Tab dump:
A mostly factually correct story on Anish Giri, who, they say, just became the world's youngest GM (at the moment, not ever) at Corus, where he finished in =2-3 in the C group. We also learn what NRN means, though here it seems like a bit of a stretch. For the record, Ukraine's Illya Nyzhnyk, mentioned, is two years younger, not older, than Giri.
From young to old, a remarkable line-up of chess champions past and present will be in Zurich on Aug. 22 to celebrate the 200th anniversary of the local club. Anatoly Karpov, Garry Kasparov, Vladimir Kramnik, Boris Spassky, Ruslan Ponomariov, Veselin Topalov, Viktor Korchnoi, and current world champion Viswanathan Anand will be there. They give simuls and then all but Kasparov and Spassky will play blitz. Judit Polgar and Swiss veteran Werner Hug replace them. If you wonder why Garry declines even to play blitz competitively, imagine what it would do for Arnold Schwarzenegger's credibility as a politician if he took a break to make Terminator 4. (Okay, Californians might prefer the movie to his politics by now, maybe a bad example.)
Russian champ Peter Svidler beat Switzerland's Vadim Milov in a rapid playoff to take the title at the 2009 Gibtelecom Chess Festival. In the final round of regulation, Svidler beat Harikrishna and Milov beat Avrukh to tie each other at 8/10. Nakamura drew with Gashimov to both finish at 7.5. The American was surely winning the sharp battle but his queen sac was only good for a repetition draw after Black's counter-sac. 30.e5 instead would have made Nimzowitsch proud and opened e4 for the knight, winning. With two wins in as many events, this is starting out to be a very good year for Svidler.
Chess, beer, sword. You know this isn't going to end well. "He said he'd stabbed the guy but he didn't know why." Why? You just know there was a Petroff Defense on the board. If so, any decent defense attorney ought to get him off as justifiable homicide.
This otherwise entirely missable addition to the "chess club opens somewhere in the world you don't care about" file stands out for several strange assertions. One is that you "won't find a chess club in many small towns" (eh?) and the real winner, "You very rarely find an immodest chess player." Stay in Temecwhatever, guys, must be nice there.
"Chess,beer,sword" wow killed by sword, odd history, it has it all, there was even a woman, but she was only cooking, or so they say...
OK, congrats to Svid, he defeated some 2300 on his way but at the end the strong guys meet.
Humm, I thought that NRN meant No Response Needed. What does it mean in this case Non Resident Nepali? Oh c'mon!
While I'm here I must say that I fell in love with Amish! He's very smart, talkative, cute and funny (sometimes involunarily). I tried to tell him so but when he heard the word love he cringed and I couldn't explain what I meant, damn English! :)
Talking about age, I'd like to specify that Fabiano Caruana is still 16 and not 17 as it has been reported somewhere over the net. A year is made by 12 months, if I have to change age after 6 of them...you know what I mean? Just...count, it takes such a little effort! ;)
That's Anish...not Amish, sorry
It is a real pity Garry isn't playing in that Zurich event. I mean just think of the cross-table, one for the history books.
I agree.
"If you wonder why Garry declines even to play blitz competitively, imagine what it would do for Arnold Schwarzenegger's credibility as a politician if he took a break to make Terminator 4."
I take your point, but I think there is a bit of a difference between taking several months off elected office to make a movie, and a politician taking a few hours to play a celebratory blitz tournament. I'm guessing it must be because of the reaction to the last blitz event he played in in 2006 with Karpov, Korchnoi and Polgar. Still, it's a real shame. When Kasparov retired he left the door open to play some rapid or blitz chess. Too bad it looks like we will never see that now.
Doesn't Kasparov routinely appear at chess events, sponsor chess organizations, and write for chess publications? The real problem is that Kasparov's ego (like Fischer, unlike Karpov) could not tolerate losing even a light-hearted blitz tournament, could not abide even a trivial dent in his reputation as the greatest player ever.
Never say never, and I keep my hopes up as well. But every time he gets near a chessboard in anger, the Kremlin plasters stories of "Kasparov returns to chess, abandons politics" all over the place for weeks. It's painful. Even after four years, the dilettante label doesn't need any ammunition.
I'd set Garry's moratorium on chess to expire the same time Mikhail Khodorkovsky's jail term and many other things expire, which is when Putin is out of power. Even then I doubt Garry will return to serious play, but at least he'll be able to play a blitz event without having state propaganda tear into him about it.
I wouldn't blame him for not playing. It is not as though his love for the game has died or he won't observe games. Probably all of this time of not playing has added some rust to blitz and who wants to play knowing you are even a tiny miniscule fraction of the player you were a day a year two years ago. Not saying he wouldn't still be the best, but I can understand his reluctance to play guys who do nothing but chess 24/7 when he has been devoting all his time to politics.
"This otherwise entirely missable addition to the "chess club opens somewhere in the world you don't care about" file..."
?? Yes, the story has some of the usual Muggle-type errors reporters make (and not only when covering chess: stories about the current raging issue of Wall Street bonuses are chock full of simple mistakes too).
But, for most of us, that small-town paper story Mig linked is a welcome turn away from the unbroken diet of "chess-is-for-children" propaganda that dominates all media coverage of the game (in the United States, I mean; probably it's different in Europe).
For that reason it should be praised rather than scorned....Unless of course your primary constitutency is a worldwide coterie of people whose main common feature is less a love for chess than a conviction that nothing done by anyone below 2600 (or more like 2700) is ever worth paying attention to.
"...unless of course your primary constitutency is a worldwide coterie of people whose main common feature is less a love for chess than a conviction that nothing done by anyone below 2600 (or more like 2700) is ever worth paying attention to."
Mr. Jacobs, is this something that has stuck in your craw, or are you just having a bad day?
Personally, I'm having a bad day, and I agree with all your post said. But local chess, in my opinion , has degenerated into nothing more than ego trips for those in charge, substituting control and pathos for a talent for the game.
I stopped attending local clubs for this reason. Too many chapters competing for state authority (Nevada, then Oklahoma), too many people unwilling to accept the help they're offered to improve their club. When I moved to my current location, a local club was renting its own space in a strip mall. How awesome! There weren't a lot of attendees (well, as many as I thought there should be), so I offered my help. I was told their finances weren't in good shape, and they were losing members. I offered to get a donation (not loan) from my good friend, who happened to own an airline (I probably could have gotten ten grand, which was something back in the 20th century*). The guy in charge declined, citing he was tired of everyone trying to get involved. I said "Huh?" The club closed within a couple months. I haven't played a live game since.
BUT I still follow the game, and look forward to daily updates from the super tournaments. It's nice to have name recognition, but it's even more interesting, imho, to recognize names and follow the progress of the elite. It's a good thing.
CO
*I've always wanted to say that!
I would simply say: It is a small-town paper story, that's where it belongs ... not really worth criticizing or even mentioning by Mig. But the reporters may feel honored after all - it may well be the very first (and last) time one of their stories becomes known nationally and even worldwide (I am writing from Europe).
Swiss are seeming biased against the Khalifman and Kasimdjanov champions. And no Blitz Champion Dominguez-Perez too. Can rather have the "Senior Champion" Korchtsnoi (why not new victor Kaufman?), so must have bank connections.
I may be missing something, but is it really not true that many small towns do not have chess clubs?
(I speak as someone who has never lived in a town with fewer than 78,000 inhabitants, so there was always a chess club indeed.)
Define "small town"
4000 people, and one of the club rules was (I kid you not) "The taking of one's own piece is not allowed." I cannot define this as a chess club.
Seems to me, 20000 or so should be enough for a viable club.
CO
A rare lapse in taste on Mig's part, to pick on that nice, hokey story about small-town chess.
I'm reminded of a Letter to the Editor I read in my very first issue of Chess Life - April 1968, if memory serves.
While driving through Florence, South Carolina, the letter-writer noticed the marquee on a local motel said: "Florence Welcomes USCF."
"Must be a tournament in town," he thought. "Here's my chance to pick up a few easy rating points off the local yokels!"
Upon entering the motel to inquire about the chess tournament, all he got was baffled looks. Finally it emerged that "USCF" in this case stood for: "University of South Carolina at Florence."
Below the published letter, the Chess Life editor wrote: "Are you going to take this lying down, South Carolina?"
@ viva_belize!
> Swiss are seeming biased ...
> Can rather have the "Senior Champion" Korchtsnoi
> (why not new victor Kaufman?), so must have bank
> connections.
Good guess, but it's simple: He is Swiss.
Off-topic, but in this pre-match interview with Danailov:
Why is this fear from electronic devices in chess? (after Kamsky reportedly took help from Mossad experts to "sanitize" the venue in Sofia)
There is some kind of hysteria. Chess media talk too much about that. It is something interesting, something that sells. It is gossip, yellow news, intrigue...
LOL. I wonder who created this "kind" of hysteria....
http://interviews.chessdom.com/topalov-kamsky-danailov
"Off-topic, but in this pre-match interview with Danailov"...
Let's face it, no matter what Mig posts, there isn't really any other topic is there?
I found the entire interview much more propaganda-like than the extensively discussed Chessbase interview with Kramnik. Maybe I am not entirely unbiased (who is?) but to me it almost seems as if Danailov provided both questions and answers.
Two quotes as background for my questions/comments:
"Topalov did not want to play in Bulgaria. Outside it would have been much calmer. "
"The Grand Slam is a professional association, while Grand Prix is done by FIDE."
I will not repeat my earlier statements on other differences between Grand Slam and Grand Prix, but if Danailov can easily find sponsors worldwide (read: if his role in the Grand Slam is as important as claimed), then why couldn't he find match sponsors outside of Bulgaria?
Four possible answers:
1) Danailov is lying (or at least exaggerating) about his role in the Grand Slam.
2) Noone else wanted the match because of Kamsky - because the match is expected to be very one-sided (or, less likely, because of [Rustam] Kamsky's scandals in the distant past)
3) Noone else wanted the match because of Topalov - because of his Elista scandal in the recent past (or, less likely, because some organizers believe he is cheating)
4) Danailov is lying about Topalov not wanting to play in Bulgaria.
I know that Topalov/Danailov fans will choose option 2) and categorically rule out the other ones .... .
"Topalov did not want to play in Bulgaria. Outside it would have been much calmer. "
This is just pre-emptive promotional blah-blah directed at concerns about VT's home-court advantage. It's one of those statements that the speaker doesn't believe and that the speaker knows no one else will believe.
"Lying" is really too harsh a word.
Of course it is more like a press release than a real interview , they need to say a lot of things BEFORE the match takes place.
When you run big things and have mayor enemies like they do , you need to be very careful and take preventive measures .
They need to make clear from the day one that the match is clean , because its very provable that they may receive some media attacks , especially if things go well for Topa.
I find nice that he mentions Topalov's absence in Linares , and thanks the organizers , good thing.
Chess is a violent sport and should not be inducted into the Olympics
"This is just pre-emptive promotional blah-blah directed at concerns about VT's home-court advantage. It's one of those statements that the speaker doesn't believe and that the speaker knows no one else will believe."
True, except for the one person in the world who probably takes Danailov at his word - Topalov :) Also in the interview Danailov has the comical statement that "[Topalov] won last year's two biggest events, in Nanjing and Bilbao". (They had high - but not the highest - average ratings, but in terms of size, tradition or prestige they were minor tournaments)
Worst of all he claims that Kamsky only returned to chess because Danailov gave him the chance... Still, if there's one current chess player I'd back to deal with the psychological tricks of the Topalov camp, it's Kamsky (just a shame that in terms of preparation he'll probably get slaughtered).
"just a shame that in terms of preparation he'll probably get slaughtered "
Yes, like I mentioned, that is the question. How long does a super GM like Kamsky need to catch up on modern prep? Surely it is not beyond him? And yet he keeps avoiding heavily theoretical lines..how much is he holding back? If I recall, he prepared quite well v Shirov. I should think that Topalov will chuck the Berlin for the match, and stick with the Najdorf.
I agree with Manu to some extent: part of the interview/press release qualifies as legitimate prophylactic defense against future attacks, but only part of it .... .
mishanp wrote:
"Worst of all he claims that Kamsky only returned to chess because Danailov gave him the chance... "
Strictly spoken, the reporter made such a claim!? However, if I am right with my suggestion (half, but only half in jest) that "Danailov provided both questions and answers" .... .
Anyway, while this part is bad (and not representing prophylactic defense in any way), my personal favorite for worst part of the interview is at the very beginning:
"Yes, it [the match Topalov-Kamsky] wouldn't take place if Kramnik had won against Anand. The Russian influence is very strong."
Even if they consider Kramnik and 'Russian influence' as their enemies, this does not represent prophylactic defense in any way. And here also, it seems that "the reporter knew the answer before asking the question".
I would not insist as much if the whole thing wasn't strikingly similar with Kramnik's Chessbase interview (press release disguised as an interview by a personal friend?), but Manu's reaction is strikingly different: heavy criticism for Kramnik, all perfectly normal and allright for Danailov (+ Topalov).
I would still be annoyed by Danailov's arrogancy, another example is
"We have big experience with the 4 Mtel Masters tournaments. We will become a reference for this type of events in the future." (implicitly suggesting that they will do a MUCH better job than the organizers of the Anand-Kramnik match).
mishanp,
--Sorry, forgot about Topalov.
Thomas,
--After you finish dissecting the "arguments" of Danailov and manu, maybe you could move on to Don King and then maybe George Carlin.
Greg, I am always willing to learn new things, but here Wikipedia didn't really help. So please:
1) Do you mean Don King the boxing promoter, the photographer or the musician?
2) Where should I post the results of my analysis? This site is about chess and, occasionally, about bike trips from Iowa to Chicago .... .
Thomas,
I hate learning new things but will grudgingly look up Don King (the photographer) and Don King (the musician) in Wikipedia.
To get around Mig's draconian thread-relevance rules perhaps you might entertain and enlighten us with a compare-and-contrast feature on Danailov, Don King, and George Carlin?
Of course this is very similar to the chessbase interview , and of course that this doesnt bother me and the other does.
The reason is very simple my friend: i like this guys (Topa and Don King, he he) and dont trust the others (chessbase , Kramnik ).
But still , this press release proves to be more efective and accurate than the other ,and at least the guy is not holding a puppie.
Most of the things Danailov says i fully agree , and you can bet your last coin that he will use the ocasion to tease Kramnik.
About the Kamsky remark , he also says that Topalov and Kramnik were under the same roof on one ocasion and no one seems to care about that romance , he he.
What i read of this interview- press release , is how much the Topalov´s camp respects and fear Kamskys abilities .
And they are right to do so , Kamsky will not go down without a huge fight.
It will all depend on Topa´s state of mind , me thinks.
"To get around Mig's draconian thread-relevance rules perhaps you might entertain and enlighten us with a compare-and-contrast feature on Danailov, Don King, and George Carlin?"
I will leave this up to you - both because you probably know much more about Don King (the boxing promoter) and George Carlin and because you succeeded in entertaining us (at least me) with your story about cycling in Iowa. But try to be a bit more brief next time [I also keep trying for my own posts].
"he also says that Topalov and Kramnik were under the same roof on one ocasion"
You mean Kamsky, not Kramnik !!??
I don't know how a psychologists might interpret your Freudian(?) typo ... just kidding, or course.
"...he also says that Topalov and Kramnik were under the same roof on one occasion and no one seems to care about that romance..."
--Manu may be referring to Topalov's dream of touring Moscow nightclubs with Kramnik. Strangers in the night...exchanging glances....
No i actually was referring to Kamsky , he he.
Meaning that only part of Danailovs comments were taking into consideration, but that was a hell of a lapsus.