Magnificent Magnus Wins Pearl Spring

But is there any probability they will actually be counted for the November list? Isn't it the European Team Championship he'll play? Which ends October 31...

nm got confused with the on going ecc where norway isn't doing well.

Well if Magnus is playing before the next rating maybe he can gain enough points to pass Topalov on this list!

It would be hysterical to deprive Topalov of his #1 rating spot during his WC with Anand. #2 & #3 duke it out!

Ok, thanks. It would be a pity if he dropped below 2800 again and they were counted. Not that it "really" matters, but it still kind of does. But it is of course just a matter of time anyway. Of course it would also mean he could gain some more points and overtake Topalov!

Actually, I think Carlsen's performance at Pearl Spring will further de-motivate any backers stepping forward to fund the Anand-Topalov match. People will want to see Carlsen, not Topalov, duke it out with Anand.

Allthough I am a big Carlsen fan I find this argument a bit strange:
Topalov is still rated number 1 in the world, if the best player in the world is not "worthy" to play for the title, then who is?

Smartingen and BobbyF, exactly. Its about qualifying, not the latest tournament performance. Toaplov qualified, and I for one am REALLY looking forward to the match. And I find his attitude and approach great as always. How hard did he try to win that last round game?? This is what Chess needs.
Btw, Wang Yue doesnt have the most aggressive repoertoire, but man he's good. I am quite impressed with his ability.

Didn't we have an, at least somewhat, similar situation before? Player S qualified for a WCh match against Kasparov, no sponsors could be found, and eventually player Kr played (and won) that match. Of course S=Shirov and Kr=Kramnik, and there are some differences: Kramnik had lost the qualifying match, and a WCh match Kasparov-Shirov didn't attract sponsors (considered to be one-sided) because Shirov had some bad performances [due to private problems] falling further behind on the rating list.

Some people still hold against Kramnik that he accepted to play the match, would things be different (or rather viewed differently) if Carlsen was presented with a WCh match without qualifying? BTW, the current Carlsen (+-Kasparov) hype is understandable, but at face value his 8/10 at Nanjing is just slightly stronger than Ivanchuk's 8/10 at MTel2008. We all know that Chucky could not, at least not consistently, confirm this result ... . (Of course Carlsen is a more stable, arguably stronger player - unlikely to lose many rating points in a single event and very unlikely to fall below 2700 again, i.e. disappear from the live rating list for a day.)

P.S.: I just see that at least Arctic Stones was joking, but even jokes can be put in a historical context!?

"Some people still hold against Kramnik that he accepted to play the match"

I think very few people hold it against Kramnik that he accepted the invitation to play that match. What many find diffcult to stomach is his hypocrisy afterwards in insisting on qualifiers, and basically dodging a rematch with Kasparov.

Kramnik dodging a rematch with Kasparov? Not quite.

Kasparov was supposed to play a semi-final against Ponomariov. The winner would have played against the winner of Kramnik-Leko.That was the Prague agreement.

Unfortunately, Ponomariov was ill-advised by his manager at the time, and refused to play for ridiculous reasons (such as him being called World Champion and requesting a rest day at a particular time during the match). That threw the deal off.

And who was Ponomariov's manager? Who was the man ultimately responsible for the failure of the Prague agreement? Who denied a chance to Kasparov for a rematch?

No other than Silvio Danailov.

Why not (at all)? At the start of his career, Kramnik was also the young talent vs. established players (e.g. Kasparov). Morever, Garry compared Carlsen's style with Karpov and Capablanca [only other people, several ones, mentioned Bobby Fischer] - so he could also include Kramnik's name. He didn't, probably for a reason ... .

Another wild thought: IF Topalov declined to play the match against Anand (for example because the prize fund doesn't meet his expectations), according to the rules he would be replaced by Kamsky. Would this be the match that we (and sponsors) like to see? Some Americans might even suggest (absurdly IMO) that Kamsky should give his spot to Nakamura ... .
Btw, I think a match Anand-Kamsky wouldn't be as one-sided as the ratings suggest - and it would also be interesting from a historical perspective.

"Btw, the whole point of the last 16 years (since the schism) was to try to get some order into the WCC cycle, however imperfect it might be."

Has FIDE gotten some semblance of order into the WCC cycle? Hello!?
Did I miss something?!?

Absolutely, Topalov qualified, and he and nobody else should play Anand next. (Even apart from this, one might wonder why Carlsen, who has not yet proven his superiority, should get the chance before him.) However, one should not forget that Topa received the benefit of a mid-cycle rule change in the first place, without which the World Cup winner would have played the World Champion (turning out to be Anand) for the title directly.

Topalov was not that far below his sky high rating. Carlsen was definitely the story. How can one of the all time great performances (by an 18-year-old no less) not be?

Resultwise Topalov's performance was fine. Sooner or later he had to perform slightly below 2800 instead of above it as has been the case for quite some time. One more half point and he would have gained rating. I'm not sure his play deserved it, though.

Yep, Carlsen's Nanjing 2009 will go down in history as a classic. It's an old cliché used way too many times, but this is the real thing -- just think about all the ingredients. Magic. Although ideally Anand and/or Kramnik and/or Aronian should have been in the field too.

I guess you would agree though that this is better than the situation with picking Kramnik himself for his WC match? What's better, being seeded into the cycle and winning your one qualification match, or losing your qualification match and being selected anyway?

Na, I overlooked Mig's one, twas a lame rip off of a comment on Fischer.
Topalov did very well all the same, almost 2800 performance, it's not his fault someone else did much better...and who knows how much he is holding back for his match?
I especially liked how Leko and Jakovenko tried to take on Carlsen in systems used by Kasparov v Karpov, both without success!! How interesting to see K's "shadow" on the board..
overall, great tournament. Only Radjabov really disappointed. It is a good time to ask what is is Carlsen has that is getting him these results, chess skill aside- I would opine, fighting spirit-heading for rich, complex positions with a degree of risk and coming out the victor. His openings were also fine here; and if constant work with Kasparov starts delivering the opening edge that Kasparov had over his contemporaries for so long, then the sky's the limit.

"what is is Carlsen has that is getting him these results, chess skill aside"

No fear.

Well, all three of them (Aronian, Kramnik, Anand) will be there at the Tal Memorial, so Carlsen will have his shot to dominate them!

Topa had been underperforming and probably hiding some prep , still he had a performance superior to Anand´s current rating .
Not bad at all.
Magnus has many advantages that no other player had in the history of the game IMO he still needs to prove that he can win when it matters most .
I´m very curious to see how Anand , Kramnik and Aronian deals with Magnus current level of play.
Exciting times ahead of us.

PS : I would replace Radjabov by Shirov or Morozevich in any tournament , at least for a year.

Absolutely. Very excited to see how that goes. If he wins again in a convincing fashion, he certainly has nothing left to prove until he wins the actual World Championship.

I am trying to gauge how those three players will approach the tournament ... Aronian has been having a fantastic year, and until Nanjing was higher rated than Carlsen on the live lists. He might play aggressively, trying to cap off a great year. Anand hasn't played in a while, to the best of my knowledge, but has a plus score against Carlsen I think. Also, he will most likely hide some prep the way Topalov did in Nanjing. Kramnik seems to have dropped off the WC radar a bit, but who knows. If all 4 players go for the throat, it will be interesting. All told, it is a fantastic line up and I can't wait to follow the games. Hopefully they won't start at 3 am my time!!

Its funny if you think about it..
When Leko vs Kramnik was happening everyone wanted to see Kramnik vs Topalov; and when that was underway we wanted to see Kramnik vs Anand; and when that eventually came around every one said Anand - Topa will be a lot more fun; and now when that seems to be around the corner (hopefully) we already want to see Anand vs Carlsen instead.

Typing error in my previous post, I meant to say that I am not strong enough to critique super-GM moves.

I didn't say Topalov didn't deserve his result based on his play, I just said I wasn't sure about it. He was lucky against Jakovenko, although he had plenty of compensation right before the blunder, and he is always dangerous in that kind of position. The expected result was a draw, but a win was hardly much less likely than a loss. But the other games? Impossible for me to judge if he was above-average lucky overall.

As for Carlsen, I maintain he would have nothing left to prove at the moment. Of course some would be unhappy if he had a couple of bad tournaments afterwards, but why should he care? At that point he could just relax and play chess.

Then winning the world title would of course be the ultimate "proof" (unless the system changes drastically, for instance in favour of the KO nonsense or something), but he won't be able to play a title match for at least a couple of years, so he just can't do that yet. Maybe it's the wrong way of expressing it but that was my point.

Just to put the record straight, Anand "didn't qualify". He was gifted into Mexico 2007 via finishing 2nd in San Luis, with the #1 finisher therein being excluded (due to a mid-cycle rule change concerning Elista 2006).

Just to put the record straight, Fischer "didn't qualify". The USCF paid Benko $2000 to let him go to Palma.

So we have as "unqualified champions": Fischer, Kramnik, Anand, possibly Topalov 2010... will this ever end? :)

If this thread wants to seek crazier ground, a description of how Spassky qualified for the Championship in 1992 could commence.

Nonsense.

Brilliant.

This is exactly right that Carlsen could go either up or down from his current 2800+ number. The sigma on these rating numerologies was speculated by Sonas to be as much as 50 as a rule of thumb (though maybe not as much at higher levels) at one point, so we might see Gashimov or even someone way-back like Karjakin ahead of him by a year's time. All it takes is a run of each in the wrong direction, and voila! Or we could have Carlsen at 2825+, and no-one else for forty miles around. So if the Norse have a 25 million kroner package to entice Anand for the opt-out, they could be prudent to act before more uncertainty comes adrift. The Carlsen Market is at an all-time high after this Nanjing!

The #1 finisher in San Luis actually put his title on the line in Elista and that is the reason he was not included in Mexico. The field in Mexico not only included #2 Anand, but also #3 and #4. (Svidler and Morozevich). #1 was supposed to be there in Mexico but since he lost the match , Kramnik took his place. Topalov could have chosen not to play the reunification match, in which case he would have played in Mexico.

Even if you believe in that nonsense , ¨correct¨ would be more accurate , that statement could only be brilliant for someone truly opaque.
;)

If you examine the games that Carlsen played in Nanjing, I'm not so sure it's not about "Kasparov's laptop", i.e., his database. Carlsen won a lot of games in Kasparov's pet lines...

The myth again that opening knowledge is just about memorizing a few moves of theory, possibly/ideally ending with a novelty ... . Of course Kasparov also knows how to play the resulting typical middlegame positions, and most probably also passed some of this knowledge on to Carlsen. Hard to say how significant this was, but I wouldn't discard it as altogether insignificant.
As Carlsen had already been working with Kasparov before Dortmund (but noone else knew), why didn't it work that well at the time [Carlsen played a decent tournament, but nothing extraordinary]? Did one or two additional training sessions make the difference? Or did psychology play a role, as his Nanjing opponents were afraid of Garry?

I do not question in any way that Carlsen is a gifted and talented player, but I think "the additional Garry factor" should be neither under- nor overestimated.

"The #1 finisher in San Luis actually put his title on the line in Elista and that is the reason he was not included in Mexico."

This history is exact, but irrelevant to any claim that this reason was a **mid-cycle** rule change.

The original 2007 rules stated that the top 4 finishers from San Luis would qualify (the San Luis rules actually said these 4 would qualify to KO matches for 2007, but the intent therein should be clear). This was then *changed* (in the "negotiation" stage with Kramnik-Topalov) as it would look real dopey [even by FIDE standards?!] if Kramnik won Elista, but then was not in Mexico, as per the original rules, which plainly indicated the top 4 finishers from San Luis, and gave no sense that such a player could gamble away his 2007 spot (via any means). When the Topalov-Kramnik match was planned, FIDE re-issued (that is: *changed*) the rules to say: the Champion, plus #2-#4 from San Luis.

Whether it was fair, or wise, or whatever, all that is irrelevant to the claim that it was a *mid-cycle* rule change. JTPTRS simply got the impetus wrong here: it was not that "Anand didn't qualify", but rather that "Topalov did qualify", but then was erased out by a later, mid-cycle, rule change (partially of his own accord).

Similarly, it is technically wrong to say that Topalov has only qualified [as a recent Champion] for 2009/10 due to a "mid-cycle" rule change.

By my accounting, the "original" Cycle rules (issued July 2007, long before the World Cup took place) stated that the Cup winner would play Topalov. Again one can debate whether it was fair, or wise, (as some of the original Cup trial balloons had mentioned a direct match with the Champ), but it does not seem to be a "mid-cycle" rule change. Part of the problem is that FIDE (or more properly, Kirsan) doublespoke repeatedly in every whichway direction, before finally commiting to the Topalov versus World Cup plan.

Perhaps by some esoteric FIDE-centric standards, the only unqualified one of the bunch would be Kramnik, who only had the (non-FIDE) Classical World Title in achieving his match with Topalov.

To my discernment, there has never really been a "normal" time in the Chess Champ world in getting a match to be on, except for the Karpov era (1978-1990). Lasker signed contracts with various challengers, never to play them for a variety of reasons. The London Rules never had much application. Rubinstein and Nimzovitch couldn't raise funds. Then Alekhine dodged Capablanca. And Euwe tried to get FIDE to elect him champion in 1947 (before the Russians showed up). Strangely, the rematch clause of Botvinnik looks more normal to me than much of this outspew. Fischer [with others] disputed the Challengers Tournament, but the 90s Soviet collapse seemed to dry up any certainty of funding sources for Challenger matches.

So the merry go-round continues. Now we have ratings, but use them for some purposes in the Cycle, but not for others.

Nicely explained .

"By my accounting, the "original" Cycle rules (issued July 2007, long before the World Cup took place) stated that the Cup winner would play Topalov."

Here is the original outline of the cycle, as formulated by Kirsan Ilyumzhinov after having been given the authority to do that by the Presidential Board:

http://www.fide.com/component/content/article/3-news/1848-339-decision-of-the-fide-president-in-respect-of-the-world-chess-championship-cycle

Key here:

"a1. 2008: The winner from WCCT 2007 in Mexico plays a World Championship match against the previous World Champion. If Kramnik does not win the WCCT 2007, then Kramnik can challenge the winner of Mexico in the first part of 2008. If Kramnik wins in Mexico, then the right to challenge goes to the previous World Champion, ie Topalov.

a2. 2009: The winner of the "a1" match plays a World Championship match against the winner of the 2007 World Cup which will be held in Khanty-Mansiysk."

Here's Mig's first blog post on the matter:

http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/2007/03/fide-follies-forever.htm

Slight correction or clarification on "formulated": he made a decision between two proposals, neither of which I assume he wrote all by himself. This is ancient history (2½ years ago!) but it could be worth refreshing our memories. For "Proposal B" and ACP's position, see http://www.chess-players.org/eng/news/viewarticle.html?id=612 and http://www.chess-players.org/eng/news/viewarticle.html?id=609

"Or did psychology play a role, as his Nanjing opponents were afraid of Garry?"

No way to know for sure, but the evidence seems to strongly indicate that it was the case to some extent. While the focus should be on Carlsen's own very strong play, it is not in much doubt that his opponents generally played below their strength against him, which should be weighed into any objective assessment of this tournament. Is it just a coincidence that this happened right after the partnership was revealed? Hard to consider that probable.

By extension, if this is true, it will be interesting to see how other players will deal with it - Kramnik somehow particularly comes to mind.

Of course this goes both ways, Kramnik will probably also be "prepared and motivated". As russianbear pointed out, at Nanjing Carlsen's colleagues-competitors didn't have time to adapt to the new situation (Carlsen works with Kasparov AND this is known to the public); this will no longer be the case in the near future. I propose that Kramnik wasn't sitting idly at home in Paris the last weeks, but he was following the chess scene and working on his chess ... . Whose preparation prevails in the end is another story - Kramnik certainly wasn't unprepared for his match against Anand, but he was "outprepared" and/or didn't get his specific prep on the board.

BTW, Kramnik still has another source of motivation (or something to worry about): he still needs to secure his rating spot into the candidates tournament - and some of his potential competitors (Leko, Morozevich, Gelfand) also play the Tal Memorial. No worries for Carlsen in that respect, even in a worst-case scenario: how many rating points could he possibly lose if things go very wrong at both Tal Memorial and London?

"Carlsen should continue wearing the shirt at the Tal Memorial."

Now wouldn’t that be a classy touch of psychological warfare? :)

At the Women GP in Nanjing, the players were also provided with Chinese shirts. Looking through the round reports at Chessbase, all participants wore them for the first round and for a group picture (with Ilyumzhinov in a boring suit). Subsequently, all changed back to normal clothes, including the Chinese players - apparently there is no contractual obligation (maybe that's inconsistent with being a FIDE event). The only exception was early leader Nana Dzagnidze. She started with 4/4, and stopped wearing her shirt after losing against Sebag in round 5 ... .

Is this psychological warfare or being superstitious? Ivanchuk also thinks or claims that he is playing better when he is wearing/allowed to wear his Real Madrid training suit!?

Now the only player in Nanjing with a special outfit is Mongolian WGM Munguntuul. She caught chicken pox and was allowed to continue playing in a separate room, wearing a face mask and sergical gloves. Zhao Xue dared to enter that room, Dzagnidze played a "remote game" (players in separate rooms, with an arbiter transmitting the moves).

We'll check his rating 10 years from now, and if you are correct, you'll win a fabulous prize.

-Nakamura got a quick draw with the white pieces. What happend to his famous fighting spirit?

And what should Kramnik play if 1.e4 comes? In 2000, he concluded that the Berlin was the best weapon against Garry, much due to GK's relative weakness in that kind of position. Recently, he said (commenting on Carlsen-Jakovenko in Dortmund) that the Berlin (which allows the Scotch if you intend to play it) was the _worst_ possible choice against Carlsen, because of his incredible technique. Kasparov would definitely have preferred Kramnik to play the Petroff in London - a tactical opening very much suited for computer analysis. So what to play against Carlsen+Kasparov? :) ("I mean, do you prepare for Carlsen or Kasparov?" -- Mig)

Of course, on the basic level the issue is simple - he is playing Carlsen, not Kasparov, and should not play into Carlsen's strengths. But especially considering the contrast between the styles of the two the issue in itself is worth thinking about.

And now Carlsen might be armed with dangerous preparation against the Petroff that he simply wasn't before. In the one Petroff game between them so far, Carlsen played the not particularly frightening 4.Nc4.

Of course I'm mostly rambling, although intentionally. Of course Berlin isn't the only alternative. He abandoned it against Kasparov in 2001 and against everyone in 2005 anyway.

He had more of it (figthing spirit) than his teammate Alexander Chernin, drawing with white against Malakhov on board 3 in 10 moves. Maybe Naka was discouraged because he couldn't surprise Grischuk - time remaining on the clock was 50 minutes for white vs. 1:30 for black (I don't know the exact time control, but it seems Grischuk hardly had to think at all).

Or Nakamura conserves his energy for what he did before in this tournament, and what (to a large extent) got him where he is now ELO-wise: beating players in the 2400-2600 range?

That's right, and I would add Aronian. Plus, it would have to be a one-on-one match, not some pajama-clad event in China with a bunch of losers thrown in to make it look good.

Topalov is a close call, but I think he cannot handle Carlsen. The only active players who have a chance against Carlsen in a one-on-one match are Kramnik, Aronian, and Anand. Leko, Ivanchuk, Morozevich, Gelfand, Nakamura, etc. are all dead meat.

A related quip from Kasparov many years ago - 1987 if I have the right event in mind: He prepared for a clock simul against a national team (Switzerland?) by looking through a few hundred games of his opponents in databases (a rather revolutionary approach at the time). One of his opponents commented that he would sidestep Garry's preparation by playing a different opening. GK's reply: "He can change his openings but not his style!".
Of course this was a short-term remark, whereas Kasparov+Carlsen is a long-term project. The objective may not be to change Carlsen's style, but still to work - in particular - on the (remaining relatively) weak points in his play.

I think the double pawn sacrifice is theory, I remember seeing something at least similar before. Who am I to judge if white's compensation was sufficient?
As far as the kingwalk is concerned, I completely fail to see the idea, motivation or necessity behind it ... . At some stage, time trouble certainly played a role, Aronian had five seconds left on the clock when he resigned on move 39.

[But I have to say that I didn't follow the game live after the opening. I was watching football instead - a sport where Germany can win against Russia, albeit with quite a bit of luck today ,:)]

For once I even agree with Luke, but the question remains: WHY did he make such stupid moves? Even time trouble is not a plausible explanation, it isn't easy at all to even "find" (i.e. think about) moves as 31.Kd1, 32.Ke2 and 33.Ke1 (no checks by black in between!).
The easiest explanation ("Aronian made stupid moves because he is stupid") would invite many other questions: How could such a stupid player beat Alekseev and Grischuk earlier in the tournament? How could he obtain 2773 ELO? How could he win GP tournaments and the Bilbao Grand Slam Final?
All I can come up with is "a momentary (and complete) lapse of reason" ... .

Aronian - Mame game today:
I ran it through my Rybka3 Aquarium:
When Aronian played 7. Bd2, PlayChess database drops from 41 previous games to only 2.(-0,68). However Aronian plays well, with slight edge, untill inacurate move 31. Kd1 (-0,37).
Final mistake by Aronian was 37. Rd7 (-3,25). 2 moves later and he resigned.

Under the circumstances (time trouble) I wouldn't call 37.Rd7 a mistake or blunder, but rather an attempted swindle. It might have worked if Mame had also been down to a few seconds (but he still had 11 minutes on the clock when Aronian resigned). What does Rybka suggest on move 37?

Rybka sugests 37. Nxc4. But still (-1,22).
The rest of the line goes:
...Ng4
38. Rg3 Nxh2
39. Kf2 Rxg3.

"I was watching football instead"

Don't remind me... already trying to forget.

But thanks for the Kasparov story. Might have read about that before, not sure.

Great tip, Manu! Thanks a lot. I really enjoyed the link and the other rare Bobby Fisher images found on youtube. Everybody: Enjoy the good old times!

It looks like Nakamura's new coach is more likely Korchnoi than Kasparov.

Well, Mr Anonymous, deleted BS from another website has now been translated from filipino to english and re-posted here.

Thank you for your ''consern''.

i agree. but why aren't you posting under one of your real handles? Seriously, there has been some pretty ugly anti-Carlsen stuff going on there for some time among jealous fans of So and to some degree Nakamura as well. Fortunately I haven't seen it spread to other forums. Until now.

Agree. Plenty of dirt on the Dirt, but lets keep that kind of childish crap off these pages. Anonymous, is that your "real" handle- a dubious attem,pt to be ironic- or do you have another one? If so please use it.

lol, chess.com is the only place where i post under my real name and i'll return there now but avoid this type of discussions :)

This is probably (also) a joke - but I don't understand it, can you please explain it to me?

I was obviously joking, or merely pointing out that "topical" openings are rapidly copied by other players - as it turned out not always successfully (unless Naka considered a quick draw with white a success at this occasion).
Similarly, openings from Kasparov-Karpov were copied at Nanjing, and "Kasparov" again scored 2.5/3 (so copying Karpov wasn't really a success).
BTW, the funniest example I remember is from the honorary (or veteran) group of Corus 2008. Timman rather naively(?) copied 12.Nf7: from Topalov-Kramnik (played one day earlier!) against Ljubojevic ... and lost.

Thomas -

Are you able (capable) of writing (posting) without the compulsive (and unnecessary) use of parentheticals?

(Just a thought)

"Are you able (capable) of writing (posting) without the compulsive (and unnecessary) use of parentheticals? (Just a thought)"

Luke, you really shouldn't let little things like someone's use of parenthesis annoy you to the point where you feel compelled to write a posting about it.

"he is wasting his time with kasparov since the latter might be straight"

You puzzled me. Was it meant to mean:

- he's normal,
- he's not on drugs,
- he's heterosexual?

Brilliant (and rare in such forums ) example of dignity.
My congratulations, Sir!

Carslen was already the first in liverating before.
Magnus is great himself.
I wouldn't overestimate GK's role in Carsen's +6 in Pearl Spring.

"Irv, it's not about being a smart move or not, its about money."

From the article, his main concern appears to be that the collaboration requires a lot of time and effort for both parties involved. He is thus unsure whether they'll be able to keep it up.

I'm sure money figures into the equation somehow, but Carlsen doesn't actually say anything about that. Weird headline.

I don't think so because it indeed is the norm that most players perform better with white than black.

The FIDE rating pages have statistics for each player separated by color, apparently including all games submitted after September 2007.
Some top players:
Topalov W +30=28-4 (70%), B +19=28-16 (52%)
Anand W +14=36-3 (60%), B +13=35-6 (56%)
Carlsen W +52=55-15 (65%), B +26=77-18 (53%)
Kramnik W +22=27-3 (68%), B +1=44-6 (45%)
Aronian W +38=53-11 (63%), B +17=70-20 (48%)
Radjabov W +21=75-6 (58%), B +24=65-15 (54%)
Ivanchuk W +58=100-16 (61%), B+45=105-23 (56%)

Among those players, Topalov and Kramnik - despite many other things which they don't share (e.g. drawing percentage with black) - depend most heavily on the advantage of the white pieces. On the other hand, color doesn't seem to matter much for Anand, Radjabov and Ivanchuk. And Chucky is clearly leading in the category "total number of games played"!