Ponomariov and Aronian rocked the chessboard again today. No matter who wins on tiebreaks tomorrow they both deserve our applause. Aronian again had the upper hand, so you could say he would be the more deserving winner if you want to nitpick. He tackled Ponomariov's creative kingside invasion with admirable sang froid and ended up with a knight and pawn endgame that definitely looked winning for White. But Ponomariov dug in and with Aronian playing on increment he managed to save his Ukrainian bacon.
Kamsky, yet again showing he's lost none of his steely resolve, came back to beat Carlsen and send their match into tiebreaks. It was looking like a long defense would be required of the Norwegian, but he missed a pawn push deflection and had to resign immediately. Vallejo Pons couldn't make any progress against Malakhov so the Russian wins their match to finish 11th. That gives him the inside track on sneaking into the candidates matches.
Well, well... 6 Matches continue to the Tie-Break games tomorrow. I guess that some players can't get enough chess!
So far, I am having poor results as a prognosticator. I picked Gurevich to beat Rublevsky, and Vallejo to defeat Malakhov.
I wonder who will have the distinction of having played the most games in Khanty.
Good result for Kamsky. He finally achieved something with White. Tomorrow will be the acid test of whether all those Tuesday Action events in New York managed to get his Rapid Chess into form.
Looks like some of these matches will only be decided by Blitz. It's a pity that Aronian and Pono can't contest anymore games at Classical Time Controls. From the looks of it, a match of length between them would feature some real thrust and parry chess.
Definitely seconding your last point. A final match between two players obviously in great fighting form should last longer. If the KO is good for anything it's for finding out who's in good shape in the final week. I'd love to see another two or four games between them.
Doug- Of the last 16,and going into tie breaks, gelfand has played 28. Both van wely (27) and lautier(26) could pass gelfand by end.
Of the others you mentioned pons-26, malakhov-20, gurevich-20, rublevsky-22, kamsky-24+
aronian and sakaev have played the fewest @ 16
Peace...
Seriously, Carlsen is not the most formidable opponent that Kamsky will have met in rapid play in this tournament. For goodness' sake, he played Smirin! If he loses to Carlsen, it will be because Magnus is just playing excellent chess, NOT because Gata has not demonstrated the ability to be successful at this time control, which he clearly already has in this tournament. Certainly, he has come a long way from the Gata that first re-emerged on the scene last year and would draw with 2400s in the G/30s (although he did produce nice victories over Gustaffson and Golod at those time controls). He is playing ...c5 against 1. e4 again, whereas when he first returned he was going exclusively with 1. ...e5, so I see this as a sign of greater comfort at the board. I look for him to improve and get back to 2700 eventually, because he is already proving that he can still beat the mid-2600 players even after so much time off.
Hotep,
Maliq
Maliq, thank you for injecting some sanity into the Kamsky-Carlsen match commentary. The Carlsen supporters seem to have gone completely nuts!
Don't forget that around 1994 early 1995 Kamsky looked like he was going to heal the schism by winning both the FIDE and PCA Championships. I don't think anyone really thought he would beat Kasparov, but he did get all the way to the Championship match against Karpov. The (former) Kid can play!
During round 2 or 3, I stated that energy, stamina, aggressiveness and young age would be the key points in this world cup (since the playing level was already very low).
With the older of the 4th semi finalists being 23 years old, I guess that it's clear that I was right (not even talking about Magnus Carlsen's performances).
This is NOT chess. Playing 21 days in a row is not chess, it's a marathon. The overall chess level has been poor during the whole tournament: 21 days in a row, high pressure linked with the cup system (and big prizes), all this gave us a festival of blunders.
I watch a lot of chess games, and in ordinary, regular tournaments, I don't see often 2650+ players giving pieces in 2 moves, allowing forks in one move, mates in 2 or 3 moves (like Bacrot did against Sutovsky for instance).
Of course, the San-Luis system is not as bad as was previous FIDE so-called world championship. But even this double robin tournament is not a world championship.
Kirsan's new ideas are strictly not valid to create such legends like Kasparov, Karpov, Botvinnik, since the FIDE world title is worth nothing (well not much, since even amongst the top players not everybody agrees about who's the legit world champion, so just imagine how clear the situation is for the media ...)
Kamsky played excellent chess today. Yesterday he missed an easy draw with few seconds on his clock, understandable when you think about this rediculuos time-control. It's a pleasure to watch Kamsky playing. Tatarstan should be proud of him.
Last time I checked, most or all of the top players accept Topalov as the world champion. Can you name at least one or two elite players who deny Topalov being the real world champion (Other than Kramnik, of course)?
As for "creating legends like Botvinnik", let's leave that to the historians of the future. Topalov is only 30, was Botvinnik a legend at 30? No he wasn't. We'll be sure to check on Topalov legendary status a few years from now. Hey, I think we can put a tariff on this:
Topalov wins in 2005: he's a Short Story.
Topalov wins in 2007: he's a Fable.
Topalov wins in 2009: he's a Novella.
Topalov wins in 2011: he's a Fairy Tale.
And so on...
PS: Rouslan, surely you are aware that most of the players in the WC did NOT in fact play 21 days in a row. Pono had 4 rest days, Aronian 5, Bacrot 4, Gelfand 2, Grischuk 3, etc. In fact, not a single player in the WC played 21 days in a row.
Your convictions are admirable, but you need to supplement them with correct facts.
Peace...
Alex, you are correct that none of the players played 21 days in a row. However, the design of the event is clearly flawed if it allows for such a possibility, which is does. An ideal time to break would have been after round 4, when the tournament was moving into the next stage at which people would continue playing regardless of whether they lost the previous match or not. Either this, or rest could have been scheduled after Round 3, with the critical Round 4 looming (chance to continue playing until the end vs. being the last one off the island before the end of the tournament) and before Round 7, so that the top contenders would have a chance to prepare for each other. Certainly, the possibility of playing for 21 consecutive days should not exist, no matter how remote the likelihood.
Hotep,
Maliq
To project that FIDE does anything consistent for 6 years in a row is a fairy tale. Couldn't you have at least made it a fairy tale with candidates matches?
I think that despite the format has and advantage and is that if a player want to have more rest days, he is forced to look a win in the long games. Aronian, of example, have never played in six consecutive days during this championship and this is less than in a usual round robin tournament. Of course, the system could be improved if we add a extra day off in the middle (for example the fourth round).
Wth respect to the "level of chess", my opinion is that chess need to be more dynamic and don't live in the past. The idea that only in classical time controls we will see exciting games, have damaged the chess world during the last years, as well as the idea that we still need to be compared with computers. The small mistakes on the board are the key for the chess gems and even in classical time controls, almost always players are in time trouble. If you want to see "almost flawless" chess, face two computers with time control 24 hours each player. Even in this way you cannot achieve the purpose ... chess should be a sport, not a scientific pasttime.
Did you see the pictures in the webpage of this tournament (or San Luis tournament). There were less than 10 spectators in a big hall!!
I agree that FIDE ideas are not perfect, but are better than having a defending champion that quetly wats to years until being defeated, or even worse, choosing his own opponents. This could be valid in ancient times, but today, champion should play and be evaluated every year!! Do you want to see people like Kramnik in the future?? Chess and boxing are the only sports in which a champion holds its title until being defeated. And how is boxing? A total mess. And how is chess today? Following the steps of boxing.
Anand once say that it should exists a world championship every year and I agree. This imposes more compromise to the number one player. Do you like to see people with Fischer's or Kramnik's attitude in the future? Do you want to see that in one year nothing really special happens with chess, no champion?
Today's chess organizations have no real money, just people like Kirsan that puts money from his own and as a reward, do whatever they want. But this happens because of the lack of sponsors, which today see a static chess, living on the past... past should be respected, not continued indefinitely...
Pascual, boxing is a mess because it has no unified organization and the organizations that do exist are corrupt. Hey, chess really is like boxing!
As for having a new champion every year, why bother having a champion at all? Golf and tennis don't have championships, and they're doing well, right?
But don't tell me that GRANDMASTERS hanging pieces is a good thing. That's not dynamic chess, that's crap chess, the kind of thing I see in my own games.
Past should be respected, not continued indefinitely ... well maybe but as long as past is clearly superior to modern format, we have to ask ourself serious questions about those who organize everything and about those who allowed themselves to dismantle the heritage of the past. Bring something better than it was before and ok, we'll give up the past, but the fact is that today, a world champion has no image, no aura, nobody knows either Kramnik or Topalov's name, while not so long ago, everybody could name Kasparov, Karpov and Fischer.
Alex, your answer is fine, and I'm aware that all players had in fact rest days, but even 2 rest days in 21 days, with a cup elimination system, is quite little. And changes nothing to the fact that the half finals were played by 22, 22, 22 and 23 years old players. If you want chess to look like a sport and not an art (base the game on energy more than on quality), it's the way to follow. But for me, chess is more trying to understand something, trying to find the truth, than trying to put on a false sacrifice to win a game.
Anand said once that there should be a world champion every year and he said something wrong. Why is chess history so particular? Because of this world champion thing. 14 or 15 of them, titan matches, names entering a legend, legend creating images, images that SHOULD bring on sponsors and money. The fact is that Anand's opinion isn't worth much : he never had the nerves to win an important match (although he has huge talent). So of course he does not agrees with a system that isn't nice with him. Anand is part of the huge talented players who have not and will not be world champions (reshevsky, nimzo, keres, Korchnoi and a lot more). This was chess dramaturgy, this was chess treasure. Baguio 78, Helsinky 72 ... some people still think about those matches and don't know the name of Topalov...
Off topic, but...
Looks like there has been a bid on the Fischer stuff.
More interesting is that the seller has modified the text of the ad, and added a scanned page from the 60 memorable games manuscript. He also says that the handwriting in the manuscript is not Fischers ?? The manuscipt has thus been downgraded to being *An* original manuzcript!
The other thing is that the buyer has removed the "buy it outright for 30K option". Look's like he thinks he has a hot one on his hands!
I have been playing chess for over 30 years.
I have watched what is going on.
I know it is not a popular opinion around here. But I must say that after much consideration I have to agree with Pascual Lucero and Anand.
Truth be told there were many many problems with the old system. And watching the World Cup I like the format and the Chess. And it does something that was totally missing in the old format. it gives all the players the opportunity to rise to the top.
For example under the old system it would have been impossible for Magnus Carlsen to have had the opportunity that he had here.
I think change can be painful. and what I hear from all the complains is that you are in pain. Well I would like to ease your pain. but maybe, just maybe the change is good for chess.
I read all the stuff about the dominance of fischer, karpov and kasparov. Everyone assumes that is good. but one reason they dominated is because no one had a chance to challenge them.
Over the past few weeks we had 128 players have the opportunity to challenge the champion. and I strongly agree that the format that is adopted should be a yearly format.
The Tour de France is like a world championship of bicycle racing. and they hold it every year. Wimbleton tennis is every year. The Masters Golf is every year.
The only way to be democratic is to have it every year and allow everyone the opportunity to challenge the champion.
Let us look at Lance Armstrong at the Tour de France. he won it 7 times in a row. that is dominance. but he had to prove it every year. that is sports. if you are the best then prove it every year.
People say Spassky and others were great champions etc. but he defended only once and lost to fischer.
Let us allow for change. Let us try to have a positive attitude. Let us try to look at what is good in the present system. Then let us make experimental changes to improve the system.
I have also come to the conclusion that having the champion stronger than the governing body is not good for chess. Kasparov was good for chess but he was also very bad for chess. Kasparov did tremendous damage to chess. it will take a long long time to heal the damage that Kasparov caused. Just look at the damage he caused by taking his title defense outside of Fide when he played Short.
No wake up. The OLD system was not good for chess. evolution causes better. let us allow chess to evolve to a better place.
I want to see a world cup every year. I want to see a world championship every year. I want to see the players getting big prize money. it will all happen if we set it up correctly.
I believe it will be much easier to get corporate sponsorship when everything is on a yearly basis.
Remember back when Chess had corporate sponsorship. Intel. and Kasparov in his arrogance and selfishness messed up not only that corporate sponsorship but told all other corporations to stay away from chess because it is full of radicals like Fischer and Kasparov who can not be trusted to enter into good corporate sponsorship agreements.
If the governing body makes the agreements and not the individual it will be better. the governing body will provide the matches and tournaments. and no player will mess up everything like Fischer and Kasparov did repeatedly.
It is going to take some years to heal the damage caused by Kasparov after the damage caused by Fischer. and I believe that is being done now. let us look with a more positive attitude toward what we have not and stop all this complaining.
And to you Rouslan. You just love to argue. You should become a lawyer and argue in court. you will then be too busy to post on chess web sites and that will make me happy. Rouslan go get a life will you. Try to find some happiness in life. list a few things that you are grateful for. and shut up and stop complaining. All the thoughts that run through your head are negative. when you come up for breath. say to yourself. "that is good" now try to find something good in what your mind is telling you is bad. you will find it. stop focusing on the insanity that flows through your mind. try to think independently of your random thoughts and think up some positive ideas. force yourself to be positive. after 10 years or so it will begin to make a difference in your life. try this Ruslan.
Dont tell me what is wrong.
Tell me what is right. what is good. what is positive.
Think differently
dont be a slave to the random negative thoughts that enter into your mind.
Marc E
Aronian wins! :-)
I'm enjoying this Cup... even the interviews are funny in their quirky way :).
Re. WC, I essentially agree with MarcE, though I could quibble about certain points and analogies (the cycling one is somewhat off the mark). Good post! I once made a similar point on the bulletin boards.
Well, the World Cup is finally, finally over...
Before the 7th and Final round of matches, I made some predictions about the results. It turns out that they were worse than wild guesses.
Out of the 8 match results that I predicted, I called 6 of them wrong!
I did predict that Aronian would win the Cup. I also picked Kamsky to prevail over Carlsen.
Two of my errant match predictions were decided by the games played under the Regular Time Control. Of the matches that went to Tie-Break days, 4 of the 6 broke in the wrong way.
Generally, the Russians (defined as those competing under the Russian Flag) did quite well, with Bareev, Rublevsky, Malakhov, and Dreev prevailing in their matches. Of course, I picked Sakaev and Grischuk to win their matches, and both of them lost!
Confound it!~ Ah well, "Ches is Chess". Good thing that I stay away from Betson ;-)
*********************************************
Final Standings (top 16)
1st Levon Aronian
2nd Ruslan Ponomariov
3rd Etienne Bacrot
4th Alexander Grischuk
5th Evgeny Bareev
6th Boris Gelfand
7th Sergei Rublevsky
8th Mikhail Gurevich
9th Gata Kamsky
10th Magnus Carlsen
11th Vladimir Malakhov
12th Francisco Vallejo Pons
13th Alexey Dreev
14th Loek Van Wely
15th Joel Lautier
16th Konstantin Sakaev
http://www.worldchesscup2005.com/results.asp?cat=2
Lautier did it. On the lat Tie-break day, he played 2 Rapid games, 2 Blitz games, and the Sudden Death Armegeddon Game. So Lautier leapfrogs past both van Wely and Gelfand, who only played 4 games each. Lautier finshes the event having played 31 games (14 Classical, 10 Rapid, 6 Blitz, and the final Armegeddon). Boris Gelfand played a total of 30 (14 Classical, 10 Rapid, and 6 Blitz). Van Wely's total's were: the 14 Classical, along with 10 Rapid, only 4 Blitz, and an Armegeddon, to comprise 29 games.
Interestingly, Yuri Shulman played 18 games over the course of 3 matches. That is the total number of games that Aronian played over the entire course of the event, (competing in 7 rounds of matches)!
=====================
Doug- Of the last 16,and going into tie breaks, gelfand has played 28. Both van wely (27) and lautier(26) could pass gelfand by end.
Of the others you mentioned pons-26, malakhov-20, gurevich-20, rublevsky-22, kamsky-24+
aronian and sakaev have played the fewest @ 16
Lautier did it. On the lat Tie-break day, he played 2 Rapid games, 2 Blitz games, and the Sudden Death Armegeddon Game. So Lautier leapfrogs past both van Wely and Gelfand, who only played 4 games each. Lautier finshes the event having played 31 games (14 Classical, 10 Rapid, 6 Blitz, and the final Armegeddon). Boris Gelfand played a total of 30 (14 Classical, 10 Rapid, and 6 Blitz). Van Wely's total's were: the 14 Classical, along with 10 Rapid, only 4 Blitz, and an Armegeddon, to comprise 29 games.
Interestingly, Yuri Shulman played 18 games over the course of 3 matches. That is the total number of games that Aronian played over the entire course of the event, (competing in 7 rounds of matches)!
=====================
Doug- Of the last 16,and going into tie breaks, gelfand has played 28. Both van wely (27) and lautier(26) could pass gelfand by end.
Of the others you mentioned pons-26, malakhov-20, gurevich-20, rublevsky-22, kamsky-24+
aronian and sakaev have played the fewest @ 16
A likely candidate match is Aronian against Carlsen. They met in the first round in the Fide KO WC in Libya. Long games where two draws, and Aronian won one of the rapid games and drew the other. Aronian a top 10 now and the fave, but Carlsen might raise his game further until that match starts.
Severe anti computer assistence rules must be imposed as soon as possible. Otherwise we'll see more and more "strong" players who calculate like comps.
I am suspicious of the recent game Ponomariov vs. Fritz. How did Ponomoriav find the long combination starting with 40 Qxh4 and 41 Rc1 leading to promotion of his pawn? He calculated like a computer there.