Down to blitzkrieg

The GM Wesley So-GM Vladimir Malakhov match in Round 4 of the 2009 World Chess Cup teaches us the difference between playing to win and playing not to lose.

Of course, the two are entirely different. In chess, playing to win could mean going all out for 1 despite the risk of ending up at 0 while playing not to lose could mean not going for 1 but at the same time not risking anything to avoid ending up at 0.

The two games in the classical time clearly showed us who's who between the two.

In Game One, So handled White aggressively to go for the full point, his every move with the intent to cut his opponent's head off, all his arsenal thrown to the enemy's lair. But Malakhov repulsed So's total aggression simply by building indestructible walls, yes, without even throwing a single stone.

In Game Two, it was Malakhov's time to turn the tide with White. But surprisingly, instead of sending his army to war, Malakhov just built walls again and hid in his lair like a general deprived of courage.

Which do you think is the right statement? Is it "Malakhov could afford to defend well because the games were fought in classical format."? Or is it "So was able to play aggressively because the games were fought in classical format."?

Now, who do you think will prevail in the blitzkrieg? Remember that So blanked GM Gadir Guseinov (3-0) in their Rapid match in Round 1. But Malakhov defeated GM Ilia Smirin (2.5-0.5) in the Rapid in Round 2 and blanked GM Pavel Eljanov (3-0) as well in Round 3.

Buckle up, troopers! We're down to the blitzkrieg!!

Let us watch So-Malakhov's long wars:

(Java required to view the games)






So's rapid games versus GM Gadir Guseinov (Round 1, WCC 2009)






Malakhov's rapid games versus GM Ilia Smirin (Round 2) and GM Pavel Eljanov (Round 3, WCC 2009)