In an unusually tense final round, Magnus Carlsen came through with flying colors to take clear first place at the London Classic with an impressive +3 undefeated score. His was the last game to finish as he and Nigel Short played a complicated Dragon down to bare kings, a fitting finale for a fighting event. This also means Carlsen will be confirmed as the world #1 on the January 2010 rating list, the exact goal set by Carlsen and his coach, Garry Kasparov, when they began working together near the start of this year. Congratulations to Carlsen on both counts! It's always a little early to hang a "Mission Accomplished" banner, but it's been an impressive year for the newly 19-year-old Carlsen, especially the last few months. First in Nanjing, equal second at the Tal Memorial, and now first in London. That's +11 =15 -0 against the world's elite. Not even counting his domination of the World Blitz. And, as if to respond to Kramnik's November statement that, "To my mind, Magnus is still not as strong as some of the "old guys", like Anand, me and Topalov," in those events Carlsen finished ahead of, umm, Topalov, Anand, and now Kramnik, and beat Topalov and Kramnik. (I know, I know, and I respect Kramnik's evaluation of "strength" as opposed to mere results. But results do matter. And the #1 rating spot has to be worth something.)
Against Kasparov's former world championship challenger Short Carlsen avoided the Najdorf and went with his old love, the Dragon. They followed Smeets-Radjabov from a few months ago for 20 moves and Black comes out with center control while White has the better long-term endgame prospects because of his bishop and mobile queenside majority. But Carlsen kept the initiative burning all the way down to a queen and pawn endgame, though Short also played excellently and quickly throughout. A draw was likely looming, but for some strange reason Carlsen decided not to take the annoying white f-pawn on move 54. He would have been two pawns up and the white c-pawn is no further advanced than in the game. Instead, suddenly he was having to find difficult moves to avoid losing the game. (He would have won the tournament title anyway but it might have cost him the clear #1 spot on the next list.) Carlsen played the rest with computer-like accuracy to hold the draw.
Kramnik's clear second place in London with +2 is impressive because it came after an opening loss to Carlsen that would have taken the wind out of many a sailor's sails. He came back with two straight wins and later beat Short to make the final round relevant. All of his wins had the look of a heavyweight against lighter, less substantial fighters. He had to fend off a charged-up Nakamura in the final round and was again up to the task, sacrificing the exchange to gain counter-chances and eventually force a repetition draw. (Because Carlsen had the head-to-head tiebreak, this meant Carlsen knew he had clinched first even if he lost to Short.) As Nakamura told us himself live on Chess.FM from London after the game, "Kramnik is Kramnik, he's just so solid." Had Black gone for 20..Bh5 21.Rdg1+ Kh8 Nakamura said he might have had a chance at the brilliancy prize, such were the wild variations he envisioned. But after 20..Qxf2! things quieted down substantially.
Speaking of the brilliancy prize and the massive 10,000 euros that accompany it, it went to Luke McShane for his round-five win over Nakamura, much to the surprise of just about everyone I polled before the award was announced. (Of the GMs I asked on the ICC today, four went for Carlsen-Kramnik, one for Carlsen-McShane.) It's great for the hometown hero McShane, the former prodigy and now amateur chessplayer who has a real job and who came to the tournament from home every day. It does leave me a little fuzzy on the other criteria for the prize, however. It's a nice game and all, but at the time it looked like Nakamura fluffed the opening and that Black was basically much better as soon as he squelched some desperate attacking attempts. Certainly Carlsen-Kramnik was a far better game on the whole, although that's not usually how brilliancy prizes (as opposed to best game prizes) are decided. But the prize-winning game fails on that count as well, since there aren't any of the flashy sacrifices that usually attract trophies. Those are quite rare these days, of course, but both Carlsen-McShane and McShane-Kramnik come closer to fitting that bill. (Adams would have been a lock had he completed his piece sac game against Carlsen with the winning line.) Maybe it's just me, but I like an exclam or two in my brilliancy games! (22..Bh6 is probably worthy, and, as I mentioned at the time, 44..Bg7 is nice, if a bit easy for an exclam. All other moves lead to relatively clear draws.) Anyway, these things always seem to come about mysteriously, though I do hope the committee that awarded the prize publishes their reasoning. I'm sure it would enlighten us all quite a bit about the game. No doubt the big prize helped assuage the pain of McShane's final-round debacle against Adams. (FYI there is no daily best game prize for round seven.)
Adams and Howell saved their best for last and picked up their only wins of the event in the final round to both finish +1 undefeated. This is particularly impressive from the bottom-seeded Howell, the 19-year-old British champion. He was lost against Carlsen for a moment in an otherwise fine game, and was generally very solid. McShane seemed to be holding on against a typical slow-burning Spanish attack from Adams today, but he imploded in time trouble. Black's sacrificial attack with 33..Nxg2 is very interesting; McShane just didn't have enough time to do it justice. His blunder on move 39 ruined any chance of holding on. In a way I'm glad McShane didn't win this game. Had he done so he would have reached an even score and yet finished ahead of Howell and Adams thanks to the 3-1-0 scoring system they used in London. I'm all for the Sofia Rules and encouraging fighting chess with financial incentives, and for using number of wins or 3-1-0 as a tiebreaker. But putting someone who loses as many as he wins ahead of someone who wins more than he loses is distortion and beyond the scope of what should be attempted with rule modifications. It's not as if Howell (or Adams) didn't play hard or play to win games. As an added perk, Adams should now take back the English #1 spot on the rating list.
Nakamura sounded surprisingly upbeat after the event. He felt he played well, missed a few chances, and has no reason to fear the future. He now heads into a busy stretch with the World Team Championship followed immediately by Corus and then perhaps Aeroflot. If he even survives that schedule he should win some sort of prize. Or maybe the frequent-flier miles are worth it. McShane brought just what I said he would bring at the start, excitement and losses to go with wins. Ni Hua did the same, especially the losses part. He fell apart today against Howell, who played a nice pawn sac with 12..b3!, a sac that goes back to Leonhardt-Duras, 1909! White never got organized and Howell had total domination by move 30. Time trouble made things ugly before the Chinese resigned after reaching the control at move 40.
A great event well worth the attention lavished on it. The top players played well and every round was full of fighting chess from start to finish. Organizer Malcolm Pein said at the closing that there would be another LCC event in 2010 and that they hope to bring the world championship to London in 2012, the year the city also hosts the Olympic Games.
May I suggest Howell find another dentist?
If McShane really does/did work for Goldman, as the internet tells me, the prize money is a rounding error for him. Any of the other players could have used it more.
Adams!!
He could as well have finished first of the event, beating Nakamura and Carlsen in completely won positions.
As for Adams: at least this result probably will bring him back ahead of Short, as the no. 1 British chess player.
Very impressed with Nigel's fight in the Carlsen game. It looked very difficult for him for a while and he found some very nice moves (bb5 for example) to hang on and then looked better for a second or two.
Bare kings was a nice finish.
I know some will say this is premature, but I think 2010 is the beginning of the Carlsen era, marked by him becoming no. 1 on the rating list on Jan 1st 2010. The WC title will come soon enough.
London Classic was a delight to follow from my PC. If they can add a webcam for each table, London Classic will be just PERFECT next year.
So, we will enjoy LC as a regular annual tournament. Perhaps as a part of the Grand Slamm series. But who is the anonym private sponsor?
What happend to the dirt diging chess journalist Mig Greengard? Are you not going to reveal the name of the gracious sponsor?
"putting someone who loses as many as he wins ahead of someone who wins more than he loses is distortion and beyond the scope of what should be attempted with rule modifications"
One of the rare occasions I disagree with Mig. Why is it so exclusively legitim that +0 =6 -0 is ahead of +2 =1 -3? (McShane vs Howell after round 6). I know that a (fighting) draw is a prefectly acceptable and honorable result: but this is exactly why a win should be appreciated so much and considered so special! The message of a hard-fought +0 =6 -0 is: wow, this is a solid guy, with some suspicion of being boring. (Moro would be translated from Russian: I do not miss the guy :-)) While the message of +2 =1 -3 is exactly that: excitement and losses to go with wins.
It's a matter of choosing our values, or even a matter of fashion, how do we weigh the one value against the other. I find the choice of favouring excitement even to the 3-1-0 extent as legitimate and honorable as a ... hard-fought draw.
Call me old-fashioned... but I think a score should reflect the quality of the players' game - and not how entertaining (or straining) their games had been. I am all in favor of tying the price money to the number of wins but please leave the score system at the 0-1 scale.
On the "results do matter" bit - Kramnik's still got the edge over Carlsen in the three super tournaments they've played this year. He won their individual mini-match 1.5-0.5 at Dortmund and the tournament by a full point. At both the Tal Memorial and London Classic Carlsen had an extra white including white against Kramnik, but they shared a tournament win a piece (Kramnik winning the much stronger tournament). If you wanted to stretch a point you could mention that Kramnik outperformed Carlsen against the rest of the field in London...
Or take beating Topalov & Anand. I don't particularly want to defend the former, but they're both preparing for a world title match. In Moscow Anand had a better tournament than Carlsen until the bizarre last round, where Leko lost an easily drawn position and Anand "played like a candidate master" to lose quickly with white. Not events likely to occur too often in one lifetime.
That said, I agree Carlsen's already a match for the rest of the top 5 - youth and sheer talent are enough to compensate for what he still lacks in chess sophistication, and with Kasparov you'd assume he'll close that gap quite quickly. I guess it's just that the flaws are rather more visible to Kramnik.
Then we might as well have a jury decide on the value of the games, as in other sports such as ice dancing!? ,:) A brilliant move gives you extra points, a blunder makes your score go down. A hard-fought draw is rated as 3-3, a short draw that didn't leave theory as 0-0.
But there are some problems with this system:
1) A well-fought win against a strong defense should be worth more than an easy victory because the opponent blundered. But can we punish the winner because the other guy had an off-day?
2) If the jury is the same that decided on the beauty prize .... who was on that jury BTW?
I just hope next time they'll use the much superior 3-2-0 system instead, to discourage vulgar coffeehouse chess.
"That's +11 =15 -0 against the world's elite. "
Yes, not bad at all, is it?
He wriggles out of things like nobody else, that Carlsen.
Re Kramnik vs. Carlsen performance 2009:
Carlsen has 26 games in a row without loss. That's +11 =15 -0, practically all games against other Super-GMs.
Anybody knows Kramnik's score for his last 26 games, or so?
Actually, it's like this between the two top English GMs:
Short 2695,8 -11,2 7 games
Adams 2694,3 -3,7 19 games
That includes ETCC, CECLUB finals, Bundesliga and London for Adams. In London he gained 4,7 points.
"Anybody knows Kramnik's score for his last 26 games, or so?"
That score is actually quite excellent, and against very good opposition, too:
Dortmund: 10 games and +3 -0 =7
Tal Memorial: 9 games and +3 -0 =6
London: 7 games and +3 -1 =3
For a total of +9 -1 =16 against
2597 2615 2665 2697 2697 2698 2707
2715 2721 2721 2739 2739 2750 2752
2754 2756 2756 2758 2760 2760 2772
2772 2786 2788 2801 2801
:o)
Yep, Frogbert did the work for me. Kramnik outperformed Carlsen in those 3 tournaments (where they both played), but of course Carlsen's amazing Nanjing run replaces Dortmund if you're looking at the last 26 games.
That's 17/26 = 65% against a 2734 average.
Or a 2844 performance over 26 games. Carlsen's performance over his last 26 games (and 3 events) is around 2900 for comparison.
"Kramnik outperformed Carlsen in those 3 tournaments (where they both played)"
That sounds somewhat exaggerated, as the accumulated difference in those 3 events is ONE single point advantage Kramnik.
Kramnik made +3 +3 +2 = +8
Carlsen made +1 +2 +3 = +6
But inbetween Carlsen went +6 in cat. 21 Nanjing.
Kramnik-Carlsen in Dortmund was in the 8th round, so I guess you need to go to 29 games to spoil Carlsen's unbeaten streak, unless he played some league games in between.
And Kramnik's unbeaten streak before the loss to Carlsen in London?
Bonn: games 7-11 = 5
Olympiad = 9
Dortmund = 10
Tal Memorial = 9
5+9+10+9 = 33
Kramnik--Carlsen: Looking for a sponsor
---------------------------------------
Would someone please put up the money to arrange a full-fledged match between Vladimir Kramnik and Magnus Carlsen?
First man to achieve 6 victories, with a two-game victory required. No limit on the number of games played. I suspect that would be an eminently watchable event!
Hold it in London, Moscow, Reykjavik.
Let the venue be Sofia for all I care.
.
PS. McShane, perhaps you can whisper a word into the ears of your bosses at Goldman Sachs?
"First man to achieve 6 victories, with a two-game victory required."
You think that sounds like a good idea, between two players that have on average 30 games between
Kramnik: two last losses
Carlsen: now and previous loss
???
Karpov - Kasparov I might look like a walk in the park in comparison, if we would be really lucky. ;o)
"Would someone please put up the money to arrange a full-fledged match between Vladimir Kramnik and Magnus Carlsen?"
The Dirt could come up with the prize. I'll start with a six-pack of beer and a poster of chess- playing cats, what have you others to offer?
I wouldn't call "outperformed" an exaggeration. Statistically it's true - not by much, agreed, but e.g. Carlsen isn't leading the world rankings by much and we take notice of that.
But more significantly I think it's true about the more subjective question of how well they actually played. Taking the games they both won (& leaving their individual encounters to later):
Dortmund:
Kramnik - two dominant victories over Naiditsch, a crushing victory with black and a beautiful game in the final round (positional chess with finely calculated tactics).
Carlsen - in an equal Berlin game Jakovenko missed a simple drawing move, and then made another mistake. Against Naiditsch I'll quote the Chessbase report: "For a while Naiditsch fans in the press center had been speculating whether the German GM actually had chances of winning. Now the position is objectively a draw, with Carlsen doing his usual thing: pottering around, setting up threats and giving the opponent ample opportunity to err. It works, one move after the time control".
Moscow:
Kramnik - three impressively complete victories, taking an opening edge against Svidler and Morozevich to a logical conclusion with fine attacking play. Against Ponomariov things weren't quite so smooth (a time control blunder could have thrown away the advantage), but few would deny it was a magnificent fighting game crowned by a fine study-like end game.
Carlsen - a nice tactical crush against Ponomariov only slightly marred by a move that would have given Ponomariov chances of surviving. Against Leko Carlsen showed impressive will to win and converted the end game smoothly, but 99 times out of a 100 Leko wouldn't lose from that middle game.
London:
Kramnik - three fine victories against Ni Hua, McShane and Short. In all of them getting an edge in the opening and then converting the edge almost perfectly (a few errors generally only meant that the opponent could hold on for a little longer).
Carlsen - the win against McShane had fine moments (and should have got the brilliancy prize for Nc5, if they meant "brilliancy"...), though the opening and early middle game seemed promising for McShane.
Ni Hua surprised Carlsen and was better in the opening, then needed to be careful to keep the draw, then slipped into a lost position.
On their individual encounters - whether you prefer Carlsen's win in London or Kramnik's in Dortmund is probably a matter of taste. In Moscow, Kramnik clearly had the edge with black.
I know I've only taken wins, but I don't think the other games would alter the picture. If anything Carlsen has rescued more lost positions while Kramnik has failed to win good ones.
In summary... I don't in any way dispute Carlsen's brilliance in being able just to hang around in average positions and then exploit his opponents mistakes with Rybka-like accuracy. But in those particular tournaments I think "outperforming Carlsen" is a fair description of Kramnik's play. Certainly if you partly value chess for its aesthetic appeal then Kramnik's achievement is far ahead of Carlsen's (and for that matter of most of what he's done since beating Kasparov).
The frightening thing is that Carlsen isn't likely to go on playing the opening anaemically for too much longer, so Kramnik's early comments about him being the Federer of chess have high chances of coming true.
Few considerations :
Let's not forget that one of the main reasons for us having an "unusually tense final round" was the utilization of the Bilbao rules , which allowed the extra possibility of Kramnik winning the event alone.
This scoring system is working great so far , it was a fighting and very exciting tournament indeed , and the Bilbao rules had their positive influence on that...
Nakamura ... his performance was not bad , but still a little disappointing for those (like me) who were waiting for him to consolidate as a serious menace to the top ten in the near future .
I would say that he postponed the dead line of his trial until Corus , i think he can do great there, we'll see.
Chess Oscar ... IMO it should go to Carlsen, and i have little doubt that he will get it : amazing results , the number one spot and a little bit of "champion's luck" too.
But if we forget Magnus for a moment and look at the last months in the chess world we will see that the real "revolution" was Kramnik's successful change of style .
Not only because he did it in a very short time and with great results , but also because he is doing it at a very particular age and in a very peculiar situation .
I'm not sure if he will continue to play like that in the context of a match , but i don't expect to see him playing one anytime soon so for the time kudos to him.
It is also very cool to see a 41 year old dude win the Cup and treat himself with a shot to the title , i hope that in the next years we see a lot more cases like Gelfand's.
p.s. I'd add that the Nanjing wins from Carlsen make a much better impression, though his opponents did seem slightly spooked by the returning ghost of Kasparov!
I'll volunteer to drink the six-pack.
"I'll volunteer to drink the six-pack."
And if it would've been a match between females, I could've volunteered to show off mine...
"Let's not forget that one of the main reasons for us having an "unusually tense final round" was the utilization of the Bilbao rules , which allowed the extra possibility of Kramnik winning the event alone".
But Kramnik would have won on the tie-break rules anyway (with 4 wins to 3), so three points for a win wasn't needed there.
On the whole I think it's wrong for two reasons, as others have said: 1) it allows players with worse performances (as measured by ratings and our understanding of chess) to finish above those who did better, 2) it doesn't actually change how players play chess (Nakamura won't become Leko, or vice versa).
Actually there's an interview with Kramnik I was thinking of translating which starts, relevantly:
"You just won the Tal Memorial with 6 points out of 9, and playing not in the Kramnik style at all - boldly, confidently, with a flourish - like your walking around the hall. Where did that change come from?"
"No, no - I always walked around a lot, there's nothing new. And in general these cliches about my style - "boring", "careful" - are rubbish. Professionals understand it - it's just my style. Take, for example, Morozevich - do you think he plays that way so that the spectators will call him a "romantic"? No - that's how he wins the most points. Or Kasparov - everything that he said about playing for the fans - it's just not serious, he just has that style of play. And me - my talent's best seen in positional play, in the end game, though I consider myself a sufficiently universal chess player. Forgive me, of course, but no-one plays for the public - everyone plays to get the best possible result".
¨But Kramnik would have won on the tie-break rules anyway (with 4 wins to 3), so three points for a win wasn't needed there.¨
Missing the point completely ,the possibility of Kramnik having a ¨clean¨ win in the last round was opened by the Bilbao system , and that´s what made the final round so ¨unusually tense ¨, because with the old system he could only fight for a shared win.
Bilbao system works just fine , deal with that.
The very _big_ difference between Carlsen and Kramnik, is that the 3 events Kramnik and Carlsen both played are ALL the events Kramnik played in 2009.
26 games. That's it.
Carlsen played 4 more events, and a total of 73 games. He scored 44,5 points, against an average of roughly 2739.
That makes for a performance of 2819 over 73 games.
Personally I think that's even more impressive than 2844 over "only" 26 games.
"Would someone please put up the money to arrange a full-fledged match between Vladimir Kramnik and Magnus Carlsen?"
The Dirt could come up with the prize. I'll start with a six-pack of beer and a poster of chess- playing cats, what have you others to offer?
I will donate a 30-minute ride with the Red Arrows and an inflatable Dalmatian.
"it doesn't actually change how players play chess (Nakamura won't become Leko, or vice versa)." This is a fine point, but I don't think Sophia rules are meant to change a player's style but rather their approach. Let's say Leko was in the last round of a tournament where he needed a last round win with black to secure 1st place because of Sophia rules. I agree that he's not going to suddenly say to himself, "Well, looks like I'll have to play like Topalov today!" but he very well might choose an opening line with sacrificing lines or queen side castling or the like.
Re: Kramnik. So Kramnik is saying that there is no stylistic difference between the Kramnik who didn't win with black for God knows how long and the recent "Kramnik 2.0" who scared the hell out of Carlsen with black at Tal and who just won with a Petroff in London? I guess he just found his mo-jo!
BTW - mishanp, one reason that I always look forward to reading The Dirt is your translations like the one here of Kramnik. Thanks.
Spam attack forced auto-shutdown of comments. Should be okay now.
Magnus Carlsen has been on the road for more than 200 days in 2009:
CLASSIC TOURNAMENTS:
Corus
Linares
M-Tel
Dortmund
Nanjing
Tal Memorial
London
BLITZ, RAPID, BLINDFOLD:
Aker Chess Challenge
Amber
Ciudad de Leon
World Blitz Championship
BNbank Blitz
This year he has 175 games at Chessgames.com.
No one can touch his combination of activity AND results. Perhaps the most remarkable is that most of this was achived at the age of 18, and that he reached #1 FIDE spot barely 19 years old.
-He is the rightful winner of Chess Oscar 2009!
Runner-up would be Aronian.
Kramnik gets honorable mentioning due to heavy lobbying by blogger Mishanp.
Bobby Fiske
(Chairman of the Committee)
"BTW - mishanp, one reason that I always look forward to reading The Dirt is your translations like the one here of Kramnik. Thanks."
Yes indeed, and having done many a translation myself, I know very well that it's hard work. And you do it all for free, cheers! In 10 years maybe my Russian will be good enough to help you out.
"So Kramnik is saying that there is no stylistic difference between the Kramnik who didn't win with black for God knows how long and the recent "Kramnik 2.0" who scared the hell out of Carlsen with black at Tal and who just won with a Petroff in London? I guess he just found his mo-jo!"
Not what he's saying, but why he failed to win with Black before was not only because of lack of trying, which is clear once you examine his games from that period.
In general, people are overstating his change in style and/or approach this year, even though it's there. It's not like he has turned into a different player.
(And he didn't win with a Petroff in London)
Very close call for the Chess Oscar. I'd say Carlsen will get it but my own feeling is that Kramnik just edged it. I'm a big Kramnik fan so maybe I'm a little biased but I like Carlsen as well. Carlsen has a few things going his way - his win over Kramnik is very fresh in peoples mind. Being the young superstar and getting no.1 ranking will also do no harm. Mishanp makes Vlad the Impaler's case better than I could.......... How about a poll Mig?
A suggestion from an observer:
Any win = 3 points vs. 0 points;
Fighting Draws (which may possibly be defined as ending with K vs. K, other criteria possible) = 2 points each;
Non-Fighting Draws (less than a specified number of moves, or lots of play left, etc.) = 1 point each;
Forced Draws (positional, perpetual, etc.) = 1.5 points each.
Two GM draws then are equivalent to one fighting draw, and two positional draws are equal to a win, while two fighting draws score more than a win. This would allow the 'grandmaster draw' at your own risk, or to coast to victory for example, and that would be ok.
Some controversy as to definitions of the above, of course, but this is an idea, not a guideline. You could even toy with the point amounts awarded (5-3-2-1, or 6-4-3-2), but you have to be *sure* that, in the end, there would be no question as to the points awarded for the result of any given game.
Do "Forced Draws" exist that would avoid the definition of "Non-Fighting Draws?" If games get repeated for this purpose, make a specification (similar to the use of the 50-move rule) that such game is only worth 1 point each.
Is that rook ending a known draw? Play it out for an extra half a point!
Stalemate can be the result of a fighting game (a recent Anand and Chucky game comes to mind), but may also be the final position of a 'Forced Draw.' Someone else with more chess acumen can decide where to put these.
Perhaps someone would figure out the results of the London tourney with this system (be sure to take into account that some fighting draws may not have been played to completion, so score them accordingly)? Also keep in mind that the GM draw was discouraged, but some games may still qualify. I would if I had the time! Thanks!
CO
Personally, I like the 6-4-3-2 scoring system. It is equivalent to the above, but removes fractions.
It's easy for me to spend another person's money, but couldn't our generous, anonymous London sponsor find it in his purse to invite nine players to next year's event. A major tournament should give the players an equal number of Whites and Blacks; hence, double round robin or an odd number of players. Other than the distribution of colors, London was a joy. We owe our sponsor a huge debt of gratitude. Many thanks, too, to Malcolm Pein, the tournament's organizer.
You are correct, of course.
There is the small matter of sporting integrity, (although when it comes to Silvio, this is a very small matter indeed).
The prospect of awarding a player with a losing record more points than a player with a winning record through an artificial scoring system is, as has been often said, ridiculous.
If it's tense final rounds we're after then let's try this..
--after a draw the players get a Gatorade shower....
--after a win a naked woman runs across the stage.
This was a terrific event - sold out locally and closely watched around the chess world. (Note to sponsors: for far more bang for your buck ensure that the website links for live games work as well as they did in this instance.) Carlsen, propelled by a terrific first-round win against Kramnik, takes first and secures the world number one spot. For the balance of the tournament, Kramnik displays his seemingly renewed sense of gusto, contributing a couple of the event's most overpoweringly imbalanced wins. The local Brits, significant underdogs, showed that they deserved to be in the same room as the heavyweights and were capable of co-authoring gripping games. Naka, whose exposure in top-tier tournaments has been limited, draws even against the world number one and the resurgent former world champion in their head-to head battles. The players, the tournament organizers, and especially the fans have plenty to be happy about with this one - a smashing year-end success story.
Now that Accenture have dropped Tiger Woods from their sponsorship, maybe they should adopt Magnus Carlsen! Chess needs more publicity.
Hmmm, currently in double round robins that use the Bilbao system (e.g. Bilbao), players fare best if they trade wins in their games. With your system, they would do best by playing two "fighting draws" - I guess top GMs can be creative enough to arrange for a game played down to bare kings ... .
There are other problems with your system:
- Some short draws can be full of content, even if they end with perpetual check or a forced repetition after less than 25 moves.
- Not all repetitions are (completely) forced - just how much disadvantage and/or risk should a player declining a repetition (have to) take ?
With your system, both players end up being punished for a semi-forced repetition, indeed regardless of what had happened earlier in the game.
So the only viable alternative is what I suggested before (but - at least mostly - in jest): have a jury decide on the value of any given game. But which jury would be up to such a task? At least in theory, such a system would be prone to manipulations - to make sure that the "right" person wins a tournament ... .
IMO, the best alternative is: simply accept that a draw is a logical result between players of approximately equal strength.
Ah, right. I confused the Howell and McShane games.
Kramnik: "- it's just my style" What do you mean that's not what he's saying? He's explicitly saying that something may be different, but that something is not his style.
"May I suggest Howell find another dentist?"
We're British. We don't have dentists.
Mig "As an added perk, Adams should now take back the English #1 spot on the rating list."
henry "As for Adams: at least this result probably will bring him back ahead of Short, as the no. 1 British chess player."
Do you even read Mig's articles?
putting someone who loses as many as he wins ahead of someone who wins more than he loses is distortion and beyond the scope of what should be attempted with rule modifications"
One of the rare occasions I disagree with Mig. Why is it so exclusively legitim that +0 =6 -0 is ahead of +2 =1 -3? (McShane vs Howell after round 6). I know that a (fighting) draw is a prefectly acceptable and honorable result: but this is exactly why a win should be appreciated so much and considered so special!
****
In times past, some events were scored so that draws either didn't count at all (null) or had to be replayed.
I think it is clear that a win should be valued more highly than a draw -- if only because draws by agreement or repetition exist.
The problem has always been players who choose 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 1/2-1/2 type of games, especially in the final rounds.
Thus, there must be artificial changes to scoring...or pairing...to mix things up and avoid this type of stale final round situation.
Random pairings -- or allowing players to meet more than once (or not at all) in an event -- can avoid easy-draw mania.
Enhanced scoring (3-1-0) can do so.
One problem to avoid is that you don't want to make it more valuable to "dump" a game than to make a draw.
A scoring system where draws don't count can lead to situations where players take desperate chances (or play too casually) and "gift" points to the opponent.
But overall, a score of +0 =6 -0 is not as good as +3=0+3, from a sponsor point of view -- if only because the high probability is that the former result is not based on 70-move ending grinds...but rather 20-move courtesy draws.
Perhaps an economic incentive is better -- each win gets you three shares of the prize fund, each draw costs you *both* a share, and each loss costs you (the loser)a shares.
Thus, each player (white/black) has an incentive to win...and still an incentive to draw if he/she cannot win (i.e. better to nick the opponent for a share, too, then just to lose a share oneself -- this enhances the value of the remaining shares)...and little/no incentive to lose). I suppose there could be odd cases where the # of shares existing could make "drawing" the equivalent to knocking out a piece is curling...but you get the idea.
british fan,
Yes I did read Mig's statement saying that "Adams SHOULD now take back the English #1 spot".
However I don't think that is a certainty (also see frogbert's comment). Hence I modified it a little by saying "this result PROBABLY will bring him back". Though it still expresses a high likelihood, it's not a certainty.
"In times past, some events were scored so that draws either didn't count at all (null) or had to be replayed."
Monte Carlo 1901. A draw awards 1/4p and then you change colours and play another game for the remaining 1/2p.
Have tried it out, at privately arranged blitz tournaments. Just for fun.
I think the sucker scoring system has a lot to say in that final round, when you can fight for clear first from second place, and lose shared first by drawing as sole leader.
Even if it brings more options and entertaining to the chess world , even if it works perfectly for the sponsors and the players of the event, even then some people would have something to say against the Bilbao system just because comes from the " Danailov side " of the scene...
All those hysteric claims of unfairness , about how this scoring system hurts the honor of the poor player who drew all his games while helping that depraved beast that won a couple and lost the rest were just unfounded and experience is showing the 2 big facts of it :
1) There were no tangible victims in any of the events that used this system , no player felt that his precious birth right to draw was being abused...
2)In the unprovable scenario of such a player arisen , nobody would give a flying f... about him , Tough luck dude ! Try to win more games next time.
The good thing is that the rules are spreading year by year with great results, soon enough it should be the official scoring system for every top tournament.
Just like it happened in sucker , i mean soccer.
This was a great event partly due to the Sofia rules that force players to actually play. Luckily, the stupid Bilbao rules didn't influence the games. When Bilbao actually DO have an effect, the effect is that players will choose an inferior move out of fear that the best move 'only' leads to a draw. But since that didn't happen in this tournament, it might as well have been played without the Bilbao rules.
Wrong! Bilbao system DID influenced the event , the final round is a great example of that.
Of course the opposite may well be true: you praise the Bilbao scoring system constantly and unconditionally just because it "comes from the Danailov side of the scene".
In London, McShane finished ahead of Nakamura. McShane had two "awkward" wins and four rather drastic losses, plus one draw (fought out yet balanced throughout the game). Most oddly, one of his wins was considered "brilliant" by the jury, to the surprise of many others. In particular, he was no match for Carlsen and Kramnik.
Nakamura had one loss and six well-fought draws - this included failing to convert superior positions and holding inferior ones. He held his own (and maybe a bit more than that) against the two top players.
One 'tangible' consequence of the Bilbao rules may have been the marathon game between McShane and Short in the very first round. Are such games entertaining? Yes, in their very own way - once or maybe twice.
"Of course the opposite may well be true: you praise the Bilbao scoring system constantly and unconditionally just because it "comes from the Danailov side of the scene"."
I just love improving the game and making tournaments more entertaining , my profession taught me to embrace good ideas regardless of who made them.
Funny that you compared Nakamura with Mc Shane , because Nakamura's performance was slightly disappointing (not a single win, he was 3rd seeded) and Mc Shane played a brilliancy price game and gave a cat and mouse beating to Nigel Short in another great game , and he was almost the last seeded player ...
Also interesting how you and other detractors choose a weird position like "everything went great but not because of the Bilbao system " , funny that this comment is often heard during events using that scoring system...
:) seeu@
On Kramnik and Carlsen - I'm not claiming that Kramnik should get the chess oscar. I'd give it to Carlsen after the year he's had and given the fact he's only 19 and now tops the rating list. It's a nice symbolic statement, and I don't think the oscar has any real significance. All I was trying to point out was that in the tournaments where both Kramnik and Carlsen played Kramnik came out on top - slightly in terms of results, but more convincingly in terms of the actual chess played.
Thanks for some of the comments on the translations. I do quite a lot professionally, but from another language, so it's good to keep up the Russian. That said, if FIDE or anyone wants an in-house translator for another event in deepest Siberia I'd love to go there, even if they just provided flights, food and a hotel room :)
Anyway, I'll post the rest of the interview with Kramnik below. It's quite outspoken, and I also don't have a clue what Kramnik means about Carlsen's sponsorship and so on... (perhaps something's lost in translation or transcription!?). The point about training is probably worth noting - one obvious reason for Kramnik's results this year is that he's been able to unleash a lot of the opening preparation he'd done for Anand.
The original's here: http://www.sports.ru/tribuna/blogs/khomitch/54155.html
- Vladimir, how do you prepare for tournaments now? Do you have a manager and why did you split with Hensel?
- I don’t have a trainer as I’m continuing to draw from the results of the huge work done in the last two years. And as for a manager – for now I don’t need one seeing as I’m not fighting for the title or playing matches. I have excellent relations with Hensel, he’s in Moscow now, but at the moment it’s just not necessary. If I qualify for a championship match then perhaps I’ll need a manager.
- After losing your title to Vishy Anand you’ve won two super tournaments in a row – Dortmund and the Tal Memorial...
- It’s not a coincidence, of course. I had such a decline a year ago that it had to end at some point. I drew conclusions from the loss to Anand, plus, don’t forget, my daughter was born – that gave me a wealth of positive emotions. Those who’ve been through it will understand – all the not sleeping and other matters – it actually gives you a lot of energy. But all the same two tournaments is just two tournaments, it’s too early to draw conclusions. Now I’ve got London and Wijk aan Zee to come – if everything goes well there as well then it’ll be possible to talk about the quality of play.
- The two other Russians, Svidler and Morozevich, did very badly, occupying the eighth and ninth places. Why such a failure?
- Firstly, someone had to fill the bottom slots – there was such a strong line-up that there wasn’t a single outsider. And secondly, they only just returned from the European Championship – at such an age playing two tough tournaments in a row is almost impossible. No-one even called me – they realised what sort of schedule I can deal with now. And in general it’s something to address to FIDE – they should spread tournaments out better instead of having four months rest and then five tournaments in a row.
- One of the most creative players, Vasily Ivanchuk, plays very unevenly, but managed to get things together in Moscow...
- The reason he’s erratic is clear – he plays, like a madman, around 300 games a year. I don’t know why he does it. All the same when Vasily’s in form he’s a fixture among the top 5.
- By the way, Vasily came to the tournament a few times in a face mask – weren’t you tempted to wear one as well?
- I don’t know why Vasily suddenly started to wear one. After the first four rounds it was clear that we’d already managed to catch all the viruses from each other – why wear one at the end of the tournament? It didn’t disturb me – as chess players we have to have strong nerves – what difference does it make what the player opposite’s wearing? Although I was expecting that Ivanchuk would wear the mask against me and was actually amazed by its absence.
- After the tournament Magnus Carlsen became the number one on the live rating list. Plus he’s working with Gary Kasparov. Can anything stop him?
- You know, to begin with, I don’t consider Carlsen the strongest. I have my own rating and I know what ELO numbers each player should actually have. And although Carlsen’s rating is fully deserved I think that, at the very least, Topalov, Anand and I play better than he does, plus Aronian, no doubt, at the same level. And the fact that people speak about him so much, it’s because he found a sponsor. If I wanted they’d also talk a lot more about me, it’s a question of money, you see. But I repeat again, Magnus is a very strong chess player, and his success is entirely justified.
- Magnus Carlsen didn’t only come second, not losing once, but also won the blitz tournament immediately after the Memorial by a wide margin. The organisers called it the World Championship. Does he also blitz better than everyone else?
- He’s younger than everyone else, which is why he was able to recover so quickly. Just take a look at the failure of Ivanchuk – one of the best blitz players in the world! Anand told me that he couldn’t recover. If you call a tournament the World Championship then you should leave at least three days for players to get some sleep and recover, so the conditions are equal. Therefore I don’t take Magnus’ title too seriously, though he won it, unquestionably, thanks to his excellent play.
- I’ve often heard the comment that “our answer to Carlsen”, Sergej Karjakin, is the only hope Russia has for the title in the next 15 years...
- (smiling) Firstly, I still think that I’ll have a chance for the next 3 or 4 years. Secondly, chess players grow up so quickly now that perhaps we still don’t know anything about the next champion, he might be 12 years old. As regards Karjakin – he’s a very talented player with excellent trainers and, no doubt, a big future. Though it’s true that competing with Carlsen and Aronian will be tough for him – they’re still stronger for now. And you shouldn’t write us old men off quite yet!
- The tournament didn’t have the rating leader – Veselin Topalov...
- In general there still hasn’t been a tournament bringing together the full top 10. Even in my first Linares there were only 9 of the top 10. I don’t know if they invited Topalov or not, but his presence would have done the event no harm at all. Though I don’t even remember the last time I played him.
- Do you still not greet Vesko? You haven’t forgotten about Elista?
- No, we don’t greet each other. You know, it’s not a matter of insulting anyone - it’s just the personal relationship I have with him. I know things that others don’t know, and understand perfectly well who I’m dealing with. Perhaps he’ll someday see the light and start to behave normally – unlikely, but in that case my attitude might change. But it’s hard to believe in that and I think it’ll be a long term thing.
- What do you expect from the championship match and how do you explain Vishy’s readiness to play with Topalov in Sofia?
- It’s hard to explain. Vishy’s an adult and of course it’s his right. I think it’s due to the large prize fund, as I can’t see any sensible reasons to play Topalov on his home territory, it’s simply madness – it doesn’t seem much like Vishy. You see if something’s going badly for Danailov he’ll definitely find some means or other to put pressure on Vishy. There are a million tricks, even if you’re not playing on his home turf. I will, of course, root for Anand, but not for personal reasons but chess ones. After all, if Topalov becomes champion it’ll be a catastrophe for chess.
- Why a catastrophe?
- Because then Danailov will have unlimited power which, of course, is terrible for chess whichever way you look at it. If you end up with people at the top who have no moral principles at all it’s a sad day. First and foremost for the future of our game.
- People often write that you’re a hedonist, you like to enjoy life – was it significant for you that the players stayed in the Ritz Carlton, the best hotel in Russia?
- That hedonism is mainly a legend. Maybe there was once something to it, to a very limited degree, but definitely not now. I’m more of an ascetic – it’s nice that the organisers put me up in such a hotel, but I only need a minimum level of comfort – a comfortable bed, a bathroom and the internet – it’s not especially important how many stars the hotel has.
"There were no tangible victims..."
--Carlsen would have won under either system.
The "Bilbao rules" function faily only when they are irrelevant.
"In the unprovable scenario of such a player arisen , nobody would give a flying f... about him..."
--Unprovable? Arguing that the Bilbao rules can't be proven to punish the drawing player is beyond absurd. That's their entire POINT. For example:
Player "A" +7, -9, =0 produces 21 Bilbao points
Player "B" +2, -0, =14 produces 20 Bilbao points
To award a Candidates spot or some other critical tournament prize to Player "A" (Moro?) over the obviously superior Player "B," (Petrosian?) will be to incur bucket-loads of well-deserved criticism for the silly, gimmicky, "Bilbao rules."
(Oops...left my name off the previous post.)
The Bilbao rules advocate is forced into the absurd and indefensible position that a player who loses more games than he wins is better than a player who never loses a game.
Which is why you never hear a "Bilbao rules" advocate arguing that the system makes any logical sense, just that it is "entertaining" or "produces results", as would any number of other bizarre, artificial reward-and-punishment systems one could imagine.
How many extra moves in the McShane Short game were due solely to the use of the increment clock? Repetitions merely to gain clock time are a cancer on the game! See, using the increment clock has added numerous ugly and useless moves to the once beautiful game of chess, and who knows how many moves were added to games throughout the tournament - thus, we should ban the increment clock, or not use it for high level GM tournaments (/sarcasm).
Thank you very, very much!
"The Bilbao rules advocate is forced into the absurd and indefensible position that a player who loses more games than he wins is better than a player who never loses a game."
This is not true. The rating system does not use Bilbao and IT is the measure of who the better player is. Bilbao is used to monetarily reward the players who give the SPONSORS (remember them?)the best bang for the money THEY put out.
two questions
a) do you think World Championship should be decided in a match?
b) do you prefer the Bilbao system over the traditional one?
Now if you answered yes to both, then, congratulations, you're a complete moron.
Rev--
For "is better" substitute "has performed better in the tournament" if that makes the argument clearer.
The sponsor certainly has the right to reward Player "A", over Player "B" even though Player "B" has clearly outperformed Player "A" in the tournament.
The sponsor has the right to do any number of silly things.
You are right , off course .
This was a great event partly due to the Sofia rules that force players to actually play. Luckily, the stupid Bilbao rules didn't influence the games. When Bilbao actually DO have an effect, the effect is that players will choose an inferior move out of fear that the best move 'only' leads to a draw. But since that didn't happen in this tournament, it might as well have been played without the Bilbao rules.
***
Lasker and Fischer -- examples of players who played positions to bare bones and would choose moves to extend play -- certainly would endorse the scoring system.
A "correct" move that leads to a sterile draw is certainly not to be encouraged over a !? move that is unclear.
That would be a twisted view as to what "correct" chess is about. Chess is struggle -- it is assumed that players want to win. Playing moves that safely draw is antithetical to the idea of playing the tournament in the first place.
A checkers example -- My understanding is that the last human checkers world champion (Tinsley) in failing health played a match vs. Chinook (computer) that he abandoned, as it was clear that the computer team planned to play "correct" draws over and over and over again, win a game due to the ill human's failing memory, and "win" the match. The human wanted a match where !? unclear moves would be tested. He wasn't going to get it.
Similarly, if a group is going to go to the trouble to run an elite round robin chess event, they should:
1. Invite players who fight
2. Use a scoring system that encourges fighting
3. Use a reward system that pays for fighting
!? moves should be favored over "correct" moves that peter out.
That's just obvious...for these types of events.
If your goal is to maximize player results -- a poster said that is what the rating system is about. Not all events are about maximizing results -- some are about testing fighting positions.
And that is where these rules are important.
Also, not all players are superior under all conditions. A poster made a comment that a Petrosian-like score of +2 -0 =14 would be superior to a traditional minus score with many more wins and losses. Is that necessarily true?
Under 1 1/2 0 scoring yes. Under the fighting pressure of 3 1 0 scoring, maybe not....for the same reasons that players who excel at 40/2 may not do so at G/60.
Some players simply do not have the same level of fightint spirit needed to thrive under !? move play to the bitter end in every game type chess. They find it exhausting.
That's not the organizer's problem.
Most professional sports leagues are NOT centered around best play.
NBA doesn't allow (or didn't allow -- things may have changed) defenses that kept down scoring. They forced teams to use defenses that allowed more scoring.
NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL all use rules that enhance scoring, enhance big plays...at the cost of "correct" play.
The 24-second clock in NBA is an example where they induce error.
These 3-1-0 scoring methods induce error...force !? fighting chess...force them to play out these endings.
That's a good thing...certainly preferable to the usual flurry of 12-move draws in the final rounds.
two questions
a) do you think World Championship should be decided in a match?
b) do you prefer the Bilbao system over the traditional one?
Now if you answered yes to both, then, congratulations, you're a complete moron.
****
That's not very nice. It is also untrue.
Yes, there should be a match.
Yes, the 3-1-0 scoring *can* be superior in certain situations (i.e. round robin tournaments not linked to the world championship qualification cycle).
I'd tend to agree that 1-1/2-0 scoring is better-suited to teasing out strength differences.
3-1-0 scoring says "we will reward you for collecting wins -- any other result is a failure".
1-1/2-0 scoring says "not losing is a success -- draws are good".
Completely different.
And so it depends what type of match you are discussing.
A traditional 24-game match...says that 1-1/2-0 scoring is better.
A "first player to win 6, draws not counting" is essentially the same as 3-1-0 scoring...as it rewards collecting full points.
Even better...for those who love unlimited matches...would be a situation where if you win a game you could *choose* whether to add a win to your total...or take a win away from the opponent!
If the score is 4-1, winning a game could make the score 5-1.
If the score is 3-5, it might be better to take a win away and make it 3-4.
In such matches...where "first to 6" or any variant is used...where collecting wins at all costs matters more than playing "correctly"...then it is a different type of chess. It takes a different philosophy. And perhaps that is why the earlier "must win 6" matches failed -- as all the other events were under 1-1/2-0 style thinking.
Now with more 3-1-0 events, it might make sense to reconsider an open-ended finals...once players are used to it.
wonderful effort mishanp. thank you so much.
Thomas: "I guess top GMs can be creative enough to arrange for a game played down to bare kings ..."
I didn't say it was failsafe. One can skirt about any regulation in any field.
Thomas: "There are other problems with your system: ..."
As I said, it was not a guideline, but merely an idea. And I believe I included enough 'maybes' in my comment needing ironed out to become a workable 'system.'
Thomas: "Some short draws can be full of content, even if they end with perpetual check or a forced repetition after less than 25 moves."
Correct, and accounted for.
Thomas: "Not all repetitions are (completely) forced - just how much disadvantage and/or risk should a player declining a repetition (have to) take ?"
Correct again. FORCED repititions (perpetual check, as an example) are different from tactical or strategical repititions. These too were dealt with in my comment.
Thomas: "With your system, both players end up being punished for a semi-forced repetition, indeed regardless of what had happened earlier in the game."
Correct again! And your point is? It is the player's choice how a game progresses. Indeed, he has that choice at every move! We must live with our choices.
Thomas: "So the only viable alternative is what I suggested before (but - at least mostly - in jest): have a jury decide on the value of any given game. But which jury would be up to such a task? At least in theory, such a system would be prone to manipulations - to make sure that the "right" person wins a tournament ..."
Your conclusion that your suggestion is the only viable alternative is rather pompous, and inaccurate as well, especially since you seem to think you were joking when you wrote it. To quote a green-blooded, pointy-eared First Officer of note, "there are always alternatives."
Thomas: "IMO, the best alternative is: simply accept that a draw is a logical result between players of approximately equal strength."
It is very possible that this statement is, in fact, the best alternative. Yet closing our minds to possibility can only lead to ignorance. And while your opinion is as valid as anyone else's, I find the following opinion from Samuel Johnson quite applicable:
"Men are generally idle, and ready to satisfy themselves, and intimidate the industry of others, by calling that impossible which is only difficult."
Just an observation :)
CO
We all know that some draws can be glorious and entertaining , but: What is this preposterous concept of protecting them?
I´m tired of hearing people -who wouldnt even know what is happening at the board without a chess program- defending the honor of the ¨best moves¨ that his engine gave them.
Oh! That player is being forced to take some risks at the board ! He is using the 3rd best move in the position ! The horror ! I hope my rybka wasn´t watching... give me a break ...
The truth is that draws don´t need our protection , they can take care of themselves pretty well, and they are certainly not a specie in danger of extinction ,in fact they can climb to 70 percent of our share sometimes.
Draws also happen to have a great future among us, under the influence of computer preparation the skill differences between players are reduced and the drawing chances grows even higher with that.
I´m sorry but i think only the ¨decisive results¨ needs some kind of protection ,specially considering that they are the main source of beauty and excitement (and sponsors ,news ,comments,activity, broadcasts , etc) from our game .
I believe it is only fitting thay they worth more than twice than a draw in the context of a tournament ,mostly because the entire competition concept is based on their existence...
You're fighting a strawman. Nobody said they didn't like !?-moves. Do you also want to encourage ?!-moves? And what they do in some silly physical sport is entirely beside the point. I'm a chess fan, not a sports fan.
"I´m tired of hearing people -who wouldnt even know what is happening at the board without a chess program- defending the honor of the ¨best moves¨ that his engine gave them."
And I'm tired of you assigning random bad traits to anyone who disagrees with you. Danailov-haters, engine-lovers, what's next?
Essentially I am testing and, IMO, falsifying the basic premise of your previous post:
"you have to be *sure* that, in the end, there would be no question as to the points awarded for the result of any given game."
Two examples or case studies:
1) Even perpetual check is at most half-forced: Player A being checked may have no choice, Player B giving the checks can always deviate. And maybe Player A also has a choice: sacrificing a pawn or a piece to avoid perpetual, running away with his king to an area where he is completely "naked" and might be mated in the end ... .
2) Short draws full of content: The problem could be that the whole game was played before, commonly referred to as "book draw". If we extend the rules to amateur events: If Miller(2200)-Smith(2180) played tomorrow reproduces a game between Timman and Korchnoi from 1982, how can we know whether or not the players were aware of this? If Miller blitzes out his moves and Smith spends lots of time on the clock, would the result be 1-1.5 !? Even then, it could theoretically be Miller's own independent home preparation ... . If their draw was actually prearranged, would it have added value if they do some sort of comedy: "thinking" 10 or 30 minutes on some moves, then blitzing out the rest in "time trouble" to reach the desired final position with perpetual check?
Conclusion: There is no way to "iron out" the inconsistencies or weak points of your general idea ... .
It is not that random as you claim , judging for your reaction . :)
I compared Nakamura and McShane in detail, you simply ignore (for the sake of argument) that McShane also had four losses, including a horrible one against Ni Hua where he completely misplayed a superior position. And yes, many (including Naka himself and his fans) would have expected more from him, but that's rather irrelevant: at the start of a tournament, everyone begins with zero points - rating and earlier career achievements don't matter (well, they mattered to be invited in the first place).
At the very least, I find it plain wrong that London used "double Bilbao rules": Number of wins is first a "tie-creater", then a tiebreaker. That's how Ni Hua (+1=3-3) could first catch, then even overtake Nakamura (=6-1). The same - and an even better tiebreak - could be done with 2 victories and 5 complete offdays.
Maybe Ni Hua should say "thank you Luke" and donate part of his prize money to him? ,:) Oh wait, due to the at least controversial brilliancy prize McShane already cannot complain financially spoken, that's what some players got in terms of prize money:
Carlsen 33,500€
Kramnik 23,000€
McShane 20,000€
[I made a slight "lazy" mistake: A pot of 20,000€ was divided over 11 victories, I made this 10 to make calculations and numbers "easier"]
The folks on the other side of this argument are not interested in protecting draws. They are interested in protecting the concept that the player who performs better in a tournament should get the better score.
Is +2,-0,=14 e a better performance than a +7,-9?
Common sense says "yes." The Bilbao rules say "no."
¨ at the start of a tournament, everyone begins with zero points - rating and earlier career achievements don't matter (well, they mattered to be invited in the first place).¨
They also started the event knowing how much a win worthed , and yet players of the strenght of Nakamura (3rd seeded) had to leave the event without scoring a single win...
That´s why the wins are so valuable ,they are not easy prey.
I love your debating technique, maybe I should adopt it. Why is it that you can't value chess for what it is? Why must everything be valued by its similarity to football?
Chess is a very unforgiving game. One slip in the opening and you may be lost beyond reasonable hope. It most sports, there are way more chances to bounce back.
I think this is the reason why chess inherently rewards the conservative "avoid a loss" strategy. Maybe it should stay that way, it is just part of the game?
You should be able to understand the concept of someone loving the game for what it is but still using a much more accurate system from the practical and/or symbolic point of view.
¨Why must everything be valued by its similarity to football?¨
I don´t know about everything, but in this case (Bilbao sytem) the effect is very similar in both activities due to behavioral tendencies of human competition/gaming , it is a small correction after all.
We will not run out of draws , i promise.
Thank you for a clear answer. Following your own debating standards, I conclude that you actually admit to the fact that you value everything by its similarity to football.
'Nuff said.
Speaking about football:
Football matches can sometimes be quite boring to watch. 22 men running around for 90 minuttes without scoring any goal.
However, still, they maintain the offiside rule. If liftet, for sure there would be more scores and action in front of the goals on both sides. But what would happen to the quality of the "play", then?
http://www.offside-ref.co.uk/laws/11-offside-rule/detailed/
Good luck with that.
Thank you, Mishanp, for the translation of the (very interesting) Kramnik's interview.
Best regards
It was argued by the late national player K.Lundberg, way back before the 3-1-0 system was implemented, that 0-0 should award zero points. No goals, no points.
This was football, in case you haven't guessed. When it comes to chess, Monte Carlo 1901 shows that this debate has been going on for more than a hundred years.
The folks on the other side of this argument are not interested in protecting draws. They are interested in protecting the concept that the player who performs better in a tournament should get the better score.
Is +2,-0,=14 e a better performance than a +7,-9?
Common sense says "yes." The Bilbao rules say "no."
***
The goal of a tournament run under 3-1-0 scoring is to win games. A draw is a failure to win. A loss is a failure to win.
The goal of a tournament under 1-1/2-0 scoring is to "not lose". Very different.
I'm catching butterflies. I make 10 swoops with my net. I catch 4 butterflies. I miss 6 times. I score 4x3= 12 pts.
I'm catching butterflies. I make 10 swoops. I catch 0 butterflies. I miss 10 times. I score 0x3= 0 pts.
I'm catching butterflies. I make 10 half-swoops. I catch 1 butterfly...which I keep in my net the other 9 half-swoops. I score 1 x 3 = 3 pts.
1 catch is certainly better than 0 catches. But 4 catches (and 6 misses) is better still (vs. 1 catch and 9 draws).
That's the point -- the goal under 3-1-0 is to win games. Anything less than a win is a failure. Draws score 1 pt only out of a recognitioin that to give them 0 pts would generate dumping of points.
A player who collects more scalps (points) -- even with more losses -- is playing in accordance with the scoring system...i.e. aggressively.
Kramnik has got to be the most articulate and thoughtful of the world's top chessplayers. Has anyone so sane ever played chess so well? Thanks mishanp.
Thomas: 'Conclusion: There is no way to "iron out" the inconsistencies or weak points of your general idea ...'
General ideas, by definition, have no weak points or inconsistencies. They are general, and therefore subject to modification to fulfill whatever criteria one deems necessary. It is only then they can have weak points or inconsistencies. And I won't debate you on this.
That said, it may be true that your so-called premise of my suggestion is not attainable. But the examples you gave are not applicable, as they were dealt with in my original post.
Arguing for the sake of arguing does not explore any possibility. It is possibility that changes the world. I will end with one more quote, and end my replies to this subject:
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead
CO
And by the way, I find your habitual use of an ellipsis followed by a period quite annoying. Just an observation! :)
I think the debate should be generalized, using a decimal scoring system with 1 point for a win, 0 points for a loss, and somewhere between 0 and 0.5 points for a draw.
In other words, a 1-x-0 scoring system, where x is a decimal number.
For instance, 1-0.45-0 or 1-0.5-0.
I think maybe the "draw penalty" would be more edible if it was smaller than in the 3-1-0 system...
On the other hand, i think the scoring system should be simple, and i think simplicity of the rules has a value of it's own.
I think maybe i lean towards 1-0.5-0, if i have to choose.
"I don’t consider Carlsen the strongest. I have my own rating and I know what ELO numbers each player should actually have. And although Carlsen’s rating is fully deserved I think that, at the very least, Topalov, Anand and I play better than he does, plus Aronian, no doubt, at the same level. And the fact that people speak about him so much, it’s because he found a sponsor"
I wonder if Kasparov's being involved with Carlsen doesn't cloud Kramnik's judgment a bit here, both concerning that he knows "what ELO numbers the players should actually have", that "at the very least" three players play better than Carlsen, and that people talk about him so much "because he found a sponsor".
Carlsen's decisive games during the year against the top ten on the January 2009 list:
Topalov 2-0
Anand 1-0
Radjabov 1-0
Jakovenko 3-0
Leko 2-0
and then the one loss
Kramnik 1-1
Anand and Kramnik scored +1 against the top ten, Topalov +2. If anything Carlsen was closer to an even better than a worse score (hasty endgame blunder with an hour more on the clock in a winning position against Radjabov in Linares). It's hard to say that at the very least three players play better chess than Carlsen at the moment, especially considering that all three of them lost badly in their last game against him.
Statistics can always be "tailored to one's needs". Why did you omit Carlsen-Aronian 0-1? I guess it was an oversight rather than anything deliberate, but that game (Linares 2009) was quite revealing: Carlsen playing white was under pressure for the whole game, and then failed to hold an inferior but drawn rook endgame.
Carlsen's weaknesses in the endgame seem to be a still-existing pattern: the blunder against Radjabov cannot be discarded as unique or irrelevant, and "he did it again" in London against Howell (not even a top10 player). One doesn't have to be Kramnik to notice this, but it might mean more to him than to others!?
How may Kramnik have arrived at his statement? Let's have a look at all games between Kramnik and Carlsen in 2009:
Carlsen-Kramnik 0-1(20, Amber blindfold): "Carlsen played like a child"
Kramnik-Carlsen 1/2(60, Amber rapid): Kramnik was pressing for a victory
Carlsen-Kramnik 1/2(19, Dortmund): Kramnik equalized quickly with dynamic play, and Carlsen bailed out with a perpetual
Kramnik-Carlsen 1-0(36, Dortmund): Carlsen was outplayed in complications
Carlsen-Kramnik 1/2(58, Tal Memorial): again it was Kramnik playing for a win and (at least subjectively) coming close
OK, then Carlsen won three games, two in blitz and one in London. But they postdated Kramnik's statement, "blitz is blitz" (and Kramnik is unlikely to repeat his dodgy Scandinavian at other occasions), and one classical game in London cannot erase a pattern - unless it's confirmed in the future.
Bottom line: Kramnik may well have a point (indeed more or less acknowledged by Carlsen himself), at least his statement doesn't necessarily mean that "Kasparov's being involved with Carlsen ... cloud[s] Kramnik's judgment".
"Statistics can always be "tailored to one's needs". Why did you omit Carlsen-Aronian 0-1? I guess it was an oversight rather than anything deliberate, but that game (Linares 2009) was quite revealing: Carlsen playing white was under pressure for the whole game, and then failed to hold an inferior but drawn rook endgame"
I picked the top ten of January 2009 (as I wrote) and Aronian wasn't there. If one would include also him Carlsen would "only" have +8 against the top players (while Anand would get a minus score instead of +1). After Linares Carlsen has played much better chess than he did the first two months of the year though, and I don't know how revealing the Linares game was with regards to the relation between Carlsen and Aronian, career wise Carlsen has a plus. Maybe it was just one of those things that happen now and then.
If Kramnik had said that Topalov is slightly worse than him, Anand and Carlsen, certainly his judgment would have been clouded by the events in Elista and Topalov's later conduct? And if he had said the same thing about Anand, sour grapes after Bonn? And what about Aronian? What does he have against Aronian?
Surely it's possible for Kramnik to simply have a genuine opinion. Perhaps one of the greatest active players in the world might even know what he is talking about to some extent? Also note that the statement was made before London.
But "I have my own rating and I know what ELO numbers each player should actually have" is a pretty amusing statement regardless.
Yep, things work out fine for Carlsen ,:) : Aronian was #11 on the Jan2009 list (one point behind "visitor" Movesesian), Shirov (against whom he lost a crucial last-round game at MTel) was #12, Wang Yue was #13.
Even if Carlsen has an overall positive score against Carlsen by some criteria [Chessgames.com has +12=19-7 in favor of Aronian - all time controls mixed], "revealing" just referred to Carlsen's occasional weakness in the endgame.
There are two problems with your statistics:
1) Does it make sense to limit things to one snapshot of the top10? That way, Carlsen's Tal Memorial wins against Svidler (peak #8 on the live rating list) and Ponomariov (peak #11) don't count. Of course Carlsen may have comparable results against "the top of the subtop" ... .
2) It is easier to get a higher plus score (in absolute numbers) playing more events. In 2009, Carlsen was "always" invited - Anand, Topalov and Kramnik played less for various reasons:
- Anand and Topalov have a forthcoming match and tend to avoid each other recently
- Kramnik took a fatherhood break, and is less likely to be invited to "Danailov events" (MTel, Nanjing).
Of course it IS an achievement for Carlsen to play at a constant high level (only one outlier, a positive one in Nanjing). But is it solid evidence that he will necessarily play better at the candidates event - which includes all but one (winner of Anand-Topalov) of the other top players?
"Surely it's possible for Kramnik to simply have a genuine opinion"
Yes, but the "people speak so much about him because he found a sponsor"-talk is a long way from the Federer of chess days (especially coming the month after Nanjing). Maybe Kasparov has nothing to do with that but I wouldn't rule it out either.
K's remarks are interesting, and the chessic opinions of such a player must always be treated with respect. Like others have remarked, I think it is actually a compliment to Carlsen that Kramnik thinks he and a few others play better. If Carlsen can get these results now, and still have room for improvement and more experience, (which he very likely will achieve, especially with coach what's-his-name, and his own dedication)...god knows what kind of chess machine we will have in a few years...visions of Godzilla
I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised if Carlsen himself thought he is still worse than at least Kramnik and Anand. In fact, that is what I think he thinks -- but I could be wrong.
"Does it make sense to limit things to one snapshot of the top10?"
No, but I picked the list after noticing that the others in the top to a much larger extent had wins against players far below the top ten. Of Topalov's nine wins three came against Kamsky, one each against Adams and Wang Yue, of Anand's six wins three came against Macieja, Stellwagen and Wang Yue, of Kramnik's nine wins only four came against players higher rated than Short, etc. Against the other top players they mainly drew, while Carlsen scored lots of wins against them (including 4-1 against A-T-K).
"Of course it IS an achievement for Carlsen to play at a constant high level (only one outlier, a positive one in Nanjing). But is it solid evidence that he will necessarily play better at the candidates event"
Definitely not, the candidates minimatches can be won by any of the top players, it is so even between them. Carlsen may be the best player in the world today, but that doesn't guarantee anything in such an event, and the last leg of the Candidates is scheduled for 2011 when someone else could play better than him.
At first I dismissed Kramnik's comments about sponsors and talking about Carslen as just getting carried away in an interview - but if you look at the year the sponsorship/hype over working with Kasparov does seem to have made a huge difference to the perception of Carslen.
Right up to Dortmund he had a pretty average year. Despite Anand, Kramnik & Topalov being absent he came 5th at Corus. With one of those players present he didn't win Linares or the MTel Masters, then came joint second in Dortmund. All good results, preserving a rating in the 2770s, but nothing to write home about.
Then we had the announcement and PR blitz over Kasparov helping him (& the new sponsor) - followed by Nanjing where, for all the praise Carlsen deserves, his opponents seemed to be affected by the hype (or perhaps it's something to do with playing in China - Topalov had a similar result the year before). That boosted his rating and ensured the hype kept going. In a way Moscow and London were an anticlimax (in Moscow he was forgiven his drawish play in rounds 2-8 because of illness), though the last two rounds in Moscow and first two in London ensured Carlsen kept up his Nanjing rating.
I'm not disputing Carlsen's the one young player who definitely looks like a future champion, but I do think if the cooperation with Kasparov had just been kept quiet people wouldn't be talking about him quite so much now. So Kramnik might have had a point, of sorts :)
In today's Chessvibes interview Gashimov says that he hopes to be #1 in a year or two, so Carlsen should look out... Speaking of Gashimov, he's a nice fellow and all that, but doesn't Linares 2010 look rather weak? The six participants:
Vallejo - 6th start, always last or 0.5 from last
Gelfand - 7th start, no top six finish after 1990
Gashimov - debutant in these environments
Grischuk - sensational winner last year but not now
Topalov - two months before the title match...
Aronian - should be the big favourite
Sorry, again three caveats to the selective and suggestive picture you paint:
1) Wang Yue is clearly not "far below the top ten" - he was #13 in Jan 2009, he will almost certainly be #8 in Jan 2010. He may not have potential for more (top 5 = serious WCh contender), but at the very least he is solid and hard to beat.
2) Once again, Carlsen had more wins against top ten players at least partly because he had more games against such opposition. And 4-1 against A-T-K looks impressive, but if we correct for the fact that Topalov always had trouble playing Carlsen, it burns down to 2-1 against A-K.
3) Implicitly you criticize other players for participating in "weaker" events and beating lower-rated opponents, rather than limiting themselves to Linares and MTel-type competitions.
Anand's wins against Stellwagen and Macieja are from the German Bundesliga. Carlsen played on the same team and had two wins against Maiwald(2508) and Socko(2631) - same season 2008/2009 but last calendar year. Certainly they (or Svidler and Shirov from the same team) aren't weaker players because they show up for such games, are clear ELO favorites, and generally live up to the expectation??
In 2009, Anand also beat Radjabov, Svidler and Leko. Topalov beat Ivanchuk twice, Jakovenko and Leko.
The point was that a huge majority of Carlsen's wins (and plus score in 2009) came against players with a rating far higher than 2700, while a comparatively large percentage of the other top players' wins came against much lower rated opponents. Anand isn't a weaker player for beating Stellwagen (from what was a lost position at some point) but the fact that he didn't score wins against top players in the same way Carlsen did might be seen as a sign that Carlsen was better in 2009.
"4-1 against A-T-K looks impressive, but if we correct for the fact that Topalov always had trouble playing Carlsen, it burns down to 2-1 against A-K"
Yes, if we correct for the fact that Topalov has problems against Carlsen and that he only scored 2-1 against A-K, and don't look at their scores against the other top players, it gets more and more possible that Carlsen isn't on the same level as A-T-K :-)
"I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised if Carlsen himself thought he is still worse than at least Kramnik and Anand. In fact, that is what I think he thinks -- but I could be wrong."
-Actually, this was Carlsen's very own words about 1 year ago. (In an interview somewhere).
----------
Is Carlsen top 7, top 5, top 3 or allready #1?
IMHO this is a quite academic question because he is still very young, and he is still in heavy development. Those of you who wants to question Carlsens strength, you better hurry up now. Because within a few years there will be not much left to discuss in this matter ;-)
I must say that very few of Thomas' arguments in this particular discussion strike me as making sense. pb is perfectly right, and everything taken together Carlsen probably had a better year than everybody else. Of course there are more sides of the coin, but there are valid reasons to consider him the strongest player right now, although I'd say that it's so even in the top that it's meaningless to name one as "strongest" or any of the top 4 or 5 as definitely "weaker".
The thing is that Kramnik probably doesn't make an elaborate statistical analysis when he judges the strength of various players. He probably just looks at the play itself, tries to apply his feeble 2800-ish understanding on them and draws conclusions from that. Ultimately though, I would personally say that it's the actual results that count.
"Actually, this was Carlsen's very own words about 1 year ago. (In an interview somewhere)."
I know, and I think frogbert said it was still his opinion much more recently (correct me if I'm wrong). But at some point I'm sure he won't say that any more.
What? If you take the good results and remove some of them, then the rest does not look quite so good. Does this not make sense?
My original point was not whether Kramnik is right or wrong - only whether there is any evidence at all for his statement. If there is any such evidence, pb's quip "I wonder if Kasparov's being involved with Carlsen doesn't cloud Kramnik's judgment a bit" seems, IMO, a bit simplistic and disrespectful to Kramnik and his 2800-ish (or make it 2750-ish) understanding of chess.
Next I used my own 2000-ish or 1950-ish chess understanding searching for Kramnik's underlying reasons, and found two lines of evidence:
- Carlsen's games against Kramnik this year, looking beyond the naked results. Actually Kramnik's loss against Carlsen in London might even reflect that Kramnik was too ambitious and in a way underestimated his opponent: "good ol' Drawnik" might have chosen safer continuations?!
- Carlsen's apparent weakness in some endgames: I will leave it open if that is due to lack of specific chess understanding, lack of concentration or lack of patience (blitzing out moves when he should have thought for a few minutes instead).
Pb may well be overall right, I just pointed out what I consider flaws in his arguments:
- neglecting Aronian because he was #11(2750) in the Jan 2009 list just behind Movsesian (2751)
- considering Wang Yue as "far below the top ten"
- mentioning Anand's Bundesliga wins against Macieja and Stellwagen. If he hadn't played that team event, the argument would be gone - and Carlsen didn't even play many such opponents (he had a chance for 2500ish or 2600ish opposition at the European Team Championship ...)
"it's the actual results that count"
Even from that perspective, Kramnik need not consider himself inferior to Carlsen. He played less, but finished ahead of Carlsen 2/3 times - including Tal Memorial, THE tournament of the year. If Carlsen still has an edge, then due to Nanjing - but it seems this was an outlier (an existing concept in statistical analysis).
"My original point was not whether Kramnik is right or wrong - only whether there is any evidence at all for his statement. If there is any such evidence, pb's quip "I wonder if Kasparov's being involved with Carlsen doesn't cloud Kramnik's judgment a bit" seems, IMO, a bit simplistic and disrespectful to Kramnik and his 2800-ish (or make it 2750-ish) understanding of chess."
It's obvious that there is evidence for Kramnik's statement, and I agree about simplistic and disrespectful - maybe not the latter per se, but considering it was pb who said it, I think disrespect must be part of it.
""it's the actual results that count"
Even from that perspective, Kramnik need not consider himself inferior to Carlsen."
That's exactly what I'm debating, much because of Carlsen's excellent statistics against the other top players and Kramnik's much less good so.
"Carlsen's excellent statistics against the other top players and Kramnik's much less good so"
Make it "less good so" at least. It would be odd indeed not to count Aronian, and Jakovenko, for instance, has slipped.
"Carlsen's excellent statistics against the other top players and Kramnik's [much] less good so"
And this in turn hinges a lot on Carlsen's Nanjing result. If we look at rating gains and losses for both throughout 2009 (obviously Carlsen's list is longer):
Carlsen - Corus -6, Linares 0, MTel +8, Dortmund 0, Nanjing +29, Tal Memorial +5, London +4
Kramnik - Dortmund +13, Tal Memorial +14, London +2
Of course there are some caveats (Carlsen started from, and maintained a higher ELO level). But at face value, the current gap of 22 points between them is "only due to Nanjing".
I do not want to ignore or "erase" Carlsen's Nanjing result, but slightly attenuate its importance or representativity (does this word exist in English?). It may have been a combination of excellent form and a "psychological Garry effect" on his opponents - both are or appear to be transient features.
Sure. It was the opinion of more than just one strong player that Carlsen didn't really play that extremely well in Nanjing, but that the others didn't play too well either. I can't judge that, I have to go by the results. Regardless, I wouldn't be too tempted to dismiss one of the greatest tournament results of at least the last couple of decades. And even without Nanjing, he would be +1 against both Topalov and Anand.
Today I specialize in replies to pb, let's tackle Gashimov and Linares. My comments on the six participants:
Vallejo - It is common to have a local wildcard. Shirov was the alternative, but maybe the organizers wanted a native Spaniard. He is clear outsider, but have a look at this game from Linares 2006:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1397873
Gelfand - clearly a very weak player, as his rating demonstrates. Those whom he beat, directly or indirectly, at the World Cup must have been even weaker (indeed they were rating-wise). End of irony - BTW he last played Linares in 1997, not too relevant for his current form.
Gashimov - it is high time for his supertournament debut, which is overdue compared to some others who already had or get such a chance (e.g. Dominguez, Nakamura). And while he is new to Linares, he already played GP events which aren't that much weaker.
Grischuk - did you predict his victory last year? Did "we" (chess fans and experts) predict it? Last time he was a last-minute replacement for Topalov who had commitments in Sofia. Now in any case, it makes sense to re-invite last year's winner
Topalov and Aronian - no comments needed
BTW, Kramnik had mentioned that he would "tentatively" play Linares, but now he doesn't. I wonder if the Corus and Linares organizers split the top5 between them because they couldn't accomodate or afford all of them. Now Carlsen, Anand and Kramnik play Corus, Topalov and Aronian play Linares. And actually there is ZERO overlap between both tournament fields!?
Gashimov suffered from a long illness - some sort of epilepsy, I think - which they only got under control some four or five years ago. Since then his advance has been pretty consistent. I'm quite interested to see him play at this kind of level.
Trouble is there's only four big draws in chess; Carlsen, Kramnik, Anand and Topalov, and they only have one of them.
Carlsen was originally considering to play in Linares, but decided to choose between that and Amber, essentially. Playing in all three (with Corus) was considered too much and this way he has a break between Corus and Amber. This is all part of his professionalization, taking his results and his training more seriously, giving himself time to rest and learn between events. Dropping the Euro Teams as well.
As much as we'd like to see the top guys in every event, you can't have it both ways. New blood and variety are important as well. Personally, I get tired of every event trying to be Linares. So I don't mind this year's Linares not exactly being Linares. Nobody would complain about having Carlsen or Kramnik instead of Gashimov, but let's have some fun and see other players. Let the world championship be the world championship.
We used to talk about having both Kasparov and Karpov in an event. Then it was getting Kasparov, Anand, and Kramnik. Now you have to increase that to Anand, Kramnik, Topalov, Carlsen, and Aronian? Doesn't leave much room! And, as I think someone mentioned above, it doesn't leave much room in the budget. The guys who are bigger draws tend to charge accordingly. The drawback of parity at the top and so many former world champions (with or without asterisks) is that these titles increase their rates, perhaps unrealistically. Corus has never paid particularly well and it's not a luxury spot like Monaco/Nice; it's a prestige event for chess reasons. But playing both there and Linares is pretty rough going.
"pb's quip "I wonder if Kasparov's being involved with Carlsen doesn't cloud Kramnik's judgment a bit" seems, IMO, a bit simplistic and disrespectful to Kramnik and his 2800-ish (or make it 2750-ish) understanding of chess.""
"considering it was pb who said it, I think disrespect must be part of it"
My impression is that Kramnik is a bit irritated with Kasparov and that this shows now and then, from the "Magnus' trainer had clearly not done enough work" interview in the Tal Memorial, to the one where he claimed that he had beaten Kasparov's eight (it is nine) Linares titles with his nine in Dortmund. And, maybe, when he says that people talk so much about Carlsen because he found a sponsor, and that he isn't as strong as the top three. Almost two years ago Kramnik said that Carlsen was in no way inferior to the top players, and since then he has improved enormously. Kasparov's 2851 judgment of Radjabov may have been clouded by Linares 2003, by the way. People don't stop being subjective when they reach a certain rating, and I don't think for example Kasparov would get more positive towards Radjabov's play if he was trained by Kramnik.
pb, I'm not saying you can't have a point. But I am saying that you have a strong tendency to look for negative things to say about Kramnik.
Personally I do think this idea is a little far-fetched regardless. He's not really saying anything that he didn't say before the Kasparov-Carlsen collaboration became known (I suspect Kramnik knew about it before they actually went public with it, but still). Now if you are saying that Carlsen has improved significantly since that, sure, based on the results it's possible, but it should be clear that Kramnik doesn't equate strength and results.
Exactly.
I mentioned financial aspects, and the Corus organizers stated (I think about a year ago) that Anand, Kramnik and Topalov are twice as expensive as any other player. Saving money last year (when none of them participated) may have been welcome in the financial crisis, or may have partly gone into a very strong B event: three Kasimdzhanov's for the prize of one Kramnik? I presume Kasim's (ex-)WCh title is worth less, also financially spoken.
Makes me wonder: Is Aronian THAT far behind? What is Carlsen's market value today? Not only has his rating gone up, but his coach may also be a bit of a financial advisor - maybe the decision to drop out of the Euro Teams was also motivated or at least facilitated by the fact that he would have received nothing but travel expenses from the Norwegian federation?
Back to Linares: A tournament with the #s 2,5,6,7 and 14 from the current live rating list isn't that weak either. Let's not debate the Vallejo wildcard, all the others deserve to be there or at any other top event. "Gashimov is a debutant" is a non-argument IMO, everyone has to make his debut some time - unless it would be "either as a teenager, or not at all" ... (Gashimov is 23 years old).
So while I agree with Mig that I would like to see Carlsen or Kramnik, I would actually complain a bit if Gashimov was neglected or forgotten once again - he doesn't per se HAVE TO play Linares, but he should play one if not several top events next year. "Drop Vallejo" would be an unfair request to the organizers - after all they also cater to a local audience and rely on Spanish sponsor money!
""Gashimov is a debutant" is a non-argument IMO, everyone has to make his debut some time"
I'm glad they invited Gashimov, who is a nice guy, but I wonder if he will live up to his current rating, gained against weaker players. Of his 20 wins in 2009 only one came against 2700 opposition - Shirov (when he scored his fourth loss in a row in the Poikovsky tournament that Motylev won after beating Gashimov). But he played well in a couple of the Grand Prix events in 2008, so who knows. Gelfand is another player it is nice to see invited, at the same time as he rarely scores well in top tournaments like Linares (Mexico 2007 one exception). Only six players this year, too...
Carlsen, Anand and Ivanchuk played Linares three years in a row but none of them this year. The latter may be below Gelfand and Gashimov on the rating list at the moment, but I'll miss him as well as Carlsen and Kramnik. And Anand, even if I'd just as well see someone else than both him and Topalov given the circumstances. A couple of months before the match things easily end up as the did for Anand in Bilbao. But I'll support Gashimov and Grischuk, and I suppose all participants can't underperform :-)
Not quite true that Gashimov obtained his current rating _only_ against weaker players: In 2008 (mostly the GP events you mentioned) he beat Mamedyarov, Kamsky, Shirov, Grischuk, Svidler, Eljanov, Ponomariov, Grischuk again. His rather meaningless results against other Linares participants: one draw each against Aronian and Gelfand, no games against Topalov.
In 2009 he didn't beat many 2700 players for lack of opportunities. Notably, at the European Team Championship he played (very well) on board 2 behind Radjabov. BTW, the Azeri hierarchy has changed, Gashimov will be first board at the upcoming World Team Championship - his likely opponents include Morozevich, Gelfand, Aronian and Nakamura.
Anyway, it's a common pattern: usually first you cross 2700 beating weaker players (in opens and second-tier events such as Poikovsky), then you get the chance and obligation to defend your rating against the world (sub)top. As I wrote before, this "step2" is overdue in Gashimov's case.
I'd wish Linares would go back to 14 participants, or at least 10. The big names may get headlines, but in the end you get very little actual chess for the money. If they want to save, can't they organize a tournament where they invite #11-#24 ?
"Not quite true that Gashimov obtained his current rating _only_ against weaker players"
No, but he wasn't top 30 on the last rating list of 2008 and it is after that the big rating jump occured. The future will show if his quick ascent to 6th gives his "real" world ranking at the moment or if he has done a Mamedyarov (4th in January 2007, but dropped quite a bit after playing some top events and probably never even close to being a top five player "for real"). But ranking #6-10 is just as tricky as ranking #1-5.
You may be right about Gashimov's future, but I think you paint a misleading picture of his recent past (sorry, I have a habit to double-check statistics by other people, also in my professional life).
Snapshots of his rating:
Jan 2008 - 2665
Jan 2009 - 2723
Nov 2009 - 2758
October 2008 was an intermittent low due to one bad tournament, then he was indeed #31 one point behind Nakamura (another rising star, but he has stopped rising for the time being). Gashimov was already #20 on the July 2008 list.
If a player gains 58 points in one year, by definition he plays above his "official" level - and that was largely due to the GP events. If, hypothetically, Gashimov had played similar events this year, why should he have done worse?
Actually, Gashimov also beat Gelfand in the Spanish League this year (not mentioned on chessgames.com where I first checked, but on the FIDE rating site).
BTW: "Mamedyarov currently seems to be doing another Mamedyarov" - he is back to #10 on the live rating list, due to his results at the European Team Championship (board 4!) and at the World Cup (efficiently beating lower-rated opponents before Karjakin stopped him).
"October 2008 was an intermittent low due to one bad tournament, then he was indeed #31 one point behind Nakamura (another rising star, but he has stopped rising for the time being). Gashimov was already #20 on the July 2008 list"
Yes, and he was #49 on the list before that (and never top 40 before July 2008, when he was 22 years old). His qualitative leap has been amazing since then. It's good to see Gashimov get the chance in Linares, even if I do think the event is slightly weaker than usual. After three years in a row with eight players, including Carlsen-Anand-Ivanchuk (but not Vallejo), six players and this field seems less Linares than usual to me, also considering that Topalov probably won't be playing his best chess just before the match.
Gelfand's latest starts were as far back as 1993, 1994 and 1997, and maybe one shouldn't still hold it against him that he finished 13th, 11th and 7-8th back then. Aronian has finished behind Carlsen three years in a row. Grischuk won last year, but then many thought he wasn't even good enough to be among the eight participants. Aronian should be the favourite, I think, but now that he won't get that free point against Anand anything can happen...
Have no enough money to buy some real estate? You not have to worry, because that is achievable to get the loan to resolve such kind of problems. So get a short term loan to buy all you want.