Linares 2010: use a tournament collection to compare plans

Linares 2010 brought six leading players together in a double round-robin, including Veselin Topalov, Alexander Grischuk, and Levon Aronian. A tournament collection is valuable to a student because it shows different solutions to related chess problems.

Choose a question before choosing a game

Look for a theme you need in your own play: handling an isolated pawn, improving a passive rook, or defending against a kingside attack. Select two games with that theme and compare the critical decisions.

A tournament result gives context, but it does not explain a move. For each candidate, name the square, target, or defensive resource that makes it relevant.

Compare the quiet moments

Pause before a pawn exchange or a rook move. What would happen if the player maintained the tension? Which piece becomes active after the exchange? Does a simplifying move enter an ending that favours one king?

These questions turn a collection of game scores into a study programme. You do not need to memorize the event’s opening theory to learn from its middlegames.

Include the defender’s plan

Follow the freeing pawn break or exchange the defender is trying to achieve. If it never happens, find the move that prevented it. A successful restriction is easier to understand when you know the plan it stopped.

For a comparable exercise with games already in this site’s library, explore great players by learning theme. Use the same predict–explain–check routine, whether the game comes from Linares, Zurich, or your own last session.

Two games against each of five opponents

The announced field comprised Topalov, Grischuk, Aronian, Boris Gelfand, Vugar Gashimov, and Francisco Vallejo Pons. In a six-player double round-robin, each player meets five opponents twice, once with each colour: ten games per player and thirty games in the complete event.

That format makes paired comparisons possible. The same opponents must solve two opening problems with the colours reversed. It does not imply that the second game repeats the first; a player may choose a different structure, and the tournament situation may change what kind of risk seems attractive.

FIDE’s preview also places the event before Topalov’s championship match against Anand. That chronology provides context for preparation without proving that any particular tournament move was intended for the later match.

Compare the decisions an event score cannot explain

A result table tells you who scored, but not whether a rook ending was held accurately or an attack depended on a missed defence. Choose one early pawn exchange and one late simplification from a game. For each, imagine the alternative of maintaining tension and describe what both sides gain or lose.

If the game reaches an ending, ask which earlier exchange produced its pawn targets. If it ends in an attack, look for the quiet developing move that allowed another piece to join. These are concrete links between phases of the game.

You need not absorb all thirty games. A carefully selected pair can show how the same strategic question receives different answers when the king positions, pawn structure, or available defenders change.