Want drama? Just add Shirov! Spatvian GM Alexei Shirov won clear first at the MTel Masters in Sofia with a clutch final-round demolition of leader Magnus Carlsen in the final round. Topalov drew with Wang Yue, so Shirov's +3 undefeated 6.5/10 score gave him the trophy over Carlsen and Topalov, both with 6/10. The decisive game itself was rather anticlimactic (echoing the last-round Nakamura-Friedel steamrollering in the last round of the US Ch). Carlsen kept offering pawns to load up on a kingside attack. Shirov kept taking them. When the kingside attack turned out to be a mirage Carlsen could only resign on move 30 down roughly 14 pawns. Congratulations to Shirov, an eternal fan favorite who might be the latest veteran to begin a second spring. I wonder how Shirov feels his play these days compares to his early "Fire on Board" years as a tactical phenomenon.
The win over Carlsen was also a convenient confirmation that Shirov was playing very well, and his score couldn't just be explained away by saying his wins came only against Ivanchuk, who has played like roadkill. Speaking of, Ivanchuk is still trying to assuage his pains with a consolation win against Dominguez up two pawns in an opposite-colored bishop endgame. Update: Chucky wins! Deserved if only because he was killing the Cuban in their first-half game and missed various wins.
Add: I totally forgot to mention that this win also puts Shirov into the Bilbao Grand Slam final with the already-seeded Karjakin (Corus), Grischuk (Linares), and Topalov (Nanjing 08). According to the recent Grand Slam Chess Association press release from Sofia, this year the Grand Slam final will only be those four players, unlike last year's six. Still just double round-robin or will they go to a real 4x4 match-tournament? Just six rounds doesn't seem a worthy distance. But this sentence in the May 22 press release isn't ambiguous: "The Masters Final 2009 will be played exclusively by the four winning players of the tournaments that, along with Bilbao, make up the Grand Slam Chess Association." If it's a 4x4 I'm even happier Shirov made it in. That would be a super-concentrated dynamic field.
Ivanchuk cheers up. Hooray!
Shirov back at number five in the chess live ratings.
Hey, doesn't Carlsen deserve some credit for not playing some dead opening and just going for the draw? A nice tournament overall and nice to see Shirov playing well again! Just need Ivanchuk to get back on form and get these guys together again for some nice "fighting" chess!!!
Just "going for the draw" could have allowed Topalov to catch up if he had beaten Wang; I'm still not sure though if Topalov had won the tournament because of more decisive games or if it would have been a play-off.
And there are really no openings that don't allow White to complicate matters anyway.
Shirov is quite a strong player, Tim. Maybe drawing against him "on demand" is not a simple task, even for Carlsen??
acirce, with the 'Big Boys' playoffs cost extra money for the organizers so that is why there are very seldom those.
Interesting to compare the "official" (not live) pre-tournament ratings of Shirov (2745) and Ivanchuk (2746) - no insult intended, congrats to Shirov and all the best to both of them.
On Carlsen's opening: Actually it seems that the first three pawn sacrifices (until 20.-Bc6) were still known and 'accepted' theory. I play the Sveshnikov myself but don't understand that particular line - yet apparently it is not THAT bad, at least not (considered to be) losing by force. And let's not forget that a draw _may_ not have been sufficient for Carlsen to get clear first - until Topalov failed to win against Wang (or Wang held the draw, whatever one prefers).
Finally @Mig: "his [Shirov's] score couldn't just be explained away by saying his wins came only against Ivanchuk"
While I had mentioned this fact, it was in no way meant to minimize Shirov's performance. I just considered it funny that Carlsen was (and still is) clear first in the "tournament excluding the tailender".
I only said "some" credit... I also did not say that it was an easy task... just that he did not play a more staid opening. Anyway, it was an interesting and enjoyable tournament to watch!
Some quotes (slightly odd ones IMO) from the Chessdom live report:
"it is interesting that the organizers will not follow the initially stated rules, and have introduced a last minute change posting a message on the official site, "A tie-break match will be played in case of a tie for the first place in the tournament between the first two players in the final standing."
[changing rules during the tournament? at least in this case it wouldn't have favored Topalov ... .]
"Two rounds ago Topalov was preparing for such a [tiebreak] scenario. He stayed after the game in the glass cube and played two blitz games against FM Kiprian Berbatov"
[with all respect, Carlsen is a bit stronger than this Bulgarian FM]
"Shirov's victory is a multi achievement. Besides the good share of the prize fund, the first place, the qualification for the Final Masters in Bilbao, he also will have higher rating than Vladimir Kramnik, pushing him away from the 5th position."
[The last is 'symbolically important' for Bulgarians, maybe also for Shirov himself (though I guess he can put the live ELO difference of 4.9 points in perspective) - but mentioning it along with the rest in one sentence, hmmm ... .]
"he also will have higher rating than Vladimir Kramnik"
Those chessdom guys are hilarious sometimes.
If you are in North America you can come and watch (possibly play) Shirov in the Canadian Open this summer.
www.edchess.ca
Mondo "Shirov back at number five in the chess live ratings."
Yes! I love to see an attacking player rated 2763.9 ahead of Kramnik. Everyone's talking about Ivanchuk 2702 losing 43 points and falling to #30 and it is a big story, but Adams 2700 has slowly fallen to #31. He was #4 in the world with a 2745 FIDE rating in October 2002. He's now in Nakamura territory of not being top 25, not quite good enough for the supers anymore, and half a point from falling off the live rating list.
I totally forgot to mention that this win also puts Shirov into the Bilbao Grand Slam final with the already-seeded Karjakin (Corus), Grischuk (Linares), and Topalov (Nanjing 08). According to the recent Grand Slam Chess Association press release from Sofia, this year the Grand Slam final will only be those four players, unlike last year's six. Still just double round-robin or will they go to a real 4x4 match-tournament? Just six rounds doesn't seem a worthy distance. But this sentence in the May 22 press release isn't ambiguous: "The Masters Final 2009 will be played exclusively by the four winning players of the tournaments that, along with Bilbao, make up the Grand Slam Chess Association." If it's a 4x4 I'm even happier Shirov made it in. That would be a super-concentrated dynamic field.
Mig -
"...this year the Grand Slam final will only be those four players, unlike last year's six. Still just double round-robin or will they go to a real 4x4 match-tournament? Just six rounds doesn't seem a worthy distance." (Mig)
Supposedly, the event is scheduled for 2 -15 September 2009. That's 14 days, so a 4 x 4 format with 12 playing days would fit in just right.
"... Bilbao Grand Slam final with the already-seeded ARONIAN [emphasis added], Karjakin, and Topalov"
Did I miss something? What happened to Grischuk - winner of Linares (BTW on tiebreak ahead of a certain Ivanchuk)?
Yah, copy-pasted the wrong one so both the comment and the main article were wrong with Aronian instead of both right with Grischuk. Still had the right version in ClipMate. Erp.
Would love a 4x4. Maybe Azmai could play, he has a good record in similar events...
I can't believe Carlsen choked.
I'm really glad Shirov finally nailed one of these super-GM tournaments. He was my favourite player pre-internet days when I used to play through his latest "Shirovian madness" as my friends used to say. He's not the player he was, not as exciting, but the whole game has changed since then. I think I've been overly critical of him over the years because he disappointed me, for instance, I really wanted him to stuff Kasparov, even just once, but he almost always lost in a way that seemed to be worse than his normal standard of play. I think he never beat Kasparov. But he plays real chess like Ivanchuk and I like that.
That said, Carlsen excites me as a player too, he's still to reach the age of 19 which is the key age of first maturity of almost every world champion, it is the start of the adult brain in my view. Fischer, Kasparov, Karpov, Kramnik, you name it, their real age of mature chess was at 19.
"Maybe Azmai could play..." (Mig)
Who is Azmai?
"Fischer, Kasparov, Karpov, Kramnik, you name it, their real age of mature chess was at 19."
Interesting comments Mark. Would you expand on that a little.
"Fischer, Kasparov, Karpov, Kramnik, you name it, their real age of mature chess was at 19." (Mark Crowther)
Fischer won the U.S. Championship 4 times before he was even 19. Plus he played very well in Europe. That's very mature, don't you think? So, he really shouldn't be on your list.
Luke,
"Who is Azmai?"
You're joking right?
"You're joking right?" (Daaim)
No.
He is Zurab Azmaiparashvili, a GM from the Republic of Georgia. He had been their top player for many years flirting with 2700 and was the FIDE VP not too long ago.
He is probably more famously remembered for the controversy during the Calvia Olympiad in 2004 where he was beaten up by the Spanish police and jailed briefly. They accused him of headbutting the police as he tried to get on the stage to present the Nona Gaprindashvili award that they had forgot to present. He ended up with a black eye and bruises.
I was there at the scene and before the incident had heard him speaking loudly and complaining. When he approached the stage a scuffle broke out and his wife was shrieking loudly. She was later crying profusely in the press room. Horrible. Unfortunately, Azmai was also infamously associated with problems in the Georgian Chess Federation, of which he was President.
Hehe chillout acirce, a lot of people are glad these days to see a fighting player, a real player, like Shirov, above someone like Kramnik.
Also Aronian and Carlsen are up, this is amazing, great days for chess, Shirov wins a super-tournament, hats off to the magician, he fully deserves it.
Now please ban the Petroff and bring on the freakin' King's Gambit!
For once I agree with you, Bowles -- it would be nice if people started playing the King's Gambit against Kramnik. He would score so much better.
(Perhaps even overtake Shirov on the rating list if he's really lucky?)
Heh, it would be lovely, "Kramnik vs the king's gambit"
OK acirce, Kramnik is more solid --and boring, he probably will overtake Shirov anyway sooner or later, but what the heck, this is Shirov's time.
And I agree with Mark Crowther in many things, as him, I also wanted Shirov to beat Kasparov at least once.
Fischer's play at the Stockholm Interzonal in 1962 at the age of 19 was achieved with a class of chess that just hadn't been seen from him before. If you look at the careers of all the players I mention and probably many others you see a big jump at that age, in spite of any great achievements before that.
Kasparov's first SuperGM win in 1982 at 19, Kramnik was 19 or 20 when he had his first. From whatever level these gifted young players start from there is suddenly a final jump to the kind of level of chess they're really capable of.
Dude, i was puffing a smoke and i suddenly got this notion, i mean , we're like peasants and people like Mig, Dodgers and the chessbase guy, Friedel and Mr. Crowther are like you know the clergy , and the nobility would be all the players, Shirov and Kramnik and Vishy would be the King, the rest are like the princes and queens, no homo comment here.
Playing that hard for the win with black against a 2750 player is of course very dangerous, and no big surprise that it backfired so massively.
"he also will have higher rating than Vladimir Kramnik, pushing him away from the 5th position"
Not unimportant since that gives Shirov (and not Kramnik) a rating spot in the Candidates, if FIDE would choose the next list to pick the rating qualifiers.
Shirov himself won Biel '91 (a double round-robin with Bareev, Andersson, Lautier, Christiansen, Adams, Gavrikov and Kozul) having just turned 19. :-)
Yes maybe, but obviously any rating list is just a snapshot in time. If Kramnik plays well in Dortmund (he usually does), he may well return into the top five [but this tournament is 2-12 July, too late for the next official list].
Anyway, along with acirce I just find it hilarious that Chessdom takes the opportunity to pick at Kramnik who wasn't even playing at MTel. "Of course", they also have an original take on Dortmund in their tournament preview:
"GM Vladimir Kramnik. The 2008 World Chess Championship finalist has not played a rated event this year, which oddly worked in his favor and he climbed positions in the rating chart."
[still relatively OK, even if the tone is a bit strange - what's wrong with taking a break once in a while to recharge your batteries? And what's wrong with wanting to be close to wife and new-born baby for a few months?]
"GM Dmitry Jakovenko ... Scoring higher result than Kramnik could give Jakovenko the highest rated Russian player."
[Imagine Carlsen, Leko and maybe Bacrot or Naiditsch fighting for first place - the Bulgarian attention will still be focused on two Russian players!?]
@Bowles: Do you have the same negative opinion on other players which are arguably solid and boring - or, to put it differently, have a positional style and excellent endgame technique? Two examples would be Karpov and, further back in time, Capablanca.
Hi Daaim -
Thanks for that information.
I think people believe Kramnik is boring because he does have tend to have more short draws than some other players. However, they ignore that some of Kramniks wins are as close to flawless as humans get.
Agreed, and ... it may well be that some people also consider Kramnik's flawless 'perfect' victories boring. Hard to point out any single particularly strong move from him, hard to find out where exactly his opponent went wrong, yet Kramnik won and "made it look easy".
Some people (I won't mention a name) will even minimize such victories, saying that his opponent was stupid losing a drawn endgame. In any case, sacrificial attacks have a larger 'wow' effect, even if (or especially when?) they are not entirely correct.
The logical flow that characterize so many of Kramnik's games is quite beautiful. I'm sure many of his opponents become quite frustrated against a style where, with a lot of hard work, the best outcome is a draw, and that's probably why many of those opponents lash out in desperate attempts at creating couterplay only to find themselves facing efficient annihilation. Kramnik's games are not exciting, but they are extremely instructive examples of positional play which, ultimately, are far more beneficial to your chess playing strength than are thousands of exciting moves.
MD -
I like the way Kramnik plays. He usually plays very simply, and it's easy for me to understand his games.
According to the website:
http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/2nd-grand-slam-masters-final-in-bilbao-announced-this-year-with-just-four-players/#more-11766
the players at Bibao 2009 will be: Topalov, Karjakin, Grischuk, and Shirov. Looks like Aronian got dropped when they reduced the number of players from six to four.
Historically, there have been two main types of chess players: those who play positionally and those who play tactically. One loves to build up their positions, the other is all about getting the initiative and attacking. Of course, as chess has grown, most of our chess professionals can play in either style, but they do have preferences in the way they conduct their games.
Kramnik can trace his stylistic ancestors among the greatest of the game: Capablanca-Smyslov-Petrosian-Karpov
"I like the way Kramnik plays. He usually plays very simply, and it's easy for me to understand his games."
Greg... help!!
I wouldn't know why Aronian was "in" before the field was reduced to four players - I think Mig simply had made a mistake (no big deal, of course).
But, with the reduction to four players, the retroactive inclusion of Nanjing into the Grand Slam (after the tournament, hence after the winner Topalov was known) becomes even more questionable. When this was announced there was a heated (well, animated) discussion here. Pro-Topalov bloggers argued that it didn't matter, because Topalov would, in any case, get a wildcard spot based on his rating. Sort of plausible at the time, but now there are no wildcard spots ... .
And when would you suggest that the winner of Nanjin gets invited to Bilbao?
Because , even you should understand by now that if you add a new tournament to the GS it is only fitting to invite the winner to the next masters final.
What would be the point of including the tournament in the first place?
Perfectly logical, but if, say, Aronian had won and Bilbao was going to be 4 players, I think you'd have found that the winner of Nanjing would, also perfectly logically, only qualify for the Bilbao tournament after the current one. After all, it's a bit weird to have as a qualifier a tournament that the participants didn't realise was a qualifier.
In any case, if Bilbao only involves 4 players it's going to be a shadow of the tournament it was last year.
Your speculations dont convince me , if Svidler had won , i think he would be in the masters final too, i have no reasons or precedents to believe things would be diferent.
Negotiations were conducted during the tournament ,so i dont see anything weird on that , i just see good ideas questioned just because Topa is involved.
Shadow or no shadow , im looking forward to Bilbao : Karjakin , Grishuck , Shirov and Topa, for me it is more than ok.
Do you feel someone is excluded? ;)
After all there will be a russian player.
Half of the field is russian !
@Thomas: While I consider Kramnik boring, compared with a lot of top players, who have the same or even superior superb positional play and/or technique, I do not condemn him nor mock him -too much- for this.
That said I actually do admire both Karpov and Capablanca, as well as for instance, Petrosian, a true master of positional play. And let me stand up here to salute the name and memory of Tigran Vartanovich Petrosian. Cheers.
I will not convince you, Manu, but maybe some other people (at least mishanp seems to understand what I mean). To first answer your question: Now that Nanjing is known to be part of the Grand Slam, of course the winner of Nanjing 2009 qualifies for Bilbao 2010, no questions asked.
Now let's recapitulate the current Grand Slam:
1) Three tournaments (Corus, Linares, MTel) were known to be part of the Grand Slam when invitations were sent out, the tournament was held, the winner qualifies for Bilbao. FINE
2) For Nanjing, invitations were sent out, the tournament was held, Topalov won, and THEN (only then) Nanjing officially became part of the Grand Slam. SUSPICIOUS
It does not matter when "negotiations" started, as - for some reason - they were only successfully concluded after the tournament. Noone (maybe noone except Danailov) knows what would have happened if Aronian or Svidler had won Nanjing. I see 'reasons' why things might have gone more smoothly because Topalov won, and 'precedents' - well, there are no precedents in the short history of the Grand Slam.
From another perspective: There were plans (or rumors spread) that the 2009 Grand Slam would comprise another tournament in Argentina. It does not matter why this doesn't happen after all, but it could make sense to invite Dortmund (an established supertournament) instead. Problem (for Danailov): Kramnik is part of the field and - based on past results - might win the tournament. So maybe negotiations could start now, but come to a successful conclusion only if the 'right' player (Leko, Carlsen, Jakovenko, Bacrot or Naiditsch) retro-qualifies for Bilbao?
Hypothetical, of course - be it only because Dortmund was already mentioned as a possible Grand Slam tournament at an earlier stage (about 1 1/2 years ago) but then wasn't included.
Yes, it's hard to imagine Danailov favouring Topalov :)
I'd also take a 4-player tournament instead of nothing, but it's really a bit too small unless there's a lot at stake. There'll only be two games a day, with the same match-ups constantly repeated. An 8-player tournament with e.g. Anand, Carlsen, Aronian and yes, even your favourite K, would of course be much more interesting.
Dortmund has - thankfully - never been interested in joining Danailov's little project as far as I know.
As for Russians in this year's Bilbao, you could include everyone except Topalov in this category if you want. I kind of like that thought ;)
It will consist in the exactly number of games that im usually able to pay atention in one day , so it suits my routine.
Also i enjoy following matches, so i have no problem with a little round robin between 4 players , especially those players .
For example i would love to see two minimatches (semifinals) and a nice 4 games match as a final.
There is no way for you to convince me that it wont be a fascinating event , sorry.
It seems to me that you would be glad if it fails only because the Bulgarian camp is involved , i expect more from you.
@Thomas : ¨Problem (for Danailov): Kramnik is part of the field and - based on past results - might win the tournament.¨
Do you realize that Kramnik can win Linares or Corus too as qualifiers?
Nobody is running from Kramnik ,although it can be argued the exact oposite.
"Nobody is running from Kramnik ,although it can be argued the exact opposite".
Yes, Kramnik is running from nobody :)
I'm not saying there couldn't be any interest in a 4-player event, but for me it would have to be for something important e.g. you could have imagined a fantastic world championship with Kasparov, Kramnik, Anand & Shirov, back in the day. Bilbao is just another tournament, so it's a bit pointless to adopt a match format.
Incidentally Kramnik was talking about something interesting regarding last year's Bilbao. As we know, he had been given a wildcard, and the organizers contacted him to see if he preferred to play in September or in December. Just a few days after he said December would be the best for him, they decided it to take place in September. His impression was that they didn't really want him to be there, i.e. that "I was intentionally asked about the date to choose the other so that I wouldn’t be able to play" according to the clumsy translation at http://english.sport-express.ru/articles/9_221/
¨Bilbao is just another tournament, so it's a bit pointless to adopt a match format. ¨
Bilbao was the first 22 cathegory tournament in history (it was first in other things too) , i wouldnt say that is just another tournament...
And about the format ,i might add that if Bilbao ends up being the last qualifier for a WCH match like it should ,the mini-match idea wouldnt be so wrong .
But hey , i have no problem with the organizers , untill now they have provide me with tons of the great chess ever , i will just wait for the event to begin.
Dont get me wrong, i hope Kramnik qualify for it in the future , it shouldnt be so hard for a player like him.
Players such as Carlsen and Adams declined invitations to Nanjing because they had committed to playing in the Qatar Grand Prix tournament. Would they have done so if Nanjing was known to be a Grand Slam Final qualifier? Are they not entitled to feel doubly ripped off now, after the rules have been changed retroactively?
"Historically, there have been two main types of chess players: those who play positionally and those who play tactically. One loves to build up their positions, the other is all about getting the initiative and attacking. Of course, as chess has grown, most of our chess professionals can play in either style, but they do have preferences in the way they conduct their games."
Sudberry Jim,
Consider your audience. Your posts are over the heads of most of us, who are still trying to figure out the en passant rule.
Ask them pls , and then tell us .
Under the "I told you so" dept., once again, Carlsen fails to win a tournament, tying for 2nd-3rd. I'm not convinced that he's going to be WC someday, at least not yet. He just hasn't cleared the highest hurdle yet, namely, consistently winning the biggest tournaments. Let's see what happens in the coming two-three years. Time for a new coach perhaps, to take him to the next level?
Sayre's Law: "In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the stakes at issue."
Most often invoked with respect to academia ("the stakes are so low") -- but this only because chess is beneath notice.
Acirce (quoting Kramink -- sort of): "His impression was that they didn't really want him to be there, i.e. that "I was intentionally asked about the date to choose the other so that I wouldn’t be able to play".
As a strategy to exlcude Kramnik, this only works if the two dates are mutually exclusive for Kramnik -- a fact which, if known in advance, obviates the need to ask him in the first place...
IMHO Kramnik needs a new manager yesterday , someone able to prevent him from pulling those childish claims like ¨they didnt really want me there ¨, ¨i want the same privileges than that other kid¨, or the most often used ¨all i am asking is for a little red carpet at the entrance ¨.
Nothing would be more profitable than to have Kramnik and Topa into the glass box , it is ridiculous to blame anyone than Kramnik for not playing at Bilbao.
BTW , i´d love to see him play there and the last time i checked (FIDE world vs Az)he was playing outstanding chess , maybe next time he gets there.
I like your analogy Mike (you must a been toking the good smoke). But I think the depth of the chess world needs more room in your depiction. Anand, Kramnik, Topalov, they're more like the Kings of the Gods, while Aronian, Carlsen, Grishuk are badass chess gods but not yet Supreme Rulers.
In the other direction, there's players like me, and maybe you (I haven't noticed any of your comments before) we're like poor indentured servants, and maybe this don't apply to you, but i rarely post on the blogs I visit almost daily because they're dominated by a bourgeoisie, literati class. These merciless academicians seem to know so much more and I struggle trying to work out the variations I read in posts by people like acirce, Russian Bear, and notyetagm, I mean they don't always submit lines of moves, but sometimes I'll just skip over that part of their post. Of course they're somewhat beneath the clerical blogmasters who provide them the venues in the first place.
Maybe earls and dukes and barons (but queens?! no homo, yeah right, unless you mean Judit) could categorize IMs all the way up to powerful but yet still mortal GMs.
Finally, there's probably a class even below players like me, the illiterate paupers who aren't even aware this universe exists. But one day, a chile will be born, in a manger, into the lowliest of the lowest class, and he will grow up to utterly dominate the chess galaxies for generations! Our Hero!
"He just hasn't cleared the highest hurdle yet, namely, consistently winning the biggest tournaments"
He is only 18 years old though. Kramnik's only Corus win was more than ten years ago, and Topalov has never won Linares. Compared with that Carlsen's results have been decent for a teenager in spite of the "failure" in Sofia. For example Kramnik's performances after 2007 have all been much worse than Carlsen's in Sofia.
Nice win by Shirov. Glad I picked him pre-tournament. Perhaps Bilbao will be 2 rounds, then 4-game play-off for 1st/2nd, 3rd/4th. Kooky, but so are Spaniards.
"If it's a 4x4 I'm even happier Shirov made it in. That would be a super-concentrated dynamic field"
Nothing against Karjakin, Shirov and Grischuk, but a 4x4 event including these players wouldn't necessarily be one of the top events of the year.
Hmmm, good, good nickname. Chess slang: "greek pawn" or " biting the greek pawn", i.e. to take the poisoned pawn.
It beats anything with Grischuk + Karjakin >>>>> Wang + Dominguez, so yeah-it beats every single tournament this year. + Topalov + Shirov. There will be rivers of blood.
I don't like part of your comment, are you suggesting there are gays in the chess elite? Nonsense, all top Chessplayers are straight.
"it beats every single tournament this year"
I still miss players like Anand, Kramnik, Aronian and Carlsen to see it as the best tournament of the year. It's of course a question of taste, but to me it doesn't get better with four Grischuk-Karjakin games instead of two, but it will definitely be entertaining.
"Do you realize that Kramnik can win Linares or Corus too as qualifiers?"
Yes, even I do realize that! And it would be odd indeed if Danailov could impose a rule stating "either you invite Kramnik, or you may be part of the Grand Slam". Something similar happened many years ago - either Korchnoi, or one or several Russian players in the field - but the Cold War is over ... .
Yet I am still wondering why "negotiations" about a tournament joining the Grand Slam can take several months (and why they took place during and after the Nanjing tournament, rather than before). Does it take that long for Danailov to convince organizers that he won't interfere with their autonomy? Or does he interfere? It seems that next year all Grand Slam tournaments will enforce Sofia rules - if they had nothing but advantages, why didn't Corus make this decision (independently) already for 2009 or 2008?
I mentioned Dortmund only to further explain why it is odd to include a tournament only after it took place and the winner is known. It is also an interesting hypothetical question whether Bilbao would have abandoned wildcards if Topalov needed one to qualify.
And mishanp merely stated that Bilbao 2009 is, for him, less interesting than Bilbao 2008. Some essential names missing (I know they didn't qualify) and only four players. And it cannot be ruled out that one of these four will be completely out of form ... . The smaller the number of participants, the more this can affect the entire event. As I wrote yesterday on Chessvibes: I hope that Shirov will play in Bilbao the way he did at MTel, not the way he did in his 2008 supertournaments (5.5/14 in Morelia-Linares, 3/9 at the Tal Memorial) - for him and for the entire event.
@Acirce: nice posts, particularly the last one - personally I did not know that Kramnik was (semi-)invited to Bilbao 2008. But I will comment on your previous ones:
"Dortmund doesn't like Danailov", "Danailov doesn't like Dortmund", either or both may be true (obviously not mutually exclusive). I just did (again) some Internet surfing on the Grand Slam: Dortmund was recurrently mentioned as a potential participant, along with "some Russian tournament" and other events that then didn't take place - Mexico 2008, Argentina 2009, Seattle was also mentioned as a 'tentative' venue.
"As for Russians [sic, not "ex-Soviet"] in this year's Bilbao, you could include everyone except Topalov in this category if you want."
Not sure if the Latvian Shirov agrees ... even though he may be of Russian ancestry (the names sound/looks Russian to my untrained ears and eyes). And then, Bulgaria may be culturally closer to Russia than the Baltic countries - at least the languages are more closely related.
No dude, Mike used "queens" and I had to question that, because, I agree, there's no gays up there at Mt. Chess Olympia.
Why shouldn't there be any gays? Most of the society in chess is female-starved... IF there is a lower-than-average proportion of chessplayers who are known to be gay is it because
a) They are in the closet because of bigotry
b) The "gay" brain is inherently less good at chess, or less likely to take it up?
Just wondered
"But one day, a chile will be born, in a manger, into the lowliest of the lowest class, and he will grow up to utterly dominate the chess galaxies for generations! Our Hero!"
And maybe even a Gay Hero, since it's likely that a few world champions were closet cases. So maybe you'll luck out with your hero, Superstoned! A queer champion! Gayowulf slays Strendel!! Sweet.
Thomas, I'm sure Shirov would agree that he is ethnically Russian. He has said so himself, including in a great New In Chess interview long time ago, explaining among other things that this was the reason why he had such problems getting Latvian citizenship after independence, because of their discriminatory laws -- so that he finally gave up on it, settling for Spain instead.
As for Dortmund, Carsten Hensel touched on the subject in this interview from 2007:
"What about the Grand Slam idea proposed by Silvio Danailov? Why is Dortmund not participating?
In its current form I don’t believe in it at all. Apart from the fact that it should be in the hands of FIDE and Global Chess, it seems to be an attempt by certain people to gain influence in the chess world. Dortmund is not participating because it doesn’t want to lose its independence." http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3983
If you know about information indicating that they have begun to show some interest, I'd be interested to hear about it. But I would be surprised.
Obviously Kramnik would be an exciting addition to any Tournament. I'm
sure that if he gives the slightest wink that he's willing to play
he'll get the red carpet, invitations, and all. Yet, in the recent
past he himself was part of coining the cliché that "Tournaments are
not his thing", despite an illustrious career in having won many
such. At the same time, things change and unless he gets an injection
of energy to post a few good Tournament results, the window of
opportunity may start to close later. In the recent past "all roads
led to Kramnik" as the title holder on which he was sitting pretty
tight. Today that's not the case. There are many other exciting
players around.
The only part that I find slightly annoying is how Kramnik's
mademoiselles here on this forum -- acirce, Thomas, etc., always
lament about some Danailov led conspiracy to harm Vlad in some ways or
keep him in isolation (which as far as we know has always been pretty
much self-imposed).
D.
Acirce, you know more than me and/or have a better memory ,:).
On Shirov: Would be interesting to know whether he also considered representing Russia ... . Is first board at Olympiads very important to him? Would he, in spite of everything, consider this an unnecessary insult to Latvia (and the other Baltic countries)? Similar issues were brought up when Karjakin recently switched federations from Ukraine to Russia. Or wasn't he welcome in Russia either? Of course it is all Shirov's personal business/choice/decision.
On Dortmund: All I found hinted that the Grand Slam Chess Association is/was possibly interested in Dortmund, not the other way around. See for example the Grand Slam press release from 10 March 2007, report by Macauley Peterson on Chessvibes: http://tinyurl.com/p3zg5y
"the GSCA is open to new tournaments. E.g. two from Mexico will propose to join, Dortmund, [and] a tournament from Russia, may also be considered."
Dortmund, a supertournament with a long-standing tradition, is eager to keep its independence - perfectly fine with me. On the other hand, some new tournaments apparently are eager to obtain the "Grand Slam stamp of approval" as soon as possible: not surprising for Nanjing (Danailov was to some extent involved from the start), but also the case for the upcoming London tournament.
"Time for a new coach perhaps, to take him to the next level?"
And who is Carlsen's current coach, if I may ask? At the moment and for 3-4 years now, Carlsen's only manager has been his father Henrik, and he doesn't deal much with chess-issues - being a FIDE 2000 player like myself.
Maybe the question should be "time for getting a coach", instead...
"if the two dates are mutually exclusive for Kramnik"
Thomas, I would think most dates are mutually exclusive - Jan 1st is different and non-overlapping with Jan 2nd, and so on - and not only for Kramnik. ;o)
Of course, you might get lucky and get a double-date with two lovely non-envious twins, but my general advice is that double dates are hard to get and hardly worth the trouble or the risk - and Kramnik is both married and a father already, so mutually exclusive dates are probably fine with him... and his wife. :o)
Actually, that was my comment, frogbert -- and you're right. But you know what I mean...
Theorist,
sorry - I actually tried to scan to see if someone had commenting on the funny wording already, but I must've missed your comment... :o)
Oh no -- I meant that I had *created* the funny wording!
Dom Norvegus replied to comment from superstoned | May 25, 2009 4:02 AM | Reply
I don't like part of your comment, are you suggesting there are gays in the chess elite? Nonsense, all top Chessplayers are straight.
Excuse me???
Depending on which time period you mean, there are various reasons (all of them legitimate IMO) why Kramnik didn't play as many tournaments as some other top players:
a few years ago: serious health problems
early 2008: focus on preparation for the match against Anand
late 2008 - present: need to recharge his batteries, work on his chess and +- change his style (we may have seen the first results at Amber and Azerbaijan vs. FIDE World), last but not least: spend time at home with his wive and baby.
None of this is Danailov's fault, nor is it Kramnik's - well: it was his own fault, decision, responsibility and joy to become a father ,:)
The fact that Kramnik plays less tournaments than some others may be related to his still fragile health, and/or it is a conscious decision. I don't really understand that some top GM's are praised for playing constantly and never taking a break. As discussed here, this seems to backfire on Ivanchuk now. Maybe younger players (Carlsen, Wang Yue) can handle it more easily, even though Wang Yue also shows signs of being or becoming exhausted.
As far as the "tournament are not his [Kramnik's] thing" cliche is concerned, can you back this up with comments from Kramnik (rather than insinuations by others)? This shouldn't be confused with his idea that the world champion should be determined in a match rather than a tournament - a controversial, but wholly separate issue.
As far as lamenting is concerned: I only mentioned Dortmund as an example why it is (or would be) odd to include a tournament into the Grand Slam only after it has finished and the winner is known. And I do not consider myself a "Kramnik mademoiselle" even if some people may think so. And if this is the case, it is largely in response to a bunch of Topalov groupies and some anti-Kramnik clowns (Bowles).
"if the two dates are mutually exclusive for Kramnik"
Briefly and just for the record, frogbert: I have nothing whatsoever to do with this 'funny wording'...
"The only part that I find slightly annoying is how Kramnik's mademoiselles here on this forum -- acirce, Thomas, etc., always lament about some Danailov led conspiracy to harm Vlad..."
I recall Thomas remarking on Topalov writing "urinoir" on a scoresheet of a game with Kramnik, and acirce remarking on Chessdom's using the M-Tel results to take a tiny shot at Kramnik, who wasn't even competing.
Vlad has pretty much ignored Topalov. Topalov and Danailov, on the other hand, are obviously obsessed with Kramnik. Folks like acirce and Thomas merely point it out for our amusement.
Wow - I didn't even know about this "urinoir" thing. My respect for the man never stops growing.
Thomas' post is at http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/2009/02/kamsky-topalov-g1-a-fighting-start.htm#comment-197181 - Thomas, or anybody else, what is the source? Is there even a picture on the web maybe?
There is no source to the urinoir story since also that one is made up.
Yeah, urinoir etc- add another to the list of "good chessplayer, idiotic human being". Such things always make me smile when I think of the cliche of chess as a dignified intellectual game.
Ok, Greg then what exactly pricked your ass so hard that the
entire Kramnik Central jumped up in arms to hijack another thread
into a lengthy deliberation on Kramnik's legacy? Some source,
somewhere mentioning that Shirov passed Kramnik in the ELO list?
That's a statement of fact – probably it was a totally benign
reference to the guy right below him. And if not, so what? Why
are you so hyper-sensitive? Anyway, I leave you at that, I want
to talk about more relevant and interesting items -- the Grand
Slam, Bilbao, Carlsen's performance at MTEL, etc.
D.
I hope the organizers of the GS final make the glass box soundproof enough this year , so the players dont get bothered by the ¨let me in !¨ screams ...
He he he.
"Besides the good share of the prize fund, the first place, the qualification for the Final Masters in Bilbao, he also will have higher rating than Vladimir Kramnik, pushing him away from the 5th position."
On its face the quote isn't objectionable but you always have to consider the source. "I know where your children go to school," may or may not be threatening depending on whether it is said by your neighbor or by a mafia thug.
This is not just some source somewhere, Dimi, it is the Topalov organ, Chessdom. And there is no end of amazing productions coming from the Topalov organization: chess-retarded FSB agents, tiny toy toilets, "urinoir", the film classic "We Wuz Robbed in Elista."
In another context Chessdom might well have reported that Shirov's victory gave him a higher rating than, say, Aronian, pushing that gentleman out of the xth position. But it will take years of sane behavior from the Topalov organization before they're entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
At least for the time being, I cannot offer a quotable source - information on the Web is sometimes ephemeral, maybe I can still look through my NewinChess collection to check if there is anything in print. But I certainly did not make this up, and I remember seeing a corresponding picture of the score sheet.
Some circumstantial evidence, though: Chessvibes has a video of the start of Topalov-Kramnik, Corus 2008:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjoW_U3r94o&feature=related
Topalov holds his score sheet up for about a minute, and a photographer seems to take a series of pictures. (In my earlier post, I referred to Corus 2007, maybe I mixed up the years - which could be a simple typo - or Topalov did similar things twice.)
Looking at the entire video, the rather relaxed atmosphere among the other players is in striking contrast to Toaplov and Kramnik ... . And Short probably talked to the arbiter about his handshake incident with Cheparinov the day before.
@Dimi: I started the current discussion, referring to the Grand Slam. Things went out of hand (or drifted away) ... maybe only after your 9:19AM post.
Bring back the zonals, interzonals, candidates matches and the world championship matches that are played over at least 24 games! I'm sick of these silly knockouts, grand prix's and micky mouse matches as well as the incomprehensible complicated way it's organised. The world chess championship has been messed around with so much that it means very little any more and I doubt if the average Joe on the street would have any clue what's going on in the chess world. FIDE is a shambles and is not fit to look after chess.
So now you feel that chessdom is biased , but chessbase is just informing...
Mmm , maybe you are right and Topa is really hurting , but you have to understand him chessdom may be his only consolation this days..
What else he got?
Imagine, the guy has a shot to the title and he is in the final masters, not to mention highest rated player , he must be feeling miserable this days.
Be nicer to him Greg ,this are dificult times for him.
***And I do not consider myself a "Kramnik mademoiselle"***
***And if this is the case, it is largely in response to a bunch of Topalov groupies and some anti-Kramnik clowns (Bowles).*** <--- drum roll here please.
Thank you Thomas! Nice to see you love me too :-)
Anyway, regarding Dortmund, The Grand Slam and the Big Conspiracy against Kramnik, I'm for Kramnik playing into the G'Slam, he's gonna be in London after all, part of the thing.
There are positively No gays in the chess elite, son. Rest assured the top ten is safe, and composed of absolutely straight men. Chess is a men's job, son.
Maybe not in the very top...but a little below I don't see why not. Tiviakov in particular looks suspicious...
Here in the Netherlands, some years ago Tiviakov was victim of a joke "How come the most ugly guys have the most gorgeous-looking girl-friends?". At least he felt VERY insulted about this, dropped out of a blitz tournament organized by a person posting this on an Internet forum and himself posting 'strong' replies.
So he is "safe" - unless he is bisexual or changed his mind in the meantime. But generally I don't understand this discussion - or I don't understand the joke behind it. And this is clearly off-topic.
Chess is a men's game because chess is a war, you need cojones to be in a battle. Maybe women can play it, but only the strongest of them.
And son, don't let'em call you a Kramnik mademoisselle.
Anybody who makes men dress up like women, that's where I draw the line! My advice to you: no more Mr. nice guy.
" Chess is a men's job, son,"
You do realize that gay people (like straight people and all bisexuals minus one) is a group partly conformed by men?...
Please don't use this thread to parade your hate toward any of the above mentioned.
My advice to acirce: son, your nickname is strikingly effeminate, you better change it, change your ways and
change your life. I just got informed on the website codenamed Wikipedia that Circe happens to be a queen goddess
(or sometimes a nymph, witch, enchantress or sorceress) living on the island of Aeaea.
Now, I don't know you, and you don't know me, and I don't know that island, but I presume you're straight like me and the good people,
and that you don't live in an island, so I respectfully urge you to choose a more manly handle.
I'm going to polish my boots.
Bangster,
--You've made it all the way to age ten without reading even a condensed version of the Odyssey? Quite an accomplishment.
--Pretty sloppy research, even for a ten year-old. "Circe" is also an asteroid, a British navy ship, a U.S. cargo ship, a play, an opera, and...drum roll..a chess variant.
Greg - Nice shot, except you missed something; all of those things were named after ... the queen goddess, or a nymph, witch, enchantress or sorceress. Score: Lt. Bangster 1, Greg Koster 0.
noyb--
Give me partial credit anyway for pointing out that acirce did not name himself after a nymph but more likely after a chess-variant-that-was-named-after-a-nymph.
"Imagine, the guy has a shot to the title and he is in the final masters, not to mention highest rated player...."
The Elista Game Six press conference:
"[Question}: Veselin, one of the statements issued by your team asserted that you will not shake hands with Vladimir and will not participate in joint press conferences…
Veselin Topalov: Perhaps it sounded too emotional; it is nothing for me to be proud of. I shook hands with Kramnik, and the match continued. I believe that his play is fair, and my decision to continue the match proves it. We are humans, and sometimes we make mistakes."
Unfortunately, Veselin's display of humanity and common sense was swiftly retracted.
Silvio made Topalov into a great player but he is also destroying VT's chance of developing into a relatively decent, independent, human being.
All the high ratings, tournament victories, and money in the world wouldn't make it worthwhile to be part of the "one entity" with Danailov the managing partner.
¨Silvio made Topalov into a great player but he is also destroying VT's chance of developing into a relatively decent, independent, human being. ¨
If by ¨relatively decent¨ you mean like Kramnik , i cant consider this a serious statement but a last resource attack from a very subjective point of view.
I don´t know which one of the two is closer to nirvana Greg , but for the time being Vesko is clearly at the top of our game.
All of the Top 12 Living Ratings are up for the month, or at least immobilized.
Topalov 2812,8 +0,8 10
Anand 2788,3 +5,3 2
Carlsen 2772,4 +2,4 12
Aronian 2768,4 +14,4 13
Shirov 2763,9 +18,9 29
Kramnik 2759,0 0 0
Jakovenko 2757,3 +4,3 13
Radjabov 2756,0 0 0
Leko 2755,9 +4,9 13
Gelfand 2751,4 +18,4 26
Morozevich2751,0 0 0
Svidler 2742,1 +16,1 32
Wang Yue is the first decliner, and next 12 are all in this class. Probably some mathematical entropy proves this generally true. High guys have been going up, lower guys going down.
It's just to look at Topalov's and Kramnik's results over the last years to realise why "Topalov evil, Kramnik good" is repeated at every possible occasion here. It just gets boring after a while.
Greg wrote: "Silvio made Topalov into a great player but he is also destroying VT's chance of developing into a relatively decent, independent, human being."
This points out the two sides of a medal, acknowledging Topalov as a chess player but criticizing both Topalov and Danailov as persons - fair enough and consistent with what I wrote at various occasions. I wonder, though, if it was really Danailov who made Topalov into a great player - maybe most of the credit should go to Cheparinov and to Topalov himself, and "Silvio made Topalov into a rich man" more accurately describes his role.
@Manu + ao: Are good chess results an excuse for bad behavior, or at least make it less relevant and not worthwhile being pointed out? Not for me ... .
Since we're on the subject of ol' Veselin, anyone know why that string of amazing novelties that he had a few years ago never repeated itself? I mean the kind where his opponent had basically a lost game? Lucky streak? He still comes up with soemthing now and again these days but we don't see these crushers as often...stopped drinking his prune juice?
"anyone know why that string of amazing novelties that he had a few years ago never repeated itself? I mean the kind where his opponent had basically a lost game? Lucky streak?"
He was very well prepared for San Luis 2005. Lately Cheparinov has been more busy playing top events himself, and the old prep used 2005-06 has passed its best before date. Topalov is still doing well though, only 2800+ results for a long time.
"If by 'relatively decent' you mean..."
--By "relatively decent" is meant 90-odd% of the chess world.
"...a very subjective point of view."
--The last, desperate resort of the apologists for Topalov's conduct is to attack folks for having standards.
"...but for the time being Vesko is clearly at the top of our game."
--For the predictive ability of exhibition tournament victories on WCC matches see GKK in 2000 and VT in 2006.
Think how lovely it would be if FIDE was run by gay men. Tournaments held in boutique hotels; players would have to be SO much more stylish; perhaps even dress themes; traditional football matches replaced with beach volleyball...
Hey Greg, what exactly flared your rear so bad that you felt the urge
to recite to us old interviews? If you want to live in the past then
go and regurgitate Kramnik's boastful and arrogant interviews from the
past few years. Take acirce-boy and Thomas with you too -- together
you combine unlimited reserves of being ridiculous. It seems that the
more successful the Grand Slam becomes, the more bitter you become and
project that by mumbling petty little nonsense about Topalov/Danailov,
etc. Will Kramnik joining the Grand Slam party make you feel better?
If so, write to him as fans and urge him to play with the rest. I am
sure they'll be glad to see him join.
D.
"the more successful the Grand Slam becomes ..."
For 2009, the Grand Slam
- successfully reduced the number of participants of the Bilbao final from six to four
- successfully announced a tournament in Argentina that doesn't take place after all (admittedly no progress compared to 2008, when the same thing happened - or not - in Mexico).
Will the 2010 Grand Slam be even more successful? Or: Who is ridiculous?
Past cannot be the shelter from the future.
" Or: Who is ridiculous?"
I strongly advice you to do not ask that question in public very often.
Manu, I cannot ask that question to you in private - and I probably know YOUR answer but deliberately posted it to 'everyone' ... .
Anyway, to summarize the recent turn of events:
1) Greg Koster gave a sensible quote from Topalov, and actually praised him for his (temporary) "display of humanity and common sense".
2) He got quite some, let's say, negative feedback from you and Dimi.
Does anyone understand this? I don't ... .
Unless Topalov (or rather two of his fans) consider "display of humanity and common sense" as an insult.
A couple of other comments about MTel09.
Heard from friends in Sofia who are close to the Chess circles.
Everybody fell in love with Ivanchuk for having honored them to play
in the garden behind the theater. Supposedly some of those garden
players are quite strong. Anyway, they all rooted for him in the
remaining rounds.
Judging by the local press, the most spoken about entity around MTel09
was Carlsen -- the "Mozart of Chess", as they dubbed him. I thought
actually that he was poised to steal the event after the start with a
bang -- a first round victory over Topalov in the middle of Sofia is a
statement. His last game against Shirov was a statement too that he is
not afraid to play sharp with anyone. Impressive overall and
undoubtedly he's destined for greater things.
D.
"Supposedly some of those garden
players are quite strong. Anyway, they all rooted for him in the
remaining rounds."
Waving carrots and parsnips?
In reply to Manu, Bilbao 2008 was not category 22. The average rating was 2769, making it category 21. Still darn strong of course.
Good catch -- gardens, roots, etc. Let's try again -- the park players
cheered Ivanchuk and became his most ardent fans.
D.
(Begins foaming at mouth in futile search for park/chess pun)
I wonder if Mig's refence to "roadkill" was inside joke... there's a nick of mysterious rapid player "roadking" in ICC... well, just a thought.
In reply to Peter Ballard:
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4882
Bilbao 2008 was category 22 (acording to chessbase at least) , with a 2775.6 average rating.
What really bothers me with Danailov and Topalov is that every time you read an intervieuw with one of them, they talk crab about kramnik and they try to ridicule him at every chance. Now that is pathetic. I truly admire and respect Kramnik for saying public that for him Topalov is perona non grata and he will not shake hands nor speak to Topalov untill Topalov excuses his behavour in Elistra, in public. That is offcause never going to happen and therefore they will never shake hands again nor speak to eachother.
Because of Topalovs behaviour in 2006 and after, I will never again root for Toplaov whoever he plays.
Manu, see my reply on Chessbase at http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4897 The Bilbao 2008 organisers used "live" ratings, presumably because it made their tournament sound more impressive. Officially, though, it was Category 21.
lafite, at this point I do not think that Kramnik is a matter that
concerns Danailov or Topalov. Each one of them has more relevant
things to worry about. There are some guys here who live in the past
and regurgitate old interviews. Of course, you're entitled to your
opinion, regardless of how gullible and misinformed it might be.
D.
Wow , nice catch , i stand corrected.
Was it the strongest tournament ever (acording to ratings)?
I remember someone pointing that there was another tournament nearly as strong (or a little bit more cant remember) than that.
Regardless the category you do realize that for the point i was trying to make it doesnt matter that much , it was not just another tournament.
As I said in my first reply, "Still darn strong of course". I was just nitpicking over the Category 22 bit.
The "nearly as strong" (in ratings) might be Las Palmas 1996. That is mentioned in the same chessbase link, i.e. http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4897
I don't know of a tournament with a higher average rating, and given the general inflation, it's hard to imagine one. However the last 2000 (Braingames), 2006 and 2008 world championship MATCHES had average ratings over 2776.
And now i lost all the respect i had for you , comparing matches with tournaments in terms of category is ridiculous.
That´s why one can use the word ¨field¨ when talking about the participants of a tournament but not about a match.
And yes , it seems that Bilbao 2008 WAS the strongest tournament ever in terms of rating...
Not just another tournament , don´t you think?
What the... I make a passing comment about matches and suddenly you lose all respect for me? Grow up.
Hmm, it seems I can't edit my posts for politeness :( So sorry about that my post.
I'm not trying to buy into any debate. I was just making a comment which I thought might be of interest.
Can we agree that Bilbao 2009 will be "just another tournament", not getting close to the record set by Bilbao 2008? This was the origin of the discussion ... .
For 'strongest tournament ever', Chessbase in the above-linked article also writes "The 1938 AVRO tournament comes to mind, where eight of the world's top players took part: World Champion Alexander Alekhine, former champions José Raúl Capablanca and Max Euwe, and potential challengers Mikhail Botvinnik, Paul Keres, Reuben Fine, Samuel Reshevsky and Salo Flohr." (but back then, there were no official ratings ...)
Its an expression kid, i can t lose something i dont have , no disrespect intended it is just that we dont know each other , remember? this is the internet.
Your comment was of interest for me , i didnt know they used the live ratings instead of the official (not that it changes anything).
BTW I like your country i played rugby against it when i was young , cool people , very resilient and tough.
You also have Midnight oil and Inxs , great bands ,for very diferent reasons.Cheers.
@Thomas : No, we can´t , especially since the tournament didnt happened yet , and your attempts to discredit such a promising event are even more pathetic than the reasons you have to do such thing.
"Can we agree that Bilbao 2009 will be "just another tournament", not getting close to the record set by Bilbao 2008?"
Yes, I think the top players are:
Anand
Topalov
Carlsen
Aronian
Kramnik
Radjabov
Ivanchuk
Bilbao 2008 had all of these apart from Kramnik. Bilbao 2009 has only Topalov. In 2008 Shirov was #24, Karjakin #31, while Grischuk reached #12 in Elo performance. Nice for them to play in Bilbao but I don't see any of them as top ten players. Apart from those mentioned above I think also Leko, Morozevich and Gelfand are better players, even if Shirov just raced into the top ten on the live rating, I think he will fall out of it soon enough.
You dont see many of the top players you mentioned because they were beaten by the ones that are going to play the tournament.
But that's also what you get when you hold qualifications, sometimes the "wrong" guys win. If Kramnik had won in 1998 instead of Shirov there would have been no trouble, if Adams had beaten Kasimjanov in 2004, a Kasparov-Adams match would have been easy to arrange, and so on. Bilbao will be fun, but I bet it would have been seen as more exciting if the last rounds in the qualifiers had ended up so the field would have been Topalov, Carlsen, Ivanchuk, Aronian instead.
Indeed, just realised that, and Bilbao 2008 was such a massive tournament that it won't be repeated often. Considering Kramnik's bad 2008 it may have had the six best players in the world at the moment and that is something that won't happen often.
Going back to how things started four days ago:
[mishanp] ¨Bilbao _is_ just another tournament ..." (referring to 2009)
[manu] "Bilbao [2008] _was_ the first 22 cathegory tournament in history"
Similarly, and once again, I am referring to Bilbao 2009 (and merely comparing the two events). I disagree with "agreed" (there can be no such thing as 'wrong' players qualifying), but for me, already cutting down the field from six to four players is a loss - not only of quantity, but also of quality. Manu's remark (in jest or not) that he cannot follow more than two games a day anyway does not apply to me ... .
And if the Grand Slam association (and/or the Bilbao organizers) suddenly don't like wildcards any more, they could invite the first two of each qualifying tournament ... .
Maybe the wrong place to post this (? - prob. should be the start of a new thread, but I'm not sure how to do that), but does anyone know if Kasparov has indicated any thoughts re: the upcoming Anand-Topalov match? Or Mig? Or any top GMs? I'd think it would be pretty close odds, and maybe vary according to how well they perform in the next few months (although of course they'll be careful not to reveal match preparation, but it might still indicate "form", etc.). I'd imagine most of the players are inclined to favor Anand as far as liking him as a person, but as far as strict chess ability goes, Topalov's certainly comparable...would the venue also be a big factor? What do all of you guys think?
I believe that their official bet would be on Anand (maybe with some caution) ,IMO Topa is going to be the underdog here ,but with everything to win.
In last years Topa was described as an opening expert ,even Kramnik once said that he was not impressed with his play , only with his preparation.
That profile doesn´t aply that much this days though , and maybe its because that description was not that accurate in the first place.
It will be a great match, I would favour Anand slightly unless Topalov brings some knockout prep. IMO Topalov has indeed proven himself as not just being about openings, his prep has been no more impressive than many other top players in recent years but he is still at the top.
After how he won against Kramnik, the way he got inside his head, Anand will be the favourite against anyone.
I am looking forward to the match. Topalov is a great player, and a great fighter. But I think Anand is at least equal compared to Topalov's strengths, opening prep and sharp tactics, and is more complete over all.
That said, I'd love Topalov to prove me wrong. I like his play and his attitude.
Side contest: What will Danailov try to smear on everybody's darling Vishy?
I think nothing like that will happen , like in all the events they participated with the exception of Elista.
I also dont expect Vishy to play the match from the bathroom.
Ha-ha. I don't expect Anand to play in Bulgaria. In a match, Danailov and Topalov already proved they have a strong preparation, and while their play may create moral doubts, it is effective. But let's not start another useless flame.
"In last years Topa was described as an opening expert ,even Kramnik once said that he was not impressed with his play , only with his preparation."
Would be interesting to know _when_ Kramnik said so. From his point of view, it makes sense: he is striving for 'perfect' games and thus wouldn't appreciate Topalov's more speculative approach to chess (among other things, playing on the opponent's time trouble).
"I like to play in a “clean and clear” way, and I am definitely not the type of guy who takes unnecessary risks. I believe much more in the logic of our game rather than gambling on your opponent's nerves."
This is Peter Leko ( http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5463 ) but Kramnik probably could say the same ... .
Of course, both Kramnik and Topalov (as well as others, e.g. Anand) are strong players - "for the right player" either approach can be successful (top 10 and more).
"What will Danailov try to smear on everybody's darling Vishy?"
His/their attempts so far:
1) [not necessarily the exact words] "A WCh match between the world's #5 and #6 (Anand-Kramnik) has little interest or credibility"
[their point of view is that being #1 and winning Bilbao is more important, not unanimously shared in the chess world]
2) MTel tournament preview ( http://www.mtelmasters.com/en/news&article_id=16.html ): "In this year’s edition of the tournament will take part ... the best chess player of Asia Yue Wang from China"
This may be a deliberate insult against someone from India, or it may merely be ridiculous over-promotion of MTel?
@Manu: "I think nothing like that will happen , like in all the events they participated with the exception of Elista."
After Elista, Topalov played one more match (against Kamsky). As he won, there was no need for a scandal!? And: Does "they" include Cheparinov who refused to shake hands with Short at the Corus tournament? I am aware of the Bulgarian version ("Short was the first one to misbehave").
Anyway, I would say the match Anand-Topalov is too close to call, one question is: If Topalov loses, will he lose in dignity like Kramnik did against the same opponent? I would hope so, but I won't bet any money on it ... .
"This may be a deliberate insult against someone from India, or it may merely be ridiculous over-promotion of MTel?"
They did invite Anand and apparently waited for the Indians to invite Topalov (or maybe Cheparinov) back, and since it didn't happen, Danailov started to look for mutual benefits with China.
Topalov is 11-10 against Anand, and has improved very much after 2004. For the last 15 months all his results have been substantially over 2800. My guess is that he will beat Anand, and that the match will be as free from scandals as Topalov-Kamsky. My impression is that Anand doesn't like Kramnik, and that Topalov hates him, while the two have nothing against each other.
Alez, seems you didn't get my point: Of course Danailov can invite whomever he wants, but this does not make Wang Yue "the strongest player from Asia". Do I really need to mention that Anand has a higher rating, a WCh title and a longer history of career achievements?
Unless the MTel organizers refer to the geological past (some million years ago) when India was not yet part of Asia ... .
What i mean was that of course they "forgot" to mention Anand, merely pointing out other reasons than the ones you gave. Perhaps in a too subtle way... :D
I'm curious about your impression that Anand doesn't like Kramnik; the 2 seemed to get along rather well, & demonstrated mutual respect, in their match a few months ago. Is there some statement that leads you to believe there's some negativity? I don't recall Anand ever being negative about ANYone, really...!
"Side contest: What will Danailov try to smear on everybody's darling Vishy?"
Nothing.
Danailov's Elista shenanigans were designed
a) to distract Kramnik [it worked] and
b) to shift some of Topa's San Luis cheating buzz onto Kramnik [outside the eager crowd of tiny toy toilet purchasers in the Balkans and some hysterical 15-year-olds, it flopped].
Danailov won't try again because
a) Anand will be prepared and
b) Silvio isn't interested in needlessly making himself look like an even bigger fool.
But note:
Anand was comfortable with minimal cheat-proofing at the Kramnik-Anand match. While Kramnik and Kamsky insisted on elaborate cheat-proofing of their matches with Topalov.
It wouldn't be surprising if Anand were to follow their lead. To avoid that embarrassment it will be Silvio who demands elaborate cheat-proofing for Anand-Topalov.
I can see how all this relates to Shirov winning MTel.