From six leaders to one, that must be some sort of record. Ukraine's Sergey Karjakin took clear first in the Corus A group with a +3, 8/13 score. He defeated Cuba's Lenier Dominguez in the final round in the only game to pair two of the half-dozen players sharing the lead on +2. Karjakin did it with black thanks to sharp defensive and counter-attacking calculations after Dominguez decided to burn all bridges with a sacrificial kingside attack. A worthy effort from both players to decide the tournament. Congratulations to Karjakin for the biggest win of the 18 19-year-old's career.
Most of the other leaders played the predictable fizzles, despite an encouraging menu of Open Sicilians. As much as we would like them to play to the death, the players are more realistic than that and know you can't always beat an elite opponent by sheer will, especially with black. Aronian was forced to concede a draw to Smeets. Radjabov fiddled around with some mystifying moves with white against Stellwagen until offering a quick draw when he realized he was probably going to be worse. Movsesian was squeezed by Kamsky for a while but reached a drawn rook endgame. That left Magnus Carlsen, giving it his all to share the top spot in an endgame against Wang Yue. But the Norwegian got his pieces tangled up and he ended up down a pawn. Well past when the organizers would have liked to start the press conference Carlsen was forced to resign, leaving no undefeated players in any of the groups.
At the start of the event you couldn't have imagined that the last-round pairing Morozevich-Ivanchuk would be a meaningless consolation game, but that it was. A shame, as it was a fascinating back-and-forth affair. Moro found the spectacular 40.Rf4, a dreadful move to face on the last move of time control. Ivanchuk took the rook, which should have led to a perpetual check draw after 44..Kb7. (Or White can play on with chances in B vs N after 45.Qg7+ Ka6 46.Qg8 Kb7 47.Be5 Qf2+ 48.Qg2 fxe3.) Instead he played 44..Kd7?? and resigned immediately after 45.Qe7+, forcing mate in 7. Ugh. That brought Ivanchuk down and Morozevich up to -2, both shedding piles of rating points.
In the B it was a bad day for the leaders. Kasimjanov lost to a spectacular queen sac by Motylev. Short needed only a draw to win the tournament, but he blundered horribly in a sharp position he was surely winning against Caruana (47..cxd2 48.Rxc6 dxe1N+!), missed a perpetual check draw (57..Qd3+) and then lost. That meant the Brooklyn-Italian teenager became the clear winner with 8.5/13. Crazy stuff. I guess Short was serious about not wanting to play in the A group again! Wesley So coasted to victory in the C with a short white draw against Howell. So a 15-year-old won the C, a 16-year-old the B, and a n 18 19-year-old the A. (Birthday Jan. 12.) A few players at Corus this year are older than all three winners combined. More later...
Update 1: There was a press conference for the Grand Slam today. One of the announcements was that they are retroactively adding last December's Nanjing Pearl Spring event to the current cycle, so Topalov is in the Bilbao final already. An almost FIDE-esque maneuver! Along with Corus, Linares, and MTel another event is still up in the air, perhaps landing in my dear Argentina. Might have to go visit that one, if so. Haven't had a choripan in a long, long time.
If you put Kasimjanov, you can't put Karjakin. (Same J?)
Congratulations to Karjakin, although it is a shame the winner was precisely the least ambitious player among the former leaders; in fact he made a draw offer during the game, but Dominguez rejected it, overpressed and finally lost.
Yah, yah, tell me about it. Betteryet, tell Karjakin, not me. I can't even get John Fedorowicz to pronounce Smeets correctly. Kasim told me he was going with the 'j' so I'm going with the 'j'. FIDE, whatever. And at least that's the right sound, or as close as you can get. The soft, French-ish, 'j/y' sound in "Karjakin" would best be a 'y' in English, just like it should better be "Yackovenko." But conventions set in.
kasimjan - off?
karjiak - in?
So, Morozev - itch?
i van (to) chuck!
(OK, I'm done) :)
OK, I guess it would be
Ivan - shook!
When was the draw offer? Didn't hear about that at the time or afterward from Macauley.
Along with Movsesian, Aronian and Dominguez, Karjakin was one of the ambitious players in the tournament. Can't really say anyone was terribly aggressive, or consistent either, but it was that kind of event.
There was a long ChessBase article about names and it was determined that "Kasimdzhanov" was not linguistically correct and journalists were encouraged to use "Kasimjanov".
Oh, sorry, I was lost in translation on a draw offer (following in another language), now that I check I guess that draw offer didn't exist.
Regardless the case, Karjakin has shown a lot of improvement, after a year of being apparently overshadowed. I liked his victory against Adams, and how his opponent seemed out-prepared and without having a clue of what was going on on the board ... of course, good play from Karjakin made this impression. He had 5 wins! Not the Karjakin we were accustomed to know.
On Dominguez, I am impressed on his development, although a bit sad to see how he has lost opportunities for missing best continuations and overpressing in kingside attacks like today, it is reminiscent of his game against Carlsen in Biel last year, where he could have get unshared first place.
On Aronian, who was the one I was rooting at the beginning of the tournament, I saw him in a "winning mood" in the last rounds, but I have the impression that his opening repertoire is not wide enough to compensate for his talent, especially with black. Unlike Carlsen and Radjabov, who were able to score wins against the tail-enders (according to rating), by using some double-edged openings who were time consuming for the opponents and taking advantage of their superior skills (well actually Radjabov vs Smeets featured that known incident), Aronian couldn't pose such problems to those rivals and last round showed him played a Sicilian, which he rarely use against e4, so it looked more like a desperate attempt to find winning chances.
Karjakin just turned 19.
Karjakin, Sergey g UKR 2706 17 1990-01-12
First three words to every journo: "Be accurate"
A very sad day to see Short lose in such a winning position! Alas... who would have guessed the two undefeateds would go down in the final round?
And disgusting fideesque play to loophole topalov into bilbao grand slam!
You must have started that comment a long time ago, Nevermore! I fixed that well before 9:54! The world's highest-rated fact checker (retired) corrected me when I was pointing out how the winners were 15, 16, and 18 to him and that was around 7pm. He didn't know the exact date but he knew Karjakin was born in January. Weird.
It's not as if Topalov wouldn't be in the Bilbao final anyway, but it's disturbing how routine this sort of thing is. "Yes, we're the serious professional people who are organizing serious professional events in a serious professional way because FIDE isn't serious or professional. Oh, and we just retroactively awarded a Grand Slam final spot to the client of one of our directors." Sigh.
They just don't get the right and wrong thing. Again, it's not that Topalov wouldn't be there nearly for sure. And I love Topalov. He's amazing. I want him to play every day of the year, two rounds per day. But none of that should matter. It's that it's just wrong to do things retroactively because it makes people wonder "would this have happened had Topalov not been the winner?" Then they say, "how dare you impugn our integrity, varlet! Base scribbler!" But it's the possibility of impropriety that is the problem, which is why transparency is so critical. (Which reminds me of when I asked why the Dortmund organizers had done the drawing of lots behind closed doors in advance and nearly got blitzkrieged for it. It wasn't because I thought there were shenanigans. It was because that practice needlessly creates the potential for shenanigans.)
Anyhoo, glad to hear that Nanjing is on board for another year, if that is indeed the case. Levon Aronian had some very positive things to say about the Nanjing organizers in his post-game interview with Macauley today. Or maybe that was just because they let him keep that little Chinese girl he was photographed with to do his housekeeping, hard to say. Now if only Seattle and Buenos Aires events could get on line... Though with FIDE stuffing rescheduled Grand Prix tournaments into every crevice thing are going to start overlapping, which seems a little senseless if you're trying for exposure and sponsorship.
Karjakin turned 19 some time ago ...
Sorry, I see you corrected yourself re Karjakin being 19. (Plenty of teenage winners nonetheless).
Mmm sour grapes, it seems.
There is nothing extrange about awarding with a spot in the GS to the winner of Nanjin , even if its retroactive.
It is not a World Championship (yet) , so it is not like they are doing anything weird to the rest of the players.
After all he (Topalov) did won the tournament , and they did join the GS , so it is cool to have the champion of Nanjin represented there.(and talking about retrospective FIDE was very unpolite for not including Nanjin in the rating list count, because you know , they should be encouraging ALL tournaments , even the most succesfull ones) .
So, there is no way anyone can get offended if Topalov is seeded to the GS because he won Nanjin, it´s just as ridiculous as taking an offence if Dortmud dont invite Cheparinov to play...
And dont forget Mig that Topalov won the previous edition of Bilbao , and (sorry to say this again ) he is the top rated player in the world , and that they can invite you to play if they want, because it is THEIR private tournament , not a WCH (yet ,he he).
Dont mix the Grand Slam with FIDE , they are just the opposite.
And , with all due respect, you may get some ugly feedback about the chinesse girl joke.
Leon Hoyos' games are all decisive, unfortunately majority against him which result in landing second from last in Group C.
Congrats to the three young winners, they fought hard and were rewarded at the end. Also refreshing was to see the appearance of Dominguez and Giri on the one hand and the revival of Short in the other.
Well, now comes Linares!
"Dont mix the Grand Slam with FIDE , they are just the opposite."
Yes, the GS would never change the rules during a cycle, or after the fact, or anything remotely like FIDE.
There are rules and commitments to be adhered to even for private entities.
Karjakin made a 'silent' draw offer as early as move 8 inviting a move repetition, probably that's what Sandorchess was referring to. But he could expect Dominguez to play on, so it was probably more about gaining some time on the clock and/or a psychological game, white asking "what about -e6 or -e5 rather than -Ng4?" and black answering "no, I like Ng4".
@Manu: Of course the Nanjing tournament will be rated, for the April list in accordance with FIDE rules about deadlines to submit rating reports. They could have made an exception for a supertournament, but they couldn't possibly process the numerous opens between Christmas and New Year's Eve. In any case, you (and some other people) blame FIDE for sticking to their own rules [for once].
Could you just point me who exactly is being deprived of something in this tale?
Because i would really like to know about the rules and commitments you seem to be talking about.
The GS is not a candidates tournament (yet) , or a WCH tournament (yet) , so i cannot understand whats the problem with that.They are getting bigger and stronger , can you blame them?
And like i said : Topalov has many ways of being invited to Bilbao :
He won the first edition of Bilbao (this is like a strong reason to invite someone the next year , you know).
He is the number one ranked player in the world (you cant blame the people who runs Bilbao for wanting him on the tournament).
And he won the first edition of the Nanjin tournament which is included in the Grand Slam this year .
If none of this reasons seems enough for you , and you want to claim that Topalov is being illegaly seeded to Bilbao ,then go ahead but i still dont understand whos rights are you defending exactly.
I dont see any conection with FIDE corruption here .In fact FIDE has been very hostile towards the Grand Slam since the start of it , which is a nice sign of the GS being something good and serious.
I was talkin about the last time the rating list came up .
Topalov was going to be number one anyway , so IMHO FIDE should have included Nanjin in the list as a gesture of welcome to a new super - tournament in the chess world.
Of course this is just my opinion .
congrats to Karjakin!
On grand slam, though odd to include it after it was played...at least its a tournament and not a match, and its always fun as a spectator to see Topalov play a tournament.
"Carlsen and Radjabov, who were able to score wins against the tail-enders (according to rating), by using some double-edged openings who were time consuming for the opponents"
Radjabov had a minus score against the 2600 opponents but won against Ivanchuk, Wang Yue and Kamsky.
Regarding the rating list: FIDE didn't make an exception for Magnus Carlsen earlier last year (to the disappointment of some Carlsen fans). Then rumors were circulating that FIDE would make such an exception, but they 'chose' to follow their written rules in the end - nothing wrong or fishy with that IMHO.
Later, FIDE didn't make an exception for Topalov, so at least they were consistent (at this occasion) ... . Regarding my comment about numerous opens between Christmas and New Year's Eve: FIDE could make an exception for supertournaments - but not on a case-by-case basis, rather clarifying in the rules: "Events rated category 17 or higher are [NOT: "may be"]exempted from the deadline for submitting rating reports.
About the Grand Slam: Mig and others are formally right that it is a bit strange (or fideesque) to change rules after the Nanjing tournament. Yet I agree with Manu and others that Topalov would most likely qualify anyway, or would be a logical candidate for a wildcard. Actually, last year he was sort of a wildcard holder (Aronian, Anand and Ivanchuk qualified by winning the three supertournaments) ... .
I doubt the result of Nanjing would have been different if the players knew at the time that they were fighting for "more than just winning this tournament". Yet the present discussions may well be 'more intense' if Bu Xiangzhi had won Nanjing, which was at least a serious possibility for most of the tournament.
In conclusion: I have a clear opinion on the rating issue, but I am sort of undecided about the Grand Slam part. Regarding rating issues, Topalov fans can (and do) always refer to the live rating list .... .
Thomas , camon please explain to me what rules did the Grand Slam broke.
And please explain to me too , why would you asume that the GS has the same rules as FIDE ?
I see nothing ¨fideesque¨ on getting more top tournaments and serious sponsorship for chess events.
3rd time i ask the same questions and nobody answers , must be something right in what i say.
By 9:54, I think you had corrected the second near the bottom, but not the first mention (in the Congratulations). And I was too eager to point out your error to read until the bottom...
Still, it's better than ChessBase, which in its typical schizophrenia also has both "who has just turned 19" (in a caption of a photo) and "18-year old Sergey Karjakin who wins Wijk aan Zee 2009" in the same article. Maybe "don't rely on ChessBase" should be another motto for aspiring journalists...
Mig, it's Dominguez not Gonzalez, isn't it?
Well Manu, they did change the qualifier after the fact, the claim that this is the opposite of what FIDE does was your words. I never called it corruption, that was your words.
In regards to rules and commitments, some players have qualified under a set of contingencies, which were changed afterwards. This constitues breach of contract. I have never called it illegally seeded, that was your words. I never said anything about WCH tournament, that was your words.
That he could have been invited is besides the point, if that was all, why not just invite him?
Whether Topalov is top rated or won whatever tournament is not really relevant to my point, which was solely that this move by GS is strange, unfair to other contenders, and handled exactly the way FIDE would have done it.
I love the fact that there will be a GS, but the organizers have shown to be equally incompetent as FIDE. (ok thats a hyperbole, not acutally possible...)
"Whether Topalov is top rated or won whatever tournament is not really relevant to my point, which was solely that this move by GS is strange, unfair to other contenders, and handled exactly the way FIDE would have done it."
Hear, hear. Don't expect the typical Topalov/Kramnik fan on this blog to be able to do any principled thinking about these things, though. Everything is fine as long as it favours their man, everything that favours somebody else is murky.
The funny thing, is that some of them occasionally make critical comments about FIDE and how they practice their (own) rules. It's based on the same criteria as everything else, of course. The test question is: "Does it serve my man?" If yes, we approve, if no, FIDE is wrong. Once you realize, all "discussions" become futile and a waste.
Mig, good comments on the Grand Slam news - I agree with everything you wrote about it.
Theorist, Gonzalez is referring to his blitz skills, I guess.
Old guys strike back in Gibraltar. Well, at least one old guy. Beliavsky clear 1st with 5.5 after 6 rounds. But Gashimov close behind. Svidler has 4.5 in a log-jam for 4th.
Karpov is playing "torture chess" (no resignation allowed) in Iran against Ghaem Maghami. Tied so far.
> MIG: Oh, and we just retroactively awarded a Grand Slam final spot to
> the client of one of our directors
Has it possibly crossed your mind guys that it is the event that may
need Topalov more than he needs the event?
Why do you assume that it is Danailov even asked for that?
As far as I can tell, it seem like Topalov's agenda for this year is
quite full if things go according to (his) plan. I can't even see how
and why he should even be playing in Bilbao if he has to prepare for
Anand later in the year?
>Don't expect the typical Topalov/Kramnik fan on this blog to be able
>to do any principled thinking about these things,
No, frogbert, we can think critically. Can you, is the question?
Of course, changing the rules retroactively is an undesirable thing to
do. But that would be the case if someone is hurt. And it depends
whether it was not requested/agreed by all parties?
Now, again, I'm getting verbose like you, see, the bug of it -- has it
crossed your mind that it is not Topalov who asked about that
favor/honor, but may be some other players at hand -- be they
sponsors, organizers, etc...
Just the way Topalov is a favorite, traffic inducing subject on this
blog or other blogs, see, even Mig hijacks his own threads with the
Grand Slam info -- he probably carries the same degree of
interest/commercial value elsewhere.
D.
"And it depends
whether it was not requested/agreed by all parties?"
"has it crossed your mind that it is not Topalov who asked about that favor/honor, but may be some other players at hand -- be they sponsors, organizers, etc..."
I don't care who wanted to make sure Topalov is present in the Bilbao line-up, and it's certainly not something I blame on Topalov's fans or Topalov himself. I blame fans for uncritically supporting anything that seems advantageous for their hero.
The real criticism is this, though: If someone "wants" or "needs" Topalov to be present, then INVITE him in a proper way, instead of inviting him while _pretending_ that he qualified. Topalov was invited/seeded into Bilbao, just like Kamksy and Topalov were seeded into the "candidate event" to be held somewhere, some time, possibly. They didn't "qualify".
Qualification works like this:
1. Criteria for qualification are created
2. Criteria are made public
3. Qualification events are organized
4. One or more qualifies
5. The event they qualified for is staged
It's about time that FIDE and GSA learn the basics of chronology wrt to "qualification criteria" and "qualification events".
>I love the fact that there will be a GS, but the organizers have
>shown to be equally incompetent as FIDE. (ok thats a hyperbole, not
>acutally possible...)
"Incompetent" -- considering how quickly the GS event was put together
I believe that your assessment speaks more about you than the event.
Reading some of these comments shows me the unbelievable group of
nerds that comprise the main body of Chess fans and that's the reason
why the sport is so uninviting and commercially weak.
See now -- has it crossed your tiny minds that this is a commercially
sponsored event, and not a mere Kirsan "guaranteed money" sponsored
event? Has it crossed your minds that the organizers might have a
PREFERENCE on who will come to these events and might have openly
stated so? Has it crossed your tiny minds dear gents that getting
sponsors in these rough economic times may require for you to promise
that the #1 guy will be there?
Why is the most obvious always missed here?
D.
"It's about time that FIDE and GSA learn the basics of chronology wrt to "qualification criteria" and 'qualification events'."
No, it's about time that some of our more tedious, pedantic posters learn that our sport is run by a wily, eccentric billionaire who will never sign on to any WCC-qualification process which strips away his power to promote his favorites.
Mmm , still no victims on this crime?
And still no rules, because so many talking about breaking the rules that makes you think ,ç
What are this rules everyone is talking about?
Please someone QUOTE the rule they are breaking.
So, they are including the Nanjin winner into this year cycle , it makes perfect sense to me .
If Aronian had win the event , no one would be complaining.
But he didnt , Topalov did , well: until someone presents the damage , i see no crime ,just very wise business choices.
Dear frogbert,
I appreciate your tantalizing search of fairness, but I think you're
kicking the wrong tree here. More like frogbert needs to be seen and
heard rather than making any sense. Most events like these used to be
by invitation only, no qualifications were required. This event has
set some kind of rules, which are still dynamic, naturally. If the
greatest crime of the organizers/sponsors was to find a formula to
automatically invite/force the #1 player and winner of the last two
such events to participate in the next big final then I suggest to you
that the World is a very unfair place and there are a million other
places far more deserving of your esteemed attention.
D.
"Of course, changing the rules retroactively is an undesirable thing to do. But that would be the case if someone is hurt."
Dimi, tell that to the players that declined particpating in Pearl Spring without knowing that they turned down a chance to qualify for Bilbao. Or did they?
Creating "qualification events" after the fact, isn't qualification, but selection. Also, your arguments support the reasonable doubt that Pearl Spring 2008 would have become a "qualification event" for Bilbao 2009 if someone other than Topalov had won it. Hence, "qualification" is a misnomer, at best. I find this kind of linguistic seduction to be immoral. Don't you?
Topalov is the World #1, until Anand plays a few more tournaments with his WC prep. I have zero problems with any organizer giving him a slot in their tournament, with or without a rationale, nor would I have a problem with him being seeded into the WC qualifier process.
For Chrissake, the guy plays brilliant, aggressive chess, maintains the only current 2800 rating, and has sponsors in his home country who bring money into the sport.
Just because his (successful and competent) manager also happens to be a paranoid jerk, everyone starts flying off the handle...
"More like frogbert needs to be seen and heard rather than making any sense."
Why do the typical Kramnik/Topalov fan here have this urge to make personal, groundless accusations/insults like the above? I feel sorry for the great chess players Kramnik and Topalov for attracting so many dishonest people.
I have a column at Chessdom where I could post stuff 24/7 if I wanted to. I could add much more "opinions" and "statements" to the live ratings site than I've done so far. But I don't. If I were desperate to be "seen and heard", a different behaviour in that respect would've been likely, don't you think?
Stick to the subject, please. Keeping a civil tone should be possible, even when confronted with criticism _slightly related_ to your hero, Topalov. Are you trying to prove or disprove what I said about the typical Kramnik/Topalov fan in here?
"I have zero problems with any organizer giving him a slot in their tournament"
Neither have I. Giving him a slot and pretending he QUALIFIED, however, is bollocks.
@Manu:
"Thomas , camon please explain to me what rules did the Grand Slam broke."
Their own rules were broken, or retrospectively changed. And Mig was the first one to answer that question before you could even ask it ...
"And ... why would you asume that the GS has the same rules as FIDE ?"
I never said so. There is at least one difference at the very start: Participation in the Grand Prix is based on clearly defined FIDE criteria, participation in any of the Grand Slam events (excluding Bilbao) is "by organizer's invitation". Nothing wrong with that, but it is a clear difference.
@Dimi:
"Of course, changing the rules retroactively is an undesirable thing to do. But that would be the case if someone is hurt."
Frogbert just 'stole' part of the point I wanted to make. But I can add that (if I remember one of his earlier posts correctly) one of those who declined the Pearl Spring invitation (read, one who was hurt in a way) was Magnus Carlsen. His reason to decline the invitation (other commitments in a place called Doha) doesn't matter.
This comes from somebody who never 'outed' himself as a fan of Carlsen ... .
@Manu again:
"If Aronian had win the event , no one would be complaining."
Not sure about that. I think most people criticizing the turn of events spoke 'out of principle', not because they don't like Topalov or question his right to play Bilbao. And as I said before, there would probably be more (not less) people complaining if Bu Xinagzhi had won Nanjing.
"If the greatest crime of the organizers/sponsors was to find a formula to automatically invite/force the #1 player and winner of the last two such events to participate in the next big final"
Dimi, we shouldn't judge and compare their actions based on whether or not it's a "big crime". The mindset should be: How do _serious organizers_ in mainstream sports do these things? Is "professional chess" approaching anything that people outside our little bubble would consider fair and sound?
Dear Frogbert,
I apologize for the stab at you, it was wrong, groundless and should
not be a part of such discussion. I hope I didn't hurt your feelings
too much, as I meant it more 'tongue in cheek'. Really appreciate all
your efforts, particularly the "Live Ratings List". It's so easy to
diss on people who actually do something useful. Mea culpa.
With the point that Thomas brought, now I understand that frogbert
speaks like a Carlsen fan too. Ok, nothing wrong with that, just admit
it and don't keep us blind to that.
I do not think that at the time they knew that Nanjing will be a part
of the Grand Slam process. I am absolutely convinced that Carlsen
will/should be invited somehow if he wishes to play. Carlsen is an
asset to any major tournament and just being the guy who fought 'va
bank' at Corus yesterday shows me that he is destined for greater
things.
My basic point -- you can't expect total fairness and even
transparency in the invitation process from the organizers of events
when sponsor money are involved...
D.
I have an impression that quite a few of Topalov's fans are kind of... like Danailov. I mean...have you ever encountered a _very_ arrogant Anand fan? Me not.
"you can't expect total fairness and even transparency in the invitation process from the organizers of events when sponsor money are involved"
I don't aim for "total fairness" - as a first, I think honest, non-deceptive language would be great.
I agree that retroactivity is not the fairest choice in sports, but in this case one must note that Topalov is the winner of last year's Grand Slam, he's the n. 1 in the FIDE list and is going to play a match that may give him the chance to become WC. Also, he has good chances to win the M-Tel Masters, where he always performed very well.
I don't think that the fact that he's already qualified for the Grand Slam final is such a scandal. They could have put him in as a wild card easily, but probably they want to give a chance to another elite player who could be unlucky in the next events, like Carlsen or Ivanchuk for example. Also, probably it was a way to be nice with the Chinese organizers who put quite a bit of effort in organizing their great tournament.
@Dimi: I think frogbert deliberately avoided mentioning any names, including Carlsen - because some people might then accuse him of being biased. However, I would say his posts are, at least most of the time, balanced. So it is irrelevant [and not necessary or worthwhile mentioning here] that he is sort of a Carlsen fan (earlier he mentioned that his father Henrik Carlsen is a personal friend of him).
As far as I am concerned, I had my last post in my mind ("in preparation") even before frogbert's 11:12AM comment appeared. And I still considered it pertinent giving one specific name (frogbert hinted at the fact that other names may also apply) to refute your statement about "noone being hurt"
"have you ever encountered a _very_ arrogant Anand fan"
No, but I've encountered several VERY touchy Anand and Negi fans... Touchy to anything resembling critical comments or even joking remarks.
I once said something like "Maybe X and Anand decided to call it a day and instead went to the local bar.", when a relay was stuck, or something. After that little remark, I was yelled at for being "very disrespectful" towards Anand, "because he doesn't drink any alcoholic beverages".
Well, I've had lots of non-alcholic beverages in bars in my time, but obviously just the thought of Anand in a bar spurred strong feelings of discomfort in a few. Maybe I'm the arrogant fellow here, but I've never been very comfortable with the high "pride levels" in some cultures. It's just too different from what I'm used to in Western Europe/Norway.
"They could have put him in as a wild card easily, but probably they want to give a chance to another elite player who could be unlucky in the next events"
If they hadn't included Pearl Spring 2008 as a "qualifier" for Bilbao 2009, they would've had two (2) wild card spots, like last year, so this arguments doesn't make much sense.
In fact, it's exactly like last year, except that they already gave Topalov one wild card. Of course, this changes another relationship as well - the 5 others invited to MTel have just had their chance to qualify for Bilbao increased significantly - and all the players NOT invited to MTel "suffer" even more for not being there. That is, if they wanted a spot in the most well-payed event in chess, excluding world championship matches.
Again Thomas , please include the law into a sentence , QUOTE IT , because if not i dont understand waht are you talking about .
Where it is written that the Grand Slam should not invite tournaments winners in retrospective?
What is this complaint about?
And you didnt present me a victim of this ( lets call it)¨corrupted system of having top players in the Grand Slam¨, or whatever is that you think of Topalov´s invitation.
I want to state that one HUGE diference between what happned in FIDE and this is that FIDE´s tournament losed value and sponsors over time because of corruption and obscure privileges, while the Grand Slam is getting bigger and prestigious .
Nanjin could be claiming to have their wild card and they are not doing it , they conformed with having the winner of their tournament seeded... Why would someone else have a problem with that then?
In fact the transparency of their system is good enough for the organizers of Corus and the mayor of Linares, (and San Luis and Nanjin) , and for sponsors, public , etc, etc.
I think is what you would call succesfull, more or less , no need to be afraid.
Not to mention that the combination of traditional and prestigious tournaments with Sofia and his modern rules is a great way to select variety of talented winners of tournaments and that this might be the best way to find a challenger for you-know-what , he he.
OK, Im gonna say this the other way :
LET s INVITE KRAMNIK ! , this is no WCH !!
Who cares? What problem could anyone have?
Is this envy or something alike? , why would someone would be against this?
By retro-qualifying their top star, they missed a chance to distinguish themselves more clearly from how FIDE does business.
It would be a non-issue if we hadn't too many of those bad examples recently.
Yah, that about sums it up for me too, Bartleby. Obviously Topalov belongs and obviously he would have been there anyway by virtue of winning another event or by a wildcard spot. I certainly wouldn't have said much had he gotten a wildcard. Other than his opponents, who doesn't love to see Topalov's name on a participants list? It was just a little too FIDE, to use the adjective form.
It would have been awkward otherwise because Nanjing has to come after Bilbao for scheduling reasons, so they wouldn't be in until the next cycle if they didn't do this. Nothing to really fret about if they don't make a habit of it. As long as they get Anand, Topalov, and Carlsen, they'll be happy. Pretty good odds of that even without the wildcards. Great that Karjakin will be there too, now.
Bilbao would be a dream to see
Karjakin, Topalov, Anand, Kramnik, Ivanchuk, Carlsen, Radjabov, Aronian or some combo there in. As a dreaming fan we already got 2 of the desired participants. I am just a little disgusted for the same reasons as Frogbert, Mig and others that Topalov's entry was a little underhanded - not that he wouldn't be there anyway.
Wow, that one zoomed right over me...
>LET s INVITE KRAMNIK ! , this is no WCH !!
>Who cares? What problem could anyone have?
Oh, I'm all for bringing Kramnik by priority seeding into any of
these Grand Slam Tournament events. His name recognition is very
high and his participation presents ripples of countless
implications, stories, etc. That's what the sponsors and
organizers need -- a story to tell -- before and after the
game...
frogbert transparency requirement can be satisfied very cleanly
-- Player X is invited on the discretion of the organizers.
Period. No more explanation, charts, schemes, "what if"
scenarios, moral judgment, endless talk, etc. is needed.
Of course, it is impossible to implement it transparently, but
the vote of the fans is what would be good to see. Chess needs
some passion injected into it. It can't always remain academic,
at least for the majority of the folks out there who might give
it a chance to look at it.
D.
The only retroactivity i see here is the hate (or envy or whatever) that prevents some people to accept the GREAT succes the hole Grand Slam is.
Some people should learn from them on how to organize the most succesfull chess tournaments on earth , not crying about why did they invite the number 1 player.
Manu, (after some research) I concede that no written rules were violated, simply because there seem to be none!? Then the organizers are free to do whatever they want, yet several people (not only me) have mixed feelings about the turn of the events.
Generally, you are very enthusiastic about the entire Grand Slam (nothing wrong with that) which makes you quite allergic to even the slightest criticism.
"Nanjin could be claiming to have their wild card and they are not doing it , they conformed with having the winner of their tournament seeded..."
Maybe I am missing something, but as far as I understand it things went as follows:
1) Nanjing organized a supertournament
2) Retrospectively they got the "Grand Slam stamp of approval" and didn't have to do anything extra for that. Which implies that they also cannot ask for anything extra (like a Bilbao wildcard for a Chinese player)
Yep, they promise to hold the tournament again during the next couple of years - which they would probably do anyway. And it is probably not an absolutely binding agreement, I mean if sponsors should go bankrupt in the meantime -> end of this tournament. Not saying this will happen, but it could happen ... .
Or ....
a) do they have to put the prize money for the next five years into a bank account right now?
b) do the "qualifying tournaments" contribute to the prize fund of the Bilbao showdown?
About Kramnik: You (and some other people) probably got the impression that I am a particular Kramnik fan. Actually I am not (not considering myself as one). But on this forum I recurrently defended Kramnik against what I consider unfair accusations, and I 'defended' his positional style - which, at his best, I think is just as remarkable as some spectacular attacking games.
That being said, in the Grand Slam Kramnik has a certain disadvantage compared to other top players - he will most probably never be invited to Sofia ... (it's another story that he would most probably decline such an invitation anyway).
>yet several people (not only me) have mixed feelings about the
>turn of the events.
Then don't watch them.
>That being said, in the Grand Slam Kramnik has a certain
>disadvantage
Unfortunately yes. Lack of desire to play in such. He said in an
interview that he'll be chaning that. We'll see.
>he will most probably never be invited to Sofia ...
This is very simplistic thinking. It's just business, inviting
Kramnik and where else – in Sofia. Speaking of headlines,
interviews, traffic, lots of BS, the event will market itself…
Anyway, I thought that’s very obvious.
D.
Manu, can't you see that this sudden inclusion of Topolov hurts true chess fans who dislike Topolov? If I were a chess fan who disliked Topolov, then I am being hurt by the organizers' inclusion of Topolov in the tournament.
I mean, who really can stand Topolov anyway? Always playing to win, rather than playing solidly. Always having so few grandmaster draws, who does he think he is? Growing a beard then shaving it off. Always talking with Cheparinov. Keeping his thin girlish figure well into middle age? Who can stand to be near him?
And his fans, d**m them, that's the worst part! All the Topolov fans I met have been characterized by respectful intelligence, gentlemanly discourse and fair dealing. Have you ever seen a Topolov fan who was a troll? - Never! They are always brief, to the point, truthful, fair in dealing with criticism. Yes, the worst thing for chess and for Topolov are his wonderful fans.
Hey tjallen, good job writing all this cute stuff, but seriously, after a few years on this forum and referring to Topalov several hundred times, I'd have thought that you could spell his name correctly. Can you try now, or is it too much to ask of you?
D.
@D.(probably Dimi)6:36PM:
"Then don't watch them."
"Turn of the events" in my post referred to the recent retrospective inclusion of Nanjing, nothing else (sometimes I try to be brief, and I thought this was clear from the context).
"[referring to Kramnik] Unfortunately yes. Lack of desire to play in such [supertournaments/Grand Slam events]"
????? Kramnik regularly played Corus, and he also used to play Linares - apparently last in 2004 when he won ahead of Kasparov. Maybe in some years he wasn't invited (of course they don't have to invite the same players every year), maybe recently he didn't like the idea of intercontinental travel in the middle of a major tournament. And this year he has valid personal reasons to decline invitations, so then this year it is his own choice not to take part in the Grand Slam.
>he will most probably never be invited to Sofia ...
"This is very simplistic thinking."
Maybe simplistic, I still think correct ... of course the MTel organizers don't have to invite Kramnik or anyone else, they are free in their choice (just like you, me or anyone else can decide whom we invite to our birthday party).
Generally this is another reason why, IMHO, it is not wholly fair to compare Grand Slam and Grand Prix. For Grand Prix tournaments, organizers or sponsors can pick one wildcard (and are even criticized for that), for the rest FIDE decides who will be playing in their tournament. For Grand Slam tournaments, organizers can pick their own field - of course inclusion within the Grand slam has to be justified by participation of a few top 10 players.
Imagine if Danailov told the Corus organizers: "Dutch GM's may not participate in the A group, their rating is not high enough." What would the organizer's reaction be? I think they wouldn't comply but rather drop out of the Grand Slam.
Of course this assumes that Danailov is a) "hypothetically stupid"(which I don't think and don't mean to imply)
b) in full control of the Grand Slam series, which I still doubt (despite such claims by Danailov himself and Manu).
Anyway, the above-mentioned differences explain why the Grand Slam is _inherently_ more attractive to sponsors than the Grand Slam.
"the above-mentioned differences explain why the Grand Slam is _inherently_ more attractive to sponsors than the Grand Slam."
Yeah, I guess that's the image Danailov would like to have propagated. Win, win. Your _other_ left. Between 12 and midnight.
Anyway, I think the "Grand Slam Events" should have more or less the same number of players (not 5 real competitors in MTel and 14 in Corus A), and that it would make more sense if the top players participated in roughly the same number of events.
A qualification system where one player has 3-4 chances to qualify (and a wild card if he fails), while others _might_ get one, is still a very biased "system" - hence, the sponsor money brought in for the "Grand Slam Final" is in reality distributed very unevenly, even among the top players (since the chances to receive them are so distributed). And before someone starts talking about world number one and similar irrelevant stuff, I'd just like to remind about the situation for most of 2008, before the Bilbao event.
And I'm not "complaining" on behalf of Carlsen - he was both invited (given a wild card) last year, and picked up the (still) rather big cheque for 2nd place.
In conclusion, the Grand Slam is still rather unfinished as a project if compared to similar "finals" in other sports, even if it already succeeds in one of its goals: to make a living for Topalov/Danailov ;o)
frogbert,
Why so obsessed with Topalov/Danailov? Why is it OK for Carlsen to pick a "rather big cheque for 2nd place" but not OK for the winner and the organizer of the event to make some money???
Is this the kind of "honest, non-deceptive language" that you were asking for in previous posts?
frogbert,
Just one more little thing: The "levels of pride" I have witnessed in Norway on different occasions (skiing competions, May 17th, etc.) are anything but low.
One should be very carefull when one condemns the "high pride levels" in some (lower?) cultures but doesn't notice the very same behaviour at home.
"Why so obsessed with Topalov/Danailov?"
I'm not obsessed with any of them - I'm interested in how professional chess is organized. When I'm critical towards Kramnik's statements, for instance, am I obsessed with Kramnik, then? Or when I say that Kamsky shouldn't ask for or accept the privilege he's got wrt the candidate event, am I obsessed with Kamsky? Or when I strongly protest against the way FIDE handled the WC Qualification changes, am I obsessed with FIDE?
Trying to divert attention from the issues to me, by pretending these things are "obsessions" of mine instead of reasonable concerns, is pretty lame. More of it will be ignored.
"Why is it OK for Carlsen to pick a "rather big cheque for 2nd place" but not OK for the winner and the organizer of the event to make some money???"
What kind of stupid strawman argument is this? I never said or implied anything along those lines. If you think I did, there's something wrong with your reading comprehension.
As a vehicle for organizing professional chess, the Grand Slam is far, far from being mature, which isn't that strange, given its short existence. Still, there are _obvious_ defects (imho) that shouldn't even be there at this early stage, if the aim is to create something similar to what we have in other more main stream and properly organized sports.
How many "retroactive qualifications" have you witnessed in major sports lately? Personally, I can't think of a single one. For FIDE it's a different story - the recent "candidate proposal" is the 3rd or 4th instance of this in less than 8 years.
"One should be very carefull when one condemns the "high pride levels" in some (lower?) cultures"
Why are you so desparate to attach (unreasonably) negative meanings to what I say?
I didn't CONDEMN "high pride levels" in other cultures - I said I wasn't COMFORTABLE with them (and opened for the possibility that I was being "arrogant" by feeling that way). And at no point did I talk about LOWER cultures. That's your imagination (or low self esteem?) that is playing a trick on you.
I'm sure Norwegians can be pretty darn happy with themself, and the celebration of May 17th, at least in the bigger cities, like Oslo, is something tourists should catch if they can. But becoming _aggressive_ or start _stalking behaviour_ because some foreigner says that a Norwegian sportsman didn't start an event very well (irrespective of if he did or not), is something I've yet to see. Please point me to a counter-example if you have one.
"the above-mentioned differences explain why the Grand Slam is _inherently_ more attractive to sponsors than the Grand Slam."
'Yeah, I guess that's the image Danailov would like to have propagated.'
Just to get one point straight (I agree with the rest of frogbert's post, see below): I did not mean to make propaganda for Danailov + Topalov - I think I never did before (well, there are enough other people taking that role).
What I ment to say is that FIDE with the Grand Prix tournaments at least tried to establish a transparent system along the lines suggested by frogbert (all participants play four tournaments out of six, in the end the cumulative result counts). And that parts of this scheme are less attractive to sponsors (understandable from a sponsor's point of view). FIDE changing rules during the ongoing cycle is another story ... .
Regarding the Grand Slam, my impression is that each (sub-)organizer considers his own tournament still predominantly in isolation - inviting whomever they want, not thinking about the other tournaments at that stage. What I mean (hypothetical case and arbitrarily chosen name): If MTel wants to invite Anand, they will not spend a second thinking "Wait, he already plays Corus and Linares, maybe WE should give someone else a chance to play and qualify for Bilbao".
And - along the lines of frogbert - there is at least one difference between the chess Grand Slam and the tennis Grand Slam. In tennis, each tournament features more than 100 players at the start - most closely comparable to the World Cup in chess, to a lesser extent to major opens (where 2700+ players very rarely participate, though). One difference is that tennis always has a decisive result at the first attempt, whereas chess games can be drawn - hence the need for rapid, blitz or even Armaggedon tiebreaks.
"the above-mentioned differences explain why the Grand Slam is _inherently_ more attractive to sponsors than the Grand Slam."
Thomas, read the above sentence again - I was just pulling your leg slightly, not really commenting on the perceived attractiveness for sponsors. :o)
I can add a more placative (and provocative) statement:
FIDE (with the Grand Prix) tries to create opportunities for a relatively large number of players.
The Grand Slam organization tries (and succeeds) to make a few rather rich players even richer.
(This comment is a bit unfair to Corus, because they have more participants in the A group and grandmaster groups B and C are also part of the entire concept).
Both approaches are legitimate but not comparable, the second approach appears to be more appealing to sponsors.
frogbert, I did not (mis)understand you in such a way, but some other people might - hence I wanted to clarify things ...
It's me again, sorry .... but only now I noticed a 'typo' in my original post:
"the above-mentioned differences explain why the Grand Slam is _inherently_ more attractive to sponsors than the Grand Slam."
Of course I meant "Grand Prix" at the end of the sentence ..... !
>Anyway, the above-mentioned differences explain why the Grand Slam is
>_inherently_ more attractive to sponsors than the Grand Prix [corr. mine].
Perfect, now you understand the driving force behind each Tournament
being slightly different and catering to the local style or Tournament
tradition. No point to criticize on "moral grounds" the decision to
include one player instead of the next. For MTel Danailov was trying
to include one player from the major countries (India & China), or get
a woman, or a long forgotten major player, it was all is aimed to
bring some kind of a diversity and possibly make the event more
attractive. There is a major element in promotion in who is invited,
so if they had a high-level player from the USA, for example, or the
other major untapped markets, I'm sure they'll try to pull him/her
over.
D.
"Perfect, NOW [emphasis added] you understand the driving force behind each Tournament ..."
I always understood, I didn't "suddenly see the light" or change my mind. And I never criticized organizers of private tournaments (read: non-FIDE events) for their invitation practice "on moral [or other] grounds". There was no pun or irony intended when I wrote "of course the MTel organizers don't have to invite Kramnik or anyone else, they are free in their choice".
Concerning the retrospective inclusion of Nanjing: In any case, it would have been more transparent if they had made this announcement (Nanjing is joining the Grand Slam) before the tournament - or, preferably, before players had been invited. The way things went, one interpretation at least cannot be fully discounted or refuted, namely:
"First we want to know the winner of Nanjing, then we will decide if it is part of the Grand Slam".
And this stands loose from the obvious (read: I fully agree) fact that Topalov probably would have qualified for Bilbao at another occasion, or would be a worthy wildcard holder.
@Thomas : They invited him at least one time that i know.(i mean Kramnik to Sofia).
I dont know if Danailov owns the GS , i just find funny how all the people who hate the guy cant accept or understand the great things he is doing (involved).
And talking about negation lets quote frogbert:
¨In conclusion, the Grand Slam is still rather unfinished as a project if compared to similar "finals" in other sports, even if it already succeeds in one of its goals: to make a living for Topalov/Danailov ;o)¨
The GS is not unfinished , the Grand Prix is.
And saying that is not as succesfull as in ¨other sports¨ is like saying that Polgar is not as pretty as Serena Williams .
Want to improve something? Work on candidates proposals , and see if you can LEARN something from the people who is succesfull on what they do.
Off thread I know, but can anyone remember the name of a British? sketch show with a character who kept appearing with the catchphrase;"only me"?
>Just because his (successful and competent) manager also happens to be a paranoid jerk, everyone starts flying off the handle...
Let's be fair. Topalov has gone out of his way on many occasions to make it clear that he is also a paranoid jerk.
Back on topic, by the way, I reckon Dominguez deserves an awful lot of credit for going for it, when the draw he could have had in one move would, as it turned out, have secured him shared first, a lot more money and his biggest ever tournament success.
>it would have been more transparent if they had made this
>announcement (Nanjing is joining the Grand Slam) before the
>tournament
"Transparent"? What are you talking about, man? They obviously DIDN"T
KNOW if Nanjing will join the GS circuit back then. Why do you think
Danailov went there? Just to show Topalov the way around?!? Why
announce prematurely and then become a joke if it doesn't work out?
What was that major Grand something event by FIDE that started with 9
sites now is down to 2-3 now. That's plenty transparent for you, I
guess :-)
>And this stands loose from the obvious (read: I fully agree) fact
>that Topalov probably would have qualified for Bilbao at another
>occasion, or would be a worthy wildcard holder.
Thomas, that's irrelevant. Please get the point -- even Topalov,
Kramnik, Carlsen, etc. lose every single game they play this year and
go down to 2500 they should still be invite-able due to name
recognition, or other promotional aspects. The organizers should have
the say and there's nothing to bicker about.
Anyway, you guys (+frogbert) seem to nitpick on these things like
you've got nothing else going all day long. The bad part is that I
appear the same way around you, so I'm out...
D.
@Manu:
"They invited him at least one time that i know.(i mean Kramnik to Sofia)."
When was that? Maybe in 2005 or 2006, hence before the Elista match. I don't know how relations between Kramnik and Topalov (+- Danailov) were before Elista, but I would guess at least 'professional' (read: not necessarily [close] friends, but respecting each other).
It would really surprise me if Kramnik was invited to Sofia _after_ Elista, correct me if I am wrong (and if you know for sure). But only "post-Elista" is relevant for the ongoing discussion about the Grand Slam past (2008), present or future.
BTW, I consider any comments/opinions about why their relationship deteriorated (a mild word for players not even shaking hands any more), who is (more) responsible, ... irrelevant for this discussion.
Have I missed something? Gibralter has been going on for a week with Nakamura (and other fellow-Americans), but the Daily Dirt disregards this tournament. Surely Mig can walk (Corus) and chew gum (Gibralter) at the same time. What does Nakamura have to do to get Mig's attention?
Just a quick question:
"Why do you think Danailov went there? Just to show Topalov the way around?!?"
Doesn't Danailov accompany Topalov to most if not all events (at least major ones)? After all, he is (first and foremost) Topalov's manager ... .
And guess I have to (or at least want to) reply to this one - because maybe I have 'spread that rumour' and I was actually wrong:
Dominguez playing 9.Bc1 would have been only a "2 1/2 fold repetition". Karjakin could still deviate and at the press conference said that he 'probably' would have done so with 9.-Nc6. (The word 'probably' created lots of laughter, first from the audience, then from Karjakin himself).
In any case, at that moment neither player could know that this would mean shared 1st place in the end. In a worst-case scenario from their point of view (Aronian, Radjabov, Movsesian and Carlsen all winning their games), it would be shared 5th place.
I ll search the interview (where Danailov talks about inviting Kramnik), can t remember now , i have the feeling that the interview is after Elista but lets see .
Anyway , you seem atracted by the less important part of my post , i would kindly ask you to acknowlegde that the GS discussion is simply the result of the resentment some people have toward Danailov and Topalov.
Same thing when Topa won Nanjin , the discussion was about if the tournament was strong enough or things like that , instead of prasing Topa like the dominant force he has become.
Quite right. I can't count.
All the more kudos to Dominguez in a way, given that he could have either had the draw OR forced Karjakin to play an objectively inferior move and take on all the associated psychological onus.
The Fast Show, pretty sure, or possibly Harry Enfield
bizz = swedish, ultra kramnik fan, carlsen & topalov hater = a****e
@Manu:
"Anyway , you seem atracted by the less important part of my post , i would kindly ask you to acknowlegde that the GS discussion is simply the result of the resentment some people have toward Danailov and Topalov."
I can only repeat (and expand on) what I said before:
1) Manu, you seem to be so fascinated about the Grand Slam that you cannot handle event the slightest criticism - like your 'allergic' reaction to one of my earlier posts stating that "the Grand Slam is not going 120% smoothly either" [this referred to the GS tournament in Mexico City, which was announced, scheduled and never took place].
The new(?) aspect you introduce is that any such criticism must reflect resentment towards Danailov and Topalov. I can only talk about myself, of course ... but I do criticize my friends (when I consider it justified, necessary, helpful, ...) as much or even more than my non-friends [claiming that I do not consider anyone an enemy, neither on this site nor in real life].
2) I have given several arguments why Grand Slam and Grand Prix are not directly comparable. Even if they were, the standard answer "but things are worse in the Grand Prix" is a cheapo IMHO.
My next comparison is a bit odd, maybe disputable:
If one criticizes the situation (financial crisis, human rights, environment, .... ) in, say, the United States [or any other country], answering "but things are much worse in Nigeria [or any other country]" is not sufficient. Of course I do not compare the Grand Slam to the USA, nor FIDE to Nigeria ... .
"event" in the first sentence of part 1) should of course read "even" ,:)
Ok Thomas , i see that instead of talking about the thruth you chose to get lost in endless refutations of everything except the point of the argument.
Suddenly its me that cannot handle even the slightest criticism about the GS , instead of people complaining about something that works .
And yes, your example about financial crisis is not even close to the point and very inaccurate.
Wow, it's the Thomas and Manu show. You know how there's silent approval and silent disapproval? Well this is silent ennui -- now broken.
Silence broken, that is. Ennui still going better than ever.
Again Anand wins the back-room battle, being able to engineer the stuffing of Topalov into Bilbao, so that all his prep will become known. Can't believe Danailov fell for that.
You are welcome to be a part in our show , i ve always wanted a hamster.
I will continue the show, at least regarding one point:
"And yes, your example about financial crisis is not even close to the point and very inaccurate."
The comparison I made was provocative, but the financial crisis does matter in the present situation. The official press release (e.g. http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5162) on the cancellation of the Karlovy Vary Grand Prix gave three reasons:
1) withdrawal of top players, in particular Carlsen
2) "it is unacceptable to change the rules during the game"
3) "the current financial crisis, which wiped out 80% of market value of NWR and sponsoring has been their first cut in operating expenditure."
Maybe #1 + #2 would be sufficient reasons to cancel the tournament. On the other hand, #3 on its own most likely would also be sufficient. And #1 combined with #3 indicates that the top-top players (read: the Grand Slam clientele) are the last ones to be affected by the financial crisis, which already reaches slightly weaker players (read: [part of] the Grand Prix clientele).
Theorist--
I'll bet you go to hockey games looking for a fight, or to car races hoping for a spectacular crash.
I, on the other hand, go to boxing matches hoping they can work it out.
CT--
Good catch!
I've never been called a hamster before. I rather like it.
Of course you do.