Greengard's ChessNinja.com

Linares 09 Final: Draws Enough for Grischuk

| Permalink | 82 comments

Four draws in the final round, not much of a surprise there. This gave Grischuk his first Linares title on tiebreaks over Ivanchuk, both finishing with 8/14 +2 scores. First tiebreak is head-to-head, second is most wins (or fewest draws, as you like), and Grischuk's three of a kind beat Ivanchuk's pair. (NB: Had there been a three-way tie with Carlsen involved, he would have won.) They split the prize money, so 87,500 euros each. More later, interview clips on the ICC Blog. Anand did not sound happy, as you might expect.

+ Finally had time to review the tournament a bit. First I should note my failure to remember, and therefore to mention, that they were playing with a 30-move minimum rule this year. The impression that this was a particularly hard-fought event most of way, despite the high rate of draws, was no doubt influenced by this welcome step. I'd prefer just going with the Sofia rules and getting it over with, but change only comes incrementally. Speaking of, adding increment to the final control was another felicitous modernization. I've long since given up trying to predict or explain tournament draw percentages. You can toss in young newcomers, known firebrands, and jigger the rules and prizes all you want, but when draws happen, they just happen. The 73% draw rate in Linares year, up from a very low 55% last year, wasn't keenly felt because many of the draws were sharp, interesting, and fought to a sufficient degree of sterility to appease all but the most bloodthirsty among us. (It's no coincidence that the record draw level events of 2000 (77%) and 2004 (79%) marked Vladimir Kramnik's two Linares victories. The ultimate energy-sensitive pragmatist, Kramnik is like a surfer who knows how to make the most of small waves. He allows the tournament to come to him, where's waiting with +2.)

We had plenty of high class novelties in Linares this year, in the expected fashionable Semi-Slavs and Grunfelds and surprises like the Grischuk-Anand Poisoned-Pawn Najdorf. Leinier Dominguez finished last and was the only player without a win, but his excellent preparation against Carlsen and Anand earned him impressively smooth draws with black. On the other end of the crosstable, Grischuk spent oceans of time in well-trod positions again and again. Like Radjabov and Carlsen, the winner was there without a second. Wang Yue's repertoire looked seriously punctured in this, his third super-event without much of a break to replenish his ammunition supply. As with most of the Chinese team, he plays a narrow set of openings and guys at this level don't need long to find weak spots. It's worth noting that his losses came against 1.d4; his Petroff still looked like, well, the Petroff.

Aronian, Anand, and Carlsen bobbed up and down wildly, alternating between brilliant wins and serious blunders. Aronian in particular was never in good form. Two of his three wins, against Anand and Carlsen with black, owed more to pluck and his opponents' unforced errors than his acumen. Anand had the wind taken out of his sails by his second loss, to Carlsen's excellent effort in round six. After that Vishy really looked like his heart and mind were far away from Linares and he drew his last eight games. He stayed out of trouble rather easily, but didn't cause much trouble either. After duplicating his frustratingly slow start from Corus, Carlsen started to force the issue. He reaped the benefits and setbacks of such aggression, scoring wonderful wins over Anand and Grischuk but losing to Wang Yue's brilliant counterattack and throwing away what would have been a gorgeous win over Radjabov with hasty endgame play. His raw power is terrifying, especially since it comes with the knowledge that he won't be making so many mistakes as he matures.

What about the players who shared equal first? I admit it would have felt like a shame had Grischuk been pipped at the post after leading for more than half the tournament. True, he pulled in his horns quite a bit in the second half to ride his lead and nearly paid the price. You don't see many tournament winners with a negative score in the second half. But he played great chess in the first half and it's great to have Grischuk back in a big way. He still suffers from the "Russian Disease" of competing for invitations with organizers unwilling to host too many players from the same country. With Kramnik, Morozevich, Svidler, and now Jakovenko all in the elite, a Linares victory on his resume is a big help. Ivanchuk was under the radar just about the entire way, scoring his first win in the 7th round and beating the clearly diminished Aronian again in the 13th. He was no doubt distracted by the agony of missing various wins in his game against Anand in the 5th round. As with fellow veteran Anand, when Ivanchuk isn't pushing he is basically unbeatable and draw-prone. Here that was enough for a share of first, if not his fourth Linares title (89, 91, 95).

Radjabov somehow fell between the cracks, unable to recover from his two early losses to Anand and Grischuk despite playing hard. His only win came against a nearly unrecognizable Aronian. As mentioned above, sometimes draws happen for a reason and sometimes they don't. This was one of the latter cases. Radjabov played games both sharp and long and just couldn't generate enough sparks to start a fire. His King's Indian flag remained unsullied, drawing all three appearances. His years dedicated to the resuscitation of the KID was apparent on other boards as well and the it scored +1 -0 =5 in the event.

Eyes now turn to Nice, France, where the Melody Amber blindfold/rapid extravaganza gets underway on March 14 with a cast even more impressive than usual. Right before that, the 10th Dos Hermanas internet tournament starts on the ICC. The massive European Individual Championship is already underway in Montenegro. It's a qualifier for the next World Cup.


"This gave Grischuk his first Linares title on tiebreaks over Ivanchuk"
Yes, I got this wrong initially - but so did the source I had consulted(TWIC) ... .

I prefer to say "most losses" :) Congratulations again!

Has Carlsen given any comments on why he blitzed against Radjabov?

mig don't u cry now.the bad eastern guys did it again!(after corus-karjakin)magnus could have won but.......half a point is half a point!!!!plus grischuk dominated the entire tournament.to bad..

After fourteen rounds, only two points separate first from last!

You beat me to it, acirce!

I recall reading he took 50 seconds for Kf3?
Not long enough, evidently, but not blitzing, either.

Congratulations to the poker players! Bacrot won Aeroflot, Grischuk wins Linares.

It's very nice to see Grischuk finally winning such a strong tournament. I always saw him underperforming somehow (but that's also because I always thought he was extremely strong, as many of his peers seemed to think) What a pity the blunder Carlsen made yesterday, he could have a really big shot to Linares at 18. That's amazing. Anyway, he is sure to be there soon. Congrats to Mig and the posters, it was a really nice tournament

Bacrot and Grischuk are chessplayers, and we don't even know if they are winning players in poker.
So, there is no point to transform the reality, and to speak about Grischuk and few other as they are poker players. Congrats, to my friend, Sasha G for winning Linares!

Is it wrong to suggest as a poker player, Grischuk was inordinately motivated to outperform by the pot?

(The winner took home 5.6x as much as each of the five low performers, please recall.)

Without the added incentive, Grischuk would surely have done -1.

Sheesh, what's with these monkey-poo flingers?! Congratulations to Grischuk for coming in ahead of many players who were supposed to be much stronger (Anand, Ivanchuk, Carlsen, Aronian). This proves that there is now parity in top-level chess.

Grischuck - from 2003 (age 20) to now (age 26), his rating has always remained between 2700 and 2735, almost a straight line, as the younger Carlson and Radjabov have climbed 50 points past him. Maybe he can have a spurt of development and catch back up with them? I hope so, I've always been a fan of Grischuk. Perhaps his brown suit is a sign that he is now a 'serious' chessplayer - more serious about himself, and also to be taken more seriously by others.

The largest gap on the Live Rating list is between #1 and #2!

Why shouldn't we call Grischuk a poker player, this is a widely known fact? At the Chess FM blog Macauley asked that question to Grischuk: "What is more important to you, chess or poker?" His answer was "during tournaments I concentrate 100% on chess, in between it is mostly poker".

Well, now he will play at least one more major chess tournament this year (Bilbao) ... .

I think it's pretty cool to have a tournament where the entire field has a performance rating over 2700!


Hi I have just started Tweeting on Chess news and updates. You can follow me at https://twitter.com/chessupdates

Hi, everyone. Great tournament for the two 'chuks, Gris and Ivan.

What do you think? The Kf1 that Carlsen missed, is that something that Garry sees in a few minutes? Is it something that Anand sees, casually looking over Carlsen's shoulder during the game? Would Capa have played it, had the same position arisen in a game against Janowski or someone?

I know it's sort of a silly question--I just want to gauge the difficulty and depth of Kf1. Kf3 certainly seemed natural, at once containing black's d-pawn and staying close to white's own pawns, in case the knight came that way.

does anybody know who were the seconds of the players? i read at chessbase only that GM Aryam Abreu worked with Dominguez.

I can add (source:chess.fm) that Grischuk was in Linares alone, without a second.

r, that Kf1 works but Kf3 doesn't is something that Kasparov would normally have found quickly, that Anand would normally have found quickly, that Capablanca would normally have found quickly, and that Carlsen would normally have found quickly. However, all four of these are/were human beings, and they could all blunder badly, as they all did on occasion.

"The Kf1 that Carlsen missed, is that something that Garry sees IN A FEW MINUTES [emphasis added] ?"
I think that's the point .... Carlsen should have taken a bit more time - he took 50 seconds though he had plenty of time on the clock (and much more than his opponent).
Of course this doesn't invalidate, but rather confirms acirce's comment ("he is just a human being").

Impossible to say, as I'm sure has been pointed out above. Watching from afar (or not watching at all, in this case) is an entirely different matter. The most relevant point is that surely Carlsen would have seen it had he invested a few minutes on each move toward the end. How much time is enough is of course impossible to answer. He thought as long as he thought was needed, simply. That's the story behind most blunders, right? Hardly a crime, or unprecedented, but a shame nonetheless.

Anand’s reign will end soon: Kasparov
More tweets at

Kasparov's video interview in India at the Conclave 2009 http://tinyurl.com/bc4pwu

I don´t agree with K on this one , Anand has something very few others have : speed.
IMO speed is like a fountain of youth in chess ,with the sufficient preparation it can even things against younger oponents.
And if he is about to lose the crown , is more likely to lose it against someone like Topa than a youngster like Carlsen (or Karjakin ), at least for the next few years.
In modern times chess has become more and more young , but one should not forget that youth lasts longer nowadays.
Garry said that nobody beats time , that is true of course but the fact that he didnt stay to see his own decay as a player doesnt means that every other player over 40 cannot stay at the top of the game.

Thanks, guys, for your judicious answers to my question about Carlsen's Kf1.

Anand has significantly slowed down in recent years. In rapid he continues to maintain his dominance comfortably but I'm not sure if that speed he had in the late 80s and early 90s is there anymore. He has been in zeitnot quite often these days. On his reign I think his tournament results may not be so consistent (like how he was in the late 90s some years of the 2000s) but should be quite difficult opponent for the Carlsens, Karjakins, in a match.

>>They split the prize money, so 87,500 euros each.
Is it for sure? Hard to find info anywhere.

Re "bad eastern guys" (danyplayer): my guess is that, in particular, the liverating hysteria might have distracted Magnus from his game a bit in the last half an year. Otherwise he could be the official No1 or No2 already. What eastern guys know precisely is: "do not say Hop until you jump over" (c).

I didnt notice his loss of speed , but he is still a very fast player to any standars.
Ivanchuk is another curious example , he gets into time troble very often and yet he does great in rapid chess.
Anyway , what i meant is that this is not only the era of 9 year old computarized GMs , it is also the time for big achievements made at later stages in life.
I think thats what Kasparov is missing , that it will be someone like Anand (or even Topalov or Chucky ,etc) the one to demonstrate that our standars for late mental achievments are moving foward .


Humpy Koneru (India) : 1/10
Hou Yifan (China) : 3/10
Antoaneta Stefanova (Bulgaria) : 7/10
Pia Cramling (Sweden) : 5.5/10
Marie Sebag (France) : 3.5/10
Maia Chiburdanidze (Georgia) : 0/10
Zhao Xue (China) : 6/10
Elina Danielian (Armenia) : 0/10
Shen Yang (China) : 5.5/10
Martha Lorena Fierro Baquero : 10/10
Zeinab Mamedyarova (Azerbaijan) : 8.5/10
Betül Cemre Yildiz (Turkey) : 8/10

Average Score: 4.83
Comments: Girls range from hideous to good-looking with wide gaps in between.

* See http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5262 for details.


As a rule, I don't rate girls who rate under a 5. It's mean-spirited, and anyway unnecessary since mediocrity's commonplace. We're interested in the special. (Anyway, if you're desperate enough to want a sub-5, the phrase "beggars can't be choosers" applies.)

Also, it's unfair to rate old ladies such as Maya and Pia. They're post-menopausal and should not appear on a "hot or not" list.

My revised list:

Antoaneta Stefanova (Bulgaria) : 8.5/10
Marie Sebag (France) : 5.5/10
Zhao Xue (China) : 5/10
Shen Yang (China) : 5.5/10
Martha Lorena Fierro Baquero : 6/10

Martha used to rate a 8.5 in her teens (I was paired against her several times back then, she's Viagra au naturale), but now past her prime at age 32.

Generally speaking, none of the girls present are "prime grade", with the possible exception of the former stunner Antoaneta, who is already wilting.

I have to say that Carlsen just goes to show the most difficult thing to win is a won game. Once you clearly know you are winning you go on autopilot instead of taking care. This is usually the explanation for such blunders. But as others have said to err is human.

I must take offense though to the comment Topalov even stands a chance to dethrone Anand! If Anand is to lose the crown is will undoubtedly be to a youngster like Carlsen or Karjakin later.

As a rule, I don't rate people's appearance unless they earn a living from it or appear to be infatuated with themselves. But I'll make an exception this time, just to show how absurd and infuriating it can be.

The Participants in Linares this year:

- Grischuk, Alexander: 5.5/10 (a nose job wouldn't be a luxury here)

- Ivanchuk, Vassily: 4.5/10 (really, it's unfair to rate him, given his age and the fact that he's so andropausal he's got body hair oozing out of every pore)

Carlsen, Magnus : 7/10 (maybe more if you appreciate his neanderthal-like jaw-line. I don't.)

- Anand, Viswanathan : 4/10 (another guy who is way past his prime in terms of looks, if not chess-wise - but he was never that great to look at, anyhow)

- Radjabov, Teimour: 8/10 (now here's one you can bear to look at, although he'll be wilting away in just a few short years)

- Wang Yue: 4/10 (weight watchers, anyone?)

- Aronian, Levon: 2/10 (near midgets never make it very high on my list)

- Dominguez Perez, Leinier: 6/10 (there's potential here, if his skin could just clear up a bit)

Fortunately, these guys have talent. Otherwise, the picture wouldn't be pretty.

Don't be ridiculous, Girly Sue, why would anyone pay attention to these girls if not for their looks? It certainly can't be chess talent -- their average rating is 300 points below the top men.

Didn't know this joint had females around. Anyway, to show we're inclusive, any bisexuals here? (Just curious: in your book, would you rather have Teimour Radjabov or Nadezha Kosinteva for a tumble? Leinier Dominguez or Judit Polgar? Vassily "Bear" Ivanchuk or Elina "300lbs of All-Woman" Danielian?)

Grischuk had the next-best 2002, only 110 pts behind Garry. See http://members.aon.at/sfischl/cl2002.txt

Chess Auditor,

That Chessbase chooses to report on women's tournaments mostly to showcase some of the participants' looks is rather obvious and immature (it also should be obvious that you don't have to stoop to their level of immaturity), but that is quite beside the point. The point is that tournament organizers DO PICK these women on the basis of TALENT. It's not a god damned pageant.

By the same token, U12 world championships feature players that are well below the level of the top men. Yet their games can be fun and instructive (at least to amateurs of a certain level), and I don't think too many people would dare judge these players based on how "hot" they are rather than on how well they play.

Maybe that last bit was what some posters on this blog like to call a "strawman argument". If you feel this way (I certainly don't), just disregard it. But try this on for size: If, as you seem to contend, only category 20+ tournaments were worthy of serious (and respectful) attention, then there would be no need to report on the US championship, for instance (or on the B and C groups in Wik). Yet these tournaments are being held, they have a following (albeit modest) and I don't hear people commenting on the (male) players' looks. There's of course not shortage of jerks to ridicule female participants like "fatty Zatonsky".

Girly Sue has made her point and you others would do well to take it to heart. This is chess people not a fucking swimsuit modeling agency.

If we were talking about Maria Manakova who has made her business to associate women's look in chess with sex then this would be a different story... but you don't see your average player trying to call attention to their looks (well except Aronian with that whole color coded scarf theme from Corus... Anyone?).

Respect their Talent whether they are comparable to the top 10 mean or not. Your average master is not in the top 100 hence why anyone cares about hte top100... so why should the women's events don't rack up the rating. I bet $10 most of those women can still beat you silly in chess.

Nothing wrong with a few mild comments on looks. Frankly, I found Sue's 'hot or not' list insightful.

P.S. - I have defeated Martha Fierro before.

"Once you clearly know you are winning you go on autopilot instead of taking care."
Good point - maybe in the given game, the exact moment was when Carlsen captured Radjabov's a-pawn. It is well-known that two (or in the other examples below, three) connected passed pawns can become very dangerous and (over-)compensate for material deficit once they get close to the promotion square. An old famous example is from the 19th (or 18th?) century [deLabourdonnais? cannot find the exact source], the most recent one is Carlsen(!)-Grischuk from the previous Linares round.
So after Rxa4, Carlsen may well have thought: "Now I am through - the rook controls the b-pawn, the king takes care of the d-pawn." I don't know any examples where a knight works together with two _isolated_ passed pawns in such a way as in the game. Maybe Acirce can help (as I found on chessgames, he is an endgame study composer)? And even then, you have to 'visualize' that the black knight goes to c3 via b5 [both squares are usually "reserved' for a _white_ knight].

I think Anand's "Speedy Gonzalez" reputation is from (at least) five or ten years ago. In Linares, he quite often had less time on the clock than his opponent - something unheard of in his early career ... .
"Ivanchuk is another curious example , he gets into time troble very often and yet he does great in rapid chess."
And IMO (my impression) this is nothing unheard of or unique to Ivanchuk. If you are a strong rapid or blitz player, you confidently enter time trouble knowing that you can handle it quite well (another story is if that is a wise decision). If you are weak at fast time controls, you rather avoid it [at any prize].
At least blitz WCh Dominguez was quite often acting like Ivanchuk (in that respect) in both corus and Linares .... . I think Grischuk is also quite strong in blitz.

Actually, a little while ago, I mentioned something sarcastic about rating female chess players' looks, and hcl jumped on it immediately with a long, very detailed -- and irony-free -- assessment of various participants. He seems to think very hard about this topic, and is genuinely serious about it. His dedication to the cause is rather sweet, in a naive, misguided sort of way. But I don't think we need to take him very seriously.

I really enjoyed reading Girly Sue analysis of male chess players. I would like to hear more. Girly, how about more reviews? For instance, of all the world champs? Perhaps also who are some of the 'hottest' chess GMS? What about in the US? World?


Rating the Linares players was a lot of fun for me too. However, it was for the sake of making a point. And I don't know to what extent I really got it across. In any case, going any further along these lines, I feel, would be overindulgence on my part, and would defeat the purpose of what I was trying to accomplish. Sorry to disappoint. Perhaps Kasparov could be convinced to write, with the help of his wife, a "My Grubby Precessors" series of books or articles focused solely on past champions' looks and fashion sense.

Girly Sue, you are as pathetic as those morons you are criticising. I hope for your sake, you look perfect according to your own critiera.

Oh dear Thomas :
¨And IMO (my impression) this is nothing unheard of or unique to Ivanchuk¨
No ,not at all ,but if you read carefully (1 or 5 or 200 times , dont be shy ) the comment was about people who is about the same age of Vishy (i was talking about the Kasparov remark then).
Although Vishy may be losing some speed ( i dont think is that much ,but anyway) , he is still a fast player and so Chucky , that is what i mentioned that they have good chances to survive the youngsters for more time than many people thinks .
My comment was about mental development at later stages in life , i happen to be related with people that works in educational research.
Please Thomas, try to understand first and write later , like someone pointed before.

to mihail golubev 'the bad eastern guys'refers to other than westeurope players(specialy other than carlsen).all the westeuropeans chess analists are in pain every time carlsen is missing a move(or a game)no doubt he is a great talent,but no more than karjakin in my opinion and is not the only one makeing mistakes(grischuk missed anand-again after mexico 07-he could have been +3 again after 13nd round and no one was crying).enough of carlsen could have done this or that!let him play!

It should be obvious (but isn't, apparently) that any 'beauty rating' of females -- or males, for that matter -- depends only on the personal preferences of the person doing the rating. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder".

To give an example, among the current Women Grand Prix participants I personally like Zhao Xue the most! And I'm not even an asian, myself. Zeinab Mamedyarova comes second. This contrasts sharply with ChessAuditor's 'ratings'.

Girly Sue's post was amusing, and showed the value that diverse perspectives can bring to any discussion.

Too bad chess doesn't, in general, offer diverse perspectives.

>It should be obvious (but isn't, apparently) that any 'beauty rating' of females -- or males, for that matter -- depends only on the personal preferences of the person doing the rating.

I don't see that that's obvious at all, or indeed even true. If I say that Jenna Jameson is likely to have less trouble pulling than Anne Widecombe, that's not me expressing my personal preferences, it's an attempt to estimate something objectively. A deeply distasteful one, clealy, but that's another matter.

Rating Hou Yifan a "3" is the sign of a deeply disturbed individual.

Girly Sue. You were pretty hard on the guys...but other than that, nice job of putting the foot in the other shoe.

You're right on Hou Yifan: Had she still been wearing that stupid pin, she would have fallen to a 1 or 2 at most. However, as a sign of encouragement, I gave her a generous 3.

Come on guys, talking about hot women, always comes to mind, Karjakin's mother, she isn't a chessplayer but certainly scores perfect in her looks.

that was just out of line d-tal... you gotta appriciate both irony and diverse views on matters

You are amazing Manu ... because you manage to criticize me and get mad at me even when I generally agree with your post, just have something to add.
To everyone: just to get some things straight:
1) I listened to the entire Kasparov interview (I don't know how many other people did), and he wasn't specific about when Anand's decline might start - maybe in five years, maybe in ten years, ... .
And age takes its toll on everyone sooner or later, why on earth should Anand be immune? To give a few examples: Timman was formerly world top, presently he is playing at the European championship (score 2/4, performance rating 2400). Romanishin was at least sub-top and now struggling in the Corus C group 2009. Karpov, if he is still playing, same story ... . Korchnoi may be the only (at least relative) exception. Of course all of them are older than Anand ... .
2) Anand playing more slowly than he used to [early in his career, he sometimes took 30 or 60 minutes for an entire game] is IMO rather a sign of maturity, not decline - playing too quickly when you have plenty of time can backfire on anyone (Carlsen is a recent example).
3) About Ivanchuk: In his interviews, he is (to say the least) not proud of his time-trouble habits. And in the long term, it is probably 'easier' to lose your blitz skills than to change your time-trouble habits. After all, making 7 moves in 7 seconds does not only require a perfect brain (to make good moves) but also sheer reaction speed (to make ANY move).

Thomas: This is the quote i was talking about :
¨Anand’s reign will end soon: Kasparov¨

Monkey-poo, monkey-poo, I wanna fling some monkey-pooooooooo! Kiss and make up you two, otherwise, get married.

Love is a nice thing noyb , dont make fun of it.
Do you feel love? Want some?

On Mamedyarov's new letter:

If there has been rumours before, maybe protests before, and nothing was done, Mamedyarov's withdrawal makes a little more sense to me. He should have mentioned it when he explained why he pulled out.

I can follow his line of reasoning now, there have been similar cases before. Right now, the FIDE Commission on Computer Cheating should try to establish the reproducible parts of his claims.

How often did Kurnosov play the first line of Rybka in the mentioned games? (Mamedyarov is a bit inconsistent on this one.)
How often does Kurnosov play the first line of Rybka in an average game?
How often does a typical player of Kurnosov's strength play the first line of Rybka on average?
If there is a heightened correlation, how extraordinary would it be? One in a thousand? One in a million?

Oh, there is no FIDE Commission on Computer Cheating? I see. Probably it's more important to test for anabolic steroids, then...

Why are you posting Mamedyarov stuff in the Linares item? There's an item on this subject. Several, in fact. Please take it over there. Hijacking new items is not appreciated. Thanks.

I'm out of line criticising some darn fool sexist pig behaviour? Gee whiz. You don't need to wallow in the mud to show that something is dumb. Especially if in that wallowing you reveal your small mean mind.

Hey Mig I dont follow your objection. Chess Auditor posts about the looks of women chess players which kicks off a big debate - what has this got to do with the Linares blog? Its not even about chess! So its ok to post completely out of subject in this blog so long as there is no earlier blog of that subject? That doesn't make any sense. Fewer people follow a blog after a week or so. With that in mind I would like to respond to Bartleby. I think Mamedyarov is competely out of order and is talking complete crap. 1) Its utterly pontless to talk about computer analysis unless you give details of the computer and how long the program took for the allegedly matching moves. 2) I failed to replicate his first choice Rybka claims in either his or the other game he talked about. 3) Making accusations of computer cheating based on alledged "matching", absences from the board and refusal to take a draw should be the subject of a complaint to FIDE with the appropriate disciplinary sanctions following.

Why does this guy have to start a public debate? There is a complaints procedure within the tournament rules - the professional and mature thing to do is follow the procedure and await the results of the complaint.

"So its ok to post completely out of subject in this blog so long as there is no earlier blog of that subject? That doesn't make any sense."

Sure it makes sense, Andy. Mig wants to make sure his readers don't have to hunt through fifteen threads to find and savor your latest pearls of wisdom on Mamedyarov.

If you're objecting that there's not a catch-all thread for miscellaneous topics (like players' looks) then you should demand your money back or start your own blog.

What stupid pin? Each of her barrettes alone is worth a "5".

"...you gotta [appreciate] both irony and diverse views on matters..."

hsg, you must be a foreigner. Here in the U.S. of A. we have a constitutional right not to appreciate irony.

Good tie break. is better for chess that players wins with wins games on tie breaks. i think that this must be the same in other tournaments.

Why do we have to be defensive, or hide behind irony, about appreciating beautiful chessplayers? As for me, in general I like to look at beauties, and I also like to follow the best in chess. But I also have a special weakness for the champions of the "smart and beautiful" category (be they 2500s), specially appreciating the harmony between the two qualities. Now you can call that sick sexist pig, and I can call your PC-ness blinding you about such heavenly aesthetics...

I like the look of Mrs. Chiburdanizde without her hat, and I find Elina Danielian pretty. I like the look of Humpy Koneru too. Maybe because I am old and because of my own Body-mass index. I think if Chess Auditor looks for women he likes, he should not read chess sites. Maybe he could buy some life-style magazines.

Some nice pictures of female chess players at the Olympiad in 2006


My favourite is Mirai Ishisuka from Japan although they are all beautiful in their own way. Beauty and chess talent, what a combination!

I didnt want to post on this sexist thread ...
But someone had to mention Ushenina , she is a very pretty young lady.

It is amazing Mig forgot to mention Ronen's outrage at Ivanchuk's gentlemen draw with Dominguez... which cost him the +3 and title 1st!

Sorry about hijacking.
I was responding to a post that miraculously disappeared by the time it took me writing the response.

Im not objecting to miscellaneous comments in any thread thats my point. Duh. Lets try again. It does not make sense to object to a chess post which is not about Linares but stay silent about other (non chess) posts about womens looks which are not about Linares either. I could not care less what people post about - if others are interested they will respond if not they wont. So obviously its agreed that Mamedyarov is talking utter crap and should stop whining like a little girl and take his thrashing like a man. Talking of little girls isnt it just a bit pervy to start ranking the looks of a 15 year old schoolgirl (Hou Yifan)??? Keep drooling guys I hear dirty rain coats are cheap at the army surplus stores .....

Ra perhaps its not about being defensive its just that some people dont buy into this its all a question of aesthetics and appreciation of beauty line you know, there are rose gardens,art galleries, fine wine and well whoah chess hotties that you wouldnt mind giving it to. Lust dressed up as something high minded - I guess "a board games and banging" pawn site might have a narrow but hard core appeal?

I suggest, no, demand! a nudist tournament for, WGM, WIM(?), whatever, only good chess level of course.

the 1st. International Nudist Woman Chess Tournament. Naturally, to balance things up spectators should also be naked, both in the playing hall as in their respective homes.


I hope you are proud of this thread, and your proven commitment to free speech, no matter how stupid.

(I don't know why I'm jumping into this)

The only appropriate criticism one can direct at Chess Auditor is that his numerical rating of the attractiveness of female chess players has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Now - that said, he did put it out there and it's still in here, so aside from the off-topic, I can't understand what people are getting worked up about.

Most women hear about the 1-10 system and think it's dehumanizing. I sympathize, though I don't agree. Physical attractiveness is but one aspect of a person, albeit an aspect that gets paid a lot of attention.

The ability to play chess is another aspect of a person, and it's numerically rated, isn't it?

If I see a woman walking around and, to me, she's a "three", that's the beginning and end of it; I certainly don't think less of her just because I'm not attracted to her. In the same way, I don't think less of people who happened to be low-rated chess players, even if the Elo system is much more objective and scientific than the "1-10" looks rating for women.

And I thought Girly Sue's ratings of male chessplayers was interesting. More women should feel free to do that sort of thing, but of course this isn't my blog.

Topalov again reamed by the FIDE. First he gets excluded from Mexico, yielding the "World Championship" highway to Anand, then he can't buy his way into a Kramnik match, then the mysterious Kamsky "postponement", and now the similar with Anand. World #1 doesn't gets you much these days. Danailov shuld just declare him to be World Champion with some madeup organizational letters attached, and call Anand chicken if he fails to play him. That would at least gets the balls moving.

Topalov is not in a hurry to play Anand , i think this postponement its ok for them too.

you're nuts losdedos....

Topalov excluded himself from fide by inserting that clause loser of kramnik topalov can't play there. Cause he honestly thought kramnik would lose. He wanted him out of the picture.

Then topalov back door ****** everyone to get an illegal match with Kamsky which really only hurts anand because the WC isn't supposed to be able to be challenged less than 3 months after he gets his damn Title!

Grischuk is now playing in the world championship ... of no-limit hold-em. He played day 1a at the Rio in Las Vegas, finishing the day in 7th place. Day 2 is Tuesday.


Twitter Updates

    Follow me on Twitter



    About this Entry

    This page contains a single entry by Mig published on March 7, 2009 2:37 PM.

    Linares 09 r13: Ivanchuk Wins, Carlsen Slips was the previous entry in this blog.

    Mamedyarov Puts Foot Deeper into Mouth is the next entry in this blog.

    Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.