Airport Delay Dortmund Blogging

@ Naiditsch may have tried a surprise

It looks like that, he gambled on Mamed playing 12..Qe7 as Kaspy, he did not have anything new (and strong) for 12..d5.
A poor bet (since the Topalov-Kasparov/1996 game is a very known game) which got called off.

Impressive the 21 moves walk by Ponomariov over Kramnik. Or it may be that Kramnik is playing in his new style ?
As he put it in his last "thx mishanp" :

"I’ve become cleverer: before I’d waste a lot of strength and energy, while now I use it more efficiently. As a result I actually get less tired during tournaments, and the quality of my play isn’t inferior to before. So I confess that I don’t yet feel the onset of old age"

Then he shuold play poker and gamble not play chess. Who want him to be general of army.

You can say your score sheet are secret code. You can say ecellency will attack from space ship. You can yell look out from flying penis. You can say you beat master and show how you are master beater. You can say Mr. Mig is frend. Well mabe not good idear that one.

Interesting. Was it a digital or analog clock?

Analog...And they kept asking me why my opponent's time stops while it is my turn to make a move!

Makes interesting food for thought...an explosive clock..might fix time management problems once and for all if the thing explodes when you flag.

Le may have just missed with 37..f7, 37..Rxh4 38.gxh4 f5 wins

Leko is a 2700 "tourist". How he ever played for a WC is beyond me except that Kramnik was too scared to play Kasparov again.

You are asking important questions, I M Stupid. Surely, such information would keep us far more important about the real state of affairs among the players than the routine pedantry of game analysis.

I think he qualified by winning the very strong Dortmund qualifier.

Leko is not a tourist, but a permanent resident in the 2700+ zone. Why he played a WCh match? He won the qualifier (Dortmund 2002) finishing ahead of Adams and Morozevich in the group phase, then winning his matches against Shirov and Topalov.

His recent results suggest that he might gradually fall out of the world top - like Adams did - but that's no reason to question or minimize his past achievements.

And I cant even spell your name correctly!

I agree with you Thomas. Leko is a great player and his games are excellent sources of study. He has an uncanny positional sense and is one of the toughest defenders in the game today. He does play very steady chess but he lacks the poison and risk-taking which other more aggressive players in his class have, which make the percentage of his draws greater than that of other players in the highest echelon of the game. Still, there are few players who can play with the same strategical depth and insight as can Leko.

Quite right you are, noyb.
Leko got there the same way that "tourist" Khalifman got the FIDE title - by winning a random knockout event. A randomness that Kasparov refused to countenance.

(Agree with you also, noyb, on your postings in other threads regarding Ilyumzhinov.)

They walked around a lot. Caruana and Giri wore T shirts and sneakers, the others business-like clothes. None wore a soccer dress with name on it. I didn't take a close look of their pens, but Vachier-Lagrave obviously had his lucky escape one (remember last year against Morozevich?) with him.

Correct, but can we blame Leko (or Kramnik) that Kasparov didn't bother trying to qualify, but instead insisted on an automatic rematch? Rematches happened in the 20th century, but not in the current one - even though Topalov also wants to revive that "tradition".

Anyways, the issue wasn't whether Leko was a worthy WCh challenger (he did beat everyone else who was interested), but if he deserves his 2700+ rating. If noyb calls him a 2700 tourist, he seems to live in a different world where holidays can last for more than 10 years ... .

Such people never retire, they only "go on strike" indefinitely if their conditions and egocentrism are met with refusal. Just like Bobby.

Kasparov is pretty stalking much around, coaching Magnus, helping Anand prepare openings, pushing Karpov for FIDE presidency.
One can safely assume that if Karpov succeeds this will mean too a golden opportunity for Garry to settle some old scores and grudges.

We need a chess president so that we have another face to put on a chess-themed postage stamp in fifteen years.

Looking forward to it as usual! ,:) Actually Le Quang Liem has already won two games - against Leko and (before) Ponomariov.

Good point! He's won two in a row and is half a point ahead of Kramnik...

Ok sorry. I go away for two months.

Now you are offering us "live translations" !
I agree with the guy who suggested that Mig adds to his blog an Java-applet button with "thanks mishanp" so we won't have to type it each time :)

If Kramnik should win today (with black), it means two in a row and 1/2 point ahead of Le Quang Liem - who will probably still be the happier one regarding the tournament as a whole ... ,:)

Thank you.

You beat me with this remark - but for the time being, black can ignore the white knight on d6 which looks beautiful but doesn't threaten much (f7 seems securely defended).

In any case, Ponomariov's dose of Catalan medicine was more bitter for Kramnik - indeed deadly, so the metaphor may be questionable?

it seems that Kramnik has just screwed it with 26..Bxd6, missing the intermediary 27.Rb3!

26..Qb2 (attacking the e5 and e2 pawns) 27.Rc5 Qxe2 28.Qd1 Qxd1 29.Rxd1 Rd7 was equalizing completely

Or Kramnik knows what he's doing? Shipov (in mishanp's translation) says that "black's chances of a draw are very close to 100%".

Today it seemed to be mostly home preparation!? As a matter of fact by whom? As far as I know Le's coach is Bareev, formerly second of Kramnik ..... .

it was up 21..c4, I don't think that all was prep, 24.Rd3 was not that good, Shipov suggests 21.Qe4 followed by Rc6

This would actually confirm what I wrote - today Le's home preparation was fine, his play over the board was "not that good" or rather 'not as good'!? Even though Shipov initially considered 24.Rd3 "also a good, flexible move", and only in hindsight, after Kramnik's simplifying queen sacrifice, (again) preferred his own 24.Qe4.

Basically this only means that, on a relative scale(!), today Le was less impressive than during his wins against Ponomariov and Leko - when he outplayed his opponents in technical positions while both are or were (Leko?!) specialists in that kind of chess.

I shouldn't really be promoting the competition :), but Landa's commentary on the game is here: http://chesspro.ru/chessonline/onlines/index_3256.html He mentions at the end that Le had just walked into the press centre and he wanted to go over and thank him for bringing the game to an end so quickly :)

Interestingly Landa's not sure that Kramnik's queen sacrifice was planned (rather than a complete oversight). The NYTimes has the same: http://gambit.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/21/two-draws-and-a-blunder-in-dortmund/ "Kramnik never seemed in any trouble until he miscalculated and allowed his queen to be trapped in the middle of the board." Though Kramnik's position was clearly tricky and if the queen sac was a blunder the speed with which Kramnik played the moves suggests he's a very good bluffer :) My money's on him having seen the line and known it was an easy draw (i.e. Shipov's version).

That's right - sorry for the ambiguity!

He wrote: "I'll go and thank the Vietnamese [player] for deciding not to torture either Vladimir, or your commentator - he's just come into the press centre now".

"Though Kramnik's position was clearly tricky and if the queen sac was a blunder the speed with which Kramnik played the moves suggests he's a very good bluffer :)"

What moves? What led me to think it was an oversight was that if the relay was OK he played the two preceding moves quickly and then thought for about 4 minutes before playing ..Qxb3 even though it was forced. Not an eternity of course, and it doesn't hurt to double-check stuff, but it gave the impression that he was surprised. You don't really expect your queen to be trapped on an open board like that.

@Interestingly Landa's not sure that Kramnik's queen sacrifice was planned (rather than a complete oversight)

that was my impression too during the game because the simpler 26..Qb2! would have equalized fully, so why playing 26..Bxd6 and going for the trickier Q-sacrifice ?

Interesting! I guess my sense of the game was a bit warped by the fact that I was just waiting for Shipov's updates and then translating - so it seemed to me that the moves came all at once, but if he did think for 4 minutes... As you say, it's quite amazing that the queen got trapped where it did.

It's a shame that there's been no-one interviewing the players. Today seems to have been the first effort by the official site!? Vasiliev isn't there for Chesspro, though you'd think Landa could add something (except that the on-line commentary takes up so much effort that you can understand him just wanting to relax afterwards...).

Yeah, true, there was 27..Bb4. I remember looking at it now, but I thought it seemed rather clearly bad. But as I said, you can afford spending a few minutes. Personally I would be scared to death that the pawn endgame White can force by 29.Qxa8 Qxb4 30.Rc8 is just winning.

One where black doesn't play -d5 for the time being, AKA Queen's Indian Defense ... ,:)

@What is the idea behind ...a5?

the idea "would have been" (rather than "is") had Black continued after a5,Na6 with c5, d5 (cxd5 exd5) Na6-Nac7-Ne6 and Re8- resulting in an often seen set-up

however after a5,Na6 Pono reverted to the standard QID plan with Ne4/f5, and in this set-up the a5/Na6 isn't quite right.

Pono is playing a "hybrid" of the d5 and f5 plans/set-ups to control the e4 square

I'm glad I'm not translating Shipov live today as there seems to have been a technical hitch on move 7 (no more commentary) - but what he'd managed to type was:

7. Re1 I move I used to play in my time. White temporarily holds back from the move Nb1-c3, to avoid exchange variations after the reply Nf6-e4! White's plan is the same as before: to seize the centre with pawns.
7...a5 In essence, a waiting move.

Though looking at the position now Nc3 & Ne4 both happened anyway!

it is an interesting game of trying to out-witt the other with transpositions

"a5" is useful if Black continues with d5 and c5 since the resulting pawn structure (after cxd5-exd5 and dxc5-bxc5) position is that with c5&d5 "hanging pawns" (as in QGD-Tartakover). In such postions White tries to undermine the c5&d5 hangig pawns with b4 (amd/or e4 if possible) and then the "a5" is useful to prevent b4 (or, if White manages b4 nonetheless) to get rid of the weak a5(a7) pawn after axb4 ( a5 is played "automatically" for this reason in QGD-Tartakver).

That's (maybe) why Kramnik played a3 after Pono's a5, that is Kramnik was anticipating the c5&d5-hanging pawns structure but, alas!, after Kramnik's Nc3 Pono "reverted" to the Ne4/f5.

It is a "subtle" game of playing with transpositions.

In the meantime, Shipov's full commentary is up - at the end, he mentions "unusual heat and disruptions to the Internet".

It is not completely clear to me what Shipov wants to say in his introduction (Google-translated): "After today's party opponents in the first round , I said that we should invite Kasparov - to restore order. And depending on Kramnik , will it be great predecessor to return to the chess ...". He seems to refer to the first game between Kramnik and Ponomariov, then he wrote something like 'once upon a time both players were at the same level, then a gap emerged'. Would Russia need Kasparov's comeback to reclaim superiority over Ukraine?

Yep, that's he what he was referring to. By the way there should be a full translation of today's game here soon: http://www.danamackenzie.com/blog/

Thanks, it seems that I was on the right track!? It is unclear whether Shipov is serious (probably not), and what of the following deceives or annoys him most:
- Kramnik's poor form in Dortmund
- that Kasparov quit chess, and/or
- that Kasparov became a (would-be?!) politician

it was a tricky drawing combination

It may rather be that
- Dortmund is the last in a series of top events (this year including a WCh match) and falls into the holiday period.
- some people have prejudices about the event which they like to see confirmed, this can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

True, with the exception of Kramnik there are no players that have lots of fans as well as detractors/enemies (Carlsen, Ivanchuk, Nakamura, Topalov) - and Kramnik's performance is neither good nor, at least compared to Leko, bad enough to make either group happy ... .

Taking the players one by one:
Ponomariov - current TPR 2871, nuff said
Le Quang Liem - a more than successful debut at the highest level (in general, the organizers should be praised for the Aeroflot qualifier spot)
Mamedyarov - good or bad, there is always something happening in his games, sometimes with a touch of Ivanchuk's madness: resigning against Ponomariov which puzzled even his opponent, blundering against Naiditsch
Kramnik - cf. above
Naiditsch - struggling as usual, even though he won the event once (and he doesn't get to show the rather entertaining chess he often plays against somewhat weaker opponents)
Leko - sad result even for those who don't like him (but someone has to be the tailender, not necessarily the lowest-rated player)

BTW, in the picture of Karpov's press conference
http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6538
do we know the guy second from left (black T-shirt, undefined hair color)?

Sjw, great idea and execution! Though just in case any men in white coats knock on the front door you might want to take a brisk stroll out a back window :)

From 1907: "The idea of an international chess committee, or perhaps federation, seems most promising, and designed to assure the smooth administration of the world's championship. After two decades of squabbles and contentious negotiations between champions, challengers, and potential challengers, how could an international federation possibly do any worse?"

I'm also curious what will become of the tactically astute Herr Fritz - will he meet his match in an enigmatic Frenchman called Monsieur Petite Poisson...

I don't think I'll have time (I'm translating Shipov's commentary again tomorrow), but it looks like another fine FIDE mess. It's not clear if Dvorkovich and Ilyumzhinov already have some sort of agreement...

Chessdom were very quick to publish some articles about how everything is going ahead in Baku, but the Azerbaijanis actually said that what's most important to them is having a nominee i.e. they might be willing not to run the tournament. Though to add to the fun now Topalov's back claiming he was hard done by in Elista: http://letters.chessdom.com/topalov-candidate-matches (which maybe explains Chessdom's take)

Chessbase have also just published this: http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6541 Though as of now the "video on Planet Kirsan" link goes to the wrong place - so it's better to find it within the interview they mention :)

p.s. and sorry Monsieur Petite, or rather, Petit...

Thanks, mishanp-- very, very, much appreciated.

I really do love the old stuff in chess, and I had long thought about doing what I'm doing now. My biggest regret is that my own personal circumstances didn't allow me enough time for this sort of thing in (19)08 through early (19)10, as I missed the Lasker-Tarrasch match, the St.Petersburg 1909 tournament, and the Lasker-Schlechter match, among other big events. But there's lots of good stuff still to come-- the Hamburg tournament continues, Lasker and Janowsky are scheduled to play a championship match later "this" year, and I understand that young Master Capablanca may cross the ocean for the first time to compete at San Sebastian in 1911.

I had almost forgotten that I wrote the quote you cited about an international federation taking responsibility for the world championship, but one thing that has really struck me during my research is how the very same themes-- e.g., maladministration, multiple champions, too many draws, and playing chess via new technological means-- were just as prevalent 100 years ago as they are today. Gens una sumus.

As for Herr Fritz and his analytical prowess, I was actually thinking of introducing, at some point, a Miss Rybka, a young Russian prodigy with an exceptional talent for the game...

Finally, those with an interest in chess history (and/or those attempting to make sense of the foregoing paragraphs, which may seem like insane gibberish) are invited to visit oldinchess.blogspot.com for "the latest chess news from 100 years ago". Gotta go now, as the men in white coats are at my door. :)

-sjw
oldinchess.blogspot.com

Both mishanp and sjw deserve highest praise for what they do, and I hope they will eventually reap some financial rewards. A question to sjw though, shouldn't Miss Rybka be a young Polish prodigy rather than a Russian one? Although "ryba" == "рыба", some other circumstances suggest her Polish origin :)

You could well be right, Simple Pole. I'll look into it. Perhaps she's of mixed parentage...

Please bear in mind, though, that both my knowledge and technological skills are a century out of date-- and as for financial rewards, I've never reaped them from chess or anything else, so I'm quite unlikely to start now. Many thanks. though, for both your praise and your hope. :)

-sjw
oldinchess.blogspot.com

Missing from the picture is Sutovsky's open letter on proposed changes to the candidates matches:
http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/sutovsky-on-the-candidates-matches-change-the-regulations/ (previously published at Chessbase)
According to Sutovsky, he was "invited to meet FIDE President, Mr.Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, in order to discuss the situation with the Candidates Matches 2011", and Kirsan encouraged him to publish that open letter.
Basically, that proposal comes down to
- make the quarter- and semifinals six games instead of four, and
- make the final eight games, and organize it separately in September/October 2011.

One "advantage"(!!??) would be that time is gained to find a venue for a possible controversial final, either Topalov-Kramnik or Aronian-Radjabov/Mamedyarov (according to Chessdom, Mamedyarov is the Azeri wildcard and has signed a contract). These players couldn't meet at an earlier stage.

BTW, why should the Azeris keep their wildcard if they no longer organize the event? What's your source, mishanp? Would they still need to pay some sort of FIDE fee (bribe)?
In that case, it might make more sense to give the spot to Ponomariov who very narrowly lost the World Cup final against Gelfand - we would then get a first-round match Kramnik-Ponomariov ... .

I'm going to try and write something now on my site... (in summary, every's suddenly completely up in the air again!) For now I just "fast-tracked" my archiving of the interview with Aronian on playing in Baku that I translated a while ago: http://www.chessintranslation.com/2010/05/aronian-i-wont-travel-to-baku/

If it all moved to Russia then I'm sure the Russians would pay for it all - but personally I'd have thought it's completely unacceptable for FIDE to take the whole tournament away from them at this stage. So if they actually did it then I can well understand them keeping a nominee as "compensation". Anyway, back to the article...

Yes, the Azeris have allready transfered the €150,000 to FIDE, and they have signed a contract with Mamedyarov to be the wild card player. So the 8th spot of the Candidates is finally setled.

Probably, Azerbaijan is willing to give up running the tournament on home ground, because of Aronian's protests. Also, they save some money from not running the arangment (they lose the PR, though).

"Yes, the Azeris have allready transfered the €150,000 to FIDE, and they have signed a contract with Mamedyarov to be the wild card player"

OK, even more clear that there will be no changes with regards to at least that then.

You probably mean "completely unacceptable for Azerbaijan" (rather than FIDE)? This is the latest reaction (July 23rd = yesterday) from Mahir Mammadov, vice president of the Chess Federation of Azerbaijan (Google-translated):
"While difficult to say what may be the limit of compromise from our side. Is important for us as a venue for matches applicants and the availability of the nominee from Azerbaijan ."
http://www.extratime.az/article.php?aid=16645
Earlier he pointed out that Azerbaijan is supporting Ilyumzhinov in his FIDE presidential campaign ... .

@gg: I was slightly ambiguous in my previous post - "in that case" referred to the entire event being moved to Kazan. It seems that Russia wouldn't insist on an own wildcard (Grischuk? Karjakin?), then the decision should be up to FIDE rather than "Baku [un-invited] or Kazan". And Ponomariov would be a logical choice because he "almost qualified". It is, or should be irrelevant that he "isn't Azeri or Russian". - BTW, his upcoming Dortmund result would just be an additional and unrequired a posteriori justification, adding intrigue to a potential match against Kramnik.

To make things even more interesting, the Azeris want to use a more recent list than January 2010 to establish pairings of the candidates matches (see link above). Based on the July 2010 list, pairings would be(come)
Topalov-Kamsky
Carlsen-Gelfand
Kramnik-Radjabov
Aronian-Mamedyarov (bingo!)
[or Aronian-Radjabov if Kramnik falls behind Aronian, depending on his final Dortmund result]

"It seems that Russia wouldn't insist on an own wildcard (Grischuk? Karjakin?), then the decision should be up to FIDE rather than "Baku [un-invited] or Kazan". And Ponomariov would be a logical choice because he "almost qualified". It is, or should be irrelevant that he "isn't Azeri or Russian"."

It seems as if the Azeris already have paid for their spot, according to the rules, and a contract has been signed with Mamedyarov. If they would agree to have the whole event transferred to Kazan they could probably be allowed to do so, but they would hardly agree to give away their nomination.

Aronian said that he won't play in Azerbaijan, the Azeris said that if Aronian wouldn't play there they would accept that his half was played elsewhere, if I recall correctly.

"It seems as if the Azeris already have paid for their spot ..."
'It seems' "seems" correct - so far this was only stated at Chessdom, which has its own interests: if not pro-Azeri, they are pro-Topalov hence anti-Russian. Neither the money transfer nor the signed contract with Mamedyarov is mentioned by the Azeri source I gave!!??
But if the Azeris paid, of course they should get their money back under certain circumstances. Else, it comes down to spot #8 in the candidates event being based on money rather than merit - IMO still a sub-optimal situation, with the Azeri money constituting bribery.

Still odd that several things happened within a few days after months of relative silence:
- Chessdom being (mishanp's words) "very quick to publish some articles"
- Mamedarov reportedly signing a contract
- Sutovsky's open letter
- the Russian initiative to host part of the event in Kazan
Interestingly, Chessbase writes that "FIDE wants to move half the matches to Kazan in Russia". Do they have inside information? So far it seems nothing more than a Russian (Chess Federation) or Dvorkovich offer!?

How could I be so naive to expect clarification on the FIDE website? Headline news are Ilyumzhinov's visits to Zambia, Latin America and the Caribbean and meetings in Moscow - Sutovsky's name and picture is given, but not what the meeting was actually about ... .

Here's my take on the whole situation: http://www.chessintranslation.com/2010/07/candidates-matches-once-more-in-turmoil/

I thought I was going crazy with the Extratime interview, but it did indeed read differently the first time I looked at it :)

And in about an hour an a half I'll be doing something more fruitful, i.e. translating Shipov's commentary from Dortmund: http://www.chessintranslation.com/live-game/

It's Mamedyarov - Ponomariov, of course!

> And Ponomariov would be a logical choice because
> he "almost qualified".

Lol. You would make a good Kirsan successor. Give a spot to everyone who just crosses my mind, and don't care about petty regulations or details like who lost.

A SIDE NOTE:

Topalov's letter is obviously written by his manager Danailov. Such openly published letters are carefully authored. It is interesting then, that he dedicates a full paragraph repeating the same accusations against FIDE, as Team Karpov does:

Quote:
"I believe that it is a strategic mistake to stage almost all the cycle in one country. Four events of the FIDE Grand Prix, the World Cup, and now possibly Candidates Matches are in Russia. THIS TRANSMITS THE MESSAGE THAT FIDE CAN'T FIND SPONSORS AND ORGANIZERS FROM OTHER COUNTRIES, WHICH IS VERY SAD."

-Which makes me wonder Danailovs standing in the ongoing FIDE President election. He, himself is running for European Chess Union President. Till now Kirsan has got rather few European supporters. Maybe Danailov is sitting on the fence, waiting to take side, until the outcome becomes clearer?

In case you don't remember: The World Cup final between Gelfand and Ponomariov was tied after four classical games, four rapid games, two blitz games, then decided in two additional blitz games - while Gelfand obviously won in the end, it was a pretty close call.

Another possibility would be to give the spot to the #3 in the final Grand Prix standings - actually this had been speculated about - which happens to be Grischuk (interesting in the context of my forthcoming post).

"Giving a spot to someone crossing one's mind" might mean nominating a fan favorite, e.g. Ivanchuk or Nakamura, despite the fact that they didn't come close to qualifying or didn't even try (at the World Cup, Nakamura didn't participate and Ivanchuk was eliminated at an early stage).

Thanks again, I will comment here where the discussion is in full swing:

- The Azeris might get mad at both you and Google (for keeping an earlier version of the interview in their Cache). Strange that they (or he, Mamedov) got things "wrong" in the first version. Also slightly strange that the news agency accepted to change the content after initial publication!?

- As I just wrote, Grischuk might replace Aronian if the entire event is held in Baku and Levon refuses to participate - I guess he cannot "forget" his definite earlier statement, barring the rather unlikely case that Armenia and Azerbaijan suddenly sign a peace treaty? Then the Russian proposal can hardly be considered selfish, unless one really thinks that they spend much effort and money just to make Topalov feel (subjectively) uncomfortable ... .

- You correctly bring up the earlier UEP bid, but Topalov would also feel uncomfortable about matches organized by them given their ties with Kramnik. This could even be the actual reason why the UEP bid was rejected?? Well, Topalov feels perfectly comfortable with matches organized in Bulgaria ... .

I wondered about bringing up the cached version, but frankly it had already become public knowledge - e.g. e3e5.com (read by everyone interested in this sort of issue) still link to it with the original title: "For us it's more important to have the nominee" I didn't really check, but I'm sure it's e.g. found its way onto lots of forums.

Ok, now to concentrate on translating Shipov's commentary (for the final time at Dortmund). Last link of the day :) http://www.chessintranslation.com/live-game/

Ahh, it's *great* to see the Kramster finally do something else than the tired petroff. Here's hoping it's not a "special treat" reserved for his very good customer Naiditsch only.

Kramnik had already played the Pirc at Corus against Smeets, so it was no complete surprise for Naiditsch. He was successful then, but less successful at the Amber event (0.5/3 against Dominguez, the same Smeets and Karjakin).

Mamedyarov's 5.g4!? looked almost like a "mouse slip", but the prior 4.Nc3 is inconsistent with a g3 Catalan setup ... by now the game seems to peter out to a draw.

1-0, there it goes the Pirc and Kramnik 2.0 "the aggressor", back to Petroff now.

I remember some nice victories many years ago with the Classical Sicilian (not popular at top level now but maybe some line can be rehabilitated), why didn't he try that, or at least some Sicilian variation (e.g. Paulsen)? Afraid of all the English Attack theory? Or how about an off-beat Lopez? The Pirc doesn't fit, although it was nice to see him try it.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1085933

such states are called "the topalov-experience"

I dunno what you mean with "Classical Sicilian" (Richter-Rauzer as Ovidiu suggests?). I am not a theory buff, but I think in some lines black ends up with a - for a Sicilian - rather passive position: white exchanges on f6, black has to recapture with the g-pawn and then (also) castle queenside, white slowly builds up pressure on e6 (f4, g3, Bh3, f4-f5 at the right moment).

For a while Kramnik tried the Najdorf but gave it up because his results were as bad as with the Pirc ... . But a Paulsen or Kan setup could indeed make sense, he tried it once before in a must-win or want-to-win situation against a Hungarian friend:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1541027

Le-Leko held almost as many moves as the entire 6th round of the Biel young'uns tourney. They might be talented, but seems they're all competing to be the next Svidler. Future... so bright... time to buy those shade stocks.

Le passed the 2700-club entry exam, having been tortured by Leko and Kramnik (1st round) and still held onto the half point.

Nothing wrong with the piece sac at all, and after allowing 16.Bxa6 the alternatives are worse. He should probably have followed it up with 19..Rxb2 instead of 19..c5, and my FireBird keeps insisting on 0.00 (!) but quite obviously anything could have happened.

And he needed to play ambitiously anyway, given the tournament situation - so I don't think he regrets neither the piece sac nor the opening choice even now.

I might have guessed Leko, but never Kramnik. Those two are in freefall.

though it may be all theory of course, Fritz gave 13..Nxc5! 15.Be7 Bb4 16.Bxf8 Be6 with complications..

So far Kramnik-Mamedyarov follows Kramnik-Ponomariov, Tal Memorial 2009:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1563866

On Kramnik's overall tournament result, acirce already pointed out that it isn't unprecedented. Still it is an outlier compared to both his long-term Dortmund record and his recent supertournament record: first or second in Dortmund 2009, Tal Memorial, London and Corus. Too early to say that he's "in freefall"!?

Maybe he suffered from the unusual heat more than others: His health problems are, as far as I know, under control but not completely cured. And two of his opponents, Mamedyarov and Le Quang Liem, come from countries where temperature above 35 degrees Celsius aren't that uncommon (Ponomariov is living in Spain, though not in the hottest part of the country). Anyone may take this as an excuse or explanation, or consider it irrelevant - regardless of what Vlad himself may say in forthcoming post-Dortmund interviews.

@Kramnik-Mamedyarov follows Kramnik-Ponomariov

now Kramnik deviated with 16.cxb6, so it's all home cooked, Shak has spent 50 min ! to get here

there are no webcams, no online GM-commentary, no press conferences..very disappointing for a supertournament, what can you then ask from less important ones ?

In his Chesspro live commentary, GM Sakaev mentions that Ponomariov could have forced a draw by repetition after Kramnik's 16.c6 (good that he didn't at the time and the memorable game continued).
After 24.-Bf6, Sakaev writes (I love Google translations ...) "White closer to victory than to black tie. Moreover , the position in the style of Vladimir Kramnik, who had an outstanding endshpilnoy technique."

On your other point: As I wrote before, there is some PR in German - no problem from my selfish point of view, but I criticized Linares for "Spanish only" ... . At least Kramnik and Leko may appreciate that there are no compulsory press conferences. Yet they have a press center but, for some reasons, apparently few foreign journalists attending.

after Rf5 (g6) Re5 follows cutting King, afterwards the d pawn advance is unstoppable

Still an early resignation in Mamedyarov's trademark style.

..Bd4?? was a howler, although it wasn't obvious (to me) immediately.

Well (not kidding, just checked on the Internet), the worst heat is gone at the moment, current temperature is 22 degrees. But I had been to Dortmund myself one week before the tournament for a family reunion, and then some people (including my 80 and 88-year old aunts and 1 1/2 year young nephew) were suffering ... .

BTW, rather detailed analyses of Kramnik-Naiditsch by Lebedev at Crestbook (never heard of him, just another Russian!?):
http://online.crestbook.com/vasa/2010-1/dortmund-10-09-01.htm
It would be quite a challenge for mishanp to come up with a proper (rather than Google) translation, but the variations speak for themselves.

When Mam resigns, it is totally lost so it is not too early. Why waste time, Kramnik can't fail to convert that one 100 times out of 100.

100 out of 100 is a lot. I disagree.

Yeah, but I think it's, at least partly, due to Ponomariov's strangely passive play - it can backfire to play (only) for a draw with white? Pono can ruin ... well not everything, but quite a bit of his tournament which was also impressive so far.

And Leko gets another chance to play many moves trying to score his first victory - and get rid of (clear) last place ... .

Huh? Why would Mamedyarov be interested in such a "deal"??

Some people (including GMs Yemelin and Eljanov) had speculated that Radjabov-Mamedyarov 1-0, Astrakhan GP, was a "deal" - but that's another story, helping to secure spots in the candidates event for BOTH players.

What? Mamedyarov "cheat?" Oh, what a scandal that would be!!! (re: Mamedyarov Rhapsody, or the Kurnosov saga)

CO

If you have to ask... $$$

Well, that's a big insult to both players, particularly considering how little was at stake in the game. Mamedyarov followed an earlier Kramnik game and didn't have an improvement, so what? Even top players can have such gaps in their preparation.

It would make some sense in the other game I mentioned, but here Mamedyarov's (financial) compensation was obtained in a different way. Put it that way: then he didn't really mind losing ... .

It does look as a "deal", difficult to understand why Mamed would eneter such a tactical variation unprepared only to go straight to a pawn down, almost lost, endgame. Easy game for Kramnik.

And cheap too because if you look how many strange things happened to Mamedyarov this tournament one more of such kind would only fit the trend

OK you must know best ,:) but isn't Ponomariov at least a regular visitor to the Basque country? Anyway, congrats to him for tournament victory - he may have been a bit lucky that Le Quang Liem didn't try harder in the end (safe to say that today wasn't his best game) but played well in earlier rounds.

On Kramnik-Mamedyarov: As I wrote before, Mamedyarov has "a touch of Ivanchuk". Chucky also doesn't always follow recent opening theory developments, maybe Mamedyarov was already out of book after Kramnik's relatively unusual 8.dc5: ? In any case, here conspiration theories must include a fair dose of (unwarranted) hatred for both players.

On Radjabov-Mamedyarov: I wouldn't have brought this up if two respectable GMs, both present in Astrakhan, hadn't done so before (in the German magazine "Schach"). As I said it was a win-win situation for both players, AND the game was rather strange. The 50,000 Euros are new to me - and quite surprising given the circumstances (when Shak, or at least others in his situation, might have been "willing to lose" even without such a hint).

I agree on everything you wrote ,:) . Ponomariov was in some danger of "doing a Leko" and losing a still-important last round game, nerves may have played a role but everything turned out fine in the end. For the original Leko, it was probably some, but not too much consolation that he won his final game at this occasion ... .

Still, I agree with acirce that Le Quang Liem is the other hero of Dortmund 2010 - not only, but also because of his two games against the tournament winner. Incidentally, he prevented Ponomariov from "doing a Carlsen" and winning all of his mini-matches!

The tournament homepage promises analyses of their game with comments from both players in due course ("in Kuerze"), I may do some translating from German later on.

I think I've probably translated enough game commentary for now! Lebedev's not that highly rated (I don't think he's "even" an IM), but he specialises in very detailed computer analysis and trying to find the "truth" in a position (his analysis of e.g. Kramnik's win against Carlsen at Wijk was very good).

Amusingly, in a way, he's just applied his skills to Kramnik - Mamedyarov: http://online.crestbook.com/vasa/2010-1/dortmund-10-10-01.htm Though Mamedyarov's play was so awful there isn't really that much to comment on. As far as I can tell Lebedev points out that everything up until 21. Nd2 (when black's close to lost) was pointed out by Maxim Notkin in the January issue of the Russian chess journal "64" - which is all a bit embarrassing! Though you've got to give Mamedyarov some credit for the speed he managed to lose the ending :) By the way, if you're going to fix a game no-one in their right mind would fix it so badly!

@if you're going to fix a game no-one in their right mind would fix it so badly!

if you are going to fix a game your first concern would be to do it in such a way than nobody would think that you have done it

Well, as I pointed out before on Chessvibes, it's always "fashionable" to criticize the field of supertournaments - of course all those, often anonymous, people play chess much better than Ponomariov ... . Now the hatred is focusing on Leko - as if he hasn't achieved anything ever in his career.

As promised, some bits and pieces from the tournament homepage:
Ponomariov: "I cannot at all remember when I won such a strong event the last time. Hence I am very happy. Tonight I will celebrate ["party" would be another translation] with my second Zahar Efimenko." One could sense that the pressure that had built up throughout the tournament was gone.
Le: "It is a pity that I couldn't convert my better position. The position was complicated and I simply had too many good possibilities. Apparently this confused me."
"Before the tournament I didn't expect such a result. It is a confirmation for my hard work, because I prepared intensively before the event."

Ponomariov on the game itself:
move 1: "Before the game I had doubts regarding what I should play. The tournament situation required to avoid risks. Hence I played a quiet variation against the Caro-Kann."
move 8: "Here I started having doubts. I prepared well with Efimenko who played this line against Landa at the Russian Championship. But it looked as if my opponent was well-prepared even here."
move 12: "It was unclear to me what my opponent wanted in this game. Normally I would have offered a draw to see what his ambitions are, but due to Sofia rules this wasn't possible."
17.-g5! "I underestimated this. I thought I could swap pawns and mate my opponent on the h-file. Of course this was nonsense."

it just the continuation of a trend that's been going on for some time, imo

If this trend started with a WCh match, it may already have been Kramnik-Leko. Leko switched to 1.d4, for the first time in his career, after getting nothing (0.5/2) against the Petroff. Kramnik played 1.e4 at the time and later switched (back) to d4, maybe rather because some Sicilian lines became too sharp, complex and theoretical.

@ Ponomariov was in some danger of "doing a Leko" and losing a still-important last round game

Le was too restrained, too slow, in this final game and let pass the chance for a strong attack (which was the natural, logical, continuation for his postion) Nerves probably.

After 20..e5 (20..Qf6 was played) 21.dxe5 Nxe5 22.Qc2 f4 23.gxf4 gxf4 23.Bxf4 Qh4 there seem no way that Pono can defend without losing at least an exchange. (24.Bg3 Nxg3 25.fxg5 Qh5 ~26..Ng4)

I haven't checked this, and Shipov was posting live so couldn't go into anything too deeply, but he had this to say about 20...e5 (he, and the computers, thought move 30 was the moment Le let his chances slip):

"It was not at all easy to analyze the move 20. … e5 to a conclusion. There are too many branches … Here is a small illustration:
21. f3 (21. de Nxe4 22. Qd1 Nc4 etc. does not look good, and risky is 21. Ne2 f4 22. f3, for example 22. … Nd6 23. de Nxe5 24. Qxd5+ Ndf7 25. Qxd8 Nxd8 26. gf Nd3 winning an exchange) 21. … Nxg3 22. Kxg3 f4+ 23. Kg2 fe 24. Rxe3 ed 25. Rxe8+ Qxe8 26. Nd4 and White holds."

http://www.danamackenzie.com/blog/?p=887

By the way, all the translations of Sergey Shipov's commentaries can be found here: http://crestbook.com/en

Ponomariov himself gave Ovidiu's line (with 23.-Qf6 at the end) at the tournament homepage. BTW, Peter Doggers at Chessvibes has now translated all comments by the players, complete with game viewer - yesterday evening I was a bit selective.

Maybe not only Ponomariov was hesitating during the game (his post-game comments confirm my earlier impression), but Le at some stage decided that a draw would be a fine result securing clear second place - once Kramnik-Mamedyarov 1-0 was approaching or official.

Leko's last-round losses were against experienced players - Kramnik once or twice, Aronian and Gelfand in the GP series. Le Quang Liem isn't quite there yet - no disdain implied at all, but obviously there is still room for improvement.

I gotta 2nd "The Flash" at this point. I've been pretty supportive of Mig's schedule/situ for a long time, esp. with all he has going on. But we're starting to feel like a cactus (or a camel...).

How 'bout at least a guest blogger while things are busy?

Hmmm, how could Mig (or Kasparov) explain Kramnik's and Ponomariov's performances, apparently Pono himself doesn't really know (see below)? As to the Catalan, in Dortmund it fitted the generally solid positional style of four players (Ponomariov, Le Quang Liem, Kramnik, Leko) - games as Ponomariov-Kramnik or Carlsen-Kramnik, Corus 2010 can happen, but are rather the exception.

Winner's interview with Ponomariov at German Chessbase ( http://chessbase.de/nachrichten.asp?newsid=10677 ):
- His result came as a big surprise, given the strength of the field and the fact that he had only ten days to prepare (before, he played in Romania). He points out his shared first with Leko(!) and Aronian at the 2006 Tal Memorial, but has never before been clear first in a strong round-robin.
Q Where and how did you prepare?
Pono: "With my second Zahar Efimenko at a nice place in Spain nearby Bilbao. There was always a fresh wind, so we didn't suffer from the heat as much as later in Dortmund. For a change, we went to a concert of the German rock band Rammstein in Bilbao which we liked a lot." [so much for Pono's boring reputation, which would rather suggest classical music, softrock or jazz?]
- He has lots of praise for his second and will return the favor, being his coach when Efimenko plays a match against Naiditsch in August.
- On the Olympiad: "We want to fight for a medal. The Ukrainian federation is under new leadership, the new president Viktor Kapustin is very active. He paid all federation debts to FIDE, and will certainly also have an open ear for financial demands of our team."
- On the FIDE presidential campaign: "I support Anatoli Karpow. I appreciate him a lot as a player, have trained with him and learnt a lot. Regarding chess politics, in my opinion it's high time for a change within FIDE after 15 years."
Q When Karpov visited Dortmund, he had lots of praise for your play and spoke about Ponomariov's second birth.
Pono: "Really? This makes me feel shy (and a bit embarassed? What's the best translation of "verlegen"?)"
Q What's your favorite piece?
Pono: "I don't have a special one, I don't want to single our any piece on the board. Or do you mean women? (laughs) There is nothing more beautiful than a well-growwn woman."
[Was the interview actually held in German, where "Figur" is ambiguous? Or is this also the case in Russian?]
- Finally, Pono says that he would very much like to return to Dortmund next year to defend his title.

Thanks for the translation

I can also offer Dutch and French, and I wrote before that mishanp is welcome to copy my translations. But this particular interview may not be memorable enough to be prominently and permanently archived, except maybe the remarks about the Ukrainian federation - have things really changed much to the better?

BTW about the Olympiad (this became a mixed thread anyway):
- Germany is sending a B-team, because financial negotiations with top players Naiditsch, Meier, Gustafsson and Fridman failed.
- What about the USA?? Long after the deadline passed, the official list ( http://chess-results.com/olympiad/TeilnehmerSuche.aspx?lan=1 ) only mentions "Dummy, Dummy" for male and female players, plus some officials including Zsusza Polgar. Chessdom has a list of many teams, from medal candidates to countries as Australia, Singapore and Suriname, but no info on the USA.

And regarding "verlegen" - in any case, it should be "shy and embarassed" rather than "embarassed and angry". Freely translated it could also be "I don't know what to say" or "I am flattered, this is too much of an honor" (given WHO had said so).

Any translations are welcome :) Seriously, just send me anything and I'll probably put it up - though sadly there's no financial reward... My site says "Russian chess news and interviews in English", but to be honest at the moment there's probably only one post with "news", there are various game commentaries, and at the moment I'm working on a long Polish interview (and have all the Bulgarian stuff from the Sofia match to add). So basically everything fits :)

Anyone interested in the British Championship - there should be live video commentary here: http://www.livestream.com/leylandchess (I couldn't get a picture in the cafe where I'm sitting - though that's probably because the internet connection's so bad).

I have been wondering about the Olympiad USA team as well. During the recent U.S. Women and Juniors tournies, several Olympiad participant names were mentioned by the commentators (I think Nakamura, Onischuk, and Robson were mentioned). But there has been no mention of U.S. Olympiad team members on any chess blog I've visited. I wonder if there is some sort of last-minute political maneuvering going on there, with players getting added/dropped right to the deadline.

This could make sense, but the deadline was July 20th, one week ago ... :
http://www.ugra-chess.ru/eng/index.htm
Maybe they will get away with such things as a medal winner of the last event ... .

Hikaru Nakamura suggests that himself, Onischuk, Kamsky and Shulman play on the USA Olympiad Team.

http://www.hikarunakamura.com/

"My congratulations to Gata Kamsky on winning the title in 2010. However, I think that if all four of us from the quad final can play at a high level in the 2010 Chess Olympiad, we'll have a great shot at winning the gold medal in Khanty Mansiysk this upcoming September."

If they are still allowed to participate .... .

"Going for gold" sounds like typical American optimism, I prefer the restrained European Ponomariov who aims for "a" medal. Ukraine (Ivanchuk, Ponomariov, Eljanov, Efimenko) may be searching revenge for their drastic last-round loss against the USA in Dresden, both Russian teams should be motivated on home ground, further there is at least Armenia, Azerbaijan and China.

BTW I don't quite understand Nakamura's "However", but maybe it's just a filling word!?

Apparently the Russian team members are only going to get paid if they get a medal, $50,000 for gold, $25,000 for silver and $15,000 for bronze. Which should help with the motivation... It seems better to be a captain or trainer, as they get paid regardless, though they have to work with the players at least 8 hours a day. All part of the brave new world of Russian chess :)

@All part of the brave new world of Russian chess :)

it would have worked better for the Russian team if besides money for a medal the "no medal" variant would have meant 4 weeks vacation in an winter camp in Siberia.

Well, they'll already be in Siberia, all it would take is cancel their returning flights!

" 'Going for gold' sounds like typical American optimism, I prefer the restrained European Ponomariov who aims for 'a' medal. Ukraine (Ivanchuk, Ponomariov, Eljanov, Efimenko) may be searching revenge for their drastic last-round loss against the USA in Dresden, both Russian teams should be motivated on home ground, further there is at least Armenia, Azerbaijan and China."

Perhaps it was that "American optimism" that led the US to defeat the 'restrained' European attitude (not sure when Ukraine became considered "European"...)? It's always best to aim for the optimum result and give that effort due. Oft times even great efforts fall short of desired goals, so do your best at all times. Who aims for mediocrity?!

...you mean like this?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p008w072

"That would be the most impressive level of players that the USA has fielded at the Olympiad for quite a while, especially if Shulman can keep his good form, and Onischuk can recover his. Definitely a team that could punch above its weight."

It's the same team as in 2008 when they won the bronze.

I was just reading in Dan Ariely's wonderful _The Upside of Irrationality_ how offering high rewards for success in creative tasks (chess, not weight-lifting) is self-defeating.

Aronian and Topalov are on the same side of the draw basically because Topalov got yet another privilege - being seeded first (and getting a rather easy first match against Kamsky) as world championship loser, even though Carlsen is now ahead of him by rating in both the Jan and July 2010 rating lists.

In the given situation, Sutovsky's proposal to separate the final match and hold it elsewhere at a later stage would make sense. A possible final Topalov-Kramnik could be held in Baku after all. A final including Aronian could still take place in Kazan - or wherever outside of Azerbaijan. A final Topalov-Aronian can't happen ... .
However, Sutovsky's proposal seems to have little chances: according to Peter Doggers from Chessvibes who spoke with Sutovsky yesterday, Gelfand - while liking Sutovsky's ideas - is fundamentally against further changes to the cycle.

On Vachier-Lagrave: Why would his victory in Biel 2009, in a much stronger field, be "just a fluke" if he cannot repeat it this time?

"Perhaps it was that "American optimism" that led the US to defeat the 'restrained' European attitude (not sure when Ukraine became considered "European"...)?"

Perhaps you should take into account that Ponomariov wasn´t playing in the last Olympiad in protest to lack of funding, and now Pavel Eljanov is in the top 10. The Ukrainian team has at least as many reasons as the US to take "going for gold" as a realistic option, but I agree with Thomas that when you´re playing world elite it is adviseable to show some restraint or modesty. The American way is more optimistic and self-encouraging, well, nothing wrong with that! We (Europeans) just do things differently.
And as for the Ukraine being "European" or not, well, the continent of Europe reaches as far as Russia, but if you look at it from the cultural point of view Ukraine might be more "slavonic", I guess. Depends on how you look at it.

As others wrote before, Ukraine is of course part of Europe, rather than Asia or Africa. "American" is somewhat ambiguous, as it could refer only to the USA, or to one or two continents. In noyb's usage, "European" may only refer to countries which are currently part of the European Union or only to those west of the now defunct Iron Curtain - my usage was geographic ... .

I just found it rather amusing that two medal candidates (or rather players speaking for themselves and/or the whole team) came up with statements that were both ambitious, but still different in tone. What could be Nakamura's intention?
- impressing or scaring competing teams? I don't think this will work ...
- putting pressure on himself AND his teammates? This might work, but can also backfire. Over the past 1 1/2 years, Nakamura did best whenever he was not the (self-, fan-declared or objective) favorite ... .

IMO, for either team silver or bronze wouldn't be a "mediocre" result. Indeed, gold requires not only that they overperform, but also that Russia underperforms. Before Dortmund, Ponomariov didn't say "I want to or will win this thing", still he did it ... .

BTW, regarding the Ukrainian team, they (re)gained Ponomariov but lost Karjakin, so the main net change is that Eljanov improved over the past two years. If federation problems had been solved earlier and Karjakin was on the Ukrainian rather than the Russian team, they might have the right to be unhappy with silver!!?

..Topalov didn't have a problem playing in Russia, just playing a Russian player in Russia... And the only Russian player in the Candidates Matches is... Kramnik

I wouldn't play Kramnik in Russia myself, and for the same reason as Topalov.

You´re right Thomas. However, I seem to remember that the real star of the Ukrainian team during the last Olympiad was Zakhar Efimenko. Without him probably they wouldn´t have had the chance to aspire for either medal. This just means that everything is up in the air, there is no way of guessing who will win :D

Looks like Ukraine isn't really considered a "proper" part of Europe still today. Apparently Ukraine itself began to lobby to be thought of as "European" after the breakup of the U.S.S.R.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe

That is just totally wrong. Ukraine has been part of Europe since I learned geography in the 1970's, and for a long time before that I'm sure.

Nobody would use "Europe" as a synonym for the European Union, unless that meaning was clear from the context. And maybe not even then.

"It's the same team as in 2008 when they won the bronze."

True, the *players* are the same, but they are not necessarily playing at the same level as in 2008. In particular, Shulman seems to have stepped up his game, at least based on his recent impressive play at the US Championship.

My point is that as a group (in aggregate), those 4 players are playing at a higher level than they were going in to the last Chess Olympiad.

"It is with american optimism that they learn geography in the USA (btw, even if it's totally accepted by now, i've always found that using America when meaning USA was a total disrespect to almost a continent)."

Perhaps, but what is the alternative? The name of the country is The United States of America. When referring to the Country, I prefer to use USA. When referring to the citizens of that country, it is awkward to use anything else but American. There was a fellow that tried to convince other online posters to use "United Statesian"(!) to refer to USA citizens. That just rolls off the tongue, doesn't it? The irony is that many countries use "The United States" as part of their official title. So, it is not clear that many citizens of "The United States of Mexico" would even be mollified if such a change were to be made.

One should note that the USA was the first country in the Western Hemisphere (Americas) to gain independence. The USA was the only state (or Federation of 13 states) in 1776. All of the rest of North and South America and the Caribbean was still under (at least nominal) colonial rule. I doubt that there was any intent to cause umbrage to other areas of the American continents.

@i've always found that using America when meaning USA was a total disrespect to almost a continent

abolutely, the correct (politically) usage is "whiteish european invaders, criminals, and robbers"

"When referring to the citizens of that country, it is awkward to use anything else but American."

I thought "Yanks" was the accepted international standard now.

:-)

At first I thought Son, with 7-draws in a row, was a Leko-wannabe in this tournament. Then he surprised me, and I guess everyone else, with two straight wins. Note that Son and Le both tied for first in the penultimate round in Aeroflot this year (with Le won the final round to clear first, and Son lost the final round and got 3rd).

I am now waiting for the game between Wojtaszek and Morozevich. Am I only dreaming that Morozevich was Number One on the live ranking list for just one day, some time ago (two years or so)?

Also a bit surprising is the high rank for Athens, though it's consistent with statistics for other chess sites discussed here a while ago - quite a lot of chess interest in Greece (was it you who proposed, in jest, that Nigel Short is behind this?).

On Morozevich: Well, he has always be an erratic player, capable of beating strong players as well as losing against relatively weak ones - other recent examples include Laznicka (World Cup), Papaoiannou and Akopian (World Team Championship). How many comebacks did Ivanchuk have over the years? Chucky had fallen even deeper, briefly below 2700 on the live rating list.
At Pamplona, Morozevich might still gain some rating points at the end of the event. A more serious test on where he stands now might be the Olympiad where he plays board 1 on the second Russian team (it seems their lineups are strictly by current rating).

@vooruitgang: Germany will be represented at the Olympiad, but with a young B-team (Buhmann, Bindrich, Bogner, Huschenbeth, Kraemer) - seems they forgot about Baramidze and Braun ,:) . I will leave the discussion at Chessvibes where it's in full swing - just mentioning that mishanp (there Colin McGourty) and others pointed out that such problems aren't unique to the German federation.

I believe in five or so years, Carlsen will have his hands full battling with his contemporaries.

Jim, I guess wathing the development of these 19 year olds (Vachier Legrave, Caruana, Le) shows just what an incredible rate of progress Carlsen has had in the same timeframe. Those others are progressing really well, but Carlsen has been something else again.

Well done to Caruana. The tourney finally woke up near the end (R8 had lots of decisive games). Will any of them start being invited to the SuperGM tourney's, or is the "bright young star" spot now reserved for Le?

Who is Mig?

Not that bad, d_tal, it's produced many good players over the years, and still is...Short, Howell, Sadler, Nunn, Chandler, etc are some names past and present.Just not many of them playing there I guess, so Adams is a shark stuffed into a fishtank most of the time : )

As often (also in other countries), not all of the strongest players participate in the national championship. Adams is currently (again) the highest-rated English player, second seed GM Nicholas Pert is #8.

Dennis Monokroussos speculated that Adams' reason to participate might be gaining a few rating points. On the live rating list, he went from 2706 to 2726 - which also includes ten games from the French Team Cup and Turkish Team Championships. What kind of opposition did he face there?

The real English championship may be the London Chess Classics: Adams, Short, McShane and Howell with some foreigners thrown in. ,:)

Thomas wrong?! No way, impossible... lol

Thomas wrong?! No way, impossible. Just ask Thomas... lol

Please note also that I was initially replying to d_tal, who suggested that British chess may be "that bad" because Adams plays only considerably lower-rated opponents.

Altogether, isn't it a bit like games of chess? Sometimes we think pretty well, sometimes we think poorly, and sometimes we may have a good idea but play the wrong move or - here on this blog - use the wrong words.

I'll go along with that. I'm sure you did not intend to diminish the importance of being the 2010 British Champion by suggesting that the real Championship would be played some where else at a later event. For what it's worth, this is the real Championship being played right now, and one of the current particpants will be recorded as the 2010 British Champion. Not McShane, not Short, not Howell.

As for d-tal's comment, I'll let him speak for himself about what he meant. I understood it to mean not that the lower-rated opponents Adams has faced are weak, but that the objective quality of their opposition has been abysmally weak. It's almost as if Adams has played 5 games against "N.N"

Can we agree that this year there is one tournament which is the official British championship, but another one - London Classics - may be more meaningful to determine who's the best British player? That's all I meant to say ... .

While it would be a major surprise if Adams doesn't win the British championship, it is not a priori a given that he dominates the way he does - notwithstanding his draw against second seed Pert today. But Adams generally seems to do well against "weak" opposition, see also his result at the European Team Championship. His 6.5/7, TPR 2863 included
- one win against Andriasian (2612)
- five wins against players rated 2300-2500
- one draw against Yemelin (2570)
His expected score would have been 5.49/7, hence two draws with black or one loss by overpressing would have been "acceptable".
[Baden-Baden had their lineup strictly by rating, putting Adams on board 5 behind Movsesian, Bacrot, Vallejo and Naiditsch]

Spot on hag. I meant exactly that. Adam's opponents have played like the B team at an under 15 school championship. They played like 1800 rather than GMs and IMs. Maybe it was the legend of the man.

You have a good point, but everything is relative. Here Michael's class is so much higher than his opponents that he really should win fairly easily. I'm a decorated veteran like him knows how to handle that and won't put too much pressure on himself.

Adams also has one of the best records in the FIDE KO's, he's used to being the favorite and winning- against stronger opposition.

True, Mick is a step or two up in class, but never underestimate the desire of someone trying to obtain their IM or GM norm. It's fierce. I really have a lot of respect for Adams wading in to this. He's human. He can make mistakes. And if he does, one of those lower-rated blokes is still strong enough to punish it.
Finally, how many rating points can you acquire by beating someone rated one hundred fifty, two hundred points below you?

I agree that Adams has more to lose than to win in this event (but should this keep him from showing up at the national championship?).

In terms of rating points to gain: The live rating list was last updated after round 3 of the British Championship, Adams' wins against FM Eames (2287), GM Summerscale (2428) and IM Pert (2460) together gave him 4.4 rating points. Not much, but if we include his previous events (French Team Cup and Turkish Team Championship) he gained 20 points from 13 games. And the difference between Elo 2706 and Elo 2726, between #34 and #18 on the live rating list may start to matter in terms of future invitations?

"At Pamplona, Morozevich might still gain some rating points at the end of the event."

He lost 15.5 :(

http://chess-results.com/tnr34216.aspx?art=9&lan=1&fed=RUS&turdet=YES&flag=30&m=-1&wi=1000&snr=10

"And the difference between Elo 2706 and Elo 2726, between #34 and #18 on the live rating list may start to matter in terms of future invitations?"

That's a good point, Thomas. That would be a smart move on Mick's part. And being arguably Britain's best player at this time should also appeal to tournament organizers.

But perhaps this exposes flaws in the rating system... Is Adams now somehow magically that much better of a player (#34 to #18)? What does it really prove having a 2700+ beat up on 2300-2500 players, whose own ratings may be inflated?

Could the personal reason be due to the Russian who shall not be named is invited? Or may be the Russian with no name is invited because Topalov already decided not attending.

But does beating 2300-2500 players justify moving up in the ratings? It's virtually expected that the superior player should win. And by moving into the top 20, players do gain better invitations and money earning potential, despite the fact that they may not be better than the players they "leap-frog". Seems we need more of a rankings than a ratings system. Move up when you beat "up" and vice versa.

Seems a little bit farfetched as the person with no-name (Kramnik) has to play in Shanghai and qualify for Bilbao whereas Topalov would have been directly in Bilbao final as he won Linares. There could be a more genuine personal reason (e.g. he has not got over the loss to Anand).

Indeed, the flaw lies in the organizers' absolute belief in ratings and, related, the hunt for the highest possible category - a rating average of 2724 is category 19, an average of 2726 is category 20. A very recent example is that Wang Hao rather than Wang Yue now gets the Shanghai (Bilbao qualifier) spot because he is 8 points ahead by rating - of course Wang Yue can't really complain, he had plenty of invites ... .

Adams' expected score at the British Championship (so far) is 5/6, he scored 5.5/6 - hence he overperformed and gained Elo, makes sense if the statistical assumptions of the Elo system make sense.

If the players you leap-frog would have the same results against similarly rated opposition, there wouldn't be any leap-frogging. And 20 points, or 15 ranks, is not much of a difference. That's two games won. Normal fluctuation. Good form. Luck. The misconception lies in the assumption that those numbers would somehow mean big differences in playing strength.

Seems that some known tough guys are just inconsistent. Ponomariov and Gelfand come to mind. They can win strong tournaments one week, and finish half-way down the leader board the next. As we've seen only recently, Ponomariov, who has a heck of time with Carlsen, only finished half-way up the leader board in the Kings Tournament; but followed that with a full point win in Dortmund. If I was an organizer looking for invitees, I'd be scratching my head.

Request for background data for anonymous.

Why should organizers scratch their heads? They know beforehand that player A will finish first, player B will finish last, and the others are in between - but the game would be boring if the names corresponding to A and B were also 100% predictable beforehand. Moreover:
- They like if the local wildcard does well, which means that at least one or two other (nominally stronger, more established) players have to underperform.
- Even Carlsen depends on the presence of other players whom he can beat. He can only gain rating points if others lose/donate rating points.
- Some of the more inconsistent players (e.g. Ivanchuk, Shirov, *) are rather popular among both fans and organizers.

* also in response to acirce: not sure what to say about Morozevich at this moment in time

I think being a Tal fan was slightly more predictable. If he was ill, which was most of the time, he might just about be able to win a super tournament. If he was healthy, which was quite rare, the pieces would dance to the magic tunes that only the most talented player in history could create, and his opponents would stand back and marvel in awe.

"we're killing time waiting for the return of Mig...."

You will have to wait a long time for the return of Mig. Mig has alienated Kirsan.

Do you mean that Mig and Kirsan went to the alien mother ship in a stolen spaceship, to plant a computer virus and a nuke?

16-day data point request...hope you're simply
busy. best wishes.

Stuart may have lost the game, but he still gets the grand prize for the best name of a chess player EVER.

"The flaw is not in the rating system, but in the belief that #34 is much worse than #18. It's only 20 points."

Excellently put. Very often when people have "problems" with something rating-related, the "problem" isn't with the rating system, but with how it's being misintrepreted.

""The flaw is not in the rating system, but in the belief that #34 is much worse than #18. It's only 20 points."

"Excellently put."

How do you tell who the better player is if you don't believe that the ranking number is important? If #34 is not "much worse" than #18, then who is the better player? How do you distinguish between say #24 & #25? If the ratings aren't that relevent, what's the point of having a ratings system? You could put players in buckets and say, well this group of players are all about the same, and that group of players is all about the same, and you'd never have an idea or appreciation of who is best.

What's wrong with saying that players are "about the same", if this is indeed the case? I actually like your bucket model, though it's sort of a continuum rather than discrete buckets - e.g. 2699 is about the same as 2701, NOT a different bucket.

At the top of the live rating list, bare numbers suggest that Carlsen (2826) is at most a little bit stronger than Topalov (2803) or Anand (2800), probably slightly stronger than Kramnik (2780 - but their head-to-head results "paint" a different picture), most likely stronger than Grischuk (2760), there is a 90-99% probability that he's stronger than Dominguez (2716), ... .

This is still a simplistic picture, as it ignores or neglects two things:
- Some players, e.g. Carlsen, may be "underrated" - basically because the rating system has elements of inertia and cannot fully keep track with the progress they make.
- Some players, e.g. Ivanchuk, have a large standard deviation or error margin around their Elo. On one day, he can play at the level of Topalov - on another day, he plays like Dominguez or worse.

"I love watching Mickey Adams' games."

Agreed! I've said it before, but he's one of those players who adds something to a tournament simply by the fact that he plays in an almost unique style (even when he's unlikely to challenge for first place). It's great to see him climbing back up the rating list.

On Mig's absence - I guess he's just working hard with the Karpov campaign, which has suddenly sprung back to life.

I just translated an entertainingly surreal, if slightly worrying, conversation between the FIDE Vice President Israel Gelfer and the organisers of the Olympiad in Khanty-Mansiysk. Bizarrely the organisers spend the whole time arguing with each other even though Gelfer and the press seem to be present. http://www.chessintranslation.com/2010/08/making-a-drama-out-of-a-crisis/

It made me think of Mig because I translated it based on a tip-off at my site, but then realised that tip-off came from New York. Still, it's a fairly big place :) (and Mig's probably in Singapore or Dubai or wherever else the two Ks are nowadays!)

Yes, and I think Adams is a top, top player when in a bit of form. His "spidey" positional style is very high class. I think he's beaten everybody except Kasparov at some point or the other.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1014405

I would think it's more of an indication of how well he's dominated his particular set of opponents, not necessarily a comparator. The only way to say that he is the most dominant at this time would be for him to have played the exact same set of opponents as everyone else in the rating system.

This problem of ratings and accuracy reminds me of that of the BCS system in U.S. College Football, only even more exaggerated. The participants only compete vs. such a small percentage of the total volume rated that it's difficult to acheive a certain degree of accuracy.

For instance, Bobby Fischer was considered extremely dominant in his time, and he played opponents that were substantially weaker at times, and lost a few of those games. Many of the top 10 players now won't even participate in tournaments or competitions where they play opponents that are rated more than 100 or 200 pts. lower than themselves. They expose themselves to less risk than others so we don't get as clear a picture (i.e. as complete a dataset if you will).

I'm pretty sure that wasn't a serious classical game. Must have been a Blitz game or something. Adams has never beaten Gary in classical according to my recollection.

How is this possible? The expected result is calculated based on rating difference, not based on actual rating. Thus it should not be "progressive"? The only problem is that after a certain point, chess strength itself is much harder to gain. You can't add more calculating power very easily to human brain, so there are some limits in practical performance.

At the very top ratings should be quite accurate since they are based on games where people are always supposedly performing at their best level. I can see this as only reason why 20 points means more at top level than it does at lover levels - the ELO points are much better tested by high level games than by some random hangover games by chess hobbyists all over the world.

20 points are 20 points. 2720 to 2700 is exactly the same difference (in measured results) as 2020 to 2000. 2700 and 2000 are just arbitrary numbers, but 20 points difference does have a well-defined meaning. It translates to the same expectation value.

I am not sure about "20 points are 20 points". There is definitely some difference between the 20-point-difference of Carlsen-Anand (#1 - #3) and Kramnik-Grischuk (#5 - #6).
Carlsen and Anand is on the same chess level, whereas Kramnik is generally considered as above Grischuk.
In fact, I've noticed that the difference between #5 and #6 is generally roughly 20 points. Somehow that twenty points is pretty hard to get across.

That might be because many players fluctuate within "rating intervals". Kramnik usually has around 2775-2800 in rating, so he is closer to his "low" right now. Grischuk is usually around 2720-2760, so he is near his "peak".

One of the things that separate the top 5 from the rest, is their stability. If Gris gets more stable, he might be able to cross that gap.

"at least for the list topper (currently Magnus Carlsen) - the leading points are more hard earned"

I guess this should be 'only' (or primarily) for the top player or - referring to your previous post - for a 2800 player in a 2700 field. Similar situations occur at lower levels, e.g. Adams in the British Championship or even myself: my rating fluctuates between 1900 and 2000, and I mostly face players rated 1500-1900 in club and team competitions.

Of course I have a choice - I could join a stronger club to play in a higher league, or could play some open tournaments with stronger opposition. Adams has a perspective, maybe he will (again) be invited to strong round robins. Carlsen is stuck in his situation - too bad for him but I don't hear him complaining ,:)

It was a very Adams-esque conclusion. After 24...f5 I was only looking at things like Bh4 & Ne6, but Adams quietly switches play to the queenside and it turns out the pawns can't be held (and that's even the least of black's worries!). Nb6-c8 (or d5?) looks winning if black tried to struggle on with ...Rca8.

It changes at 1800 then again at 2000 then again at 2200 then again at 2300. The goal is to prevent more people from getting higher ratings.