Round nine was dominated by the clock. Leko's excellent defense was holding off Moro's marvelous attack, just the sort of fire and ice battle we could have expected. Morozevich played a boring recapture with 9.exd5 (instead of the Benoni-esque play we were expecting with 9.cxd5) but quickly turned it into a wild attacking position as only he can. Leko is one of the best defenders around but here was handicapped by terrible time trouble. Moro kept the tension with savvy moves like 26.Bd2 instead of allowing Leko to escape into an endgame after 26.Bxh6 Qxh6 27.Qxh6 Rxg3+. It didn't look like White has great chances but Moro saw deeper and kept the pressure on. Leko played a series of second-best moves and was down to a few seconds when the mistakes added up to a blunder on ye olde final move of the time control. White finished off his sequence of brilliant maneuvers with the hammer-blow 41.Rxg7! and all Black had was a few checks and resignation. Fire 1, Ice 0. That dragged Leko down to -2 with Morozevich, proving that misery loves company.
Topalov built up an impressive-looking slow-mo attack against Ivanchuk's kingside but could never bring up enough attacking forces to achieve anything. His uncoordinated knights in particular left a poor impression. Ivanchuk's defensive play was wonderfully classical in nature, countering in the center and picking his pawn breaks perfectly. GM Akobian thought Topalov let things really start slipping away when he eschewed b4 and allowed Black to play it himself. Ivanchuk fought through his typical time trouble and took control. Then, showing his Dr. Jekyll side, he proceeded to get right back into time trouble. The man is insane. An insane genius, but insane. Of course that soon led to a second time scramble that didn't allow Ivanchuk to press home the win. He had to settle for a perpetual check, truly a shame to ruin another masterful performance from the Chuckster. This is exactly how he missed a win against Leko in the first round. Akobian liked the simple 41..Qxg5 42.Qg2 Qxg2+ 43.Bxg2 f6 and he thought that endgame was nearly winning for Black thanks to White's split pawns.
Svidler shook off eight rounds of hibernation to play a nice squeeze against Anand's Petroff. Anand has made a living this tournament from turning around inferior positions but it didn't look like he was going to get out of this one. It just took one slip, however, for Anand to pounce with a cute tactic that Svidler had clearly missed. Svidler has been having a hallucination or three every event lately and today it was thinking 32..Rxc6 was impossible due to 33.Nd4. He was wrong thanks to the tricky 33..Rb6. Miracle save. Anand = slipperiest player evar. 32.Rc5 and White can keep grinding with great winning chances.
Magnus Carlsen's father/blogger Henrik tried, but it's hard to paint his son's whiff against Aronian as anything other than a total pass with the white pieces. He repeated Topalov-Leko from round three and agreed to a draw. Horrible. Carlsen is still in equal first so I suppose this is where we add the old refrain about never criticizing the winner. Still horrible. Let us hope that Caissa pardons the young!
Round 9 Chess.FM trivia questions and winners:
1) Who is the only player in this Linares field to make a negative score at this year’s Corus tournament? Winner: CrazyIvan
2) Name the three players here this year who didn’t play in Linares last year. Winner: Mr-Brain.
3) Linares takes place in Spain, but has no Spanish players this year. Name the three top-rated players who represent Spain. Winner of a one-year subscription to New In Chess: pawnpicker
Sunday's round 10: Leko-Topalov, Ivanchuk-Svidler, Anand-Carlsen, Aronian-Morozevich. Let's hope the co-leaders come to play. Aronian and Moro played a great one in the first half.
What the heck. Round 10: Leko-Topolov .5,
Ivanchuk-Svidler .5,
Anand-Carlsen .5,
Aronian-Morozevich 0/1! Surprise!
I think Magnus is showing maturity with the draws and also more importantly, it shows the other players have accepted him as an equal. This is very important for him. It would be foolish for him to take a few losses right now. He has fought too hard and too long for acceptance by the elite.
With acceptance as an equal will come the ability to focus on each opponent to win. He must finish this tournament to keep the acceptance. There is much more at stake short term than winning a game. The best would be if Anand now shows acceptance and allows a draw. That would solidify Magnus' position among the elite.
Remember this is not his first attempt at acceptance. when he was on the bottom they all ganged up on him and he lost heavy. After this tournament they will look for someone else to gang up on.
another thing is that usually the young do better in the beginning but get too tired at the end. this is smart for him to conserve his energy.
I would consider everything a huge success if he could draw all his remaining games. One by one each top player says he accepts Magnus as an equal when he allows him a fairly easy draw. I see this as very important for his future tournaments.
All he would have to do is to lose a few to destroy all the work he has accomplished and have to start all over again being the bottom of the list having everyone gunning for him.
Kenny - good comments.
The top players must look at Carlsen and think, when will his stairstep increases stop? He's only 16 years old, and average chessplayers peak at age - what - 29-33? Magnus will climb right on by them, and soon. It's scary.
He wouldn't be destroying anything, he's be learning something, win or lose. He's 16, this isn't going to be the last or best supertournament of his career. As for respect, Aronian must have gotten a good laugh out of it. GMs Christiansen and Charbonneau on the ICC were as disgusted as any of the amateurs, most of them Carlsen fans I'm sure. He's young, he deserves slack, but he's also a pro at the top pro event. So slack yes, but there's no reason to give out free passes after such a bizarre event.
Carlsen can get away with playing for a draw when he has White. It may not be so simple for him to draw against Anand as Black, especially since Anand must be aware of Carlsen's current mindset. Right now, the other players don't want to join the "Carlsen Club". Magnus has earned the respect of his fellow competitors, and they probably will not be so quick to overpress against him. But in no way do they yet view him as a peer, being of equal strength...
That said, in an event where nearly 70 percent of games end as draws, and nearly half his games have been decisive, it is hard to criticize him too harshly.
He's 16 YEARS OLD! He's already playing at a level that the vast majority of grandmasters can only dream of. So what if Christiansen and Charbonneau were disgusted. Years ago I was playing at a tournament in San Jose CA, and saw Grandmaster Christiansen LOSE to a 1700 player, and I'm not talking simul, remember that Larry? That's disgusting! (and I'm not finding fault with the 1700 player. We are watching a kid who in time could very easily be mentioned in the same breath as Kasparov, Karpov, Fischer, Capablanca etc. You guys want to find fault? GET REAL!
Carlsen is obviously playing very well, but last year Leko started well, then tried to draw his way to tournament win and ended up finishing fourth. Magnus should play based on the position on the board not the position in the tournament.
Nobody is attacking Carlsen ad hominem, or at all. It was a preposterous "game" that may as well not have been played at all. Why make bizarre, totally unrelated insults to the people who point this out? Take off your cheerleader outfit and get your pom-poms out of your eyes for a second. We all love the kid and want to pinch his rosy von Trapp cheeks, okay? Love him, all ready to adopt him tomorrow. He's great, wonderful, the most exciting thing to happen to chess since the promotion rule. Now then, does any of that make what happened in round nine less ridiculous? Christ, get a sense of perspective. It was one stupid game, noteworthy for its stupidity, that's all. Pointing this out or being annoyed by having to see the same drawn game twice in Linares isn't child abuse.
A lot of factors make this draw understandable:
16 years old among experienced world class players, beeing the lowest rated among the worlds top rated, surprisingly still leading the tournament together with the world #2, an encounter with a player you are supposed to meet in a WC qualifier in a few months...
So "horrible" is not the word to describe it, unless you have a _strong_ urge to do so. One can only wonder why.
What's this about urges? I have no ulterior motives (what in god's name would they be?) and don't need any. Did you not notice that an entire game from last week was repeated move for move in the same tournament? This is silly! A mockery! Noteworthy! Worthy of note! I noted it! Big deal. Trying to make this out as some personal attack is a bad joke. If Ivanchuk and Svidler repeat the entire game again I'll mention that, too. Or would that not be worthy of criticism? Or would it be understandable because of blah blah? Sorry, I'm not into understandable non-game draws of any stripe, but you must be new around here.
Again, "Horrible" is not the word. No, I'm not new around here, a quick search in your own blog would have told you that (Carlsen on the other hand is new to Linares). But of course, big, fancy words are much more important to you than well-thought ones. Your verbal mud-wrestling usually makes some of your readers comments much more interesting than your own.
Keen eye for sarcasm you have there. Keep up the good work.
No, horrible isn't YOUR word for it. It's mine. You can tell because I wrote it. Twice. It's not mud to call the horrible horrible. I know, I know, it's so confusing when other people have opinions. They aren't mean, they aren't idiots, they don't have secret agendas. They have opinions. Occasionally they aren't the same as yours. So confusing.
"I know, I know, it's so confusing when other people have opinions. They aren't mean, they aren't idiots, they don't have secret agendas. They have opinions. Occasionally they aren't the same as yours. So confusing."
Could as well have been my words. Sorry, off to the shower. It rubs off you know.
Magnus played a magnificent game, one which should be replayed over again while hoping for a different outcome.
I'm as big a Carlsen-fan as any, and I'd love it if Magnus would collect another five 'horrible' draws to finish the tournament with a sensational +2. But objectively speaking, Mig's comment is spot on and it's ridiculous that some people insist on taking offense.
Well, he has black against Anand today. I'm sure if Vishy is willing to repeat, say, Topalov-Svidler from round four, he won't disagree!
On a trivia note, I wonder if the same game has ever been repeated like this in the same round-robin tournament. Okay, it diverged on the final move, but really. I'm sure there must be a few 12-movers out there from back in the 80's. Not counting long lines with improvements a la Motylev-Anand and Anand-van Wely at Corus or just about any Marshall you can name. By the way did anyone notice that the same poisoned pawn triple pawn sac was tried a few weeks later in the Bundesliga and resulted in a spectacular miniature? I just looked at it for Black Belt. Luther-Ftacnik
"Morozevich played a boring recapture with 9.exd5 (instead of the Benoni-esque play we were expecting with 9.cxd5)"
Good one, Mig. Yesterday I lost against a guy who also played exd5. Black has to play careful or his position goes downhill.
It's just amusing to see such a move from Moro, at least until he unleashes h4-h5! cxd5 is such a standard idea with many dynamic ideas it seemed obvious that's what he'd play. After exd5 the only break in the position is the a-pawn, or so it seems. Usually White has to play for a long-term squeeze. That's why it was so much fun to see Moro turn it into insanity by sheer force of will. He's amazing.
This was an instructive game. Although Leko tried to exchange as much material as possible (even the bad white squared bishop) his position wasn't getting better. White had a permanent pressure because of his strong knights. Very typical for this kind of position.
Actually I was quite disappointed by Carlsen's draw, but I had forgotten they play for the candidates match soonish. This is a reason (not good enough though) to do this draw, while other excuses such as "he is leading", "he is only 16","he wants to establish himself" are complelty off the point. (you do not establish yourself by a short theoretical draw with white)
We all saw lots of Moro games. His ability to generate a wild game out of a dead equal, dry, and many would say dead drawn, position is unmatched.
If Carlsen plays like every professionel GM now, there is no need anymore to treat him special and give him free entrance.
Mig:
I only read the first couple comments of yours before writing this. Now, consider this statement:
"He wouldn't be destroying anything, he's be learning something, win or lose."
I think you are the premium example why Magnus is better served by a series of draws (whichever way) to finish +2 if possible. I would of course love him winning another game or two (even at the cost of losing two or three), since I think Magnus deserves everything he's gotten so far, when it comes to invitations and such.
You don't, however. You made that perfectly clear before this tournament, talking about 20 other players you'd rather see here than Magnus. Now, do you see why I think you're fairly close to contradicting yourself? If not you, then other ppl (like you) would go on about Magnus not belonging in the top and so on, if he went for the suicidal Moro approach (ok, win yesterday, but no guarantees at all), loosing say 4-5 games and winning none in the Linares half, ending last with -2, -3 or so.
You can argue that "no, I wouldn't" and so on, and so on, but your pre-tournament reports here make this hard to believe. Why is it so hard for you that ppl disagree about your verdict of Magnus-Aronian from yesterday? It's your blog, you said what you think on the front page - why this urge to repeat over and over again that this draw was preposterous, unworthy and so on?
Here's an excercise: Svidler is at 50%, all draws. Sum up your pre-tournament and during tournament comments about him, compare those to your comments about Magnus and sum up the negative ones. Care to explain?
Another question: Why this heaven and hell approach? I think your comments would alltogether have come true as more objective and made more sense, if you had a broader and more consistent perspective on matters; one game is one game, one tournament is one tournament, always consider both result(s) and the actual game(s). If you'd looked more carefully, you wouldn't have been so critical to Magnus Corus performance, and hence not so critical to his participation here.
In Corus, Magnus was criticised for the lost position/game vs e.g. Motylev and Svidler - but both were incidents of playing too hard for a win (Motylev later returned the favour, Svidler did not). Magnus insisted on playing for a win by declining the repetition against van Wely (and went on to get a lost position which he saved). Same thing againts Leko in Tal Memorial.
Ok, now he's drawn two games without a fight as white (Leko and Aronian), but also without being lost somewhere along the road. Is this an improvement or a step backwards compared to the two previous tournaments?
You're not consistent on this, in my opinion - it seems Magnus must play entertaining chess and win for you to give him thumbs up: fight and lose, thumbs down, play solidly and get good results: thumbs down. You're old enough to be able to make some self-critical reflections on how your comments earlier and now are perceived. I hope you won't answer this with another sarcastic counter-attack.
From a chess fan's viewpoint I understand that the game Carlsen-Aronian was a disappointment, but from the players' point of view completely understandable: Aronian played black against his future candidates' match opponent and top of it all an opponent who's in a very good shape. Carlsen played a stronger player, future match opponent and his position in the tournament didnt require him to play for the win if the opportunity didnt present itself.
So why make a big fuss about it? In the 60s, 70s and 80s there were a lot more games like this...non-games if you will. I am surprised that players like LarryC and Charbonneau join the whiners. As professionals I'd expect them to know better..at least LarryC. After all he used to be an IGM already at a time when the title really meant what it says: International Grand Master. So no need to be barking with the pound, just because it is so popular these days...especially amongst American chess fans.
Just as I start to despair of Moro, he plays a blinder like today. OK, I hereby make a resolution, I am not going to disappointed when he collapses anynore; I am just glad to be alive when Morozevich is playing Chess.
Well, pre-Linares Mig's comments have been a little disparaging for Carlsen, but here they are fully earned.
As for respect, it is gained on board with the moves he is playing. If he plays unexpectedly strong moves then opponents will start respecting him. If he comes on the board with relentless will to fight and win, like Fischer, Kasparov or now Topalov, then
As for being young, since he is progressing very fast, he should train as much as possible, and this is done by playing full games against top 10 players. He should rack up as many long gruelly fighting games as possible.
It's not like he is 50, and this is the tournament of his life, and he'll never get a chance to win Linares.
Look at this:
Jussupow,Artur (2565) - Miles,Anthony J (2585) [E12]
Linares Linares, 1983
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.a3 Bb7 5.Nc3 d5 6.cxd5 Nxd5 7.Qc2 c5 8.e4 Nxc3 9.bxc3 Nd7 10.Bd3 Qc7 11.Bb2 cxd4 12.cxd4 Qxc2 13.Bxc2 Ba6 ½–½
Now let's see Larry fighting for a tournament win in Portoroz, 1985:
Christiansen,Larry Mark (2560) - Miles,Anthony J (2570) [E12]
Portoroz/Ljubljana Ljubljana (10), 1985
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.a3 Bb7 5.Nc3 d5 6.cxd5 Nxd5 7.Qc2 c5 8.e4 Nxc3 9.bxc3 Nd7 10.Bd3 Qc7 11.Bb2 cxd4 12.cxd4 Qxc2 13.Bxc2 Ba6 14.Rc1 ½–½
No, it doesn't proove anything.
They were two about it, isn't it? Or is white allways the one to honour or to blaime when draw?
It's amazing, we are withnessing one of the strongest performances of a 16 year old ever.. all Mig and others can come up with is "horrible" and "discusted"..!?
Yeah, it would be so much better if Carlsen had overpushed as so many times before, and finished of with a collapse.
Why not give the kid a break, he is not a pro yet and had a bad tourney at Corus. Aronian and Carlsen will face each other soon in the candidate match anyway, and that will be the important event for Carlsen to do well against Aronian.
Hey, if I was in Carlsen's position I would have taken the easy half point also yesterday and hope that Anand plays a 5 hour game and tires himself out.
Yes, the Carlsen-Aronian candidates should be a great event to follow!
Carlsen is a great player but that does not mean that he should be immune from criticism. When he takes a day off he deserves to be bashed by people who don't like it. As Mig said above, it is called expressing opinion. Nothing wrong with it.
I hope that if Carlesn tries to pull another "Leko" today against Anand, the Indian GM teaches him a good lesson. It'll be instructive and good for Carlsen's development as a player.
I believe Magnus Carlsen was merely paying a compliment to his colleagues by repeating their game. This is not a weasel draw. It's a living tribute to their efforts. He wanted to show just how much their earlier game affected his life. And who can blame him?
It isn't every 16-year-old who respects other players so much that he's willing to take a day off to honor their former moves. Carlsen has shown himself to be a true gentleman, a sporting titan of the game.
Sooner or later you lose if you don't play. Hope today's loss to Anand will serve as a wake-up call to young Carlsen. He needs to go back to the great fighting chess he showed in Morelia. Only that will make him successful.
Carlsen took a a hammering from Anand today I cannot understnd why he doesnt take up the marshall he also had a strange reluctance to play f5. This Nd2 variation in the closed Ruy Lopez gave him not one atom of counterplay. Anand really has his measure. Tremendous game from him.
Mig,
After my last post I called it a night. I see you managed to take offense to what I had to say. First, I was talking about Grandmaster's Christiansen and Charbonneau. I've seen Larry take a grandmaster draw more than once at various tournaments throughout time. If he wants to find fault, I can point out some of his own. None of us are above reproach. Second, don't talk to me about perspective just because it isn't in line with your goose-stepping all the time. It's my opinion, it was related to the blog and I'll damn well express it. Your perspective "was" that the kid shouldn't even be playing here...remember? Now you "love him". If you don't have anything better to do at 2:46 AM, except to attack Appaz and myself for differing opinions, maybe you should join your wife in bed and love her...you'll feel better. Also, don't come at me with your usual hackneyed find another blog routine. I'm here to stay, deal with it!
Why not attack "Appaz"? In three posts he vomits up enough smugness and sanctimony to last a month. ("Off to the shower"--give me a break.)
Carlsen's game reminded me of a Moro game against Garry several years ago. It was an un-Moro like game to force a draw with White. Garry was utterly disgusted with it.
If I get time, I'll see if I can find that game.
Is Leko lost?
Leko-Topalov draw.
Chesstraveler - Obviously you don't have someone to crawl into bed and make you feel better at any point in the day or you wouldn't be making rude comments like that...
A lot of times I just scroll through the comments to read what Mig wrote b/c so many of the other posters are such dotards.
Noyb,
My post is addressed to Mig, not you. He's a big boy and can answer it for himself, if he so chooses. April 16 I will be celebrating my 30th wedding anniversary and perhaps you shouldn't be so presumptuous. My comment wasn't any ruder to him than his was to me (or yours for that matter).
"Magnus should play based on the position on the board not the position in the tournament."
Posted by: Yuriy Kleyner at March 4, 2007 02:27
Really? No, seriously? Come on, Yuriy, you must not feel well today. Weren't you the one who strongly defended players' right to draw whenever they don't feel like playing?
Absolutely--and there is no contradiction. Just because players have the right to draw doesn't mean that I think they should always do so or that it makes for a good strategy. In this particular case, with Carlsen's energy and inexperience, he should play more high level chess rather than try to finish games early. With Topalov's usual strong finishes, Chucky's aggressive exciting play so far and the always dangerous Aronian I don't think Carlsen's chances of finishing near top by continuing to draw are very good either.
Gladiator at 6:29 and Rook at 8:40 - well said.
Mig (and also Chesstraveler to some extent, from the other perspective),
why these exaggerations and personal insults? Calm down.
If Mig keeps raking people over the coals, as he does on a regular basis, I think he'll find that the other chess blogs (and their advertisements) will pick up marketshare pretty quickly. If they haven't done so already.
chesstraveler - My condolences to your wife.
Thanks noyb. Now pull your nose out of Mig's a--.
Bad play from Leko today, I expected him to win but he got bambzooled by Topa's would be K-side counter-play.
On the other hand Anand is the game of chess itself, if only he would play for win more often,
The thought of a grandmaster draw shouldn't even enter young Magnus' head, at frickin' age 16. Look at how dismal Morozevich's results are in these elite tournaments. He sucks against the top ten, but he still gets the invites. Wonder why? It's in the way he plays.
That's it! I'm going to quote Ezra Pound now.
"The man who fears war and squats opposing
My words for stour, hath no blood of crimson
But is fit only to rot in womanish peace
Far from where worth's won and the swords clash
For the death of such sluts I go rejoicing;
Yea, I fill all the air with my music.
Papiols, Papiols, to the music!
There's no sound like to swords swords opposing,
no cry like the battle's rejoicing
When our elbows and swords drip the crimson
And our charges 'gainst "The Leopard's" rush clash.
May God damn for ever all who cry "Peace!"
-------------------------------------------------
The Ezra hath spoken!!!!
No thread for Kirsan's newest WC cycle?
16 year olds shouldn't play non-games like Carlsen-Aronian. That's just bad carma. Mig was totally right to rip Magnus for that. Now watch this nice +2 score to change into lackluster -1. Magnus has various excuses, such as totally unexpected tournament lead and upcoming match with Aronian, but... When youth tries to be too pragmatic, it throws away it's natural advantage.
To be fair, Mig should have ripped Topalov for the original game too. That was as much a non-game as this one, since Topalov clearly had this dead drawn endgame in his home preparations.
No thread for Kirsan's newest WC cycle?
Posted by: zero@ego.com at March 4, 2007 20:28
-----------
Mig, can you please put a thread - we are bursting with scenarios where Kramnik will deliberately loose the last round game in Mexico...
>I've seen Larry take a grandmaster draw more than once at various tournaments throughout time.
Posted by: chesstraveler at March 4, 2007 13:49
Reading also your 1st post one can assume that your observations stem from travelling (sic) to Opens as opposed to Super Tournaments. As it has been pointed out by others these are 2 incomparable situations: travelling to Opens costs money (hotel, possibly entry fees) that you risk to lose whereas in Linares even the player finishing last gets a considerable amount of prize money. In the first case the players are free to do what ever they want in order to maximize/minimize their profits/losses. In the second case they are bound to the audience and sponsors.
As to Carlsen: I may be wrong and he wins Linares, but I always thought why burn off a 16 year old ? Why not wait (and prepare) another 2 years ? (GK's high-level international appearances came at about 18). You don't want to lose the way he did today against Anand - this may be a turning point. In that sense I agree with Mig's comments at the start of Linares/Morelia. Also: repeating a draw from a previous round - I don't see the fun of it. And what's this caught-by-surprise-in-the-opening business ?? Maybe better to turn off the database for a day or two and concentrate on chess.
I disagree with some of your argument. At Opens the vast amount of prize money comes from the lower rated players (Non-Gm's and Im's and all classes) as has been pointed out by others. I can't remember the last time a Grandmaster had to pay an entry fee in a "Major Open." let alone "minor one." That said, the audience at these opens are mostly comprised of the amateur players themselves, myself included. As a paying customer (entry fees) I would like to see well played games by the chess elite in that last round. Instead what I do see is 10-12 move draws and an empty podium shortly after my last round game begins. One has to remember that if the amateurs decided to quit playing in these tournaments, it would certainly be at the grandmasters expense so-to-speak. As long as entry fees are the main source of finanial support of open tournaments, I believe that the top players do have commitment to play their best chess in the last round. Obviously they have a different viewpoint regarding any accoutability to their audience.
I've played in a lot of Open tournaments, and it never bothered me that the top players might be agreeing to a draw in the final round. I paid to play, not watch their games. At least that's the way I looked at it.
I suppose I could have complained that my money was subsidizing the money the Tournament winner took home, but honestly it never crossed my mind. I wonder how others that play in these feel? I've never heard anyone I participated with in an Open tournament, complain about last round draws there.
These gm draws in the elite tournaments seem to me a completely different animal. For one, they happen at all points during the tournament. Not just the last round. Also, as I'm not a participant, I'm watching the games, so the draws are a let down.
I dont think your analogy of a Christianson draw in an open tournament works. But, I doubt I can change your mind. You will get the last word.
To keep my mind occupied on a long subway ride the other day, I took a fresh look at the first chess book I ever read: Chess Strategy and Tactics, by Reinfeld and Chernev.
Lo and behold, when I got to game 7 (Marco-Maroczy, Vienna 1899) here is what I saw:
At move 3 (when White opts for the Exchange Variation against the French): "A not too subtle method of revealing his pacific intentions."
At move 17 (immediately after a series of rook and minor-piece exchanges): "It is evident that both players are animated by the same noble thoughts of peace."
And best of all, at move 22, upon the exchange of queens: "At this point both players would have been content with a draw, but 'unfortunately' the tournament regulations did not permit a draw before the 30th move." !!!!!
I guess the more things change, the more they remain the same. Yeah, that was Vienna 1899, not 1999. And those annotations I just quoted were first written in 1933. That's nineteen thirty-three. (Though I'm actually quoting the paperback edition, published in 1946.)
By the way, the resulting dead-drawn position at move 22 ultimately ended in a win by Black (Maroczy) on move 78 -- after a beautifully played endgame that earned Maroczy a brilliancy prize.
Just a general comment about Carlsen -- at age 16, this kid has proven so much of its unimaginable capability that for one it made even me a believer. There may be hiccups in his career from here on, many or a few, but one thing he has is a fighting spirit that is unlikely to be easily diminished in the incoming battles. To take down one top guy after the other, even probably because they underestimated him, is still so huge. I know nobody questions that part, but I believe there's something more special about him than the other talents we've seen. He seems more normal, for one (hard to qualify exactly what normal means), but I have my gut feeling here. We'll see, but I wouldn't be too judgmental even if he drops all of his games from here on, which is rather unlikely. I see great things for him, more than just being stuck at #5 forever, or something of that sort…
D.
I AM NOT A CROOK!!!
Sure you aren't hehe...
I do not think Chesstraveler said Larry Christiansen only takes short draws in Opens. For example, he did very well in Linares 1981 with 8/11 (equal first with Karpov). This was one of his games:
[White "Kavalek, Lubomir"]
[Black "Christiansen, Larry Mark"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
1. e4 d6 2. d4 g6 3. c3 Nf6 4. Nd2 Bg7 5. Ngf3 O-O 6. Bd3 Nc6 7. O-O e5 8. Re1
Nh5 9. dxe5 Nxe5 10. Nxe5 dxe5 11. Nf3 h6 12. Be3 1/2-1/2
Maybe it was part of his overall tournament strategy.
But it is funny that some of the most vociferous anti-short-draw campaigners, such as GM Maurice Ashley, were by no means averse to some quick games.
Carlsen deserves to be criticised for his repeated game as would any player at his level. Its depressing stuff. The fact that he is 16 makes it worse - perhaps he should play less tournaments. I find the comparison made by Chess traveller to Fischer, Kasparov, Karpov and Capablance as way over the top. Can you provide some examples from these world champions of draws like this?? Certainly not Fischer or Kasparov perhaps Karpov or Capablance? Show me. Lets compare to Karjakan or Radjabov or Mamydarov show me a comparable game from these young players of similar talent in a major tournament.
God, you people never give up, do you? This isn't a circus; it's sport. Carlsen's trying to win the tournament, he's caught by surprise in the opening and he thinks his best chance of winning the event is not improvising but making a draw and going home to rest and prepare for Anand. He probably knows better than any of you whether that's true. And if he's worrying even a little tiny bit about disappointing know-nothing internet twitterers, then he shouldn't be. Good for him.
Worth remembering a 16 year old doesn't have as much opening knowledge to fall back on as someone who's been on the circuit a long time. It's more serious for him being surprised than for Anand.
"But it is funny that some of the most vociferous anti-short-draw campaigners, such as GM Maurice Ashley, were by no means averse to some quick games."
Do as I say, not as I do.
Lambasting quick draws make you popular among spoiled fans. Helps you sell more books and such too. Most people are too ignorant and lazy to notice what's wrong with the picture anyway.
It's incredible that such an extremely trivial issue as a short draw can give rise to such endless discussions time after time again. You didn't like the game? OK, fascinating. Neither did I. So I will look at the other games instead. Much like I will now look at some of the more interesting blog threads.
anand rocks! time he bacame the no 1 rated player. shaping up to be an intriguing final phase.
He may - in fact I think surely must - be top of the rating list now in running. Not that that means so much, and after all he has been before.
I think he was before Corus, so yes, now he definitely is again. As you know he has rating points "in the bank" from the Bundesliga.
Was Anand no. 1 in any published FIDE rating list so far?
He scored 2.5/3 in the Bundesliga right? probably has a couple of points from that.
Anand has never been #1 in the FIDE rating lists, frequently #2, but it looks like he is finally about to break through to the top.
Twice 2nd behind retired Kasparov though, July 2005 (shared with Topalov) and October same year.
>>Look at how dismal Morozevich's results are in these elite tournaments. He sucks against the top ten, but he still gets the invites. Wonder why? It's in the way he plays. <<
I was trying to see if this was true (admittedly, Moro does not play as well against +2730s as he does against those under, but who does) and Moro has barely played in top level tournaments since 2002. He did bad in Corus 2005 and well in San Luis. Those were the only two results I could find...I believe it was around 2003 that he said he was going to take an amateur's approach to chess. So it's not really fair to say he does bad in top tournaments--style helps but his past results were not the kind that make future invites less likely.
Is Adams still licking his wounds after Hydra?
Give Carlsen a break- isn't the WC more important than showing Aronian the type of game he will play in the upcoming Match? Mention this before calling him a wimp.
The Spanish idiots are forcing me to learn Russian.
Why is russian such a difficult language to auto-translate ? ( Babelfish sucks for russian. )
Many thanks to chesspro, e3e5.com etc for coverage of Linares.
just read about Gary's opposition rally in Russia. Really hope he doesnt end up getting beaten or worse. I also really admire his courage, he seems to be putting his life on the line. He is in life as he was in Chess, fearless and combative.
"I also really admire his courage, he seems to be putting his life on the line."
Yeah, right.
Of course not as much as you acirce, living in the police state that is Sweden, but then who can compare to you?! Or indeed your hero, Kramnik, so brave and such a shining example of the art of avoiding conflict.
"...the police state that is Sweden..."
Yeah, right.
I'm flattered, but what is it with all you d*-varieties and your fascination with me, my "heroes" and my non-controversial statements about Swedish police brutality from years ago?
No, I don't think the life of any marginal oppositional leader is in serious danger in Sweden or in Russia. Why should it?
"Give Carlsen a break- isn't the WC more important than showing Aronian the type of game he will play in the upcoming Match? Mention this before calling him a wimp."
WC is certainly more important, but avoiding confrontation with Aronian before the WC probably benefits Aronian more than Carlsen. In general, when an up and coming player is about to face a more established one, games before the match usually benefit an up and coming guy. Just recall Karpov-Kasparov. Carlsen's style/strengths/weaknesses are changing now way faster than Aronian's. So whatever Aronian learns about Carlsen play might be irrelevant in June, while Aronian in June and now are likely to be very similar.
Good point, osb.
It's a matter of degree, shurely, acirce? Do I not recall a Swedish PM being assassinated lately? Being in public life anywhere is risky - lots of nuts out there. The question is whether its riskier in Russia, and I've no idea. Certainly being a opposition journalist in Russia doesn't seem healthy, but that may be different of course.
If one had to wager on GK being alive in five years' time (a) if he were to give up politics or (b) if he were to continue, though, then clearly (a) would be the better bet. To that extent d_tal is right. After all, didn't someone already attack GK with a baseball bat, or was that all publicity?
Christiansen is more known for his aggressive chess than for making draws ;)
Repeating moves of a complete game played in the same tournament is not "trying to win the tournament" - its trying not to lose the game. Carlsen had the white pieces - its not like it was the final round where a draw would give a chance at first prize. It was the middle of the tournament duhhh. As for getting "caught by surprise in the opening" - come on please a joke surely. I have to laugh, though, with all this guff about it being Aronian so he had to repeat the game to avoid showing his hand in the upcoming short match. Anyway the lad wil need to cowboy up and get back on his horse after the severe spanking handed out to him by Anand. Was nt there a little bit of timid/automatic play in that game? Perhaps he was keeping more secrets back from Aronian - avoiding his best lines?
?
Ironically enough, Kasparov was attacked with a chessboard.
??
Looks like Carlsen helps make a strong argument for Sofia Rules...I'm sure the sponsors were 'thrilled beyond all recall' with that -NOT EVEN ORIGINAL - 'game'.
zzz zzzzz zzz
If Ksaparov is ever seriously injured in an attack, or even killed, i swear i stop all "conspiracy theories" and start believing that Putin really is terrible, provided that there's no evidence pointing that it was arranged so as to sacrifice him to make Putin look bad.
acirce chortles:
"It's incredible that such an extremely trivial issue as a short draw can give rise to such endless discussions time after time again. You didn't like the game? OK, fascinating. Neither did I. So I will look at the other games instead. Much like I will now look at some of the more interesting blog threads."
Praytell, what is 'trivial' about short draws? I understand your 'point' about moving on to the next game, but your ambivalence is shocking.
Eventually sponsors will dry up becuase the players are taking them for their money and not playing real, fighting chess. Then you will have plenty of time to 'trivialize' other blogs.
For me, the first Time Control cites the end of 'regulation' play, and you have to meet it. If it's 40/2, then 40 moves have to be played. I know, I know, there are problems with threefold repetition, and we need to resolve those *minor* issues, but going forward, I see no reason why we, and big-ticket sponsors, should not expect a reasonable effort from the contestants.
You would not expect The Yankees/Red Sox to issue a 'tie' after 5 innings, or the Colts to stop at half-time with an even score, or Liverpool Football to call it a day at half-time either.
We deserve better from these icons of modern chess.
I hope Kasparov comes back to chess. His performance in politics switches from interesting to ridiculous.
For sure! I could just see the fans reaction to an NFL or World Soccer Match being stopped early because the players thought they were evenly matched and just wanted to collect their money and go home. Those multi-gazillion state-of-the-art facilities would most certainly be restructured.
It's probably fair to assume NFL fans wouldn't be too thrilled if the teams announced they'd decided to settle things by pushing a few pieces of wood around rather than the usual tedious mayhem, either, but so what? Chess ain't football, and football ain't chess.
The problem isn't games of chess ending in draws. The problem isn't even players agreeing that a position isn't worth playing. The problem is players agreeing that a ROUND isn't worth playing. Changing the structure to
1) A minimum increment of 5 seconds
2) After a drawn game, colors are reversed, time is carried over from the previous game, and the players play again.
3) If some number of games (2 or 4, probably) are drawn, Armageddon game for the match.
If every round has to be played to a result, White can't safely make a boring draw (because he'll be black next game). If the players want to make 2/4 dumb draws and Armageddon for it all, so be it. We'll at least get one contested game.
Mig
My post got referred to you I am curious what triggered the referral?
Why bother with Armageddon? Rock-paper-scissors is quicker, easier to understand and more fun for the general public to follow. Every game is guaranteed to have a decisive outcome and, if you play according to classical playground rules, the sight of one of the world's greatest chess players getting flicked on the forehead.
When I first started following chess over the Internet in 2001, there were 3 classical super-GM tournaments each year, Corus, Dortmund and Linares. None have disappeared and we even had the additional bonuses of Astana, San Luis and now Mexico. Now I am not going to proclaim that sponsors have not abandoned chess because of super-GM draws, but if you think GMs have become too drawish lately, is it too much to ask to name a tournament which disappeared in the past five years due to super-GM draws or which didn't happen because the sponsors were afraid there were going to be too many drawers?
Andy: It was dumped by the spam filter for the word "spanking," which I've deleted from the filter list. It should be up now.
lol...draws, not drawers. Oh man....
rdh,
Can you say...hypothetical?
"Tedious mayhem" C'mon Nancy.
Yuriy,
For what it's worth. I think most of the bloggers here by now know you well enough so that you don't have to correct yourself for a typo.
Hmm...
Let's see if Mig's system deletes a post which includes the words "drawers" AND "spanking."
"Praytell, what is 'trivial' about short draws? I understand your 'point' about moving on to the next game, but your ambivalence is shocking.
Eventually sponsors will dry up becuase the players are taking them for their money and not playing real, fighting chess."
If I had a dime for every time someone said this, I could sponsor a whole tournament circuit myself. The strange thing is that this doomsday scenario never seems to be close to actually happen, or even come any closer. How long have short draws existed? Don't we have plenty of strong, regular tournaments and quite a few matches? Don't there pop up new sponsors now and then? Was it fear of short draws that made Kasparov-Shirov and Kasparov-Anand fail to materialize? Truth is that people who like to grab a beer, switch on their computers, log onto ICC and expect the players to entertain them as if somehow that is their duty are using this alarmist argument to make it seem like their own drawophobia and bloodthirst coincide with the best interests of chess in general. There is no lack of real problems in the chess world, to say the least, so the intense focus on this pseudo-problem is weird.
I just must say to
Garry Kasparov.
Congratulations. Nice going. Bravo. Keep up the good work. The entire world needs you. There is no way that you can lose. Have no fear.
You have really impressed me now Garry. I am proud of you.
Kenny Foster
USA
There are a lot of tournaments which did disappear or got downgraded - I am not saying because of draws.
e.g. Las Palmas, Dos Hermanas, Tilburg, Reggio Emilia.
Additionally, the previous sponsor of the US championships , AF4C chairman, was very annoyed with the prevalence of short draws.
I agree with those concerned about Kasparov's safety. "Troublesome" Russian folks are not taken out inconspicuously, by a whack on the head, by but exotic forms of polonium, as if to advertise the danger of messing with the powers that be.
Kasparov's departure from FIDE laid the groundwork for Kirsan's demolition of the zonal-interzonal-candidates structure. Kasparov's spurning of Intel and his sliming of IBM scared off those two big-bucks sponsors and probably others as well. Kasparov climbed the then-existing WCC structure to the championship in 1985, and on his 2005 retirement left chess in ruins. Apart from the world wars, Kasparov is probably the worst catastrophe ever suffered by the chess world.
But upon his retirement Kasparov realistically acknowledged that chess unification would be more likely with him out of the picture. His chess opinions now seem more mature, restrained, and considered. He's made up with Karpov and it would be nice to look forward to him eventually making peace with his younger rivals. I hope he takes care of himself.
Short draws may not affect the status quo but they certainly hamper the growth of "professional chess" that is chess as a business.
The reason firms sponsor events is to increase their brand image in order to sell more products or services, to do so they need to reach a large audience, which requires a greater spectator numbers.
Increase in spectators and sponsorship will allow more people to become chess professionals (players, coaches, managers etc). And also provide funds to market chess at grass roots levels.
While there are many who do not agree with the commercialisation of chess, I doubt the top players would like to go back to the days of being amatuers.
As professional chess players they are being paid to entertain an audience. If chess wants to have more professionals and greater prize funds then it needs to be entertaining.
Under BAP, 100% of the games are contested to the full extent that both players can.
Instead of one or maybe two great games per round, all games would be an interesting battle.
When every game has a winner and a loser, chess can get to the next level. BAP delivers this and kills the grandmaster draw.
Clint
There's like two people posting here that think short non-game draws are ok. They make up for it by posting a lot.
These non-games are irresponsible, an insult to the audience and sponsors, and an embarrassment to the players involved. Carlsen's draw that earlier round fits that description too. He's got plenty of company though and maybe that makes it seem ok to him. Too me, it looks like he chickened out, hoping to maintain a lead with half the tournament left to be played.
Exactly lwolf. Maybe a couple of chess "purists" think draws are fine but the rest of us who watch chess games are disgusted. Actually what happened to Carlsen was karma for his non-game in the previous round. Nonetheless Carlsen doesn't really seem to be the draw type, so I hope he goes back to being his old self.
Draws are fine. Draw is a part of chess. Sometimes people agree to a draw in complicated position because they both don't like their chances, don't see a good plan, etc, and I'm fine even with such draws. Sometimes players need a draw due to the tournament/match situation and so there is non-game draw. Fine with me. Non-game in the middle of the tournament? Hard to justify, really.
I have no problem with Carlsen's agreeing to a draw. He is a fighting player overall, so he deserves a bit of lee-way. If the game had gone into the lines he had expected I'm sure he'd have played for the win. Against a stronger, more experienced player it is just good strategy to bail out into a draw if you are surprised in the opening and are not confident of your chances if you go into the opponent's preperation.
Chiming in to demonstrate there are more than 2 people willing to defend his position. Besides, he played the game until a drawn endgame was reached. So it had been played before. If they were good chess moves then, they were still good moves when Carlsen chose to play them.
Quote from lwolf123: "There's like two people posting here that think short non-game draws are ok. They make up for it by posting a lot."
lwolf123 evidently enjoys announcing to the world that he is a liar.
I count 5 defenders of so-called "short non-game draws" just among the last 25 or 30 posts alone! (rdh, yuriy, acirce, andrew and me).
Yuriy and rdh post a lot, but hardly ever about draws. I don't post a lot.
In fact if it comes down to a straw poll: I am gratified and somewhat surprised to see the true chess lovers (as reflected by their rejection of various proposed anti-chess rule changes) on this and other recent threads, actually outnumbering those self-styled "chess fans" who want to destroy the village in order to save it.
in this thread, as in many, the short draws subject is related to chess as business and the sponsors problem.
many repeat the mantra that can be sumarized as "chess needs private sponsors in order to become a profitable and sustentable business and thus survive". it's a nightmare, it's like being in my office having to listen to the marketing guys.
i don't like short draws (nobody does) and tend to agree with sofia rules, but not because i think they are scaring off sponsors.
chess is not and has not been a big business and probably won't be. but (this is what makes me mad) that is not a problem. there are many examples of countries or regions where chess was or is very popular and atracted crowds, but nevertheless was not a profitable enterprise.
that is what i want, plenty of tournaments, plenty of chess schools, plenty of players and public. don't we all chess fans want this? but why do you believe that turning something into a business is the only wat to keep it alive?
The only draws that irritate me are the quick last round draws on the top boards in open tournaments. To clarify though, if it really bothered me that much I would quit traveling to those tournaments and save a tidy sum on expenses; obviously it doesn't. I've been around long enough to know it isn't going to change anytime soon, so I'll just have continue to mumble under my breath, spit on the tournament hall floor, place my thumbs in my ears, stick out my tongue and wiggle my fingers at the offenders.
The thing that bothers me is when players mutually agree not to play and call it a day. This is unheard of in any other sport. The least that can be done is to cut short those players' checks. When the Svidlers, Lekos and yes Kramniks of this world see their prize money decrease tenfold, they will seriously think about changing their attitude.
acirce, my point is you're delusional. You cannot recognise the truth if its presented to you on a plate. Indeed your comment on Swedish Police brutality was years ago, and I would be happy for you if you had taken treatment in the meantime and gotten better, but you appear sadly to have made no progression. As for d_tal, I use that acronym now because d is too short to not be used accidentally by somebody else.
Aronian and Kramnik to hit it off in May in Yerevan according to Armchess.am
Here is the url link:
http://www.armchess.am/
and look in the middle announcement.
I see it reported in the papers today that the military correspondent of Kommersant fell out of a window and died last week.
Nasty mishap; careless chap he must have been.
Quote from Jon Jacobs: I count 5 defenders of so-called "short non-game draws" just among the last 25 or 30 posts alone! (rdh, yuriy, acirce, andrew and me).
Jon Jacobs evidently enjoys announcing to the world that he is a liar.
His only post prior to mine, actually pointed out so-called drawn games could be played out to an interesting conclusion. Andrew posted after my original post, and the other three are constantly trolling this thread.
People can defend short draws all they like but please on this display dont compare carlsen to fischer, kasparov, karpov or capablanca thats just insulting to those chess players past and present. The point about its an intelligent thing to do because his opponent is higher rated and more experienced is completely dopey ALL the players are more experienced and higher rated than him. I like miguel's karma point. Hopefully the crush by Anand will wake our boy up to get back to playing some real chess - which will be better for him and for us also.
People can defend short draws all they like but please on this display dont compare carlsen to fischer, kasparov, karpov or capablanca thats just insulting to those chess players past and present. The point about its an intelligent thing to do because his opponent is higher rated and more experienced is completely dopey ALL the players are more experienced and higher rated than him. I like miguel's karma point. Hopefully the crush by Anand will wake our boy up to get back to playing some real chess - which will be better for him and for us also.
I understand that people might not think it is a big issue, but when the solution is so simple, why not fix it? Ban the draw offer.
Positives: More proper games of chess
Negatives: None
How "true chess lovers" possibly object to this? What is bad about having games finished properly? I really don't understand.
Now, liar is not a good word on a forum like this. Opinions may be arguable and facts may be wrong, but deliberate deceit is unlikely.
What is interesting is Jon Jacobs self image: "I don't post a lot".
We'd hardly have had a better life if Carlsen-Aronian or Topalov-Leko had been played out to the kings, Spud. Do try and keep your particular obsession for the appropriate moment. What's being said on this occasion - mostly, anyway - is not that the rules need to be changed but that Carlsen's a naughty boy for not entertaining us.
Back at the ranch, this game was an interesting insight into how very specific opening preparation is at this level today. I don't suppose any of us - or anyone in, say, Botvinnik's time - would go to a tournament and simply not have anything ready to play against the Queen's Indian Defence. But in this day and age it seems that if you don't have a new idea (and those aren't easy to find) you are effectively in exactly that position.
Carslen-Aronian was a proper game becuase it ended with a repetition anyway. How does banning the draw offer equate to playing games out to kings?
I'm asking what is the downside to seeing a proper finish to games such as Aronian-Svidler from round 8?
Mig, can you please put a thread - we are bursting with scenarios where Kramnik will deliberately loose the last round game in Mexico...
Posted by: stringTheory at March 4, 2007 21:15
---------------------
The most serious issue remains: Kirsan's cheating, just one more WC tournament and there will never be any WC match anymore...
Mig, can you please put a thread - we are bursting with scenarios where Kramnik will deliberately loose the last round game in Mexico...
Posted by: stringTheory at March 4, 2007 21:15
---------------------
The most serious issue remains: Kirsan's cheating, just one more WC tournament and there will never be any WC match anymore...
acirce:
"Was it fear of short draws that made Kasparov-Shirov and Kasparov-Anand fail to materialize?"
Money, most probably.And, match play is not the same as short draws in RR tournaments. Apples and Oranges.
"Truth is that people who like to grab a beer, switch on their computers, log onto ICC and expect the players to entertain them as if somehow that is their duty are using this alarmist argument to make it seem like their own drawophobia and bloodthirst coincide with the best interests of chess in general."
There is NO DOUBT the best interests in chess sit with the stars of the games and how they conduct themselves. Begging out after a dozen moves is *not* in the best interest of Chess.
"There is no lack of real problems in the chess world, to say the least, so the intense focus on this pseudo-problem is weird."
At least you admit it is, at worst, a 'pseudo-problem'.
However, imagine yourself sponsoring (READ: YOUR MONEY AS THE PRIZE FUND/APPEARANCE FEES etc.) your hypothetical, 'if-i-got-a-dime-for-every-time-I-heard' tournament, and you invited top GMs to participate. As the rounds click by, the draw rate is a staggering +70%, and *too* many of them are 'day off meet you at the pool' kind of draws. How would you feel as a sponsor? Would you feel your contestants were giving you your money's worth? How would that be possible?
I think you are far, far too forgiving to players who decide, mutually, that they want a day off and shuffle the pieces for a dozen moves and call it a day.
Expecting every game to reach the first time control is not unrealistic, for the most part. There will be instances where it will not happen, but those should be EXCEPTIONS and not the RULE. For God sakes, we expect them to actually 'play' chess!
Follow the Money - that is all you have to do.
As various tournaments have come and gone, along with their sponsors, the prize funds have increased to the point where the professional GM can make a handy living 'playing' chess.
This was not always so.
In the past, being a 'professional' chess player was most probably a ticket to destitution on some level. Bobby Fischer realized this and tried to professionalize the chess world.
To argue that "we've always had short GM draws and that makes it ok" is missing the point. It's NOT ok with those who are footing the sponsorship monies for these tournaments. It makes them *pause* to think if it is worth it. When a sponsor pauses, dollars run away from the event. When the dollars run, the players suffer, the game suffers.
I suppose at least in that respect when the players *continue* this behavior of short, GM draws and the money dries up from lack of effort on their part, they would have reaped what they had sown.
I *STILL* believe that reaching, at a minimum, the first time control, is the *natural* half-life of a chess game.
I'd like to see how the Colts fans would react if Manning was pulled in the playoffs after the first quarter in a 0-0 tie game.
They'd go bonkers.
It's time for US to go bonkers.
And Football *IS* the chess of sports, so there!
dirtbag, none of these tournaments have disappeared in the past six years. I would be interested in seeing the dates for the last time each of them occurred in the full non-downgraded format. Along with any information any of you might have on why they stopped.
The USCF tournament is what everybody keeps bringing up, but that's a)not super-GM b)fraught by other problems which seems to have contributed to the decision a lot more and c)a unique situation where the sponsor was a lot more involved with chess than most sponsors are out there (Corus, Gadhafi).
People tend to mix two different questions here : 1) are draw offers to be banned, i.e. should Sofia / Corsican be adopted ? ; 2) is young Magnus to be vilified for entering a drawing line played a few days earlier ?
While the first point offers a valid base for debate, the second is just absurd. Chess is a sport. It obeys to rules (which until now allow two players to agree to a draw at any given time). In a tournament, at any given moment, each player has to decide for himself what is best for his final score / rank given the concrete conditions. For whatever reasons, Magnus decided that the best course of event for him was to follow that drawing line : that was a professional decision. Calling it "horrible" on esthetical grounds sounds absurd to me.
What Ray said.
Reggio Emilia at least is still going, though most of the sponsors dropped out when Enrico Paoli died (so presumably 2004/5 was the last "full" version). I suspect this is why many tournaments fade away - as well as the organiser's drive and knowhow, all the personal contacts and "arm-twisting" ability are lost.
Even the grand old Hastings tournament is in danger. The Borough council has reduced its support to the bare minimum, presumably due to the tremendous squeeze being applied to local government finances in the UK rather than anything to do with short draws. The last "full" version was 1992/3, a double-round robin with big prizes won by Judit Polgar and Bareev ahead of Speelman, Sadler, Nunn, I. Gurevich, Polugaevsky and Crouch.
I also agree with Ray.
While I see no problem in the casual debater here expressing his/her views on Magnus-Aronian, I think Mig puts himself in a weird light the way he attacks Magnus' decision over a complete paragraph on his blog, using words as "horrible" twice and saying Magnus has "sinned" against Caissa. Especially in view of his pre-tournament comments about not wanting Magnus here.
Then it gets weirder: He obviously needs to repeat his initial attacks with a louder voice when somebody thinks he was a bit too harsh in the first place. Then he goes on to using sarcasms with condescending and ironic characteristics about Magnus like the following:
Mig: "We all love the kid and want to pinch his rosy von Trapp cheeks, okay? Love him, all ready to adopt him tomorrow. He's great, wonderful, the most exciting thing to happen to chess since the promotion rule."
Pinch his rosy von Trapp cheeks? Haha. Very funny. Indeed respectful. Let's hear it for your friend Kasparov - how would you describe him in an equally disrespectful manner? Or what about Svidler? I guess you can sneak in some juicy characteristics there too.
Like I said in an earlier post: where is the same attitude when we talk about e.g. Svidler? He's twice played 20+ moves of theory into drawish Marshall "attacks" with white (and drawn, of course), and he readily accepted a draw after 16 moves against, in a position where he's already got everything he can possibly want as black after the opening. But this is somehow completely understandable and ok by Mig, just a bit "sad". In his own words (after round 8):
"Sadly this is routine enough. Sharp position, White no longer has an advantage, offers draw, Black accepts." Suddenly, Mig is very understanding, for a player that currently has 11 draws (as opposed to Magnus' 6 decisive games, more than anyone else). Sad, but that's the way it is, kind of...
After round 5, he again thinks a tiny 'sad' is enough: "Svidler couldn't make any progress against Leko's Marshall and they split the point without coming to blows. Sad."
After round 1, he didn't see any reason to criticise Svidler for his choice: "Svidler-Aronian was another Corus flashback, with Svidler in having Anand's memories. They repeated 23 moves of Marshall theory and yet again it proved to be the toughest of defenses to break down."
Also, there is an evident lack of symmetry when Magnus wins and when Magnus loses. Mig has gone on and on (on the ICC WebCast) about how Magnus was _outplayed_ by Anand in their first encounter in Morelia, even if until Magnus blundered with Be4?? it still was a draw (after gxf gxf exf Rd2 Bg6), despite 2 or 3 clearly weak moves by Magnus. I think Mig must have referred to this (great, by all means) win by Anand using the word "outplayed" at least 10 times on the radio.
What word does he choose when Ivanchuk chose a dubious opening today and later was outplayed by Magnus, move for move? Note that in terms of big, immediate changes in computer evaluation, Magnus did two (2) blunders in his first loss against Anand (= Anand outplayed Magnus) greater than any of Ivanchuk's weak moves today. In Mig's world this translates to "Magnus really got a freebie today" ...
So when Magnus blunders badly and loses, his opponent outplays him, and when Magnus garners an opening advantage to quickly grind down Ivanchuk, then he gets a freebie.
Mig, I think this shows an almost total lack of respect for Magnus and his abilities. You give him less credit for comparable performances, and you are (much) harsher on him than on other (established, higher rated) GMs playing the same tournament. This looks very odd to me. Very odd. You've got an influential position - I think you could use it more wisely.
Bias presumed, bias found. What a shock. Bias explained is going to be a lot harder, especially since it doesn't exist. But I'm sure you'll come up with something despite all evidence to the contrary.
Not that I expect you to stop making idiots of yourselves with this bizarre line of discussion. But I several times went out of my way, when criticizing Ivanchuk's bad opening, to praise Carlsen and to say I wasn't taking anything away from him by criticizing Ivanchuk. I'm sure I could go through and find at least ten posivite Carlsen comments for anything you could ever even dream of as negative. And is Larry Christiansen also in on this anti-Carlsen conspiracy? I believe he too might have suggested Ivanchuk did not play a great game today. He even said that Anand-Carlsen didn't even rise to the status of "crushed" it was so bad. And? Big deal. It's game commentary, we say lots of things. It's not interpreting the Torah. Whackos.
If you don't see a difference between Carlsen-Anand and Carlsen-Ivanchuk, you really shouldn't be hanging out at chess blogs. You probably wanted a cheese blog. Or perhaps a cheese log.
Lastly, repeating an entire game played a few days earlier is horrible. I try to give as little space as possible to the non-game draws since everyone knows my tirades about them by now. A rant about Svidler and the other non-games every round is silly. But repeating an entire game is noteworthy and horrible. Not a crime against humanity, but certainly more worthy of note than anything Svidler has done during this event. That a bunch of clowns has attempted to spin this into an attack on Carlsen only shows how much free time people have these days. That they then go on to completely fabricate an inexplicable "Mig hates Carlsen" meme is asinine.
Mig,
You are always above reproach no matter what. That's the problem, your ego is so much larger than your intellect and quite frankly that's saying something (FROM MY PERSPECTIVE). You may rub shoulders with grandmaster's from time to time, but your not a colleague so quit acting like you are. Your just a woodpusher like the rest of us, so quit playing the clown yourself. Your opinion of yourself is quite monumental and I guess it's just the cross many of us will have to bear when sharing varying opinions on this blog, but share them we will. Once again, I will continue to blog here. Have a nice night.
gladiator--
The Daily Dirt is busy enough without people running around posting the same comment in different threads.
Mig,
As a grown up, I prefer other ppl not referring to me as an "idiot", "whacko" or "clown". It would also be a lot more meaningful continuing a discussion with you, if you "attacked" what I write instead of making things up. Examples:
- "anti-Carlsen conspiracy"? In your head only. You're not a conspiracy, you're just being rude.
- "repeating an entire game played a few days earlier is horrible."
You've consistenly been repeating this, and it still has never been true. They did not repeat an entire game, they repeated part of a game, 26 out of 39 moves, to be exact. Ppl have repeated 15 or 20 moves of theory and then taken a draw a dozen times in earlier editions of Linares. You're also so influential, that I've already read a bunch of other ppl saying Magnus repeated "an entire" game - please, think about it, will you?
- you're referring to Anand-Carlsen - I didn't even mention that game, so it's got nothing to do with my comment at all.
- "they then go on to completely fabricate an inexplicable "Mig hates Carlsen" meme is asinine."
This is your own invention - I've never said anything about you hating Magnus, "lack of respect" yes, "hate" no. Do you always "discuss" like this?
And arguments of the kind "if you don't agree with me, then you don't understand anything about chess" ... Well, enjoy your cheese-jokes.
If you're a mature adult, then take this opportunity to explain the apparant difference between how you describe Magnus' draw and Svidler's draws, Magnus' wins and the other players' wins (the Magnus-Anand VS Magnus-Ivanchuk example is a good one, IMO).
And last: "I several times went out of my way, when criticizing Ivanchuk's bad opening, to praise Carlsen and to say I wasn't taking anything away from him by criticizing Ivanchuk."
Listen, if you mainly critize Ivanchuk, to such a degree that you yourself feel you have to "praise Carlsen some too" not to take everything away from him, shouldn't there be a bell ringing somewhere? By your focus on Ivanchuk's "terrible" play, using words like "freebie" to describe Magnus' game and win, most listeners will feel that taking the credit away from Magnus is exactly what you do. But why do you do that? I don't get it...
Greg,
Sorry. This thread looked somewhat "abondoned", with just one post between 13:58 and 18:54 (1 post in 5 hours), so I shortened my original post and reposted on the page with recent activity. This thread didn't seem very busy...
Greg,
C'mon, you should be one of the last people to respond when someone has a difference of opinion with the Great and Almighty Oz. This thread ran it course a long time ago and what Glad has to say is applicable to the other as well.
For those people that responded to my post about short draws affecting professional chess (chess as a business).
My post strictly related to the growth of professional chess and not amatuer chess, most responses that did not agree with my post seemed to favour either maintaining the status quo, or returning chess to amatuer endeavour. These are reasnable opinions, however I would caution that what doesn't change with times ultimately suffers. Also remember that professional chess has advanced the understanding of the game to another level.
That said I support the idea growing chess through amatuer means such chess in schools, this is great public exposure.
However if you are going to go down the path of having professional events then you need to address the issue of short draws. Players need to understand they are paid entertainers.