Greengard's ChessNinja.com

Repeat at Aeroflot?

| Permalink | 126 comments

It's hard to imagine anyone winning the ridiculously strong Aeroflot Open two years in a row. But last year's winner, Le Quang Liem of Vietnam, is making a go of it and is in clear first after five rounds having given up only one draw so far. By winning last year he got the automatic invite to Dortmund and further amazed us all by finishing in clear second place ahead of Kramnik, among others. That result might have been good enough to get him invited back to the German classic, but why take the chance? Surprisingly, the 19 year old has actually dropped quite a few rating points since that Dortmund showing. Losing four games in a row in the Asian Team Ch didn't help.

Le did turn in a respectable showing in the Corus B, making +2 to finish =4-6th a point behind co-winners Navara and McShane. Other Corus participants aren't faring as well in Moscow. Wesley So is on -1 while Hammer and C group winner Vocaturo are in the cellar. Bluvshtein is on an even score. Last year Le scored +5 to take clear first at Aeroflot and he won his last two games to achieve that. He has white against Kasimjanov today.


Is chess a government sponsored activity in Vietnam (as it seems to be in China), or are the Vietnamese players making it on their own?

In case anyone's interested... the Polish Championship's being held just now in Warsaw, including Wojtaszek and Świercz, after they both had a bumpy ride in Wijk-aan-Zee (though Świercz ended up fine, beating the top-two in Group C).

Live games: men - http://www.mp2011.pl/node/421
women - http://www.mp2011.pl/node/422

IM Stanislaw Zawadzki's providing live text commentary on the event (with some assistance). It's entertaining, but only in Polish. His sister Jolanta's playing in the women's event. One comment today:

"It's noteworthy that all the women's games have the move 1. e4. I don't know why, but female Polish chess players have an unnatural aversion to the move 1. d4 :)

I recently suggested to my sister that she should consider playing the move. At that moment I saw almost pure hatred in her eyes :)"

I understand that the Vietnamese players are on their own. Le mentioned that in an interview. If I can find the interview, I will post it.

I'm not sure about finances and so on - but Le's worked with Khalifman and then more, I think, with Bareev. The Vietnamese team also have another Russian GM (or IM!?) working with them permanently. I know it's all been discussed on here before, but I couldn't find it with a quick search.

Khalifman has an interesting quote about Le, by the way:

"What a school is and what its presence or absence means is something that you can understand very well if you analyze with Asian chess players. In February and March I worked a little bit with Le Quang Liem, and I will say honestly that sometimes my eyes popped out of my head. He is also a very talented boy (maybe not a Carlsen, but definitely out of the ordinary), and he is trying very hard to grow. But at the moment all he does is calculate and calculate variations. He calculates very well, by the way. But a school is, in my opinion, what you would call a basis of positional principles, playing from general considerations and this sort of thing. It’s very hard to learn it even from good books. In order to know which pieces should go where and when to exchange what, that is when it is very important to work with a qualified trainer." http://www.crestbook.com/en/node/1233

I remember that one, Mishanp. Thanks for bringing it back up.

I did not, could not expect young Le to defeat Kasimdzhanov even with the white pieces. Rustam has too much experience to let that happen.

Looks like MVL almost let Hess off the hook with 27..Ne3, but 31..e2! was strong enough with Hess' time pressure to be decisive.

And now we see some other lesser-known, but talented young guys making a move toward the top of the standings: Sjugirov, Yangyi Yu, Vitiugov.

A grandmaster draw between Le and Rustam. Disappointed. The only excuse for this is Aeroflot does not allow for a rest day so players have to create their own rest day :-).

Back to the Polish Championship subject for a minute: I just learned, courtesy of the Full English Breakfast podcast, how to pronounce Wojtaszek. I believe it is, phonetically, voy tah' shek. That's an accent on the second syllable. And I wouldn't mind verification or clarification of that.

Yep, that's right. I tried to include a "quick pronunciation guide" at the start of an interview with Wojtaszek last year, though it perhaps wasn't ideal... http://www.chessintranslation.com/2010/07/wojtaszek-on-being-anands-second/ (incidentally, since that interview the magazine's been taken over by the Polish Chess Federation and the GM & IMs have stopped/are going to stop being editors).

On the Polish Championship... Zawadzki wasn't very nice about his sister when instead of trying to convert being up the exchange she went for a very dubious attack! (I can't read the old commentary now, but it was something like "the only way you can describe that decision is stupid") Though she escaped with a draw... He said at the end, "both players should have won that game" - his co-commentator chipped in with "or rather both players should have lost it" :)

Verified. Perfectly correct. I wonder if there are any other native Poles (simple or not :) on the Dirt Blog. Even if there are not, mishanp does a wonderful job of representing Polish interests, despite being only a honorary Pole.

Obligatory chess content concerning the Polish Championship: I was once involved (49 or 50 years ago) in a classroom fight with future Polish Chess Champion, Aleksander Sznapik. I do not remember if any blood was spilt.

Was it over a game or a girl?!

Girls were a big no-no at that age :)

Linguistic/chess content: Wojt-aszek, Wojt-kiewicz, and Wojt-yla share the same word stem and pronunciation in Polish: "voyt". I hope that "Wojo" is pronounced "voyo". Wojtyla's name pronunciation (John Paul II) is even further from how it is spelled.

About his game with Hess, MVL wrote "I think he just wanted to play interesting chess, and at least we managed that. It was interesting game."

The game was interesting, but if you believe that about Hess, I've got a bridge to sell ya, as we say here in the 'states.

Back to Aeroflot, and a bit about (if that pun is legitimate) fallen stars: Wesley So (2/6) will be "absent" today (and in the remaining rounds?), which means that Vocaturo (0.5/6) gets a bye today! Kamsky is now at 50% after 0.5/3 against Asian players (Le Quang Liem, Ni Hua, Ding Liren) - he may be glad that he gets a non-Asian opponent today and that there are no Asians in the candidates event (only, if applicable, Anand after the final).

So much venom mixed with indirect insults directed at me. But as we say here in the States, what doesn't kill me, makes me stronger. Obviously, it makes me happy that people feel so impartial towards me, and my every game makes them feel alive :) You're welcome by the way.

All top players are hated by some poster or other on this board. It's probably best to take it as a compliment; if nobody here found you worthy of their venom, it'd probably mean you'd become a nobody.

But more importantly: When will you be doing the commentary on ICC again? That one time you did it was absolutely awesome!

This must refer to my comment, which wasn't meant to be venomous and certainly not insulting, neither directly nor indirectly. You can argue about 'fallen stars' which was merely meant in contrast to 'rising star': some players overperform also because others underperform, simple as that. I could have mentioned other names, but I guess not too many people are interested in the fact that (former Aeroflot winner) Bologan this time isn't in contention for first place, to put it mildly.

About your Asian opponents, I just noticed that you actually had five in a row and not a single "ex-Soviet" - by itself unusual given the nature of the entire field. If Khalifman's words above about Le Quang Liem also apply to Chinese players, at least to Ding Liren: an underlying pattern might be that you have more problems against tactically-minded players than against more positional/strategic ones? This wouldn't be an insult, but an amateur assessment (right or wrong) about your strengths and relative weaknesses.

Please beat Topalov Gata, and all others...our hopes go with you....

I very much doubt it was Kamsky who posted that (from "here in the United States" ?). If he did however, he would need a class in overreaction-management, surely...

Kamsky ("Dark Nolan") at Chessgames: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=15874

"sorry i havent been here for a bit. Not playing for 1,5 months makes me rusty. thanks for all the support guys. About finances, obviously i can only dream about the kind of support other candidates get. No comment about the rest. Last year, i had 2 unsuccessful tournaments, same aeroflot open and world open, but of course world open was almost right after my ex-wife died, so my perspective on life and chess shifted quite a bit. But aeroflot open is a strong event where you play a lot of new young and coming stars, and of course none of the top 10 players would ever play in something like this as they all like to protect their high ratings. I think that a true chess warrior should play in every strong event and not worry about ratings, which are inflated anyway. I'm going to play in future Aeroflots until I win :) Let's just hope that there will be more, as more tournaments are disappearing, and that is sad."

Thomas is the one who is most obsessed with generalizations and patterns in this forum.

You lost 2 games and the second letter of the surname of both players is "e". And then goes a 10-line passage describing the reasons for this peppered with faulty logic, usage of statistics on sample size=2 and words like "positional" and "up-and-coming". And if you point anything out he answers with a passage twice as long with arguments twice as worse.

Sometimes his grip on threads becomes like Barcelona's ball possession. Only it's not enjoyable. And he never scores.

Oh please. That was not really GM Kamsky. Wake up! No one said anything untoward about him. Thanks to Mishanp for giving us the real deal, which makes a helluva lot more sense, and rings a lot truer.

Le won again today, with black. I did not watch it live, but from quickly playing back the game White was squeezed
so badly without any hope of counter play. I believe
the rest of the pack all drew their games, thus
Le is now one full point ahead of the field

Well, I used to post on this blog before Mig started working directly for Kasparov, so, yes, that was indeed my post. As for my tournaments, you win some, you lose some. Last year I played badly here, yet won the US championship and world rapid championship. I usually don't play well during February and March, something to do with biorthytms, running low on mental and physical energies. Another factor why I lost to Topalov back in 2009 match. Anyway, I'm just playing chess and enjoying it. And to come back to asian guys. I usually have a good record vs. them, if you look at my history. It's the novelty factor when you play someone for the first time :) but the borg adapt you know :)

Yes, he's on a roll. He loves Aeroflot!

Yangyi Yu also won again - another Asian player doing well. The other day MVL said before his game with Yangyi Yu the following: "Playing against promising chinese GM Yu Yangyi, who I had eliminated (with) difficulty in 3rd round World Cup, after he had eliminated GM Movsesian in first round upset. Now he's even stronger, one year passed."
They drew their game.

The real GM Kamsky is a great guy, and a lot of American chess players are solidly behind him. I've personally watched his progress as a W. Ch. contender, and rooted for him for a long time.

Once again, my initial post wasn't at all meant to be venomous or insulting - unless it's already an insult to mention that "player X" (could be anyone) is underperforming.

For me it still makes sense to point out anyone's (or "manyone's") results against Asian players - for reasons given below. Just like it would make sense to point out anyone's bad results against a particular opening. But of course it doesn't make sense to screen results against blond, dark-haired or bold players (the last also refers to haircut, or lack thereof, rather than playing style ,:) ).

I generalize a little bit: many of the Asian players are relatively unknown, young and presumably underrated, which makes them 'dangerous' opponents. And results from the past have limited meaning, since they keep improving (cf. Vachier-Lagrave's statement). Only my reference to the candidates event was, on second thought, relative nonsense: the only Asian player who came close to qualifying was Wang Yue, and he is known enough that opponents have an idea what to expect from him.

Don't know if that's the real Kamsky or not--doesn't matter. But I do know that Gata is a great guy, and he wrote something on his facebook page that attests to his character. He described one of his losses at this current tournament as a "fantastic game." A comment like that shows class and objectivity. Too many GMs assure us that when they win their play was brilliant and when they lose the game was terrible. Three cheers for Gata, and we'll be rooting for you in the candidates matches.

Amusing moment at the Polish Championship: http://www.mp2011.pl/node/422

Apparently there was no problem with the transmission and Joanna Worek did play 29. Qg6+ against Katarzyna Toma - both players missed something fairly obvious :) Though it's understandable how it happened.

Jolanta Zawadzka might well still win (on move 130 now...) - but as her brother, commentating, pointed out, 88. Qg4 instead of the terrible 88. g4 would have won immediately.

Draw on move 213. As to Worek vs. Toma: yeah, move 29 was pretty funny.

Not sure how drawish that queen ending was theoretically, but 139. Qe8+, 140. Qg6+ (forcing the exchange of queens) was a simple win. Still, Zawadzka not actually losing at the end was something of a triumph :) And they probably set a record...

I want you to beat Topalov so badly...! Go Gata Go!

I have met Gata too. And of all the GMs I have met... he is so humble, nice, and often quiet. He truly is a great person. I wish for good things for him!

"They probably set a record ..."
As far as serious games with (initially) classical time controls go, this seems to be the case: Chessgames.com has eight games with more than 200 moves, which include two Rybka-Nakamura blitz games, some cases where R+B vs. R was played on for way more than 50 moves, and one case where the players practiced R vs. R for about 80 moves. The closest analogue was a blitz game Ivanchuk-Leko, drawn (stalemate) in 215 moves:

Yeah, I'm' rooting for Gata also...he is a nice guy. The nicest GM I've ever met was Kacheishvili, but for a super-GM, Kamsky is nice. I've never met Anand but I assume that he is also a very nice person based on his track record in the public eye.

After Le's loss and Cheparinov's win (in one and the same game) Aeroflot is suddenly wide open again. The pursuers Vitiugov, Tomashevsky, Khismatullin and Kasimdzhanov may now regret that they agreed to quick draws, had they already lost hope for first place? At least noone can suspect that these games were thrown - such suspicions might have been raised if they had been decided by (time trouble) blunders ... . Sjugirov and Rodshtein now also have a certain chance for first place. All would be interesting additions to the Dortmund field.

First tiebreak is number of games with black - I certainly hope that Le and Cheparinov will play with the same color tomorrow, else it's quite a lottery. Second tiebreak is average rating of opponents, clearly favoring Le as Cheparinov came from far behind after an early loss (head-to-head seems irrelevant for tiebreak purposes).

Sutovsky won again. Good player. Always competitive.

Within the limitations of my own skill, I will say that I am surprised that MVL didn't try to hold the last board position. He's down the exchange, but with a strong bishop and an extra center pawn, my little brain thinks there are drawing chances. Was he just tired, or am I wrong?

Le's game with Cheparinov was very exciting. After enduring a long king-side attack Le finally slip at the
point at which, from the look of it, he may actually had some advantage.

"at the point at which,"?? pardon my creative English :-)

Hikaru Nakamura won’t play US Championship!

“Two-time U.S. Champion GM Hikaru Nakamura, currently ranked number one in the U.S. by rating, declined his invitation to play in this year’s championship, citing a desire to focus on working toward his ultimate goal of one day winning the World Championship.”

Here's Mark Taimanov on his 85th birthday, talking, among many other things (e.g. meeting Castro and Che Guevara) about Nakamura and Fischer: http://bit.ly/el9MAS

But Kamsky is playing just 5 days before Candidates:

"Kamsky said he felt the strong field at this year's U.S. Championship would serve as an excellent primer for his match against Topalov the following month."

Not sure if this is right decision. Although he could be able to collect up to $42,000 for the first place.

The last thing Nakamura wants is a repeat of the 2010 result, which was less than spectacular in light of his Wijk aan Zee result. Unless there is a direct conflict with the U.S. Championship and a world-class elite event, which I'm hoping someone will name, he might just believe himself too large now for such a 'parochial' venture as the U.S. Ch.
He might have to play an IM there, although you would think that it might be fun to take the A car down to the club from his home, and knock around a few U.S. GMs just for practice. I don't know. giving him the benefit of the doubt, maybe he just wants to save his energy and opening prep for euro events. But again, i would think the practice couldn't hurt.

Aeroflot it seems might be the last time. Monacco already is and no more Mainz. All events established for a decade or more (Aeroflot nearly) suddenly dropping out. some chess is on the decline... :(

One other thing: I can't imagine that Hikaru wants to be compared with Robert Fischer, who entered a number of U.S. Championships with terrific results. Nakamura must not be confident enough (hard to believe) to think that he can reproduce Fischer's results, so why put oneself in a negatively comparable position?

Yes! It wouldn't surprise me if Nakamura has a change of heart about the U.S. Ch. after he sees other big tournament venues drop out; and $42K ain't hay.

I do not think that last year result was complete disaster for Hikaru. Of course, it was not Fischer or Wijk like result, but he lost only one game to Shulman and lost only 4 FIDE Rating points, he got 2.5 out of 6 vs Kamsky, Onischuk and Shulman, and 3.5 out of 4 vs the rest (Hess, Stripunsky, Kraai, Christiansen)

Anand doesn't play in the Indian Championships either, and no one gives him grief for that.

If Hikaru is serious about aiming for the World title, it makes complete sense for him to focus on events that support that goal, rather than to play in the relative backwater of the US Championships.

Just for discussion's sake, is there any chance that Anand would not win an Indian Championship if he showed up?

For the sake of discussion...

Anand's outrates everyone in the Indian Championship by what? 250?300? pts? Plus he lives in Spain... so he'd have to fly half way around the world. The Indian Championship has what a prize fund 5,000?

Nakamura... out rates Kamsky by 69 pts? He lives locally... and has to drive 2 miles to participate? Has a first place prize of 42,000.

It would surprise me if Nakamura were to change his mind. Based on his victory at Wijk aan Zee and his Top 10 ranking, he feels that Swiss system events are too small for him. The format certainly did not suit him lst year. Sure the Prize Fund is nice, but he is looking for appearance fees. There is more downside risk than potential benefit for him, if he plays.

I think that his opponent used poor judgment in playing for the win. Black underestimated the final King attack. Still, it can't be denied that Sutovsky played all out for the win.

Well, it is a bit of an exaggeration to claim that Anand would outrate

anybody else in the Indian championship by 250 points. He only outrates =6 Humpy Koneru by just over 200 Elo points....

He has a 120 point cushion over Sasikirin, India's #2.

It would be more interesting if he would try to do a clock simul, against the likes of Ganguly, Sandipan, Negi, and Humpy....

India (Active players)

# Name Title Fed Rating G B-Year
1 Anand, Viswanathan g IND 2810 17 1969
2 Sasikiran, Krishnan g IND 2690 9 1981
3 Harikrishna, P. g IND 2667 9 1986
4 Ganguly, Surya Shekhar g IND 2651 8 1983
5 Sandipan, Chanda g IND 2641 8 1983
6 Negi, Parimarjan g IND 2607 22 1993
6 Koneru, Humpy g IND 2607 18 1987
8 Gopal G.N. g IND 2597 20 1989
9 Gupta, Abhijeet g IND 2590 9 1989
10 Sethuraman, S.P. g IND 2545 33 1993

truly ratings are not the point. I was exaggerating to help point out exactly how foolish Nakamura is. He got beat by Shulman last year - someone who he does out rate by 120~- who he belittled as the 'fish' He and Gata were going to have for breakfast.

>> who he belittled as the 'fish'

He also lost to Grishuk in a blitz game last year, after saying the day before he would "squash him like a bug".

Maybe we should get together all these Nakamura comments in one place so you and Thomas can take them all out of context at once.

The New York Review of Books article Mig spoke about is now up http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/mar/10/bobby-fischer-defense/

I think that Nakamura should have played in the US Championship. The event is very competitive with a very attractive prize fund. I know Anand doesn't play in the Indian championship or Carlsen in the Norwegian championship or Topalov in the Bulgarian championship but Nakamura is not head and shoulders over his competitors in the US championship as the others are. With the way chess tournaments like MTel, Mainz and Melody Amber are going, you never know when the US championship is going to fold up.

Of course it is his prerogative and he can do what he thinks is best for him.

Assume that if Rodstein/Khismatullin is a draw that Le wins over Vitiugov on tie break - 5 blacks each and higher average opposition.

Top performance from both (kudos to Vitiugov beating Cheparailov) but Le deserves it because he has had the pressure of playing on board 1 since round 3. He really deserves another shot at Dortmund.

Agreed, even though there are also arguments for Vitiugov (coming from behind after a first-round loss) and Tomashevsky (only one in the top group without a loss) - and anyway, these Russian subtop players who would be top in many other countries deserve some supertournament invitations IMO. Maybe Dortmund can invite two, but probably not all three of them?

BTW, Kramnik may be particularly grateful to Vitiugov ... .

I'm sorry but i'm not talking them out of context. I was in the room when he was talking about easy Yury was going to be for him.

I do not agree with that. You're just going to get stronger competition as the rounds move along if you win your first round game (rather than lose it). Fot that raison alone, Le is more deserving than Vitiugov. Your statemment is sentimental, which is not bad, but should not have a bearing on who goes to Dortmund.

Le is first on tie-break. First at Aeroflot twice in a row. Quite an achievement.

So Dortmund will have Kramnik, Naka, Ponomariov, Le and 2 other GMs (one probably being Naiditsch). Anyone know any more details?

You may have misunderstood me: I suggested that Vitiugov might or should be invited to Dortmund along with, not instead of Le Quang Liem - the latter could actually have happened if Le had white in his last-round draw against Mamedov (then color balance as first tiebreaker, favoring the Russian, would have been a bit silly).

But both al's argument (pressure of playing on board 1) and yours (weaker opposition after a first-round loss) are relative:
- Le could even afford a loss, Vitiugov couldn't afford another slip - what's more pressure?
- There simply aren't weak opponents in the Aeroflot field. It's not like in other opens where a loss will hand you a player rated several hundred points lower than yourself in the next round. Actually, average opponents' rating prior to today's round (exluding the strongest and the weakest one, that's used as tiebreaker) was 2648 for Le vs. 2634 for Vitiugov and, for some reason, 2666 for Khismatullin (who finished 1/2 point behind in the final standings). The differences aren't that big.
[I am certainly not a "Le hater", just pointing out that Vitiugov's task wasn't easy either ....]

But the funny thing is that Vitiugov may have already given up on finishing shared first: two GM draws against Kasimdzhanov and Tomashevsky in rounds 7 and 8. Then he still managed thanks to Cheparinov - first beating Le, then losing against him.

Cheparinov played a fine attacking game against Le, just to miss a knight fork against Vitiugov. He must be kicking
himself now.

>>> I was exaggerating to help point out exactly how foolish Nakamura is.

I don't want to start another huge debate here, but it occurs to me that you are the one doing the "belittling"

You're a Le hater! Shame on you! Kicking on him when he's up. Where's Pioneer, Mr. Naka, Naka Naka, to come to the aid of another Asian player?

More seriously(!), congrats to a guy who was no doubt a target after his first win at Aeroflot. Quite an accomplishment.
And thanks for getting the actual avg numbers of opponents there. I should have done that myself.

Thomas should be dubbed: Not a hater, but a researcher!

Nope. It is you sir. I am just reporting facts. If you want to start a debate though go right ahead, you'll lose it just like you lost this argument in spades already.

>>Nope. It is you sir. I am just reporting facts

Yes, perhaps it is me. I don't have a lot of respect for individuals that seem to take pleasure in trashing other people, no matter who it is.

See thats where you're wrong. The only person I've trash talked is you. I trashed talked you because you trash talked me first calling my facts lies. If you don't like trash talking people then why did you start it? Seems kinda odd? I certainly take no pleasure in trash talking people nor being trash talked. Keep in mind repeating verbatim things Nakamura has said neither constitutes me trash talking Nakamura nor trash talking the individual Nakamura is hating on. I don't know where you are from but this might constitute a language barrier issue if I had to guess. As I have no problems with either Nakamura, Shulman or as you brought up yourself Grischuk.

>> brought up yourself Grischuk

So, Thomas wasn't the only one that fell for that.

That kind of explains things now. You and Thomas both fail the gullibility test.

I have trashed Kirsan though on these boards. So, I'm not perfect either.

I don't understand your point. I am not gullible if that is your question. And who hasn't in your words 'trashed' Kirsan - though again it is really just repeating facts.

Perhaps Mig could start a topic where everyone could go to trash each other.


would be quite boring and demeaning. Most people here seem to do it anyways. They don't like that their dreamboat has been attacked or perceived attacked as in lwolf's case so they go on a rampage. Nakamura fans seem to be particularly brutal and easy to set off.

Boring and demeaning? Don't go to the thread. The others would be in catbird heaven ...


Danailov back with a bang: http://www.chessintranslation.com/2011/02/danailov-chess-should-either-change-or-die/

It's not looking so bleak for big tournaments, declaring Kazan Bulgarian appears to get around the Topalov - Kramnik problem, and a proposal to ban 3-fold repetitions in positions that aren't necessarily drawn!

>> Nakamura fans seem to be particularly brutal and easy to set off.

There's only two players that seem to be the subject of derogatory comments here, Topalov and Nakamura. They happen to also be my favorite players. They are my favorite players primarily because of how they play the game.

For some reason, individuals like yourself, can't help themselves when commenting about these two. You have to insert some disparaging remark occasionally when making unrelated comments about something else.

It's only these two players that set some people off. You just can't help but mention some perceived insult, that may have happened a year or more ago, when referring to current events about these two players.

Too me, these remarks you make appear inappropriate and insulting. But, you disagree.

Also, it's only a few posters that occasionally insert these odd remarks in their comments. Unfortunately they post a lot.

Chess observer, that last post was directed at CAL. I clicked on the wrong reply:)

"There's only two players that seem to be the subject of derogatory comments here, Topalov and Nakamura. They happen to also be my favorite players."

Suspect that's selective perception at work. A lot of stuff is regularly posted here about other players that would qualify as derogatory had you happened to be a fan of them (or even, as witnessed in this thread, you'd happen to actually *be* them). But when you're not, the comments don't register on the insult radar.

"There's only two players that seem to be the subject of derogatory comments here, Topalov and Nakamura."
There were certainly derogatory comments on other players, notably Kramnik and Leko - but you may not have noticed, or you didn't consider them derogatory. For Nakamura, it's already enough if someone (me, for example) merely quotes him and his derogatory comments on other players ... .

On Nakamura and the US Championship just some puzzled comments from a Dutch perspective:
- After becoming US champion for the first time, he declined several Corus B invitations thinking that he should be invited straight to the A group. Apparently the US Ch was strong enough that the winner is automatically a world-class player even if he doesn't meet other criteria such as Elo >2700.
- Now (but not 2-3 years ago) he is a world-class player who got Wijk aan Zee invitations. And now the US Championship isn't interesting (too weak?) for a world-class player!?

If he actually becomes world champion (in any case, it will take a few more years), which events will still be interesting for him?? Or is it then time to retire as he has nothing left to prove?

Great news from Danailov (if it's true): Linares is ON!

"next year Linares will return to its normal position – March, while this year it’ll be held in October."


Others get plenty of derogatory comments too, esp. Carlsen, Kasparov, Mamedyarov.

In fact, the only ones who don't, it seems, are Kamsky, Anand, Nepomniachtchi, and players who don't make much of a splash.

correct Thomas which is EXACTLY what happened here. I merely quoted verbatim the nasty things Nakamura said about Shulman. Now I am 'attacking Nakamura' by using his own exact derogatory quote about another player. I have said nothing bad about Nakamura myself. Just shows how off base some of these Nakamura fans - especially lwolf- are. Case and point, he considers it to be only a few naka haters that post a lot.... I post rarely and have only been recently defending myself from this insane person. I am not even a Nakamura hater. Again, stating facts or quotes DOES NOT qualify you as attacking someone.

I consider myself to be a Nakamura, Carlsen, Kamsky, Ivanchuk, Shulman, Kramnik fan. They are my favorite players. Yet still I find myself arguing ONLY with other Nakamura fans. I've never had an argument with a Kramnik or Kamsky fan. They always pleasant. Because these players never say anything bad about others - even Topalov.

>>> "I merely quoted verbatim the nasty things Nakamura said about Shulman"

>>> "I was exaggerating to help point out exactly how foolish Nakamura is. He got beat by Shulman last year - someone who he does out rate by 120~- who he belittled as the 'fish' He and Gata were going to have for breakfast."

Big difference in that kind of comment from you, and someone complaining about Kramnik's short draws. For one, you bring up something that happened a year ago. It's also your interpretation of the comments which you imply to be the only interpretation, and it was totally unrelated to the subject you were responding to. Like I said before, inappropriate and insulting, too me. Apparently Thomas and some others think nothing of it, but they follow in your footsteps on occasion too.

See now you're taking two of my statements out of context to make me look like a hypocrite. You're taking a point I made about the fact Nakamura won't play because everyone is too low rated for him and combining it with the Shulman quote which is what was verbatim. I'm afraid if you don't like facts - however old be it one year or two years than you really shouldn't follow chess or even play chess. Nothing I said was insulting or inappropriate. You're still wrong whether you care to admit it or not makes no difference.

I don't complain about short draws actually - be it Kramnik or anything else. As a fan I'd rather see them fight but understand they need rest and that a short draw can be tactical nuance to the players involved. Look Nakamura took a few short draws in Tata and won!

btw, I don't see what the importance is about Naka calling Schulman a fish prior to their game. Apparently you were irked by it so much, that you have to repeat the story a year later.

apparently you're so irked by it that you have to go off have like atom bomb everytime someone mentions it. Maybe i'll mention it everyday for the next year just for people like you. Or maybe Rh2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Rh2!!! Did I mention Rh2!!!

I realize now that despite myself being a Nakamura fan perhaps it is just better if I make fun the other silly Nakamura fans like you. Tough break kid. Sorry I like Nakamura but there is no denying alot of the stuff he says comes out wrong.

My opinion on both players is as neutral as can be - but it was nice to see that the fish turned into a piranha ... .

Nakamura knows Shulman pretty well, and they may even be friends, so that comment might well have been a silly dig, and nothing more. It backfired on him, but that might be their business.
On the other hand, jumping to Hikaru's defense every damn time someone utters a word about his clearly checkered past is also annoying.
So, why not call it a day and put the kibosh on this one, boys?

How about that Topalov dude, boys? He's been pretty damn quiet lately. What the hell is he up to?

good point.

Last thing to say though on Shulman quote before I drop it though is that it was NOT over a year ago. It was barely 8 months ago. Anyways, there is plenty of things in Nakamura's checkered past as you say. I have high respect for Nakamura though so again my point in bringing up the quote was not to attack him.

Re: Topalov, Danilov has a new letter out. See on chessvibes here: http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/silvio-danailov-chess-should-either-change-or-die/

Danailov:"And finally, we need to reduce the time control. A game should last no longer than four hours. The 30 seconds a move increment (and any increment in general!) should be abandoned."

Has it occurred to anyone that faster time controls encourage exclusive reliance on memorized lines and hence more draws? Not to mention trading down in endgames rather than looking for a win?

If Danailov is so desperate to stop draws, why not just institute the death penalty for them? Executions to be carried out during the closing ceremonies. Problem solved.

Along those lines I just read an interesting few sentences in an old Larry Evans column that I will post shortly.

Here it is:
re: The Scoundrels List

"In my view, FIDE president Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, who rules Kalmykia with an iron fist and is credibly accused of imprisoning and killing dissidents, deserves honorable mention on any such list. He also left chess with a legacy of senseless drug testing and a useless Medical Commission with the power to ban players who refuse to be tested." 10/04

How do you like them apples?
RIP, Larry.

Thomas, I hope you know what "piranha" means in brazilian slang :-)

>> See now you're taking two of my statements out of context to make me look like a hypocrite.

Not much different than what you do. Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black too me.

lol I agreed to drop it but that one is too rich. You really are a retard of the highest caliber. RH2!!!! I suggest you learn the definition of phrases before applying them completely incorrectly. I never seen this phrase used more inappropriately than now.

On to matters of substance...

I wonder what the players think of reducing time control.

>>> "I merely quoted verbatim the nasty things Nakamura said about Shulman"

>>> "I was exaggerating to help point out exactly how foolish Nakamura is. He got beat by Shulman last year - someone who he does out rate by 120~- who he belittled as the 'fish' He and Gata were going to have for breakfast."

Hows it feel with the shoe on the other foot?

I didn't do anything wrong you fool. Quoting someone is fine. What I exaggerated was the rating difference Between Anand and Sasikiran though I didn't really even do that as I didn't know Sasikiran's rating and I wasn't going to look it up since it was relevant for the point I made.

Maybe I should bring up things that might really make your blood boil lets see you hate old stuff about Nakamura's checkered past right? What about the time He almost got in a fist fight with Akobian at the national open? Or the time he got banned from playing the national open because he refused to turn in his score sheet since he lost to someone 450 points below him. Then he made the organizers' child cry. Oh we aren't done yet. Remember the time he got beat up for stealing someone's ball? Oh yes, RH2!!!!

wasn't relevant.

Not that it matters, lwolf is too dumb to understand or construct arguments. Sigh.

Seems you have an agenda too me.


Hey! Knock it off! The last word is that you guys need to grab a beer or find the wife or make an effigy, but basta!

Mig --

A new blog entry would be welcomed.

erm wrong link my bad thats a nice video to blumenfeld video by FM Dennis Monokroussos;O

Here is the Mig/Kasaparov writeup on Bobby Fischer: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/mar/10/bobby-fischer-defense/?pagination=false


Rh2 should have three ???

Not exclamations.

Danailov proposal of banning three move repetition sounded like trash on first hearing.
Suddenly i rephrased and read,
* the player is obliged to either tread into unclear positions
* If alternative move is known to be clearly worse, it is almost like a zugzwang...
And suddenly the whole argument looks attractive.

thats the point.

Interesting thought.

This rule change would have a deep impact on chess, with unclear outcome.
Opening theory would change.
Probably white gets a bunch of positions out of the opening which were no longer playable for black.
Risky tactical play would probably become even more risky without the eventual parachute of perpetual check.
Closed positions with most pieces on the board become very dangerous for the side with less space.
Of course many now theoretically drawn endgames are no longer drawn.
All in all I would predict a massive advantage for white.
This could be easily verified with open source chess engines.


If two individuals both are convinced that the other one behaves like a bigoted idiot, could it be possible that both of them are completly right?

By the same logic, stalemate would be a win for the (materially) stronger side? This might indeed affect endgame theory for R+B vs. R, R vs. B or even two knights vs. bare king.

But there are several flaws in your and piyush's reasoning (with respect to Danailov's proposal):
- It's not clear which player should deviate - not necessarily the one who makes a threefold repetition official
- Danailov wants (the arbiter) to punish both players. BTW, in some situations (matches, team events) 0-0 may be as desirable a result as 1/2 [ignoring possible Elo damage for both players]
- As far as I understand, it would be at the arbiter's discretion whether a repetition can be avoided. So no, Danailov doesn't want to remove the perpetual check safety net (for his client Topalov).

One general problem: even if - a matter of opinion - the rule makes sense at supertournaments (where a qualified arbiter is around), it wouldn't make sense at amateur events which have amateur arbiters or none at all.

Thomas and Nairu,
I was just analyzing the statement to ban three fold repetitions entirely and not the whole bunch of Danailov proposals

As both of you have pointed out, the idea would change many drawn end games to defeats and many openings will change for good.

To formalize this rule it clearly needs to be thought out in a more deeper way than just propose it as an escape for high draw percentage..

If the rule simply reduces the number of draws at the cost of making one color to win more likely than other, it is certainly not desired.

A needed rule: The player who brings about a third repetition of all the pieces and pawns on the chess board loses.

Well, actually you went far beyond Danailov's statement - too much honor for Silvio, he isn't THAT stupid or that ingenious ,:) . Actually I don't think _your_ proposal would have a major impact on opening theory: how often can white (or either side) _force_ a repetition? There are quite a few such 'book draws', but - to my knowledge - not many in currently fashionable GM lines.

Danailov actually referred to "a deliberate three-fold repetition in a position where it’s still possible to fight". "Deliberate" may be easy to define (if neither player claims the repetition, it was 'accidental'), "still possible to fight" would be at the arbiter's discretion? Apparently the arbiter could just decide "0-0" rather than pointing out which player has to deviate, and how. If this rule ever turns into practice, we'll be in for a lot of appeals. And, as stated, it doesn't favor white because it all comes down to a lose-lose situation.
But even Danailov admits that some repetitions are fully forced, hence some games, like it or not, have to end with a draw

Another idea is one mentioned by GM Yasser Seirawan that whenever a player offers a draw to the opponent. The opponent has three options: Accept, Decline OR switch sides.

Just got my copy of the New York Review of Books today, Mig. Congratulations! I'm enjoying reading through Kasparov's article.

To me, Danailov was just trolling. If not, i really hope such a person would dissapear from chess. He has done great things, organised good tournaments, but we shouldn't forget those little bad things he also did. To think that given the state of FIDE with its generalised corruption and lack of direction and that the Players Association can't get enough importance the problem for chess is on draws is to be really blind. And to suggest radical changes to the game that would make it quite different is really nonsense. Fix what is clearly broken first and then we'll see if chess needs such radical ideas.

Off topic: Frank Brady is scheduled to discuss his new Fischer biography tonight (Sunday) on C-SPAN2 at 7:15 p.m. CENTRAL TIME.

Off topic: I just ate a pear

It is good to have this information.

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

Coach Factory recommended you to buy Coach Kristin Bags, the one which can fully display women's elegance and nobleness.coach factory stores embodied both strength of style and features, as well as what else are you able to request only one bag?

Coach Outlet has become a popular shopping experience for consumers around the world, and a desirable distribution channel for manufacturer's and retailers.In terms of the quality and superior design that make more and more customers are satisfied to Coach Factory Online.Welcome!

If you buy custom essay papers and buy custom essay about this good post, this should be avaliable to get really good quality.

Twitter Updates

    Follow me on Twitter



    About this Entry

    This page contains a single entry by Mig published on February 13, 2011 2:42 AM.

    Candidates Pairings Up was the previous entry in this blog.

    Kasparov on Brady on Fischer is the next entry in this blog.

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