roman Toran which he read out. Karpov claimed he had never signed any agreement with Kasparov. So is Karpov being disingenuous? Was his signature forged? Or some other explanation. A genuine puzzle. The Rules. The Olympiad is played over 14 rounds. In the Men's Olympiad there are four games played per round and the teams are allowed to select six players to compete over the entire Olympiad. The Women's Olympiad is played over three games per round and they are allowed to send four players to compete. The scoring system is extremely simple, it is about cumulative points achieved on every board a point for a win, half a point for a draw and nothing for a loss. The winner is the team that gets the most points out of the total of 56 points available (14 x 4). The Olympiad has expanded greatly over the years and now it is paired using the Swiss Pairing system. This system attempts to pair, so far as possible, teams on the same number of points against each other. In the early rounds the strongest rated teams are paired against the weaker teams on the same number of points. The top teams start meeting from the fourth round onwards. The pairing system means that teams which have bad early results can make up for them and still be in contention at the end. If a strong team loses heavily it will usually be paired the next round with a much weaker team. Whilst the top teams play each other and usually record results around 2-2 and 2.5-1.5 mark it is possible to win against just slightly weaker teams 3-1 or even better. This leads to the so called yo-yo effect with some teams alternating good and bad results. In the last round the pairing can effect the final placing of the team by ten or more places. Very few nations have won the Olympiad and the USSR and Russia have dominated since the war. The Olympiad. The Olympiad is over the medals awarded and the teams have returned home. What were the stories of the 32nd Olympiad in Yerevan? Is it possible to make sense of the event at all? Every nation will have its own take on the Olympiad. I will try and make sense only of the battle for the top places and the best performances. Russia's victory was entirely deserved. They had prepared extremely well and won their first nine matches by which time they had already practically secured the Gold medal. Bosnia and Herzegovina drew with them in the tenth round by virtue of a win on board 4 by Dizdarevic. My impression is that this win might very well have been on time. Their victory was based on Svidler and Bareev's high scoring in the first half of the Olympiad and Kasparov's tremendous burst of scoring at the end of the Olympiad. However the other medals were very much up for grabs until near the end. Surprise early leaders in the Olympiad were China. They lead until they met the Russians in round 5. After that they seemed to lose their way and fell down the listings to finish 13th. It should be noted however that they played many of the leading teams and that every player performed better than their rating. The Chinese are putting a great effort into improving their chess and perhaps soon we will see a star from this country. Once Russia took the lead they never let it go. No team looked likely to be able to match the consistant scoring of this team. As mentioned above bad results can be made up for later in the Olympiad by the stronger teams. The teams that were consistantly up with the leaders throughout most of the Olympiad fell away. Some teams such as Armenia, Bosnia and Spain had stiff opposition almost every round. Teams unfortunate enough to have a great result at the wrong time were punished. The Czech Republic were having a fine Congress but were not up to playing the Russians. They lost 3.5-0.5. If they could have just avoided that match their result might well have been better. The Ukraine timed their run much better their run of tougher matches started in round 9. They only moved into second place in round 12 however when they took on the Russians. Their fine result depended on the excellent form of Vassily Ivanchuk. The USA started the Olympiad looking like a team that was heading for a disaster. A draw and then a loss in rounds two and three left them well down the table. The local food seemed not to agree with many of the players and it was only late in the Congress that the USA really started to play. Their 3.5-0.5 win against Slovakia in round 11 propelled them to the top and having toughed out a match with the Russians in round 13 losing only narrowly they were in a fine position to take a bronze medal. England's 4th place by just one half of a tie-break point seems unfortunate. In truth only Matthew Sadler really played above himself (the American team had five players who all performed way above their International rating) and they did not meet the Russians, Ukrainians or the Americans. The English lost to the Spanish and lost their way only to recover towards the end to challenge for medals. A little disappointing from the number two seeds. Standings before the Final Round 1. Russia 36 2. Ukraine 33 3. USA, Armenia I, England, Iceland, Georgia 31.5 8. Bulgaria, Croatia, Israel, Spain, Hungary, Germany, Slovakia 30.5 Top pairing for the final round. ICELAND (31.5) - RUSSIA (36) ARMENIA-1 (31.5) - UKRAINE (33) USA (31.5) - GEORGIA (31.5) HUNGARY (30.5) - ENGLAND (31.5) SLOVENIA (30.5) - SPAIN (30.5) GERMANY (30.5) - ISRAEL (30.5) CROATIA (30.5) - BULGARIA (30.5) LITHUANIA (30) - BOSNIA & HERZ (30) NETHERLANDS (30) - CUBA (30) SWEDEN (30) - KAZAKHSTAN (29.5) CHINA (29.5) - BELARUS (29.5) The final round pairings were non too kind to the Icelandic team. It was already clear that the Gold would go to Russia and that only a miracle would stop the Ukraine taking the Silver, so it was a battle for Bronze and a win in the last round was necessary for the teams on 31.5. For those teams with good Buchholz tie-break scores a win by 2.5-1.5 would be thought enough (Armenia's was likely to be the best having been up with the leaders), for teams with a poorer tie break they would rely upon winning 3-1 to give themselves a chance of a medal. Event Spain were in with an outside chance if they could win 3.5-0.5 against Slovenia. In the end it came down to a battle between Armenia Spain, Georgia, England and the USA. Iceland went down narrowly to the Russians and Armenia 1 could only draw with the Ukrainian team. This was a curiously bloodless affair that leads one to think that the Armenian's were perhaps counting upon all the other teams on 31.5 drawing their matches (a dangerous calculation). Spain came close to their miracle result, eventually winning 3-1, another half point and they would have taken Bronze. Shirov tried very hard with the Black pieces, but Beliavsky is still an excellent player. The Georgia vs USA match was a full blooded battle. On board one De Firmian's nagging pressure against Azmaiparashvili's Centre Counter opening was transformed to an advantage of Rook, two Knight's against two Rooks, both sides had their Kings side pawns. This was unpleasant but probably drawable. Under pressure for a long time Azmaiparashvili missed a big tactic and lost a pawn and soon after the game. Giorgadze played extremely directly against Kaidanov's rather passive Semi-Slav eventually Kaidanov's position came apart at the seams. Benjamin pressed very hard against Zaichik who held a very tricky ending to draw. Supertashvili played solidly against Larry Christiansen, he probably could have held the draw easily but was pressing for the win. His 32. f3 was poorly judged turning the tables. His position collapsed like a pack of cards. England and the USA's tie-breaks were so close that at the start of the round it was not possible to tell who would emerge better at the end of the day (it relies upon how all your other opponents do in the last round). England were gifted a point by Judit Polgar the Hungarian board 1. She started the Olympiad in good form but once she started to lose she played quite badly. Here she met a very rare variation of the Ruy Lopez with some extremely crude play. Her 9. d4 was probably risky and after Short decided to force either a disruption of her Kingside or the win of a pawn she sacrificed a pawn. It was her 14. Bh6 that finished the game. Relying on 14. ...gxh6 15. Bd5 to win the game she found the whole position fell apart when Short played the simple 14. ...b4. He accurately calculated his play for the rest of the game to bring home the full point safely. All the other games were drawn without undue adventure and England after all the days results were added up found themselves in fourth place by only half a Buchholz point from the USA. Although it took several hours to calculate these points with total certainty. Top Performances. Kasparov's performance once he got the politics out of the way was powerfully effective rather than spectacular. He was motivated by clashes against Shirov and Topalov and his win against the latter showed his great ability in making the best of small advantages. Ivanchuk played probably the most interesting chess of all the top players. He too beat Topalov but also his victories against Torre, Ehlvest, Shirov and Zagrebelny showed his highly versatile approach. Shirov also played some very interesting chess. He started by using extremely unconventional technique against a weaker opponent in round 1. His best win was against Nigel Short. Iuldachev took Uzbekistan to 19th getting 11 of their 32 points on board 3. Matthew Sadler scored 10.5/13 on board 4 to power England's challenge for medals. Etienne Bacrot played his first Olympiad for France. His 70% score at the age of 13 years of age, and especially his rather mature style point to a major star of the future. Especially when taken with his demolition of Vassily Smyslov in a match. Beliavsky represented his new country Slovenia for the first time in the Olympiad. His 75% kept them in contention for some of the time. Jussupow and Lautier also reminded people that they are strong players with good percentages for Germany and France. Notable Performances Judit Polgar was board one for Hungary for the second time. She started brightly enough and played 13 of the 14 rounds. Her play here was wrecked by astonishing oversights, losses to Ye Jiangchuan, Antunes and Short came from errors that someone of her level should not have been making. Vladimir Kramnik drew every single game at the Olympiad. Either he didn't want to be there or he was suffering from the same stomach problems as many of his collegues. His game against Kiril Georgiev was a highly interesting duel. Jiangchuan showed his highly rated opponent little respect and put him under severe pressure. There was quite a tense battle against Nick de Firmian. Other than that the games were disappointing. Veselin Topalov played a little below his normal best. Of course losses against Kasparov and Ivanchuk are not exactly a disgrace but he also lost to Torre and just didn't look like a potential number one in the World as he did earlier in the year. Nigel Short was very solid, his recent tournaments have all been very strong and he had trouble finding his best attacking form. Only towards the end did he manage a few wins in his best style. Yerevan Olympiad FINAL STANDINGS MEN- 1st October 1996 Below are the board results of the players along with their rating performances as calculated from the games (ie unofficial) Looking at these round by round results I think that teams such as Iceland, Spain, Bosnia, Georgia had qualitatively excellent results and scoring was extremely difficult for them given the hard pairings they had. 1. Russia 1. Kasparov, Gary g RUS 2785 7.0 / 9 2873 2. Kramnik, Vladimir g RUS 2765 4.5 / 9 2617 3. Dreev, Alexey g RUS 2645 5.0 / 8 2637 4. Svidler, Peter g RUS 2650 8.5 /11 2744 5. Bareev, Evgeny g RUS 2655 7.5 /10 2704 6. Rublevsky, Sergei g RUS 2645 6.0 / 9 2599 --------------------------------------------------------------- 38.5 Round by round. Round 1 Win Finland 3.5-0.5 Round 2 Win Bangladesh 3.5-0.5 Round 3 Win France 2.5-1.5 Round 4 Win Germany 3.0-1.0 Round 5 Win China 2.5-1.5 Round 6 Win Armenia 1st 2.5-1.5 Round 7 Win Czech Rep. 3.5-0.5 Round 8 Win Spain 2.5-1.5 Round 9 Win Bulgaria 3.5-0.5 Round 10 Draw Bosnia & He 2.0-2.0 Round 11 Draw Ukraine 2.0-2.0 Round 12 Win Israel 2.5-1.5 Round 13 Win USA 2.5-1.5 Round 14 Win Iceland 2.5-1.5 2. Ukraine 1. Ivanchuk, Vassily g UKR 2730 8.5 /11 2808 2. Malaniuk, Vladimir P g UKR 2610 5.5 / 9 2636 3. Romanishin, Oleg M g UKR 2555 5.0 / 9 2584 4. Novikov, Igor A g UKR 2585 4.0 / 8 2472 5. Onischuk, Alexander g UKR 2605 6.0 /10 2569 6. Savchenko, Stanislav g UKR 2580 6.0 / 9 2560 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 35.0 Round by round. Round 1 Win Ireland 3.0-1.0 Round 2 Win Croatia 2.5-1.5 Round 3 Win Slovakia 2.5-1.5 Round 4 Win Slovenia 2.5-1.5 Round 5 Draw Portugal 2.0-2.0 Round 6 Draw Kazakhstan 2.0-2.0 Round 7 Win Romania 2.5-1.5 Round 8 Win Philippines 2.5-1.5 Round 9 Win Estonia 3.0-1.0 Round 10 Win Spain 3.0-1.0 Round 11 Draw Russia 2.0-2.0 Round 12 Win Uzbekistan 3.0-1.0 Round 13 Win Bulgaria 2.5-1.5 Round 14 Draw Armenia I 2.0-2.0 3. USA 1. Gulko, Boris F g USA 2615 1.0 / 5 2296 2. Yermolinsky, Alex g USA 2610 8.0 /11 2760 3. De Firmian, Nick E g USA 2575 6.0 /11 2621 4. Kaidanov, Grigory S g USA 2580 7.0 /11 2625 5. Benjamin, Joel g USA 2565 5.0 / 8 2610 6. Christiansen, Larry M g USA 2555 7.0 /10 2637 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 34.0 Round by round. Round 1 Win Paraguay 3.0-1.0 Round 2 Draw Yugoslavia 2.0-2.0 Round 3 Loss Uzbekistan 1.5-2.5 Round 4 Win Norway 2.5-1.5 Round 5 Win Greece 3.0-1.0 Round 6 Win Iceland 3.5-0.5 Round 7 Draw China 2.0-2.0 Round 8 Win Israel 3.0-1.0 Round 9 Draw Armenia 1st 2.0-2.0 Round 10 Loss Hungary 1.5-2.5 Round 11 Win Slovakia 3.5-0.5 Round 12 Win Bulgaria 2.5-1.5 Round 13 Loss Russia 1.5-2.5 Round 14 Win Georgia 2.5-1.5 4. England 1. Short, Nigel D g ENG 2695 7.0 /12 2660 2. Adams, Michael g ENG 2685 7.5 /13 2601 3. Speelman, Jonathan S g ENG 2625 7.0 /12 2567 4. Sadler, Matthew g ENG 2615 10.5 /13 2745 5. Hodgson, Julian M g ENG 2550 1.5 / 4 2446 6. Conquest, Stuart g ENG 2585 0.5 / 2 2282 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 34.0 Round by round. Round 1 Win Indonesia 3.5-0.5 Round 2 Win Denmark 3.0-1.0 Round 3 Win Latvia 2.5-1.5 Round 4 Win Romania 2.5-1.5 Round 5 Win Netherlands 2.5-1.5 Round 6 Win Georgia 2.5-1.5 Round 7 Loss Spain 1.0-3.0 Round 8 Draw Croatia 2.0-2.0 Round 9 Win Vietnam 3.0-1.0 Round 10 Draw Armenia 1st 2.0-2.0 Round 11 Win Sweden 2.5-1.5 Round 12 Draw China 2.0-2.0 Round 13 Win Israel 2.5-1.5 Round 14 Win Hungary 2.5-1.5 5. Spain 1. Shirov, Alexei g ESP 2685 8.5 /13 2731 2. Illescas Cordoba, Miguel g ESP 2640 6.5 /11 2669 3. Magem Badals, Jorge g ESP 2570 7.0 /12 2579 4. Izeta Txabarri, Felix g ESP 2525 5.0 / 7 2658 5. Garcia Ilundain, David g ESP 2520 4.5 / 9 2514 6. San Segundo, Pablo g ESP 2505 2.0 / 4 2366 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 33.5 Round by round. Round 1 Win Luxemburg 3.5-0.5 Round 2 Win Uzbekstan 3.5-1.5 Round 3 Win Chile 2.5-1.5 Round 4 Win Lithuania 3.0-1.0 Round 5 Win Sweden 2.5-1.5 Round 6 Win China 2.5-1.5 Round 7 Win England 3.0-1.0 Round 8 Loss Russia 1.5-2.5 Round 9 Win Georgia 2.5-1.5 Round 10 Loss Ukraine 3.0-1.0 Round 11 Draw Bosnia & He 2.0-2.0 Round 12 Draw Croatia 2.0-2.0 Round 13 Draw Hungary 2.0-2.0 Round 14 Win Slovenia 3.0-1.0 6. Armenia 1st Team 1. Akopian, Vladimir g ARM 2630 7.0 /12 2686 2. Vaganian, Rafael A g ARM 2595 5.5 /10 2585 3. Lputian, Smbat G g ARM 2595 7.5 /12 2627 4. Minasian, Artashes g ARM 2540 7.0 /12 2574 5. Anastasian, Ashot g ARM 2550 6.0 /10 2586 6. Petrosian, Arshak B g ARM 2480 0.5 / 1 2405 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 33.5 Round by round. Round 1 Win Turkey 3.5-0.5 Round 2 Loss Slovenia 1.0-3.0 Round 3 Win Vietnam 2.5-1.5 Round 4 Win Indonesia 4.0-0.0 Round 5 Win Kazakhstan 3.0-1.0 Round 6 Loss Russia 1.5-2.5 Round 7 Draw Netherlands 2.0-2.0 Round 8 Win Belarus 3.0-1.0 Round 9 Draw USA 2.0-2.0 Round 10 Draw England 2.0-2.0 Round 11 Draw Georgia 2.0-2.0 Round 12 Win Bosnia & He 2.5-1.5 Round 13 Win Croatia 2.5-1.5 Round 14 Draw Ukraine 2.0-2.0 7. Bosnia & Herzegovina 1. Sokolov, Ivan g BIH 2670 5.5 /12 2564 2. Nikolic, Predrag g BIH 2670 8.0 /13 2636 3. Kurajica, Bojan g BIH 2490 8.0 /14 2555 4. Dizdarevic, Emir g BIH 2505 10.0 /14 2629 5. Kelecevic, Nedeljko m BIH 2475 0.0 / 1 6. Sinanovic, Muhamed m BIH 2390 2.0 / 2 --------------------------------------------------------------- 33.5 Round by round. Round 1 Win Ecuador 4.0-0.0 Round 2 Draw Armenia 2.0-2.0 Round 3 Win Australia 2.5-1.5 Round 4 Draw France 2.0-2.0 Round 5 Win Slovenia 3.0-1.0 Round 6 Draw Cuba 2.0-2.0 Round 7 Loss Estonia 1.0-3.0 Round 8 Win Kazakhstan 3.0-1.0 Round 9 Win Croatia 3.0-1.0 Round 10 Draw Russia 2.0-2.0 Round 11 Draw Spain 2.0-2.0 Round 12 Loss Armenia 1st 1.5-2.5 Round 13 Draw Netherlands 2.0-2.0 Round 14 Win Lithuania 3.5-0.5 8. Georgia 1. Azmaiparashvili, Zurab g GEO 2670 7.0 /12 2639 2. Giorgadze, Giorgi g GEO 2580 8.5 /12 2717 3. Sturua, Zurab g GEO 2560 6.5 /11 2585 4. Zaichik, Gennadi g GEO 2550 5.5 /10 2535 5. Janjgava, Lasha g GEO 2495 1.0 / 3 2288 6. Supatashvili, Khvicha m GEO 2445 4.5 / 8 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 33.0 Round by round. Round 1 Win New Zealand 4.0-0.0 Round 2 Draw Australia 2.0-2.0 Round 3 Win F.Y.R.O.Macedonia 2.5-1.5 Round 4 Win Poland 3.0-1.0 Round 5 Draw Cuba 2.0-2.0 Round 6 Loss England 1.5-2.5 Round 7 Win Argentina 3.0-1.0 Round 8 Win China 2.5-1.5 Round 9 Loss Spain 1.5-2.5 Round 10 Win Iceland 2.5-1.5 Round 11 Draw Armenia 1st 2.0-2.0 Round 12 Draw Hungary 2.0-2.0 Round 13 Win Uzbekistan 3.0-1.0 Round 14 Loss USA 1.5-2.5 9. Bulgaria 1. Topalov, Veselin g BUL 2750 5.5 /10 2631 2. Georgiev, Kiril g BUL 2620 8.0 /12 2686 3. Spasov, Vasil g BUL 2575 8.5 /13 2615 4. Dimitrov, Vladimir g BUL 2530 2.0 / 6 2375 5. Georgiev, Vladimir m BUL 2465 7.0 /11 2526 6. Chatalbashev, Boris m BUL 2490 2.0 / 4 2443 ----------------------------------------------------------------- 33.0 Round by round. Round 1 Win Belgium 3.5-0.5 Round 2 Draw Kazakhstan 2.0-2.0 Round 3 Win Peru 2.5-1.5 Round 4 Draw Latvia 2.0-2.0 Round 5 Win Philippines 2.5-1.5 Round 6 Win Portuagal 3.0-1.0 Round 7 Win Cuba 2.5-1.5 Round 8 Win Uzbekistan 3.0-1.0 Round 9 Loss Russia 0.5-3.5 Round 10 Win France 2.5-1.5 Round 11 Win Estonia 3.5-0.5 Round 12 Loss USA 1.5-2.5 Round 13 Loss Ukraine 1.5-2.5 Round 14 Win Croatia 2.5-1.5 10. Germany 1. Jussupow, Artur g GER 2665 8.5 /13 2677 2. Huebner, Robert g GER 2595 6.5 /10 2639 3. Dautov, Rustem g GER 2615 5.0 /10 2547 4. Lobron, Eric g GER 2585 4.5 / 9 2503 5. Hickl, Joerg g GER 2600 4.0 / 7 2517 6. Lutz, Christopher g GER 2565 4.5 / 7 2585 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 33.0 Round by round. Round 1 Win Tunisia 4.0-0.0 Round 2 Win Philippines 3.0-1.0 Round 3 Win Argentina 2.5-1.5 Round 4 Loss Russia 1.0-3.0 Round 5 Win Slovakia 2.5-1.5 Round 6 Loss Croatia 1.5-2.5 Round 7 Draw Kazakhstan 2.0-2.0 Round 8 Win Greece 3.0.1.0 Round 9 Loss Yugoslavia 2.5-1.5 Round 10 Win Czech Republic 2.5-1.5 Round 11 Loss Iceland 2.5-1.5 Round 12 Win Belarus 3.0-1.0 Round 13 Win Indonesia 2.5-1.5 Round 14 Win Israel 2.5-1.5 11. Sweden 1. Andersson, Ulf g SWE 2640 6.5 /10 2687 2. Cramling, Pia g SWE 2545 5.5 / 9 2617 3. Akesson, Ralf g SWE 2500 6.0 /10 2570 4. Hellsten, Johan m SWE 2490 6.5 /11 2526 5. Astrom, Robert m SWE 2425 3.5 / 7 6. Hillarp Persson, Tiger SWE 2400 5.0 / 9 2475 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 33.0 Round by round. Round 1 Win Japan 3.5-0.5 Round 2 Draw Italy 2.0-2.0 Round 3 Draw Colombia 2.0-2.0 Round 4 Win Australia 4.0-0.0 Round 5 Loss Spain 1.5-2.5 Round 6 Draw Romania 2.0-2.0 Round 7 Win France 2.5-1.5 Round 8 Loss Netherlands 1.5-2.5 Round 9 Win Belarus 3.5-0.5 Round 10 Loss China 1.5-2.5 Round 11 Loss England 1.5-2.5 Round 12 Draw Cuba 2.0-2.0 Round 13 Win Latvia 2.5-1.5 Round 14 Win Kazakhstan 3.0-1.0 12. Iceland 1. Petursson, Margeir g ISL 2570 5.0 /10 2535 2. Hjartarson, Johann g ISL 2565 7.0 /11 2632 3. Stefansson, Hannes g ISL 2560 8.0 /12 2590 4. Olafsson, Helgi g ISL 2500 3.0 / 7 2401 5. Thorhallsson, Throstur m ISL 2480 5.5 / 8 2499 6. Gretarsson, Helgi Ass g ISL 2465 4.5 / 8 2486 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 33.0 Round by round. Round 1 Win Venezuela 2.5-1.5 Round 2 Win El Salvador 3.5-0.5 Round 3 Draw Armenia 2nd 2.0-2.0 Round 4 Win Chile 2.5-1.5 Round 5 Loss Estonia 1.5-2.5 Round 6 Loss USA 0.5-3.5 Round 7 Win Canada 3.5-0.5 Round 8 Draw Romania 2.0-2.0 Round 9 Win Colombia 4.0-0.0 Round 10 Loss Georgia 1.5-2.5 Round 11 Win Germany 2.5-1.5 Round 12 Win Indonesia 2.5-1.5 Round 13 Win China 3.0-1.0 Round 14 Loss Russia 1.5-2.5 13. China 1. Ye Jiangchuan g CHN 2540 5.0 /11 2611 2. Xu Jun g CHN 2505 5.5 /10 2634 3. Wang Zili g CHN 2535 7.5 /12 2618 4. Peng Xiaomin m CHN 2490 8.5 /12 2663 5. Zhang Zhong m CHN 2425 4.5 / 9 2447 6. Yin, Hao f CHN 2320 1.5 / 2 2370 --------------------------------------------------------------- 32.5 Round by round. Round 1 Win Qatar 4.0-0.0 Round 2 Win Brazil 3.5-0.5 Round 3 Win Hungary 3.0-1.0 Round 4 Win Cuba 2.5-1.5 Round 5 Loss Russia 1.5-2.5 Round 6 Loss Spain 1.5-2.5 Round 7 Draw USA 2.0-2.0 Round 8 Loss Georgia 1.5-2.5 Round 9 Win Peru 3.0-1.0 Round 10 Win Sweden 2.5-1.5 Round 11 Loss Israel 1.5-2.5 Round 12 Draw England 2.0-2.0 Round 13 Loss Iceland 1.0-3.0 Round 14 Win Belarus 3.0-1.0 14. Netherlands 1. Timman, Jan H g NED 2590 8.0 /13 2698 2. Van Wely, Loek g NED 2605 9.0 /13 2675 3. Van der Wiel, John T.H g NED 2535 6.5 /10 2608 4. Van der Sterren, Paul g NED 2510 6.0 /11 2519 5. Nijboer, Friso g NED 2525 2.0 / 7 2317 6. Sosonko, Gennadi g NED 2520 1.0 / 2 2470 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 32.5 Round by round. Round 1 Draw Tajikstan 2.0-2.0 Round 2 Win Kyrgistan 3.5-0.5 Round 3 Win Italy 3.5-0.5 Round 4 Win Estonia 2.5-1.5 Round 5 Loss England 1.5-2.5 Round 6 Win Belarus 2.5-1.5 Round 7 Draw Armenia 1st 2.0-2.0 Round 8 Win Sweden 2.5-1.5 Round 9 Draw Hungary 2.0-2.0 Round 10 Loss Israel 1.0-3.0 Round 11 Draw Latvia 2.0-2.0 Round 12 Win Lithuania 3.0-1.0 Round 13 Draw Bosnia & He 2.0-2.0 Round 14 Win Cuba 2.5-1.5 15. Argentina 1. Spangenberg, Hugo g ARG 2555 5.5 /11 2568 2. Ricardi, Pablo m ARG 2535 8.0 /12 2652 3. Zarnicki, Pablo g ARG 2540 8.0 /12 2607 4. Soppe, Guillermo m ARG 2485 4.5 / 8 2500 5. Sorin, Ariel g ARG 2485 4.0 / 7 2518 6. Fiorito, Fabian m ARG 2470 2.5 / 6 2370 --------------------------------------------------------------- 32.5 Round by round. Round 1 Win Hong Kong 4.0-0.0 Round 2 Win India 3.0-1.0 Round 3 Loss Germany 1.5-2.5 Round 4 Loss Czech Republic 1.5-2.5 Round 5 Draw Israel 2.0-2.0 Round 6 Win Slovakia 3.0-1.0 Round 7 Loss Georgia 1.0-3.0 Round 8 Win Lithania 3.0-1.0 Round 9 Loss France 1.5-2.5 Round 10 Win Greece 1.5-2.5 Round 11 Loss Cuba 1.5-2.5 Round 12 Loss Latvia 1.5-2.5 Round 13 Win Canada 3.0-1.0 Round 14 Win Indonesia 3.5-1.5 Board Prizes Top three take Gold, Silver and Bronze Medals. BOARD 1 Al-Modiahki, Moh. M QAT 2420 10 8.0 80.00% Kasparov, Gary G RUS 2785 9 7.0 77.78% Ivanchuk, Vassily G UKR 2730 11 8.5 77.27% Beliavsky, Alexander G SLO 2620 14 10.5 75.00% Hamdouchi, Hichem G MAR 2495 12 9.0 75.00% Davila, Carlos NCA 2290 14 10.5 75.00% Krasenkow, Michal G POL 2605 12 8.5 70.83% Clerides, Paraskevas CYP 2000 9 6.0 66.67% Lautier, Joel G FRA 2620 12 8.0 66.67% Jussupow, Artur G GER 2665 13 8.5 65.38% Shirov, Alexei G ESP 2685 13 8.5 65.38% Cummings, David H. M WLS 2360 13 8.5 65.38% BOARD 2 Robinson, Richard BER 2085 10 8.0 80.00% Yermolinsky, Alex G USA 2610 11 8.0 72.73% Damljanovic, Branko G YUG 2470 12 8.5 70.83% Giorgadze, Giorgi G GEO 2580 12 8.5 70.83% Van Wely, Loek G NED 2605 13 9.0 69.23% Galdunts, Sergey M ARM 2465 12 8.0 66.67% Ricardi, Pablo M ARG 2535 12 8.0 66.67% Georgiev, Kiril G BUL 2620 12 8.0 66.67% Irzhanov, Ruslan M KAZ 2535 12 8.0 66.67% Rogozenko, Dorin G MDA 2525 10 6.5 65.00% Huebner, Robert Dr. G GER 2595 10 6.5 65.00% Marin, Mihail G ROM 2530 10 6.5 65.00% BOARD 3 Iuldachev, Saidali M UZB 2515 14 11.0 78.57% Chaivichit, Suchart THA 2000 9 7.0 77.78% Magai, Vladimir KGZ 2500 14 10.5 75.00% Shulman, Yuri G BLR 2520 10 7.0 70.00% Stefansson, Hannes G ISL 2560 12 8.0 66.67% Barcenilla, Rogelio M PHI 2450 12 8.0 66.67% Zarnicki, Pablo G ARG 2540 12 8.0 66.67% El Taher, Fouad M EGY 2445 9 6.0 66.67% Spasov, Vasil G BUL 2575 13 8.5 65.38% Van Der Wiel, John G NED 2535 10 6.5 65.00% BOARD 4 Sadler, Matthew G ENG 2615 13 10.5 80.77% Sunthornpongsathorn, F THA 2335 9 7.0 77.78% Svidler, Peter G RUS 2650 11 8.5 77.27% Rodriguez, Amador G CUB 2510 12 9.0 75.00% Djurhuus, Rune G NOR 2505 13 9.5 73.08% Ilincic, Zlatko G YUG 2520 11 8.0 72.73% Dizdarevic, Emir G BIH 2505 14 10.0 71.43% Peng, Xiaomin M CHN 2490 12 8.5 70.83% Mannion, Stephen R M SCO 2365 10 7.0 70.00% Aderito, Pedro M ANG 2210 10 7.0 70.00% BOARD 5 Asrian, Karen ARM 2380 12 10.0 83.33% Bareev, Evgeny G RUS 2655 10 7.5 75.00% Nedev, Trajce M FRM 2415 11 8.0 72.73% Vera, Reynaldo G CUB 2505 7 5.0 71.43% Bacrot, Etienne M FRA 2470 10 7.0 70.00% Thorhallsson,Throstur M ISL 2480 8 5.5 68.75% Day, Lawrence A. M CAN 2400 11 7.5 68.18% Blatny, Pavel G CZE 2490 12 8.0 66.67% Amonatov, Farcuke F TJK 2110 12 8.0 66.67% Heidenfeld, Mark F IRL 2320 9 6.0 66.67% BOARD 6 Makumbi, Geoffrey UGA 2000 8 7.5 93.75% Pcola, Pavol SVK 2450 8 7.0 87.50% Mallahi, A. F IRI 2200 8 6.5 81.25% Palac, Mladen G CRO 2540 9 6.5 72.22% Petkevich, Jusefs M LAT 2445 7 5.0 71.43% Sandler, Leonid F AUS 2345 10 7.0 70.00% Christiansen, Larry G USA 2555 10 7.0 70.00% Sutovskij, Emil M ISR 2565 8 5.5 68.75% Izeta Txabarri, Felix G ESP 2525 8 5.5 68.75% Urban, Klaudiusz M POL 2470 11 7.5 68.18% Country Points Bch Mpt Berg 1. RUSSIA 38.5 451.5 26 417.3 2. UKRAINE 35.0 442.0 24 376.5 3. USA 34.0 448.0 19 296.8 4. ENGLAND 34.0 447.5 23 365.0 5. ARMENIA-1 33.5 452.0 19 297.8 6. SPAIN 33.5 451.5 21 329.3 7. BOSNIA & HERZ. 33.5 439.5 18 279.8 8. GEORGIA 33.0 446.0 18 280.5 9. BULGARIA 33.0 443.0 20 304.3 10. GERMANY 33.0 440.0 19 289.8 11. SWEDEN 33.0 434.0 16 241.5 12. ICELAND 33.0 426.5 18 263.0 13. CHINA 32.5 448.5 16 244.5 14. NETHERLANDS 32.5 436.5 19 290.5 15. ARGENTINA 32.5 430.0 15 223.0 16. CROATIA 32.0 443.5 17 258.8 17. ISRAEL 32.0 443.5 17 257.5 18. HUNGARY 32.0 440.5 18 276.5 19. UZBEKISTAN 32.0 434.5 18 269.8 20. LATVIA 32.0 424.5 15 217.5 21. CUBA 31.5 438.5 16 244.0 22. YUGOSLAVIA 31.5 423.0 19 281.5 23. SLOVENIA 31.5 419.5 17 240.5 24. GREECE 31.5 412.5 18 253.5 25. FRANCE 31.0 438.0 15 223.8 26. PHILIPPINES 31.0 431.5 14 207.0 27. VIETNAM 31.0 412.0 14 193.0 28. AUSTRALIA 31.0 411.5 16 223.0 29. CANADA 31.0 397.5 16 211.5 30. KAZAKHSTAN 30.5 436.0 14 208.3 31. ROMANIA 30.5 434.5 14 210.5 32. CZECH REPUBLIC 30.5 432.5 15 221.5 33. BELARUS 30.5 426.5 15 216.3 34. SLOVAKIA 30.5 422.0 14 198.0 35. FYROM * 30.5 421.5 16 235.3 36. POLAND 30.5 420.0 17 248.3 37. LITHUANIA 30.5 419.5 15 213.0 38. DENMARK 30.5 404.0 16 221.5 39. TURKMENISTAN 30.5 390.0 16 215.3 40. NORWAY 30.0 409.0 17 238.8 41. PERU 30.0 407.5 14 195.5 42. ARMENIA-3 30.0 404.0 16 225.8 43. COLOMBIA 30.0 402.0 14 191.0 44. INDONESIA 29.5 426.5 15 213.3 45. MOLDOVA 29.5 411.5 15 210.8 46. FINLAND 29.5 401.5 15 198.5 47. TAJIKISTAN 29.0 398.5 15 211.5 48. AUSTRIA 29.0 393.5 12 159.8 49. ESTONIA 28.5 438.5 14 212.0 50. ARMENIA-2 28.5 413.0 12 169.5 51. BRAZIL 28.5 408.5 15 206.8 52. PORTUGAL 28.5 408.0 10 133.8 53. KYRGYZSTAN 28.5 395.5 14 194.0 54. BELGIUM 28.5 391.0 15 201.5 55. IRELAND 28.5 389.5 12 155.5 56. SCOTLAND 28.5 381.0 15 189.3 57. ITALY 28.0 404.5 11 144.3 58. SWITZERLAND 28.0 400.0 14 187.5 59. INDIA 28.0 397.0 12 158.8 60. SYRIA 28.0 364.5 15 188.8 61. BANGLADESH 27.5 411.5 14 190.5 62. SOUTH AFRICA 27.5 395.0 14 188.8 63. LUXEMBOURG 27.5 388.0 15 198.0 64. MALAYSIA 27.5 387.0 10 129.3 65. UNITED ARAB EMIRA. 27.5 361.0 13 158.3 66. EGYPT 27.0 393.5 15 200.0 67. MOROCCO 27.0 379.5 12 154.3 68. CHILE 26.5 405.0 13 174.8 69. TURKEY 26.5 396.5 12 158.3 70. TUNISIA 26.5 393.0 15 195.3 71. VENEZUELA 26.5 386.0 14 184.3 72. IRAN 26.5 382.5 13 172.3 73. IBCA 26.5 380.0 12 149.5 74. WALES 26.5 379.5 15 190.0 75. ECUADOR 26.5 376.5 12 143.0 76. JAPAN 26.5 375.5 14 179.0 77. URUGUAY 26.0 375.5 15 191.8 78. HONG KONG 26.0 369.5 13 160.8 79. PUERTO RICO 26.0 368.5 13 158.0 80. SINGAPORE 26.0 367.0 10 127.5 81. FAROE ISLANDS 26.0 361.5 13 161.8 82. NEW ZEALAND 25.5 377.0 13 163.0 83. ANGOLA 25.5 371.0 10 126.0 84. ANDORRA 25.5 363.5 11 136.0 85. YEMEN 25.5 363.0 9 124.8 86. LIECHTENSTEIN 25.5 356.0 13 154.3 87. CYPRUS 25.5 351.5 14 165.5 88. PARAGUAY 25.0 379.0 12 147.3 89. BARBADOS 25.0 368.0 13 162.0 90. LEBANON 25.0 358.5 13 154.3 91. QATAR 25.0 346.5 12 133.5 92. EL SALVADOR 24.5 378.5 11 145.3 93. THAILAND 24.5 372.5 11 136.5 94. ZIMBABWE 24.5 357.5 12 140.3 95. NICARAGUA 24.5 354.5 10 116.3 96. UGANDA 24.5 348.5 10 113.0 97. MALTA 24.5 346.0 11 129.5 98. BAHRAIN 24.5 344.0 11 122.3 99. BOTSWANA 24.0 341.5 12 137.0 100. NED ANTILLES 24.0 338.5 9 96.3 101. SAN MARINO 23.5 325.0 12 118.0 102. MACAU 23.5 304.5 13 121.0 103. HAITI 23.0 312.5 9 79.3 104. SRI LANKA 22.5 335.0 10 102.0 105. MONACO 22.5 319.0 12 119.0 106. MAURITIUS 22.0 323.5 7 63.8 107. BERMUDA 22.0 317.5 9 97.8 108. MOZAMBIQUE 21.5 328.0 12 130.3 109. HONDURAS 21.5 305.5 11 101.8 110. JERSEY 20.0 309.0 9 86.3 111. GUERNSEY 18.5 305.5 5 53.0 112. AFGANISTAN 17.0 313.0 8 65.0 113. SEYCHELLES 16.0 306.0 3 38.5 114. US VIRGIN ISLANDS 9.0 311.0 1 22.0 * Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Yerevan Olympiad FINAL STANDINGS WOMEN - 1st October 1996 Unfortunately because I don't have the full Olympiad on disk it has been extremely tricky to check the scores and produce a performance table for the players. The Georgian Team won a comfortable victory in the end. Their powerhouse squad was always favourite and could only have been challenged by Hungary if all three Polgar sisters had played. Women's World Champion Zsuzsa Polgar now lives in the States, and Judit played board one for their Men's team. The Chinese squad is starting to show their strength in depth. Former World Women's Champion Xie Jun struggled but other lesser known players are starting to come through and just as in the Men's Olympiad show the Chinese commitment to chess. Russia almost caught China at the last, almost entirely due to their massacre of England in the penultimate round. In the end their inferior tie-break took them down to third place. Georgia 1. Chiburdanidze, Maia g GEO 2540 8.5 /12 2527 2. Ioseliani, Nana m GEO 2500 10.0 /13 2539 3. Arakhamia, Ketevan m GEO 2455 8.0 /10 2564 4. Gurieli, Nino wg GEO 2370 3.5 / 7 2244 ------------------------------------------------------------ 30.0 China 1. Xie Jun g CHN 2510 5.5 /10 2446 2. Zhu Chen wg CHN 2420 10.0 /13 3. Wang Lei wg CHN 2340 5.5 /8 4. Wang Pin wg CHN 2345 7.5 /11 ------------------------------------------------------------ 28.5 Russia 1. Galliamova-Ivanchuk, Alisa m RUS 2475 8.0 /13 2459 2. Matveeva, Svetlana wg RUS 2470 8.5 /12 2479 3. Prudnikova, Svetlana wg RUS 2385 8.5 /12 2372 4. Zaitseva, Ludmila G wg RUS 2375 3.5 / 5 2571 ----------------------------------------------------------- 28.5 Ukraine 1. Gaponenko, Inna wg UKR 2340 2. Litinskaya, Marta I wg UKR 2345 3. Sedina, Elena wm UKR 2345 9.5 /13 4. Zhukova, Natalia wm UKR 2335 ------------------------------------------------------------ 26.5 Hungary 1. Polgar, Sofia m HUN 2480 10.0 /14 2516 2. Madl, Ildiko m HUN 2385 3. Medvegy, Nora HUN 2295 4. Lakos, Nikoletta wm HUN 2280 7.0 /11 2348 ------------------------------------------------------------ 26.0 Women Board 1 1. Ovezova,Mehri F TKM 2115 12 10.5 87.50% 2. Fierro Baquero, Martha M ECU 2200 13 9.5 73.08% 3. Polgar,Sofia G HUN 2480 14 10.0 71.43% Board 2 1. Zhu Chen G CHN 2420 13 10.0 76.92 2. Ioseliani, Nana G GEO 2500 13 10.0 76.92 3. Diaz, Maria-Alejandra AHO 2000 14 10.5 75.0% Board 3 1. Arakhamia,Ketevan G GEO 2455 10 8.0 80.00% 2. Reprun, Nadeja UZB 2140 12 9.0 75.00% 3. Sedina,Elena M UKR 2345 13 9.5 73.08% Board 4 1. Zielinska, Marta M POL 2240 7 6.0 85.71% 2. Pitam, Ela F ISR 2255 12 9.5 79.17% 3. Pascua Rachel PHI 2005 9 6.5 72.22% Country Points Buh Mpt Berg 1. GEORGIA 30.0 349.5 23 185.0 2. CHINA 28.5 347.0 21 203.8 3. RUSSIA 28.5 345.5 19 176.3 4. UKRAINE 26.5 348.5 18 125.3 5. HUNGARY 26.0 349.0 19 151.0 6. ROMANIA 25.5 348.0 19 139.3 7. ISRAEL 25.0 343.0 17 114.3 8. KAZAKHSTAN 24.5 340.5 19 146.3 9. POLAND 24.5 339.5 18 124.0 10. ENGLAND 24.0 346.0 16 152.5 11. INDONESIA 24.0 309.5 14 132.8 12. CZECH REPUBLIC 24.0 305.5 18 105.0 13. YUGOSLAVIA 23.5 335.5 16 122.8 14. MOLDOVA 23.5 332.5 15 112.3 15. GERMANY 23.5 332.5 15 110.5 16. BULGARIA 23.5 331.5 16 113.0 17. LITHUANIA 23.5 321.5 16 90.8 18. GREECE 23.5 316.5 15 105.0 19. CUBA 23.5 316.0 16 125.8 20. ARMENIA-1 23.5 315.5 16 92.5 21. ESTONIA 23.5 312.5 16 114.3 22. UZBEKISTAN 23.5 292.5 16 98.0 23. SLOVAKIA 23.0 328.0 16 119.8 24. VIETNAM 23.0 321.0 18 103.8 25. INDIA 23.0 316.0 16 95.3 26. FRANCE 23.0 314.0 18 125.8 27. MONGOLIA 23.0 303.5 15 104.8 28. SLOVENIA 22.5 316.5 14 98.0 29. ARMENIA-2 22.5 310.5 14 115.8 30. NETHERLANDS 22.5 301.5 15 108.3 31. CROATIA 22.0 312.0 15 112.8 32. BELARUS 22.0 304.0 14 103.8 33. BOSNIA & HERZ. 22.0 303.5 13 91.0 34. LATVIA 21.5 324.5 15 98.5 35. USA 21.0 314.0 16 94.3 36. SPAIN 21.0 299.5 12 67.3 37. SWEDEN 21.0 297.0 14 88.0 38. AUSTRALIA 21.0 294.0 12 80.8 39. CANADA 21.0 286.5 15 95.5 40. AUSTRIA 21.0 283.0 14 83.8 41. DENMARK 21.0 279.5 15 100.3 42. KYRGYZTAN 20.5 309.0 11 54.5 43. FYROM * 20.5 291.5 13 83.5 44. PHILIPPINES 20.5 278.0 16 101.8 45. NORWAY 20.5 277.0 12 66.0 46. BRAZIL 20.5 276.5 15 68.5 47. FINLAND 20.0 287.0 14 95.0 48. TURKMENISTAN 20.0 285.5 14 66.8 49. ITALY 20.0 282.0 17 77.0 50. VENEZUELA 20.0 280.5 14 96.0 51. MEXICO 20.0 279.5 11 67.5 52. BANGLADESH 20.0 278.5 13 62.3 53. SWITZERLAND 19.5 297.0 10 56.0 54. SCOTLAND 19.5 277.0 11 72.0 55. PORTUGAL 19.0 277.0 11 55.5 56. IRELAND 19.0 257.5 11 52.5 57. IBCA 19.0 245.0 12 56.0 58. PUERTO RICO 19.0 241.5 12 54.3 59. COLOMBIA 18.5 277.0 12 66.3 60. IRAN 18.5 266.5 14 95.8 61. SYRIA 18.5 243.5 11 35.5 62. NED. ANTILLES 18.5 235.0 13 34.8 63. EQUADOR 18.0 279.0 11 54.8 64. MALAYSIA 18.0 264.0 12 82.0 65. SRI LANKA 18.0 237.5 11 55.0 66. NEW ZEALAND 18.0 228.0 12 46.5 67. TURKEY 17.5 263.5 11 45.0 68. UNITED ARAB E. 17.5 241.5 11 54.3 69. ZAMBIA 16.5 230.0 10 28.5 70. ANGOLA 15.0 234.5 8 18.3 71. LEBANON 15.0 223.5 10 27.0 72. SEYCHELLES 14.5 234.5 7 15.3 73. JAPAN 8.0 237.5 3 1.5 74. US VIRGIN ISLANDS 2.0 245.5 0 0.0 * Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia