Melody Amber 07 r8

Is Kramnik really doing as well as expected in blindfold? Rolling along as usual?

Or is his performance in the first 8 rounds far above his usual standards?

Here are Kramnik's results since 2001 in Amber (he didn't play in 2006)

2001

blind-7.5/11 (second after Topalov’s 8)
rapid-7.5/11 (tied with Gelfand for 1st)

2002

blind-5.5/11 (tied for fourth, Moro is first with 9)
rapid-5.5/11 (8th out of 12)

2003

blind-8/11 (clear first by 1 point)
rapid-5.5/11 (seventh)

2004

blind-8/11 (second after Moro’s 8.5)
rapid-6.5/11 (third)

2005

blind-5.5/11 (tied for seventh, Anand first with 8)
rapid-6/11 (tied for fourth)

right now, with 3 rounds left, Kramnik has 7.5/8 in blindfold and 4.5/8 in rapid.

Projected over 11 rounds that amounts to 10.3 points in blind and 6.2 in rapid. The former is over 2 points better than his best performance in blinds in Amber in recent history. It is over 3 points higher than his average of 6.9/11 and over 2 points higher than his average of 7.25/11 if you take out the 2005 which may be considered his "sick year".

Also, in an average year, the delta between Kramnik's blindfold and his rapid is .7 points (1 point if you take out 2005). This year, it's already 3 points. This is interesting because it relates Kramnik's blindfold playing to his overall strength as a plaeyr at the moment. Kind of is Kramnik just playing well or is he playing particularly good blindfold?

I would say this year is far out of the ordinary for him as far as performance in the blindfold.

@Yuri:

Yes, Kramnik is showing that he is -clearly- the strongest blindfold player in the world right now.

I am surprised the conspiracy theorists haven't joined in on this one yet - clearly Kramnik's laptop must be set-up differently than the others so that he can see the board ;-)

More seriously - I see that Kramnik has just blown away Carlsen in the rapid game using just 4 minutes on his clock involving a piece sacrifice in a Queens Gambit.

Was this all known theory? Or some excellent (but potentially wasted) preparation on Kramnik's part?

Good stuff, Yuriy. Kramnik drew his blindfold game today, but he administered some spanking in the rapid game instead.

mcb: Topalov is not playing so there is no reason to waste perfectly good excuses.

mcb, I think this was Kramnik's preparation all the way. I don't know if it is wasted, though. Indeed noone cares about rapid that much, but I think that maybe Kramnik feels he will have to face Carlsen in more serious competitions soon, perhaps even the world championship, and he jumped at a chance to unleash some good home preparation on the kid to show who is the boss.

25 minute time-limit, ten-second increment. At game's end, Kramnik had 26 minutes on his clock!

A quick poll: Did people start hating Topalov after Elsita or did they have something againts him before that? I am just curious.. Seems like Toplaov was one of the better loved players before. A disastrous PR campaign by Danailov might just have ruined the reputation of a very good player.
I myself like attacking chess and that's why I prefer the dynamic style of Topa. Not to say that I hate anyone (lol - like Topa does not equal hate Kramnik as many people here seem to axiomatically accept :-)
Unfortunately I've seen the opposite trend in many people on the blog, which speaks volume for their intelligence:

like Kramnik = hate Topa
and
like Topa = hate Kramnik

Those are not real chess fans; they are players' fans. I for one would prefer to enjoy chess for its beauty, not for the name of the player carrying the moves out.

Kleyner: Projected over 11 rounds that amounts to 10.3 points in blind and 6.2 in rapid. The former is over 2 points better than his best performance in blinds in Amber in recent history

Hey Kleyner what 'bout Moro last year blind?

@Miguel - Sigh. No matter what game, art, sport or pursuit, there's always somebody on the Web dictating who's a "real fan" and who is not.

Some of the dislike aimed at Topalov has to do with what people perceive to be the damage he's done to chess through his recent actions. Toiletgate cast chess in its dorkiest light for the mainstream media. Some of us would like to see chess regarded as beautiful and dignified not only in its play, but also in its sporting conduct.

Obviously Kramnik has played well in the blindfold, but he has also been the recipient of at least a couple blindfold blunders. The Leko and Anand games were like this. Of course, this is part of the skill of playing blindfold, and Kramnik has not made similar mistakes, but he is a bit fortunate to be the guy these were made against.

I strongly disliked Topalov before Elista as well. I thought he might pull some kind of dirty tricks although I couldn't have imagined anything like the horrible things that happened. Before SAN LUIS, though, I liked him. It was after he won that he turned into a jerk.

acire,
I agree that Topalov should not have bragged after San Luis about being the world champ. Kramnik was still the real champ in the classic tradition and Topalov needed to defeat him in a match before calling himself THE champion (for the record, another very good player, Anand, has recently made the same absurd claim of having being the world champ. Obviously that is BS).
I think part of it may have been Topalov's contract with FIDE to play by their rules (however ridiculous they may be) and another part must have been Danailov's influence which turned Topalov into this bad-attitude person. We can only speculate if Topalov would've risen to such heights without Danailov and Cheparinov (maybe not), but he sure would've kept his image as a nice guy in the eyes of others.

All that aside, Topa remains a very exciting player on the board and is the kind of fighting player chess needs if the game is to gain more mainstream attention.

Derek Slater,
I am not dictating who's real fan and who's not. I just observed that some people were players' fans rather than chess fans. Both types of fans are real per se ('cause they remain "fans" :-) ; it's only that they are fans of different elements.

@ acirce: None of Kramnik, Topalov or Kasparov handled winning the title all that well - each of them was involved in some controversy/scandal whether of their own making or otherwise... so in a way they were all perhaps more likeable before winning the crown

no wonder Anand chose not to become the world champion ;)

>>
A quick poll: Did people start hating Topalov after Elsita or did they have something againts him before that? I am just curious..
>>

Hard to speak for everyone, but on the main Ninja board, the dislike for him started in the middle of Elista. You could check the main Ninja Board postings to see some of that. The support for Topalov there, early on in the match was, if not 50/50, at least about 40/60. Around Game 6, the bottom dropped right out to zero and stayed that way until after the match, when a few Bulgarian posters showed up. People who had supported him either disappeared quietly, or vocally changed allegiance. The fence sitters all jumped on the Kramnik side.

People cut him some slack at first, when it looked like it might all be a big misunderstanding. During the period when it looked like the match might be cancelled, there were Topalov supporters saying that there was no way a great fighter like Topalov would even want a free point. When he insisted on it, the wind really went out of his sails. Then when he apologized for over-reacting one day, and the next day Danailov launched a fresh attack, that was it. He was toast.

Before the match there was little or no ill feeling towards Topalov on the main board. Most people liked his playing style, he was certainly a more credible FIDE champion than Kasim had been, and the chief villain role went to Kirsan. Even Danailov wasn't very well known to us before the match. We knew of him and that he'd flip-flopped on the Reunification Match, but mostly blamed that on under-the-table orders by Kirsan.

Personally, I supported Topalov at San Luis because I thought he was the candidate most likely to want to play the Reunification Match. He seemed very ambitious, and had an ambitious manager. I wouldn't support him now, though. He's done enormous damage to the game, through taking his grievances to the public press, in direct violation of FIDE rules, and, since he doesn't realize he's done anything wrong, is likely to do it again the next time it pleases him. If he'd disassociated himself from Danailov, he might have saved his reputation, but for some reason they're too much of a unit for him to be able to do that.

"whether of their own making or otherwise... so in a way they were all perhaps more likeable before winning the crown"

Why would you become less likeable for something that does not happen of your own making?

I think Kramnik handled winning the title very well. Kasparov too, for that matter.

Miguel. I’ve wondered the same some time ago. Did some checking on previous threads (prior to Elista) and it turned out that the stickiest of the anti-Topalov crowd were just that even before Elista. So, the only difference is that for some reason this forum has a higher than usual concentration of Kramnik fans. And they naturally will not like anyone who challenges their guy. That being Topalov, Anand, anyone… It has very little to do with Elista. At the same time gaining love and respect is not possible with ordinary fans, no matter what happens. So, no point even looking for it.

At the same time, Kramnik has been maligned unfairly on a number of things. With his health improving he’ll probably fix some misconceptions of the last few years. Other misgivings will persist – like the fact that Kasparov never got a rematch. It is highly likely that a well prepared Kasparov after having suffered in 2000 would have bulldozed his way through. But that’s all dust in the past. We see a very impressive Kramnik today and only the future holds what’s yet to come…

As far as Topalov, I do not think that he is starved for fans or interest. As you see there almost every thread turns sooner or later into a Topalov discussion. Even when he doesn’t play. Similar thing happens to Kramnik – he elicits strong emotions one way or the other, but is generally a subject of great interest too.

The only thing one can do from time to time is to try to be fair, particularly when the craziest of trash talk starts.

D.

abudlla: "Kleyner: Projected over 11 rounds that amounts to 10.3 points in blind and 6.2 in rapid. The former is over 2 points better than his best performance in blinds in Amber in recent history

Hey Kleyner what 'bout Moro last year blind?"

What about it? I said: "2 points better than HIS best performance in blinds". My analysis was of whether or not Kramnik is playing as good as he normally does in blinds or much better. Not so much of how his performance compares to that of other players.

Chuckles, often a player's victories are due to opponents' blunders. Sometimes that may even be a credit to player: he poses the kinds of problems and questions that exhaust opponents mental energy/puts them in time trouble/forces them to answer complicated attacks. But in blindfold I think over 90 percent of losses are due to blunders: it is just more likely that one of the two players will make a game-ending blunder before either obtains a clearly won position. The longer you play without blunders, the more likely it is your opponent will make one and lose the game. Over 11 games, blindfold score therefore becomes a measure of blunder rate--he who will have the most blunders made against him will be the GM who blunders the least and he who blunders the most will have the lowest number of blunders made against him.

Q: Why would you become less likeable for something that does not happen of your own making?

A: You would not. But you missed the "...or otherwise" part... ie. not everyone gave them a 'not guilty' verdict... without getting into an endless and futile debate on that issue... the point is that before becoming world champions I am pretty sure that each of these would have faced a far lessor number of antagonists... maybe just a price of wearing the crown... its probably true in general... wotz the saying:
Nobody kick a dead Knight?

OK. I didn't miss "or otherwise", I guess I just misunderstood what "likeable" means.

I agree to some extent; those couple blunders vs. Kramnik just stood out. Blindfold play in general tends to have lower quality, just from the extra work of remembering the position and rechecking it in your mind, etc. But there are also these type of blunders where a player completely misremembers the position on the board, and this is maybe a different type of blunder.

I agree, but, I think part of the reason the blunder was so major is the game ran long--and the reason it ran long is that Kramnik did not make a gaffe through the prevous 50+ moves.

The Anand game actually falls around the average length of a blindfold game in the tournament.

Hmm, I just got an idea for another stat to figure out...more later.

For me the negative moment with Topalov came with his comments about Kramnik not having a high enough rating to deserve a match against him for the World Championship it was so immature and unbecoming and lacked objectivity. It made me think he was scared. He does not seem the same player after Elista and he only has himself to blame. I think not being the "no 1 rated player in the world" is also a pyschological blow. However he is a great player and I hope he can regain his form - his defeat of Kasparov in the latters last game sticks in my mind - a seemingly effortless win. His amazing performaces with the sicilian against the world best. However anything less than a very convincing win at M-Tel on his own turf would be bad

Hmm, it's not like those are the only horrible blunders in the tournament. Blundering pieces left and right are commonplace here as well as in blindfold events overall. Of course that only goes to show how little it really means that Kramnik is so much better than the others in this little peculiar variant of the game - it doesn't have much to do with serious chess.

In one sense, Kramnik is the greatest world chess champion.

After Kramnik became the 14th champion, FIDE, Kasparov, and chess journalists and bloggers attacked him. Sponsors were fleeing, the classical title was tottering, and the chess world was chaos.

Six years, a serious illness, two successful matches, and much quiet diplomacy later, the classical WCC succession seems assured.

Neither Kramnik nor his manager ever accused Topalov of cheating; but they quietly negotiated a glass screen and signal-jamming. In the face of Topalov/Danailov's buffoonish press circus they maintain a dignified and disdainful silence.

Kramnik's career in chess politics resembles his manner of chess play: quiet, steady, and ultimately successful. Which other champion, faced with such adversity, has achieved such success?

I agree with greg. Alexander Zhukov is without a doubt one of the greatest world chess champions in history. Now if only he was willing to play winner of Kas-Kaz two years before he was willing to play Topalov. Because up until the latest FIDE WCC proposal the idea of classical WCC succession seemed more ruined than assured.

"After Kramnik became the 14th champion, FIDE, Kasparov, and chess journalists and bloggers attacked him. Sponsors were fleeing, the classical title was tottering, and the chess world was chaos."

So what exactly did SuperGM Kramnik do to save the chess world from this crisis?

In one sense, the Moon is not there in the sky when no one is looking at it.

"Magnus Carlsen and Vladimir Kramnik drew their blindfold game when the board was still filled with pieces. Actually, the number of pieces that were still in play was an important reason for Kramnik to offer a draw. After the game he confessed that at that point he was starting to ‘lose pieces’ in his memory and not knowing exactly where your pieces are is not a good thing in blindfold chess. The opening, a Ruy Lopez, had gone fine for Kramnik, but after he had exchanged rooks with 24…Rxa1 White got a slight edge. However, Kramnik felt there was nothing wrong with him offering a draw as he had more time left on the clock."

http://www.amberchess.com/2007Round09.HTML

string--

In six years we went from chaos to a cycle ending in a WCC match. It didn't happen magically. Kasparov predicted things would function more smoothly upon his departure so give him credit for departing. Or do you want to credit Kirsan?

"So what exactly did SuperGM Kramnik do to save the chess world from this crisis?" As I said, much quiet diplomacy. If we told you all the secret details we'd have to kill you.

acirce said about blindfold chess:
"this little peculiar variant of the game - it doesn't have much to do with serious chess."

I have wondered about this, too. Aren't there some chess computers that we could type all these games into, that would give an estimated rating? That might help us judge whether blindfold chess is serious chess.

Do you think they are playing 2600 chess? 2500 chess? 2200 chess??? I was thinking that, if they were only playing 2300 or 2400 chess, then there might be a number of players in the world who could beat them. For example, aren't there some actually blind players with 2300+ ratings? I know some blind players have chesspieces with pegs and holes in the board, and they can touch the pieces without disturbing them. But perhaps some blind players don't need this help, and could play 2300+ chess blind (and without touch). Would they be competitive here?

Studies of classical chess vs. rapid vs. blitz show that players generally have similar ratings in all three. In other words, generally speaking, the time handicap applies evenly (yes of course, some players like Anand show well in rapid and blitz, and yes I know there are blitz specialists, but I'm speaking of the general case).

But I don't know whether the blindfold handicap applies in a general way, such that one's classical chess rating is a good guide to one's blindfold prowess. We accept that the players in the Amber tournament are among the best rapid players in the world, but are they among the best blindfold players in the world? Or might there be a 2500 classical player who spent years practicing blindfold and could blow them away?

tjallen

"I have wondered about this, too. Aren't there some chess computers that we could type all these games into, that would give an estimated rating? That might help us judge whether blindfold chess is serious chess."
Posted by: tjallen at March 27, 2007 16:59

Funny that you ask. Some posters on ChessNinja forum are trying to work out an algorithm that would do just that. Check out http://www.chessninja.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=000238

Hmmmmm ... 12 players, US$288,000 prize fund. I would say that qualifies the Melody-Amber tournament as "serious chess".

When did people start hating Topalov? I think during Elista it was more anger than hate, and it may have blown over if he had afterwards distanced himself from Danailov as mentioned. Instead, he gave a post-Elista interview in which he states in no uncertain terms that Kramnik cheated, even in the rapids.
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3553
This interview revealed the depth of his delusions and sunk the 'he's just Danailov's pawn' raft that many were clinging to.

Is it Topalov that people hate, or Danailov's antics that reflects badly?

I wonder if Topalov and Kramnik switch managers, who will people hate then.

Thanks for the comments Dimi. I agree with you. The bad thing is that some people just hate Topalov for the heck of it. Even bring up cheating allegations. That's super dumb. He did not behave nicely at Elsita, but that's just one episode. Other than that he's been pretty well-behaved. Let's not forget that Kramnik or Kasparov have not been perfet either. Kasparov split from FIDE and created havoc. Kramnik simply usurped the world title for a few years turning a deaf ear to defending it to the best candidate around.
Then other players like Moro and Kasim who alleged Topa was cheating without any proof? Shouldn't they have been truned into pariahs too?Everyone has had their blemishes but life goes on. If you keep hating someone for the heck of it, you are not being incredibly smart. If on the other hand you have a hidden agenda, what kind of a person are you?
Hmm, I think a guy named Jesus once talked about forgiveness...Go figure!

The games are simply fascinating to watch. I really enjoy this format.

Kramnik is dominating the blindfold and Anand is dominating the rapid. Anand is doing relatively poorly in the blindfold, so Kramnik is comfortably ahead. The preparation Kramnik did for today's win was mind-boggling...and he says Topalov has great prep!

I in no way mean to insult Van Wely and Vallejo....but... I understand 100% why Loek is playing, as the organizer is Dutch, but there are many many higher rated players than Paco who could play and do well. Anyone know why Paco was invited instead of, well, Grischuk, J Polgar, Adams, Short, Mamedyarov, and I am sure a few others over 2700 I missed?

Also, I hate to give an AMERICAN point of view....but... this format seems perfect for Hikaru, and great for the spectators as well.

BPF

after 9 rounds Kramnik leads the blindfold by 2 points and Anand leads the rapid by 2 points. awesome performances by the two best players in the world right now. I had a tough time answering tghe following question:

which is the more noteworthy performance?

On the one hand, one can say blindfold is quirky chess and not very indicative of true strength. That is what Kasparov would say. On the other, there is something romantic about blindfold prowess. let us ignore for the moment the "purist" point of view that only classical controls matter.

No flame wars please.

Regarding Paco: he finished tied for second (with Anand) in the blindfold last year

Radjabov also hung a piece against Kramnik in the blindfold, again at the end of a long and no doubt very strenuous struggle. Blindfold time scrambles don’t bear thinking about. Kramnik’s score flatters him a little, no doubt about it.

Speaking for myself, I thought Topalov was at least mildly unattractive long before Elista. This whole I’m-the-greatest-why-should-I-play-the-world-number six schtick was pretty unappealing.

"Anyone know why Paco was invited instead of, well, Grischuk, J Polgar, Adams, Short, Mamedyarov, and I am sure a few others over 2700 I missed?"

He finished clear 3rd last year, ahead of Grischuk, Topalov, Leko, Aronian, Gelfand, Svidler, Ivanchuk and others. Therefore, I think, it made good sense to invite him again.

Oh yes, and tied second in the blindfold event. Clear 3rd overall.

Vallejo does seem generally to get rather a lot of invites relative to his ability, though. I suppose it's because he's the leading player of a major Western European nation and thus sponsor-friendly.

He doesn't get a lot of Corus and Dortmund invites so my guess is it's because Linares and Monaco are close/in Spain.

They should invite Short. He still has a good rating and a funny face ;)

It's not a crime to invite Van Wely and/or Vallejo to supertournaments but I will say it's slightly annoying that it is these two all the time. Corus/Linares AND Amber? I realize that this is simply what will happen in a privatized chess world. Of course, Vallejo didn't actually play in Morelia/Linares this year, for once.. anyone knows if there was some special reason?

To be honest, I think the player most out of his depth here is Van Wely. I can understand why the organiser wants Dutch representation, but it's a bit cruel on him. He's not a 'super elite' player.

The tournament itself is impressive though, and a good example of what European organisation can achieve.

If Japanese/American representation was unfairly permitted, I think it'd find itself about as out of its depth as Van Wely.

Van Wely has been invited to Amber for years...he didn't do too bad last year and used to be a very good blindfold player...his invitation is kind of a left over from those days.

In a tournament of 12-14 men, having one or two slightly worse players is ok. In a six-seven men two round robin having those turns in the tournament into a "how many times can you blow those guys out". Which is not a very good test of chess strength. Get 4/4 out against 2 out of your 5 competitors and you will play drawish in your remaining 6 games hoping to hold off the guy who got the respectable 3 or 3.5 against those guys. In a field of 12, if you have a couple of lackers, a larger portion of your games isn't against them and you can't hope to blow out the weaklings and draw off your competitors; your final score is more reflective of your strength.

Another reason why Van Wely is getting invites though is he comes off (at least to me) as an extremely nice guy, friendly to the media and always willing to talk and analyze his games.

I am getting a bit wary of all this crap about van Wely being "out of his depth" or not "deserving" his invitation. First, Amber is an invitational, organized by one sole private Dutch individual. Second, van Wely is a strong GM, presently 26th in the FIDE rankings (his best ranking was #10 in October 2001). Third, I checked his results at Amber since 1999 (as far back as I could find on the Internet). Here they are :

2006
Combined 9th (ahead of Svidler, Ivanchuk and Nielsen)
Blind 8th= (4.5/11)
Rapid 4th= (5.5/11)

2005
Combined 12th
Blind 11th (4/11)
Rapid 12th (3.5/11)

2004
Combined 11th (ahead of Vallejo)
Blind 10th (3.5/11)
Rapid 11th (4/11)

2003
Combined 11th (ahead of Ljubojevic)
Blind 10th (5/11)
Rapid 11th (3/11)

2002
Combined 11th (ahead of Ljubojevic)
Blind 11th (4/11)
Rapid 12th (2/11)

2001
Combined 12th
Blind 12th (3/11)
Rapid 9th (4.5/11)

2000
Combined 7th= (ahead of Karpov, Lautier, Ljubojevic, Nikolic)
Blind 10th= (4/11)
Rapid 3rd= (6.5/11)

1999
Combined 10th= (with Piket and Gelfand)
Blind 11th= (3.5/11)
Rapid 6th= (5.5/11)

Conclusion: his results are not brilliant, but neither are they humiliating (considering the strength of the opposition). And he has occasional good years, especially in rapid play (1999, 2000, 2006).

>>
He did not behave nicely at Elsita, but that's just one episode.
>>

One *protracted* episode, which he kept going for months and months with a long string of sour grapes articles and a story that got bigger ever time he told it. The book didn't help things, either.

>>Kasparov split from FIDE and created havoc.

Considering some of the things FIDE has done before and since, a lot of people thought that splitting with them was a good idea.

Besides, Kasparov DID get punished. He was even removed from the rating list for a while.

Kramnik simply usurped the world title for a few years turning a deaf ear to defending it to the best candidate around.

>>
Then other players like Moro and Kasim who alleged Topa was cheating without any proof? Shouldn't they have been truned into pariahs too?
>>

They should have. Fortunately for them, they weren't as high profile players as Topalov. Also they didn't talk as long or as loud as he did, and so spared themselves most of the flak they deserved. They still deserved to be sanctioned though, just as Topalov does. Perhaps they would have been if Topalov had filed a grievance against them.

>>
Everyone has had their blemishes but life goes on. If you keep hating someone for the heck of it, you are not being incredibly smart. If on the other hand you have a hidden agenda, what kind of a person are you?
Hmm, I think a guy named Jesus once talked about forgiveness...Go figure!
>>

Well, of course if Topalov apologized for his behavior and tried to make amends, probably the world would forgive him. As long as he's defending the indefensible, though, it's not likely. The irony is that he DID apologize in the Game 6 Press Conference, saying he'd made a mistake and overreacted, and then retracted his apology afterwards, claiming he'd been lying at the time (!?) and went back to mud slinging.

Perhaps Van Wely is invited to Monaco because he's the biggest F1 fan and leads all GMs in speeding tickets.

Morozevich finally beat Carlsen!

van Wely plays interesting chess. This is why plays in such tournaments. His game is much more exciting than the one of his dutch fellas Sokolov and Tiviakov.

Vallejo vs. van Wely looked drawish to me in the endgame. Any comments why Loek lost?

Don't underestimate that "nice guy" factor. It's a clubby atmosphere and organizers like reliable people. Friendship matters, as do other personality-based factors. But here the organizer is Dutch and van Wely is Dutch, so not exactly a mindbender. If it were merit based finishing in the bottom half, usually bottom quartile, of the crosstable every year would eliminate him at least for a while.

It's not so much that another player of his rating level would be equally pummelled, but that variety is good in and of itself. It would be great to see a Nakamura or Onischuk or Kamsky at Amber just because it would be new. Novelty shouldn't be limited to teenagers, which is why Dortmund using Aeroflot as a qualifier is so nice, and Corus with its C-B-A qualifying process. We get to see different styles, hear about a new personality and biography, etc. And as outclassed as they look on occasion, they usually at least manage to claw a few ankles.

Pretty convincing comments from Mig. I notice Aronian dropped a piece on move 7 in the rapid game against Radjabov in a horrific blunder and then bizzarely played on to just a move short of mate.... spooky stuff.

Aronian - ‘My brain is melting down after so many tournaments.’ from the Amber tournament website.

If I had to describe Van Wely it wouldn't be 'nice'. This is the guy who's admited to watching a lot of porn and crashing a lot of cars. I've seen interviews where he seems much more 'competitive' than 'nice'. Charismatic might be a good word to describe him. I quite like him as a personality, but I don't think he's an elite player.

It's clear that there are stronger players than Van Wely and there are many comparable ones. On the other hand, he is by far the most exciting (and probably the strongest as well) Dutch GM and sponsors of Amber and Corus are Dutch. That alone justifies his inclusion in both tournaments.

There is another dimension to his invitations too. He might be outclassed in that field, but he always plays fighting chess, principled lines, plays for win no matter who the opponent is. Often he is getting killed, but almost every tournament he pulls off an upset too. His games are interesting to watch.

Now for the sake of variety invite some other "normal" GM, say Onischuk, instead of Van Wely. Most likely he will draw most of his games, lose the rest and finish at the bottom of the table with 0 wins, like Motylev and Tiviakov did in Corus. Who needs such variety?

I'm all for (a degree of) variety. However, you can't expect the only Dutch player to pay the price. Were I van Osteroom (I wish...), I would try to find substitutes for Vallejo (last) and maybe Leko (whose style isn't very well suited to rapid and blindfold).

Jackrabbit

"after 9 rounds Kramnik leads the blindfold by 2 points and Anand leads the rapid by 2 points. awesome performances by the two best players in the world right now. I had a tough time answering tghe following question:

which is the more noteworthy performance?"

Although both Anand and Kramnik performances are noteworthy, Anand's performance in Rapid is far more significant and awesome. Rapid, although not comparable to the normal games, does test players skills and produces many beautiful games. The Anand-Kramnik encounter in the Rapid is a fine example. Kramnik's present standing in the blindfold had too many wins involving opponent's silly blunders, cannot say the same for Anand's wins in the Rapid.

yeah...its a no-brainer...

Also, I wonder why they include Vishy in any rapid event at all...they might as well give him the top prize and leave the rest of the guys to fight for 2nd.

Has anyone bothered to have a ELO list of only rapid events? I guess Vishy would be about 3000 about 300 more than the number 2 on that list.. He not only wins almost all that he plays but wins with 1 or more rounds to spare..

Stefan Fischl's Very Unofficial Rapid Chess Rating:

http://members.aon.at/sfischl/rrating.txt

1.Anand,V 2827
2.Kramnik,V 2764
3.Ivanchuk,V 2761
4.Morozevich,A 2741
5.Aronian,L 2733
6.Radjabov,T 2731
7.Kasimdzhanov,R 2728
8.Bareev,E 2725
9.Topalov,V 2725
10.Leko,P 2721

We see that Anand does dominate but he doesn't have nearly the earth-shattering dominance he is sometimes perceived as having.

Overall performance in rapid games 2000-2006:

http://members.aon.at/sfischl/rapid.txt

1.Anand,V 2813
2.Kasparov,G 2803
3.Kramnik,V 2766
4.Ivanchuk,V 2753
5.Kasimdzhanov,R 2748

Vishy has 60 elo points higher rapid rating than Kramnik. As we know, in chess 60 Elo points means a different class altogether. So it wouldn´t make sense arranging Anand-Kramnik rapid match, I think.

We know that, do we?!

Anand doesn't have an overwhelming head-to-head record with Kramnik at rapid - ositive but not overwhelming. Anand would certainly be favourite but a match would be interesting - anyway, isn't he about to play Leko in a rapid match, or have I misremembered?

rdh, I was referring to this: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2693

"yeah...its a no-brainer..."

Surely the no-brainer would be to say that the combined result is the most important. Sure, Anand is the quickest and most accurate at calculating variations, which is also enormously useful in normal chess, but the skills you need for blindfold chess are just as significant. Don't ask me to define them exactly ;) but let's say - superior intuition, sense of where the pieces are and should be, ability to visualise... and so on.

Kramnik has always slightly outperformed Anand at normal time controls and shown he can match Kasparov, who might well be the very best at calculating variations. So don't dismiss the value of being able to win the blindfold competition.

"yeah...its a no-brainer..."

Surely the no-brainer would be to say that the combined result is the most important. Sure, Anand is the quickest and most accurate at calculating variations, which is also enormously useful in normal chess, but the skills you need for blindfold chess are just as significant. Don't ask me to define them exactly ;) but let's say - superior intuition, sense of where the pieces are and should be, ability to visualise... and so on.

Kramnik has always slightly outperformed Anand at normal time controls and shown he can match Kasparov, who might well be the very best at calculating variations. So don't dismiss the value of being able to win the blindfold competition.

Actually, Topalov is the best because he is the No: 1 rated player, higher than both Anand and Kramnik or, for that matter, the rest of the world. It is classical chess which counts, not rapid or blindfold.

rdh, Yeah, Kramnik will play Lékó in a rapid match starting April 24 and then Aronian in another rapid match starting May 4.

Both matches are played in the home country of Kramnik's opponent. But that's funny, didn't Topalov say that Kramnik would only play in Russia and Germany from now on?

dirtbag: Fascinating argument - so today Topalov is better than Anand, but in two days Anand is better than Topalov?

Mishanp

Yr argument may be correct in general terms of Blindfold V/S Rapid. But in this Amber tournament, Kramnik has won too many Blindfold games due to very silly blunders by opponents.

Anand in the Rapids did not hv such gifts given to him. At least in this tournament, Anand's performance should be considered more significant than Kramnik's.

Ajit Sydney:

I think in this tournament Kramnik has more points combined than Anand.

At least in this tournament, Kramnik's performance should be considered more significant than Anand's.

Sorry, Zombre, slow today.

And wrong too - it's Kramnik-Leko, then. I had an idea Anand-Leko was on the cards.

Ajit,

In blindfold 90 percent of games are won through blunders. If you expand definition of blunders to include the kind of sub-2700 play normally seen in blindfold and rapids, 100 percent of blindfolds are won through blunders. That Anand lost a piece or that Leko forgot where pawns were after 50 moves is not surprising. That Kramnik has managed to make it through 11 rounds without blundering anything is.

I think misha makes an interesting point--blindfold is perhaps a very good way of measuring ability to calculate variations. On the other hand, rapids are a great way to measure perhaps chess intuition and thinking under pressure? I am not sure what the appropriate formula would be for calculating how much each matters for classical player, so I am gonna go with Kram for most impressive performance--last I looked he was tied for second in rapids in this tournament while Anand was batting 50 in blindfold.

Anand was clearly taking it easy in the blindfold games - they are supposed to be much more hard work than rapid... The (Madras/Chennai/Indian) Tiger resting after a big meal (Linares)

Moro and Leko admitted being 'very tired' half way thru the tornament while Aronian's 'brain was melting'...

Kramnik did not play in Linares

Different time controls and variations change the game of chess itself. Thus one player is best at rapid chess, another is best at bullet, another is best at blindfold, another is best at the time control for today's classical games, yet another would probably be best at the time control and adjournament rules for classical games from 50 years ago. So what measure do we pick to find the best chess player? Or rather, maybe the above implies that there is no best "chess" player per se, since such a concept is meaningless without spesifying the format chess is played by.
Has it struck anyone that the reason why you may see an amatuer defeat a GM in bullet chess on the Internet is not because the amatuer got lucky, but because he is simply BETTER than the GM at BULLET CHESS?

"...blindfold is perhaps a very good way of measuring ability to calculate variations" --YK

I am sure that it is no matter what Botvinnik used to say, but then so is rapid. According to GM J Levit in his book 'Genius in Chess': "Greater speed of processing is also characteristic of higher intelligence." (Just in case you haven't come across this before, he came up with the very '!?' equation: ELO ~ 10*IQ + 1000).

"..last I looked he [Kramnik] was tied for second in rapids in this tournament while Anand was batting 50 in blindfold." -- YK

Yeah, Kramnik tied for 2nd to 5th place and scored 59% in rapid. Big deal.

"That Anand lost a piece or that Leko forgot where pawns were after 50 moves is not surprising. That Kramnik has managed to make it through 11 rounds without blundering anything is." --YK

I have to agree with YK on this. See my previous post to find why :-)

StringTheory wrote
"Greater speed of processing is also characteristic of higher intelligence."

Yes, however, the example of rapid chess is out of place here. The "processing" used in rapid chess is inferior to that used in classical time controls. Thus the two are incomparable and you cannot say that the faster one is a sign of higher intelligence. If, on the other hand, you have two entities performing the same quality job, then you can claim that the one doing it faster is the more intelligent.

"Has it struck anyone that the reason why you may see an amatuer defeat a GM in bullet chess on the Internet is not because the amatuer got lucky, but because he is simply BETTER than the GM at BULLET CHESS?" -- Miguel

Yeah, if I played a tennis match to be decided by a single point, maybe I could beat Federer - especially if he served first and double faulted.

Kramnik says in his 'Life and Games' (or whatever the name of his book is) that 5 min games allow just enough time to think at one or two critical moments in a game... anything played at less than 5 min per player is not chess....

in bullet (1 min?) it is usually braun over brain..

My point exactly, StringTheory. You can't talk just about "chess". You have to spesify the time control used.

Your analogy with tennis and Federer is flawed though. What I meant in my post is that some bullet players can consistently defeat some GMs at bullet chess and so they are actually better than them at bullet chess. You can't consistently defeat Roger Federer in one-point matches.

Lastly, I concur that bullet chess is not chess - it is BULLET CHESS!

sT, even if I take Levitt's word to be gospel truth intelligence is not the same as ability to calculate variations. If anything, the distinguishing feature of rapids is that the players' ability to calculate variations is hindered. It therefore utilizes other aspects of chess intelligence. In that clip from YouTube somebody posted here a while back Kasparov said about Tal that it was amazing that on his deathbed he was still able to pose problems Kasparov would be unable to solve within allotted timespan. The attack was flawed but it was too smart for the time Garry had. That is a good way to think of rapids.

"Yeah, Kramnik tied for 2nd to 5th place and scored 59% in rapid. Big deal."

I find it hard to take any sorts of results in this kind of stupid-pet-trick competition too seriously, indicative of theoretical ability as it may be. But in 11 games, 59% comes out to a +2, and Anand is -1 in blindfold. So taking the final standings as a measure of some sort of chess ability, Kramnik comes out ahead.

I think you have a really good theory as far as why Kramnik is winning. Last year, Moro did not play Linares and finished far ahead of the competition. This year he plays Linares and finishes rather mediocrely in Amber.

"If anything, the distinguishing feature of rapids is that the players' ability to calculate variations is hindered. It therefore utilizes other aspects of chess intelligence"

But since the blindfold games in Amber are played under the same time control as the rapid games (Amber - rapid blindfold and rapid tournament?) wouldn't the same hinderances to calculation have been applicable in the blindfold tournament too??

After all, analogous to saying Anand's domination in rapid does not translate into him dominating all-eyes-open chess under classical time control; one could argue that Kramnik may not have dominated as much in blindfold played under classical time control as under the rapid time control that it is played in... so it may not really be an indicator of his superior visualization powers...

Maybe classical-blindfold ability might mean mean more than rapid chess for playing strength but I feel playing rapid (under 25' + 10") is much more like normal chess than rapid-blindfold

StringTheory

"Maybe classical-blindfold ability might mean mean more than rapid chess for playing strength but I feel playing rapid (under 25' + 10") is much more like normal chess than rapid-blindfold."

What r u trying to say here.... If u say Rapid reflects much more like normal chess, then we should give more significance to Rapid results.

Anyway, as u had said earlier, give Anand the credit for this fantastic result, even though he had come through the tough Linares tournament, while other Linares players simply faded away.

Remember, Kramnik was "fresh" as he had not played Linares...

So.... Kramnik has fantastic Blindfold and creditable Rapid result - great stuff; but without Linares. Anand has fantastic Rapid, but "rests" in Blindfold; but after WINNING Linares. I guess we can call this a tie... say equally significant performance for BOTH Anand and Kramnik.

Hope the next WC is between these 2 GREAT players; without having T and his accusations and complaints in the mix !!

You know the human mind is an interesting thing, sT...almost every tour for the past two weeks I have watched Amber live. I watch the blindfold and my mind is fully aware that it takes the same amount of time to play as the rapids. That means I should know damn well the blindfolds are under rapid control. But did I realize this until your post? Noooo....

However, it makes for an interesting point. After all, if we consider that rapid limitations affect the blindfold game, (ie: blindfold Amber is a modified version of rapid game) then we must consider the difference between rapid and blindfold to be a true measure of a player's blindfold strength. In that case the blindfold ability scores are:

Kramnik, Morozevich, Gelfand +2.5
Radjabov, Svidler +1
Ivanchuk, Aronian 0
Van Wely -0.5
Vallejo Pons -1.5
Leko, Carlsen -2.5
Anand -3.5

The other possibility is that in blindfold with rapid control time no longer becomes a factor--there is only so much thinking ahead a mind can do kind of thing. Perhaps the difficulty of having to remember the positions and being able to move the pieces in your mind is so much of a hindrance that who does how well is determined solely by that--not by a time limit, provided the time limit is of somewhat reasonable length.

How much of the similarities in Anand's rapid and Kramnik's blindfold are explained by the color of the pieces? It is a no-brainer that it is far easier to play blindfold with white than with black. Anand had black in BF against all his important opponents - Moro, Kramnik, Aronian, Ivanchuk etc.

Kramnik could do decently with black in blindfold against the average 2700 guy (ha - calling any of these guys average:)) , but got a real break with white against his key opponents. Ditto Anand with the rapids.

I hope Kasparov comments on these results in a future NIC article.

By the way, did Anand really score 17 points in this format in 1994? Wonder who his opponents were. I mean, if you add up Anand's 8.5 in rapids and Kramnik's 9 in BF, you get *only* .5 more than Anand's performance in 1994.

Yuriy, blindfold rapid is definitely a lot harder than blindfold at the classical control. The latter would be exhausting right enough, but you definitely wouldn't see so many of these blunders based on forgetting the position.

I'm sure stringTheory is right that not playing Linares is a big advantage.

"Anand had black in BF against all his important opponents - Moro, Kramnik, Aronian, Ivanchuk etc."

Good observation... I have noticed this for quite some time.. except for Linares which was a double RR, he often seems to get Black against his main rivals esp in important tournaments... maybe it has/had something to do with being #2...

Some might argue that it is even an advantage.. to play Black against Kramnik and Topalov in closed all play all tournaments (though in Corus this led to two losses for Vishy) so you can get an extra White against the Van Wely's and Vallejo's...

Moreover he often seems to get one more Black than White too.. Vishy himself recently downplayed the importance of colors and thought these did not matter too much...

@jackrabbit:

Final standing Amber 1994:
1 Anand,Viswanathan 17
2 Kramnik,Vladimir 16
3 Ivanchuk,Vassily 14.5
4 Kamsky,Gata 14
5 Polgar,Judit 11
6 Karpov,Anatoly 10.5
7 Ljubojevic,Ljubomir 10
8 Nunn,John DM 9.5
9 Seirawan,Yasser 9.5
10 Polgar,Zsuzsa 7.5
11 Piket,Jeroen 6.5
12 Kortschnoj,Viktor 6.0

sT - Some might argue that it is even an advantage.. to play Black against Kramnik and Topalov in closed all play all tournaments (though in Corus this led to two losses for Vishy) so you can get an extra White against the Van Wely's and Vallejo's...

I don't believe that for a second. Someone of Anand's standard would expect to beat both of those guys regardless of the colour.

Kramnik would expect to win with white & draw with black vs anyone.

I think the quantity of whites and blacks is key, but the opponents not.

rdh, I agree, but there are obviously other factors at play. Kramnik has finished no lower than second in everything he has played in the past year and he played much better in blindfold than rapids.

On the subject of who you would want white and who you would want black with, my feeling has always been that for a top GM against the bottom enders it doesn't really matter, since you have a pretty good chance of winning with either. And against the other top players, white is nice, because it lowers the chance you will end up defending, again chances are you will end up in a draw. (but perhaps better rested if you had white) I would want my extra whites to come across the middle of the table, where you have to work for a win but where such an outcome is also quite likely. In this tournament I think it would be best to get the extra whites against players like Gelfand and Leko and at Corus against Pono, Karjakin, Navara.

Yuriy,

You make a good point about being white vs mid-table players, though not with the best example. At Corus Navara drew with black vs Topalov, Kramnik and Anand!

Food for thought then: perhaps he could have beaten one of them if he had them with white?

touche!

The April ratings list is out and the top rated player is... Topalov! They have obviously, though curiously, failed to count Linares. A Danailov trick to prevent the need for a face-losing change in the rubric of the Topalov site?

http://www.fide.com/ratings/top.phtml?list=men

what? they didnt include linares .. that is such a load of bull.

Bothm in 2005 and 2004, when the tournament ended on March 10 and March 5, they did include linares in the April list .. why not now? really does seem like Kirsan stuck a deal with Danailov tpo propo Topalov up for a quarter more and give him a chance to cross Anand in July.

If this is true, chess is dead!

i also notice that Koneru Humpy has not been ranked among the top 20 juniors for the second straight time just bcos she is a girl. Her rating 2575 and the 20th rated junior on the list is at 2562

This sucks big time. Now I get it why Topalov skipped Amber. He´s preparing to score easy points at Mtel masters.

Maybe its just an April Fool joke thing...

stringTheory,

I doubt it. It only goes to show how much of a joke FIDE is.

The website for the Kramnik-Leko rapids match April 24-29 in Miskolc, Hungary contains a schedule for the opening and closing ceremonies, the games, and a meet-the-players opportunity.

--During the match are there any other chessic events scheduled in Miskolc?
--Are there any hotels near the playing site?

Thanks!

greg,

yes, there will be an international tournament in Miskolc between 23-27 April. Info is here, but only in Hungarian:

http://chess.hu/hu/csoport_reszletes.php3?csoport_id=711

Tell me if something is unclear :)
There are lots of hotels around, as the venue of the match, a theater, is in downtown Miskolc.
Are you planning to visit the match?

Linux fan,

Yes, I'll probably be staying in Eger and zipping in for meet-the-players and the games on the 27th and 28th. I was hoping for some chess lectures, or live-naked-chesspieces-in-the-town-square.

I'll wear a red flower in my lapel in case anyone wants to give me a lecture on Zimbabwean history in Hungarian.

Are you going?

I wasn't planning to, but if you wanna meet, it's OK. Provided I can get away from work.
What are you doing in Eger? By the way, these two cities, Eger and Miskolc are probably the nicest cities in the country.

Drop me a mail if you want to discuss Zimbabwe or to meet at the match: linuxfan36_at_freemail_dot_hu