The Morelia half of the 2008 Linares tournament has come to an end with a draw percentage under 50%. Three more decisive games in round seven tipped the balance. The immovable objects Kramnik and Svidler aren't there, which has something to do with it no doubt. But a similar field produced a similarly low 53% draw rate in 2006 and then a similar field produced a 68% level in 2007, about average for a supertournament these days. And you can't blame it all on Svidler's +1 -1 =12 as Aronian had the identical line. (Svidler had seven decisive games in 2006.) These things happen. We could see 66% draws in the Linares half, although that seems unlikely considering the uneven quality of play so far. Still, lots of exciting stuff.
The conventional wisdom is that the young players increase the combativeness level, but statistics show that Carlsen and Radjabov play almost as many sub-25-move draws with white as veterans Anand and Ivanchuk. The openings are certainly one real factor. The Sicilian is back, baby, and even if some of the modern lines with mutual kingside castling aren't exactly cutthroat, it's a heck of a lot sharper than just about any Petroff. Six of the 11 games beginning 1.e4 c5 have been decisive in Linares so far, with three wins for white and three for black. That's not bad, but in the seven 1..e5 games all but two were decisive! (3-2 in white's favor.) Topalov, speaking to the ICC's Macauley Peterson today in Morelia, suggested that the low draw percentage could be a result of the Sofia rules. They aren't in effect in Linares of course, but his thought is that the MTel event's ban on short draws is spilling over into the culture. I would like to believe that, but I don't. Plus, other than Topalov, of the 2008 Linares players only Anand has played in Sofia, in 2005 and 2006.
On the air with GM Benjamin I anointed round 7 the 1985 flashback round thanks to the openings. (And I even played clips from Madonna's "Like a Virgin" and, god help me, Wham's "Wake Me Up Before You Go Go," the two biggest hits from that year.) Anand and Ivanchuk -- who played their first game against each other in the U20 Ch in 1985 -- played the Scheveningen line Kasparov used against Karpov to take the world crown in that year. They both know it well and it showed. Ivanchuk defended accurately to earn the only draw of the round.
That left Vishy in clear first when Aronian's creativity got away from him against Carlsen. The Armenian first sacrificed a pawn and then played a sham queen sac that led to the loss of a piece and the game. The sober 19..c6 was what we expected. Carlsen finished accurately to move back up to an even score. Another bad game. Leko seemed unambitious against Topalov and might have been happy with a short draw after his marathon defense against Aronian in round six. But Topalov sniffed out a hint of a plus and he's not the type to smell smoke without going on a quest for fire. Leko got into time trouble and then made the suicidal decision to take two rooks against queen when 34.Rxd1 was only slightly worse for White. Hard to imagine The Rock getting rolled so easily, but a steady and typically energetic effort from Topalov. The loss sent Leko into the cellar on -2.
Shirov-Radjabov continued the "I Love the 80's" theme with a classical King's Indian. Radjabov has returned the KID to the deadly weapon status it enjoyed in Kasparov's hands back in the day. It's interesting that few other elite GMs have followed his lead, however. It takes balls and a huge amount of work to play the King's Indian and the trend is away from deep, concrete analysis as Kasparov pointed out in his last New In Chess article. Today's game was as much a flashback to the 1950's and the games of KID pioneers Taimanov and Najdorf. Radjabov seemed to be surprised by Shirov's use of 13.Nd3 instead of the more common Rc1 or a4. Black spent a long time before playing ..h5 and then deciding on a plan to sacrifice a kingside pawn. It wasn't clear how White was going to make progress but Shirov showed the way with the daring (but probably necessary) plan of 28.g4 and marching his pawns forward. A very nice win by Shirov, who joins Topalov in =2-3 at the half, a half-point behind Anand. Radjabov and Ivanchuk are on -1.
Round 8 is in Linares on Feb. 28, Thursday. The rounds start at 9:30am EST. (That's what it still says on the official website. One of the organizers en route back to Spain just told Macauley that the Linares rounds will be starting at 1600 local time, or 10am EST. That would be the latest round time for any major event I can remember. I'm sure we'll be able to confirm in plenty of time.)
Radja and Carlsen played a lot of blitz on ICC (not against each other) after the last round in Morelia.
Carlsen vs. Naka, 3-minute, is something to see! Wow.
Who came out on top?
Is there a prediction thread on how many times Shirov can play g4?
Mig wrote:
"The immovable objects Kramnik and Svidler aren't there, which has something to do with it no doubt."
I personally like Kramnik's style a lot, but the truth is that guys like him, Svidler & Leko can really bring a tournament down to its knees with their safety-first attitude.
Kramnik can be excused a bit because he can really play beautiful positional chess, even though he is closer to Botvinnik than he is to Karpov.
Svidler's chess is despicable and should be banned from top-level action.
Chess needs more blunders and less truth. That's where the excitement and ultimate salvation for the game lies. The great games that every amateur remembers were only possible because somebody blundered horribly. Morphy's games are perfect examples.
Unfortunately, the average chessplayer is an obsessive-compulsive retardo who fancies himself an intellectual and will pretend the game is science, sport or art. It's entertainment, stupid; just like poker and dominoes; just like backgammon and bridge. More sudoku than Physics; more ConnectFour than Picasso; more checkers than Basketball.
Get it?
So, let the blunders begin!
Let Krasenkow blunder again against Nakamura!
Shorten the damned time controls.
I don't want accuracy. I want excitement.
I don't need f***ing accuracy. There is no benefit in a perfectly played games, even if that were possible. If I ever want truth and accuracy, I'll let Rybka play against itself 200 times in a row while I watch my favorite porn videos. Far more pleasant than waiting 3 days for a drawing combination from Svidler.
The human "touch" (often referred to as "blunderful chess") is urgently needed. We need Shirov-Morozevich, not Svidler-Leko.
How's that for a Sunday morning's rant, boys?
:-)
That was pretty good, Irv.
10 best sports rivalries
guess who is on number 7
http://www.mensvogue.com/health/slideshows/2008/01/rivalries?slide=4
Irv,
You sound like you've bought into Obama's campaign slogan of "Change." Obviously you haven't seen the new Rambo flick..."Nothing ever changes." So take a deep breath, calm down, stay away from the porno and enjoy chess life. It's too short as it is.
Oh, don't get me wrong, ChessTraveler, I enjoy chess very much: I'm a rated master with a real profession, so i have always played for the fun of it.
My point is that all this obsession with the best move and all the nonsense leads to boring chess.
That's all.
I'm with you irv! in everything except shorter time controls, i prefer to see them fighting for hours :)
haha cool!
Wake me up before you go go, big hit in 1984, not 1985. :-) "Back to chess."
as someone thats semi new to chess i was wondering if someone could explain this notation "Svidler's +1 -1 =12 "
Hi Tyler,
It means 1 win, 1 loss and 12 draws.
Irv,
All you chess adrenalin junkies, always looking for a high. =8-)
By the way, don't get me wrong about Obama either. Anyone--especially a Democrat--who realizes that NAFTA =8-( is flawed, can't be all bad.
Mig, you're the best writer in chess but there's something you've got to know...it's 70s,80s, 90s etc. They're usually plurals not possessives. So in most cases no apostrophe. Somebody should tell Bill Hook too. OK, that's off my chest.
Thanks for all your witty and insightful coments.
Apostrophe(,) smostrope(,) we got Mig's message. Thanks boz(,) I'm glad I got that off my chest.
boz, apostrophes have lots o' uses in English besides indicating possessives, e.g., contraction, omission, plurals of letters ("This sentence has no f's"), plurals of words ("Be careful of making up you own grand pronouncements of grammatical do's and don't's"), quantity ("two weeks' notice"), and, until recent years, plurals of dates (1980's) and abbreviations (SOB's). And they are still standard for dates and abbreviations in the US (And starting sentences with "and's" and "but's" is very common these days too...)
First, thanks for the kind words.
It depends on which style guide you are following. I'm not partial to the "most cases" style guide. Numerical (and letter) plurals often use apostrophes. ("He got all A's after scoring perfect 100's on his exams.") I find the apostrophe with years more readable. That said, it's not one I pay particular attention to and you'll probably find examples hereabouts without the apostrophe as well. My grammar standards are far from optimal in this blog, especially if I'm posting late. Sad, since I'm something of a grammar pedant in my spare time, but hard to avoid.
Apostrophes generally indicate omissions. And that is all I dare to say.
Bob asked who came out on top between Carlsen and Naka in ICC blitz after the last round in Morelia.
That night, Carlsen was +3 after 10 games.
Other series I've seen, Naka wins when there is no increment, but Carlsen seems to have the upper-hand with an increment. IMO.
Carlsen plays under the username Nielsen. I used to think that Nielsen is Nielsen, but now know that it's Carlsen, because he's one of the few people on the planet who can give Naka a run for his money in online blitz!
FYI...I was told yesterday by Paco Albalate that the games in Linares will start at 16:00 CET (10:00 EST), a half hour later than usual, because the games will be held in a local theatre a short walk from the players' (plural possessive ;)) hotel.
I shared a car ride to Mexico City with the Leko's and even Peter didn't know this.
Macauley, it's Lekos :)
hey, Macauley, congrats for those great videos! they really show us chess fans something about the players, great job man
"Bob asked who came out on top between Carlsen and Naka in ICC blitz after the last round in Morelia.
That night, Carlsen was +3 after 10 games.
Other series I've seen, Naka wins when there is no increment, but Carlsen seems to have the upper-hand with an increment. IMO."
very interesting. didnt know carlsen was such strong blitz player.
Aronian's Bxf3 was not a mistake. His Kh8 was a mistake, instead Kh7 is advantage for black.
"Other series I've seen, Naka wins when there is no increment, but Carlsen seems to have the upper-hand with an increment. IMO."
Nakamura holds currently the all time blitz rating record (3403) at playchess. He achieved it by playing 3+0 games (Nicely done, but it is closer to bullet than blitz IMO).
The proper form is '70s, '80s, '90s, with ' indicating the omitted "19". But who really cares where the apostrophe goes, so long as i'ts there.
But what is the difference between apostrophe and soliloquy?
Beautiful how people still seem to care so much about punctuation. Makes me quite emotional.
Mig is right: 80s or 80's or '80s is a matter of which style guide you are following.
Bob--if punctuation is your thing, read this from the Feb. 15 NY Times:
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/podcast-punctuated-pause-with-a-semicolon/?scp=1-b&sq=semi-colon&st=nyt
You call Carlsen-Aronian "another bad game" while Anand considered it "a heck of a game". Hmmm, who should I trust....
With your additional comment about the Armenian sacrificing a pawn (when leaving the f7 pawn ?), I'm not sure it is the same game though :-)
Henrik, I checked Magnus' blog today-- any chance of an update? I'm curious if Carlsen's d-pawn sacrifice was preparation, and also what he intended in response to 19...c6.
Henrik,
I am really interested in Anand's comment that it was a great game. To me, I don't understand it, because Aronian was seemingly lost with virtually forced moves after making one mistake on move 18/19 (Kf1,Qd4 is nice, but... anyone would play it) and it seems like on another day Aronian would have avoided this. Was there that much behind the scenes or later in the game? Is it really ok for someone of Aronian's level to play ...B:f3 and Kh8. I am just asking because I have zero insight into the level of chess that these players are at.
"I am really interested in Anand's comment that it was a great game."
Wasn't the quote "one heck of a game"? I took this to mean that it was an exciting game with lots of complications - anyone turning off their computer would have a hard time working it all out - in other words "a great fighting game" and not necessarily a "great game" by objective measures.
I really-really wonder what happened to Aronian. ...Kh7 instead of ...Kh8 was really good for black...When he played ...Bxf3 instead of much inferior ...c6, after thinking for quite some time, I was ready to bet my money that Carlsen will not come out dry out of water. Then immidiately ...Kh8 followed, and it was lost from then on.
Punctuation is great! And as for who cares, presumably Mig does, at the very least, since he's a professional writer, even if some readers don't.
WTF, who cares what the punctuation is suppose to be????? Its the messahe and idea that matters, in this day and age if u cant understand it then STFU. Either contribute something to the common intelligence or go home bcuse u r not needed....
Ok,jon drius, you are a troll. But I can't resist pointing out that punctuation is there to clarify the meaning of a sentence. An email written in innocence of correct punctuation takes at least twice as long to understand as one written correctly.
Incidentally, punctuating correctly also helps to convey the message "I am not an idiot."
Hi john,
Good punctuation, spelling, grammar, etc. are just common courtesy. To consciously ignore them is a way of saying, "Look at me, look at me! LOOK AT ME!!" Seeing something like "Its the messahe and idea that matters, in this day and age if u cant understand it then STFU," I become even more convinced of the importance of punctuation and grammar in conveying respect (or lack thereof) for the reader and in making "messahes" easy to understand.
Sincerely,
The Punctuation Police
Amen.
Chess is not an art, nor is it a science; it belongs to that class of activities called "sports and games", like baseball, curling, contract bridge, or tic tac toe.
The thing that makes chess special is the history; every chess game begins the same, but is informed by those that came before. A rank amateur today would probably stomp Philidor on the basis of accumulated knowledge. "Standing on the shoulders of giants", if you will.
We don't defend longer time controls because of the quality of the games; that's a side issue. The time controls are what they are because the thinking, consideration, and calculation that three minutes per move permits is part and parcel to the game itself.
At 3 minutes a game you might as well be playing tic tac toe.
Now, I enjoy 3 0 games, and have recently even managed to improve (although my relative playing strength is still well below what it is in classical chess). But I don't pretend that the frenzy of moves is as rich an experience as really thinking through a 40/2 game. The position doesn't come alive because you're moving quickly, it takes life from all the variations that spring up in your mind while your clock is ticking.
PP--
Rotten punctuation and rotten writing communicate:
"My time is much more valuable than you all's time...it thus makes more sense to ask several hundred people to work at figuring out what I'm saying than it does for me to write it clearly in the first place.
gmc wrote:
"The time controls are what they are because the thinking, consideration, and calculation that three minutes per move permits is part and parcel to the game itself"
Not true.
The current time controls are a throwback to the days when players new 8-12 moves of opening theory and you could use your ideas over a span of several tournaments. Those days are gone and the only thing that remains is an archaic time control that is probably not needed anymore.
Let's use the "3-minute per move" standard over a 40-move game (120 minutes) to illustrate my point.
In the days of Capa, it meant that players began they "real thinking" (meaning they would be out of their book) at move 10, so they would get roughly 120 minutes for 30 moves - their opening preparation basically resulted in them getting 4 minutes per move.
Today, the game begins at move 20, the earliest. Thus, players normally (because there are exceptions, of course) get 120 minutes for 20 minutes, or 6 minutes per move!
I say, "let's pass the savings on to the consumer" by readjusting the time control to a more realistic 80 minutes for 40 moves (back to 4 minutes per move).
The benefits of speeding up the system are numerous:
1. No discernible quality loss
2. More time left for "overtime" chess - the only way to get rid of Svidler and the draws that kill the game
3. Less exhaustion for players
4. More exciting chess because less accuracy will bring back drama to the chessboard!
5. Faster, cheaper tournaments (less exhausted players will require fewer off days)
6. Better for expectators (decisive outcomes and shorter games will bring the few fans back)
I expect Mig will weigh in somewhere around here. But.
1&4 on your list are directly contradicting each other, #2 is silly (there is nothing wrong with draws and, for that matter, nothing wrong with Svidler - he drew 10 out of 12 at Linares 2006 but so did Aronian; and he had as many decisive games as draws the year before.) #3 is debatable. 5-6 are potentially true, although packing more lower quality games into a shorter tournament would be more exhausting, not less.
Spectators, not expectators.
More to the point, the game still does start in the first 20 moves; Leko used an hour on move nine against Aronian in this tournament.
I don't know about everyone, but I don't find mutual stupid blunders "exciting", I can find low quality chess anywhere. I'm interested in Anand playing at Linares because that's chess you can't get anywhere else.
You make some good points, gmc.
I guess it is mostly a matter of taste: some people see accuracy and "truth" as the ultimate pursuit in chess. They buy the latest versions of chess software, even though they would never win a game from any of the dozens of free chess engines out there. They think they can understand the nuances that separate Anand-Aronian at 5 minutes per move from Anand-Aronian at 2 minutes. They are usually rated 1600, love their game's traditions and want 36-game matches for the world championship, even if nobody wants to put up the money for such event.
I'm on the other camp: i want combinations, blunders that allow spectacular executions. I want players scrambling for time; I want top GM's paying risky openings in order to exploit time pressure. Even though I'm a lowly master, I'm pretty sure I can not tell the difference between Anand-Aronian at 5 minutes per move and Anand-Aronian at 2 minutes per move average.
I want fun in chess. Not truth. I want Fischer-D. Byrne, not Svidler-Leko. I want Morphy-The Count Of Whatever.
To me, chess is not art, science or sport. To me, chess is a fun, beautiful game. A constant struggle to outwit, trick your opponent. A game for dreamers, not accountants.
Your mileage might vary, of course.
The immovable objects were replaced by highly inflammable objects, I presume. :)
Sometimes it really seems like I'm on another planet.
Among all the ideas that for some reason are relatively widespread among chess fans, the idea that it's somehow inherently better with decisive games than with drawn games must count as the most absurd.
I'll simply never get how it's even possible to reach such a conclusion.
"Constant complaint is the poorest sort of pay for all the comforts we enjoy"-Benjamin Franklin
"Among all the ideas that for some reason are relatively widespread among chess fans, the idea that it's somehow inherently better with decisive games than with drawn games must count as the most absurd."
agreed; it's a ridiculous notion that, if a game was decisive, it was exciting.
American's who remember decades of Saturdays with ABC TV's Wide World of Sports will recognize this famous inspiring phrase...
{
"The thrill of victory, and the agony of defeat; and the anti-climax and unsatisfied sense of anticipation in a long blunder-free draw."
}
That chess narrative sells itself, right?
Other sports have a decisive rate of 99% even when both contestants play strong and blunder-free. Chess is an exception that suffers a high draw rate.
Inducing more blunders is not the solution, but neither is no fix.
The link to comment on Mig's Feb 26 2008 "The Italian Game" thread is dead, so I post here.
I would like to read an English translation of Pacioli's 1499 manuscript. The wave of major chess rule changes was supposedly completed around 1475, just 2 decades earlier.
This manuscript might imply some rules that were different from what we know today, affecting our understanding of the rule change time-line.
Irv, you do know of course that in Capablanca's time the time controls were longer, while various? Two hours for 20 moves was not uncommon. The limit has already contracted to deal with opening theory and, more importantly, computers and hence the impossibility of adjournments.
I too will never understand why fans want to see GMs blunder. If I want to see blundering, I can do that for myself.
I think a lot of the problems Americans have with draws stem from their not playing football or cricket there.
rdh wrote:
"I too will never understand why fans want to see GMs blunder. If I want to see blundering, I can do that for myself."
I never said that I want to see GM's blunder. I said that I don't mind sacrificing the quality of the games a bit in exchange for more exciting chess.
As it is now, we are NOT seeing blunder-less chess. We are seeing boring, safety-first chess. We are seeing Petrosian on steroids. and we still see blunders, because they are part of the game at any time controls.
The average fan prefers an unsound Tal to an ultra-careful Petrosian.
In any case, the loss of "quality", if any, that would come from shortening the time controls and playing "overtime" games would not be noticeable to anyone but the very best (GM's rated over 2650). The "mere mortals" like you and I couldn't tell the difference no matter what we tried.
That said, I respect other people's right to feel different. I just wanted to clarify my position.
"The average fan prefers an unsound Tal to an ultra-careful Petrosian."
Tal's sacs were mostly sound. Its a pity that HE wasn't more sound; otherwise we would have witnessed the greatest Chess talent in history also becoming the greatest Chess player in history.
The benefits of speeding up the system are numerous:
1. No discernible quality loss
2. More time left for "overtime" chess - the only way to get rid of Svidler and the draws that kill the game
3. Less exhaustion for players
4. More exciting chess because less accuracy will bring back drama to the chessboard!
5. Faster, cheaper tournaments (less exhausted players will require fewer off days)
6. Better for expectators (decisive outcomes and shorter games will bring the few fans back)
Posted by: Irv at February 26, 2008 15:56
Hmm, points 1 and 4 go great together. No "discernible quality loss", yet "less accuracy" over the chessboard. How about we all consider the following argument: "let x be an odd integer. the special case x=2 yields the proof of the theorem." LOL
hey, Miguel
Look up the word "discernible". That's the key to understanding my apparent contradiction.
hint: yes, the quality loss is there, but is not "discernible", as in "can't be seen or noticed".
good luck!
Yes, the loss of quality will not be discerned. Riiiight!
After every round of a supertournament, Chessbase runs analysis done with the help of computers for the readers... But you are exactly right, the newest version of Fritz will not discover more blunders and consequently nobody will find out about them.
You may have a point there, Miguel. My idea is not too exciting for those who set out to look for the truth Fritz-in-hand.
I can understand that.
For people who just want to enjoy the game in a relaxed manner, excitement at the chess board is the ultimate goal. I still like all the classic masterpieces and romantic sacrifices by Morphy, Tal, Andersen, Alekhine, Marshall, Fischer, etc., even though they were all made possible by blunders.
I guess it is a matter of taste...
Irv,
I think that everything you are talking about is addressed by rapid chess; what you really should be doing is advocating more rapid events.
I also think you are exaggerating the negative aspects of slower time controls. You keep mentioning Svidler and Leko, but that is only two players out of all the top players. Do you really think we should change the rules because you are annoyed that two players are too solid for your tastes? The better solution would be to not invite such players (to suit you- I don't have a problem with them at all).
The segment that just concluded in Linares shows that even in 2008 and with all the super strong computers, the best players in the world can make blunders aplenty at slow time controls and thus by your definition produce "exciting" games...
'I never said I want to see GMs blunder'.
Sorry, irv, I must have misunderstood these sentences.
"So, let the blunders begin!
Let Krasenkow blunder again against Nakamura!"
My bad.
---
GeneM wrote: "Other sports have a decisive rate of 99% even when both contestants play strong and blunder-free."
That 99% figure is exaggerating. Need to put into consideration the type of sport as well:
Basketball (0% draw) differs from football (plenty of draws)
Within football, leagues differs (plenty of draws) from cups (0% draw, as it will usually go into penalty shoot out to get a victor)
Blunder-free boxing? A bit difficult to find actually. Maybe if boxing was turn-based like chess, there will always be a winner.
---
rdh wrote: "I think a lot of the problems Americans have with draws stem from their not playing football or cricket there."
I didn't know there are a lot of draws in cricket (I'm not from a commonwealth country, although I enjoy watching cricket on telly). Thanks for the info, rdh.
rdh, I am rather disappointed by your use of the phrase "my bad". I sincerely hope it's a one off. And no, I dont believe Shakespeare used the term in such a context in his sonnet.
A homage to my surroundings, d_tal. Isn't that what Americans say?
tsn, so embedded is the draw in cricket that there are three methods of achieving it, the tie, the draw (restricted to longer games) and rain stopped play.
rdh, ok, you are excused.
Why isnt the site showing live games? stopped for rain?
If chess "talent" is measured by puzzle composition or solving, or flashy play, then any number of people may be styled "the most talented."
But if victory is the ultimate measure of chess talent, then I may not be the most talented, but I surely win any talent-competition with my friend, Tal.
It's clearer in boxing. All the fancy footwork and clever combinations don't mean much if you're on your back looking up at a ten-count.
Victory is an objective measure of ability. By that measure, Kasparov has to be the greatest player in history. As Clubfoot said, he took care of 3 generations of players. Talent is a subjective word,and its meaning is usually clear only in context, to sufficiently experienced proponents of the art. For example, Ronnie O'Sullivan is widely touted as being the most "talented" Snooker player ever (by knowledgable people including past WCs), but he has less victories than Stephen Hendry. To me, Tal is the most talented Chess player whose games I have played over, for a whole variety of reasons, some of them quite subjective to my judgement. Obviously, not everybody will share this opinion.
is nobody else interested in the Live games from Linares?? Where are they??
Does anybody have the URL to watch the Linares games live?
Thanks in advance....
insomniac, the official site doesnt work for me. I found 2 relays here: http://www.chessdom.com/morelia-linares-2008/aronian-topalov-live
Pain to keep updating, but beggars cant be choosers
The live Linares games (per TWIC) are on http://www.soloajedrez.com/ciudaddelinares/
Enjoy...
Feb 28 & 29 are huge for Aronian. Aronion has White both days, against Topalov then Anand.
And today's (Thurs Feb 28) game Anand-Shirov could flip first and second place in the standings (if Black can defeat White).
very exiting but strange win by carlsen. his last king move seems to leave white with a lot of play. isn't the black queen forced to retreat to the black rank to prevent white from queening?
What else happened today at Linares?
Thanks
But cricket is the most boring game in world, due in large part to the long time controls and the high frequency of dull draws.
No it isnt, its one of the most exciting. Ask Svidler.