Greengard's ChessNinja.com

3rd ACP World Rapid Cup

| Permalink | 51 comments

In Odessa, Ukraine, a 16-player rapid KO sponsored by the Pivdenny Bank to reward the top point-scorers in the ACP Grand Prix. Top seeds are Gelfand, Grischuk, Jakovenko, and Svidler. If Karpov was playing to break the rust off before the San Sebastian event in July it didn't do him much good. Svidler just knocked him out in the first round. Scores seemed tweaked in places. Is this "Run a Crappy Chess Website Month" and nobody told me? I've been doing it for years and pre-qualify for such any contest, dammit.


You always tell the truth, Mig. ;)

What is wrong with their website other than the Russian letters?

Isn't that enough? Why can't they use normal letters like the rest of the world? Those Russians think they are so special don't they...

This is a good chess website. I keep it on my homepage. It's a blog. It's not trying to be Chessbase or TWIC which is fine, because we don't need a third one.

Svidler was winning the 4th game against Gelfand until he blundered into a forced mate. Gelfand wins, 3 - 1.

Luke, if I had taped a hockey (or basketball, soccer, whatever) game to view at a later time, would you be inclined to relay the result to me before I saw it?


No. But you don't need to rely on me for information any more than I need to check in with you. Go your own way, and don't try to emulate the angry people you associate with. They will only drag you down.

There you go again. I asked a simple question, with no other implications. By assigning non-existant meaning to my question, you alter the intended information I requested.

Assigning me to the group of 'angry people' (whoever they may be) that you describe only drags YOU down. I have not shown any such association. Every comment I have made here has been exactly as indicated -- an observation, unbiased by anything other than reality (although an argument could be made against the 'Rhapsody,' but I defend that with the intended interjection of a little humor -- poetic license).

The simple and complete answer to my question was 'no.' The rest is all in YOUR head. So let's try this again, without the fluff: Would you be inclined (i.e., would you feel a want to -- not compelled or an urgency) to give me the above result before I had watched the tape?


I don't know what the weather was like outside your window (I hope you have one) when you woke up this morning, but I'll take a guess that it was not pleasant and sunny.

Since only a one word answer will make you happy, here it is: no.

This is very silly. I really shouldn't be playing along with you on this silliness. What's the point?

In fairness, in one sense you do impress, Luke. It's very difficult to incrementally increase the level of crassness with every single new post, but you are doing a mighty job.

The point is that we all, as humans, tend to interject our own experience into reality. Yes, this is an observation. But it goes something like this:

If you put on a pair of sunglasses (for the sake of argument, let's call them - green-colored), at first everything you look at seems to have a green tinge to it. But the longer you wear the glasses, the more things tend to look normal. The green tinge is still there; our minds just discount it, and interpret what we see through that filter.

It's the same way with our psyches and experiences. We unintentionally see things through these filters, and react accordingly. For example, you are so used to being attacked here, that my simple question was interpreted by you to be an attack, when if fact it wasn't. You instantly put me in a catagory with whomever you feel is angry. Without realizing it (I would hope), you basically 'made that up' (thus my comment "in YOUR head"). And your supposition that my day is not 'bright and sunny' is just another example. I have not displayed any emotion in this thread, just curiosity. So (rhetorically), why would you think I have?

By simply saying 'no,' you answer the question without all of the extraneous filtering of whatever information you 'made up' about me, the interrogator. Elaborating on the answer is acceptable, as long as it isn't complicated by the unnecessary. And just so you know, I include ALL humans on the list of those who do this, myself included. If you ask anyone "What happened?" you are more than likely going to get an answer that includes how that person feels *about* what happened. What *actually* happened is a cold, hard fact, not altered by the relator's viewpoint, opinion, or experience.

So what was *my* motive? I was seeking information, having observed the interactions between you and others here. Simple questions can reveal many answers. Again, please don't add meaning to this. It is what it is.


(1st rapid game In Prague)

Navara - Ivanchuk is a Sicilian Dragon, Be2 classical variation. This is not the best way to kill the Dragon. 10 moves played, White has nothing.

25 moves. Navara is playing very carefully, but his game is toothless. Ivanchuk seems willing to draw.

31-move mush draw. I feel like I wasted my time watching this fluff. In fact, I'm not going to waste any more time watching the next game. I may not watch any of the next games either. I miss watching Topalov, Carlsen, Kramnik, Shirov, and Nakamura.

Besides Ivanchuk, maybe Luke should also take a break from chess?

I don't know how I will cope without Luke's cutting edge analysis.

Second game was a nice tactical performance from Ivanchuk on the White side of a Grunfeld. It looked like Navara had no chance.

Luke wrote: "In fact, I'm not going to waste any more time watching the next game."

Thomas -

I didn't watch the second game. I was doing something else when it was played and looked at the game after it was over.

Even though you have made it clear in the past that you don't think much of my analytic ablity, I think Ivanchuk played very well, and Navara probably played weakly.

See my comment above. The sterling performance continues.

I think your setimation of your relevance and analytical powers is definitely delusional. Your naivette was initially amusing but now it's getting quite painful to bear. Do you really imagine you'll ever be qualified to make comments on the chess abilities of players like David Navara or Vassily Ivanchuk? Why don't you stop posting for a while and get a job, or wash some dishes, or maybe some DIY.



If these ambitious and detailed live comments continue during the London supertournament, we will know for sure that Luke isn't Luke McShane (though he pretends to have GM abilities and insight). Until then, odds are no higher than 99.99%.

But yet you are such a coward poster that will wait for confirmation to express reject on his stupidity.
I hope he is not a GM , but even if he is ,it wont change my mind about his thoughtless way of poluting the threads .

Cmon Manu, he was obviously being ironic. No need for needless attack.

This time , look at his posts when he thought he was talking with a GM...
But for you cat , i ll take my attack back , pls Thomas accept my apologizes and this box of chocolates.

"I think Ivanchuk played very well, and Navara probably played weakly."

Yeah, sure.

For all practical purposes, 99.99% certainty is sufficient - and BTW, a GM title does not exclude bad manners and 'polluting the chess scene' (Manu and I agree concerning Mamedyarov, but disagree on other names ...).

And I am 99.9999% sure that Manu is not Dutch IM Manuel Bosboom - a smoking gun to remove any lingering doubts (not that it's important) would be a post by Manu while Bosboom was at the chess board (Corus C or other occasions). ,:)

@chesshire cat:
What should i say now?

Try flowers instead of chocolates.

I m more inclined to give the flowers to someone like Ushenina , but thx for the nice image.

An olive branch, perhap?

co :)

Navara-Ivanchuck is a QGA, a baby opening. I'm watching it while hanging upside down from a hook on the ceiling, so I'm not REALLY watching it. I'm bored already. I predict either Ivanchuk wins, he loses, or else it's a draw. He's obviously afraid of Navara, who also looks afraid of him, both of them have trembling hands, which is making the pieces wobble on the live broadcast. Actually maybe both of them lose. Stay tuned for updates, though why anyone wants to watch these patzers is beyond me.

Navara - Ivanchuk is a Slav. Ivanchuk easily equalized and perhaps is better now (16th move). I'd bet on Ivanchuk to win.

Sorry to interrupt the live broadcast ... :

@Manu: A nice bottle of wine will do, thanks. My address is .... wait, I want to remain semi-anonymous (those who know me might guess my last name - for the rest it doesn't matter, and I am not a titled player).

Forget about it, I am just fooling around! But why does it insult you (if it does) to be compared with someone who has an IM title, ELO2428 (at present, wildly fluctuating), a very creative style and a low drawing percentage? At Corus C, Bosboom (who was second-lowest by rating) scored +4 =3 -6. Among other games, his round 7 loss against another Manuel (Leon Hoyos) is fun to replay.

No, I do not want to suggest Bosboom for the London tournament ,:) .

I would have lost if I bet on Ivanchuk. He is ruining the nice position he had earlier. I'd bet on Navara now (move 31).

Both players have failed to satisfy Me, their primary reason for existence. I order them to be beaten to death with their own scoresheets.

Navara took a mere three moves to ruin the nice position he had after move 31, now it's probably drawn.
(Or rather: Luke counted the number of pawns after move 31 correctly, but failed to see the - rather obvious - continuation of the game)

The players are still alive, because there are no scoresheets in rapid chess.
My predictions for game 4:
Luke will watch it and comment on it, or he will do something else and still comment on the game.
If Ivanchuk loses, Navara wins. If Ivanchuk wins, Navara loses. If neither player wins, it will be a draw.
To be continued - but now I will do something else.

"teeth (scoresheets) will be provided"

Navara's 33.Bg2 retreat gave away any slim winning chances he may have had. I can't think of a good reason for it. Not a good game by either player.

Oops, I forgot one important thing: 0-0 may also occur once or twice during the game, but only if there on the non-existing scoresheets.
BTW, certain lines of the Sicilian include 0-0-0 - I don't understand: was the third player hiding under the table?

Delete "if there" in the first sentence - but it doesn't really affect the non-existing content of my post.

Game 4, Ivanchuk - Navara is a semi-Slav. Navara has been thinking for 5 minutes on move 22. Ivanchuk is trading off too many pieces. Navara could end up with an advantage if it goes into a bishop vs. knight ending.

Navara has been spending too much time and has less than 20 seconds (move 45). No reason for Navara to waste so much time. Ivanchuk has more than 5 minutes plus a better position.

Navara apparently panicked and lost on time.

Dude stop jinxing players , your support is as welcome as the locust...

Leko and Anand play an 8 game match starting June 3, 25 minutes per game, 10 second increment. I think Leko has a 50-50 chance of beating Anand.

I visited this page first time to get info on people search and found it Very Good Job of acknowledgment and a marvelous source of info......... Thanks Admin! http://www.reverse-phone-look-up.net

Twitter Updates

    Follow me on Twitter



    About this Entry

    This page contains a single entry by Mig published on May 22, 2009 3:10 PM.

    2009 US Ch: Champ Chat was the previous entry in this blog.

    Shirov Wins MTel 2009! is the next entry in this blog.

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