"The game ended with exactly one second on Chucky's clock."

I don't belive this, Mig. One second? One minute for ten moves is okay, but not one second. You can't move this fast. I don't belive a pro like Chuko puts himself in such a nonsense situation.
Must be the broadcast, I only hear brr, brr, brr

Of course you can't move that fast. The game ended on a repetition. John Henderson was in the press room looking at the internal broadcast screens that are hooked up directly to the board and the digital clocks. 0:00:01. And Ivanchuk does this sort of thing on a regular basis, including losing on time, pro or not.

I recently lost a game on time, after 6 hours of play, I had equalized after beeing under for most of the game, and my opponent knew he could not win other than on time. He went for it, and I cant blame him.

Would people have blamed Leko for such a win?

Ah chess. Here you are one of the best and most exciting players in the world, and your nemesis is a 16 year old kid.

Then congrats to Peter. He could have won but gave respect to Chuko's sacrifice. I don't know what I would have done. Since we are playing for dollars I would have run Chucky could. I am myself a player who often gets in time trouble, but I have never lost by time. Move or stop the clocks (if you are lost) is the way to go.

I think Kramnik once won a drawn position (K+R vs. K+N?) against Leko on the clock. In their next game, Leko had a cold, and Kramnik (playing White) gave him a draw after 6 moves or so. That evened things out, I suppose.

And now Leko was being nice to a colleague. Bravo, I say.

Carlsen just logged in on playchess, one hour before his game against Aronian. And who else is there if not Peter Heine Nielsen. Are they doing their preparation on playchess??

Well, it's nice to see a top player _not_ trying to hustle you like some sleazy 1700 at a Swiss tournament. I guess one of the burdens/privileges of being a top-20 player is you're expected to show some minimal level of sportsmanship.

Gotta like Peter for being a gentleman...can you imagine Radjabov, Topalov or Kasparov behaving that way? Cut throat and mean...

Let's not knock those of us who go after a win on the clock even if they may not have it on the board. It is a valid tactic. If I flag someone in Leko's place, is it my fault they put themselves into this situation? Clock is part of the game. If you forfeit on time, it is your own fault. You invested too much of your time into something that wasn't worth it, why should I, your opponent, bail you out?

Kudos to Leko for being a gentleman.

yes what is wrong with winning on time? Surely this is a part of the psychology. You set up problems your opponent has to use all his time to figure out. Come the end, you reap the benefits. Not necessarily bad sportsmanship. Nevertheless if two opponents have the same time left it is maybe bad sportsmanship to see who can bang the clock fastest...

Good work on the broadcast, Mig. Must have been tough with the erratic relay. Thank goodness for Henderson. Kaidanov was superb. Hope he sticks around.

Great job on that broadcast. You and a Kaidinov make a great team. You have a good understandign of the game and a great understanding of the scene. Kaidinov is a Grandmaster at understandign the game. Its nice to commentators with knowledge of both.

I like Tony Rook just fine, he seems a nice guy, but he knew little about either aspect of the game and I wondered why he was commenting so much.

Yes there´s nothing wrong with winning on time. However you have to raise hat for the gesture Leko did. This seems rare in the chess world nowadays.

Also you have better inbetween music. Many of Mr. Rook's choices were bad.

Leko acted as a gentleman. I am sure that he already regrets it but since it happened I have to add my kudos too.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with using time as a tactic to win in chess. I'll go one further and say that if my opponent forgets to "punch" his clock after making a move, that's his problem. I've entered a tournament with the purpose of winning, not babysitting my opponent. His clock is entirely his responsibility and his alone.

I hope Leko doesn't regret it! As a top GM, you are to some extent a symbol of the game. Top players seem to sense this, and are in general much more sporting (over the board, not necessarily off) than most players.

I also get the impression that they have more respect for the "absolute truth" of the game. That's why I applaud Leko for not playing an obviously inferior move just so he could flag Ivanchuk.

Winning postion for Chucky after move 17. I love this guy ;)

Can someone please post the games for round 2? Any update much appreciated.

Winning postion for Chucky after move 17. I love this guy ;)
-- Posted by: freitag at February 18, 2007 18:17

Yes, Chucky is a chess god. Only his nerves prevented him from becoming World Champion. He has won many Chess Informant Best Game prizes and defeated Kasparov on numerous occasions.

If you read Russian,
http://www.crestbook.com/
has GM Shipov commenting one game per round live. If you don't speak Russian, you can at least follow that game and the moves of GM Shipov's analysis. "As we speak", he is looking at Topalov's 24...Qe8 against Ivanchuk.

Here's the games gmnotyet:

[Site "Morelia"]
[Date "2007.02.18"]
[Round "2"]
[White "GM Ivanchuk, Vassily(UKR)"]
[Black "GM Topalov, Veselin(BUL)"]
[Result "*"]
[WhiteElo "2750"]
[BlackElo "2783"]
[Annotator "Robot 1"]
[PlyCount "50"]
[EventDate "2007.??.??"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 e5 7. Nf3 Be7 8. Bc4
O-O 9. O-O Be6 10. Bxe6 fxe6 11. Na4 Ng4 12. Qd3 Nxe3 13. Qxe3 b5 14. Nb6 Ra7
15. Nd5 Rb7 16. Qd2 Nc6 17. Rad1 Rd7 18. Qc3 Nb8 19. Nxe7+ Qxe7 20. Rd3 h6 21.
Rfd1 Rfd8 22. h4 Kh7 23. R1d2 Qf8 24. Qb3 Qe8 25. a4 Qg6 *

[Event "Linares/Morelia"]
[Site "Morelia"]
[Date "2007.02.18"]
[Round "2"]
[White "GM Leko, Peter(HUN)"]
[Black "GM Morozevich, Alexander(RUS)"]
[Result "*"]
[WhiteElo "2749"]
[BlackElo "2741"]
[Annotator "Robot 1"]
[PlyCount "43"]
[EventDate "2007.??.??"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Bb4 5. e5 h6 6. Bd2 Bxc3 7. bxc3 Ne4 8. Qg4
g6 9. Bd3 Nxd2 10. Kxd2 c5 11. h4 Qa5 12. Nf3 Nd7 13. Rhb1 cxd4 14. Qxd4 a6 15.
Rb4 Qc7 16. c4 a5 17. Rb3 dxc4 18. Qxc4 Nc5 19. Rc3 b6 20. Qf4 Bb7 21. Nd4 Qd8
22. f3 *

[Event "Linares/Morelia"]
[Site "Morelia"]
[Date "2007.02.19"]
[Round "2"]
[White "GM Aronian, Levon(ARM)"]
[Black "GM Carlsen, Magnus(NOR)"]
[Result "*"]
[WhiteElo "2744"]
[BlackElo "2690"]
[Annotator "Robot 1"]
[PlyCount "54"]
[EventDate "2007.??.??"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. g3 d5 4. Nf3 dxc4 5. Bg2 a6 6. O-O Nc6 7. e3 Bd7 8. Qe2
b5 9. Rd1 Be7 10. Nc3 O-O 11. Ne5 Qe8 12. b3 Nd5 13. Bxd5 exd5 14. Nxd5 Nxe5
15. dxe5 Ra7 16. bxc4 c6 17. Nf4 Qc8 18. Bb2 g5 19. e4 gxf4 20. gxf4 f5 21. Qe3
Rb7 22. Qg3+ Kf7 23. Qh3 Ke8 24. Qh5+ Rf7 25. Kh1 fxe4 26. Rg1 Bf5 27. Rad1 Rd7
*

The Anand game was missing

[Event "Linares/Morelia"]
[Site "Morelia"]
[Date "2007.02.19"]
[Round "2"]
[White "GM Anand, Viswanathan(IND)"]
[Black "GM Svidler, Peter(RUS)"]
[Result "*"]
[WhiteElo "2779"]
[BlackElo "2728"]
[Annotator "Robot 1"]
[PlyCount "87"]
[EventDate "2007.??.??"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 O-O 8. h3
Bb7 9. d3 Re8 10. a4 h6 11. Nbd2 Bf8 12. c3 Na5 13. Bc2 c5 14. d4 cxd4 15. cxd4
exd4 16. e5 Nd5 17. Nxd4 Nb4 18. axb5 Nxc2 19. Qxc2 axb5 20. Nxb5 Qb6 21. Nc3
Qc6 22. Nf3 Nc4 23. Rxa8 Bxa8 24. Bf4 Bb4 25. Qb3 Ba5 26. Rc1 Qe6 27. Ne1 Bc6
28. Ne2 Nxe5 29. Qxe6 Rxe6 30. Nd4 Bxe1 31. Rxe1 Nd3 32. Nxe6 Nxe1 33. Nd4 Nd3
34. Bd6 Nxb2 35. f3 Nc4 36. Bb4 h5 37. Kf2 f6 38. Nf5 Ne5 39. Bc3 Kf7 40. Nd6+
Ke7 41. Nf5+ Kf8 42. Ke3 g6 43. Nd6 Ke7 44. Bb4 *

@xtra: thanks

Ivanchuk is a great player indeed but has he defeated Kasparov on numerous occasions? Methinks not. No one has defeated the great Kasparov on 'numerous' occasions.

Carlsen in time pressure did not make the best move at the end and a repetition would have occured.

[Event "Linares/Morelia"]
[Site "Morelia"]
[Date "2007.02.19"]
[Round "2"]
[White "GM Aronian, Levon(ARM)"]
[Black "GM Carlsen, Magnus(NOR)"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[WhiteElo "2744"]
[BlackElo "2690"]
[Annotator "Robot 1"]
[PlyCount "62"]
[EventDate "2007.??.??"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. g3 d5 4. Nf3 dxc4 5. Bg2 a6 6. O-O Nc6 7. e3 Bd7 8. Qe2
b5 9. Rd1 Be7 10. Nc3 O-O 11. Ne5 Qe8 12. b3 Nd5 13. Bxd5 exd5 14. Nxd5 Nxe5
15. dxe5 Ra7 16. bxc4 c6 17. Nf4 Qc8 18. Bb2 g5 19. e4 gxf4 20. gxf4 f5 21. Qe3
Rb7 22. Qg3+ Kf7 23. Qh3 Ke8 24. Qh5+ Rf7 25. Kh1 fxe4 26. Rg1 Bf5 27. Rad1 Rd7
28. e6 Bxe6 29. Rg8+ Bf8 30. Rxf8+ Kxf8 31. Qh6+ Ke7 {Draw 1/2-1/2} 1/2-1/2

History teaches us that those who have a downer on obviously talented youngsters and express such sentiments publicly often rue their misjudgement. Witness Tarrasch on Pillsbury, Reshevsky on Fischer, whateverishisname on Kasparov (Bugojno, Tilburg?) and Kasparov on Kamsky. Never underestimate (misunderestimate!) the potential of youth is the take-home lesson.

Carlsen in time pressure did not make the best move at the end and Aronian correctly played for the draw.

[Event "Linares/Morelia"]
[Site "Morelia"]
[Date "2007.02.19"]
[Round "2"]
[White "GM Aronian, Levon(ARM)"]
[Black "GM Carlsen, Magnus(NOR)"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[WhiteElo "2744"]
[BlackElo "2690"]
[Annotator "Robot 1"]
[PlyCount "62"]
[EventDate "2007.??.??"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. g3 d5 4. Nf3 dxc4 5. Bg2 a6 6. O-O Nc6 7. e3 Bd7 8. Qe2
b5 9. Rd1 Be7 10. Nc3 O-O 11. Ne5 Qe8 12. b3 Nd5 13. Bxd5 exd5 14. Nxd5 Nxe5
15. dxe5 Ra7 16. bxc4 c6 17. Nf4 Qc8 18. Bb2 g5 19. e4 gxf4 20. gxf4 f5 21. Qe3
Rb7 22. Qg3+ Kf7 23. Qh3 Ke8 24. Qh5+ Rf7 25. Kh1 fxe4 26. Rg1 Bf5 27. Rad1 Rd7
28. e6 Bxe6 29. Rg8+ Bf8 30. Rxf8+ Kxf8 31. Qh6+ Ke7 {Draw 1/2-1/2} 1/2-1/2

from the official website, after Black's 33rd:

Isn't Ivanchuk close to winning? 34.c4, then something like Nh2-f1-e3 (with g3 thrown in if needed)

Black can try to pile up on the c4 pawn, but White can cover it...

Did they really just blitz off 5 moves, or is the transmission funky?

Looks drawish (but I'm weakish)

41.Qxc4: shows what I know...

Topa blundered on move 40 (It was lost anyway).

Ivanchuk is a great player indeed but has he defeated Kasparov on numerous occasions? Methinks not. No one has defeated the great Kasparov on 'numerous' occasions.
-- Posted by: Hardy Berger at February 18, 2007 20:11

I can name Linares 1991, Horgen 1995, Linares 1997, and Moscow 2002 (rapid) off the top of my head for Ivanchuk wins over Kasparov.

*** What exactly is the whole time control in this tournament?
The PGN files do not bother to record this piece of, of, trivia?

'chesstraveler' wrote (at February 18, 2007 16:54)
{
There is absolutely nothing wrong with using time as a tactic to win in chess.
}

I agree. However, to me there is something wrong with the Tournament Organizer choosing long time controls that have hard stops.

By "hard stop" I mean
(A) No increment is used.
-and-
(B) One of the time controls is the last time control allowed (Sudden Death/60 minutes, or Game/120 minutes, etc).

Hard stops are fine for Blitz or Rapid.
But the original purpose for chess clocks was because some players were taking unreasonably too long to make their moves. The clock brought sanity.

Long time controls with hard stops have veered away from the original (and still best) purpose of the chess clock. Hard stops mangle the concept of an endgame. Hard stops are about managing the starting times of rounds. But with only one game per day in this tournament, what is the purpose of hard stops?

In long time controls, the only purpose to hard stops may be to decrease the draw rate, by having some people lose on time a game that would otherwise be a draw.
I dislike draws, but time seems an artificial way to reduce the draw rate; or to win in a losing position.

*** What exactly is the whole time control in this tournament?

Thanks.

I wouldn't say that only "nerves" prevented Ivanchuk from becoming WC. Even if nerves weren't an issue, his peak happened to coincide with the reign of two gentlemen, G. Kasparov and A. Karpov, who would have made life difficult for him, nerves or no.

Congratulations to Ivanchuk!

Postscript: a quick search on Chessbase reveals Ivanchuk's stats vs. Kasparov to be -15, +6, =27. Not bad, and probably better than anyone else's record except Karpov and Kramnik, but still...

'Hardy Berger' wrote (at February 18, 2007 20:17)
{
History teaches us that those who have a downer on obviously talented youngsters and express such sentiments publicly often rue their misjudgement.
}

Maybe. But history does not bother to record the numerous times that such doubts have later proven justified.

At this stage of Carlsen's life, it is not a question of doubting him. It is only predicting when he will stop improving.

Nobody is yet saying Carlsen will soon stop improving.

At this stage of Carlsen's life, it is not a question of doubting him. It is only predicting when he will stop improving.

Nobody is yet saying Carlsen will soon stop improving.

-- Posted by: GeneM at February 18, 2007 20:47

Carlsen would already be a super-GM if only he could play every game against Morozevich.

@Bill Brock
Topa's position was dead a long ago

@Bill Brock
Topa's position was dead a long ago
-- Posted by: freitag at February 18, 2007 20:51

Great start by Ivanchuk! Too bad he didn't get the full point he so richly deserved from his first round draw against Leko.

That was some combination Ivanchuk played against Leko, 18 a4! Rxa4 19 Nf6+!. Not often do you see a 2749-rated player (Leko) totally outplayed tactically like this.

[Event "XXIV SuperGM"]
[Site "Morelia/Linares MEX/ESP"]
[Date "2007.02.17"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Ivanchuk, V."]
[Black "Leko, P."]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "C45"]
[WhiteElo "2750"]
[BlackElo "2749"]
[PlyCount "54"]
[EventDate "2007.02.17"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nxd4 Bc5 5. Be3 Qf6 6. c3 Nge7 7. g3 d5 8.
Bg2 dxe4 9. O-O O-O 10. Nd2 Bb6 11. Re1 Nxd4 12. Nxe4 Qg6 13. Bxd4 Nc6 14. Bxb6
axb6 15. Qd2 Qf5 16. h3 h6 17. g4 Qb5 18. a4 Rxa4 19. Nf6+ gxf6 20. Rxa4 Qxa4
21. Qxh6 Qa5 22. Qxf6 Qc5 23. Be4 Ne7 24. Rd1 Ng6 25. Bxg6 fxg6 26. Qxg6+ Kh8
27. Qh6+ Kg8 1/2-1/2

The Tournament Organizers do us no favors by using SAN for notation instead of LAN.

Many in the chess world can struggle by with English or German or Russian letters for the pieces. But even with the Rosetta stone (below), it is tedious for non-spanish speakers to follow the spanish letters.

Fine, use spanish letters. But then...
What is so wrong with recording in LAN, instead of SAN, for in international audience?

[SAN] Txf3
[LAN] Tf1:f3

Which is clearer or more informative to you?

Have you noticed how many chess books these days use LAN in their text? Why do they use LAN, because LAN is worse? No, that ain't why.
Yet unlike David Bronstein, these authors never dare to use LAN for live moves. Their publishers simply have a rule requiring SAN, for consistency.

K = R
Q = D
R = T
B = A
N = C
P = ?

So Aronian-Carlsen is a draw and Ivanchuk beat Topalov. Any updates on the other two games? Thanks.

@ gmnotyet

The other two games are draws as well.

Come on. Is Spanish notation that upsetting?

Roi,Regent,Rex (choose your poison)
Dame
Tower
Alfil,Advisor
Chevalier

People who can supposedly memorise dozends of openings 20-25 moves deep can't manage 5 letters?

Last Linares on ICC one of the broadcasts had a number of Spanish speakers and a Spanish IM discussing a position in the game window. Apparently even the sight of a foreign language was too much for some people who kept demanding "Speak English".

Chess is a continuing opportunity to learn. When I was little loved it when I found the Knight was called a "Springer" in German. I think it even improved my play with Knights and I'm hoping it will come in useful one day in the Times crossword...

Well Babson, then it will please you to hear that in klingon the Knigth is called the ultimate mating weapon...

To be serious, most of us already has at least two languages of notation, with interconflicting names and letters, its not a question of whether it is easy or possible to learn. The point is that there is a really simple and logic system to avoid this.

And that simple and logical system is...?

"And that simple and logical system is...?"

Please note that I'm talking about the SAN/LAN issue here, not figurine notation or the like.

On another topic - Magnus Carlen's father has some interesting things to say about r2 on his website. Magnus is a little unhappy with the result and liked bg6...but had no time.

I was watching Carlsen's game online when he blundered with just a couple of minutes left on his clock. Curiously, at the same time Hikaru Nakamura logged in to the server and only needed 10 seconds to spot 28. e6! for Aronian.

f1f3 seems perfect information to me

Q

veselintopalov.net is in denial ;)

http://www.veselintopalov.net/article/ivanchuk-topalov-linares-morelia-2007

Ivancvhuk, Vassily - Topalov, Veselin
Round 2 Linares Morelia 2007
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e5 7.Nf3 Be7 8.Bc4 O-O 9.O-O Be6 10.Bxe6 fxe6 11.Na4 Ng4 12.Qd3 Nxe3 13.Qxe3 b5 14.Nb6 Ra7 15.Nd5 Rb7 16.Qd2 Nc6 17.Rad1 Rd7 18.Qc3 Nb8 19.Nxe7+ Qxe7 20.Rd3 h6 21.Rfd1 Rfd8 22.h4 Kh7 23.R1d2 Qf8 24.Qb3 Qe8 25.a4 Qg6 26.axb5 axb5 27.Re3 Na6 28.Qxb5 Nc5 29.Qc4 Ra7 30.Re1 Qe8 31.b4 Na4 32.Qb3 Nb6 33.Red1 Rad7 34.Qd3 Rc8 35.c3 Ra7 36.Qe3 Ra6 37.Qe2 Nc4 38.Ra2 Rac6 39.Ra7 R6c7 40.Rda1 Qf7 41.Qxc4 1/2-1/2

Tried your link, mishanp. It has been fixed. Maybe the site admin had a cable dangling out of the ceiling when preparing that page. Who knows?

As for notation, SAN seems good enough so far for me.

It seems like Danailov did not dare to give any signals. It is strange that in some games Topalov is playing like a super Kasparov and in others like a mere 2700.

The best oldster-doubting-prodigy story still has to be Capa-Bernstein, San Sebastian 1910(?).

Bernstein: You can't let that kid play. This is a serious tournament.

Organisers: Well, we're going to. Let's see how he gets on against you in the first round.

Result: Capa 1 Bernstein 0, the game winning the tournament brilliancy prize.

Oh, and kudos to Leko if what's reported is true. GMs generally do show more class in these situations than the rabble, with certain obvious exceptions, but even so.

Zombre wrote: "...at the same time Hikaru Nakamura logged in to the server and only needed 10 seconds to spot 28. e6! for Aronian"

Kaidanov (during the ICC broadcast) saw it quickly as well. If you are good, I guess it is not that difficult to see.

But at the same time: If you are very short on time, and looking for opportunities to simplify, I guess it is also quite possible to miss.

Kaidanov suggested an exaggerated eagerness to make exchanges and simplify as an explanation for the bad Rd7 move. I guess that sounds right.

Additionally, according to Magnus' father's blog (http://blog.magnuschess.com) he also discarded the Bg6 alternative since he missed the nice Qh3! continuation after Rxg6 hxg6 Qxg6

Well, Leko could of flagged him, but it looks like if given enough clock time Ivanchuk may have been able to win with 22. Be4

Heck, I needed 5 seconds to spot 28. e6!, and so did about 200 other people. It was the shot that White had been hoping for, for the prior 6 or 7 moves. It's somewhat of a shame because Carlsen had defended so well, and basically proved that Aronian's sac was unsound, only to hand it back on a silver platter. At least he gave up only half a point instead of the full point. Tick tick tick!

is it true that danailov was expelled from the playing hall?

My respect for Leko just went up a notch.

It is hard to imagine that the organizers chose not to use some kind of small increment or delay for the clocks to prevent scenarios such as the Leko-Ivanchuk game yesterday.

Chess should not come down to someone flagging another in a lost position, it should be determined by the position on the board, not the clocks!

I am always amazed when I hear Matt Helfst's opinion stated so frequently and so constantly.

If you knew anything about the game, you would know that the reason not to have increments (other than in the last session) is that they make the time element more important rather than less.

There is no legislating for the likes of Chukky who leave themselves one second for fifteen moves. But that is no reason to put in place artificial constraints on time use which make the game harder for the rest of us.

rdh, Back in the good old days (before computer chess) there were adjournments for the games where the players could study the positions for many hours. Chess should not be made to be a game of seconds.

Also, with a 5 second increment there would still be a time factor. Playing 10 moves at 5 seconds a move would still be quite difficult, but it would still give the player a chance to `prove` their position.

rdh,

Just some (minor) corrections for you:

Capa-Bernstein was San Sebastian 1911. Capa was hardly a prodigy at the time, being aged 22. But he was almost a complete unknown, hence Bernstein's objection, etc.
Capa was included almost solely on Marshall's insistence. Marshall was the only top player who already knew how good Capa was, having been thrashed by him in a match two years earlier.

In 'The Cable Guy' thread, you forget Short, who also had played a WC match (1993) at the time Kramnik made his decision.

Off topic: You may have missed my reply [delayed - I was busy] to you in the 'Corus 2007 r10' thread as it disappeared off the 'Recent Comments' list very quickly.

Matt

Sorry about the above; I don't know what came over me.

Yes, of course I know that. But equally no-one complained about playing x moves in y hours and if you didn't you lost.

A five-second increment would actually be a damned sight more sensible than anything FIDE or any other organiser have ever come up with, since as you know they tend to go for thirty seconds or even a minute. Basically the larger the increment the greater the extent to which time trouble interferes with the game. It annoys me when arbiters and organisers fail to grasp this truth (their motive of course being entirely their own convenience).

Chris B: Short: so I did. One forgets now he has adopted his role as court jester that he used to play. As I recall he was fairly approving of Kramnik's conduct also: another who like Kasparov had previously been fairly anti-Kramnik.

But thought's the slave of life, and life time's fool;
And time, which takes survey of all the world, Must have a stop.
(W.S.)

IMO you have to finish the 40 moves in the 2 hours that are given to you. This is time enough. Increment only makes sense in internet chess where you sometimes have problems with the mouse.

yes kudos to Leko and congrats to Ivanchuk who is absolutely my favourite chess player of all time...

The Official Website is officially the worst web site for a major tournament that I've ever seen.

In every photo lately (plus the Corus video of his post-mortem with Kramnik), Carlsen looks absolutely miserable. It must be a combination of teen angst plus the unbelievable pressure of top-flight tournament play.

Carlsen needs special training from Svidler in how to be a jolly super-GM.

Carlsen can't be too miserable, he is at a +1 score at the moment as the lowest seed