Round 11 was a fairly tranquil affair, with one brutal exception. Magnus Carlsen again showed he's got resilience as well as talent by bouncing back from a loss. He followed the same formula as in the first half: loss to Anand and win against Ivanchuk the next day. The teen mangled Ivanchuk's dubious line of the Grunfeld and Black could have resigned on move 25. The line is under a theoretical cloud for good reason, but it was also dubious because it gave Carlsen just the sort of attacking position he clearly enjoys and plays as well as anyone. Carlsen finished flawlessly to move back up to +2 and clear second place behind Anand. Ivanchuk fell back to even.
Anand equalized confidently against Morozevich and some GMs thought he might have played for more. Leko came out better against Aronian and nabbed a clean pawn with a tactic. Aronian defended well to hold the draw. Svidler-Topalov was another illustration that Black is doing quite well in the Najdorf lines with 7.Nb3, which is why we saw Ivanchuk and Leko play Nf3 against Topalov. In this 8..h5 line in particular it just looks like Black is having all the fun. Black leaves his king in the center and gets great attacking chances on the queenside. White maneuvers around and hopes for play in the center. Karjakin made this work against Topalov at Corus but he had some help there. Here Svidler was on the defensive for a long time before jumping at a chance for perpetual check. Christiansen liked 16..Na4 (or ..Nc4) instead of ..b4.
Round 12: Leko-Svidler, Topalov-Carlsen, Ivanchuk-Morozevich, Anand-Aronian. When we interviewed him on Chess.FM after his win over Ivanchuk, Carlsen said "there maybe is nothing tougher than playing Black against Topalov." (Playing black against Carlsen is turning into something of a chore too. Just ask Ivanchuk.) In contrast, Moro is often at his best with black and we'll see if Ivanchuk can get off the mat yet again.
The games look a bit boring today. Topa-Carlsen seems to be the most interesting so far.
Updates please.
Anand-Aronian drawn in a Ruy Lopez Anti Marshall.
dumb question- when viewing the live games on soloajedrez.com I can often see the board with initial position and all the controls etc. the web cam of Topalov-Carlsen etc, but the games are not populated. I have Jugador 1 vs Jugador 2 and no moves. I've tried pressing enter and the spacebar, hell, I've even tried waiting patiently, but nothing comes up. Any tips or a better free site to view the games?
http://www.chesspro.ru/chessonline/onlines/index_321.html
al, you can watch the games live at the chess-live server (www.chess-live.com)
Any update on the Topalov-Carlsen game? Thanks.
Topalov-Carlsen drawn by three-fold repetition
Topalov-Carlsen game has just been drawn by repetition on move 25
Morozevich beat Ivanchuk.
Chesspro commentator Maxim Notkin anticipates the usual rant that follow such a draw, and he quickly states:
"In a different situation, against a different opponent Magnus could continue playing for the win after 25...Bc5 (on 26.Nc7 he has 26...Na5!), but realistic chances are probably small. In any case, another difficult exam is passed..."
(I hope my translation is ok. I notice my Russian knowledge is rapidly returning since I'm forced to follow the relay at chesspro.)
And Svidler beat Leko.
Ivanchuk and Leko have completely lost their way.
Linux fan,
Good accurate translation. :)
What's wrong with Leko? He managed to lose even to Svidler...It used to be that those games were the surest bet for a draw this side of a non-Kramnik game.
Topa-Moro should be a wild one tomorrow!
sorry, of course meant Moro-Topa should be a wild one FRIDAY
ChessBase needs to add the "flip board" option to their game options. Not everyone can visualize the board like Shirov.
"sorry, of course meant Moro-Topa should be a wild one FRIDAY!"
Yeah, it might even last twenty-five moves! Seriously, I predict a draw. Anyone who thinks that Topalov is some kind of knock-down-drag-out fighter should check the databases and see how many short draws he's played; compare his percentage with that of Leko, whom everyone hates. And I've anticipated too many live games these last few years that were supposed to be grand showdowns between Topalov and his opponent that turned into a couple dozen moves of opening preparation and a shared half-point.
Mig,
I much welcome that your introduction to this thread is markedly more non-ironic and objective than the earlier outbursts like "horrible" (twice in repetitive sentences), "bizarre event" and similarly (after a draw by the least drawish guy in the field, Carlsen).
Gladiator's post yesterday at 19:39 was spot on. I felt the same uneasiness. OK, I'm Swedish, rooting for my Norwegian neighbour prodigy -- hit me for that. But something is weird when a prominent chess journalist first doesn't want the most promising player in decades to take part in the tournament at all (dramatically misjudging his playing strength and adding a fairly tasteless burglary joke) and then follows on with aggressive irony when this is pointed out ("pinching his rosy cheeks", "ready to adopt him") and adds on biased vocabulary ("outplayed" vs. "freebie" etc.), as Gladiator demonstrated so well.
Mig, I've said earlier that I like your style and love this blog. Think about what has happened. I hope it's not because you subcontiously does not want anybody to step the ladder of your employer, Kasparov? Of course not.
In my view, a very influential chess voice like yourself should treat the future of our beloved game with both objectivity, a critical eye, respect and encouragemant. The strange thing here is that the critical eye (almost aggressively so) has pushed the other angles aside.
It's a bit cheap and, in a strange way, a bit worrying too.
And by the way, your latest point that views like mine above have been "vastly outnumbered by compliments" is not true. Well-wishes, yes. I sincerely hope you get rid of your ailments soon.
Henrik, either I am misconstruing your English or (more likely if I may say so) you have missed Mig's. You write:
"And by the way, your latest point that views like mine above have been "vastly outnumbered by compliments" is not true."
Mig wasn't saying he gets compliments on his coverage of Carlsen; he was saying he compliments Carlsen more often than not. Big difference.
Also, you call phrases such as "ready to adopt [Carlsen]" and "pinch his rosy cheeks" an adoption of "aggressive irony". In these phrases I see no aggression at all and even less irony.
Gladiator did make a good point about "outplayed" vs. "freebie". But, to paraphrase Eminem, let Mig be Mig/cause we need a little/controversy...
last point, calling Carlsen "the most promising player in decades" is a bit much. I think the words "one of" need to be thrown into that quote.
also-- does Kasparov still cut checks to Mig?
All that discussion, if Carlsen is a prodigy or not, he's the most promising player in decades or not, etc, etc, etc.
Who, at age of 16, is having super-gms for breakfeast. Ok, not so fast, a litle lot of exageration here, but, IMHO, I think he's the same caliber of Kasparov. I hope he doens't loose interest...
Gee, maybe that's because today nobody repeated an entire game from an earlier round. Funny how that works.
Reading Is Fundamental. As in "MY mild criticisms of Carlsen are vastly outnumbered by MY compliments of Carlsen." Want bias, find bias.
Please stop hijacking this blog with conspiracy theories and misquotations about nonsense. So I said Carlsen hadn't earned a spot in Linares, big deal. That's a personal attack? That wasn't a reasonable, and reasoned, statement after he went winless in two straight events? Isn't it good enough that he has clearly shown I was wrong and that I have repeatedly acknowledged, even celebrated, his success at Linares?
And I don't even get the point of that. Can't I have an opinion? Do I have to love everyone equally, want everyone to play in every tournament because everything is so wonderful and perfect all the time in happy bunny utopia land? I've said negative things about every player in the world by now. Positive things, too. I have opinions and I should be able to state them without a pack of lunatics telling me my opinions are based on personal hatred of a player or that they are actually Kasparov's opinions.
As for calling the repetition of an entire game from an early round "horrible" and "bizarre," so what? It was both and there's nothing personal about it. Every GM commentator I've been on with has expressed similar feelings or stronger and Joel even brought it up with Nielsen on the air today. I made mention of it in one blog post and suddenly it's child abuse.
I repeatedly went out of my way to say that Carlsen played well against Ivanchuk whenever the topic of Ivanchuk's feeble play came up. I believe I may have even said it was "not exactly a freebie," when that word was used but am not going to sift through every minute of my hours of broadcasts to refute accusations from people who are making things up anyway and about an entirely invented and meaningless topic. Plus, it was *something* of a freebie!
I'm talking for five hours per round and then writing here. Using the exact same words to describe the result of every game would get pretty boring, I'd think. Or else just "beat" would be fine. I guess that's what the "be objective!" crowd would prefer? Sorry, not going to happen. Sometimes you use crushed or battered or wiped out or outplayed or bamboozled or inveigled or slipped past or swindled. Taking one word about one game and comparing it to one word about another game when I'm sure I used 20 words about both is the worst and most obvious kind of selective misquotation. I also said Magnus crushed Ivanchuk, among other things.
All of that said, games are different too. Misevaluating an endgame and slowly being pushed back and losing after not finding a spectacular swindle attempt is not the same as having a position GM's online evaluated as "winning or nearly winning" out of the opening. Of course Carlsen outplayed Ivanchuk, but that's rather an understatement. It's also worth noting that Ivanchuk played a horrible opening, some weak moves, and was lost by move 20 without White needing to find anything spectacular. Pointing this out is not an insult to Carlsen, as should be obvious. He can't play the greatest game of chess ever played every single day, I'm afraid.
As for my "aggressive irony," it is directed not at Carlsen but at the people here who clearly have nothing better to do than make up silly conspiracy theories and to try and invent conflicts while repeatedly insulting me. Hard to imagine why I would be annoyed.
Henrik,
A better analogy would have had the use of condescension in it. A specialty of his. I'm thinking that perhaps it does relate to his "friendshp" with Garry at a below the surface level. Of course this thought can easily be transmuted into another "conspracy" plot that is often used in exaggeration when one expresses an opinion that does not coincide with his on how the chess world order should function.
Ibid!
Strongly agree with you Mig. People are so oversensitive. I am a fan of Magnus myself, but that Magnus has become some sort of a holy cow that just can't be criticized without getting the mob chasing after you is a bit sickening. No, keep up the good work and please make sure that the pen is still sharp. There are enough of those blunt feathers around these days..
Whereas recently I complained about crankiness on Mig's part, his recent posts have been that great balance that we've come to appreciate -- a balance of reporting, humor, and tell-it-like-it-is. So I feel obliged to turn the tables and challenge the blog posters -- are you guys contributing positively to the discussion? Or maybe you're just perpetually rude people? C'mon, let's banter back and forth on this terrific top-level chess, instead of descending into the quagmire.
On to today's games. I was impressed that Carlsen was equal to the task against Topalov's opening preparation. Ivanchuk has fallen into one of his funks, which often worsens before it improves. Leko, in my opinion, has been missing a spark ever since his drawn (i.e. lost) WC match, and I think he will fall out of the top 10, similar to Shirov. Leko's peak is over, I believe. Meanwhile, all hail Anand, soon-to-be the world's top=rated player. It's about time.
Interesting on the Leko tip. He actually won his previous two events and then took Corus off to rest up for Linares. And now this. Hard to explain, really, but his losses have all had an element of that old Leko 1.0 problem of indecisiveness and/or a lack of aggression at the key moments. Of course someone has to come last in these things. But I was trying to answer "when was the last time Leko finished dead last (not equal) in a tournament for a trivia question today and I stopped before I found the answer! It's been a long, long time. He had a couple of equal lasts in large packs, but those were just -1 I believe. He probably hasn't finished -3 since he was in short pants (and already a GM).
Defenses appreciated all, but really it's just joining me in feeding the trolls after a certain point. Let us indeed get back to the final rounds of a good event. Great chess today.
Magnus' father has reacted to the issue in his blog.
ComputoJon
Mind your own damn business! No, just kidding. Your right. I think this whole bruhaha can be more attributed to the the back and forth name calling more so than the reporting. So I'm willing to bury the hachet (in Mig's head) and move on.
Shirov has burnt out (maybe) but Leko has been "missing the spark" since he started playing, I believe (but he can get beat anyone in a good day, etc. etc).
OK, Mig, no need to be soft-spoken about it. Tell us what you really feel ;-)
Never mind. More name calling, the sob called me a troll. It's back on.
Wow, reading the comments to the r11 item on Henrik Carlsen's blog (the one in which he mentions the Dirt and my "strong criticism" (?!)) it really makes you wish the entire world could be Norwegian. Peace Prize indeed! Okay, I'd take a few Brazilians too, but mostly Norwegians. Maybe Henrik would be interested in swapping a few of his comment posters for a few from here! And I'm not just saying that because my father's side of the family came from Norway (to Minnesota, of course). That's for just in case the next theory is that it's because I'm Swedish.
Hey CT, that's a compliment to a Norwegian.
All of you: Have some milk and cookies. You'll manage somehow to find them in the dark, set out on a little table beneath a shuttered window, near the center of the iridescent soap bubble that is your world....--
Have a nice day, children!
:)
Mig, I'm one of those who support your comments. Of course before Linares it didn't look like Carlsen belonged there. He proved us wrong and that's wonderful. He is an exciting young player.
Nothing wrong though with expressing opinion. that's why this is a blog.
Anyone else thought Chucky's game plan was a bit strange? I mean, he castled long but did not try to organize an attack. Plus, he gave Moro the a-file to double his rooks and even treat mate!
This game was one you have to forget very fast, or your own chess ability will gain further damage.
Mig,
do you think any of us are the least interested in you, per se? I used to have some respect for you, but the way you are talking to strangers who mainly are expressing an opinion different from yours, is an eye-opener. Your latest contribution:
"we have this clown parade of attention-whoring twits. Pathetic."
So we seek *attention* by asking some critical questions to *you*? And you are... ?
I'm still trying to suppress the natural reaction of adding some "mild criticisms" of my own - you obviously feel no reason to keep your rants in civil language, so I assume you have no problem with a close examination and some due observations on your own personal "characteristics", right? But I'm sorry to disappoint you - luckily, I had parents who taught me some manners.
Let's look at yours:
"Not that I expect you to stop making idiots of yourselves with this bizarre line of discussion."
"It's game commentary, we say lots of things. It's not interpreting the Torah. Whackos."
"you really shouldn't be hanging out at chess blogs. You probably wanted a cheese blog. Or perhaps a cheese log."
"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."
"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?"
This is the kind of charming "compliments" you've been spouting over your commentators the last few days. But have you ever tried to answer any of the critical questions raised, in a decent and fact-oriented way?
You try to create a certain picture of those few who disagree with you, and you go on to claim that "we" invent stuff ("conspiracy theories and misquotations about nonsense") and aren't true to the truth. Have you had a look in the mirror? Let's examine a few examples:
First, something you must have said ten times by now:
"repeating an entire game is noteworthy and horrible"
"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!"
Which "entire game" did Aronian and Magnus repeat "move for move"? I haven't seen that game. They repeated *part of a game*, 26 out of 39 moves, to be exact. Ppl have played ("repeated") 15 or 20 moves of theory and then taken a draw a dozen times in earlier editions of Linares. Can you explain to us the difference between repeating established theory and very recent theory up to a certain point? Would it somehow have been better if they agreed to a draw after "repeating" 16 or 18 of the 39 moves in Topalov-Anand?
"Pointing this out or being annoyed by having to see the same drawn game twice in Linares isn't child abuse."
Ok, this should be easy. Who named your criticism "child abuse"?
"I made mention of it in one blog post and suddenly it's child abuse."
Oh, there's the child abuse thing again. Who said that, did you say? And yeah, you made mention of it in one blog post, and the minute someone reacted to how you worded your "mentioning of it", you suddenly mentioned it again. And then again. And suddenly you were pinching rosy cheeks and adopting babies and telling every non-believer they were clowns and idiots.
"Why make bizarre, totally unrelated insults to the people who point this out?"
Let's see, who has insulted you so far? I don't remember anyone addressing you as "idiot", "clown", "whacko", "lunatic", or an "attention-whoring twit". I've noted some critical questions, but so far, however, the main response has been... insults. How motivating!
"That they then go on to completely fabricate an inexplicable "Mig hates Carlsen" meme is asinine."
"a pack of lunatics telling me my opinions are based on personal hatred of a player"
Who is inventing stuff now, Mig? Please name someone who has said that you hate Magnus? Or even that this is "personal hatred"?
"the people here who clearly have nothing better to do than make up silly conspiracy theories and to try and invent conflicts while repeatedly insulting me."
Nobody has mentioned "conspiracy theories" either, except you. I can find something strange or weird, without implying that it's due to a conspiracy of some kind. Instead senseless "counterattacks", you could've tried taking 10 seconds, and wondered why you've expressed much more criticism towards the *quality* of the games Magnus has been involved in (wins and losses and draws), compared to the quality of for instance the games of Svidler.
For some reason, probably because Magnus is new at this level, is still somewhat uneven and is still very young, it shines through that you still haven't accepted his qualities as comparable to those of Anand, Svidler, Topalov or Morozevich, for instance. While a win by Anand is mainly explained by his unique capabilities, a win by Morozevich by his genius and his ability to work wonders "by sheer will", a win by Ivanchuk for his deep, deep understanding, and so on - it looks like it's so much easier (for you, but probably other commentators as well) to scrutinize his opponents play. Wasn't there a better defence? Didn't he get to it rather easily here? And so on.
And when the position turns bleak for Magnus, he's been outplayed - the other player still seems to be the active part, whether Magnus blundered or not, whether Magnus won the game or lost the game. While Anand, for instance, when he was suffering against Svidler, still got compliments en mass on the radio: He is always ready to pounce back, like a tiger - he only needs a tad of counterplay, and then he's in the game again.
Of course it isn't easy, since there is some truth in all of this - the established players have proved their qualities over time, and Magnus has lots of things to learn, especially about defending worse positions, and so on. But there is always a danger to fall prey for clichees and stereotypic comments - it would be strange to think that you're immune to such. But I can't know for sure any of this, so I voiced my opinion that the coverage seemed somewhat biased at some points, and I wondered why I got that impression. [Your answer, so far, that I'm a hallucinating moron, with nothing better to do, is one I can't accept; I'm pretty sure it's false, actually.]
Someone else already pointed this out, but I think the following sentences probably are more appropriately spoken by your critics than yourself.
"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."
"They repeated *part of a game*, 26 out of 39 moves, to be exact. Ppl have played ("repeated") 15 or 20 moves of theory and then taken a draw a dozen times in earlier editions of Linares."
but they didn't repeat a game that was played in the same tournament untill the position was a dead draw.
Just ask yourself this question:
If Leko had played that game, would so many people react so violently to the same description Mig gave to the game played?
And on another note: It is not because someone has a different opinion then your own that therefore you have to respect that opinion. I don't think my medical advice would be very much appreciated by any qualified surgeon.
The problem with chess blogs is that very few people realise that their opinion isn't worth all that much, not realising the logic and reasoning aren't the driving forces behind what they say.
To me, most of the 'Mig is unfair to Carlsen' posts are not much more then emotional, although some try to support their emotions with very dubiuos logic and arguments.
And in the same way that the surgeon shouldn't follow my oppinion, I really hope journalists don't start following dubiuos logic and start modifying their arguments to fit their emotions. Or worse, to fit the emotions of their readers.
Apparently criticism should stop when the chessplayer is cute? Or no, harsh criticism should stop when the chessplayer is cute? Or harsh criticism should stop when I am a fan of this chessplayer?
Gladiator, the child abuse term Mig used is a metaphor. Responding to the stuff you've posted is like explaining a joke, it's not worth the time and effort.
There's nothing that serious going on here.
This whole Mig vs Magnus discussion is totally lame. Mig uses some fruity language and I love that, like the time he called Radjabov "the baby beast from the east" (at Corus), stuff like that makes me laugh and that is exactly what the dry chess world needs, that is why I read this blog, because it is funny.
To the guys that feel insulted, like you Gladiator, I have only one thing to say, if you don't like it then don't read it... protect your fragile mind.
Wow, some serious people here. Although it was meant to be bad-bad-bad by the blogger I suppose, I was laughing my ass off reading the lenghty compilation of "Mig Quotes"! Thanks for that, should be done more often. Thank God for humor.
Let's see...What's been happening in Linares lately? Oh yeah, there's a chess tournamnet going on. Anyone heard anything?
Gladiator,
Seems Mig's metaphors, figurative language, and hyperbole zoomed over your head like a fighter jet.
Also, the fact that your last post was 5 pages long is of concern.
Do you have a hobby, son?
The ACP has responded to Kirsan's nonsensical idea of a WC cycle with more of the same
Wow. "Gladiator" has sunk as low as resorting to a lengthy quote-by-quote fisking. Is Magnus Carlsen really worth such obsessive defence?
Kudos for your blog, Mig, always a great read.
i couldn't bear to read it, even as much as I like to laugh at my own jokes. But I have the sinking feeling it could all have been summed up with "I don't get it." With folks like the USCF and FIDE, a sense of humor is essential in the chess world.
I am a norwegian, and I strongly disagree with this "peaceful" reputation Mig is trying to attach to us. For God's sake, we are members of Nato, we bombed like h... i Kosovo and we buy fighter planes for billion's of dollars. Ok, so we only sent some paramedics to Irak, but that is not our moment of glory. We are vikings, and Carlsen's play also indicates that we are not peaceful. I repeat, we are NOT peaceful!!
LOL, FP, yeah, I almost forgot, thanks for reminding me, when is the next excursion to Lindisfarne?
Hey FP, when you have a player like Carlsen "who can do it", then one suddenly becomes aggressive like a "Viking", or whatever the particular "ethno-folklore" has in its traditions. When you don't have it, you're quiet and subdued like a turkey. Everybody's the same. But what I find interesting though is how quickly you're ready to abandon the pretense of the peaceful and civilized Scandinavian reputation for the glory of a warrior… I've always known that chess is the most violent sport…
D.
FP:
It seems more like you are idiots as all other nations (including mine) that buy weapons and participate in wars...
If I were Scandinavian, I would be more proud of the healthcare, education social security of my country, rather than being members of NATO spending billion of dollars buying weapons and bombing countries for the (economic+other) interests of our allies (US).
Being peacful in life is totally different from being peaceful in chess. The former is desirable while the latter can be crticized.
Healthcare shmealthcare
Bring it on!
There is no peaceful country. But some are worse, like the Bush administration. Remember, a war in Iraq was started because they said there were lots of weapons of mass destruction. But not one of them was ever found. You can't be more wrong.
Mig, never offend them with style when you can offend them with substance.
This series of posts makes me wonder about the genetic basis for a sense of humour. Are some people simply missing the genes required for a sense of humour -- or were they brought up by mirthless parents? Is it possible that the genetica adaptation required to be without a sense of humour is also linked to expertise in chess? (In the same way that resistance to malaria is linked to sickle cell anaemia in certian populations.) But what evolutionary function would this serve?...
Seems like the average Mig defender is as condescending in style as Mig himself. Theories that I don't "get" the (intended) humour or realize that he's using juicy metaphores and analogies are clearly proof of that. [I've been around for many years, mostly due to those aspects of Mig's blog.] And fyi: when "insults" are so totally out of proportion as has been the case here, I don't feel the least insulted, even if I probably was supposed to.
No, this isn't about having sense of humour or recognizing pictorial language. But I've learnt my lesson: Mig can't take any kind of mild critiscism or critical questions [no, they're not about your general style, which we - your readers - like]. Mig is ready to portray anyone as lunatics and idiots, rather than engaging in any kind of critical self-reflection, to which it seems he's totally immune.
Mig, since you couldnt' bear to read my previous post, please consider reading these three paragraphs from it, which I *repeat, word for word*, since it (unlike said opening from the other day) hasn't been refuted yet. Free yourself of all condescending instincts and try not to be overly sensitive to possible implicit critique in there. Now - what are your true thoughts about the essence here? [You've stated already that I'm a moron - move beyond that, please - try not focusing at me at all.]
--- NB NB Warning !!! *Repeated* words to follow !!! Warning NB NB ---
For some reason, probably because Magnus is new at this level, is still somewhat uneven and is still very young, it shines through that you still haven't accepted his qualities as comparable to those of Anand, Svidler, Topalov or Morozevich, for instance. While a win by Anand is mainly explained by his unique capabilities, a win by Morozevich by his genius and his ability to work wonders "by sheer will", a win by Ivanchuk for his deep, deep understanding, and so on - it looks like it's so much easier (for you, but probably other commentators as well) to scrutinize his opponents play. Wasn't there a better defence? Didn't he get to it rather easily here? And so on.
And when the position turns bleak for Magnus, he's been outplayed - the other player still seems to be the active part, whether Magnus blundered or not, whether Magnus won the game or lost the game. While Anand, for instance, when he was suffering against Svidler, still got compliments en mass on the radio: He is always ready to pounce back, like a tiger - he only needs a tad of counterplay, and then he's in the game again.
Of course it isn't easy, since there is some truth in all of this - the established players have proved their qualities over time, and Magnus has lots of things to learn, especially about defending worse positions, and so on. But there is always a danger to fall prey for clichees and stereotypic comments - it would be strange to think that you're immune to such. But I can't know for sure any of this, so I voiced my opinion that the coverage seemed somewhat biased at some points, and I wondered why I got that impression. [Your answer, so far, that I'm a hallucinating moron, with nothing better to do, is one I can't accept; I'm pretty sure it's false, actually.]
According to Miles, Theorist, quoted by Rowson in Chess for Zebras, the opposite is true. A sense of humour is in fact useful for chess players.
You've got me on the evolutionary function, though.
Leaving aside the conspiracists, who seem to me to be searching not only for a second gunman but a third and even a fourth, I do think Gladiator is right that Carlsen is treated by commentators in a different way from the supertournament regulars, although it's not very surprising for the reasons he mentions.
I also think one or two of Mig's cracks have been in poor taste: sure, sure, it's all good fun, where's your sense of humour, you don't get it, etc, etc. However the kid is 16: when I was 16 I wasn't very good at dealing with being the the butt of jokes by adults, nor are most 16-year-olds, and for all Carlsen's chess maturity and genius I see no reason to believe he's different. Better to keep the cheek-pinching cracks for somewhere other than public forums, in my opinion.
Theorist,
there is nothing funny about those flamebates from Mig. Such trollish bahavoir is very boring, repetition of moves seen _many_ times before.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzz
C'mon, tell me if you saw Carlsen at a local club you wouldn't just run up to him, kneel down, and squeeze his chubby little cheeks and pat him on the head...
C'mon, you know you wanna...you KNOW you wanna.
Y'all need to chill. Mig is doing a great job, and if y'all had nothing to complain about, the world would stop revolvin'.
Take it in perspective. Topalov has done far worse and you Topalov fans kiss the ground he walks on...
Hypocrits all.
Zero
You are damn right on WC cycle.
By the way, can any one tell me where I can lay my hands on proposal 'B'?
Gladiator - your posts are a bit too long man. Carlsens repititious game was crap and unworthy and deserves to be criticised. I think there is a bit of a language and culture problem here as I read all of Mig's comments and just didnt get the spin ol Glad picked up. Most of the outrage at Mig and Carlsen defences I read were hero worship type stuff with a dash of exaggeration thrown in. The next 2-3 years will tell if Magnus is going to be a future WC at the mo its too early to tell ...
I can't understand why all you people can't be more like me when it comes to blogging: Peaceful, courteous, laid-back, water off a ducks back type of approach. But no...
Several posters above are attacking or defending Mig on the style of presentation of the idea: Carlson's repeating (most) of a game from a few days before was horrible. I want to attack the substance of Mig's point - there is nothing horrible about what Carlson did. In fact, it is a positive thing, and your attacks on Carlson, whatever their style, are wrong to the point of showing a misunderstanding of the dynamics of modern GM play.
First, there is nothing unusual in GMs repeating significant portions of previous, recent games. They are trying to prove a point, that the previous game's play was correct up to a certain move, and can be improved there-after. Although we catalog and celebrate early TNs, sometimes TNs will not come until the mid-teens, or even 20-some moves. So what is the gripe, if the TN improvement only comes on move 29? (More of these late TN games will prove Ovidu's point about chess being played out).
And so what is the complaint, if Carlson's TN on move 29 lead immediately to a draw, rather than some exciting complex manuvering? It must be respected as an example of correct play, an improvement over the GM moves of a few days before.
Second, why is blame being heaped on Carlson, when his opponent also repeated 28 moves of known theory? Must white be the first to vary? In this case, neither Carlson NOR the opponent found an improvement earlier than move 29.
In general, repeating most of some expert's performance, but adding a few improvements, is known in other fields of endeavor. Quick example is programming, where high level experts create programs that do the same thing, but in one or two fewer steps. Another example, math and logic proofs, where experts repeat 95% of a proof, but show a shortcut here or there, and are acknowledged as making a conribution. One can see Carlson as shortening the proof of what is best play in those 29 previous positions.
One more note and I'll quit - remember JPolgar - Mamedarov [sp? sorry], just this past year, where Judit's kingside attack fizzled. In the next days and weeks, more than a half-dozen GMs followed a long number of moves down the very same game path, trying to show improvement. Grischuck, especially I remember, tried to show M that there was improvement (only to draw). I don't remember anyone complaining about GMs repeating huge portions of that game in this case - why not? Just because it was risky and exciting attacking chess? I remember some of the variations there led to one player or the other "escaping" with a perpetual check, but no one complained of that as lazy or horrible.
Summary of my point - Mig is wrong in substance (not commenting on his style or vocabulary). Carlson did nothing at all wrong in providing us with 29 moves of corrected play.
Corrected play? Except Carlsen, his dad, and his trainer all said it was an accident because he got a bit lost in the opening and felt he didn't have anything better than to repeat the earlier draw. Hardly a search for a TN or anything else.
A better example of what you seem to be trying to say is Kramnik-Svidler at Corus 05 and Radjabov-Svidler at Corus 06. Radjabov followed the earlier game and offered a draw before any new moves were made. It was a year later instead of a week, but of course still horrible.
And yes, of course White bears more responsibility. This is routine conventional wisdom.
Mig said, "And yes, of course White bears more responsibility. This is routine conventional wisdom."
This is an interesting point for me to consider. I'd agree white has the "responsibility" to vary, so long as white retains the opening initiative. After that, maybe both players hold the responsibility to vary, else risk being shamed by the commentators and fans.
(begin Casablanca sarcasm) Oh never would I guess, that certain stock games are known draws, which players who want a "gentleman's draw" begin down the path, and each knows they are simply playing out a safely drawn game. No! I am shocked - shocked! This already happens?! You mean GMs can secretly signal their peaceful intentions to one another, by playing certain sequences of moves? I'm shocked! (end of Casablanca sarcasm)
So we know GM Gentleman's Draws exist in chess, and the fans and commentators want to shame the players out of doing such peaceful, tame, safe, (lazy? a mockery of the game? horrible?) things.
I'll have to think more whether white bears the responsibility to introduce a TN, and black can remain nearly blameless for simply following along in a known game.
Eh? These days a draw with black is considered an achievement, a good thing. A draw with white, a partial failure. This is not news. This is why we criticize the player with white more after a short draw. Black has succeeded, White has failed. If that failure is embraced willingly, it's lame. I'm happy to mock them both, but nobody is going to blame black for taking an easy half point nowadays.
The advantage conferred by the white pieces is not so great that it should be considered particularly shameful for white to draw (and vice-versa, an extra source of joy for black to draw).
Jeff Sonas's chart/article:
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=562
implies an advantage to white of about 35 rating points, or a 54% score in white's favor, between equally rated players. That's 8 to 9 games with white before realizing one extra win. (Scoring 5.5 to 4.5 in ten games, or 5-4 in nine games, are the most likely 54%, 1 win scenarios. Or maybe it should be stated as, scoring 5.5 points in 10 games with white, but only 4.5 points in 10 games with black; one win extra in 10 games being the white advantage.)
Even with one extra win for every eight or nine white-piece games, is that enough to put the onus, the obligation or the "moral" responsibility to win, on white?
I wonder how much of the obligation on white to win comes from the feeling of having the initiative, the half-move advantage of being able to dictate the action, in many openings. Thus, if black achieves equality, erasing the half-move advantage, then maybe the onus to vary from a known drawn game would then lie with both players.
I'm not talking stats, I'm talking tournament practice in the real world. It's well known that these guys consider a draw with black a good thing under almost any circumstances. It has as much to do with maximization of advantages (saving energy for your whites) as anything else. The sporting considerations outweigh the chess considerations. You just don't see guys declining draws, let alone avoiding them, with black at this level unless it's a must win situation. Kasparov and Topalov were/are exceptions more than most, but they did it too. Drives me crazy. That's why I'm in favor of banning the draw offer or at least having move minimums. There are too many logical reasons for one or both players to agree to a short draw sometimes. That shouldn't be the point.
By converting the positive stats for white into a rating points difference they are dimished. I can not really see any good reason for this conversion.
The real point is that there is some small advantage, and at this level even tiny advantages are significant.