Anand Surging in London

Maybe coz the rankings were updated before the London games finished (December 11th 16:51 CET)?

Either that, or you just don't get very much for beating Nigel Short these days! ;)

Short beat a few other strong players to qualify for a match against Kasparov, so at the time more people have heard of him. Now he may put most of his energy into the press conferences, reason enough to keep inviting him!

where are the post game press conf videos posted?

hey, check out like chessvibes or chessbase. they have this video player embedded in their articles of the round, which lists all the movies captured.

ok, cool..thanks!

Thank you for all these wonderful videos. Would there be any copyright violations if I pick up the interesting parts of these videos into a youtube compilation? Just trying to get some friends hooked on the game, that's all..

42. g5 probably weakens f5 point. I think then he should try 42.f5???

Wow, that's interesting, John. A great performance by any measure. Mihail Marin is a known quantity.
Herman must have been "unconcious," as they say for other serial sports feats.
Very hard for me to imagine being that consistently good in one tournament against players rated that much higher. How would you avoid the great possibility of doubt creeping into your head as you move up the standings? 'Do I deserve this? Surely one of these guys is going to put the kibosh on this effort.'
He was unconscious. Good for him!!

Carlsen seems to have spotted Qa4-e4 mate threat!!!

Who is this guy? I was curious enough to look him up: He had four rated games for the January 2010 list, nothing else for the entire decade. For the forthcoming list, he played three events (Milan not yet included) for an expected rating change of +124.

He must have 'secretly' improved a lot playing unrated games on the Internet or elsewhere!!?

> Shouldn't Howell try 42.g5?

He shouldn't, but he did. Qd1 was a heavy blow.

Yeah, I completely missed Qa4-e4 idea. Preventing Qe4 allows Qd1 with an immediate attack on h5-knight and the following f1-bishop attack with Bc4. Carlsen is brilliant to spot that!!! May be a 43.Qe3 instead of 43.Qg3 would have left Howell with only a pawn down with a Queen trade on e2. Not only he missed Qa4, Howell's follow up wasn't upto the mark.

eh? he's still just plus +1, behind Anand and McShane..but funnily enough still a favorite to at least tie for first..

London use 3-1-0 points for win-draw-lose.

Standing Sunday evening after round 5:
1-3 MCSHANE/ANAND/CARLSEN 9 points
4-5 NAKAMURA/KRAMNIK 8 points
6 ADAMS 6 points
7 HOWELL 2 points
8 SHORT 1 point

lol..ok..whatever...I'm with Mig on this one..

If the tournament would end today then Carlsen would be the winner as he has, mcshane, anand, and he all have 9 pts, but carlsen has had 1 more black.

Which would be rather strange as he is behind based on "classical score", and lost both direct encounters. Before facing Short in the final round, Carlsen plays Kramnik with black - if Kramnik wins (it wouldn't be the first time this year ...) he may suddenly be on top.

Nah, he would undoubtedly do worse ;-)

He's known, he's played for 4 seasons in the US Chess League.

It's one of the fun benefits about the US - many events are not FIDE rated, so someone can get their USCF rating up (2360) without really impacting their FIDE rating.

That's a benefit?

Short was quite a player in his heyday. He was a three-time Candidate, beating Speelman, Timman, Gelfand, and *Karpov* in matches (when Karpov was still a force) en route to the match with Kasparov. Admittedly, he got stomped by Kasparov, but who hasn't?

I know (but "watsrongwolfy" might not, so in a way you replied to him). In response to his post, I thought it's sufficient to point out that he wasn't seated into a WCh match against Kasparov, no need to list other career achievements.

Even today (or at least as recent as January 2009) he can compete with a typical Corus B field - only the absolute world elite may be too tough for him.

Yes, sorry. I realized you were aware of Short's achievements--I was responding to the OP.

Is it also "crazy" and "ridiculous" that the 3-1-0 system has successfully replaced 2-1-0 in the world's most popular sport, one with maybe 10,000 times as many fans as chess?

They are different games. period. and you seem to be happy about the example case in my previous post. someone with -4 ties with someone even.

It is also crazy and ridiculous for a pawn who walked 6 miserable blocks to wear a wig and suddenly claim to be the Queen of the kingdom , but it also works nicely .

I agree on the point of "manipulating HOW the chessplayers play chess", as Mig commented. Fortunately this scoring system is not the official one in every competition, otherwise it would lead to very suspicious behavior.

One example, two players can agree to play "prearranged wins", instead of prearranged draws. They could end up with more points by winning one game against each other in a double round robin, compared with two prearranged draws. In other words, this system is subject to manipulation in a more obvious way compared with the traditional system.

"The scoring system is crazy. if it was 12 rounds and someone drew everything he gets 12 pts and another who wins 4 and loses 8 gets the same."

The system isn't ideal, but it seems the organizers are really serious about not wanting too many draws: in addition to 3 pts, they're using Sofia rules, awarding a bonus of approx 1000€ for each game won, plus a further 1000€ for "Game of the day".

Good tournament chess isn't necessarily equal to objectively good chess, and a player who draws 12 straight games shouldn't be expecting too much anyway.

Unlikely that someone at the super elite level would manipulate things this way.

The same guys are always playing each other, pretty soon they would be found out.

Around the 2500-2700 level, I totally agree with you, there could be big time manipulation.

Chess is above all a game of logic - unlike say football.

It is patently illogical for someone who has won 2 games and drawn 3 to have the same score as someone who has won 3 and lost 2.

Based on this sample of 5 games, you can expect that the first player will have a higher probability of getting a +score over the next 100 games, and is therefore the better player.

Therefore the first player has performed better over these 5 games due to pure mathematical logic.

"Chess is above all a game of logic - unlike say football."

A lot of people also see the game as a battle.

"It is patently illogical for someone who has won 2 games and drawn 3 to have the same score as someone who has won 3 and lost 2."

As long as the scoring says a win equals 3 points and a draw equals 1 point, how on earth is that illogical? It's a mathematical necessity that 3*3 = (2*3)+3.

"Based on this sample of 5 games, you can expect that the first player will have a higher probability of getting a +score over the next 100 games, and is therefore the better player."

When the system says 3 pts for a win, it doesn't make all that much sense to base the analysis on traditional scoring. Bilbao scoring encourages you to play less drawish systems, maybe take risks you might not have taken under another system. What good does it do you if you're the "best" player after 100 games, if you didn't get any of the 1st prize money?

We had this discussion before ... IMO, one difference between football and chess (there are many others) is that you can still score a victory in football if the game is even after 89 minutes. There are many dead-drawn positions in chess, where even the best, most creative, most ambitious player can't make progress. A football match is "dead drawn" only in one case: 20 red cards and only goalkeepers left on the field (= king vs. king in chess).

For me the most illogical thing in London is that "number of wins" is used as a tiebreaker - hence Bilbao rules first create, then break a tie (in favor of the player who would be behind with classical rules).

Of course there is a difference: Pawn promotion, en passant capturing, castling, (what else?) are all established 'special' rules - even if any or all were introduced at some stage after the 16th century ... . Anyone could also consider it crazy and ridiculous that only knights can jump over other pieces, only bishops are limited to half of the 64 squares, only pawns can't move backwards, ... .

Bilbao rules are relatively new, so it remains legitimate to discuss their pros and cons, and to disagree with other posters.

Danailov's motivation to promote Bilbao rules may well have been - at least in part - "it's good for Topalov and bad for Kramnik" rather than "it's good for chess". Hmm, he may genuinely believe that whatever's good for him is good for chess.

"But, in my opinion the person who wins more games then he/she loses is the better player, and the better player should be the one who is declared the winner of the tournament."

But, that is again just a statement that you prefer traditional scoring over the Bilbao system (not that there's anything wrong with that).

Think evolution: the "best" species is the one best adjusted to the environment. There cannot be objective criteria that totally disregards the environment. With Bilbao rules, the "best player" is the one who adjusts his or her play to the reality of the scoring system.

Yeah, the 3 in a 3-1-0 system is a bit much. Perhaps a 2.5-1-0 is better, where a win is better than 2 draws, but worse than 3 draws.

Sorry to go off on a tangent here.

Maybe I don't fully understand the rules of football.
Why is goal keeper vs. goal keeper in football a dead draw? It seems to me that it's easier for someone to score 1 vs. 1 than 11 vs. 11.

"But what I am curious to know is how chess historians will decide on tournament wins - will they really consider a +1(+4-3) to be better than a +2(+2=5)?"

It would be very revisionist to retro-fit a different scoring system on past events. Maybe some time in the future they will want to encourage sound, objective chess and introduce a 3-2-0 system. While updating past tournament tables would be great for Leko et al, it's not really how historians should work.

I much prefer the 10-5-2 scoring system. All players are winners.

Well you're right, but going for a win/goal would mean taking a big risk for either "team" (BTW, I think there's some rule about minimum number of players - so a match will be abandoned after a certain number of red cards).

More to the point: football, like most other sports, doesn't have the concept of forcing a draw - there's no such thing as perpetual check, stalemate or opposite-colored bishops!

It would be obviously wrong to change the rules after the fact.

Just as it would be equally wrong to say that Carlsen is not leading the tournament right now. All players entered into this tournament knowing full well what the rules where, and maybe some have adjusted their strategy to match.

Carlsen is a, by his own admission, "anything but first place is a loss" type player. I don't think it's out of the question that he changed his play specifically for this tournament because of the scoring system. He has tried almost every game to keep as many pieces on the board as possible, which definitely contributed to his loss against McShane. There were several points in that game where he could have bailed out, exchanged everything, and went for a draw, but he didn't.

The benefit is the fact that you can get very strong without improving your FIDE, so that when you *are* unleashed, you can gain a ton of rating points.

Not much of a benefit, but I have to say something nice about this backwards chess country (USA, in case no one else was aware).

Hmm, I don't see how that's a "benefit," either, since you end up at the same rating in the same amount of time (compared to a place like Europe).

Maybe the major benefit is that it enables semi-legitimate sandbagging--although FIDE tournaments usually don't have class prizes, so it's probably not much of an issue.

Minimum number of players (per side) is seven, if anyone is interested.

There are indeed FIDE-rated tournaments with class prizes (I have played in some), but I think there are usually mechanisms in place to hinder sandbagging. (E.g. if there is a big discrepancy between the FIDE and the national rating.)

So there may be two remaining benefits:
- his opponents might underestimate him (if they only know his official FIDE rating)
- for a while, he benefits from a higher K factor (Herman's first two events in the current rating period were rated with K=25)

lol..and have people respond to draw offers in equal positions by resigning?!!

Funny how the stronger a player is the more help he gets from his opponents to win a game.

Of course not.

And if with best play chess is a draw, as you suggest, then the higher the level of competition, the less help (as you put it) a player receives from his opposition, and the more likely a game will result in a draw.

De facto, most wins these days are not the result of the oponnents "help", but the result from creating as many problems for your opponent as possible.

One problem chess has is the "Grandmaster draw" rule that allowed grandmasters to agree to a draw no matter what the position in the game. This rule has done much damage to chess.

And these "cheating" scenarios, where two players prearrange their wins/losses have nothing to do with reality.

"Third, the rating issue. You "win" the tournament but lose a pile of rating points since you're -4."

First off, how do you win a round-robin with -4? Sounds impossible, but then again my math is horrible. Also, Bilbao scoring has been applied many, many times before, and it doesn't really produce very freaky results. It's an incentive and a tangible reward for playing for the win, it makes it more meaningful to fight on for a player who had a bad start, and so on. The impact on the ratings isn't likely to be very big. And if the impact is big, just play more conservatively for a while and get those points back if it bothers you that much.

As to the collusion issue, we basically have to trust the players to be professional already. Players on the top level know each other, and when two friends meet in the ultimate or pen-ultimate round, they might collude to increase their collective prize money or whatever. So we just have to trust them, and it's a bit easier to do so now that we don't have the cold war thing looming over us.

:) wouldn't that make people think outside the board?!!

First off, how do you win a round-robin with -4?

It's possible with the 3-1-0 scoring system.
Say there is a 18 round tournament.
1 player can win the tournament with +7 -11 =0 if all other games in the tournament are drawn.

Ahh, right you are. I believe the original premise was +4/-8, but I like your example even better.

Let me see if I get this straight. You write that GM draws are a problem. Many GM draws are concocted prior to the game beginning, i.e are pre-arranged. But at least normally GM draws don't really help both players maximize their ability to win tournaments, since chess is a zero sum game. Yet you think these same players who play GM draws are suddenly not going to be able to figure out that 3+0 or 0+3 > 1+1? Really? :-)

The GM draw is already made more difficult by Sofia rules - though not ruled out: FIDE GP events had quite a few non-forced early move repetitions. At least in mutual heavy time trouble it's OK to me if players agree to (chicken out with) a draw. It may be disappointing to spectators, but is it really preferable to have a decisive results at any prize, i.e. one player blundering or flagging?

For me, a fundamental problem with Bilbao rules is "lack of respect for fighting draws". In London this year, Anand-Carlsen was worth three points because Vishy converted his advantage. Does it make sense that the value is reduced to two points if Magnus holds the draw?

On cheating scenarios: Under different circumstances, we have one fairly recent example: Radjabov-Mamedyarov 1-0 from the Astrakhan GP was a win-win situation for both players, and people suggested that they were, well, aware of this ... . The issue isn't whether such rumors or insinuations are true or not, but whether it makes (more) sense to cheat providing at least a rationale for such rumors.

This kind of collusion is very risky. You would have nobody to complain to when, after handing your opponent a victory, he decides to beat you in your next encounter.

Agreed - actually I won't accept or like it either if white, rather than black, blunders at the end ,:)

Chess, like everything is cyclical. I'm sure the Sicilian will become popular again in the next 5 years at super-GM level, as will the KID against d4. 10.5 years ago, nobody would have predicted that the Berlin of all defenses would become the preeminent solution to the Ruy Lopez...of course, Kramnik changed all that.

It seems both Anand and Kramnik have sorted out Carlsen. If he loses today it will be a big psychological hit for Carlsen.

Absolutely! And if Kramnik converts today it will be a good result not just for him but also for Kirsan/FIDE - since their WC cycle will not lose any credibility by one Magnus Carlsen not playing.
That said, I have little doubt that if this were a double round robin, Magnus would have been favorite to score heavily against the Englishmen in the 2nd leg and favorite to win the event. Interesting similarity with Topalov when he was number one gaining all those Elos against the <2750 guys..

What are you on about? McShane will beat Howell and win the tournament straight. Not bad for a "lesser GM", eh?

Oh i see, is Mcshane better placed in tie-breaks than Anand?
I thought if Anand wins its Anand and if Kramnik wins its Kramnik and only if they draw other have a chance.

If McShane wins, then a) Kramnik has the better tie-break if he wins, Anand has the worse tie-break if he wins.

I wouldn't go that far, but I wonder what was in Carlsen's orange juice: according to gg he must have been sick for most of the game but suddenly recovered near the end!?
Unfortunately, once again there will be no press conference after the game.

ok now that he has drawn and everybody just moved one point ahead. whats the situation with tie breaks. Who is best placed at tie breaks Mcshane, Anand or Carlsen and in what order.

The tie-break order if they all win:
1) Carlsen
2) McShane
3) Anand

He has botched up several endgames. One very recently against Anand in Bilbao. And another simple rook endgame he messed up few years back. So clearly he is far away from the best endgame player.

Man, are you ever full of sour grapes. That was an absolutely incredible save, and I don't think there are any players who's never botched an endgame. Try smiling once in a while, or something.

I'm surprised that Carlsen is getting praise for playing this game. Kramnik had another meltdown after playing beautifully.

The only way Short can redeem his poor performance is by beating Carlsen. He has been far too cavalier about his losses. Saving that, Carlsen will win. Anand and Kramnik will shake hands.

You mean he made a mistake in a rook endgame when he was, like, 16 years old? Yeah, Carlsen is a patzer.

I never commented anything about this save. Look at my post above which said "Wow. Carlsen is saving this one.". was the first one to say that. ... I only commented on someone who jumped to saying he is the best endgame player ever.

Yes in the game Aronian vs Carlsen Tal Memorial 2006
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1437592

His penultimate move Ra7+ was a blunder (Kg6 was necessary). Sure he will never do it again in his life. But that was an elementary blunder someone at least above 2650 would be expected to know.

Ok. But fans are understandably heady with bliss after that save, so why the urge to bring them down? Surely, some optimism should be allowed to go unpunished?

And despite not playing every endgame perfectly, I think it's generally recognized that he's one of the best endgame players currently around.

I remember the game, of course. Carlsen was still 15 years old at the time. Kramnik and Carlsen are probably two of the best (current) endgame players, and today wasn't the first time Carlsen tricked Kramnik:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1563791

(Tal Memorial 2009).

Interesting some news is slowly popping up that the endgame could have been won by white with the move 68.g5 leading to a study like win. Shipov still says he will debate with those who say so, but the line posted on chessvibes by Garrett Kingman is 69.g5 hxg5 70.Kg4 Ke3 71.g3 Kf2 72.Bd5 Ke3 73.Kxg5.

and shipov has the same note 68. g5 hxg5 69. Kg4 Ke3 70. g3! with subtle play on zugzwangs to follow. I am awaiting further analysis, but that line seems to win.

Hmm, did Carlsen "trick" Kramnik in that game, or was it simply that Kramnik's advantage wasn't enough for a win? In any case, the overall picture between Kramnik and Carlsen (since Dortmund 2009) hasn't really changed: sometimes Vlad wins, sometimes Magnus suffers but manages to hold a draw. The only exception was London 2009.

I didn't quite spot the Kg3 but when played I immediately saw that g5 push line. Then Kramnik went astray and I couldn't believe how one of the greatest end game players missed that. Anand wouldn't miss in this sort of simplified positions, that is why I consider Anand the greatest end game player ever! I mean Anand's calculating ability and end game understanding is far superior than some of those who are considered by many as the greatest end game players.

Their game in Corus 2008 (Carlsen won with black) should be mentioned:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1482706

And Carlsen has 3.5-0.5 against Kramnik in the two latest WBCs, of course. But I won't tease a Kramnik fanboy like yourself more than absolutely necessary.

May be Carlsen "tricked" Kramnik when he went for the knight and rook trade and gave Kramnik an impression that it was defendable for black and that there was never a win after that!!

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1599149
may be enough to refute (or at least somewhat question) your fanboyism

I knew that, we discussed and analyzed for how many hours? Unlike that game, g5 here you just spot in a matter of seconds that it is winning!

If Carlsen wins tomorrow he wins 1st place. Period. Regardless of what happens in the other games. No doubt helped by the silly 3-1-0 rule, but he deserves credit for hanging in there today. And since it is highly unlikely he won't win with white tomorrow (cmon Nigel, surprise us!), Anand has to win against Kramnik to become number one ahead of Carlsen on the official year-end list.

I think I figured out 70.g5 brilliant!!

70.g5 hg kg4 Kf2 g3 Kg2 Bd5+ Kf2 Ba2 Ke3 Kxg5 Kf3 Kh4! (g4 would run into Kg3! Kh5 g6+ Kg5 Kh3 with draw probably) Ke4 g4 Kf4 g5 etc. should win.

70.g5 h5 g6 should win easily for white

70.g5 Ke4 g6!! should win easily again. if Ke5 Bf7 Kf5 Kh4 and thats it.

It was hard but it wasn't that very hard though. :)

Did I miss anything? Its your turn now!

You think that because you are a Carlsen fan.
The alternative view is that Carlsen is not as good as Kramnik or Anand, but due to his energy and motivation manages to maximize his result given his talent.

This tournament is a perfect example.
Carlsen won all games where he had an advantage in this tournament, and drew one game where he was outright losing.

Anand on the other hand was not losing in a single game. Missed a win against Nakamura, and let a advantage slip away against Howell.

Kramnik allowed a draw when he should have beaten Carlsen, and inexplicably sacked a piece against Nakamura.

I would say based on these results it's Anand/Kramnik who have room to grow, not in chess ability, but in energy, motivation, and mental toughness.

"70.g5 h5 [71.] g6 should win easily for white"

How does White win if Black plays K to e7 and f8(e8)?
Without a3 and h5 pawns this is a known draw, and I do not see a way to force black to play h3 (h4), so
that gxh would work.

Actually Carlsen gets beaten quite a lot compared with Anand/Kramnik, so I don't know how your quote applies.

You don't mention the middle game at all. Carlsen was outplayed almost as soon as it began. His easy equalizing in the opening meant nothing.

I think it's unlikely Kramnik plays for a win with black against Anand, but otherwise I agree with you. Should be a great round and a great tournament.

I wasnt exactly clear, Anand remembered a game of Adams not against himself but against a lesser GM which Adams himself could not recollect.

Other than first place for the four you mentioned, there is also extra motivation for Anand and Carlsen for retatining #1 spot. For Carlsen to be #1 again he has to get a better result than Anand tomorrow i.e. if Anand draws then Carlsen has to win and if Anand loses Carlsen has to draw.

So... chess is merely a game? Isn't football a game too? or a sport? Of course it is both just as chess is both. There are many analogies used between chess and other sporting activities and there are even many commercials using chess this way.

Hello.

I am not native english speaking, there could be a different meaning attached to "sport" in my language. That said,

Two computers playing each other. Still chess -- but sport?

Unlike sport, you do not have to be present to play chess. I can imagine you would not even have to be alive. You could die while playing postal chess -- but leave behind a variation tree for someone else to post. Who plays the game then? Still chess -- the opponent never notices -- but sport? Who is the sportsman?

If chess is sport, then so is checkers, kalaha, and tic-tac-toe. These are more straight-forward analogies but for some reason people choose football (or boxing) and want them to be similar.

I don't see why. Chess is chess and nothing else.

Hmm, (from the current world top) is there a player rated above 2800, past or present, who doesn't make mistakes? It's easy to point out mistakes in (some of) Anand's and Topalov's games. At the moment, I don't remember a 'remarkable' mistake by Aronian, but this must be just my bad memory ... .

4 versus 4!

Remember this from Amber? Pono-Carlsen 0-1

Amazing endgame.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1578575

I agree with this. Two such saves should be worth one game won. Chess is a zero-sum game which is "a draw by a comfortable margin", quoting Grischuk. In such a setting it is wrong to introduce such an asymmetry.

Anand and Kramnik almost consistently outplay Carlsen, and this problem, I believe, is the reason Carlsen dropped out of the WC cycle.

If chess really is "a draw by a comfortable margin", then 3-1-0 makes even more sense, awarding the one who surpassed that comfortable margin to win a game.

Also, why should play A be rewarded for a "save", when really his opponent (player B) blew it? Player B didn't prove he could surpass the "comfortable margin", and the only thing player A proved was that he was able to avoid dropping out of the "comfortable margin". 1 point for both seems fair.

There really are no arguments against 3-1-0. At least I haven't read any here.

Trash and burn the tradition and move on to make chess a game/sport of the future, not the past. And rewarding wins much more than draws or losses is one good way to do so.

We are talking about humans competing, yes? We are not discussing computers. Where is the tic-tac-toe Olympiad with national teams? If you compare chess with tic-tac-toe, then there is no reason to debate further. Whether you agree or not, no one if their right mind would deny that chess is a sporting competition. It is a board sport or mind sport, but it is a sport.

On the scoring system... I don't especially mind it, but I don't see the slightest evidence that the players in London played anything other than their natural game because of it. Howell, Anand and Adams were solid as usual, Kramnik and Carlsen played the way they've been playing for the last couple of years (generally making serious efforts to win with both colours), Nakamura and McShane played sharp chess based on calculation. Short was Short. The main reason the London tournament's always likely to have a lot of decisive games is just that there's a big rating difference between the players.

Maybe it's a sign of how good he really is when he isn't playing particularly well but still managed to win such a strong tournament.

Skin of his teeth against Kramnik, lost to Anand, Notched up wins against lesser GM's.

You're right, he must be really good!

Of course the scores are not consistent with the elo rating, which is nothing bad at all. To the contrary, scores were/are not consistent with elo rating even under the old system.

Remember Fischer losing rating points after beating Spassky 12.5 - 8.5?

The higher you are rated the easier it gets to lose rating points despite finishing with a + score.

E.g. a 2700 in a 2600 competition has to score +3 or so to gain elo points.

So your argument is really no point against 3-1-0

Another Carlsen fanboy - news for you : Anand topped the scoreboard. Oh I'm sorry, you were talking football, no?

Ok all Carlsen fanboys : Whats the head to head now between Anand, Carlsen, Kramnik.

At the end of the day George, it is results that count...whether it was by the skin of his teeth, whether the phone rang...it doesn't really matter.

To me and most connoisseurs/purists Anand, Carlsen & McShane (and Nakamura, if Adams loses today) are joint winners of this tournament. Of course, tournament organizers have a certain tie-break formula (310, most blacks, most black wins, etc) which puts Carlsen first. I see no reason why Anand should've risked anything today when he knew he was going to be a joint winner (unless McShane won with black).

But there are two theories which get confirmed by these London results - first, the way Carlsen came back from two losses in the first three games to be a joint winner shows that he is definitely the favorite in any round-robin tournament having several non-top-5 GMs; second, in match play against Anand/Kramnik he has miles to go before he can be a serious contender.

"he is definitely the favorite in any round-robin tournament having several non-top-5 GMs"

In other words, tournaments with more than 6 contestants?

"but I don't see the slightest evidence that the players in London played anything other than their natural game because of it."

Well, if you're already playing for a win with both colours, there might not be much incentive to change. If, however, you're not playing for a win, then maybe the idea is that you should (provided winning the tournament is of interest, of course).

Well Carlsen needs Vishy as his coach to beat Kramnik !

"We are talking about humans competing, yes?"

No, we are talking chess. Kasparov vs. Deep Thought - that's chess too. You don't need humans to have a game.

Tic-tac-toe is admittedly pushing it a bit but you can expand, playing five-on-a-line on an infinite board. That is way closer to chess than any sport. And I note you picked that one out and forgot about other board games mentioned. Soon as you leave out the dice you have a direct parallel to chess. Checkers, go, mølle, chinese checkers, .. you can buy them, six games in a box.

Six varieties of sport, in your opinion?

And what is this nonsense about the Olympics. The consequence of taking that seriously would be, stop Chess Olympics plus a number of other events, and chess is no longer a sport.

If an activity is sport, it is so no matter what framework you put it into.

Do you consider darts, poker and golf sports? Why/why not?

And what about Starcraft, Counter Strike, etc.?

Agreed. Carlsen is definitely the favorite in RR events because he actually tries to win every game. Which is a lot more than can be said for Anand/Kramnik.

I think Anand is at the point in his life where he can only motivate himself to fight very sporadically (like WC matches). Kasparov was there too late in his career, he played very few tournaments before eventually quitting altogether.

I have a very hard time seeing chess as part of the International Olympics. Yes, we love our game/sport of chess, but it is a mental sport, not a physical sport. The Summer Olympics is all about physical sports. Having the one exception of chess be a part of the Olympics seems quite silly. Just my opinion.

"So much for scoring system gripes. Magnus wins under standard scoring as well."

Are you sure? Under the standard scoring system both Anand and Carlsen (and Luke too) have the same points. Have you done the tie-breaker calculations?

Something is wrong with your math, the + and - should cancel.
Your stats can't be right because +8 -7 = +1

Hello Ricitos.

Golf, yes.
Dart, yes.
Poker, no.

To qualify as a sport it should at least be impossible to pass the task to someone else.

In golf, tell your substitute: Now putt the ball those 15 yards and make a birdie. It won't work.

In darts, tell him: Now make three bull's eye. He will miss, no matter how exact you describe the task.

In poker, tell him: Raise with 200. Works fine. You can do it on the Internet.

Being a competition does not make it s sport.

Sorry, I am not sure what Starcraft, Counter Strike, etc. is.

You're right, Short ended on abysmal -5. What a rout. No wonder he preferred to talk about rock music towards the end.

"Carlsen wins on tie-break.

Good thing we didnt have a winner on -1"

________________________
Let's See:

+3 (=0) -4 = 9 points, with a net score of -1

+2 = 3 -2 = 9 points, with a net score of 0 (even)

+1 = 6 = 9 points, with a net score of +1

...And the player on -1 would win on Tie-Breaks, based on having the most Wins--even if he finished alone in Last (sole 8th place) (according to +/-)

Silly system, from a bunch of clowns. More "Braindead Games", I guess.

Your example hits the point home very well. It is very much a realistic scenario in a 8 player tournament where the player are not too far apart in playing strength for this to happen. 1 player finishing on +1, 1 on -1 and all other on even. And the standings would be completely upside down according to this funny system.

May be organizers will realize this only when this scenario actually materializes.

In addition, each day the best game prize was awarded (£1,000)

Now the Semi-Finals are set for the Woman's World Championship: 3 Chinese, including Hou Yi-Fan, and 1 from India...Humpy Koneru.

Humpy and Hou face-off in the Semi-Finals. The other match is all Chinese.

A bit more surprising that a 2nd player from India made it to the Quarterfinal Tie-breaks, than that 3 Chinese make it to the Semis.

The Chinese have a wealth of unheralded talent, who are tough competitors.

I think you are a bit harsh or unfair on Kramnik: after yesterday's "loss" - it sure must feel like a loss - would you really expect him to play sharply for a win with black (Sicilian!?)?

Besides, as Peter Doggers (present in London) wrote on Chessvibes, "Kramnik ... is suffering from a cold, but probably doesn’t want to use that as the reason [for not beating Carlsen]"

I believe j nielsen misquoted. I mentioned the Chess Olympiad, not the Olympics. Even then chess is recognized by the IOC as a sport, but is not one of the games featured at the games.

What makes an activity a sport is the competitive nature, not the fixation on its physical exertion. The fact that quadriplegics can compete in sports doesn't make them any less so. Many of the activities you mentioned do not boast 150 federations with national teams, a professional circuit and its Olympiad. Some are called mind sports... it still makes them sports. It is the competitive intensity and difficulty that makes an activity a sport.

jnielsen's idea that since computers play it makes it less of a sport is nonsensical. We use computers for just about everything. Does that make those tasks for which we use them any less? No. The fact that computers play chess is besides the point. We understand that sports are played between humans, yes?

"To qualify as a sport it should at least be impossible to pass the task to someone else."

This doesn't make sense.

China has been dominating women's chess for 20 years now. Dronavali Harika was no surprise at all. She is 2525 and a very tough fighter. Both countries are awash in talent, but the Chinese appear to have more vigor in pursuit of chess goals.

India, however, has accomplished so much and in 2008 almost held all four individual championships. They had both junior crowns (Harika was one of them) and Anand had the overall crown. Humpy lost to Hou Yifan in 2008 women's semifinals.

Hmm, Mig was "whining" (not IMO) after round 4 when it wasn't at all clear who would eventually benefit from Bilbao rules. And even if it was written today, he wouldn't be 'whining' on behalf of Nakamura - who is also 1/2 point behind Carlsen based on classical scores.

This year, only first to third place was affected by Bilbao rules. Last year it was fifth to seventh place, with Nakamura (=6-1) finishing tied with Ni Hua (+1=3-3) and behind McShane (+2=1-4, mirror image of Carlsen's score this year).

"Carlsen was the best player this tournament and deserved to win it."
What exactly is this based on??

I agree about chess being staged in the quadrennial Olympics. However, you must know that both archery and the equestrian events have been a part of the Olympics. Curling is a part of Winter Olympics. I believe that we have a very limited scope of what defines a sport, but I believe the competitive intensity qualifies chess as a sport not to be put in the category of tic-tac-toe, dice or monopoly.

"All this whinning about the 3-1-0."

Watching the russian superfinals, it's easy to understand the outrage. Finally, with a decent scoring system and none of this pandering to the masses stuff, chess is played the way it's meant to be. Just marvel at the beauty of this brilliantly timeless classic: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1602622

I guess we all miss that stuff, don't we?

""Carlsen was the best player this tournament and deserved to win it."
What exactly is this based on??"

Objectivity and common sense?

You see, Kramnik didn't deserve to win this tournament.

The London tournament organizers seem to think that relentless hype and "bold" innovations somehow compensate for an event that lacks seriousness.
It is too brief (and too "Short"!), and has too many middling players.

Doug, I think you will find yourself in a minority of one. Some 'chess fans' can be such ungrateful sods- moan endlessly about lack of serious corporate sponsorship of events...then carp ceaselessly when serious events appear and differ ever so slightly from their eccentric wishes.

I was present at many of the rounds of the London Classic and thoroughly enjoyed, along with a few hundred others, the various events in that tournament. There was something for everyone regardless of your ability and I think even you Doug, might have found some entertainment had you made it there. If you did attend and genuinely have these gripes, then I suspect that suicide is the only remedy appropriate to your affliction.

"You can lose your way to the top. Isn't it great!"

Thx for the table. However, that's not losing your way to the top, but winning your way to the top. After all, the wins brought in the points, not the losses.
And THAT is exactly the core of the 3-1-0 system: reward the ones who actually win games.

I am not commenting on the probability of such a table. Even if it was 10^-99 , it is still possible, right?

Logic of the anti-3-1-0 fraction:
you can win a tournament without having the best +/- score => system is bad.

What they fail to explain, WHY exactly is it necessary that the best +/- score should win a tournament?

It is basically a matter of taste, not or arguments. Some like to have wins rewarded, some like not losing rewarded.

What is obvious is that Mig is VERY upset about something, why else would he twitter such nonsense in sour grapes manners.

He is angry about Short losing with black against Carlsen.
He is angry about Carlsen winning the tournament.
He is angry about Nakamura finishing below "his play".

He is simply whining too much these last days.

"There are no McShane or Howell fans here,"
Are you sure? Even then doesn't that bite Anand??

"First rule of trolling is to find a target that at least one person would be ars*d to defend."
Now I see. :)

I agree. It would be particularly shocking if Howell and Short got ZERO compensation for their efforts, as the chart suggests. This is a supertournament, after all, and all players should get paid.

Yes, and if the current candidates matches were a candidates tournament for example, Magnus Carlsen would suddenly become favorite to become the challenger ahead of Kramnik. Matches are a different story altogether - Kramnik missed one win yesterday, but its almost impossible to imagine him missing 4 in a row (Carlsen would be favorite again if it went to blitz playoffs).

Well, first there are McShane fans hereabouts, and second, from what I've seen - if correct - Howell got nothing from this tournament except the usual tournament courtesy stuff. His score wasn't high emough.

Does this make anand better player compared to kasparov

Oooh, that's a tough one, innit? Is there transitivity in chess results? The jury has been out on that one for absolute ages, and... oh, wait, they haven't. Apparently the verdict came in some 1000 years ago, and it read "Is this a joke? Of course there isn't."

Can't blame you for missing that one, tho. So hard to keep up with the news these days. Like just the other day, someone told me that the fine, young singer in The Jackson Five, y'know the most talented one, Michael, was dead. I couldn't believe it, but he showed me some site that has, like, all the facts in the world on it, and there it was.

Bit of a bummer, really.

If candidates matches were a tournament, I agree that he might be a favorite. I mean there is no Howel and Short in them and Kramnik and Aronian will pose the biggest challenge. But he can sweep the rest (Radjabov, Kamsky, Topalov) going by his record. The match is tougher for him than the tournament for sure. I just cant see him winning a match against Kramnik. Sure he is #1 by winning so many games, but he has proved time and again he is just tad inferior to both Kramnik and Anand when it comes to games against them.

The swiss system you pointed is a good one. Indeed one might want to lose the penultimate round to have someone lower rated in last round to beat. Is there a flaw to this strategy. there must be .. no? If not truely 3-1-0 cannot be applied there. Or rather the swiss pairing system scheme has to change.

I concede that Carlsen was the most efficient player, converting all of his favorable positions and surviving a dead-lost one against Kramnik (only the seesaw game Anand-Carlsen could have had a better result for Magnus).

By comparison, Kramnik was one move away from beating Carlsen (who, in his own words, would have resigned after 62.Rd3), probably missed a win against McShane and even (right after the time control) a draw against Nakamura. So he lacked killer instinct and survival skills, hence didn't deserve to win the tournament.

We don't know how much of this was due to being ill and when he became ill during the event (thanks Hardy Berger for the on-site info!). So far the empirical evidence suggests that
- a sick Kramnik finishes ahead of a sick Carlsen (Tal Memorial 2009), with Carlsen struggling to draw with white against him
- a sick Kramnik almost beat a healthy Carlsen (London 2010).

At least we didn't get an IMO truly odd result: If Kramnik had beaten Carlsen, both would have finished with 12 football points. But Carlsen would be first on tiebreak due to "double Bilbao rules": the relevant tiebreak would have been number of wins, hence +4-3 isn't just equal to but (considered) better than +3=3-1 !? A tie-creater becomes a tiebreaker ... . I am confident that Carlsen fans would still consider it a fully deserved victory for their hero ,:( .

Yeah good point on "A tie-creater becomes a tiebreaker ... . I ".. Indeed the fact that Carlsen in that scenario manages to tie with Kramnik is because he has more wins and then the same would be used to make him stand better in the tie-break. That is very silly. Ok, but we dint have that situation and probably saved the organizers from some embarrassment.

"A tie-creater becomes a tiebreaker"

That is not correct. With the same logic you can say the draws were the tie-creater.

So both, wins and draws, created the tie, because they both added to the point total.

In the end it is a matter of taste and preference, what one makes the tiebreaker. And regarding the number of wins a superior tiebreak makes at least as much sense as regarding something else as tiebreaker.

If I were the organizer and players had the chance to win 50.000 or 25.000 etc. then I'd choose the tiebreak that suits me best, what I like best. And not what some chess traditionalists view as sensible.

The players knew the rules. And Magnus himself said that without the 3-1-0 system, he'd probably agreed to a draw against Adams. But he played on and won.

And players who don't like the scoring system can decline an invitation.

I really can't see why some in here make their personal preferences such a huge matter of debate.

The truth that if Carlsen had lost to Kramnik, they both tie for score only because of 3-1-0 system (which indirectly is because Carlsen has more wins = 4 giving him 12 pts). And the same 4 wins breaks the tie giving the edge against Kramnik at the end. That is just a fact and it is odd. Just because the players knew the rules before hand does not change this truth. And if a rule is layed down and it has some flaw, then it is good to debate about it. And not say, if you dont like the rules dont accept invitation. I am not questioning the result of the tournament, just the system itself. Why not make the system better so that more chess fans will like it. I dont think there was this much debate over just the sofia rules, but this take it too far, sofia, + 3-1-0 , but double sofia (tie break winner)

The main point is that if one player at the end of tournament is at a lower score (regular scoring) than another and the if fact that he took more risks and had more wins deserves to be credited, then fine push his points up using 3-1-0 system. But now if the points are tied (with the other player), its silly to use the same thing again and push the player even higher on tie breaks.

I am curious as to what tie breaks makes Anand 3rd and McShane 2nd. They seem equal on all grounds. -- no of wins, no of black wins, head to head. so they must split the points. is your source where you got the prize information correct ?

May be McShane won the tie break because he played more moves in the tournament. Judging by the organizers very serious intent in preventing short games it might well be that case. I have Anand at 378 moves and McShane at 403. That McShane Kramnik 139 move game made the difference.

If "number of moves played" becomes a tie-breaker, it does not require much imagination to see what is in store...

If that was the case it would be quite ridiculous - McShane winning an extra 5,000 Euros because Kramnik tried to win R+B vs. R for 45 moves (the last 25 worth 200 Euros each). But I guess the tournament homepage is the most reliable source: it gives McShane and Anand both in second place, tiebreak is "no tiebreak". Hence they probably split the prize money for second and third place and each got 20,000 Euros.

If there was a need for clear second (apparently there wasn't), McShane and Anand should have played rapid and blitz games.

Yes I guessed that. So John Fernandez prize information is incorrect. He also has Nakamura and Kramnik sharing the same prize which is also incorrect.

"a sick Kramnik finishes ahead of a sick Carlsen (Tal Memorial 2009), with Carlsen struggling to draw with white against him
- a sick Kramnik almost beat a healthy Carlsen (London 2010)."

Sure. I've always said that Kramnik is Carlsen's biggest problem. But I don't think he's Kramnik's "client", and Carlsen's proven he's the best tournament player ( 6/8 supertournament wins the last 15 months).

Carlsen ahead of Kramnik (last 15 months): London 2009+2010, Corus 2010 (both were healthy!)

Vice versa: Tal Memorial 2009, Bilbao 2010.

(WBCx2 and Amber 2010 had Carlsen > Kramnik)

Amazingly, the prize information for Nakamura and Kramnik is correct according to the tournament homepage: 4th and 5th place are both worth 10,000 Euro. Nakamura got an additional 2,500 Euros for "best game" prizes (shared with Adams in the last round).

These prizes, voted by the public, are sometimes a bit debatable: in the 6th round, it went to Short and Howell for their King's Gambit draw. If there were no appearance fees, this (500 Euros each) is all they earned ... . Still the draw between Kramnik and Carlsen was more 'memorable' - maybe that game was still underway when the public voted?

This time, they didn't have the 10,000 Euro brilliancy prize - last year, awarding it to Nakamura - McShane 0-1 had many (non-British) eyebrows raised ... .

"And why is it always the team that scores the most goals that wins at football? Isn't that kind of boring? Why can't you win 2-3 once in a while? That would be so much more exiting."

That's an epic analogy fail.

If you win a soccer game, you score more goals than the opponent. If you win in chess, you checkmate your opponent (or he resigns).

So there your analogy bitterly fails. Because goals in soccer is not equal to points.

And in soccer you have the same "problem" you are whining about now - that a teams with a lot of losses can finish in front of a team with no losses.

So try another analogy, the one you gave above does not work.

Under the 3-1-0 system you most probably need to win games in order to finish top, both in chess and soccer.

The only reason why you think +2 (with 2 wins) is better than +1 (with 3 wins) is because you are used to the traditional system, where a point was split in case of a draw.

If the traditional system had favoured wins from the beginning, you would start whining about 1-1/2-0 if they implemented it now and say "thats stupid that the guy without the most wins finishes top".

It really comes down to personal preferences, not logic. There is no logical law behind the premise that a guy with less losses should finish in front of a guy with more wins. That is simply a matter of taste. Nothing more and nothing less.

And if I have $100.000,00 and invite players to grab that money, then I do the scoring system I like best. If they don't like it - decline the invitation and someone else gets the money.

It comes down to what I weigh more: the ability to win, or the ability to draw.

I trusted you would serve it - and you did. Thanks.

No need to bash Kramnik...Yifan actually missed a few wins earlier in the ending before finally coming through, so its not like she was flawless. Still it was nice to see her win. Would be nice to have a teenage WCh.

Also ...Kxe7 was the critical continuation. During the game she dint have much time and she dint take the offered piece but instead had to go a pawn down. In a practical scenario where you are defending and it looks lost would you rather lose another pawn or take the piece and complicate things. Turns out the ...Kxe7 is a draw and she missed it.

Just curious as to how you know all "us guys" missed that game ...

CO

For the time being, neither tgwkchh (the guy who keeps changing his handle) nor his idol Danailov have such powers. Of course organizers can do whatever they want (and players agree when they sign the contract), but the discussion is still legitimate to exchange opinions on whether Bilbao rules should be applied to more or all events (including official FIDE events) in the future.

Maybe Swiss systems suck, but which other system do you propose for an event with more than hundred players, and amateurs getting the chance to face GMs? Or should such events be abandoned altogether because the system sucks?
It would be interesting to watch if both players try to lose their game in the penultimate round ,:) . But there is one flaw to such an approach: a win and a draw (preferably in that order as it might improve your Buchholz tiebreaker) is still worth more than a loss and a win. So such 'games' may be more likely in the middle of the field (and might affect rating prizes but not decide the overall winner) - a 3-0-0 (or 1-0-0) system would be more effective!?

Well... I didn't actually believe everyone missed the game.

Right pioneer... no need to bash Kramnik, but I'm still baffled.

What is the line where Kxe7 draws? I'm not seeing this.

Please show analysis. I'm seeing a win for white. Black will at least lose several pawns including either the a- or c-pawn with another passed pawn coming.

Ok here is the line

...Kxe7 Kxg6 Bd8! (this is the only move to find idea being to put the bishop active and also for the time being stops the white king getting to f6 and later when black king steps away Bishop on d8 still stops the white king coming to f6 but is not hard as black has only either Kf8 or a bishop move) and now white has to play h4 (only time otherwise black king steps away and white will have no h4 and white is actually losing) so the full line might go

...Kxe7 Kxg6 Bd8! h4 (if Kg7 black wins) Kf8 (attacking h4) h5 Kg8 h6 Bh4 h7+ Kh8 Kf7 Kxh7 Kxe6 Kg7) and black holds all the passed pawns.

some contnuation to that line if white tries after the end of the line i gave earlier 52.Kd7 Kf7 53. e6+ Kf8 54. Kxc6 Be7 (holding c5)55. Kb5 Bd8 (now holding a5 and giving up c5 as a pawn will give very far outside passed pawn) 56. Kxc5 Ke7 (king blockades and dances on dark squares) 57. Kd5
Bc7 58. f5 Kf6 59. Kc6 Bd8 60. Kd7 Be7 61. Kc6 Kg7 62. c5 Kf6 63. Kb6 Bd8+ 64.Kb7 Kxf5 (finally capture when white king is far away) and white cannot make progress

It appears that 53.e6+ allows black to blockade, but 53.f5! is stronger and keep the king out.

Ah ok thats a point, but then black could have just gone 52...Kf8 (instead of my ...Kf7) so that f5! and e6 especially wont come with tempo and you can sort of force it for example. 52...Kf8 53.f5 (your move) Bg3 (attacking e5) and now if 54.e6 Bh4 (back to control all dark squares). Now if white goes after queen side pawns we transpose to the line I gave earlier like 55. Kxc6 Kg7 (so that Bishop can come back and check) 56. Kxc6 Be7+ and we have transposed.

You'll sacrifice e5 to get the pawns on the queenside. You never push e6 in that position. It's difficult to capture Bxe5 and protect the queenside. The bishop is stretched like a wishbone.

Sorry... you play e6 on ...Be5, but if you play Kf8 instead of Kf7 I believe you are a tempo behind your drawing line.

I cant see how after Bg3 Kxc6 Bxe5 you can win both the queen side pawns. I agree if you win a5 white can win, but black will only give up c5. For eg. next move if white take Bxc5 then Be7 protects a5. if he goes Kb5, then still Be7 protecting a5 and how does white make progress, he has lost his e5 pawn as well now.

Tempi does not count here. play it out and see. ...Kf8 in that position after Kd7 just draws. If you take the pawn now with Kxc6 then just Bg3 and I win one of the f or e pawns. if you play f5, then still Bg3. You have not given a winning line yet. give me a line that wins after the end of my variation.

This is a very interesting position!
Because of the limited material and moves,
the position yields well to computer analysis.
According Stockfish, 44. Be7 Kxe7 is a draw.
One variation:
44... Ke7 45. Kxg6 Bd8! 46. h4 Kf8 47. h5 Kg8 48 h6 Bh4! 49. h7+ Kh8 50. Kf7 Kxh6 51. Kxe6 Kg7 52.Kd7 Kf8! (52.. Kf7? loses) and now, if 53. f5,
then ... Bg3! 54. e6 Bh4 55. Kxc6 Kg7 56. Kxc5 Be7+ 57. Kc6 Kf6 drawing

One more comment:
With wonderful hindsight it is easy to say that like in the Kramnik-Carlsen came, White should have have used "comparative thinking", [see the Chessbase article ] and thefore should have played 44. h4! to gain a tempo first and then continue with 44. h4! Bc7 45. Bg5!? Bb6 46. Be7! and then as in the game. With the extra tempo white now wins after ...Kxe7, so white should have inserted it first.

A nice variation, but there are "duals" [44. h4 Bc7 46. Be7! Bb6 47.Bd6! is perhaps an easier win.]

"Hou advances?"
"That's what I'm asking you!"

In your line after 55.Kxc6 there is no need for Be7. Just play 55...Kg7. Only on Kxc5 Be7+. Since idea of Be7 is only to get bishop back in play and if required protect a5. So no need to play Be7 first and then on Kb5 Bd8 and take on c5 and back to e7+. Just 55...Kg7 and draw after Kxc5 Be7+. Jap also confirms that the computer sees a clear draw. I agree with Jap also that h4 first before this Be7 is actually winning.

Daaim,
We're were cross posting, see my comment below. In your variation, my comp points that after 54.e6! Bh4 55.Kxc6 black draws with Kg7! 56. Kc5 Be7+! and now:
1) 57. Kb6 Kf6 58.c5 Kxf5 59.c6 Bd8+! 60. c7 Bxc7
61 Kxc7 Kxe6
2) 57. Kc6 Kf6 58. c5 Kxf5 59.Kd5 Bc5

Yes... she moves onto the final.

Yes, you are correct that there is no way to tiebreak McShane and Anand, so they share 2nd/3rd.

My information was that 4th place was 10,000 and 5th place 10,000, but that felt weird. Nakamura is obviously ahead of Kramnik on tiebreak.

Also note Matthew Herman just scored his 2nd IM norm of the month in Ascona, Switzerland, to update my previous news item.

The variations flatline, but it appears that black has to play some very precise moves under tough circumstances. 53...Kf8! and 55...Kg7! are star moves. When I first glanced at it I was looking at fronting the pawns with the king immediately but that kills the bishop's defense. It didn't seem like the bishop could hold the a5-pawn. White has to somehow end up with three pawns for the bishop for a win. 44.Be7! is still a nice move and hard to see the defense... easy to make a mistake when you are chasing down pawns. Neverthless, Hou finished nicely with the double pawn sacrifice. I wish they had met in the finals instead of the semifinals. Shame.

Thanks!

Did you see the video joke with Condeleeza Rice and George Bush? They were talking about the past President of China Hou Jintao. It's very good on the word play.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmogpm-n4hQ

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with it, but the you-tube routine you reference is based on, and is a modern version of, the old Abbott and Costello comedy baseball routine entitled, "Who's on First." It is hilarious, if you know baseball. Look it up.

The clip you mention does a good job of modernizing it.

CO

I vaguely remember it. I suppose someone may do a chess version if Hou Yifan wins the championship.

Yep... know baseball. Was a player, collected cards and had scrapbooks... the whole bit.

Thanks.

Yes... the improvement is that in this video "Hu" is a real person in China and I can see how this could actually happen... at least for one laugh.

No, no, maybe an incomplete clown. There will be chances to beat them later (and I'm sure you will).

I thought the criterion for super-GM was 2700+ (mind you, there has been rating inflation, but still). Nakamura has been at that level for quite some time.

Yea, yea, I don't know what hcl's bar is, but you have to be right about that.
Of you'd have to count Karjakin in there as well, and Max Vachier-lagrave will join that small clique pretty soon, I'm sure.

So you're saying that no one should debate a decision unless it's theirs to make?

I rhink most of visit this site hoping it will go back to being the blog it was but its once or twice a month now and frankly there is not much point any more. Without regular posting then it becomes irrelevant.

One possibility might be for Mig to post topics, even if he doesn't write an intro; e.g., there's nothing about the Russian Superfinal that's ending today, so if I wanted to post on it it'd be here or in some other column. Likewise, today's the final decision day for Carlsen re: the Candidates' Matches. I imagine he'll be getting a few phone calls...!? And the Tata tournament is coming up in a month or 2, with the exciting "Ctrl-V" [Nepomniachtchi], who for my money is the odds-on favorite as the next wunderkind; I'd be astonished if he's not a Candidate next time around.
Mig, what do you say? That way you wouldn't have to take time out from your other activities so much, but we'd still have an ongoing forum.
PS - speaking of the Russian Superfinal, I thought N had a win vs. Vitiugov (rather than the draw he settled for) w. Qa6 instead of Qe2, preventing Black's counterplay w. ...Qb7. Anyone agree/disagree...?

Mark Crowther reports today on The Week In Chess:

63rd Russian Chess Championships 2010 (Playoff)
Mark Crowther (Wed Dec 22 15:05:00 2010)

The 63rd Russian Chess Championships took place 11th-22nd December 2010. Alexander Grischuk was the top seed, Sergey Karjakin was playing his first championship since his move from Ukraine, Dmitry Jakovenko, Peter Svidler and Ian Nepomniachtchi also star. Sergey Karjakin and Ian Nepomniachtchi tied for first with 7/11 and played off for the title. I don't know the time control for the playoff, possibly 15m +5 seconds per move but await confirmation both these games were drawn. The final game saw white have six minutes and black 5 and draw odds. Ian Nepomniachtchi won his first Russian title by drawing the game as black.

& I say: go, "Ctrl-V" ! It'll be VERY interesting to see how he does in his 1st really big int'l tnmt., i.e., Tata in Wijk Aan Zee, against the "big boys"!

Thanks for the update, and congrats from this sector to Ian Nepomniachtchi, if true.
That means all four playoff games were drawn between Nepo and Serge Karjakin, and I'm unclear as to how that would give Nepo the title, as he was defeated during the main rounds in his head-to-head with Sergey. I'll leave that to Thomas or Mishanp, or even rcfchess to explain...

Thank you in advance.

The point isn't who's sponsoring the tournament. Obviously the decision falls to them. However, it's still legitimate to discuss the merits of a system whose fate you don't control.

Here's an analogy: it's not your decision whether France permits women to wear burkhas in public (unless you're a French citizen). However, that doesn't mean you can't debate the merits of the issue.

Yes, you can debate the merits of the issue.

But you can't make a statement claiming absolute truth. And that is what many people do who reject the 3-1-0 system.

Or in your analogy: if France adopts a burkha ban, then you have all right to debate that. But that doesn't make the burkha ban any better or worse, even if you reject it.

Its just that different people weigh different aspects differently. So there is no absolute truth for "what is the best scoring system?".

Mig for example thinks +2 =11 -0 is better than +5 =3 -5. While he may have his reasons for that assertion, people who think the opposite have their reasons for their asertion too.

So what it really comes down to is accepting the choice of the organizer and respecting the official score.

As I was asked ... : the way I understand the Google-translated tournament homepage, Nepomniachtchi indeed won the title. Both were tied at 7/11 and played a playoff, any other tiebreakers including head-toe head score were irrelevant. Nepo won the title because he had black, hence draw odds in the final Armaggedon game.

BTW (maybe a matter of definition) Tata isn't Nepo's first super-event, he once won the Aeroflot open, thus qualifying for and playing Dortmund.

I don't think people who reject the 3-1-0 system are "claiming absolute truth." They are stating their (often strong) opinion. Sure, they could preface every post with the words, "In my opinion...", but the same could be said of any post.

Now, you're right that there's no absolute truth for what constitutes a superior scoring system, because some people may prefer a .57/-0.1/sin(0.3pi) system. But there can certainly be a consensus opinion, and people can make informed arguments to persuade each other as to what's in the best interests of the chess community as a whole. This is especially true of a relatively new scoring system whose repercussions are still not fully understood.

There is no point in trying to shut down debate. And I don't think anyone was disputing the *right* of the organizers to use whatever scheme they want.

It could be a number of things. First, there is a lot riding on this game and they are no doubt nervous. Second, maybe she saw that she was worse and decided to jettison a pawn to get a position she can defend. Third, she may have simply played a bad game. Fourth, they are probably fatigued from this format. Fifth, no move is hard to see if you're sitting at home drinking coffee with computers running. Comments like "I thought Hou was stronger..." are condescending. This is not the first time you've seen GMs make bad moves I'm sure.

I know this is easy to say when you are home, and I've seen other blunders and all you say is probably true.

However, it does not make the move better and the quality of the game is still quite poor for this rating level (on both sides). Probably it's fatigue, but whatever the reason this is sub-level play.

Yeah, yeah go ahead and say I'm crazy. This is excellent play and we all enjoyed the quality of this game.

"Hou Yi-Fan won the 2nd Game against Ruan, breaking the Tie. Tomorrow she will clinch the match, becoming the Youngest (Women's) Chess Champion."

OK, I'm calling myself out: that was one horrible prognostication. Instead of scoring 1/1, Hou Yi-Fan has only managed to score 0.5/2, from games 3 & 4.

Now that Ruan has brought about Tie-Breaks, there will be an additional 4 (?) Rapid Games, followed by (if necessary) 2 Blitz games, and the Sudden Death Armegeddon Blitz finale.

That's a fair amount of chess for one day. And starting to be a lot of pressure on Hou.

Predictions, anybody? ;-)

I'm not criticizing you for noting the quality standards. I just thought it was a bit harsh to talk about Hou's strength. That's all. We all can point out problems in games that have been played with hindsight. However, when you are playing and are under the pressure of the position and clock, I'm sure you can attest that it is not always easy to find the right plans/moves.

Yep... powerful line-up. I only hope the sponsorship holds up for years to come.

John,

It's relative. Even though the chess may not be at the highest level. There are always things to learn and there are games of good standard. An idea like Hou's 44.Be7 is not seen everyday. While the move only leads to a draw, it was something to behold... something to learn.

Those who ignore women's games because the quality isn't the highest... that's fine. There are those interested only in top 10 players games and there who are more flexible in their choices. Often times we focus on top players and miss fantastic stories... opening innovations and games!

Sorry. I messed up my grammar.

"Even though the chess may not be at the highest level. There are always things to learn and there are games of good standard."

should be

Even though the chess may not be at the highest level, there are always things to learn and there are games of good standard."

You're exactly right about that, Daaim. R. Fischer used to watch the games of much lower-rated players for ideas.

Not worth your time? Not at all how we feel about your self-absorbed posts, then...

Hey John Fernandez, Mr. Matthew Herman continues his winning ways. You probably know he is currently playing in the 2010 Groningen Chess Festival, now about to start round four. The link below affords a photo of the dude - w/cap.

http://www.schaakstadgroningen.nl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=131:rondeverslagen&catid=49:2010&Itemid=157

The next link shows his matchups. He has two points out of three so far, and they're big fat points. The rating differential kills me.

http://www.schaakstadgroningen.nl/festival/2010/Open%20A/SMWSite/index.html

Hou's strength is supposed to be 2600. 2600 are at a level that I cannot understand. Not harsh to say she should be stronger than that.

Please cite your source that Bobby watched the games of much lower ranked players in order to learn something. It is well known, however, that he studied the games of the early greats: Morphy, Steinitz, etc.

Please cite your source for this info on Bobby. Thanks.

Sorry, I can't recall where I read or heard that, but it was in the past year, and from a reliable source. I didn't get the impression that he was doing that in 1970; it was earlier, during the time of earlier U.S. Chess Championships.

You missed my post about possible reasons. Nevertheless, she is still improving at age 16. What was our strength at age 16?

The story behind Matthew Herman according to the same report on the tournament pages (my translation from Dutch):
"Like many others this reporter was curious about the story of the American winning 250 rating points over the past few months. Matthew told us that, at the age of 15, he was second on the American youth rating list behind Nakamura. However, he quit chess when he went to university. About 5 years ago he returned to the tournament scene. He played mostly in US (rapid) events and just one or two FIDE-rated events. His current USCF rating is already 2380, which he considers more reliable than his FIDE rating. The last months he found time to chess-travel across Europe which so far worked out well. He collected two IM norms and hopes to score his third one in Groningen."

Yes, so far he has 2/4, including beating Benjamin Bok (who has a horrible habit of kicking people under the table when he's losing - this is now the 3rd time I've heard of it happening), and draws versus Romanishin and Nijboer.

Nijboer had a great quote after the game "+250 has to be some kind of record!" (Matt is currently +242.8 for rating for the next FIDE list).

Makes me wonder - what is the most amount of points someone (legitimately) gained in a rating period? Given that the lists come out every 2 months now, I'm sure he's setting a new record in that time frame.

He's now over 2400 FIDE, so if he gets the IM norm in Groningen (this Round 5 matchup vs. Poetsch is a huuuuge one), he'll have the IM title.

Yes, of course, Matt did not play Ulfie when he was -9 years old, unfortunately. While that isn't in Mega 2011, another game vs. Frayle from Mar Del Plata 1970 is ascribed to him. Also, not him.

And yes, Matt has had some good results in US tournaments but the dearth of FIDE rated events (and of FIDE rated players in those few opens that there are) is the reason his rating hadn't budged in a while.

That being said, he's a dear friend of mine and we often do a lot of work together, but I didn't think he was *this* strong.

Of course, European tournaments are infinitely better than American ones, so I'm not surprised his performances in Europe are so incredible.

Thank you for the reference.

Why is that good, John? I mean, did he start playing and getting coached early? Or, has he been working it at it real hard lately?
Are you anywhere close to his strength?

Excuse me. I meant to write: Why is Matthew that good? Etc....

This may have been suggested earlier, but why not have a guest step in for Mig while he's otherwise preoccupied? Thomas, John Fernandez, HardyBerger, Chesshire Cat? Bueller?

LOL! My observation is that your wit is truly gifted!

Good idea, but please come up with a viable list of candidates.

CO

Uh.

Caustic? I protest.

Subjective? Well, guilty at times, I must admit.

I DO try to be fair and unbiased. I thought the original list was a joke, and so I said so. If I misinterpreted the original intent, then so be it.

Of course I didn't intend anything personal against anyone on the list.

CO

And also, to paraphrase LBJ, I will not seek, and I will not accept, any term as your reporter.

Both lists were a joke, CO.

What is certain is that spambots don't have a problem with where to put their posts.

I speak from personal knowledge. Fischer played blitz, blitz, blitz, and blitz.

chesshire cat: "Both lists were a joke, CO."

Well, DUH!!

CO

Nominations
1. Greg Koster
2. Clubfoot
3. chess observer
4. Ovidiu
5. Anand Nair
6. PircAlert

At the Manhattan chess club. Didn't he give his opponents five minutes and he gave himself one minute?

Which one of those odd cats has the time and the do re mi? (see Woodrow Wilson Guthrie).

Someone can correct me on this one if need be: that for several years Walter Browne hounded Fischer for a game in one of the New York clubs. When Fischer finally relented, it was on the condition that the game was played with knight odds. Browne was a real up-and-coming talent, so that was quite an offer. And I heard that Fischer won the game - or games, putting the kibosh on any further challenges.

I won't travel with the circus on a regular basis, but I will probably make the (short) trip to Wijk aan Zee one or a few times in January - with or without news from Mig in the meantime. If someone arranges press privileges for me, I might be able to do a French language interview with Max Vachier-Lagrave ,:) .

You give it, be prepared to take it. Just an observation.

I think one of the various incarnations of Luke would be a good choice.

NOT an observation ...

CO :)

I think this is a bit exaggerated Mig being so "busy" - maybe but sorry I didn't see any big time investment in hacking out a few paragraphs once a week. Perhaps its about motivation it could also reflect the fact that Kasparov seems much less involved in chess. It could also be that Mig has had to get a real job rather than gophing for Gary - hardly a secure bread winning role at the best of times!

Who knows what Mig's situation is? It's his business, after all; I simply proposed that, if people on the list are interested, he might be receptive to the idea of us simply suggesting categories for threads to be posted, without the necessity of his writing something about each, which he's evidently not (so much) into doing anymore, as evidenced by the untimeliness of the posts and even nonexistence of threads that one would think important. If people want to try stepping in as substitute moderators, fine (as long as Mig and the list members support it); but I don't see it as being absolutely necessary. What I would think is necessary is that we not have "Anand Surging in London" be the top title this time next year, unless it actually pertains to the 2011 tournament!

Ha ha ha Norseman...good observation.

I propose a new headline, still somewhat related to London: Nigel Short surging in Reggio Emilia where he is leading with 2/2. Somewhat bizarre games - he successfully sacrificed the opponent's pieces - but Gashimov and Morozevich(!) aren't exactly random patzers. Whatever happens in the remaining rounds, by now it seems premature that some 'experts' suggested that Nosher should best retire after London!?

Retire?! With an elo in the high 2600's? Anyone who suggested that is crazy. Nigel Short is a fantastic player, even if he can't quite contend successfully with top-10 players anymore.

For the most part, Matt is self-taught. Obviously, between university and work he's been rather busy the past decade. Aside from USCL and the occasional US tournament he hadn't played much seriously since he was a wee lad.

He just has had a longer vacation than most Americans get, travelled Europe a bit and kicked some ass.

Sadly, due to the funny nature of the Swiss system, both Matt and his Round 9 opponent, who both just needed a 2325+ and 2240+, respectively, to have the chance at an IM norm, got paired with each other, destroying their norm chances.

So Matt will return to the US at minimum 2420 FIDE, with 2 IM norms. Good for him.

Given that I see two nominations for me, all I can say is: obviously I'm not the troublemaker I used to be.

Thank you, Rolf, my dearest friend;

For having the courage to say for me exactly what I have been thinking but too shy to articulate. Frankly, it is none too soon.

It has been a great ride. No regrets.

Very Sincerely,

MIG

Thanks for having been the only blog on the Internet to not ban me within days. You're the best!

Thanks, Cannot believe even now he won 4vs 4 aganst a super GM.

You are just asking for a chess blog with regular update when everyone can pile in and make there comments. Its not goin to be here - this blog is RIP

Maybe you still are a troublemaker, but people like it in the blogosphere? Take it as a compliment if several c's come together: controversial, creative, competent, constructive, "cool" ,:) . I also didn't agree with everything Mig ever wrote ... .

As to Groningen: Maybe Matt Herman ran a bit out of steam, and/or he no longer benefitted from being an underestimated "unknown nobody". Will he now play more regularly (he probably still isn't good enough yet to become a professional?), or will he reappear from time to time, taking a long chess vacation every second or third year?

BTW, the tournament had a few other young heroes:
- 14 year old Ilya Nyzhnyk securing his final GM norm
- 16 year old Dutch IM Robin van Kampen: check his crushing Sicilian win today against Andriasian, which meant shared first place and probably also a GM norm (but he doesn't yet have Elo >2500)
- for the Americans: 15 year old FM Daniel Naroditsky, who narrowly missed an IM norm.

The first two will meet again in the Wijk aan Zee C group, which also includes Groningen co-winner Mark Bluvshtein, Polish rising star Dariusz Swiercz and some Dutchies (Bok, Pruijssers) who were less successful over the last week.

Who decides the non-graduated entrants in the C and B group at Wijk aan Zee? It's a brilliant stack of talent.

Well, Matt still scored 5/9. If he had gotten a 2325 or higher in the last round, he'd have been playing for his final IM norm. He still gained another 44 Elo points, so his rating will go from 2149 to 2436 for the trip.

Yes, Nyzhnyk got his GM title, and van Kampen got the norm, but apparently Naroditsky did get the IM norm from what I'm told.

Matt's probably a bit chessed out at this point, and will likely go back to work. I'd gather he'll show up again in Milan in December to defend his title. He's really not thinking about future chess events right now, I suspect.

I've clearly not walked in his shoes, but I know most guys would be happy to take a Euro holiday and come back with 44 pts to the good, much less 250 or more. And it wouldn't take long to get energized again to go for that last norm. What does he do for work? Maybe that's more interesting and easier?

Yep, the tournament homepage also mentions IM norms for Naroditsky and two other players - my fault, I thought that a 2500+ TPR is needed, but apparently it's >2450.

As to whether pairings should be manipulated to facilitate norms, it's a matter of taste. In the given situation, it would have been possible to assign Pruijssers(2487)-Herman and Ootes-Stjazhkina(2240, "just right") - of course still no guarantee that one or both of them would have accomplished their mission.

Another little bit from the tournament homepage: GM Bluvshtein currently spends one year as a full-time chess player after finishing university, with the (modest? realistic?) goal of entering the world top 100.

The short and obvious answer is: the organizers decide ,:) . But I don't know who's in charge. They seem to prefer young players and have a 'nose' for talents: The winner of the C group in 2004 was IM Magnus Carlsen, scoring his final GM norm at the age of 13. In 2007, IM Nepomniachtchi almost won but 10/13 wasn't enough - he was still invited to the B group in 2008. However, over the years they also invited some former world top players to the B and C groups such as Romanishin, Mecking and Nigel Short.

There is a (legitimate) surplus of Dutch players, in some years also relatively many Indians were invited - the multi-national sponsor is partly from India.

BTW, there are four(!) qualifying spots for the C group: two from the highest amateur groups of the previous year, two from the "Cultural Village Tournament" organized by a local chess club. That's how Swiercz qualified.

That implies that the same guy who doesn't have the time to post at least weekly will have the time to find the one comment - buried herein 400+ comments deep - that might 'speak' for him?
And he would quit just before the riveting 2011 tournament at Wikj aan Zee??
Nope. I don't believe it. Or don't want to.

Besides, I'll bet he doesn't even own a pair of bike shorts.

That implies that the same guy who doesn't have the time to post at least weekly will have the time to find the one comment - buried herein 400+ comments deep - that might 'speak' for him?
And he would quit just before the riveting 2011 tournament at Wikj aan Zee??
Nope. I don't believe it. Or don't want to.

Besides, I'll bet he doesn't even own a pair of bike shorts.

It's not even certain that the Tournament Directors were aware of the implications of their pairing. It might have simply been what was churned out by the Pairing Software. Probably, in this instance, it would have been OK to manipulate the pairings, but in giving Herman and Ootes stronger opposition, somebody else would have benefited from easier pairings...a bit problematic, if Prize $$ was at stake.

The parameters for intervening in the last round pairings (for the sake of Title Norm opportunities) could be spelled out in the fine print of the Tournament Regulations, in which case everything would be more or less "above board".

In any case, norms earned in a Swiss System event are a bit cheesy, really. Let him go to First Saturday in Budapest: if he is IM strength, he'll earn the norm, and the title soon enough

Hmm, maybe he'll do that 1 tournament a year: Corus/Tata. That's the best one, anyway, *by far*.

Once you've seen Corus/Tata you've seen all the supertournaments. Plus the top juniors, a few Dutchies for target practice.

If you're gonna imitate Mig, you might want to avoid spelling his name MIG. As he's pointed out many times over the years, it is not an acronym nor does it refer to the name of a Soviet fighter jet (MiG).
-Miguel aka Mig but not Daily Dirt Mig

You certainly deserve a press pass, Thomas, and it would be great if someone here had the pull to net you one, but that said, I'm betting that Max Vachier-Lagrave will be interviewed by someone anyway after he shocks people by finishing in the top third of the A group. No doubt that sounds very ambitious given a very strong group. We'll see. That's my own limb walk.

Please do chime in with all the observational chatter you can muster. There's interest here in all the background stuff you can't get from videos or pics.

Aronian is the favorite. Because of time given to his studies, Giri will be looking at a real challenge.

The dreamscape for Wijk aan Zee would replace Smeets with Ivanchuk and Ponomariov with Karjakin, but you can't have everything. Still an amazing convention of talent spread over three groups.
If there's a program, please let me know. I'd like a copy!

The problem with the Ootes-Herman pairing was that those were the only 2 people on 4.0! (You had to pair the bottom 4.5 with the top 4.0 before moving onto the 4.0 group, and Ootes-Herman were the only two remaining players.)

The particular rule governing this is:

1.42g. Tournaments that make changes to favour one or more players (for example by altering the number of rounds, or the order of rounds, or providing particular opponents, not otherwise participating in the event), shall be excluded.
The tournament program and the pairing system used must be published at the time of the registration of the tournament.

So the pairing couldn't have been changed, unfortunately.

I see, and top and bottom of any given score group is defined based on rating rather than Buchholz score. Else the last round pairings would have been Ootes(#27)-Stjazhkina(#26) and Pruijssers(#28)-Herman(#29), and both underdogs could still score a norm.
The tournament organizers, or at least the person in charge of the webpage, were aware of the situation - an earlier report mentioned "Ootes in the race for an IM norm" - but couldn't do anything about it given the last sentence of rule 1.42g. Or could the rules include a clause "within a given score group, pairings can be changed in the final round to facilitate title norms"?
At least Ootes was a bit unlucky that another (nominal) 2100er also overperformed: if Herman had scored "as expected", Ootes would have gotten the 'right' opponent in the last round ... .
But to all those complaining about "funny nature of the Swiss system" (I don't think you were really complaining): Please come up with a better system for an event with 'too many players for a round-robin'!

Thomas,

I'm not sure if I follow.

Going into Round 9, the standings were as follows (taken from http://www.schaakstadgroningen.nl/festival/2010/Open%20A/SMWSite/index.html)

26 players with 4.5 or more
4.0: Pruijssers, Ootes, Herman
3.5: Carlstedt, etc...

Now, you look at that, and go "26 players, they all play each other, Pruijssers plays Ootes, Herman gets Carlstedt, and they all get chances at IM Norms". But you'd be wrong. You'll notice that one of the 26 is GM Romanishin - who withdrew (due to illness, I have heard. Hope he's okay.)

Ergo, the pairing was now:

IM Pruijssers (top 4.0) - WGM Stjakhina (bottom 4.5)

And the 4.0 scoregroup looked like this:

4.0: Ootes, Herman

So only 2 players in the scoregroup! They have to play, end of story.

n.b., Yes, your pairing makes sense if you can pair "bottom-up", so to speak, but you actually pair "top-down" which means you worry about finding an opponent for Stjakhina instead of finding opponents for Ootes and Herman.

And yes, Herman mentioned this, how Ootes and Herman were looking over at the board next to them (in both directions), knowing that the opponents on the next boards were the ones they needed to have a shot at the IM norm. So close, and yet so far.

This wasn't my point, actually I do not quite understand why you cannot follow ... . Facts were:
- three players in the 4.0 scoregroup
- one had to be paired up against Stjazhkina (never mind those difficult Russian names ,:) )
- it had to be the top player from the 4.0 group
- top is based on rating, thus it was Pruijssers, but on Buchholz it would have been Ootes and we would have had the pairings I mentioned.

Pairings of course have to be top-down rather than bottom-up: it is no big deal if an odd leftover pairing (or even a bye) affects the fight against last place, but it shouldn't influence the fight for the top places ... .

BTW Buchholz can also have odd effects: The official winner on tiebreak was Bojkov although Nyzhnyk had the highest TPR (2671 vs. 2631). The reason seems to be that one of Nyzhnyk's early opponents dropped out of the event. I guess it didn't affect prize money distribution, and the final GM norm may have been most important for Nyzhnyk anyway.

My apologies. Pairing by Buchholz, instead of rating, just struck me as a non-starter which is why I hadn't considered it.

Hmm, what happened to his job at a top investment bank? Is he (becoming) the American Luke McShane?! ,:)

I guess not, according to John Fernandez. The euro trip evidently made him want to get back to number crunching and big check cashing for a while. And although he is certainly talented, he has a ways to go before he's flexing McShane's mental biceps.

I plead "not silly" because I compared their biographies, not their playing strength - one obvious difference is that McShane was already a promising GM before he temporarily quit chess.

BTW it's stereotypic, but from Matt Herman's picture I wouldn't have thought he's a top investment banker, maybe rather a computer scientist. I cannot imagine him in suit and tie, but maybe he thought: "I am on chess holidays, so I can dress very casually and don't need to shave" ,:)

Lots of guys who work jobs requiring semi-formal dress can't get out of the "monkey suit" quick enough when they leave work.