Aronian and Carlsen Win Corus 2008

"Another win today would have marked a Fischerian achievement of sole first for young Carlsen"

Strange sentence - Fischer did nothing at 17 or at an earlier age comparable to Carlsen's achievement in Corus A this year, against 9 of the top 12 in the world, including number 1, 2 and 3 also known as the 3 latest FIDE world champions.

The interesting question is rather: how old was Fischer when he first did something even comparable to Carlsen's feat here?

Congratulations to both Aronian and Carlsen for winning Corus 2008.
Mig has pointed a very interesting issue related with the Grand Slam. I think Aronian should get the ticket, but it's true everybody wants to see Carlsen in any big event this year, and for sure, the next ones!
Shocked how "easy" Carlsen beat Kramnik, even after being just defeated by Anand the round before. For a moment I thought he was overpressing again, this child not only plays chess, has .... :)

"The interesting question is rather: how old was Fischer when he first did something even comparable to Carlsen's feat here?"

His coming 2nd behind Tal in Bled 61 when he was 18 certainly compares, and his win of the Stockholm Interzonal 1962, 2 1/2 points ahead of the field when he was 19 outstrips Carlsen's achievement now - although two years older means a lot at that age.

Great tournament, Mag & Lev. Brilliant achievement.

I am a huge Carlsen fan and don't want to take away from his historic victory. But I was thinking, maybe Magnus can play for wins, throw caution to the wind, because he (unlike, say Peter Svidler and other adult GMs) does not have to put food on the table for himself and a family.

Then again, it's probably more a matter of temperament, of chess hunger, than economic considerations.

Bravo Carlsen!

"Amazing! Kramnik loses with white about as often as Al Gore turns down a doughnut."

lol!!

With Migs sense of humor, I wish he would write a book about the crazy world of chess. All of us could use the levity regarding the "Royal Game."

Mig or anyone else,

Why is the latest headlines sometimes disappearing from the Daily Dirt?

When I refresh the browser I may miss the latest headline or I get only 1 headline (seems random).

This is a bit annoying as I have to click the "Recent Comments" column on the left to see/read the new headlines.

for the record, I've been having the same problems as Martin, and for quite a while now.

yo tambien, Martin and WHIC.

Me four.

Some kind NYC-based computer whiz should spend an afternoon discreetly helping Mig to clean up his blog database, or whatever it is that is causing those annoying glitches.

The problem started when I upgraded to v4 of Movable Type. I didn't create all new templates from scratch. They say you can use your old ones with no trouble and the support folks can't find anything wrong with my code. It's compliant with the occasional un-self-enclosed tag. So it should be working. Should. I assume it's that the old templates don't really work quite right. Making them from scratch with includes is a laborious process and I just haven't had time. But it's driving me crazy too. I click "publish main index" a dozen times a day, although it republishes correctly around half the time. It changes because the homepage is republished every time someone adds a new comment, due the latest comments section, which I don't want to remove. Sorry. Howzabout the second week of February. Looks like a lull in the hecticosity.

"Another win today would have marked a Fischerian achievement of sole first for young Carlsen"

Historian: Strange sentence - Fischer did nothing at 17 or at an earlier age comparable to Carlsen's achievement in Corus A this year, against 9 of the top 12 in the world, including number 1, 2 and 3 also known as the 3 latest FIDE world champions."

I think the reason Fischer accomplishments at that age weren't as notorious was just for lack of tournaments and opportunities, not for chess talent. If someone like Fischer would have appeared in this time, after just a simple game (like Fischer's one in 1956), he would appear in every single supertournament like Carlsen does today, with obvious opportunities to get some victories on his way.

Congratulations to Aronian, he played very solidly in Corus; he was never in real danger of losing with the only exception of Kramnik's game, when he was able to equalize (why he lost is another story) despite walking through a theoretical novelty of the latter. In Wijk and Zee, Aronian has only lost one game in the last two years (as mentioned, one he shouldn't lose, but forgot to simplify the situation) and has won twice in three appareances there.

BTW, I don't really understand the system of the "Grand Slam". If someone wins one of these tournaments, by playing in other supertournament is depriving someone else of the chance ... it is that the idea? I think this system is still a mess. For example, players like Karjakin or Morozevich automatically are deprived of all chances this year (and Carlsen also plays Linares, Topalov and Aronian will play both Linares and Sofia). Explanations?

It must be said how phenomenal Svidler's commentary on the final round was for ICC. He really is a class act. I remember his text-based commentaries very fondly, back in the day, and this was the first time I'd ever heard him speak. Flawless English. Remarkable intensity and focus too: you get a glimpse of the sort of powers of concentation you need to succeed at that level of chess.

Above all, he simply makes you realise why the top players still play chess. The amount he sees at the board is awe-inspiring. A real treat!

more anti-Carlsen swiping from Mig.

It's tiresome.

Hey Mig best chocolate in Amsterdam is Puccini on the Oude Leliestraat and the Singel.

Frank Z...I don't see the anti-Carlsen swiping from Mig? He's actually said quite a few good things, and relayed even better things from Garry K. Have I missed something?

Yes, I don't see any anti-Carlsen swiping either. I do see some anti-Mig swiping, though. I guess people just see what they want to see...

Could someone paste the link to that site which maintains 'live' ratings. Just curious to see by how much is Vishy Anand world number 1. Thanks.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessuser?uname=frogbert

Sandorchess: "Congratulations to Aronian, he played very solidly in Corus; he was never in real danger of losing with the only exception of Kramnik's game, when he was able to equalize (why he lost is another story) despite walking through a theoretical novelty of the latter."

-> Then you should take another look at the game he played against Carlsen...

Thanks Tarjei..

Now now guys, don't feed the trolls. You know the drill by now. I say Anand sees tactics faster than anyone in the world and is the best tactical defender of all time and I'm anti-Anand. (Because I like matches.) I say Carlsen is amazing and magnificent and I'm anti-Carlsen. (Because the Torre is lame.) I say Kramnik is the best-prepared player in the world, the greatest endgame player of the past 20 years, and has turned the Catalan into a death ray and I'm anti-Kramnik. (Because I like games with queens.) I say Topalov is a relentless fighter and always entertaining and I'm anti-Topalov. (Because you can't give a 2700 a free piece in the opening.)

Trolls always find something to complain about. Anything other than mindless, unconditional praise means you are anti their guy. As we see above, even mindless, unconditional praise doesn't help!

Mig,
you can't buy Belgian chocolats in the Netherlands (at least not the real stuff). You need to go to Belgium for that.
Do you know if Sergey Shipov commented the Kramnik-Carlsen game on some website? I would like to know what he thought about the hegdehog.

Mig,

An experiment:

Would anyone accuse you of attacking Kasparov, even if you began praising that gentleman mindlessly and unconditionally?

I thought Carlsen and Karjakin received invitations to the Grand Slam as a result of reaching the World Chess Cup Semi-finals last year.

@WidowTwanky

You are mixing Danailov's Grand-Slam with FIDE's Grand-Prix.

anyone got the link to the svidler commentary?

CMC: To hear the Svidler commentary, you have to be a member of the Internet Chess Club.

BTW, Svidler was just the icing on the cake of another fabulous series of broadcasts by Mig, GM Joel, Fed, Larry C, Kaidanov, Speelman, Ronen, Jen Shahade, etc.

I don't belong to PlayChess, and sometimes I get jealous when I see that Yasser and Kasim are commenting there (and apparently Kasparov drops in for occasional ad hoc kibitzing), but ICC does a great job and I thoroughly enjoy it.

Anybody explain what this grandslam/grandprix thing is? are they linked to the wc qualifications? coz i vaguely remember that carlsen, karjakin and shirov qualified for..something.

The Grand Slam is the brainchild of Danailov where the winners of Corus, Linares, Sofia and Mexico City will play in a final in Bilbao along with 2 wildcards. It is my understanding that Anand has been awarded one of the wildcards.

The Grandprix is the qualification cycle for the next world championship cycle where defending champion Anand , challenger Kramnik , Topalov and World Cup winner Kamsky are directly seeded and Carlsen , Karjakin and Shirov have qualified.

Mig,

I didn't say you were anti-Carlsen. Not at all. But the comment about "almost Fischerian" makes me believe you are a bit too pro-Fischer. :)

Either one can take the stand that it's meaningless to compare a player with his chess career entirely behind him (like Fischer) with someone that probably has all his greatest achievements ahead of him (like Carlsen). Or one needs to make the comparison based on some relative criterion, like age, for instance.

Carlsen was 17 years 1,5 months when this tournament started, and it's completely unprecedented (even from the hands of all time greatests like Fischer/Kasparov) with a tournament win against this kind of opposition at this kind of age. Unless "Fischerian" is synonym to "god-like" or "super-human", Carlsen's performance wasn't "almost" anything - it was "the best ever", for any meaningful comparison. Hence I thought the "almost Fischerian" was a strange form of "unconditional praise", as you put it.

"If he'd beaten Radjabov too, it would've been a Fischerian achievement."

If I'm not very mistaken, then "if he'd beaten Radjabov" is - what? - yes, exactly a _condition_. :) But just like "Fischer" seems to mean "God" or "super-human", "unconditional" might mean something else than it usually does, too, in Migerian speak. :)

Never mind. I just found the sentence and the perspective a bit strange. It's not like I'm attacking you for being anti-this or anti-that. And it's not like people become "trolls" because they think this or that sentence of yours is a bit strange or unexpected for the occasion, is it?

Mefisto,

Shipov commented on the Kramnik-Carlsen game here: http://online.crestbook.com/wijk08-12.htm

It's in Russian, but if you need to you can probably translate it with Babelfish. Just remember the elephants are bishops ;)

I really don't understand the quarrels over Magnus' achievement. The kid is 17 years old and has consistently shown absolute world class rating performances. Given the difficulties posed by the current ELO system, which does not account fully for "new" players actual skill, although it does attempt to do so, it is very impressive to reach a 2749 (unofficial) rating at barely 17 years of age (17 years, 1 month, 20-odd days), and being within a fraction of a top5 rating. Sorry Bobby, Sorry Garry, you're not getting close. Well, Garry sorta does, just not quite.

He gains an impressive 16.9 unofficial rating points, leapfrogs past Radjabov, and is now BY FAR the best ranked junior player in the world (a full 17 points ahead of Karjakin). Well, Radjabov doesn't count anymore, so guess it's just Carlsen and Karjakin, Karjakin and Carlsen.

I noticed Polgar speculating on December 2010 ratings, actually rather more like posing a question. My predition is Carlsen becoming the youngest ranked #1 in the world, ever. Way before end of 2010. Try 2009. She also ponders who will be the next to cross the 2800 barrier -- tougher question, but with both Anand and Kramnik faltering, I really have difficulties seeing either passing it. The obvious outsiders are Carlsen, Karjakin, Radjabov and Morozevitch. Of those, I honestly only consider Carlsen a serious 2800 candidate -- with Moro as an outsider, and even with him I see him having capped his ability, while Carlsen has several years until he can expect a relative plateau.

That said, let's all hope he manages to keep his act together, stay out of the loonfarm (and I include several current top players in this category -- not exclusive to Fischer by any means), and become everything he can become.

Don't be so paranoid, Historian, and read the whole thread. The troll is in all likelyhood not you :)

I know the C group didn't grab much attention--does anyone know whether Krush scored a norm? She scored 7 pts (perf. 2524), but I haven't seen anywhere saying what was needed for a norm in that group.

I assume she didn't get it, or more people would be talking about it...

Why the Carlsen hysteria? 2749 is really great, but Radjabov has been in the neighborhood for a while (since he was Carlsen's age), and Karjakin did ok at Corus last year.

I don't think Carlsen has done anything to make himself clearly the class of the under 20 set, long term. Certainly his plus 3 at Wijk is the most impressive individual acheivement (unless one thinks Radjabov's equal second at Linares 2006 is a better result, which I don't). Seriously though, Leko has had more convincing tournaments. LEKO.

Let's hold the champagne until he wins something outright, eh?

And, since no one else has said so, kudos to Aronian.

"2749 is really great, but Radjabov has been in the neighborhood ... since he was Carlsen's age"

Really.

October 2005: Radjabov is 18 years and 7 months old, he's rated 2704 - his previous max rating was 2682 from july 2005.

October 2006: Carlsen is 15 years and 10 months old, he's rated 2698 - his previous max rating was 2675 from july 2006.

July 2007: Carlsen is 16 years and 7 months old, he's rated 2710, breaking 2700 2 years before Radjabov did.

February 2007: Radjabov is 19 years and 11 months old, after Corus A 2007 he's rated 2747 unofficially (his highest rating ever - previous max rating was 2729 from january 2007, or less than Carlsen's 2733 at 17 years and 1 month from january 2008) - Radjabov's 2747 becomes official April 1st (as he doesn't play Linares for well-known reasons). After that, Radjabov's rating has gone down.

February 2008: Carlsen is 17 years and 2 months old, after Corus A 2008 he's rated 2750 unofficially (2749,9).

Carlsen reached 2700 two years earlier than Radjabov (or nearly 3 years, if we would say that 2698 ~ 2700). Carlsen reached 2750 being 2 years and 9 months younger than Radjabov at his first co-win at corus, reaching 2747 ~ 2750 for this comparison.

As the numbers above show, Radjabov currently trails Carlsen by roughly 2 to 2,5 years in terms of rating development (and success at Corus A). Unless you think 2700 is in the neighborhood of 2750 (which it isn't IMNSHO), the statement quoted above is simply false.

At 17 years and 2 months Carlsen is 2750.

At 17 years and 1 month Radjabov was 2673, his highest at that age.

I don't get why being true to the facts is so difficult.

Short correction:

At 17 years and 1 month Radjabov was 2670, his highest at that age.

At 18 years and 1 month Radjabov was 2673, his highest at _that_ age. (Already then almost one year older than Carlsen is now. And 75+ points lower rated.)

:)

I thought Kramnik did cross 2800 earlier in this tournament, or are we saying this has to be published?

Regarding the "artificial" mile-stones 2700 and 2800, people usually count in terms of official rating lists of FIDE, since normally that's all that's been available, and because they are just that - official.

But yes, a couple of rounds between he beat Aronian and lost to Topalov, Kramnik was above 2800 again, for the first time in a long time. But not officially. And not after a tournament, just during one, which is another distinction that one might make.

A GM norm is 2601.

"She scored 7 pts (perf. 2524)"

For Historian and other supporters of the Magnus hype machine (I consider Magnus a great player, but I prefer to give everyone their respective credit), an interesting statistical fact:

"In every tournament Karjakin and Carlsen have participated together, Carlsen has never scored higher than Karjakin. In every Corus tournament Karjakin and Carlsen have participated together, Karjakin score has been at least 2 full points ahead of Carlsen!!!"

So, talk about lack of opportunities to develop ... comparisons between Carlsen and other prodigies in the past (like Fischer or Kasparov) and the present have to be measured taking into account this: The opportunities they got when they had Carlsen's age.

Also, Fischer and Kasparov didn't have the computers. It's much easier for a young player to improve fast with the tools available now.

While Carlsen is clearly a great player already and a potential world champion, I'd wait comparing him to Fischer and Kasparov until he actually reaches their best level (if he does).

I sincerely hope that Magnus doesn't waste his time reading this blog and all the unnecessary comments you guys produce out of your careless minds.
He has the power to achieve what he truly deserves and doesn't need any encouragement or judgment from people like us who don't really know much about the game.

"In every tournament Karjakin and Carlsen have participated together, Carlsen has never scored higher than Karjakin. In every Corus tournament Karjakin and Carlsen have participated together, Karjakin score has been at least 2 full points ahead of Carlsen!!!"

thats simply not true. Carlsen won a tournament clearly ahead of Karjakin to get to Amber last year. Im not gonna bother to look up every tournament they have coentered, but your wrong.

"Also, Fischer and Kasparov didn't have the computers. It's much easier for a young player to improve fast with the tools available now.

While Carlsen is clearly a great player already and a potential world champion, I'd wait comparing him to Fischer and Kasparov until he actually reaches their best level (if he does)."

ehh? you contradict yourself.

Sandorchess, your idea about "statistical" and "facts" is ... well, comical.

First, Karjakin is nearly a year older than Carlsen. If you want to compare Corus starts, you should compare them at the same age. To realize what just 12 months can mean in terms of development at this part of their career, you can only compare Carlsen's 2007 Corus result with this year's result. Luckily someone did the mentioned comparison for you already (the conclusion being that Carlsen and Karjakin have done approximately equally well in Corus so far).

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?kid=P52948&reply=20353

"In every Corus tournament Karjakin and Carlsen have participated together, Karjakin score has been at least 2 full points ahead of Carlsen!!!"

Like I said you should compare Corus starts at the same age instead - both have starts at 13, 15, 16 and 17 in similar groups (lowest group at 13, B-group at 15 and, A-group at 16 and 17) - the relative age difference at these starts was 1,5 months. In terms of tprs, Carlsen did clearly better in his start at 13, they were dead equal at 15, Karjakin was clearly better in his start at 16, and Carlsen was clearly better in his start at 17. Those are _statistical facts_.

But most importantly, "every" in your "statistical" deception above actually means ONLY two (2), as compared to the 4 actually comparable starts they have.

The first, in 2005, Carlsen was in the middle of his "worst" period in terms of rating development for his entire career - october 2004 until may 2005 when his rating went from 2581 to 2528, while Karjakin was having an upswing, leaving 2500 for good. The second, in 2007, was Carlsen's worst tournament performance for the latest 2,5 years.

"In every tournament Karjakin and Carlsen have participated together, Carlsen has never scored higher than Karjakin. "

First rule of trying a "statistical" approach, is to have your facts straight. Second rule is presenting them in an objective manner. You are failing both miserably. It leads me to conclude that either you don't have a clue what you are talking about, or you are being deceitful on purpose. Choose your pick.

Objective presentation first: you keep ignoring that 1) Karjakin started playing chess competitively way earlier than Carlsen did - at one point (april 02) there was a 300 point rating gap between them - and 2) you forget that Karjakin is more than 10,5 months older than Carlsen.

And then the facts - "Carlsen has NEVER scored higher than Karjakin". Let's concentrate on classical chess for now:

Youth vs Experience 2006:
Carlsen (2675) 6,5 points (of 10)
Karjakin (2679) 6 points (of 10)

World Chess Cup 2005:
Carlsen (2570) 8/14 points against 2652 average, 10th place of 128
Karjakin (2658) 1/2 points against 2567 average, knocked out in 1st round

World Chess Cup 2004:
Carlsen (2552) 1/2 points against 2645 average (Aronian, in fact)
Karjakin (2580) 0,5/2 points against 2630 average

A word like "never" should be used carefully.

In my opinion, Carlsen and Karjakin have been quite comparable in strength for the last 2,5 years - before that Karjakin was stronger than Carlsen. Due to the fact that Karjakin is older, started playing earlier and so on, it's only natural that Karjakin so far has a lead in "direct encounters", meaning tournaments both participated in at the same time. For the same reasons, Karjakin was getting opportunities and pr for a couple of years before international organizers had started preferring Carlsen (Corus B 2003, Dannemann Masters 2003, Lausanne Young Masters 2004, European Club Cup for a strong team in 2003, Pamplona 2004, Dortmund 2004, Pamplona 2005 for instance). Regarding "opportunities", Karjakin is from a former USSR state, but also a country with rich chess history and traditions in its own right, with successful players like Ivanchuk and Ponomariov. Karjakin had the benefit of working together with Ponomariov from the age of 12, for instance. Karjakin is also part of a strong national team, which secures the best opposition in national team events, and Karjakin has been part of strong East European Club teams dating back to 2003. Carlsen is from "underdeveloped Norway" (in chess terms), a country which got its first grand master in 1985, a country with about 2000 active chess players. Those different backgrounds are slightly relevant in terms of "opportunity", in my not so very humble opinion. Still Carlsen and Karjakin have got to about the same level - Carlsen in less time.

Karjakin was invited to play his first super-GM tournament in july 2004 (Dortmund) when 14,5 years old. Radjabov was invited to play both Corus A and Linares before he turned 16 (january and february 2003). The same year he played in Dortmund, and he played his 2nd Linares before he was 17 years old. Carlsen was invited to play his first super-GM tournament in november 2006 (Tal Memorial) when 16 years old.

The memory of chess fans is short. That's why we need a historian. :)

The link above was wrong, it should be as follows:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/kibitzing?kid=P52948&reply=20353

Thanks mishanp,
Shipov's comments are most revealing.
It's a pitty that he does not comment games in English anymore. I really enjoyed his articles for Kasparovchess.com.
I started playing the hedgehog because of him.
I have also learned a bit of russian so that I could read his book.

Magnus Carlsen is not great,for his unique talent and fantastic achievements only, but as equally for his attitude.
He reminds me of the worlds most successful Alpine skier ever, Kjetil Andre Aamodt of Norway.
Kjetil Andre's' recipe for success might be put down to:

Be as well prepared as you possibly can.
Always run to win
Don't be afraid of loosing
Focus on the task at hand, don't worry about the result.
Always look for improvements
Have fun.

Of course Kjetil Andre didn't always win, but nobody in the history of Alpine skiing has won as many Olympic gold medals and world championships as he.

Short draws is not Magnus's style.
Playing to win is his style
Continuous improvements is his style
Having fun playing chess is his style
Entertaining the audience is definitely his style

Even if Norway does not enjoy a strong chess tradition, Magnus like Kjetil Andre benefits from the support of a skilled, wise and proud father.
Magnus is a world champion contender when he performs at 2800+ over a periode, and demonstrates repeatedly that he can win against anyone. In other words, if he performs in the next tournaments like he did at Corus 2008, then he is there.

We are looking forward to Linares

OK, Magnus supporters ... to my fact of the times Carlsen and Karjakin have participated together, you could only mention counterexamples in which Carlsen and Karjakin didn't have to face to each other or played the same opposition! (like knockout tournaments and the Youth vs Experience match). But in Corus, for example, they played the same opposition in 2005 and 2007 and Karjakin was at least two full points ahead of Carlsen.

Regardless the little details, I think the point is clear on how many opportunities several players have in comparison to others in invitational tournaments (for example, I don't get that Karjakin performed well in Corus, better than Magnus and wasn't invited this year, he hasn't played in Linares or Sofia yet, or the Tal Memorial for example). And of course, you need opportunities to grow as a player.

I don't mention this only because of Karjakin. There are several players in the 2680's or more who have performed well in every opportunity they had in strong tournaments (so you don't hae an excuse in that respect), but still they don't get a chance in the big leagues. Examples: David Navara, Lenier Dominguez and several chinese players (Bu, Wang Yue, for example).

If Carlsen (must we all call him by his first name?) never played another game, I don't think he'd be remembered as "the best player to ever play the game". He'd be remembered as one of its greatest talents, perhaps. But let's keep some perspective.

It's disingenuous, to say the least, to try to deny that Carlsen is living in an age when grandmasters -- no matter which chess-starved country they're living in -- have unprecedented opportunities to improve more quickly than ever. Having the "highest rating ever" at this age or that age only partly reflects the innate ability of any chess player. One of the ways in which chess is indeed a science is that there is something we can call "chess knowledge", and it really is cumulative. That young players can know more, and get it know it more quickly than players brought up in the 1950's seems uncontroversial.

An earlier poster was correct, I think, that the name "Fischer" was really a cipher for "the best chess player you're ever likely to see". But what's wrong with that? Kasparov and Fischer are indeed touchstones for greatness in chess. To say that Carlsen is "better than player X at age Y" isn't very helpful, except if you particularly enjoy numbers -- because the numbers don't mean the "same" thing in each case. Before we speak of Carlsen in the same breath as Fischer or Kasparov, then, he needs -- as someone else has already pointed out -- to do something equivalent to what they did at their best. Tying for first in a tournament where several key players uncharacteristically imploded doesn't quite do it. (Seeing Carlsen hurl himself against Anand reminded me of a child, furiously whirling away with his fists, while the adult simply holds him at arm's length, safely out of reach).

A great tournament, much illuminated by Mig's commentary. I look forward to Mig's book of chosen chess journalism.

Folks, sorry but its a no-brainer that Mikhael Nekhemevic Tal is the greatest Chess talent in history... :-)

...and Mamedyarov and Aronian aren't that old either. Heck, Aronian has won Linares and Corus in the space of a year, and he can't get any press. I don't think quibbling about months-to-2750 rating (as if 2750 now means more than 2700 a couple of years ago...) is relevant.

I'm very impressed by Carlsen's acheivements, we all are; but there is no particular reason to believe that 2750 won't be a career rating peak. A lot of the wunderkinds get their press because they have good results at young ages and then never achieve the same again. Memo to Ponomariov, Karjakin, etc. The kids are getting younger, but that doesn't mean they'll peak higher. It's a bit early to expect Carlsen to win a WC match (or even to get a chance to compete in one). I don't think we have any real reason to believe he's more likely to be the #1 rated player than Anand, Kramnik, Aronian, or Radjabov in 2009.

Congratulations are in order, not coronations.

Oh, really?

heh.. his troubles with you d_korchnoi stemmed from psychological issues :-)

Sandorchess,

you don't impress much with your logic. Carlsen and Karjakin faced the same opposition in youth versus experience, just like they did in Corus B 2005 and Corus A 2007, except their game with eachother. Both their individual encounters were drawn, so what relevance that has on the validity of the comparison with the NH Hotels tournament, is way beyond me.

That you demonstrate a one-sided approach to evaluating the various ways Carlsen and Karjakin have got "opportunities" makes it quite useless to discuss the matter further with you anyway. Yes, by now Carlsen has played more top level tournaments than Karjakin. Yes, there are several reasons for that. No, you wouldn't "approve of" all of those reasons. No, it's not due to some conspiracy or similar.

---

Theorist, nobody says that Carlsen has left an impression on the chess world like Fischer and Kasparov did. However, comparing the achievements of a 17 year old with the total career achievements of Fischer and Kasparov is just stupid. The thing about Carlsen is that he still is in a position where his development can be compared with players like Fischer and Kasparov.

When computers and the accumulative growth of chess knowledge are mentioned, people mostly seem to forget that these advances (while making fast and early adoption of the game possible), make it harder to get a real edge on your competition by working extra hard, like Fischer and Kasparov admittedly did. When I think that nobody in the future will dominate their peers like Fischer and Kasparov did, it will be more due to the advancement of chess, higher number of very strong players, rapid spread and aquisition of (new) chess knowledge than anything else. Believing the reason is that there never will appear equally big chess talents as Fischer/Kasparov is clearly more absurd, when you think about it. They were born 20 years apart - an equally big chess talent is likely to surface within 40-50 years of Kasparov's birth - still, that or those players won't experience the dominance that Fischer and Kasparov did, for reasons mentioned above.

Your analogy for the Carlsen-Anand game was both distasteful and disrespectful, btw. And completely missing the fact that the attack was very dangerous and that Anand was NOT in control (as admitted by himself). Anand didn't find the best defence (taking on b3 and giving up the queen for lots of material), and Carlsen seems to have been winning if he'd played Ng3! instead of Bg2-f3 at one point. Describing what Carlsen did in that game as "child's play" just makes you look funny - not Carlsen.

gmc,

are you saying that 2750 today means the same as 2700 "a couple" of years ago?

If so, please define "a couple". A little tip for you might be to compare what Anand and Kramnik are rated now with what they were rated at the time 2700 "meant the same" as 2750 today. Your idea of "a couple years" must be VERY original.

Regarding Aronian at 23-24: Kasparov became world champion at 22 - that's still theoretically possible for Carlsen (while Aronian turns 26 this year). I don't say that'll happen, I say it's a possibility, and it's one of the reasons he gets press coverage. Kasparov was quoted for saying that "Carlsen IS something special" during Corus this year, and Anand says it's not a question about IF Carlsen becomes world champion, but WHEN.

I myself wouldn't say anything like the thing Anand says (I'm not that optimistic on Carlsen's behalf), but when players like Kasparov and Anand say stuff like that, then Carlsen gets press.

One more question: how much would you be willing to bet (hypothetically) that 2750 will be Carlsen's career peak rating? I'd say that anyone willing to bet more than 100 quid on that, either has too much money, enjoy high odds bets, or haven't got a clue about how to judge the future of chess talents.

Historian,

"The thing about Carlsen is that he still is in a position where his development can be compared with players like Fischer and Kasparov."

Isn't that exactly what people have been arguing against? Surely he's precisely at the age where you *can't* compare achievements, because the concept of "development" in chess means something quite different now to what it did when Fischer and Kasparov were growing up.

"When computers and the accumulative growth of chess knowledge are mentioned, people mostly seem to forget that these advances (while making fast and early adoption of the game possible), make it harder to get a real edge on your competition by working extra hard"

True enough, but (1) perhaps the accelerated learning available today simply makes chess players reach the full potential of their talents quicker than it used to -- hence the increasing youth of the Wunderkinder (someone pointed this out above). (2) We are surely in the middle of a huge generational shift. The speed at which computers have transformed chess -- as with much of our life in general -- is astonishing. I'm guessing that Kramnik and Anand didn't grow up with the enormous computing resources that someone like Karjakin, Radjabov or Carlsen did -- leaving aside the players generations older than Kramnik/Anand. Eventually, your point about the flatness of the chess playing field may turn out to be true, but surely at the moment there is in fact a huge discrepancy in the experiences of these two generations -- only 10, 15 years apart. We might better applaud Kramnik, Anand, et al., for "hanging on" as long as they have in the face of the latest generation of computer-reared chess players!

As for your point about chess talent: I don't think anyone has yet disputed the idea that Carlsen is a phenomenal chess talent -- perhaps indeed the "once in a lifetime" talent that you suggest. It's simply that as gmc put it, the coronation is simply premature right now. If all you've been trying to say is that Carlsen has a lot of talent -- well, no disagreements from anybody, I think.

Finally, you're right: my analogy for the Carlsen-Anand game was a little in poor taste.

Theorist,

I'm mostly comparing Carlsen to young players that have comparable background in terms of computer access and similar, like Karjakin and Radjabov. Both Karjakin and Radjabov had the added benefit of being born in countries with rich chess traditions, active top players and proven methods of chess training. In terms of tournament invitations, at least Radjabov has been given all the opportunities that Carlsen has received, at similar or earlier age.

Karjakin has suffered somewhat for not having had a big enough "window" after Radjabov and before Carlsen, since the organizers' usually only have one "promising youth" spot in their super-GM tournaments. With Karjakin at 2732, I think this won't be a problem anymore for Karjakin - but from october 2006 and until now, he's been hampered somewhat by being older than Carlsen, yet lower rated by a visible margin. He more or less closed that gap during Youth vs Experience and Aerosvit last year, but the dutch tournament wasn't rated until the january list, and alas, he didn't pass 2700 in october 2007 like he could have.

That Carlsen has reached clearly higher ratings than these two players at an earlier age, can however not be explained by favorable invitations to super-GM tournaments. When Carlsen was rated 2698 in october 2006, at 15 years and 10 months, he (unlike Karjakin) had not participated in a single super-tournament yet. Carlsen's candidate match qualification in 2005, and the following match against Aronian in 2007, must also have left an impact on future tournament organizers. The latter qualification and match was NOT due to invitations, by the way, but to Carlsen's previous achievements (where Karjakin and Radjabov also had the chance, and tried and failed).

[I restrict the notion of super-tournament to events like Corus, Linares, Dortmund, MTel and Tal Memorial, of which there are only about 5 these days - even if last year's Aerosvit (where Karjakin came second) was in many ways just as strong as last year's MTel, adjusting for the different formats, of course. One could say that Aerosvit 2007 compared to MTel 2007 about the way that Corus 2007 compared to Morelia/Linares 2007.]

I'm happy that you on second thought agree that the analogy was somewhat in poor taste, btw. :)

It is interesting that Aronian and Carlsen got the same points, but
Carlsen got 10 times the amount of attention. Age is a factor, but by
far the greater factor is attitude (as pointed by me and others many
times). Carlsen played memorable games -- there is no mathematical way
to describe that. Naturally, he'll be the talk of the town. That also
reveals the only solution to the short draw problem -- the short draw
artists simply get less respect. It' all about appreciation. And
audience appreciation should translate into invitations. No rules can
make someone play all the time if s/he does not have the abilities or
balls to play more than half or less of the games. All we can give
back is appreciation to those who enjoy themselves in a situation to
explore the game to the fullest.

In another thread, someone remarked that most patzers have no concept
of higher-chess. That's probably true. But why does that matter at
all? The porky guys who go to the soccer games are likely much less
talented than the players who come out on the pitch... But they are
the ones who buy the tickets, thus play the key role for the
sport. Before the need for any players the sport needs an audience.

D.

"(1) perhaps the accelerated learning available today simply makes chess players reach the full potential of their talents quicker than it used to"

As fascinating as this sounds, is there a science out there supporting this hypothesis, or is it just taken out of thin air? I've heard of "barriers" in for example mathematics, which some promising mathematicians just can't get their heads past. Maybe these barriers are real - I don't know - but it's pretty damn hard to believe that it's possible to plateau in anything at the tender age of 17.

"(2) ... but surely at the moment there is in fact a huge discrepancy in the experiences of these two generations -- only 10, 15 years apart. We might better applaud Kramnik, Anand, et al., for "hanging on" as long as they have in the face of the latest generation of computer-reared chess players!"
Yes and no. I'm pretty sure you don't have to tell neither Anand nor Kramnik how to utilise their computers. They learned that a long time ago, and they learned how to adjust - it was the players who couldn't adjust to the new times who faded from the elite.

"It's simply that as gmc put it, the coronation is simply premature right now"
This is the internet, where everyone's going one higher to be heard. If player A had a bad tourney, he's past it. If player B had a good one, they should just kick that awful player C out of the upcoming Morelia/Linares at once and give his spot to B. It's just hyperbole city, about as easy to draw your eyes away from as a major pile up... Everyone knows Carlsen isn't world champ. And some even know that Anand is.

Has anyone seen the performance of Bu in Gibraltar?

7 1/2 / 8

That has to be over 3000 elo...

It's tough to be a Chinese Gm among billions.

Since you guys all seem to agree that Carlsen has world champion potential it seems the real argument here is whether he is going to be "one in a generation" or worstcase "one of 10 in a generation"

It occured to me that what you guys are discussing here is whether Carlsen is a
5 999 999 990
5 999 999 991
5 999 999 992
5 999 999 993
5 999 999 994
5 999 999 995
5 999 999 996,
5 999 999 997,
5 999 999 998,
5 999 999 999 or
6 000 000 000
on chess talent scale from 0 to 6 billion...

Tricky

How about rooting for Hou Yifan, he is rated 2527 at the age of 13! It would be nice to see world championship match Yifan-Carlsen at year 2020! Yifan is going to be 25 then. Sigh. I just realized how old I am.

In the meanwhile, I just hope Magnus keeps playing chess and doesn't get too tired of it. For me it looks like chess needs Magnus more than Magnus needs chess.

Sandor:

Didn't mean to disparage Carlsen, nor to lessen his achievements, which are substantial. I merely meant to provide a sense of perspective; people thought Peter Leko was the strongest player in the world for fifteen minutes, too. LEKO?!

2700 used to mean top ten, now it means top what...25? Movsesian, the consummate "tourist" is going to break 2700 after his performance... without beating anyone who's anyone. Pretty soon 2800 will be ordinary; all it would take is two more tournaments each for Kramnik, Aronian, and Anand. Mamedyarov was 276x at one point!

So let's wait a bit before crowning anyone the next Kasparov or Karpov. The impressive thing about their careers was their longevity, not their youth.

One reason why a talented player like Carlsen will cross 2800 and continue to climbs is that he plays a lot. Players like Anand, Kramnik, and Topalov play in limited high level tournaments and end up drawing each other and beat the "outsiders" in such tournaments. It's difficult to accumulate Elo with this strategy.

They are not willing to take chances - like Moro and Ivanchuck - to play in lower category tournaments and beat the h*** out of their opposition; without that, their rating won't climb much higher.

Anand has been in the 2750-2800 range for over 10 years now. In 10 years, I tend to think Carlsen is likely to get more rating points.

If not, he'll be another Pono and Leko.

Saguni, you can look at the field of tournament play another way, that playing in lower category tournaments is in fact an easier way to accumulate loads of easy rating points. Granted, Ivanchuck plays in almost every tournament possible, but it is not necessarily because the others are timid. And: Topalov doesn't take chances?!??

Carlsen may certainly cross 2800, but at some point he may slow down. I doubt he will be playing in the Norwegian championships in 5 years (although I hope so!). Besides, he's young. It's conceivable that he may hit a plateau, or even just get bored with chess. Doubtful, but it can happen...

And why are people writing Leko off? He's not quite an old has-been yet.

But many have a good point about ratings inflation.

If there really IS rating inflation, then does anyone care to explain to me WHY the top #1 player (that is Anand) isn't even above 2800? Or why the Kramnik of 2007 is lower rated than the Kramnik of 2001?

I think there is a flattening of the top field rather than rating inflation.

And not only is Hou Yifan 13, he is a SHE!

Concerning Carlsen, I think more important is: does he have a girlfriend? is he still a virgin? etc.
17 is too young to be a workaholic.

"how about rooting for Hou Yifan, he is rated 2527"

its not a dude, dude.

How Life Imitates Chess:

"Was it the great snub beneath the Capitol Dome or a simple turn of the head?
That is the question.
When Senator Edward M. Kennedy extended his hand to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton before last night’s State of the Union Address, his seatmate and newfound protégé, Senator Barack Obama, did not follow suit. He slowly turned his head to engage in conversation with Senator Claire McCaskill."

One wonders if the "Arbiter", in the embodiment of public opinion, will force Obama and Hillary Clinton to acknowledge each other the next time that they are in each other's presence. It was slick--perhaps they were studying the video of the start of the Topalov--Kramnik game

I'm sure people know more about this than me, but re ratings inflation: I think that it affects different rating groups more than others. Those at the very top don't find their rating ceilings go up very much because it is harder for them to get new points. Those around 2700 have an easier time of it.

Does anyone know (ahem: Mig - or anyone with a better memory than me) if when Kasparov went over 2800, was that unprecedented? If so, then we've had a number of people cross the 2800 line since then, suggesting that inflation does affect the elite elite, just at a slower pace.

There is a misconception about rating inflation.
The elo rating is calibrated against the 'average club player', around 1750. If we assume that the average club player is as strong as e.g. 20 years ago, then the 'rating inflation' means that the difference in strength between a club player and a professional has increased.
This is not so strange, there is much more chess information now. Studying does make the difference.
You can see this too in open tournaments. Even weak GM's and IM's are scoring heavily against club players. 20 years ago, it happened often that a club player could surprise a professional with an opening novelty.
Rating inflation just means that the top players are getting better.

> its not a dude, dude.

Well, I didn't want to emphasize her gender, but I guess I end up doing just that!

Judging by what I saw in Gausdal, I don't think x y need worry. Carlsen seems to be something of a babe magnet and I had the impression he didn't mind a bit.

Which is as it should be for a young chess star, of course.

On rating inflation:

I'm NOT any sort of expert on statistics, so take my observation with a HUGE grain of salt. My personal opinion is that ratings may not be inflated at all. They just reflect the increased quality of play at the top.

Was Kasparov's peak JUSTIFIABLY higher than Fischer's peak? Or was the difference - in Kasparov's favor - a direct result of "inflation"?

My theory is that Kasparov was objectively that much stronger than Fischer and faced objectively stronger opposition than Fischer ever faced, thus his higher rating was justified.

Another sign that ratings might not be inflated is the fact that it doesn't seem likely that anyone of the current crop of elite players seems poised to break Kasparocv's rating record any time soon. I find that Kramnik, Topalov and Anand hovering around 2780-2800 is perfectly fine. They are that strong.

Kasparov was (objectively speaking) probably 200-300 points stronger than Morphy and 150 points stronger than Capa and 100+ points stronger than Spasski.

Fischer's handling of the King's Indian would not pose many problems to today's players. That explains why a guy like Topalov, Kramnik or Anand should not be rated lower than Fischer. They are all stronger than Fischer ever was. More talented? Who knows, perhaps not... Stronger? yes.

The state of knowledge (and ease of accumulating and studying it) has advanced dramatically over the past 30 years. Any comparison between the Fischer of 1972 and Kasparov at his peak is meaningless, let alone bringing in Morphy or Capa.

Try comparing the ability to combat disease of leading medical researchers from 40 years ago to those of today. Or the knowledge of the leading theoretical physicists of today versus that of Einstein.

Any comparison of how Fischer WOULD play, if the same age but exposed to the same information and tools (and benefits from using a team of seconds) and opportunities that Kasparov, Kramnik, and Anand enjoy today . . . is entirely hypothetical. Although chessmetrics.com does have interesting comparisons of adjusted peak ratings:
http://db.chessmetrics.com/CM2/PeakList.asp?Params=

Valid? Who knows. But probably just as valid as the hypothesizing of any of us.

Yeah, comparisons are bogus, but they're so much fun! I remember wasting a lot of time on Kirk vs. Picard, but ultimately Fischer v. Kasparov may face a similar resolution: a matter of taste.

Yes, there is more knowledge out there. More positions are known, etc. but this kind of inflation (or "progress," or whatever you want to call it) is part of all or most sports today. Football players tend to be better now because the science of training, of diet, etc. is so much more precise and specialized to the particular kinds of competition. People are more aware now that chess is not just a thinking game, but a physical one.

etc.

thx god i'm not in need of a chess career !
why? to learn something by rote is simply impossible to me!

^^ nice fun, nice guys here around - not too much of a reality show - but - keep it on rolling...

greetz and kizz

Just for the record on Jeff Sonas's calculations the player in history with the highest recorded average rating for a single years chess play is ......Bobby Fischer at 2881 from Jan 1972 - Dec 1972. He also, on the same calculations, has the highest ever recorded single rating of 2895 (oct 1971). The player with the best ever individual performance is Karpov for his 1994 11/13 Linares victory (2899)just pipping Fischer's 1971 6-0 over Larsen (2895)

Under Sonas's calculations for age, the highest rated 17 year old was Gary Kasparov at 2759. Of course these are adjusted rating figures and Magnus Carlsen is not (yet?) included. All the same interesting. Magnus Carlsen has about 4 years to go if he is to become the youngest ever world chess champion - that will be tough with so many top players of similer strength around

"Fischer's 1971 6-0 over Larsen (2895)"

Out of interest, how do you assign a rating to an event where you whitewash the opposition?

Since we are talking about ratings, the one I find the most amazing is Fischer's late 1972, early 1973 FIDE rating of 2780 putting him at the top of the list. In second place...Boris Spassky, no big surprise, BUT with a rating of 2690. 90 points difference people! That's domination! Figure in inflation and that gap between Fischer and the rest of the world's best at that time, and who knows what Fischer's real strength, rating wise, was?

Since we're all indulging in our favourite Chess fantasies, I'll add mine. Imagine Tal had been born with healthy kidneys and a better constitution!

... and in a world without alcohol

'Players like Anand, Kramnik, and Topalov play in limited high level tournaments and end up drawing each other and beat the "outsiders" in such tournaments.'

Aren't these three much less willing to draw each other than the lesser stars?

'If not, [Carlsen will] be another Pono and Leko.'

Becoming another Leko is highly likely, much more likely than becoming a World Champion. How many players in current top 100 who have never been predicted to become WCC? Zero, I'm quite sure. By the way, who's Pono? Just kidding, but there's nothing to become, Carlsen's record is way more impressive than Pono's.

Actually Pono's record is way more impressive than Carlsen's so far. By and large at the age of 17 both had only one extraordinary result: Pono has won World Championship and Calrsen finished shared first in Wijk. While Wijk is important, it definitely pales in comparison with World Championship, even the FIDE one. Both also had a bunch of very good results, e.g. Carlsen win in Biel and Pono propelling Ukraine to the win in the World Team Championship in 2001, but these offset each other.

I completely understand and share all the excitement about Carlsen, but let's keep things in perspective.

Let's not get crazy. FIDE KO was not unimportant, but it was more than anything else a lottery. Even a 17 year old Pono could win it. Wijk 2008 is the toughest single round robin even in recent memory, with a lot of the top 10 being there. There is no question in my mind that winning Wijk 2008 is a greater accomplishment than Winning a FIDE KO.

Also, let's not rewrite history more than necessary. Ponomariov was 18 when he won the WC, not 17.

Still, a great achievement, and it's not _that_ much of a lottery when you beat Svidler over four games and then Ivanchuk over eight games.

"There is no question in my mind that winning Wijk 2008 is a greater accomplishment than Winning a FIDE KO."
Emphasis on the "..in my mind..". Therein lies the nub :-)

Well, it does seem obvious. One can simply compare Kasimdhzanov's performances in Wijk to his results in FIDE KO. In any case, like zakki pointed out, Pono's victory isn't really relevant because he was older than Carlsen is now.

Comparing Ponomariov at the FIDE WCC and Carlsen at Corus:

Ponomariov (18 yrs, 3 months) at 2002 FIDE WCC in the final three matches (4-4-7) comprising 15 games:
--beat Bareev (2), Svidler (1), and Ivanchuk (2), --ten draws

Carlsen (17 yrs, 2 months) at Corus 2008 in 13 rounds:
--beat Kramnik, Mamedyarov, Polgar, Van Wely, Eljanov
--eight draws

But time control is a big problem when you try to compare the two results:
--FIDE WCC: semi-rapid (90min+30sec/move) versus
--Corus: classical (40/2, 20/1, 30-game)

"Well, it does seem obvious. One can simply compare Kasimdhzanov's performances in Wijk to his results in FIDE KO."

Well if we adopt this line of thought let's just compare Kramnik's performances in WC matches and recent Wijk. What does it tell us? I guess that WC matches are not that great, certainly winning Wijk should count for more. Should I really explain how ridiculous this conclusion is?

Thanks osbender. I frequently lose patience and just give up explaining these basic points. The bottom line is, many folks here just post opinions as fact, or start off by posting opinions, which they then try to bully people into accepting as fact.

"Well if we adopt this line of thought let's just compare Kramnik's performances in WC matches and recent Wijk. What does it tell us? I guess that WC matches are not that great, certainly winning Wijk should count for more. Should I really explain how ridiculous this conclusion is? " - Well it is not good reasoning indeed. When I mentioned Kasimdzhanov, I was talking about the formats. KOs are random - that can be seen from other Kasimdzhanov's performances combined - the guy was clearly never the best in the world.

But even if we did take Kramnik's performance in this year's wijk, it was still considerably better than Kasimdzhanov's. Kasim went -4 in 2002, one year when Kasparov, Kramnik and Anand all skipped the tournament. Kramnik went 50% this year, which is probably one of the strongest, if not the strongest, Wijk's ever. Wijk is still somewhat random, but we would be better off telling the chess world hierarchy based on Wijk results than on FIDE KO. So even with Kramnik scoring less than expected, it can be argued we are closer to finding out the real hierarchy of the chess elite in the event like Wijk. At least Eljanov and van Wely didn't win and were not even close to winning. That is simply because Wijk is less random, which is what this all was about.

do a comparison, and in the comparison use the bits that promote one point of view, filter out the bits that go against it, use completely mangled logic in the process, use it as conclusive proof of your argument. Welcome to the Russianbear system of reasoning.

1998-2004

FIDE mini-match knockout champions v.
Classical champions:

Who had the better results at Hoogovens/Corus?

--Classical world champions at Hoogovens/Corus:
Kasparov-- 1st(99), 1st(00), 1st(01)
Kramnik--- 1st(98), 3d(99), 2d(00), 3d(01), 4th(03), 6th(04), 4th(05), 4th(07), 7th(08)

--FIDE mini-match knockout champions at Hoogovens/Corus:
Anand----- 1st(98), 2d(99), 2d(00), 2d(01), 1st(03), 1st(04), 2d(05), 1st(06), 5th(07), 3d(08)
Karpov---- 6th(98), 11th(03)
Kasimjanov 11th(99), 13th(02)
Khalifman- 5th(02),
Ponomariov 11th(03), 9th(05), 9th(07)

d_tal, if that little personal attack is all you can contribute, can you really be surprised your "arguments" receive the intellectual spanking that they do?

"Wijk is still somewhat random, but we would be better off telling the chess world hierarchy based on Wijk results than on FIDE KO"

One simply cannot tell the chess World hierarchy based on Wijk because Wijk is a closed invitational event, hence some people important for the said hierarchy couldn't take part through no fault of their own ( they simply weren't invited).

While I do agree that FIDE KO's are somewhat random, they were still World Championships, open to anyone who could make a reasonable claim to be the best player. The winner was getting a title which was clearly the second most important and coveted one in chess (after the classical crown). Money-wise it's also no-contest in favor of FIDE KO.

In other words winning the KO had lasting implications in your chess career, while winning a super-tournament has nothing of the sort. To see this look what has happened to Bologan: winning Dortmund didn't even get him any super-tournament invites. At the same time FIDE KO gave Pono a chance at lucrative matches against Kaspy and comp (which he blew, but that's another story) many invites to Kasim (including Wijk and Sen Luis).

Therefore, it's pretty clear which event most players would prefer to win given the choice, hence FIDE KO is by far more important than any single super-tournament.

d_tal, if that little personal attack is all you can contribute, can you really be surprised your "arguments" receive the intellectual spanking that they do?

You wish buddy, but there is little "intellectual" content in your arguments. You are a master though, at tiring out any intellectucal opposition to your views.

os--

Depends on what you mean by "important."

Russianbear evidently believes an event's "importance" relates to its capacity for giving its participants a fair chance to prove their chess superiority. His order of importance might be a 24-game match, a 12-game match, Dortmund 2002, Linares, Corus, and somewhere way down the list,the FIDE mini-match knockout.

By your measure, a $100 million two-game mini-match knockout, bullet time-control WCC, winner getting life-time invitations to all the major tournaments, would be the most important event of all, even though you could probably hold such an event a dozen times in a row and get a dozen different winners.

greg koster, don't bother.

d_tal, please post when you have something to say about the topic in hand, not when you feel like making a personal attacks against others posters who do try to discuss the topic. Personal attacks do not contribute anything to the discussion.

osbender, I believe we were talking about whether Wijk or FIDE KO was a greater chess accomplishment. But in your latest post you seem to steer away from the topic of the chess worth of the respective victories towards things that aren't actually irrelevant like money.

What most people would prefer to win is also rather irrelevant. Most chess would prefer to win a million euro lottery to winning a FIDE KO, but that doesn't make a lottery a greater chess accomplishment than a FIDE KO.

Whether the "KO had lasting implications in your chess career, while winning a super-tournament has nothing of the sort" is very debatable. Since KO is so luck based, a lot of times the winner is so random that it doesn't really matter what happens to the guy. Now that Carlsen won Wijk, he established himself as an elite player capable of winning supertournaments and a potential world championship candidate. When some random people won FIDE KOs, it meant nothing in the big picture. Yes, they may have gotten some invitations, but did the invitations really make their victories into greater accomplishments? I don't think so. They were still basically lottery winners whose victories didn't prove their superiority to a meaningful degree.

You mention Bologan's Dortmund, but Dortmund 2003 is not that relevant when comparing Wijk 2007 with the KO Pono won. Yes, even a supertournament win can produce a lucky winner. Dortmund, with smaller number of rounds and a local weakie is perhaps more prone to producing random winners. Sometimes Dortmund is a 7 round RR, which makes it much more random than Wijk. And in the year Bologan won, the event was only 10 rounds (DRR) and a local weakie was Bologan's opponent in 2 of those rounds. 2 out of 10 gives much greater chance for a random result, compared, say, to Eljanov's single game in 13 rounds against the local weakie (van Wely) in Wijk 2008. So I don't think all tournaments are created equal and I don't think it is fair to use the relatively greater randomness of many recent Dortmunds to knock this year supertough Wijk.

In te end, to win a tournament like Wijk 2008, you have to be a great player. Not all Wijks were as tough as this year's tournament, but every time someone wins Wijk (I am talking about recent Wijks where most of the tops players participated), it either propels this person to the elite level or confirms their elite status. And everytime someone wins a FIDE KO, it tells us very little about the player, except that that person got lucky that particular time. Now in some KOs a strong person got lucky and won (Anand), in others - a weak(er) player got lucky and won (Kasim, Pono, Khalifman), but in all cases the victory of whoever it was was more about person's luck than about his chess prowess. That is why I think a victory in Wijk 2008 is a bigger deal than winning a KO. Pono won his KO because he was lucky. Calrsen and Aronian won Wijk 2008 because they were good. That is why I think Wijk 2008 victory should be considered a greater accomplishment than Pono's FIDE "title".

greg koster, never mind me. I thought you were addressing d_tal.

"osbender, I believe we were talking about whether Wijk or FIDE KO was a greater chess accomplishment. But in your latest post you seem to steer away from the topic of the chess worth of the respective victories towards things that aren't actually irrelevant like money."

So what exactly is "chess accomplishment" in your understanding? Things like money and event status are relevant because they determine the motivation of opposition. To win event like FIDE KO means beating opponents each of which wants to win it more than anything in their life (except perhaps a classical championship). This year Corus, on the other hand, while indeed very strong, featured players for whom Wijk is just another event ( except, perhaps, Eljanov). I'm sure the only thing Kramnik really cares about this year is to win the WC match. Ditto for Anand.

Now let's compare the quality of the opposition. Pono defeated on the road to the title: Li Wenliang, S. Tiviakov, Ki. Georgiev, A.Morozevich, E. Bareev, P. Svidler, and V. Ivanchuk. Whom did Carlsen beat in Wijk? - Kramnik, Mamedjarov, van Wely, Polgar,Eljanov. I'd say Pono's list is more impressive overall.

"Pono won his KO because he was lucky." That is the most absurd thing that I've heard in a while. It's not like Pono won the event because all the stronger players eliminated each other and Pono feasted on cupcakes. You don't beat Ivanchuk in an 8 game match by being "lucky". If Pono was lucky, what about Carlsen's win over van Wely?

rb--no problem. I respond to the 15-year-olds only when then they put forth an actual argument, which is (approximately) never.

os--If memory serves, the 90minutes+30secs/move time control transformed several endings in the Ivanchuk-Pono match into "silly time." The faster the time-control, the greater the role of luck.

Greg,

It's good that you mentioned time control. Perhaps, FIDE time control is shorter overall (depends on the number of moves in the game), but at least it has increment. However, because of ridiculous time control employed in Wijk (no increment, final addition on the move 60) Aronian lost an endgame to Kramnik, which he was drawing pretty confidently. That's what ultimately allowed Carlsen to share 1st place instead of settling for the 2nd.

In fact, in Wijk we saw a bunch of games botched in time trouble (including the critical Kramnik-Aronian and van Wely - Carlsen). So it's far from clear which time control had a bigger "luck" factor and it's a totally new can of worms.

Russianbear, I get turned off by your general bullying, hectoring, opinionated tone, and sometimes feel compelled to point this out. However this is what I have to say..

Dismissing FIDE tournament victories as a metric for establishing Chess excellence is perfectly fine, so long as you acknowledge this as your personal opinion, which you did in the beginning ("in my mind"). Then when I pointed out that this is indeed subjective, you descended to a series of rants which were bizzare from the point of view of establishing logical arguments.

I quote: "FIDE KO was not unimportant, but it was more than anything else a lottery. Even a 17 year old Pono could win it."

How patronising, insulting and downright fictitious is this? Lottery, why? Time control? Knock-out format? Number of games? How have you quntified the effects of these? Just to take one point, TC, dont forget the true Classical format entailed adjournments. Abandoning the adjournments without changing the format elsewhere makes this a lottery more than anything else, and as OSBender points out led to the mockery of Carlsen's win against Van Wely.

Again I quote: "Wijk 2008 is the toughest single round robin even in recent memory, with a lot of the top 10 being there."

Toughest, why? Presence of Top 10? Do you know the difference in participation with Fide knockouts? What methodology have you used for comparison?

Subjective opinions should be acknowledged as such, and posters should be free to point this out without you trying to intimidate them. Feel free to have the last word old son, btw.

"So what exactly is "chess accomplishment" in your
understanding?" - I thought it was obvious. A greater chess accomplishment would be the one that shows greater chess skill.

"Things like money and event status are relevant
because they determine the motivation of opposition. To win event like FIDE KO means beating opponents each of which wants to win it more than anything in their life (except perhaps a classical championship). This year Corus, on the other hand, while indeed very
strong, featured players for whom Wijk is just another event ( except, perhaps, Eljanov). I'm sure the only thing Kramnik really cares about this year is to win the WC match. Ditto for Anand. " - those guys are professionals. They play tough no matter what the event, that is why they are almost 2800. So I don't accept the point that Calrsen opposition was somehow unmotivated or less motivated. Also, at least Carlsen PLAYED Kramnik and Anand and Topalov. Wijk had pretty much all of the very top players and Carlsen had to play them all. The top 2 players (Kasparov and Kramnik) didn't even play in the KO that Pono won. And
other top players like Anand got eliminated by people other than Pono - again, due to luck nature of the KO. So Carlsen played pretty much all the notabbles in the chess world, while Pono got a very small cross section.

"Now let's compare the quality of the opposition. Pono defeated on the road to the title: Li Wenliang, S. Tiviakov, Ki. Georgiev, A.Morozevich, E. Bareev, P. Svidler, and V. Ivanchuk. Whom did Carlsen beat in Wijk? - Kramnik, Mamedjarov, van Wely, Polgar,Eljanov. I'd say Pono's list is more impressive overall. " - I would argue that Carlsen's list is more impressive. See what I wrote above. But still, one also has to remember that Pono didn't really beat some of these. He only beat Bareev and Tiviakov in rapids and even
though he beat Moro once in standard time control, he also lost once, so he advanced past Moro because of rapids. I don't find Pono's superiority in rapids particularly impressive compared to Carlsen's victories in standard time control.

"That is the most absurd thing that I've heard in a while. It's not like Pono won the event because all the stronger players eliminated each other and Pono feasted on cupcakes. You don't beat Ivanchuk in an 8 game match by being "lucky". If Pono was lucky, what about Carlsen's win over van Wely?" - Carlsen had his share of luck too, no doubt. But it seems he needed less of it. Pono's victory over Ivanchuk isn't as big of a deal as it could have been if one considers the format. Yes , it was 8 games, but it was at the end of a long event. Gee, I wonder who such a format would favor - the veteran or the 18 year old kid? No wonder Pono had beaten Ivanchuk. Let's see him beat fresh Ivanchuk in an 8 game match - I wouldn't hold my breath for that to happen. So yes, Pono did get lucky and he got lucky he got an older guy like Ivanchuk in the final, as Ivanchuk was more likely to be tired by than compared to someone younger.

"Russianbear, I get turned off by your general bullying, hectoring, opinionated tone, and sometimes feel compelled to point this out. However this is what I have to say.

Dismissing FIDE tournament victories as a metric for establishing Chess excellence is perfectly fine, so long as you acknowledge this as your personal opinion, which you did in the beginning ("in my mind"). Then when I pointed out that this is indeed subjective, you descended to a series of rants which were bizzare from the point of view of establishing logical arguments." - It seems you had some sort of problem with me even before I posted anything even remotely resembling a rant.

"How patronising, insulting and downright fictitious is this? Lottery, why? Time control? Knock-out format? Number of games? How have you quntified the effects of these? Just to take one point, TC, dont forget the true Classical format entailed adjournments. Abandoning the adjournments without changing the format elsewhere makes this a lottery more than anything else, and as OSBender points out led to the mockery of Carlsen's win against Van Wely." - adjournments have nothing to do with anything. There were no adjournments in the FIDE KO that Pono won, either.

As for the format of FIDE KO, it has been criticized to death already, including by me in these comments and I don't feel like repeating the obvious. If you really want to argue that FIDE KOs are not more random than most of the other formats, be my guest.

"Again I quote: "Wijk 2008 is the toughest single round robin even in recent memory, with a lot of the top 10 being there."

Toughest, why? Presence of Top 10? Do you know the difference in participation with Fide knockouts? What methodology have you used for comparison?

Subjective opinions should be acknowledged as such, and posters should be free to point this out without you trying to intimidate them. Feel free to have the last word old son, btw." - How do I intimidate them? And what single round robin tournament in recent memory can you think of that is tougher?

I find it bizarre that you pick these little things like me calling Wijk 2008 the toughest single round robin even in recent memory subjective. Well, duh. "Recent memory" - what do you think that refers to? Some objective recent memory that is out there? So yes, some things I write are subjective, but then again, I sign my messages "Russianbear", not "Absolute truth". So your little rant on subjectivity is useless and irrelevant. But even if we get to the heart of the matter and examine my very subjective claim on this year's Wijk being tough - we will find out I was right even if we do take some relevant objective measure. The tournament had quite a few of the top 10 and except for the last year's corus B winner and a mandatory local weakie, the other people were close to top 10. So no matter if we take the average rating or something similar to the category system suggested by Sonas in one of his articles, this tournament would be up there not just for the single round robin tournaments in the recent years, but it would perhaps be up there with some historic tournaments. So my point may be subjective but it doesn't mean I am not right. It is my subjective opinion that two times two is four. But guess what, even though it is just a subjective opinion, it is also an objectively correct one.

Russianbear, it would be a lot easier to read your posts if you made some space between the quotes and your replies.