Something about the air in Biel does something for Alexander Morozevich. Yesterday he won his fourth game in a row to move to a full-point lead in the GM tournament with 5/6. Yes, he's clearly the class of the event and has a habit of putting up outrageous scores when he's a top seed. Still, when he's on a roll it's something special. In round six he played a speculative piece sac against Bruzon and finished things off nicely when the Cuban couldn't find the best defense. (Both 35..Bf5 and 35..Qb5 look like wild king hunts.) Radjabov is in second and Carlsen is third. Today is round seven. Live games.
[Update: Yipes! Carlsen beats Morozevich in the 7th round to tighten up the event considerably. Moro ruined a fascinating game with 27.Bg7??]
Things are considerably cooler in Dortmund, where all the games were drawn, most of them tamely. Aronian was held rather easily by Kramnik, failing to get revenge for the drubbing Vlady gave him at the Olympiad, although I'm sure his gold medal salved that wound nicely. Kramnik "lost" the draw this year and started with two blacks. Today is an off day, oddly, so we have to wait till August 1 to see the "white Kramnik" who was so deadly in Turin. It another Olympiad rematch with an opponent he stomped there, last year's Dortmund winner Naiditsch.
Kramnik-Aronian was actually the longest game of the day, an accurate sequence of exchanges not without interest. 23.Bxh7+ was an eye-catching possibility that looks like it only leads to a repetition draw. The other three games totaled maybe 20 moves out of theory. Svidler-Leko contributed five moves to human knowledge in the Najdorf. 21..Qa5!? looked interesting. Naiditsch-Gelfand did similarly in the ultra-theoretical b5 sac line of the Najdorf. Black had no interest in playing on in a very precarious position with 23..Rf8. Jobava's clever exchanges left Adams with little to play for in the endgame.
Comments
Moro blundered in a much-better position against Carlsen and now has to grovel for a draw in a 2-pawns-down Bishop endgame.
Posted by: Alex Shternshain at July 31, 2006 11:49
Moro lost. Carlsen 2-0 Morozevitch. Watch out candidates matches!
Posted by: RS at July 31, 2006 12:33
Carlsen won over Moro, Mig, get ready to start eating the words, "Yes, he's clearly the class of the event."
Posted by: RT at July 31, 2006 12:57
A very interesting, to say the least, article by Silvio Danailov on chesspro.ru. Danailov doesn't hold back any punches, firing in all directions. To satisfy the non-Russian speaking readers' desire for dirt, here are some pearls:
On Morozevich, who offered Topalov a draw on move 11 in their San-Luis game:
"Suddenly all Russian fans realized that their hero, chess genius Morozevich is a regular coward."
On Barsky (chess journalist and Moro's second):
"A fan of cheap fame, an amateur who doesn't understand high-level chess". He then proceeds to refer to some of Barsky's writing as 'idiocy' and 'garbage'.
On Morozevich and Barsky:
"Both have one thing in common - they consider themselves geniuses. Unfortunately, the world of chess does not recognize them and doesn't bow daily before their talents."
On Kasimjanov:
"After winning the tournament in Lybia (hard to call this a World Championship), this gentlemen honestly believed he belongs in the ranks of Fischer, Kasparov and Capablanca. Unfortunately, the World Champion must maintain his status by winning tournaments. It's impossible to lie on the couch and scream 'I am Champion!' like some modern 'classics' do... ... and of course he immediately found whom to blame for this: Topalov."
On Dolmatov (coach of the Russian team):
"He became famous mainly for the legendary failures of the Russian team under his leadership... any street ice-cream vendor could achieve better results... any person with self-pride and professional ethics would immediately resign in his place."
Posted by: Alex Shternshain at July 31, 2006 13:06
He even threatens to sue whoever writes such rubbish next time...funny guy this Dolmatov.
Is he bored or something? Blame it on the heat in Salamanca...
Posted by: Benat at July 31, 2006 13:37
Oups, I meant Danailov of course.
Posted by: Benat at July 31, 2006 13:40
Morozevich could lose the rest of his games and still be the class of the event. It refers to hierarchy and history. He's the only career top-10 players in the field last time I checked.
Posted by: Mig at July 31, 2006 13:40
The kid has really had his share of luck. Last year he was completely outplayed by Naiditsch but managed to mate and now it happens to Moro.
Posted by: Dr X at July 31, 2006 13:43
From what I gather, Danailov is like the Bill O'Reilly of chess commentary.
Posted by: Chri s Anderson at July 31, 2006 13:47
calling Moro a coward is really absurd...
Posted by: Mark at July 31, 2006 13:56
He does have a point on replacing Dolmatov with an ice-cream vendor though - of course as long as it's not vanilla; nobody likes vanilla.
Posted by: Alex Shternshain at July 31, 2006 14:43
This "luck" commetary is absurd; play more real tournament chess, less computer analysis. Chess is still not mathematics, it's a battle, in the same way Lasker and Marshall would swindle their opponents by turning losses into draws and draws into wins...
Posted by: Nathan at July 31, 2006 15:23
Mig says "Morozevich could lose the rest of his games and still be the class of the event. It refers to hierarchy and history. He's the only career top-10 players in the field last time I checked."
But what has he won ? He's like Phil Mickelson before the majors. And, of course, Carlsen's "career" is what, three years long ?
Posted by: pundit at July 31, 2006 15:41
Magnus out played Moro twice now. they both like complex positions and both Moro and Magnus went into a complex position and both times Magnus came out on top. seems to show Magnus is the better player.
No one can deny that Magnus is playing at above 2700 level at the present time.
I heard that after the game that Magnus was gracious and thanked Moro for the elo points. now I suspect that might be a joke. maybe you can check it out.
Posted by: Frank H at July 31, 2006 15:47
I think that was just a tongue-in-cheek kib on ICC - I remember it flashing by towards the end of the game ;)
Posted by: WidowTwanky at July 31, 2006 16:40
Isn't Danailov Topalov's manager?! Not for the first time he seems to reveal himself, and by association presumably his charge, as a bit of a low-life. I do hope Kramnik stuffs Topalov and we hear a bit less of this nonsense.
The bit about Kasimdhzhanov is especially absurd. I've seen Kasim quoted more than once as saying he doesn't regard himself as world champion, which is more than can be said for the great VT.
It amazes me how Russian sources continue to give houseroom to idiots like this fellow and that Ilyumzhinov lickspittle whose name I forget who was writing about the election. Didn't they have, like, glasnost, or something over there?
Posted by: rdh at July 31, 2006 17:23
Read Kasimzhanov's reply. He (Kasimzhanov) says that in San Luis Danailov twice offered him a draw before the second game with Topalov.
Posted by: asht at July 31, 2006 18:37
"seems to show Magnus is the better player."
Completely ridiculous. Two games do not show anything of the sort. Carlsen has not come anywhere close to demonstrating he is better than Morozevich. I hate this kind of comment, people who can't think beyond the last 5 minutes, or the last single game or tournament, and all the entire past just vanishes into thin air like it never happened.
If what you're saying is true, then Geller was stronger than Fischer. Are you going to take that position too? People honestly need to quit with this crap, it's old. Every time a player wins one tournament, suddenly he's the best in the world. Every time one player beats another, suddenly the one who lost that one game is yesterday's news, and the one who won it is the superior player. A lot of chess fans need to get with the program, try to at least PRETEND to some objectivity, and think rationally and sanely about localised, small-portion results. Such things do not determine a career, or relative strength. You'd think everyone would realise this.
Posted by: Joshua B. Lilly at July 31, 2006 20:14
But then what will they talk about?
Posted by: Derek at July 31, 2006 20:28
I agree with pundit on Moro. I've pointed out many times that despite his often lofty Elo he has consistently choked in supertournaments. You can barely find a plus score for him in events in which he's not, say, one of the top three rated players. I considered his even score in San Luis to be a minor miracle. But to be fair, he hasn't had many chances in the past few years. He hasn't been in Linares or Dortmund and he scored a miserable -4 at Corus last year. He's a bit of an odd duck who has curious opinions of himself and this has cost him with some organizers. It just goes to show you can't get quirky chess without a quirky personality.
None of that lessens his stature relative to the rest of the field in Biel. Radjabov has clearly made progress and Carlsen is sporadically brilliant (and today, a bit lucky), but Morozevich has been in (and out) of the top 10 for many years. This just the sort of category 15-17 he often dominates.
Posted by: Mig at July 31, 2006 20:31
Mig, what are these "curious opinions" that Moro has of himself?
Posted by: RS at August 1, 2006 01:00
Odd duck or no odd duck, Moro will go down in history as one of the most original talents in chess. The world of chess would be a much duller place without players like him. He may never win a super tournament but then again - how many players have won super tournaments? It's Moro's style that makes him stand out against the background of kramniks and lekos.
And by the way, Carlsen WAS extremely lucky in both games with Moro - should have been 1.5-0.5 in the latter's favor.
Posted by: Dimon at August 1, 2006 02:34
One of them...
is probably how he talked in San Luis long and wide about how he doesn't regard himself as a professional chess player. Kind of hard to keep saying that kind of stuff if you
a) make a living from the game and
b) come out a few months later telling the world that you decided that for the moment and the next few years you indeed _are_ a professional chess player. ;o)
Posted by: Albrecht von der Lieth at August 1, 2006 03:19
Joshua B well said. As for Moro, he is a class act. You know on his day, he can beat any given opponent, except perhaps Kasparov. He hasnt won a very high ranking event yet, but he will. And in today's game, he played brilliantly well, and then blundered. So what? He'll be back! And kudos to Carlsen, he hung in there, and came up with some pretty inspired defense.
Posted by: d at August 1, 2006 03:21
People, remember chess strength is demonstrated at the board against specific opponents, not in rating lists based on past games.
Of course Carlsen has demonstrated that he currently is better than Morozevich, beating him 2-0. In the same way Volokitin has shown the last years that he is better than Carlsen.
Of course this does not mean that Voloktin is better than Morozevich. Volokitin and Morozevich must play each other to decide that.
Rating numbers are not "real", you can not say which player is "best" (as if there is a true, objectively answer to that) just by looking at their rating, i.e. their past games. The players have to play against each other to decide that.
Why did not Morozevich win if he is better than Carlsen? It is the games that decide who is the better of them. How the two players will perform against another player is an entirely different question.
Posted by: Young Sun at August 1, 2006 03:33
People, remember chess strength is demonstrated at the board against specific opponents, not in rating lists based on past games.
Of course Carlsen has demonstrated that he currently is better than Morozevich, beating him 2-0. In the same way Volokitin has shown the last years that he is better than Carlsen.
Of course this does not mean that Voloktin is better than Morozevich. Volokitin and Morozevich must play each other to decide that.
Rating numbers are not "real", you can not say which player is "best" (as if there is a true, objectively answer to that) just by looking at their rating, i.e. their past games. The players have to play against each other to decide that.
Why did not Morozevich win if he is better than Carlsen? It is the games that decide who is the better of them. How the two players will perform against another player is an entirely different question.
Posted by: Young Sun at August 1, 2006 03:34
People, remember chess strength is demonstrated at the board against specific opponents, not in rating lists based on past games.
Of course Carlsen has demonstrated that he currently is better than Morozevich, beating him 2-0. In the same way Volokitin has shown the last years that he is better than Carlsen.
Of course this does not mean that Voloktin is better than Morozevich. Volokitin and Morozevich must play each other to decide that.
Rating numbers are not "real", you can not say which player is "best" (as if there is a true, objectively answer to that) just by looking at their rating, i.e. their past games. The players have to play against each other to decide that.
Why did not Morozevich win if he is better than Carlsen? It is the games that decide who is the better of them. How the two players will perform against another player is an entirely different question.
Posted by: Young Sun at August 1, 2006 03:36
People, remember chess strength is demonstrated at the board against specific opponents, not in rating lists based on past games.
Of course Carlsen has demonstrated that he currently is better than Morozevich, beating him 2-0. In the same way Volokitin has shown the last years that he is better than Carlsen.
Of course this does not mean that Voloktin is better than Morozevich. Volokitin and Morozevich must play each other to decide that.
Rating numbers are not "real", you can not say which player is "best" (as if there is a true, objectively answer to that) just by looking at their rating, i.e. their past games. The players have to play against each other to decide that.
Why did not Morozevich win if he is better than Carlsen? It is the games that decide who is the better of them. How the two players will perform against another player is an entirely different question.
Posted by: Young Sun at August 1, 2006 03:41
Sorry about the multiple posting. I got a message about internal server problems three times.
Posted by: Young Sun at August 1, 2006 03:43
"I've pointed out many times that despite his often lofty Elo he has consistently choked in supertournaments."
I wouldn't say Moro has choked as much as he has been outplayed in the past. Those weird openings that work against 2600 and below get him in a lot of trouble against the upper echelon.
However, I love his games and he doesn't need to change his style because the rest of the world thinks he's impaling himself. He has stated in the past that he doesn't play deliberately bizarre moves. He just plays what he thinks are the strongest moves---if they happen to be strange, then so be it.
Posted by: Chri s Anderson at August 1, 2006 04:13
Spassky had won their previous game at the Siegen Olympiad (the famous Grunfeld encounter in which Bobby got duly crushed) and then beat Fischer in the first game of their Reyjavik match. Spassky had thus beaten Fischer twice in a row. Did this prove he was the better player? Did it?
If Morozevich and Carlsen had a 16 game match I'd still place my money on Morozevich if Carlsen was leading 2-0.
Posted by: Richard Teichmann at August 1, 2006 04:18
Since Magnus is clearly on the rise, and Moro has not managed to win the last two games, my betting advice would be not to place any money...
As for Dimons comments to what the results "should have been", my advice is to play the roulette. You'll loose money, but learn something about "should have been".
Posted by: Quely at August 1, 2006 04:50
Many young players have stagnated despite putting endless hours into the game.
If I recall correctly Shirov was the first teenage player to break 2700. He was young up and coming and playing ferocious chess in the image of his Latvian predecessor, Mikhail Tal. Not to take anything away from his great career, but I'm sure there were many people back then predicting he would be the natural successor to Kasparov. As we know, things didn't turn out that way.
Too early to talk about these things at their age.
Navara, Wang Hao, Karjakin, even Nakamura if he puts the hours in the game could be the next undisputed #1. Or perhaps it won't any of the names we are cherishing today. Perhaps it is some untitled Russian rated 2460 today, who will suddenly come out to prove his worth and jump up near 200 points in one year like Grischuk did. Or a late developer like Aronian. Who only in his 20's is making and has made the transition from a 2600 player to 2750+.
Posted by: Richard Teichmann at August 1, 2006 05:04
Just to clear up some misunderstandings by Young Sun above.
(1) Ratings are earned against multiple opponents over a period of time and they do represent the best approximation of a betterness relation among players that we have at our disposal. Therefore, fot the moment at least Moro is better than Volokitin and also better than Carlsen.
(2) Results of single games do not always reflect chess strength (and a fortiori chess understanding) accurately e.g. because you can outplay your opponent completely and still lose by a single blunder.
Posted by: Dr X at August 1, 2006 05:44
the comments about how carlssen is better moro r totally idiotic. kasparov had negative score with gulko(i think it was 3 or 4 to nil) and lautier too, r they better than him or what? and moro has never won a super tournament? what about Monaco? he won it 3 times...
Posted by: mark at August 1, 2006 06:03
2 Quely -
A game of chess is no roulette, at least not at this level and not in the position Moro had against Carlsen yesterday.
Posted by: Dimon at August 1, 2006 06:12
I did not say that chess is roulette, I said you could learn something about "should have been", i.e. how meaningless it is when the actual result is something else...
The position in the game actually improves this point, but if you'd rather argue against a statement noone made, be my guest.
Q
Posted by: Quely at August 1, 2006 07:13
Dimon
You are right in saying Magnus was very lucky in the second game against Moro. But how was he lucky in the first?? In that game, he simply outplayed Moro (like Moro outplayed him in the opening phase of the 2nd game), keeping him constantly on the ropes. There may some drawing lines in the middle game, but how has forcing your opponent to make mistakes anything to do with luck??
Posted by: Ray Derivaz at August 1, 2006 07:20
Ray,
I might misunderstand something but when I hear "outplayed"(not to mention "completely outplayed"), to me it means a win without any obvious blunders from your opponent. In other words, your opponent didn't do anything that clearly helped you win. Moro did blunder in the first game.
Yes Magnus played very well and was putting a lot of pressure but it was not the case of outplaying anybody.
Posted by: Dimon at August 1, 2006 08:14
Dr. X
One component of "chess strength" is the ability to avoid blunders. A brilliant player who made one blunder every few games would not be a very strongly-rated player.
Posted by: greg koster at August 1, 2006 08:19
"Of course Carlsen has demonstrated that he currently is better than Morozevich"
Wrong. Totally, completely wrong. Because in chess, as with all things in which humans compete
THE BEST PLAYER DOES NOT ALWAYS WIN
Posted by: Joshua Lilly at August 1, 2006 09:21
Department of Correctomania:
"Kramnik-Aronian" should be "Aronian-Kramnik".
Posted by: greg koster at August 1, 2006 10:07
Vallejo beat Topalov in linares coz Topalov blundered.. does anybody seriously think Vallejo better than Topalov?
Posted by: mark at August 1, 2006 10:25
Well, well, three quick draws and Kramnik still playing as white. Wonder if we'll be hearing about how disgraceful it was Aronian taking a quick draw with Jobava, for example.
Extraordinary game by Moro too, not least because to this untrained human eye he seems to have been winning from about move 19. Did Volokitin simply overlook ...Rxa2 until too late, or was it more complicated than I could see?
Posted by: rdh at August 1, 2006 12:07
I don't think there is a better player in the world to beat a 2550-2650 GM with the black pieces.
Posted by: Richard Teichmann at August 1, 2006 12:37
Probably not, no, which is why he's so successful in this sort of tournament, of course.
Some strange remarks higher up. Say Moro wins the tournament ahead of Carlsen - probable; after all he's going to be a point clear with two rounds to go. Do people really think that's going to prove Carlsen's stronger than Moro because he went 2-0 in their individual games? Curious way to think.
Posted by: rdh at August 1, 2006 13:07
ok...first: remember Carlsen is only 15years, and Moro is of course the most experienced of them. BUT Carlsen have a rating performance this year around 2740 in last 70 games(olypiad he was number four with 2830),he wil be the highest rated 16 years old player in history if he gain 7 more elo point in next 3 months(Kasparov 2701 Fischer 2680)So you cant cal it lucky... he is already on Moros level,but he miss some experienc...
Posted by: GN at August 1, 2006 13:23
I was watching the Carlsen-Morosevitch game earlier today on ICC. Someone was kibitzing about how Jews represented most of the world champions and many of the best players the game has ever seen. This, the kibitzer claimed, "was despite their extremely small proportion of the world population." He later postulated that whatever explained their chess prowess might help explain the Jews' overall Nobel prize winnings, well over 30% of the total, despite only being less than 0.1% of the world population.
Well, sure enough, all hell broke loose. All the unemployed ICC viewers of the game started squeeling about "racism" and "talking politics in a chess room," even though the kibitzer had only quoted a few statistics and asked why this was so. Naturally, the ICC self-proclaimed policemen "Zek" and "Eeek" threw the guy off, probably removing his account to the cries of "Get rid of him!" and "Hit the button!" Pretty weird, when you think about it.
People are generally suspicious of censored sites because they know they are not getting all sides of the story. Pretty soon, the ICC will die because people will get tired of talking with themselves. In fact, this already seems to be happening: A short transcript of any ICC channel shows that the only people who use ICC today are idiots.
Posted by: Chess Auditor at August 1, 2006 14:48
Thanks for this very enlightning and on-topic remark, Chess Auditor. Just what I needed for a sound sleep tonight.
Posted by: Albrecht von der Lieth at August 1, 2006 15:09
Well, thank goodness no idiots post here!
Posted by: Derek at August 1, 2006 15:56
Troll-o-meter:
-!---------
01234567890
Nice try, CA
Posted by: Yura Narseault at August 1, 2006 15:59
ICC also banned guests from playing coz they want everybody to pay.
Posted by: luis at August 1, 2006 15:59
Thank you Albrecht von der Lieth, Derek, and Yura Narseault. All of your comments really helped after reading CA's drivel.
Posted by: Todd C. Reynolds at August 1, 2006 16:13
Norway has won a lot of gold medals in Olympics and World Championships despite our extremely small proportion of the world population, less than 0.1% of the world population. I am talking about skiing of course.
Of course not all people/countries/races have put the same effort into chess, skiing, science, soccer, moon landings, beer drinking, gun control, you name it.
The old nature versus nurture debate does not belong here I guess. For those of you specially interested try Skeptic magazine issues on Race and IQ (Vol. 3 No. 3) and Race and Sports (Vol. 8 No. 1), www.skeptic.com
Posted by: Young Sun at August 1, 2006 16:16
As has been shown from the answers to my previous post, any rational enquiry into the nature of a current happening is subject to derision from ignorant people. Apparently, some of the posters around don't mind swimming in the sewer as long as they can avoid the turds.
I have nothing to reply to Todd, Yura, Derek, and Lieth. I was writing for the majority of intelligent people whereas they belong to the minority of stupid people. No matter: Darwin and Natural Selection will take care of them.
Posted by: Chess Auditor at August 1, 2006 16:40
Postulate: One player can not be better than all the rest. There will always be another player that is better than a specific player.
Posted by: Young Sun at August 1, 2006 16:56
Alas, some turds just keep popping up again and again.
Posted by: Derek at August 1, 2006 17:30
Oh,
just to keep this Carlsen-is-better-than-Moro debate going: Carlsen has a 2770 performance in Biel so far. Now, THAT's better than Moro's 2731 rating, isn't it??? ;o)
Posted by: Albrecht von der Lieth at August 1, 2006 18:23
Who is the best in chess, who will be the best in future, who was the bestin tyhe past? Some of the comments are funny, some are biased, some are very good and informative. I enjoy them all. Chess is a great sport, is culture, is entertainment for a lot of us. It's facinating!
As a Norwegian I will always be proud of Magnus Carlsen's play. Of course he will lose time to time, that's part of the game. I think all of his opponent treat him with respect. He deserve it.
Posted by: Rolf Espenes at August 1, 2006 18:41
I am beginning to rub my hands with glee when Carlsen loses, simply because Carlsen's sycophants are truly making me dislike the kid's success.
At least, there is no doubt now that Volokitin is better than Carlsen (by the idiotic logic of some posters on this site).
Posted by: Laj at August 2, 2006 13:14
>> Postulate: One player can not be better than all the rest. There will always be another player that is better than a specific player.
By your own argument this is not correct. You claim that Magnus is better than Moro because Magnus has won their last two games. So Magnus can just play a series of games against each GM in turn, stopping each series when he wins a game. Then his last result against each GM is a win, so he must be better than all of them.
Posted by: Chuckles at August 2, 2006 13:23
"Now, that [Carlsen's performance rating] is better than Moro's 2731 rating, isn't it?"
Sure, but you're comparing apples to oranges. If you were to look at Moro's performance rating in Biel, then you'd have a valid comparison.
Ooh, look -- Moro wins out in that category, too. ;0)
Posted by: just another idiot at August 2, 2006 16:18
Besides, I kinda doubt that Carlsen's performance rating is more than 2731 after the 9th round. 5/9 is not bad but nothing to write home about.
Posted by: DS at August 2, 2006 16:39
It goes without saying that Carlsen's a fantastic talent who may well be world champion one day (on the unlikely assumption FIDE manage to keep organising a proper world championship), and to judge from what I saw of him when I played a minor event alongside him, a nice kid too. But Moro's still a little ahead of him: he was the favourite for this tournament and he's won it like a favourite.
Posted by: rdh at August 2, 2006 16:44
"rdh: Carlsen's a fantastic talent who may well be world champion one day (on the unlikely assumption FIDE manage to keep organising a proper world championship)"
I hope the sentences "fantastic talent and nice" and "future world champion of chess" will not be contradictory in the near future. I am afraid that this computer era (less risks, opening novelties tested by computer, bla bla bla) would take more and more talented people away from chess, looking to explore their possibilities in another field. People imagine Carlsen as a teen who can be world champion as a teenager, not as a 25 year old man who can be world champion ... they are not patient and I wonder if Carlsen and some other young talents will resist the test of time (for example, Nakamura is exploring other possibilities and is only 18! -or 17, I am not sure).
In the times of Fischer or Kasparov, spending time studying chess since teenage years could be a reason for spending a whole live, because discovering something new in chess took more time and was more exciting ... now you don't see the same fascination because of the "computer testing of ideas". So, to see another prodigy can can be playing still chess in the top at 30 is unlikely ...
When I was a teen (Kasparov, Karpov matches), I always could read in the regular newspapers some short comment in the great events ... now you hardly see this now, even if is a world class event, you can only look at specialized places. Is there a day in which chess will interesting only for the bad players? I hope not
Posted by: Pascual at August 2, 2006 21:52
