Some favorites out, most still in the mix. Yet another KO in full flight in Khanty-Mansiysk. You have your young stars scoring big upsets, your lucky chancers having their paths smoothed by upsets, your blitz lunacy and, in the end, one winner with a golden ticket to the next stage of the candidates cycle. We even had the standard scandal when China's last two representatives, Li Chao and Wang Yue, were forfeited for not being at their boards at the start of the third rapid tiebreak game. They were out smoking together, discussed here. Both matches, against Gashimov and Bacrot, respectively, were tied at the time and both forfeit losses came with white. Unsurprisingly, both Chinese lost the 4th must-win game. That completed a fourth-round sweeping out of the four remaining players from China. I'm generally in favor of professionalization steps like, you know, having the players show up on time. But I'm not sure the third game of a tiebreak is really the place to be draconian. The real moral here? Don't smoke, kids!
Ivanchuk, Morozevich, and Radjabov all exited in the second round. That three of the top seeds went out so early shouldn't be much of a surprise. The remaining field was, and is, still quite top-heavy on the Elo scale. Gelfand, Gashimov, and Svidler are all still striding the snows of Siberia, as are Grischuk, Mamedyarov, and former KO winner Ponomariov. Of the lot, Mamedyarov is playing quite convincingly so far, with a 6.5/7 score including his win today over Laznicka. The young Czech was one the upsetters in the second round, with Morozevich as the upsettee. His win with black in the first game of that match is an interesting one, with an exchange sitting en prise first to a bishop, then bishop and knight, and then finally the rook is taken by the other bishop ten moves later.
Obviously winning the first game with black is as good as it gets. In general, having white in the first game is an advantage beyond the norm because of particular exigencies of the KO format. If the first game is drawn there is always a strong pull to just get the second classical game over with and get to rapids. This tension is mainly relevant to the player with white. Draws in the second game of matches in which the first game was drawn are, on average, much shorter than the first game draws. (Seven moves shorter on average, but with some extremes such as a 21-move difference in round three in this event.) Not a huge deal, but an interesting example of psychology in chess. This should mean you have more non-tiebreak matches that have the player winning the first game instead of the second, and that is indeed the case. In the third round Shirov was the only player to draw the first game and win the second vs five doing the reverse. In the second round there were six winning and then drawing vs three the other way.
There were only two decisive games today of the eight, wins with black by Svidler over Shirov and Mamedyarov over Laznicka. Svidler outdueling Shirov and fending off a brutal attack was definitely the highlight of the round. Just when you think Svidler is going to have to hang up his Grunfeld he comes back and flashes the magic. Mamedyarov wrapped up with a beautiful running deflection theme you don't often see in the wild. Great stuff. There was a lot of action on the other boards as well. Gashimov-Caruana was a feast of sharp calculation and a very fine defensive effort from the 17-year-old Brooklynite. Vachier-Lagrave-Gelfand was agreed drawn in an endgame just begging to be played out. White has passers and a bishop and black has a rook and a potential pawn breakthrough on the queenside. Gelfand must have better chances but decided it was too risky when he has white tomorrow. Shipov says he's sure it's a forced win for Black and he's not someone I usually disagree with. Still, it's a very difficult position to break down.
Just about every KO has a youngster making waves and this year that role has gone to Wesley So of the Philippines. He just turned 16 and in Khanty-Mansiysk he's taken out Guseinov, Ivanchuk, and defending Cup winner Kamsky, the latter two not requiring tiebreaks. He just drew his first game against Malakhov with white. Bacrot-Ponomariov and Grischuk-Jakovenko were drawn perfunctorily so we can expect more of the same in those matches tomorrow and then tiebreaks. By the way, a high FIDE official said off the record that there were never supposed to be four rapid games instead of the usual two. It crept into the rules by accident, perhaps leftover from the recent WCh and candidates matches, and nobody noticed until it was too late to change it without embarrassment. Certainly it's bizarre and exhausting for the players.
I'll get to my growing collection of game highlights in the next day or two.
http://www.captainsofthechessteam.com/aclub.php
It has looked as if several top players have been eliminated by their own overpressing. Ivanchuk played too hard for the win against So and lost, the same thing with Radjabov with black against Sakaev, and Shirov's wild attack against Svidler lost him the game quickly from an even position. Maybe Gelfand did the right thing to settle with a draw in what Shipov called a winning position rather than risk a loss. In the rapids there are four games to play and it's possible to come back after one bad game.
Grischuk and Karjakin are maybe the two best blitz players in the field, and all their minimatches this far have reached the tiebreak stage, and that will probably also happen with the matches they are playing at the moment. Some of their games have been drawn very quickly, in 14, 18 and 18 moves with white. It must be important to feel at ease with the tiebreaks and they will probably reach quite far here.
Onischuk has a good interview about the Chinese players being forfeited: http://www.ugra-chess.ru/eng/interv_19.htm
It's hard not to agree that it's silly to impose the zero tolerance rule when there's no set time for each round of the tie breaks to take place.
The strategy most top players used in previous KOs was to play safe in the classical (try for a win, particularly with white, without taking any risk) games and win in the tiebreaks, if needed. It worked well for most as most good classical players are also good rapid and blitz players (Nakamura might be one of the exceptions).
That strategy is even more sensible this time around as there are 4 rapid games and it is even less of a lottery and the better player is even more likely to prevail if he brings it to the tiebreaks. Many like Svidler, Gelfand are following it and Caruana seems to be solely relying on TBs. Ivanchuk, Kamsky, Moro, Rajdabov didn't follow it and paid the price. Moral of the story: you draw in the classical games and you can still win in the TBs but you lose by overstretching, particularly with white, and you are out.
The Svidler-Shirov game was just drawn, so Svidler advances and Shirov is out. Rather a sadly played round for Shirov: A rash attack in yesterday's game and, in today's game, he was unable to pose any real difficulties for Svidler and the game was easily drawn.
"most good classical players are also good rapid and blitz players (Nakamura might be one of the exceptions)"
He is not an exception to this unless you imply that he is good at classical and bad at rapid and blitz, which he surely isn't.
If you go to the Chessdom thingy for live chess http://livechess.chessdom.com/site/ and you open the blitz sessions of round 3, you will see several people commenting the incident with the Chinese from the playing hall. They were witnesses of the vigorous protests of the chinese and also noted that there are usually several notices for the games starting, plus the exact hour is known.
P.S. Shirov is out, Kamsky is out, none of the finalists from last time managed to the semis.
Maybe Topalov is an exception, he is of course quite good at rapid and blitz, but far from his level in classical. Otherwise the top blitz/rapid players are often also the top classical players. Kasparov, Anand, Kramnik and Ivanchuk had the best blitz/rapid results the last decade, and lately Carlsen too has done well with all time controls.
"he is of course quite good at rapid and blitz, but far from his level in classical. "
I quite agree, but some others will jump on you I think :)
Going by Elo performance this decade Topalov is #36 in blitz, #15-16 in rapid, but #3-4 together with Kramnik in classical chess.
Going by Elo performance this decade Topalov is #36 in blitz, #15-16 in rapid, but #3-4 together with Kramnik in classical chess.
Really?
How many times does Frogbert have to remind us that transmuting classical ELO grades to faster time controls is incorrect and misleading.
"transmuting classical ELO grades to faster time controls is incorrect and misleading"
It's hard to deny that a player that wins lots of top tournaments in classical and does much worse in all blitz/rapid events actually is better at classical chess though :-)
In any case, such ratings should say something about ranking/relative strength compared to other players - I would further distinguish between online and OTB blitz, but that's another story (another thread) ... .
Yikes... In the Ponomariov-Bacrot Knight endgame, these GMs have served notice that they are not distinguished endgame players. First, Bacrot blundered in what should have been an easily drawn Knight+pawns endgame. Ponomariov returned the favor by playing 82.Kf7?? Kf5! when the position is drawn. Instead, Pono should have played 82.Kg7 Kf5 (82...Ne6+ 83.Kg8 Ng5 84.Nf3+! +-) 83.Nf3 Ne6+ 84.Kg8+-. It is difficult to imagine the classical endgame players of the past (Lasker, Capablanca, and even Alekhine) making such careless mistakes on the cusp of winning. Even though Pono didn't have much time left on the clock, he really should have seen this.
"It is difficult to imagine the classical endgame players of the past (Lasker, Capablanca, and even Alekhine) making such careless mistakes on the cusp of winning."
Definitely not. Here's a classic example: Capablanca _twice_ fumbling away the win in an elementary rook endgame. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1258259
Twilight of the Idols :)
Bacrot and Pono were both blitzing for a long time, not easy to play flawless endgames with these time controls, especially not in such an exhausting event as this one. Some of the participants could go more than two weeks without a single rest day, playing four rapid games and maybe also blitz some days.
Yes, four games of 25 10 right after another is definitely very tough. If it is followed by blitz as well that's just a "bonus". Sadly not too untypical of FIDE to mess it up like this (referring to Mig's comment about having four games instead of the usual two somehow entering the rules "by accident"!)
These guys are supposed to be chess professionals! It is what they do. Yes, chess games for most of us can be exhausting experiences. However, I maintain that, if you're a chess professional, you should have figured out a way to cope with that and strengthen their endurance a long time ago.
Even for experienced chess professionals, this format - with a lot at stake in every single game - is unusual. I wouldn't know how to prepare or practice for it, how to strengthen your endurance. And whether it would even be worth it - for an event taking place once every two years - is debatable. To be fair:
1) They are rather well paid for it, even first-round losers
2) Some of them take extra rest days by playing short draws.
As to the new tiebreak format, it is also a matter of taste - there are also some pros for postponing the final Armaggedon showdown as long as possible ... .
Question in Polgar's Blog (mines too):
Mystery to me (maybe it is obvious to others?).
Mamedyarov, Shakhriyar (AZE) ½-½ Laznicka, Viktor (CZE)
Mamedyarov won yesterday. Today they drew after 13 moves, still in the opening sequence. What could have been the motivation to Laznicka to essentially give up on the possibility to even the score and move into a third day tiebreaker? What am I missing here?
Pity about Shirov and his fire on the board being quenched so soon, but Svidler's play has a new found energy and smoothness. Go the Svid!! However, I have to say he has the makings of an Ivanchuk.. I am just waiting for him to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory anytime soon...
Yes, four games of 25 10 right after another is definitely very tough. If it is followed by blitz as well that's just a "bonus". Sadly not too untypical of FIDE to mess it up like this (referring to Mig's comment about having four games instead of the usual two somehow entering the rules "by accident"!)
****
4 games of G/25 a day counts as "very tough"??
Hmm...perhaps club players who play in weekend swisses might agree :)
I said "right after another", not "a day". They don't have much of a break between the games at all. Would be easier (but impractical) if they were spread out over the day but they aren't. That makes it very tough indeed, just like Mig has pointed out a number of times. Altogether it becomes like a normal classical game except that there is tension already from move 1 in every game, making it significantly more exhausting. Even one of these games can be pretty draining.
With Shirov out I’ve lost all interest in the KO. I’m really looking forward to the London Classic with plenty of e4, Sicilian, and maybe even some Grand Prix games from the English and Nakamura.
Camon, there is plenty of fun ahead , Caruana , Grishuk and Karjakin are still in the fight .
A weekend Swiss is also tough, but - as the name says - it takes one weekend. And, unlike the GMs (so I presume), most club players probably don't spend much time between rounds preparing for their next opponent ... . A top-level rapid event such as Mainz also has many games with short breaks in between, but it is also just two days (one with consistently strong opposition for the top players).
I wonder if the World Cup players would even want a much longer break between rapid games, what would they do in between? Many wouldn't even feel like going for a walk outside in the Siberian cold - and if you feel obliged to switch on your laptop between games it isn't stress-releasing either!?
But that sort of tension is one reason for the arguably low quality of (end)games. Another one is the time control - Capablanca and colleagues didn't have to play their endgames on increments!
Anyway, the players cannot, and do not complain. For one of them it will be a road into the candidates tournament - maybe not an easy one but a fast one (compared to playing four GP tournaments). For all the others, the prize money they earn (divided by the number of games) isn't that bad ... .
acirce replied to comment from chesspride | December 1, 2009 1:37 PM | Reply
I said "right after another", not "a day". They don't have much of a break between the games at all. Would be easier (but impractical) if they were spread out over the day but they aren't. That makes it very tough indeed, just like Mig has pointed out a number of times. Altogether it becomes like a normal classical game except that there is tension already from move 1 in every game, making it significantly more exhausting. Even one of these games can be pretty draining.
****
You guys must live in the past -- in the US, a 4-round "tornado" takes about 6 hours (not all weekend).
And goodness, there *should* be tension from move 1 in every game! You don't see 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 1/2-1/2 in club chess...
Smart strategy by Jakovenko & Grishchuk to get a couple of days off in this grueling event. The winner of that match has a significant advantage over their next opponent. How ethical it is to make pacts like these is probably open to debate though..
Some very Rybka-like moves from Mamedyarov.
Just sayin' . . .
Not only that ,draws like the one Laznicka played today should be penalized in some way .
4starters Sofia rules should be in place here too IMO.
Sofia rules should be universal but I doubt even that can help pre-match fixing. They could just repeat. Even if they play out 60 pre-decided moves without working hard OTB they are still at an advantage. I can hardly think of any rules to curb these practices in such KO tournaments..
Of course Sofia rules can't solve everything , pre arranged draws are hard to chase although sometimes very easy to spot.
This reminds me of an idea i had about a tournament where no one knows who is playing against , weird as it sounds such conditions would erase the possibility of friendly or pre arranged draws from the equation .
But for the time being i say lets go with the good old physical punishment. :)
I'm glad FIDE accidentally picked 4 rapid games instead of 2. First, more chess to enjoy as a spectator. Second, a longer match means it's more likely that the better player will win and slightly reduces the odds of a single error sending the stronger player home. Third, having a more exhausting tie-break round means that there is a larger bonus to players who win in the classical round (Mamedyarov should be pretty well-rested, for instance); this makes it a fair fight between the rival strategies of pressing to win in the classical games and quickly drawing to go into the tie-breaks. Some players, particularly the majority who are in the tie-breaks each round, may find this schedule bizarre and push to go back to 2 rapid games in the future, but I think it is actually a very good innovation.
By the way, did anyone notice all the decisive Petroff games in the third round tie-breaks? Gelfand beat Polgar twice with the black pieces and Grischuk won a miniature with black, while the two unfortunate Chinese smokers hadn't settled their nerves enough after their defaults to draw their next games with black. There were a few Petroff draws in the round, of course :) but it is heartening to see that not every Petroff ends in a draw.
Who is Shirov's "Olga" mentioned in his interview? Is it a chessplayer we know?
Manu,
I still think you should develop this tournament style, and try it out with club players, just for logistical purposes. If it seems viable, there might be interest in an "exhibition" tournament among titled players.
I've been intrigued by your suggestion since I first read it. The only problem I can see is insuring that all the pairings are kept secret throughout the tournament, including previous rounds.
Go for it!
CO
You are right, the format hits a pretty good balance. With four rapid games and no rest days the tie-break is a real punishment.
I see your point about secrecy , but is not such a difficult thing to achieve , specially if its done as an exhibition or something like that.
If you think of tournaments like Amber you will find that this is not such a difficult thing to organize , all players could be located in nice hotel and all you need is different rooms and the proper software.
When San Luis was rumored to be included into the Grand Slam i unsuccessfully tried to contact the possible organizers to propose them the format as an alternative activity during the main tournament , mixing pros and regular players in a knock out rapid tournament without anyone knowing who is playing.
But the idea is there for anyone to perfect it and use it , feel free to try it yourself or pass it @ , i just want to see it tried .
One effect of extending the number of rapid games is that the percentage of classical games get lower, especially in the later rounds. Round 2 had approximately 50-50 between classical and rapid/blitz, round 3 had considerably less classical games than rapid/blitz, and that will be the case also in the fourth round. So it's even more important than before to be strong in rapid/blitz.
Of course Manu calls for Sofia rules (over and over) again, has there been even one thread where he didn't? At least with the given format there is no need or added value for Bilbao rules ... .
But there are situations where Sofia rules don't make any difference for the result of the game, while draining even more energy from both players. What's the point of playing on for 20, 30 or 50 moves in an even queen ending, or a completely blocked position? Either it will be drawn anyway with no added value for the last dozens of moves, or one or both players start blundering (maybe entertaining for the spectators, but do we want a decisive result no matter how it occurs?).
As far as Grischuk and Jakovenko are concerned, you can criticize their (apparent) strategy, but you cannot even prove that their draws were prearranged - it could have been spontaneous (anti-)inspiration over the board?
Regarding Laznicka, puzzling indeed. Maybe he was happy with his tournament so far, he already went farther than he or anyone else might have expected. Did he already book his flight home beforehand? Does he have other plans for the coming days - holidays or another tournament? Ni Hua initially planned to play both World Cup and London, he would be in such a situation in this or, at the latest, the next round .... . I guess Manu doesn't really mean 'physical' punishment, but organizers could lower Laznicka's prize money. On the other hand, he had earned his money from his play in previous rounds.
Andrew, great posts with well-made arguments. Such posts have become rare in this forum of late where you see personal causes being pushed, unpleasant fights or irrelevant and oft-repeated topics being discussed.
>>
"most good classical players are also good rapid and blitz players (Nakamura might be one of the exceptions)"
He is not an exception to this unless you imply that he is good at classical and bad at rapid and blitz, which he surely isn't.
>>
My point was that there is a good co-relation in general between classical, rapid and blitz play/rating for most players. Naka is an exception because he is nowhere as good in classical as he is in blitz/bullet.
Kapalik
Manu,
I still think you should develop this tournament style, and try it out with club players, just for logistical purposes. If it seems viable, there might be interest in an "exhibition" tournament among titled players.
I've been intrigued by your suggestion since I first read it. The only problem I can see is insuring that all the pairings are kept secret throughout the tournament, including previous rounds.
Go for it!
CO
****
Manu's suggestion has merit and can be expanded -- locally, we run some "random pairing" events where instead of a Swiss system, we do exactly that -- pull names out randomly prior to each round (aka unknown pairings).
You can play the same person again or have the same color again. Only perfect scores share the prize pool (if no perfect scores, then no prizes).
Before the invention of the Swiss -- pairings were like this...or else large round robins/qualifying stages.
Now, this works with small club events with small prizes. But for larger professional events, perhaps it can be modified to pay per win, etc. with some care taken so that players do not dump games.
The "you may play top players more than once" aspect is intriguing -- why make short draws when there is no pay-off for doing it? You cannot avoid a game via a tourney-ending draw that pads your score -- every round is a fight. Each game should be a fight, and the only way to ensure that it is so is to pay per victory, rather than total score. Games are also played to the bitter end, as a drawn result harms the prize potential.
Of course, events where top players meet right from the start...where the favorites do not have the luxury of building up big plus scores against the bottom half...makes them uncomfortable. Even local top players feel that level of discomfort, when they might have to play each other in round 1, round 2 and again in round 3 -- with prizes at stake and no draw refuge.
Plus, if one cannot prepare for a specific opponent (as pairings are unknown until moments before play), then one must adopt general preparation. A different type of chess -- perhaps more technique-oriented.
There can be variations on this theme:
* random pairings with perfect score needed
* random pairings with high score (80%??) needed to cash out
* random pairings with prize share by total # wins
* random pairings with prize share by total # wins -- but losses deduct one win from your total
This last might work best -- as it makes a draw worth *something* in that it keeps the opponent from gaining a share and it keeps the player from losing a share.
Example: $5,000 prize fund. Each win gets you a share. If there are 50 wins in the tourney, then each share is $100. If I win 8 games and draw 2, my prize is $800. If I win 8 and lose 2, my share is $600. There is no incentive to dump a game here...and every saving draw enhances the value of existing win shares.
Just a thought.
Regarding Laznicka, puzzling indeed. Maybe he was happy with his tournament so far, he already went farther than he or anyone else might have expected. Did he already book his flight home beforehand? Does he have other plans for the coming days - holidays or another tournament? Ni Hua initially planned to play both World Cup and London, he would be in such a situation in this or, at the latest, the next round .... . I guess Manu doesn't really mean 'physical' punishment, but organizers could lower Laznicka's prize money. On the other hand, he had earned his money from his play in previous rounds.
****
If a player essentially drops out of a world championship qualifier because he/she booked a flight (anticipating poor performance), that's a scandal as it deprives others of a fair chance at the title.
If found to be true, forfeits in all games played would be appropriate.
From the physical sports -- if a playoff team in US football or world soccer was "satisfied" and thus forfeited or rolled over in a playoff game, it would be a scandal.
That 's nice , thx.
Still in my mind the ideal test would be to arrange a rapid tournament with Carlsen , Kramnik , Topalov and Anand, where all of them knows the participants but not who the opponents is until the event is finished .
IMO it would be interesting to see players like Kramnik play in disguised style just to confuse the opponent , i believe this kind of setup can make the opening choices more interesting in some cases.
I would also ask each player who he think his opponent was after each game , just to see to what extent they know (or trick) each other , if the tournament had more participants i would even gave a price to the player with more guesses .
just a though .
That's because your friend isn't functioning as as an independent personposter but as a flack; bringing up pet subjects as often as possible regardless of context and regardless of how often he's previously made the identical point.
We should just be grateful that his obsession has been sublimated from toilets to anti-draw rules.
He's either being paid or, more likely is an illegitimate son of Silvio...a sort of half-*ss step-brother of Veselin.
That is a sad display of jealousy , greg , there is no need to make an scene every time a poster or two talk to me . :)
Manu, this is a very intriguing idea. Games could be broadcast without names, too. I think it would be just as interesting as an observer to guess who was playing whom and to track our thoughts about how well player x or player y is doing. It might reveal prejudices that we all have toward any particular player involved in the tournament.
I never thought it that way , very good idea indeed , the discussions and bets @ that could be very entertaining .
Manu, this is a very intriguing idea. Games could be broadcast without names, too. I think it would be just as interesting as an observer to guess who was playing whom and to track our thoughts about how well player x or player y is doing. It might reveal prejudices that we all have toward any particular player involved in the tournament.
***
I should mention that this has been tried in various state chess publications in the US -- a team of strong players will analyze a game (with no names attached) and try to estimate the strength of the players.
Of course, one must pick games that are not easy to recognize (if choosing historical games).
It can be quite amusing when the "panel" concludes that a titled player played like a beginner (or vice versa).
chesspride, your comment reminds me of a thought I'd had before. You look through virtually any chess book and see game fragments - let's use Browne-Karpov as an example. Anyone who has an even casual grasp of chess history would know that Karpov is one of the all-time greats, whereas Browne was relatively weaker. So I think there might be a tendency among developing players to maybe skim over the game with the thought, "Of COURSE Karpov is going to win, he's much better than Browne." I thought anonymous games with no results given might be beneficial for analysts - those missing details would push the learner into seeing the position for what it is, rather than "knowing" it's better just because Karpov is a pawn up at move 26 in a game he wins in 49 moves.
How do you sell this idea to the chessplaying public, though? "Buy our latest book, '100 Unannotated Games by Nobody!' YOU decide who wins or loses!!"
That's why regondi's addition to the idea is so nice , in the context of a tournament it really becomes interesting to be able to guess who is who and why , attracting both amateurs and masters of the game in the same way.
Not to mention that the broadcast would have many new fresh options to offer to the audience.
I think that to get the loan from creditors you must present a good motivation. However, one time I have received a commercial loan, because I wanted to buy a house.
I visited this page to know all about tracing a phone number, I found this page Very Good Job of acknowledgment and a marvelous source of info to chase pranksters.........Thanks Admin!