It's only two rounds in but the Elo favorites are backing it up so far at the Tal Memorial. Kramnik, Morozevich, and Ivanchuk all turned in wins with white on the first day and draws the second day to lead on 1.5/2. We don't have a clear leader yet but we do have a clear loser. Shirov lost to Kramnik in the first round and against Kamsky today. That brought my fellow Brooklynite back to an even score after his atrocious loss to Ivanchuk on day one. (Leaving himself with around six minutes for his last 20 moves didn't help.)
I've been following every move with GM commentary on ICC Chess.FM and we've had two great days of chess so far. Is the shade of Tal working his magic on the field? Kramnik played the other side of the gambit line Topalov tried against him in their 2006 WCh match. Shirov was the victim, although he made things more difficult for himself with the creative aggression for which he is so beloved. He sacrificed a piece for a brace of pawns, but his attack turned out to be ephemeral. The bishop-down endgame held little interest.
Being paired with GM co-hosts during our broadcasts, I usually limit my move suggestions to database searches, "what if?" questions I think will interest the audience, and the occasional engine line in a tactical melee. Yesterday I saw something that looked cute in Kramnik-Shirov -- a move you might bang out in a blitz game -- and mentioned it to GM Benjamin. "What about 19..Ra5?" Joel showed that the idea had some merit, but was much better after 19..g6, instead of sacrificing the f7 pawn. I felt a bit silly for missing 19..g6, which is why I usually keep my mouth shut in the first place. A few minutes later Shirov played 19..Ra5, which, of course, turned out to be a loser that put him into an endgame with a pawn less than if he'd inserted 19..g6. As I often say on the air, it's usually a sure sign of doom when a player takes my recommendations.
Back on his Russian home soil Kramnik again showed his aggressive intentions in the second round with another topical gambit line, this time against Leko's QID. They followed a GM game from earlier in the year until Leko varied with 17..Nd7. It's remarkable White has time for 11.a3, which Rodshtein played but which may have escaped Leko's attention. GM de Firmian showed all sorts of fun attacking lines for White, especially if Leko had taken a leap of faith with his king with 20..Kf6 instead of 20..Kf8. Check out 20..Kf6 21.Kxg2!? offering rook or knight. As it was Kramnik had enough play to force a repetition. A lot more fun than you'd expect from the pairing.
In contrast, Mamedyarov-Morozevich was just as entertaining as you'd expect. Moro played the Grunfeld, already a major diversion. Mamedyarov is no fan of main lines himself and they were soon off the reservation. It looked like White was doing very well after the excellent 14.f5! with threats of Bxf7+ all over the place. But Morozevich found a way to turn things around as he so often does. 15..Nc5! was suggested by GM Jan Gustafsson and it's not the sort of move Moro misses. He later sacrificed the exchange to enter a superior endgame with a bishop pair and a few pawns as compensation, but he lost his winning chances in mutual time trouble. 28..c4? allowed immediate liquidation.
Kamsky scored the only win of the second day. Shirov played with nearly comical provocation against Kamsky's favorite ..a6 Slav. For a while it looked like the players had forgotten how the pieces capture. White kept bringing forces up but Kamsky stayed calm. The cool 12..Bd5 pushed White into a general retreat and chances were balanced. Shirov got into horrible time trouble and played a series of second-best moves as Kamsky grouped his forces against the white king. White's last best chance was the tricky computer move 32.Qa5. It's hardly human to move your queen away from the defense to tickle a protected rook, but it breaks up Black's coordination. Down to his last minute or two Shirov was cut to pieces by the ruthless precision Kamsky usually shows in such positions.
Gelfand played a nice sham exchange sac novelty in the Petroff in the first round. Gelfand-Ivanchuk was surprisingly hard-fought after an uninspired opening. Gelfand got a tiny plus in the rook endgame but got himself into time trouble and allowed a draw. Alekseev-Ponomariov successfully demonstrated that there are no anti-short-draw rules in effect in Moscow.
Round 3: Leko - Shirov, Morozevich - Kramnik, Ponomariov - Mamedyarov, Ivanchuk - Alekseev, Kamsky - Gelfand
Nice summary overall, but the rook wasn't actually protected any more, so Qa5 would have been a very plausible human move.
"White's last best chance was the tricky computer move 32.Qa5. It's hardly human to move your queen away from the defense to tickle a protected rook, but it breaks up Black's coordination."
Alexander the Sorcerer beats van Gogh in 32 moves!
When is the main message board going to get the new upgrade with the Ignore feature that really works? We were promised that a year and a half ago.
Memo to Anand: Just keep the queens on the board and make Kramnik play a middlegame.
21..Be6 was not Van Gogh at all. It was Van Ugh!
j,
I ought to charge you for that one.
"Alexander the Sorcerer beats van Gogh in 32 moves!"
Who is Chubaroff again?
Mig wrote: "As I often say on the air, it's usually a sure sign of doom when a player takes my recommendations."
This brings to mind a famous example, from a particular live chess commentary that held a bigger public spotlight than at any time before or since.
In one of the 1972 Fischer-Spassky WCC games, TV commentator Shelby Lyman, who was roughly the same strength as Mig, had no GM co-commentator (or any co-commentator at all, as I recall). He had to come up with all the suggestions himself, to fill the often long gaps between the players' actual moves.
In one instance, in a Nimzo-Indian I believe, around move 25, Spassky had White in a roughly equal position and Lyman was discussing Qc2 as a likely possibility. Spassky deliberated several minutes, time which Lyman spent presenting a number of possible replies and their consequences.
Eventually Spassky played Qc2???, Fischer immediately grabbed a pawn (...Bxa4 I think), and Spassky resigned almost immediately. (Recapturing would allow Fischer to threaten mate in two ways that couldn't both be parried.)
My vague recollection is that I was watching the game on TV at the time, and I too had overlooked the refutation and had viewed Spassky's Qc2 as a serious possibility.
Mig wrote: {"White's last best chance was the tricky computer move 32.Qa5. It's hardly human to move your queen away from the defense to tickle a protected rook, ..."}
Maybe Andy Soltis should write his next book about "computer moves": What *exactly* is a "computer move", in contrast to a "human move"?
A computer move is one that seems to go against the rules of chess (Don't take your queen away from the action in this case), but that in careful calculation does work.
GeneM wrote: "Maybe Andy Soltis should write his next book about "computer moves": What *exactly* is a "computer move", in contrast to a "human move"?"
I believe the book you're referring to has already been published recently...Not by Soltis, but Charles Hertan's much-talked-about book on "Forcing Moves." The book's stated goal is to teach people how to analyze with "computer eyes." The principal means to the end is to always analyze "forcing" moves before you analyze anything else.
It sounds like a trivial observation, but it probably isn't; I'll reserve judgment until I've looked at more of the book. The excerpts I've seen so far are at least somewhat convincing that Hertan has something new and useful to say.
Ke5 followed by f5 seems all right, so it was a nice surprise for Gelfand when white reacted emotional and drawish.
Does Topalov need to worry about his next opponent?
Sometimes there are moves that people call computer moves- that a creative human could come up with (like Bronstein or Tal) it is just not following normal rules, but humans can find it.
However I would call computer moves irrational moves that computers sometimes do as they can't plan long term, or going into an open king postion without human sense of danger etc. When it is either wrong or just beyond humans to risk it or see why it is OK.
I used to be a huge fan of Shirov but now I can see Kasparov's point when he called Alexie a "Chess Tourist".
Shirov plays some masterpiece complications from time to time which just entertain everybody, but the main body of his work is only entertaining for his opponents' fans who usually have good time watching him being demolished potentially by every average GM.
It's sad...
REMIT's post raises the interesting point that "computer move" can have different, perhaps discrepant meanings.
At one time it was actually a disparaging term, referring mostly to truly irrational or senseless moves that past generations of engines (much weaker than today's) would often make due to inability to plan, poor weighting of various positional factors in their evaluation formulas, residual horizon limits, and the like. Nowadays such a characterization is likely to be ambiguous at worst, and more often connoting praise - meaning a move that's highly counter-intuitive, but tactically justified.
I just thought of an interesting human, non-chess parallel. I'm old enough to remember when "Made in Japan" connoted a cheap, shoddy product. Hard to believe or even imagine, huh? That was 40-50 years ago. Just a decade later, Japanese goods had earned exactly the opposite reputation in the U.S. - that is, as top-of-the-line in most industries.
Today some odor still attaches to Chinese products (toxic ingredients, etc.). I wonder how long that will last?
And it wouldn't surprise me if "Made in the U.S.A." today connotes shoddy quality to consumers in Europe and Asia. (Heck, it does to many consumers right here in the U.S. - just look at cars, for instance. I would never be caught dead buying an American car.)
I hope everyone here plays through the Morozevich-Kramnik game. Now that's chess! (I hope a lot of it was really OTB and not just prep.)
Yep, "Alexie" Shirov is one sad 2740 (or whatever) tourist.
"I used to be a huge fan of Shirov but now I can see Kasparov's point when he called Alexie a "Chess Tourist".
Shirov plays some masterpiece complications from time to time which just entertain everybody, but the main body of his work is only entertaining for his opponents' fans who usually have good time watching him being demolished potentially by every average GM.
It's sad..."
x y,
Thanks for spell checking. Yours is better than mine apparently.
Jon: The Spassky-Fischer game was the famous Benoni where Fischer played Nh5!! allowing doubled h-pawns. I remember Sammy Reshevsky(!) commenting on the game on the 10 O'Clock News(!).
As I recall, Spassky was pretty busted anyway when he played Qc2.
Sorry, r, you are mistaken. It definitely was not the Benoni ...Nh5 game - which was game 3 of the match, and was Fischer's first victory after two losses (one on forfeit). That game went 40 or 50 moves, and as I recall, Spassky resigned without resuming play after adjournment.
Inter alia, Fischer's innovation ...Nh5 was later found to be not particularly strong. But it certainly attained its objective in that game, and therefore is a classic instance of a move that deserves an exclamation mark on psychological grounds alone. (By the same token, Fischer's 1.c4! in game 6. Of course ...Nh5 in the Benoni had novelty value not only in relation to Fischer's past play, but to chess theory as a whole.)
Here is the game featuring the Qc2 blunder: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044723
The "chess tourist" remark has become a legend! I remember editing that piece in 1999. These days you hear just about anyone this side of Fischer and Kramnik listed as someone "Kasparov called a tourist." I don't write these periodic pieces in any sense of defense, which isn't required anyway, but in a Sisyphean attempt to establish the actual facts of all these stories. I forget them myself on occasion. Watching them grow is amusing, but only to a point.
This is what Kasparov wrote at the start of the Las Vegas 1999 FIDE KO quarterfinals:
"So, what do we have now? Three tourists - Akopian, Movsesian and Nisipeanu. Due to the match between the first two - one tourist will travel to the semifinal. Great trip to Las Vegas and a good reason to visit Disneyland! Unpredictable and spontaneous Judith, who is always dangerous for her opponents and sometimes for herself. Two very strong players - Adams and Khalifman, both capable of upsetting any favorite. And on top of that, two main favorites of the event - Kramnik and Shirov."
So Shirov was not only not called a tourist, but was called a favorite. You're probably thinking of another Kasparov comment about Shirov. He called him a "talented amateur" in the context of criticizing his poor opening preparation in, I believe, a Najdorf. As in, unless he prepares like a professional he will always be a talented amateur. But I don't have the full quote since I'm on my laptop and don't have all my archives. I think that was in 1997. Maybe someone else has the full context handy.
Coincidentally, unless someone above was listening, the "tourist" story came up today on the ICC in the chat during our live broadcast. I don't usually have time to follow the endless stream of kibitzes. (And if I do, I can feel myself getting stupider as I watch. So much wrong information per sentence.) But I think I got it wrong myself at the time trying to remember exactly what Garry had written in 1999. So I was looking it up anyway when I noticed the comments above.
Movsesian later got into it via the press with Garry about something else. Garry calling him a "former Armenian player" got translated in a way that made Movsesian think he was saying he wasn't an Armenian anymore. This made little sense, but such arguments rarely do.
Mig,
Thanks a lot for clarification.
Since 1999 one can expect Shirov to be grown to a more stable player, but unfortunately for his fans, he still doesn't seems to care for his scores. Maybe we should learn to respect that and love his games as they are.
An artist dedicated to his style. Go Alexei!
Right, Jon. Very good. Thanks for the correction.
Artin,
so it only takes a single correction of a citation of yours to change your evaluation of a great chess player ?
If you ever were a fan of Shirov, you might consider showing him a little more of the respect he deserves chesswise.
We can see how Morozevich keeps gaining rating points by beating "lesser players" in the Tal Memorial...
Go, MORO, go!
kramnik is very good at analysing the weaknesses of his opponents and his recent 3 losses perhaps show up his weakness. Usually they are in very sharp tactical maybe irrational positions often from very sharp openings. He used to cope better when he was younger and he has acknowledged that his speed of calculation has declined. It is quite difficult to understand why he chose 7..Nxg4 in the "Latvian" variation of the semi slav both 7..Bb5 and h6 are more positonal approaches with a more solid reputation. No doubt he had prepared it and according to the engines he got a good position but lost the plot in complications. This does not suit his style Kasparov Topalov Anand and Moro were/are much more at home in these kinds of positions. The same thing happened to him when he was playing the Najdorf. An aggressive approach with black simply does not work for kramnik.
Yeah, I was frowning at the Shirov-tourist thing too. I always connected Movsesian with that line, although of late his results have been so good he is at least perhaps as strong as Khalifman supposedly was in 1997.
I don't think of 7...Nxg4 as the "Latvian" semi slav line. That would be the Botvinnik Variation, which Shirov, Shabalov, et al., all Latvian players, contributed so much to.
Wasn't Moro a chess tourist until last year?
In a way any player that doesn't play it safe like Leko and Kramnik can be called a Chess Tourist any sunny day?
Chubaroff,
I didn't say I don't respect him. What I'm saying is that his fans (including yours truly) get disappointed by his results.
He doesn't care, so why should we?
he doesn't care about his own results? artin, you are redefining the meaning of nonsense on a new, higher plane.
Great site but you need to update it more frequently. Because of the slow update not so good a site. I'm on your side can you get someone to help you? MIG you are the best or you use to be.
But come one both of your sites are not what they were. Don't take this as a negative you are a great chess journalist (maybe the best) when you take the time.
calvin,
the position you are applying for is not vacant at the moment.
Will the artist get a well deserved comeback today in a Grünfeld against the yankee ?!
Moro just beat Pono. He should be the new No. 1 on the live rating list. Congrats!
Yes- he has virtual rating 2798.9 to Anand's 2798 now. You would never have thought that Morozevich with his wild play would make it to world number 1 (I know it is just virtual but still it is surprising.)
Ivanchuk and Carlsen came so close to doing it but Morozevich got there first.
I think that it is the first time since April 2007 that someone has had a higher virtual rating than Anand (amongst active players).
As for the October list- any of the top 5 in the current virtual list might be number 1- since playing in Bilbao are Anand, Carlsen, Ivanchuk and Topalov who are virtual 2nd to 5th, which gets rated just in time for October list.
The sequence 1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 Nf3 Nf6 4 Nc3 e6 5 e3 Nbd7 6 Qc2 Bd6 7 g4!? " This sharp idea of Alex Shabalov has been extremely popular since it was introuduced into practice by Alexei Shirov" that is why the author of the latest book on the semi slav calls it the Latvian variation and devotes a chapter to it called " The Latvian Variation 7.g4 " But obviously GMC has another view.
As for Moro he is not winning through wierd or wild play but through fantastic preperation and understanding - he is a genius. A completely won game after 11/12 moves in a main line Nimzo Indian against a 2700+ player. Please tell me the last time that was done!! He is from another planet. 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Bb6 4 Qc2 0-0 5 Nf3 c5 6 dxc5 Na6 7 c6!!? (what is this?? where did this move come from??)dxc6 8 a3 Bxc3+ 9 Qxc3 Nc5 10 Be3! Nce4 11 Qe5! b5 12 g4 ! (already perhaps won) c5 and this is a lost position for black after 13 g5
Don't get too romantic about this. You don't get a won position after 12 moves unless your opponent plays very badly. It's not too relevant if he happens to be a super-GM or a 2000. Bad play is bad play; Pono obviously didn't play at typical super-GM strength.
I don't know about very badly (except in hindsight) - it's quite suprising that g4, which doesn't attack anything, leaves black with no options at all.
Sergey Zagrebelny in his live commentary on Chesspro.ru ( http://www.chesspro.ru/chessonline/onlines/index_1123.html )actually approved of the move 11...b5 at first - "A sensible decision - it's necessary to sharpen things up or Black risks being strangled to death"
Even Fritz takes a while to realise it's over.
Eerily similar to the Kramnik game.
And that comment of Zagrebelny's correctly indicates Black is already in big trouble after 11.Qe5. It's very bad play by GM standards, no matter how you put it. That will happen now and then, everyone has profited from it from time to time. It's nothing against Morozevich, whose original play confused Ponomariov and who can only play what's in front of him, but it is hardly a sign that he is a genius from another planet.
Don't worry, I wouldn't want to claim alien status for Morozevich! All I'd say is that Ponomariov didn't play like a patzer or make any terrible positional mistakes - he simply missed a single, crucial move (11...b5 gives Black a decent position against anything other than 12.g4). That can happen to anyone, even super GMs.
anyone who doesnt want to give credit to Morozevich must either be a very strong player or one who is armed with a strong engine or a Kramnik fan. according to chessbase, even Kasparov said "Morozevich is playing chess" which coming from Kasparov is the highest praise of all.
by the way, wasnt Morozevich one of the few players that Korchnoi said was closest to genius or gifted or something?
Ponomariov's position maybe wasn't quite the same (it was more obviously shaky) - but Kramnik's description of his loss to Morozevich is interesting: http://chesspro.ru/_events/2008/tal8.html
---
Kramnik: "It was unlucky. I had a normal position and made just one unsuccessful move. And I couldn't believe my eyes: after that it was immediately hopeless! I was shocked: after one move in an equal position I ended up with a lost one! Outwardly the position still looks completely normal. But at the board I quickly realised that black can't survive, not a single variation works. To tell the truth, amazing: usually in more or less equal positions one innacuracy isn't enough to lose the game. Well, this was an exception to the rule. I can't particularly blame myself, everyone makes mistakes. But of course, it's painful to lose a game without doing anything wrong.
Interviewer: As Morozevich said during the demonstration, the borderline for the initiative passing from white to black is very subtle: one inaccurate move, and black will be on the attack...
Kramnik: Yes, that was the thing, I chose that variation because it was a position with a lot of resources, black's pieces are well-placed and it's also possible to play for a win. It was simply amazing: one inaccuracy, and the game was over. Personally I've never experienced that before.
----
I'd say it's more of a coincidence than anything that Morozevich played two similar games in the tournament. Not to say that he's not a chess genius, as he clearly is - if he could add more stability and a Topalov/Kasparov work ethic he'd be a phenomenal player.
Amazing is the word Kramnik used and he is right. Its not that it was "very bad play by GM standards" there were no obviously bad moves by GM standard. Afterwards everyone goes back and says oh this was wrong he should have played that. Of course its easy afterwards to suggest alterbatives sitting with an engine!!
I just logged to ruschess and I found out Ivanchuk won against Morozevich. I just can't understand 34... Qxc1?? and 35. Qxc5??
Is there a problem with the game or am is there something I'm missing?
Ok, forget about it. It sounds like move 34 and 35 are inverted on the live games.
So now a GM can be expected to have a losing position after 11 moves just because his opponent plays original and good chess that surprises him. Why do people get so emotional about this kind of thing? It was a bad game by Pono, as simple as that! On a normal day, he might still not have reacted perfectly, but he wouldn't have been lost so quickly. It doesn't mean it was not a good game by Moro. I've nothing more to say about it as it is all pretty self-evident to me.
xtra, yes exactly.
Interesting interview by Kramnik to the Europe Echecs: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4864 It's stunning how calm and relaxed Kramnik is despite his awful recent results and play.
If you listen to him, everything is going according to plan and he is happy with his play. Sounds weird to me as the level of play he has shown throughout 2008 is MAYBE good enough for the spot #10 in the world hierarchy, but definitely is nowhere near top 5. Today he had another very suspect position against Gelfand...
(Just one last thing to make clear, mishanp's nice and quite reasonable posts were not those I had in mind above with the "why so emotional" thing. Over and out.)
Osbender, you are a faggot!
Shut up already.
Osbender i think it's the same interview where he says he says at the moment he makes opening choices to confuse Anand rather than with an intention of winning the tournament so that will definitely have a drag on results. Still as a Vlad fan his play seems a bit more error strewn recently. The big question is whether the disimprovement is mainly due to openings or in his general play. IF for example he is working hard on a replacement for the Petroff it would not be surprising if his play in the Petroff disimproved. Anyone any opinions?
IMO his recent results have nothing to do with openings and confusing Anand. He gets normal positions after the opening, but loses them way too often nowadays.
Probably he would have won a bit more with white if he played his preparations. Still, even without showing novelties, in a good shape he should have been able to cruise to +1 or +2 result on his class alone. And that would have been the case if not for his losses. However, he does lose regularly now and that is a huge problem with the style like his. Certainly, this is very worrying for the upcoming match.
To summarize:
1) He loses way too often nowadays and not to some explosive novelties, but to normal logical play. See his 2 loses to Moro, Carlsen in Wijk, Ivanchuk in Dortmund.
2) He is absolutely hopeless in dynamic positions. What was the last time he has beaten someone in a dynamic position? Probably it was Aronian in Wijk, but there he had a won position already when he left his home analysis. And he almost blew it anyway.
With one round to go- half the players are within 1 point of the lead and atleast joint second- that is funny.
It looks like it will be yet another tournament victory for Ivanchuk- sow with Mtel earlier he has arguably the best year so far- well ofcourse he better not lose the last round and let others tie him!
Morozevich was virtual number 1 two games ago, while Ivanchuk was number 4, now Ivanchuk is number 2 and Morozevich number 3- how quickly things change when it is so tight at the top!
The next tournament is Bilbao. I have just worked out that in Bilbao it is possible for a player to come outright first in the traditional 1-0.5-0 system, but outright last in the 3-1-0 system!
eg say Anand scores 1.5/2 against Carlsen and draws the rest, while all other pairings score 1-1 from a win apiece. Then old system Anand is first outright with 5.5/10, while football 3-1-0 system he has just 12 points, Carlsen 13, and the rest 14! Now this just shows how it can completely change the rankings.
About Shirov, I think he´s not a "chess tourist", he´s just not stable. If he were playing so badly lately he wouldn´t have the rating he has. However, I was very surprised to hear him ask Mamedyarov on the 3rd of August who would be playing in Tal... I can imagine his preparation for this tournament!
I´m sorry that Pono didn´t beat Chucky today... he´s playing so well in this tournament.
P.S. I agree with someone who said that a more frequent update would do a lot of good to this website ;)
Was this you calling Pono ?!
"On Ponomariov's 20th birthday, October 11, 2003, he became the first high-profile player to default a game because of his mobile phone ringing during play. This happened in round one of the European Team Championship in Plovdiv, Bulgaria, when Ponomariov was playing black against Swedish GM Evgenij Agrest."
Remit: Are they really going to use the 3-1-0 point system in the Bilbao Grand Slam Final? I hope not.
To me it makes absolutely no sense to have someone scoring +1 finishing after someone scoring -1. The chess game is mostly considered a draw with best possible play from both players, and so the current scoring system 1 - 0,5 - 0 is sound and logical.
Al F yes they are going to use the 3 1 0 system in the Bilbao Grand Slam Final- which is why I commented on how different to normal the tournaments rankings can be. Paradoxically in the scenario I gave- they are rated according to the normal 1-0.5-0 rule, so the one outright last according to 3-1-0 will have done best according to rating- which just makes a nonsense of it.
Chubaroff was your last comment for me? I didn´t even know what chess was back in 2003 xD Probably just someone wanting to say "Happy Birthday".
About Bilbao, like REMIT said they are going to follow 3-1-0 rules. I have to say that my great disappointment was with the English version of the official webpage. Seems like a monkey translated it to me. As a translator and an inhabitant of Bilbao, I was so ashamed that I wrote them an email, although languages are not much considered in this country and I don´t think anything will change, though.
Remit wrote: "Paradoxically in the scenario I gave- they are rated according to the normal 1-0.5-0 rule, so the one outright last according to 3-1-0 will have done best according to rating- which just makes a nonsense of it."
Although one must be somewhat careful drawing broad conclusions from hypothetical examples, the above analysis shows convincingly how dumb the anti-draw forces are.
I have argued elsewhere that all anti-draw rules that change scoring results (stalemate is a win, "capture the scepter," or Ballard or any result formula other than the traditional 1 - 0.5 - 0) constitute "fairy chess" and should be treated accordingly. Of course, that means such fairy chess exhibitions should never be rated by FIDE or any national federation - any more than a tournament where pawns could move backwards would be rated as "chess."
Assuming Remit's description of the Bilbao fairy chess tournament rules is accurate, his post proves that rating such a non-chess competition - whose rules gives players greater incentive to avoid draws than to avoid loss - as though it were a chess competition, indeed "just makes a nonsense of it."