World Cup 09 r2

second round pairings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_World_Cup_2009

Sergei Shipov's site is one of the few (the only!?) site with good coverage of the chess so far. http://crestbook.com/

1st day: http://online.crestbook.com/vasa/2009/shipov-khanty-mansi-09-01-01.htm
2nd day: http://online.crestbook.com/vasa/2009/shipov-khanty-mansi-09-01-02.htm
Tie breaks: http://online.crestbook.com/vasa/2009/shipov-khanty-mansi-09-01-tie-break.htm

It's all in Russian - but the annotation's international and you can click on any move to see the position.

"All the favorites came through ... with barely a scratch."
How many favorites are there? It's true for the 14 highest-rated players, but then ... :
#15 Dominguez got maybe no scratches, but a serious headache from his match against David Smerdon (five draws before sinning the last rapid game)
#16 Movsesian was eliminated by Chinese rising star Yu Yangyi (seeded #113).

Who overperformed in the past at the World Cup? In 2007, Zhou Jianchao (another Chinese) beat Sutovsky and Volokitin. In 2005, a certain Magnus Carlsen (2570 at the time) made it to round four - two years later he was already one of the favorites, another two years later (today) he can afford not playing the World Cup ... .

Today I would consider Yu Yiangyi the favorite against a tiebreak-exhausted Bartel, next Vachier-Lagrave might be waiting for him.
My highlights for this round:
Dominguez-Caruana
Ivanchuk-So
Polgar-Nisipeanu
Naiditsch-Onischuk
[the two last ones because they are very balanced on paper and hard to predict]

Maybe "sinning" a game is winning on time in a lost position :)

Hint: Live Rybka analyses from the world Cup here:
http://chessok.com/broadcast/?key=wcup21.pgn&game=0

Nyback might beat Svidler today...

Naiditsch was probably tired after the tiebreak yesterday, that's why he played only 22 moves with white against Onischuk (1-0) ... .

Ivanchuk playing so-so with white today. Heading for a draw.

Yes, Chucky doesn't let down the spectactors!

However Svidler is definately skating on thin (finnish) ice today...

First Svidler, then Ivanchuk lost, too!

Seems todays round are offering some surprises.

Now Moro is going down too...

Lots of upsets today. Svidler, Moro, Ivanchuk, Rajdabov, Eljanov. Can't think of so many in one round in previous KOs, not even in the Vegas KO.

Kapalik

I was keeping an eye on Moro-Laznicka and Ivanchuk-So, and I thought both Laznicka and So were playing very well. They duly brought the bacon home, although Ivanchuk suicidally threw away a repetition.

These "elite" guys think they are entitled, that they can just spew any garbage on the board against the "lowlies" and breeze through. HAAA! Let this be a lesson to them.

It's interesting that both Svidler and Radjabov went down in their patent openings, Grunfeld and King's Indian respectively. Home preparation by their opponents? The lower seeds have the advantage of knowing with some certainty who they will face if they reach round two.

Hmm, a few scratches today.

People like Moro and Svidler who played the European Team Champ., Tal Mem. and World Blitz Champ. must be completely worn out.
Also Ivanchuk during the World Blitz Champ. gave an exhausted impression.
If not this round, they will be eliminated the next two rounds.

All 3 Indians lost. Why couldn't Hari and Humpy make it? Didn't they qualify or what happened?

I can't help but cheer for Shirov in these events. He always seems to do well.

Re: Erroneous info : No worries Mig...all is forgiven...you are still the best! Family is always more important anyway. And we in 165 are one big happy family. (scared ya, didn't I). Have great Thanksgiving!

A very long time ago people were writing that Ivanchuck's main problem was nerves, and it still seems to be the case.

The mini match Caruana-Dominguez breaks my heart in 2 , i'm not sure yet who to root for , they gave me some time to think ,though.

I look at the excellent pictures in the official web site and and come to the conclusion that chess has definitely become a young men's game. Apart from Gelfand, Ivanchuck, Shirov, Milos, and a few others everybody else must be on their 20s.

Very exciting day! Lots of upsets today.
If I'm not mistaken, only Wang Yue, Wang Hao, and Mamedyarov are so far able to keep a 3-0 score.

I don't know the average age, but there are certainly many in their early 20s, and a good number teenagers. The chinese came with 9 players, average age 21.

Yes... statistics mean little in these knockout tournaments. All the black-white color issues... dead.

I'm not sure why there are still arguments about rating inflation. Younger players are simply getting stronger at faster rates. Nothing else can explain the "youth movement". These young players are beating top feeders who are still playing at a high level.

Yu Yangyi, 15, is no surprise... vastly underrated. There are more Chinese like him too. It wasn't too long ago that Li Chao and Wang Hao were virtual unknowns.

I agree that young players are getting stronger faster, in general. Also agree about chinese players being underrated.

However it seems to me the rating inflation issue is real. The average of the top-10 or top-20 today is significantly higher than in 1990, by more than 100 points. But I'm not sure how we can say the top 10 or 20 players of today are stronger than those in 1990.

Also, although we see younger and younger Grandmasters, the average age of the elite is probably not different from 20 years ago. The 1990 elite list includes youngsters like Ivanchuk, Bareev, Gelfand, Anand, Kamsky, etc. So I don't think the elite has become younger. And yet the rating average has definitely increased.

A few years ago even Wang Yue was a virtual unknown :-).

BTW, due to his 3-0 so far, and the losses of many top seeded players, Wang Yue is now 9th on the liverating. If I'm not mistaken, he is the 2nd asian to have reached top 10, after a certain Indian player :-).

"And yet the rating average has definitely increased."

The elite of today is a lot stronger , not in natural talent for chess , but at winning chess games in general . We're in the computer age ... today they know opening theory much better , they prepare for games like few could in the 1980's and early 1990's apart from Kasparov and the likes in Soviet Union who had very strong GM in the nieghourhood and extensive litterature and experience .. the average technique in endgame is higher as well

Why do you think Kasparov dominated for so long at that time . Sure , he was an exceptional player , but there's something else , his level of preparation and hard work around chess was much more advanced than his contemporaries , he had little competition basically .

Today with computers and databases , Rybka3 3000+ elo as your mentor , it's much easier to catch up , a young 2600 GM can work daily and improve his chess much more rapidly than in the 1980-1990 , all he has to do is turn on his computer whenever he wants all day long , back then it was harder to get a game to a strong opponent , players improved more slowly

"And yet the rating average has definitely increased."

The elite of today is a lot stronger , not in natural talent for chess , but at winning chess games in general . We're in the computer age ... today they know opening theory much better , they prepare for games like few could in the 1980's and early 1990's apart from Kasparov and the likes in Soviet Union who had very strong GM in the nieghourhood and extensive litterature and experience .. the average technique in endgame is higher as well

Why do you think Kasparov dominated for so long at that time . Sure , he was an exceptional player , but there's something else , his level of preparation and hard work around chess was much more advanced than his contemporaries , he had little competition basically .

Today with computers and databases , Rybka3 3000+ elo as your mentor , it's much easier to catch up , a young 2600 GM can work daily and improve his chess much more rapidly than in the 1980-1990 , all he has to do is turn on his computer whenever he wants all day long , back then it was harder to get a game to a strong opponent , players improved more slowly

I"m not saying the rating inflation is fully justified , but a part of it is understandable IMO . Also forgot to say that today , GM have a much better understanding of how to play unbalanced positions and complicated positions in general , again thanks to computers

Of course, today's players know more than those from the past. But how does that explain the rating increase? Even if the elite today knows more openings and prepares better, that still doesn't explain the rating increase.

Ratings increase by winning. It is purely based on results. Not on how good the openings are or how strongly people win, but purely on the score. But todays elite don't win by bigger scores compared with 1990 elites. So how do they get much higher rating?

If the advanced preparations are used by all of today's players, the scores they get against each other should be more or less similar to the scores of earlier players among themselves. I'm not talking about the depth of the openings or techniques, but the scores, which is what matters for ratings. If the scores are similar, the ratings should be similar.

I don't have a definite answer to be honest

It might depend on the number of games they play today compared to 20 years ago , also it is perhaps due to the fact that nowdays there are more "elite" players than before (when we look at all the 2600 some 2600 aren't even in the top 100) , so when they play each other , their ratings go up , whereas 20 years ago , those elite players would have more chances to play lower rated opponents and would lose points when they drew too much against them .

Might be other reasons i'm not aware of though

"It’s just a matter of time before Wesley reaches the top 10 – so in that sense it’s just confirmation of what many predict for him."

"If someday the Top 10 is composed only of players born after 1979 I see it as 1. Carlsen, 2. Aronian, 3. Gashimov, 4. Radjabov, 5. Ponomariov, 6. Grischuk, 7. Jakovenko, 8. Wang, 9. Eljanov, and 10. Karjakin. Alternatives include 11. Mamedyarov, 12. Dominguez Perez, and 13. Vachier-Lagrave. Vachier-Lagrave 2718 is only 3 years older than So and is #23 in the world. So 2640 is not even in the Top 100. There would be no room for him in the Top 10. I don't see it happening ever."

I wrote the Anti-So reply on another MB. Who is right?

henry,
It would work something like this: Computers and amazing access to information are great training tools. As pros, GMs (and especially top GMs) are better able to take advantage of the tools than the armies of club players and run-of-the-mill masters, so the gap between the very best and the rest grows. That increasing gap would be manifested in increasing Elo scores at the top. I wouldn't call this "inflation", though, because the value of each Elo point would not change, and the higher Elo's at the top would be reflective of stronger play compared to yesteryear.

But there is apparently also true rating inflation as more Elo points are pumped into the system from ratings floors and other factors, so that a 2700 from 30 years ago could well have been stronger than a 2700 today.

Excellent discussion guys, thanks for the posts on rating inflation. I suspect top 10 players nowadays play much more rated games per year than top 10 of 30 years ago (this should be easy to ascertain by looking at rating statistics from Fide). Furthermore the number of IMs and GMs has increased considerably in 30 years. I believe that rating calculation is a zero sum game, for each pointed gained one point is lost by your opponent. Therefore having a larger pool of strong players from where to draw rating points from makes it easier for someone to increase his/her rating. This may explain the gap in ratings between top 10 these days versus top 10 of 30 years ago. I am really not sure if the above rationale makes sense and would appreciate any comments.

Of course, today's players know more than those from the past. But how does that explain the rating increase? Even if the elite today knows more openings and prepares better, that still doesn't explain the rating increase.

Ratings increase by winning. It is purely based on results. Not on how good the openings are or how strongly people win, but purely on the score. But todays elite don't win by bigger scores compared with 1990 elites. So how do they get much higher rating?

If the advanced preparations are used by all of today's players, the scores they get against each other should be more or less similar to the scores of earlier players among themselves. I'm not talking about the depth of the openings or techniques, but the scores, which is what matters for ratings. If the scores are similar, the ratings should be similar.

****
The pool of players is larger.

Larger pool = greater chance for separation at the top (and bottom).

Also, the elite tend to play each other (to the relative exclusion of mixing with other rating groups). Thus, there is a closed pool effect -- separation within a very high-rating pool. Add a player to the elite pool, and unless they bomb out, their rating will gravitate upward. But, the top players in the elite pool will tend to increase their separation when a new player enters.

See this effect at your local club. If you have 20 players, the top will plateau at rating level X. Increase your attendance to 40 players...the top will plateau at X+a. Increase to 100 players and the top will plateau at X+a+b.

And so on.

Thanks for the link on Sonas' article. I've read it before, but couldn't locate the link.

So even Sonas couldn't find a simple and convincing reason on what caused the rating inflation. Perhaps it is caused by a combination of factors. It's an interesting problem.

Perhaps somebody should try to do simulations (i.e. with artificial data) and by changing the number of tournaments, players, etc, we could see what causes what.

My original point is that the rating inflation cannot be simply explained by players getting stronger (in terms of opening knowledge, preparation, perhaps even better understanding of chess overall). But although indeed players are getting stronger in all those respects, ratings are not calculated based on the depth of play. It is calculated based on results (scores), and I don't see how the scores achieved by current elite players are better overall than previous groups of elite players.

Again, chesspride, there is now more chess info and more opportunities to train effectively than in the past. If all players benefited equally, playing strength would increase for all, but ratings distributions would not change. However, not all players benefit equally. The top players benefit more because of the time and intensity of their work. The gap between top and middle increases. Elo doesn't measure wins and losses; it measures the gap between players. If the gap in playing strength between top players and club players increases, Elo at the top will increase.

And you are right that with a larger pool of players, there will be a greater number strong players and the tail of the empirical Elo distribution will grow longer.

A (simple) simulation:
Player A and player B are of equal strength in the old days. Suddenly, the computer age is thrust upon them. Player A sometimes watches live games with commentary on ICC and occasionally uses Chessbase 10.0 to look him games in his favorite opening. He improves (a little). Player B diligently makes use of all the new resources available to him. He improves a lot. They play in a number of large Swisses, and player B's rating goes up a lot. Player A's, a little.

Overly simplified, perhaps. But the idea is that if new computers and new data and new theory really are helpful, some will benefit more than others, and the ratings distribution among all players will change. And it will continue to change until it reaches a new equilibrium when the "new" training tools are no longer new.

Uff Da,

How do you explain that the average of not only top 10 but also the top 5,000 increases?

Also, why did inflation start in 1985? The use of computers was still way in the future at that time.

The influence of theory and training are NOT inherent in the Elo model. The Elo calculations are ONLY based on final scores in tournaments and matches. Nothing else. To calculate say, Aronian's rating change after the Olympiad, the program ONLY needs to know his final score and who are his opponents. Nothing else. That final score is not better than the scores achieved in the past by say, Polugaevsky in the 1970s. But why does Aronian have a much better rating than Polugaevsky during his peak? Their scores (during their peaks) are similar.

The most plausible explanation for inflation is given (although not proven) by Sonas, and perhaps implied by some others in this blog. Provisional players whose ratings are around the rating floor and temporarily overperform will eventually lose their rating points, and in effect will donate points to the system. And this happens to MOST of them. Hence the average of the system will increase. It keeps getting point donations from temporarily overperforming new players. Not only the top 10 or 20 are increasing, but all the way to the average of the top 5000.

That's the reason. Although it isn't rigorously proven, but very plausible. And it has nothing to do with the increasing strength of openings, computer preparations, etc. It has to do with how the system is set especially with regards to the rating calculations of provisional players.

could you guys please stop hijacking the thread for your stupid rating discussions? thanks

Uff Da,

Your little example only explains how one player could increase rating. Not how the average increases, as shown in the rating inflation.

If player B gains strength, his rating increases. But that only means he is beating others, who lost rating points. In that tournament, the total gain and losses of rating points of all players must be zero. So the average remains the same. You only explain how B increases rating, not how the average increases.

Jean,

Explain why the rating issue is stupid.
Until then, no, I won't stop discussing it.

The picture at the top could be that some players, like Moro, go fishing some rating points from the pool of regular players. If they get some, they will be invited to the table to eat them. This creates a kind of rating ecosystem, where certain players are specialized in delivering the goods to the top and some players are just enjoying the results.

Zhou Jianchao, who overperformed in the previous world cup (beating Volokitin and Sutovsky), might be doing it again. He just held Gashimov (2nd seeded) draw with black.

Eager to see how far Wesley So and Yu Yangyi will go in this World Cup.

Hi henry,
It seems that your faith in Sonas' tentative hypotheses as "THE reason" goes well beyond what he'd be willing to say himself.

Regarding the floors adding ratings points to the system: of course that is a contributing factor. And so is giving all women (except Susan Polgar) 100 extra points about 10 years ago. And there is no question that unequal distribution of the benefits of new training tools would be a factor (even if you fail to understand why).

If some players are in a position to benefit from technology more than others, the difference would be reflected in their game results and in Elo.

I'd take it another step: if new training methods are effective, it is a certainty that some players would benefit more than others who either remain locked in the old systems or who can't find the most effective way to use the new tools. The differences would certainly be reflected in game results and therefore in Elo. Not only would "differential benefits" effect a perceived inflation, it would also partly explain why there are so many young players near the top nowadays: the players who'd benefit the most from new knowledge and techniques would be young players, who are generally able to adapt more quickly to changes.

henry,
"Differential benefits" would not explain an increase in average ratings, but I don't know that average ratings actually are increasing. Sonas explicitly excludes lower rated players from his analysis for a number of reasons. I've not seen any discussion of generalized rating inflation--only inflation at the top (whether you define "top" as 2700+, top 100 players, or top 5000), but, then again, I haven't spent much time thinking about the issue (aside from tonight, of course).

Uff Da,

Then explain why no inflation appeared before 1985, and why since 1985 inflation has been continuous.

Your explanation relies a lot on so called "new training methods". What new training methods were invented in or around 1985 that suddenly affected thousands of players such that their average started to increase?

The use of computers doesn't explain it. Their use became widespread only long after 1985.

Yes of course, if a player trains better, he will win more games and gain more rating points than others. But his gain implies others' losses. The rating calculation is zero sum. If one player gains 2.7 points in a game, his opponent loses by the same amount. The total points won and lost must be the same. Therefore the average should stay the same. This is the point you have been missing all this time.

You keep focusing on players who train better and gain points. But we are talking about the increase of average ratings of the whole population, which includes those winners AND those who lost against them. The average includes all of them.

But the story is different if there are people who get points without having other lose points. New players get provisional rating points just as a gift, without having others lose points (unlike in a game). This is a source of plus points continuously going into the system. This is a plausible explanation of overall increase.

Of course there might be other factors. That's why I suggest a simulation. But a complex simulation involving the analysis of all factors. Not a simplistic one like yours, focusing only on the rating increase of the winners.

Yes, modern methods (including computers) partly explain why younger players can move up the rankings faster. I agree on that. But that's a different issue.

It just occurred to me that the rating inflation started in 1985, and the first thing that comes to mind is of course, that's when Kasparov became world champion.

Not trying to prove anything. Just thought it's interesting.

I was pro elo-inflation.
I waited since 1985 but today I have the feeling that only good players have elo inflation.

Methinks both Moro and Ivanchuk will be hardpressed to win today's games.. Ivanchuk in particular looks sterile (after move 23), and advantage for White if anything... Maybe Moro can introduce some madness. Svidler has a Ruy on the board as White, so he has all the chances.

"Explain why the rating issue is stupid. Until then, no, I won't stop discussing it"

The rating issue isn't stupid in itself but the these discussions are stupid because 1) these issues have been discussed here countless times already 2) most people read this thread are here to get info or share opinions about the World Cup. If you can't help but discuss the rating inflation and stuff why don't you ask Mig to open a separed thread dedicated to it?

Looks like most of the losers in round 1 can't win and hence will be out. That includes Ivanchuk, Moro, Rajdabov, all 3 Indians etc. Svidler looks like winning and is the only exception.

Kapalik

Ivanchuk out, Moro soon to follow I think. Svidler played a beautiful game to win.

Well put, Jean. Btw it's easy to be wise after the event but what was Ivanchuck thinking, allowing the Exchange Slav?? I think he must have wanted to play the a6 variation but was pre-empted. The course of these knock-out events should be convincing enough proof against the idea of a "knock-out" world championship, anything can happen in such short matches (I like the format, very entertaining, but just not for the WC).

henry,
I haven't heard any reasoned discussion of general rating inflation for average ratings--only discussions of why there are so many very high rated players. If you have seen anything, please do tell me where. It would be interesting to see if there is real ratings inflation or just a greater abundance of strong players. [These are two different things: if inflation, then 2700 now doesn't mean what it used to; if just more strong players, then today's Topalov, Anand, and Carlsen could beat the Karpov of 1980 and Kasimdzhanov and Motylev would be his equal.] I think there is both inflation (increasing mean) and greater abundance of strong players (increasing variance and larger pool size).

And regarding two specific points you bring up:
1. "inflation" since 1985; and
2. zero-sum ratings calculation precludes "differential benefits" from contributing to true inflation.

1a. Chess training and theory have undergone revolutionary changes beginning in the 1970s with Fischer's and Kasparov's work habits and preparation. As always, free access to new resources increases the general wealth but also increases the gap between rich and poor. Elo is a poor measure of general increase in wealth but a good measure of gaps. Sonas' dramatic graphs show a combination of true inflation and increasing abundance of strong players.

1b. Computers could well have begun contributing to true inflation (but not to more and stronger top players) by 1985. Computers that could play at a 1800-2000 level were popular. Beginners that trained with those might well enter the rating pool at, say, 1400 instead of at 1200, thereby contributing to to rating inflation.

2. New players' games are not zero-sum rated. If the strength of players entering the pool increases, it contributes to inflation. Modern training and theory could easily lead to greater playing strength among new players in the rating pool. For example, Joe Brick has been 1400-1500 for thirty years. In the 1980s he would routinely beat the new players. However, now Bob Eplay has been playing on playchess, practicing tactics using his computer, and watching commentary on ICC. When he enters the pool, he is stronger than Joe Brick. Elo points are injected into the system until his rating becomes established and ratings inflation results.

To the contrary, a knockout WC would be great, indeed, the best way to decide who is best!

Why? Because thinking fast in shorter time is far more important and exciting than having an abundance of time to not make a mistake or to make the fewest mistakes! Sharpens the mind to its highest pitch.

All aspects of mental acuity are pressed into service. Not least among them is quickness of decision, something important in every aspect of life.

Otherwise let them play endlessly. Who cares. Fewer mistakes get made then. But that is for machines not life.

Chess so far has been about who makes the fewest mistakes in longer time frames. But let that happen in shorter time frame.

Not only RAM but speed!

"Why? Because thinking fast in shorter time is far more important and exciting than having an abundance of time to not make a mistake or to make the fewest mistakes! "
Nah. The core idea should be to determine who is the genuinely best player, not who can pull off a fortunate victory. Suppose this was the WC right now, you really think Ivanchuck should be out of the competition? You think that man is not a genuine contender? Anyway, by your reasoning, bullet is the best form of chess.
Bring on a different thread for this rating thing, it's getting like groundhog day. Again :)

If I'm reading the official site correctly, it appears that Alexander Morozevich Teimour Radjabov and Vassily Ivanchuk were all top seeds who lost. This is exciting. I'm not saying Gelfand, Gashimov, or Svidler won't win, but it's more wide open with half the top 6 gone and arguably the strongest and most experienced Ivanchuk out. I can imagine a dark horse like Kamsky winning it all now and I did vote for him in the poll.

"The core idea should be to determine who is the genuinely best player, not who can pull off a fortunate victory."

Hmm, the chesshire cat forgets under what conditions the truly strong player, the truly genuine player, the "fortes," are victorious, for "Fortune favors the strong."

Indeed, the good player is always lucky. But how many knock-out tournaments did Capa play? :)

Whoever wins this tournament will deserve it. But whoever gets eliminated at an earlier stage may have had just one bad day or moment. You can recover after a momentary lapse of reason in a round-robin tournament or long match, already less so in a Swiss tournament, hardly in the World Cup format.

@randy tried: Did you have a look at the blitz and rapid tiebreaks? In many cases it was all about blundering less than the other guy, NOT about playing better chess (here defined as having the better plan, and outplaying the opponent).

Uff Da wrote:
Again, chesspride, there is now more chess info and more opportunities to train effectively than in the past. If all players benefited equally, playing strength would increase for all, but ratings distributions would not change. However, not all players benefit equally. The top players benefit more because of the time and intensity of their work. The gap between top and middle increases. Elo doesn't measure wins and losses; it measures the gap between players. If the gap in playing strength between top players and club players increases, Elo at the top will increase.

And you are right that with a larger pool of players, there will be a greater number strong players and the tail of the empirical Elo distribution will grow longer.

****

My observation was that "inflation" at the top (perhaps "expansion" is a better term) can be explained (at least partly) by the larger pool -- by itself. It is an artifact of pool size.

Yes, chess information is booming and perhaps it is true that players are stronger. But being stronger isn't measured by the rating system. There is no rating bonus for playing strong moves -- just winning games. And to get an extreme rating, all you need to do is score against your peers at an extreme rate.

You can see rating "expansion" among an increasing pool of beginners OR a pool of elite players.

Extreme example:

Take a pool of 100 beginners. Let them play for X cycles and there will be a certain rating distribution.

Add 100 more to the pool -- now 200 total. After X cycles, the ratings of the top players will be bigger as there will be separation.

Expansion is partly an artifact of increasing the pool.

Being stronger per se vs. another time period's players doesn't necessarily equate to higher ratings. If pool size were constant, and in 2010 we had 20 players who were all equal to each other, then their ratings would be closer to each other...than if in 1970 we had 1 extreme player (Fischer) who dominated his closest peers. You would see greater separation (and in fact that is what happened as Fischer was 2785 and the closest rival approx. 100 pts less -- the largest separation in the history of the rating system).

The problem here is that folks are confusing the separation due to playing differences...with the impact of greater pool size per se. Both effects are going on. Pool size (assuming it always grows and never shrinks) will increase top ratings...but playing differences at the top can actually shrink if a large number of players are equivalent.

henry,
"Differential benefits" would not explain an increase in average ratings, but I don't know that average ratings actually are increasing. Sonas explicitly excludes lower rated players from his analysis for a number of reasons. I've not seen any discussion of generalized rating inflation--only inflation at the top (whether you define "top" as 2700+, top 100 players, or top 5000), but, then again, I haven't spent much time thinking about the issue (aside from tonight, of course).

****
Uff Da makes a good point -- it is rather meaningless to talk about "inflation/expansion" at the top because if the overall pool is growing...then the top will (by necessity) expand.

So then you have to look at average rating in the pool.

And if the analyst (Sonas?) is not looking at the average of the entire pool, then he is going to miss the effect that Uff Da is talking about...i.e. stronger players will separate themselves by an even greater distance from the pack (due to new methods X, Y, Z).

But also consider:

FIDE lowered the entry rating from 2205 to 2005 -- this means that the pool expanded.

FIDE then lowered the entry rating even further -- to 1805, then 1605, and plans to lower it further.

As the pool expands, ratings at the top will go up.

Also, women (who originally had an entry limit of 2005) tend to play in more mixed events now -- so the pool grows.

And final point -- when the entry boundary was 2205, it tended to be the case that you had to be stronger than 2205 to "get in" or "get on the list"...so that would tend to DEPRESS top ratings.

Now, with lower entry standards, there would inevitably be expansion at the top.

"rating inflation as more Elo points are pumped into the system from ratings floors and other factors"

There isn't the kind of rating floors in FIDE that you can't "fall through", unlike in the USCF system. The "rating floor" in FIDE is the lower bound for what kind of rating you can have and _maintain_ an official rating. If you go below that number you simply drop off the list.

"Not how the average increases, as shown in the rating inflation."

The average of what? The average of the _entire_ pool obviously has gone down quite a lot, around 100 points in less than 10 years.

That's due to a change in the recruition to the system, though, and lowered "rating floor" of course. I guess everyone understands that comparing the average of a pool of 10,000 players with that of a completely different pool of 40,000 or 100,000 players doesn't make much sense. That it also makes little sense to compare averages of top 100 or 500 in one pool with top 100 or 500 in a completely different pool, much bigger and at a much later time, unfortunately appears harder for people to realize.

The average of the top 2000 players have gone up much, much less than the average of the bottom 2000 have gone down, again for very natural reasons.

Some WCC stats and an ascii pairing table:

-------------
* 1st half *
-------------

1 gelfand 2758
32 polgar 2680 - nisipeanu 2677

16 yu yangyi* 2527
17 vachier-lagrave 2718 - meier 2653
---
8 grischuk 2736 - jobava 2696

9 jakovenko 2736
24 rublevsky 2697 - areshchenko 2664

---===---

4 laznicka* 2637
29 bologan 2692 - cheparinov 2671

13 mamedyarov 2719 - wang hao 2708
---
5 sakaev* 2626
28 vitiugov 2694 - gilberto milos* 2603

12 karjakin 2723 - timofeev 2651
21 navara 2707 - shabalov* 2606

-------------
* 2nd half *
-------------

2 gashimov 2758
31 pelletier* 2589 - li chao* 2596

15 dominguez 2719 - caruana 2652
18 alekseev 2715 - fressinet 2653
---
7 ponomariov 2739 - akobian* 2624
26 motylev 2695

10 wang yue 2734 - bacrot 2700

---===---

3 svidler 2754 - nyback* 2628
30 naiditsch 2689

14 shirov 2719 - fedorchuk* 2619
19 tomashevsky 2708 - khalifman* 2612
---
6 so* 2640 - kamsky 2695

11 eljanov 2729 - inarkiev 2645
22 malakhov 2706 - smirin 2662

-------

12 "rating favourites" through to round 3
4 "rating outsiders" through to round 3
(1 more outsider guaranteed to go through)
16 tie-breaks to be decided tomorrow

top 16 seeds stats:
through: 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 13
tie-break: 3, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15
out: 4, 5, 6, 16

top 17-32 seeds stats:
through: 20, 23, 25, 26, 27, 30
tie-breaks: 17, 18, 19, 21, 22,
24, 28, 29, 32
out: 31

------

So, only 5 of the top 32 are out yet, but 15 of them play tie-breaks tomorrow.

Semi prediction:

Grischuk-Mamedyarov
Gashimov-Kamsky

Winner: Grischuk

futurology

5th round

1 Gelfand - Grischuk
3 Svidler - Kamsky

6th round

1 Grischuk - Wang
2 Wang - Svidler

Final round

1 Grischuk - Svidler ( 43%)==> Svidler
or
1 Grischuk - Wang ( 24%)==> Grischuk
or
1 Wang - Svidler ( 22% )==> Svidler
or
1 Wang - Wang ( 11%) ==> Wang !

Placing the World Cup in resolution:
*
FIDE created a situation where a world top ten or twenty level player could be eliminated from becoming a candidate based on one single loss, maybe even one single bad move. Thats the bad news. FIDE also created a situation where a rapidly ascendant and enormously talented up and comer such as Li Chao could attempt to qualify for the WCC or see how he or she could go. Thats the good news.
*
FIDE created a situation where favorites could obtain multiple rest days, thats the good news. FIDE created a situation where a player could go for many days without a rest day, potentially exhausting the contestant, only to have to face a rested and better prepared seed.
*
Blessings to all of you, and for those in the USA, happy Thanksgiving.
*
Thank you Mig for his hard work, a labor of love and perspicacity. Hope your new baby is sleeping sound, and wife safe and happy.
* dk

Placing the World in resolution:
*
FIDE created a situation where a world top ten or twenty level player could be eliminated from becoming a candidate based on one single loss, maybe even one single bad move. Thats the bad news. FIDE also created a situation where a rapidly ascendant and enormously talented up and comer such as Li Chao could attempt to qualify for the WCC or see how he or she could go. Thats the good news.
*
FIDE created a situation where favorites could obtain multiple rest days, thats the good news. FIDE created a situation where a player could go for many days without a rest day, potentially exhausting the contestant, only to have to face a rested and better prepared seed.
*
Blessings to all of you, and for those in the USA, happy Thanksgiving.
*
Thank you Mig for his hard work, a labor of love and perspicacity. Hope your new baby is sleeping sound, and wife safe and happy.
* dk

"@randy tried: Did you have a look at the blitz and rapid tiebreaks? In many cases it was all about blundering less than the other guy, NOT about playing better chess (here defined as having the better plan, and outplaying the opponent)."

But, Thomas, you have to remember that IT IS ALWAYS ABOUT NOT MAKING MISTAKES either subtle or the blundering kind. Makes no difference how long the game is. Sooner or later someone will capitalize on a mistake, a weakness, etc.

You make the mistake of thinking better chess (meaning as you say better plans, etc.) requires more time or a greater time. It does not.

In the blink of an eye, Thomas, the finest plans or ends, thru nearly countless quasi-deductive/imaginative steps, can be envisioned. People in the philosophical tradition have called this intuition.

And, of course, we don't want to settle the final score between two players with just a few games. Let them play plenty to see whose NEARLY spontaneous strength of vision prevails.

Finally, do not forget that protracted games extending over hours ferment much hanky panky. The old Soviet system took advantage of that!! Don't forget those toilet trips!

Did a pairings table (manually) in my last report; let me know if there are errors please.

"You make the mistake of thinking better chess (meaning as you say better plans, etc.) requires more time or a greater time. It does not."
Riggggghhhhhttt....there must be something in those bullet games I'm not seeing, then. Really, randy, that's an asinine statement if I ever saw one.

I think randy says a good player see and feels a good move in just a few secnds and does not need all the plenty time given on the clock just a few seconds that is all. Eithre see it or dont see it right away without big amounts of time. So randy does not need to be called name like some do who are mad.

I said the statement was asinine, not the author, Stoopid. It is also fully clear to me what he said.

Peter, I like your pairing table.

Frogbert: where is yours?

When board 32 features Nisipeanu and Polgar that's depth! There will be many very strong 2695+ players left in the 3rd round so I think 1 of them will win it. I predicted Kamsky before the start and I'll stick to my guns.

Svidler plays the Ruy anti Marshal like nobody's business!

And Shirov found the antidote to the Bc5 Ruy variation that Fedorchuk played at the second time of asking.

I kind of liked the Short version.

Two of my favourite players, Svidler and Shirov are through. I have high hopes for them! I think its high time Svidler won some big event like this. When in form and motivated, his Chess is effortlessly smooth. Go Peter, Go Alexei!

Ivanchuk stops career ? I hope its only said in the heat of the moment :
http://www.ugra-chess.ru/eng/interv_10.htm

Milos and Akobian even the score in the four rapid in style (against Vitiugov and Ponomariov, resp.)

Wild stuff! http://cup2009.fide.com/round.php

Interview with Ivanchuk on the World Cup website :(
"I will become just a chess fan now. I will follow chess; will follow the games of my ex-colleagues."

http://www.ugra-chess.ru/eng/interv_10.htm

The English version's fine (although they have "stalemate" instead of "perpetual"), except that they've lost Ivanchuk's crucial answer to the question at the end about staking everything on the tournament.

It should read: "I just had to win it. It didn't matter how - but I had to".

The "Maybe..." answer is in response to: "In life as in chess: you have good runs and bad runs... The bad ones must come to an end!"

Forget about Akobian, I read wrong the result

YIKES!! Go have a beer and cool down Vassily! We all have a bad day now and again!!

Ivanchuk said that he will honor his signed contracts, and maybe "even participate in a tournament before the New Year" (what could that be, an open?). Possibly/hopefully this is enough to make him change his mind .... .

Maybe it would also help if Wesley So is successful again in the next round(s) of the World Cup, so Chucky realizes he isn't such a bad player after all? Wait, maybe Kamsky fan is now getting mad at me - next round has Kamsky-So on the menu ... .

Vitiugov, Li, Chao and Polgar through the next round via a pair of blitz

http://cup2009.fide.com/round.php

The Ivanchuk interview is a sad read - he even sounds depressed. However, reacting strongly emotionally after losses is nothing new for him, and I can't see him quitting chess at all, even if he does mean it at the moment.

So guys can So beat Kamsky ? If so then so be it.

So So's chances are so-so?

How did Caruana win last game?

Same question!!

I don't know why... Maybe by time?

[Event "World Cup 2009"]
[Site "0:00.01-0:00.45"]
[Date "2009.11.26"]
[Round "26"]
[White "Dominguez Perez, Leinier"]
[Black "Caruana, Fabiano"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "2719"]
[WhiteCountry "CUB"]
[BlackElo "2652"]
[BlackCountry "ITA"]
[Remark "WCC 2009 Match 015"]
[PresId "1000260015"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O b5 6. Bb3 Bc5 7. a4
Rb8 8. c3 d6 9. axb5 axb5 10. d3 h6 11. Re1 O-O 12. h3 Bb6 13. Nbd2
Ne7 14. Nf1 Ng6 15. N3h2 d5 16. Qf3 Be6 17. Bc2 d4 18. Ng3 Nh4 19. Qe2
c5 20. Ng4 Nxg4 21. hxg4 f6 22. Nf5 Nxf5 23. gxf5 Bf7 24. g3 Re8 25.
Kg2 Qd6 26. f4 dxc3 27. bxc3 Ra8 28. Rb1 b4 29. Bb3 Bxb3 30. Rxb3 Ra1
31. fxe5 Qxe5 32. Qg4 Qe7 33. cxb4 Qf7 34. Rb2 cxb4 35. Bd2 Rxe1 36.
Bxe1 Qd7 37. Qd1 Kh7 38. Rxb4 Ba5 39. Rb3 Bxe1 40. Qxe1 Qxf5 41. exf5
Rxe1 42. Kf3 Re7 43. d4 Kg8 44. Re3 Rd7 45. Ke4 Kf7 46. d5 Ke7 47.
Kd4+ Kd8 48. g4 Ra7 49. d6 Ra4+ 50. Kd5 Rxg4 51. Re7 h5 52. Ke6 h4 53.
Ra7 Re4+ 54. Kf7 h3 55. Kxg7 h2 56. Ra8+ Kd7 57. Rh8 Kxd6 58. Kxf6 Re2
59. Kf7 Ke5 60. f6 Rf2 61. Rh5+ Rf5 62. Rxh2 0-1

http://cup2009.fide.com/java/game.php?game=1000260015

Ivanchuk , WTF !
You are the only player more important than the Wch title , i understand that this loss must be frustrating but maybe you don't realize that you were never aiming for the title anyway , your chess is too generous for that kind of goals.
Do some yoga pal , learn to control your breath and with that your impulses and nerves , stop playing blitz for while , do some vacations and return to us.

Ivanchuk is one of the most fascinating chess players in the world. He doesn't seem to have the consistency to become champion but on a good day he may well be the best. I object to the printing of this interview which was obviously irresponsible and refuse to believe it for a moment.

Maybe it's just me.

Very nice and assertive words, Manu. I totally agree.

Ivanchuk is Chess, Chess is Ivanchuk.

PS
(Caruana-Leiner) It seems that the game Caruana actually won was the second one (the others were draws).

I was shocked to read this interview published, obviously done at a moment when Ivanchuk was out of balance and suffering. The publication in question is doing Mr Ivanchuk, chess and journalism itself a huge disservice!!

It would be an incalculable loss were Vassily Ivanchuk to leave professional chess. Certainly the elite tournaments would be that much less colourful. The Ukrainian is always generous and sympathetic. At his best, his brilliancy is perhaps unmatched. Who can forget, for instance, his astounding performance at last year’s M-Tel Masters?

Dear MR IVANCHUK:
Please reconsider any such rash decision. Give it time and you will once again with the day; of that I am certain. Furthermore, the simple truth is that the chess world needs you – it would be a boring place without your fine creative efforts!

– ArcticStones

* Give it time and you will once again WIN the day; of that I am certain.

Ivanchuk has lost many games many times and that is no big sorrow. He need not cry baby like or say his oppont played badly when it was him that made many mistakes. He should drink plenty vodka and all will be much better. Althuogh I like him, no more cry baby and bad mouth.

Packing statistics

The "big" nations - those with many participants initially - are being sent home in varying tempo:

Russia: 27 ->* 16 ->* 9
USA: 10 -> 4 -> 1 (Kamsky)
China: 9 -> 6 -> 4
Ukraine: 9 -> 6 -> 4
India: 7 -> 3 -> 0 (losing 0-6 in round 2)

*) Russia had 2 RUS-RUS matches in round 1, and also 2 in round 2.

Hence, "survival rate" becomes the following:

China: 44%
Ukraine: 44%
Russia: 33%
USA: 10%
India: 0%

Does this mean that there are too many qualification spots from countries like Egypt (6/6 out in round 1), USA and India? (Or technically: the regions where these players qualified.)

Simplified, the choice is between more or less emphasis on geographical diversity compared to "fair" qualification quotas based on chess skills in the various regions.

Personally I don't have a strong opinion on the issue, but I suspect somebody else might have.

Here are the last 32 by nations:

RUS: 9

UKR: 4
CHN: 4

AZE: 2
CZE: 2
FRA: 2

ESP: 1
GEO: 1
GER: 1
HUN: 1
ISR: 1
ITA: 1
MDA: 1
PHI: 1
USA: 1

And here's the remaining pairing table, with nationality and ratings and no names. :o)

-------------
* 1st half *
-------------

1 ISR 2758 - HUN 2680
16 CHN* 2527 - FRA 2718
---
8 RUS 2736 - GEO 2696
9 RUS 2736 - UKR* 2664

---===---

4 CZE* 2637 - MDA 2692
13 AZE 2719 - CHN 2708
---
5 RUS* 2626 - RUS 2694
12 UKR 2723 - CZE 2707

-------------
* 2nd half *
-------------

2 AZE 2758 - CHN* 2596
15 ITA* 2652 - RUS 2715
---
7 UKR 2739 - RUS 2695
10 CHN 2734 - FRA 2700

---===---

3 RUS 2754 - GER 2689
14 ESP 2719 - RUS 2708
---
6 PHI* 2640 - USA 2695
11 UKR 2729 - RUS 2706

------

* = advanced in at least one match without being rating favourite

I suppose I'd better follow the Chinese men players more. Similar to the Chinese women, we are seeing the Chinese men steadily creeping up the tables, and getting stronger and stronger. The larger the number who play, the better the candidates found. China has a large population, so every tenth of a percent more who learn to play, widens the base by a large amount. It will be ironic if future WC Carlson's competition turns out to be Chinese rather than Russian...

I agree with Daim. Carlsen maybe the last hold out of the 'western chess world'. After that the Chinese and Indians take over for the forseeable future. Chess geography is undergoing a metamorphosis.

Russia and her neighbours will remain the center of gravity. China and India will take the place of/have already taken over from the second-tier countries like England, Netherlands, United States.

Statistics:

27 -> 16 -> 9
10 -> 4 -> 1
9 -> 6 -> 4
9 -> 6 -> 4
7 -> 3 -> 0

One trend is clear: It's best to start with a power of 3.

Mehul Gohil,
Carlsen may well be the last holdout of the "western chess world", but I wouldn't count out guys like Nakamura, Caruana, Robson, Vachier-Lagrave, Nepomniachtchi, etc.

I'm here to shout this that another poster said before, because I totally agree, and maybe many of you also agree , and Ivanchuk needs to know what we think:

Ivanchuk is Chess, Chess is Ivanchuk!

That simple phrase seems to me represents well Ivanchuk. Hate him or love him, understand him or laugh, this one thing is true

Ivanchuk is Chess, Chess is Ivanchuk!

With the chinese youngsters rising so fast one can actually question whether Carlsen will become World Champion! Kramnik has gotten his mojo back so there is a good possibilty that in 2012 he will regain his title...I don't think Carlsen will have a chance until 2014. By that time the chinese invasion of the Top 10 may well be complete and I don't think it would be silly if someone put his money on a chinese becoming a World Champion after Anand/Kramnik are done with the thing and not Carlsen!! We could be living in very exciting times!!

Kamsky Fan, I thought Wang Yue is No.8 on the live rating?? Or he is not chinese?

Mehul, stop and think for a second.

First off, there currently is no Chinese player on the horizon who looks like a probable WC-challenger. None. As of yet they haven't produced a Kramnik, Anand, Topalov or Carlsen. Not even an Aronian, let a alone a Kasparov.

Secondly, chances are the next such player to come along will not be Chinese due to the simple fact that there are far more non-Chinese than Chinese chess players in the world.

While few Chinese play the game, they do get a lot of bang for the buck due to the fact that the people are the property of the state and can thus be put to whatever task the state decides, such as being placed in a chess/shogi/xangqi boarding school at a young age if they show an aptitude for such games.
[hope this doesn't show up as a double post]

Wang Yue may be #8 on the live rating but I wonder if that isn't temporary, he hasn't seemed to be a real threat to the top players in the strongest events. In both Corus and Linares he was 0.5 from last place. I wouldn't say that he is stronger than Ivanchuk, Radjabov and Leko even if he is ahead at the moment. Apart from Wang Yue there are only three Chinese players over 2630, not much compared to Russia, with 27 such players. Long term China has good chances to become the leading chess nation but I think it will take several decades before that happens.

I think Mehul was referring to what may happen half a decade from now. Carlsen is on top at the moment but China is turning out these players like a factory machine. Anything is possible.

Tjallen,

If you check on the Fide website, you can see that the 100th chinese player is currently rated 2153. If you compare against Germany whose 100th player is rated 2442, you may assume that the sudden rise of China in top chess is not due to massification (and a large pyramid of players) but to an efficient support to high-level players.

Well guys all we now have to do is sit and watch! Most of you are underestimating china. Let's pick this discussion up in 2014 and then compare notes. I will gladly accept the apologies!

China's investing in chess isn't a new thing. Xie Jun became World Champion almost 20 years ago and since then chess has been given much more resources than by the Russian state. Hou Yifan had four-five GM coaches during the women's World Championship while most Russian top players couldn't afford one. This far China has been most successful in women's chess but they will surely get even better results also among the men. It is a slow process though, as the last decades show. In a way having only Wang Hao in the top 20 among the juniors isn't that impressive, considering that he already is 20 and very soon could leave the list without Chinese representation.

An extremely talented Chinese young man/woman, working relentlessly on chess from a very young age, and having a strong sense of duty to keep doing so, has all the chances to reach 2700, and many of them will do it. But to become a World champion more is needed: a very deep, even crazy love and obsession with the game that can only be obtained, ingrained and maintained culturally, not as a school project. For a Chinese youth, chess is a school/workplace job assigned to him, and his motivation is duty, if not fear for himself and family. Yes, that can make you very, very good, if you have the talent and mandarin work ethics. But truly extreme mental achievements are not based on such a background.

Judith just won an exchange against Gelfand with a cute little variation. Of course, it may be that Gelfand sees further than me, and is actually a deep temporary sac..

ra - "But to become a World champion more is needed: a very deep, even crazy love and obsession with the game that can only be obtained, ingrained and maintained culturally, not as a school project." - that sounds something that can come right out of a Nuremberg 1936 speech. 'Culturally' is a pretty strong word to use in that context.

An easy day at the office for Svidler.. Surely he can play on a bit...

Actually can't Polgar play 21... Qd4 now?

What is the thesis: that Chinese people cannot become obsessed with chess under the current system? Fishy. Though I doubt they will have a champ within 5 years very much. The USSR introduced the conditions and started sprouting champs. Things are changed today, with computer access etc, but still..of course there are those who will love the game...even just as a signifier of status etc, but quite likely just as fervently and for similar reasons to any champ to date.
I like Gelfand's position, white has good compenstion and also black must be very careful. A small mistake might be fatal; looks like a risk free sacrifice to me.
Svidler's opening just fizzled out..also something must have gone wrong in Gashimov's prep, white looks a lot better, even with those pawn weaknesses.

She played it! The point being of course the potential fork on e2 unpins the N, and also Qf3 is met by Ne5. Now I have a feeling Black can simplify a bit and improve her position.

Did Gelfand have time for 26. Rb1? Now Black 26. .. Rc7.

The point was of course that 23.Rd1 forces the knight back into the pin (23.-Ne2:+? 24.Kf1).

Next: after 26.Rb1 (threatening b4-b5) black actually has to return the exchange - did Gelfand calculate that far on move 16?

Hmmm.. you are right, it was a very nice sac!

Roles have changed in Gelfand-Polgar: now black has active pieces and compensation for being a pawn down?
Moving to Kamsky-So: Does white have compensation for two missing pawns? Looks like Gata is "doing the Ivanchuk": sacrificing material and getting into time trouble ... .

Wow, nice play by So! Kamsky's just down a pawn!

The Armenian news site news.am reports on Nov. 27 10:30, an interview given by Ivanchuk to Sovietsky Sport daily that Ivanchuk has announced his retirement from chess.

Allright, seems you found that out yourself :-)

Sorry.

Kamsky's position is resignable methinks. Wesley So appears to be very strong. I think Ivanchuk was less than gracious when he said So played badly.

Wesley So doesnt mess about! He spurned the exchange of Qs a couple of time, he's going for broke! No woodpushing in the Rook+N endgame for him!

Moments OF despair. Sorry about the sloppy writing.

When all the crying by Ivanchuk stop he can see his mistakes and try some thing better. His opponet played better he knows it so do us except maybe those who cry with him and refus to see.

I have many kinds of people in my histry like many others. Probly my culture is not good byt I am happy.

I don't think it is realistic to state that China will not produce a world champ because chessplayers lack social status there. There are many arguments against it.
Firstly, I don't see why a country that can produce 2700 players can't produce a champ.
Secondly, state support must have equal significance to social status, especially in a country where poverty is certainly not unknown. A kid in a training camp who devotes himself to chess is quite likely to become fanatical about it-it's his life. I have read many times about Soviet GMs who saw chess as an occupation, not a passion.
Also we have Fischer, who became champ in a country where respect for chessplayers is and was low-so status can't be a prerequisite.
And Carlsen, too...(potential WC) "while a chessplayer in China is more of a social/cultural outsider.".. you Norwegians out there, is he much recognized by the non-chess public there? And if he is now, was he before?
It is true that countries with a long chess "tradition", let't call it, still have an advantage (e.g. the number of strong Soviet/ex-Soviet GMs must prove this), but look at the exceptions...Anand...Fischer...in short, I think we will see a majority of strong players/champs from countries with strong chess traditions, but we can see the exceptions, and there's no reason China should not produce some, especially since conditions for chess are improving.

I like the pictures of china and dragons and the grate wall. The players have funnt names but they should be good. Any way they win a lot so they must be. But to say some thing other I hope Ivanchk makes his vacation pleasant and keeps on playing. That is what.

With all the talk about China, don't forget young players from other countries: today Vachier-Lagrave scored a rather convincing victory against Yu Yangyi ("out of nothing", so it seemed at least to me).

When Carlsen was in china he played very well and maybe he could be chinese some day.

So beat Kamsky.

Two china players lose.

To say that China lacks chess culture is like saying US lacks baseball culture. Few nations have their degree of chess interest in the average man. In a way that hinders them reaching the top of Western chess because most talent goes into the Chinese variation. Even so, the state has it's ways of picking up enough talent to impress the world in our chess as well.
This situation will prevail as Western chess has no chance of competing with their own deeply rooted chess tradition.

I like the pictures. Some look bluubry and some skinny. So has a face from China. Ivanchuk looks happy on computer. Mabey he is wrighting to us. Many players with big animal hats becuase of cold. Some players talking and some just grumpy. Where are all the people spectating. Just players and arbtrators I think.

Wow I didn't expect my comment about the Chinese men players to raise this much response. Daim, I have followed Bu, Wang, Ni Hua and others, but now I see there are lots more men just under the surface, and this is what I was pointing to, as a chess fan - there are more names I have to learn!

As Charles noted, I was thinking in terms of "massification" (good word!) that the population of China is very large, so that even a few tenths of a percent who learn chess increases the pyramid base by a huge amount.

There is a good debate about whether a world champ can be produced merely by increasing the numbers who play. Yes there is the stereotype of the chess world champ as a lone genius (Fischer as best example) who through torturous self-imposed work, becomes untouchable. But to me that seems like luck, and statistically, the better route is to teach everyone to play, and cherry-pick the best for special care. By population alone, China, India and Indonesia must be considered candidates for this strategy.

Although it was once extremely important to play very good players at an early age, youngsters now can buy a GM strength opponent for under $100, and can play him/her/it daily, hundreds of games, without the GM getting bored or tired.

It seems to me (I could be wrong) that Russia's achievements in chess can be seen as two-fold - everyone learned to play (massification) and the best were set aside for special treatment, and encouraged to play against very strong players. Today, with computers, this second part is less important, so it seems to follow that the countries with the largest base will create the best player(s), as the special-youth-training no longer requires a coterie of strong GMs to do the training.

I know, playing the computer is not a substitute for GM instruction, but it does make this "requirement" less crucial. I am still thinking more about this, my opinions are not set in stone on this, and I am happy to think about the points the others of you made.

tjallen,

I agree with your assessments. Massification is one theory, but I also believe that China gets the support that Soviet players once got.

I believe China is very select in their training and several years back a book was written about their methods. I remember writing about China in a review of the book and remember Nigel Short favoring India's methods over China. I disagree then and I disagree now.

China's momentum is what will determine how talent gets in the pipeline. As Jean-Michael points out, one cannot simply look at a rating list and count the number of junior players and determine the potential. Someone made mention of there being only one Chinese player in the Junior list (Wang Hao at 2708). However, the list is populated by many federations, most having one player.

Many of China's players have low ratings and do not have titles... supporting Charles "selection" theory. I knew one of the players on the women's team (Wang Lei) some years ago and she told me about the conditions in e-mail exchange. These players are given lots of support and they are now strong enough to improve by playing each other.

Ni Hua was a 2568 FM... I remember this clearly. Yu Yangyi only recently got his GM title after being untitled with a 2500 rating. His rating was 2140 in 2004. zakki states that China only had only elite player, but how many nations have produced elite players? A few. I believe many are not using reliable methods to assess talent and look at static factors as predictors of talent.

Well... Wesley So was certainly not on the radar a couple years back, but I had heard about him and did an article on him. I sent him a message on Facebook and he was gracious in his response. I'm just sorry I didn't interview him at the Dresden Olympiad.

Yes... Asia is rising and I believe more will now pay attention. Thomas says don't forget about other young players like Vachier-Lagrave, but that's not the point. Everyone knows about the European talent, but other talent is either ignored or unappreciated.

I do like chesshire cat's statement citing Anand and Fischer as champions who had individual initative. In today's interview So remarked that he had no coach, nor is receiving any government support. This young man is quite talented and there is no reason to write him off if given the resources.

As far as I know, and as suggested by the rating comparison of the 100th highest rated German and Chinese player, there is as of yet no 'massification' of chess in China. That's kinda the whole point.

The people who expect China to become dominant any day now need to stop confusing the amount of Chinese in the world with the amount of Chinese in the world who play chess.

Q: You know what really burns my butt?

A: A midget about three feet tall with match...

Zakki,

I agree. I believe the massification is a theory, but I don't believe it necessarily applies in to China... more India than China. Certainly, China has a large pool, but the vast majority still fancy Chinese chess. All the time I was in China, I couldn't find a chess club. I saw players on the street playing Chinese chess. The pool for international chess in China is small, but of course once the talent is shown, there is a push to ferret out the best talent. The massification theory is interesting, but it has to be thought of in a proper context.

Zakki,
Point well taken. Here is how I was thinking of the massification theory. We think of the Fischers, Kasparovs, Tals, etc as "one in a million." Well, if China adds just 1/10th of one percent to their player base, that's a million new players, one of whom could be The One.

Daaim, sorry to misspell your name earlier (Carlsen too!).

Of course China have the resources to improve very much, but this far they have only been really successful with their women players. There's only 11 Chinese men rated 2530 or better, and that's below countries like Armenia and Georgia, with populations of 3-4 millions, compared to China's 1300 millions. This after many years of hard work to improve, with state support, Chinese league with lots of strong foreign players, annual matches against Russia, and the last years also some super tournaments. Long term it must have effect but it is a very slow process.

Very nice interview with Wesley So , he seems humble and a hard worker>

http://interviews.chessdom.com/wesley-so-khanty-mansiysk

There's a good chance that we will see a match between So and Hou sometime in the future. We should start preparing lame jokes that combine their names.

There will be no "massification" of western chess in China. I think the number of adult active chessplayers below 2100 is about zero. It is a children and elite activity supported by state.
Instead China has their own fascinating "parallel universe" with happy amateurs, very strong grandmasters, opening theory, fantastic game collections etc. There is no reason international chess can penetrate this market. Maybe the chances for the opposite is larger! None of these two games are "better" than the other, but I'm sure many of the readers here would love chinese chess if they gave it a try.
In Japan the situation is similar except for the state support of international chess. Japan is also a "chess nation", but take a look at their ridiculous low ELO levels.

Shirov with a nice patient win to go through. So also through. Judit ties it up.

Hoorray for china but they are a big blob of people like ants. Poor Gelfand fall all apart against Polgar.

Just a thought: If Ivanchuk is serious about quitting chess, maybe he should take up chinese chess instead? It would be intesting to see how far a strong "regular" chess GM could go in that game. And I think Ivanchuk has a flair for the unusual, which should help him getting used to new rules.

Naka beat Carlsen 3-1 in the final on the blitz tourney in Norway.

Naka-Carlsen 3-1. is Naka the best blitzers in the world?

Maybe Nakamura must have long ago had ancesctors from china who went to japan and then usa.

Regarding Ivanchuk, we've all been there. You have a disastrous result and wonder what's the point of working so hard when you get a result like that. Interesting to me is that he instantly dismissed the notion that he plays too often. I agree with Botvinnik that anything more than a certain number of rated games per year is too much (depends upon the player to some extent of course). Ivanchuk plays a relatively high number of rated games compared to other GMs at his level, and his results have tended to "see-saw" more often as well. Of course, perhaps if his peers did the same, their ratings would reflect the same sort of performance, so who knows.

How about Nakamura spanking Carlsen? Congrats Hikaru, well done! He trashed the "World Blitz Champion" 3-1. I guess we know who the real World Blitz Champion is now!

"Hard to tell how serious you are"

It's easy to tell he's kidding, but maybe it's a response to people who have been saying Nakamura doesn't even belong in any discussion on the world's best blitz players. He is clearly a serious threat.

Good by China players they are all going home soon. Try again later. Carlsen was suposed to be number one but what happened to him. This means Nakamura is the best of course because why play if not. Any way time to go. Work to do boohoo.

I guess Hikaru better get a Moscow Blitz invite next year.

Thomas and boz - What evidence can you provide that would suggest that Carlsen is better than Hikaru at blitz? Just curious, in light of the 3-1 result in favor of Hikaru.

"As Wesley So beat Ivanchuk, then Kamsky at one occasion - do you think he is stronger than both of them?"

Well, the young man was certainly stronger than either on that particular occasion, was he not?

It's a false parallel. Nakamura is thought by some to be the top blitz player. Whether that is correct is another question. So, all the best to him, is not thought of as an elite classical player. Therefore the comparison is useless.

"Well, the young man was certainly stronger than either on that particular occasion, was he not?"

Ivanchuk was better in both games. He made one bad judgement call when he should have taken the draw in the first game. Not saying So isn't a great prospect, but the fact that you win doesn't mean you outplayed your opponent.

Did anyone actually watch the video of the blitz games? On a Russian forum a few people are saying Nakamura kept moving the pieces on Carlsen's time!?

"He made one bad judgement call when he should have taken the draw in the first game."

Since when does making a bad judgement call not constitute a weakness or a mistake? That is part of being outplayed. Let us hope Ivanchuk learned something from that. Let us hope So learns from his mistakes and is not outplayed because of his mistakes or a particular mistake that cost him a game.

It will happen since chess is about not making mistakes with tactics of strategy.

But So did not make a mistake on that occasion that cost him the game. Or a mistake that was capitalized on. Ivanchuk did.

Hence So played stronger on that occasion.

I don't know if this was brought to attention before, but Eugene Varshavski, the guy suspected of cheating in the World Open, recently got caught similarly cheating in a Sudoku Championship:

http://numberwarrior.wordpress.com/2009/11/01/cheating-at-the-2009-sudoku-championship/
http://numberwarrior.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/philadelphia-sudoku-alleged-cheater-update/

that probably removes any doubts left about the chess cheating accussation.

Does anyone know if Kamsky had a similar hissy fit as Ivanchuk? Did he also claim to have outplayed the youngster and shouldn't have lost the games?

Does anyone find it interesting that So defeats a couple of players who could be said to be "products" of the old Soviet system of chess?

Imagine that young guy, working by himself, looking for some support, and doing a job on those two. I bet Fischer somewhere had a smile.

Most recent is Nakamura three time better than Carlsen which is alot. Some people say blitz means nothing but why they talk all the time about some thing that means nothing. If pieces go knocking over and clock is hit too soon then why not use computre mouse.

Stoopid, have you ever tried pushing real chess pieces around with a computer mouse? I'm pretty sure it's not easier that way.

No bonesnaker I do not mean to push pieces on the borad with a mouse. I think I confuse you bondesnaker.

I don't think there is much doubt that Hikaru is the best blitz player in the world. When he concentrates on it, I don't think anyone can live with him. Didn't he crush Kasparov on playchess many years ago? And he is today much stronger than he was back then.
And on ICC you can notice that when he is not fooling around he beats anyone. Lately they had a match-up with Grischuk (a former blitz world champion) and Naka just kept winning game after game. It was completely ruthless. Once I witnessed him beat Mamedyarov something like 17-3, and Mamedyarov ended up in the upper half of the table in the Tal blitz.

The stuff he can calculate in tenths of seconds is incredible. He could give "average" GMs 1-5 time odds on ICC or playchess and get a positive score.

So it isn't surprising at all if he beats Magnus 3-1. Nakamura has got the "fastest processor" in the chess world.

Whether he can turn that into success in classical time controls is another thing. Years of hard work on his opening repertoire would be needed above all I think.

I communicate with Hikaru frequently and he was hyped up for this blitz battle with Carlsen and determined to crush him. This will be a wake-up call for Carlsen as well as fans who are willing him as the next World Champion by default. There are many others with such an ambition and Carlsen will have a lot of competition.

But I do agree there is no guarantee whatsoever that Carlsen will be World Champion soon (in serious chess, that is) - or even at all!

"IT'S JUST BLITZ! It's fun to watch but who cares?"

@acirce: For many guys blitz MEANS something, as well as rapid or classical or correspondence chess for others.
You prefer classical above all I presume.
In classical the blunders and chance diminish. Moronic people will frequently prefer blitz, IMO.

"... he was hyped up for this blitz battle with Carlsen and determined to crush him. This will be a wake-up call for Carlsen as well as fans who are willing him as the next World Champion by default."

Alexandra Kosteniuk whipped Magnus too (at least in their first Tal Memorial blitz game). So add her to the list of WCC contenders.

Tomorrow is Magnus´s birthday (acording to facebook)... i propose both Nakamura and Carlsen ´s fans give us a break from this silly argument and play some blitz or classical to celebrate it .

I too hope Ivanchuk rethinks what he said, and keeps playing. I think he just had a bad few days and got interviewed at a bad time.

All Chinese gone now - unless their appeals turn out to be successful, which would surprise me. Maybe we can restart/continue the discussion of the last few days in two years?

And a rather sober interview with Kamsky on the World Cup homepage, but he didn't announce his retirement ... . Particularly the last Q&A:
"After your victory at the World Cup 2007 your career has been on a climb…"
"And now I am experiencing a descent… Like Kramnik says, it is high time to draw a conclusion. There is only one difference: Kramnik has drawn them, I have not yet… "

Man, what a drag...

Maybe the china players do nto like cold and having big hats. But to be serius they need to be better and think for them selves.

None Chinese can`t become WM because they smoke .

That is seriously clumsy to miss the chance to become World Champion (ok it wasn't big) partly by being late for crucial tiebreak game.

Is this final proof of FIDE's evil? A smoking gun? Cough cough splutter

What tobaco do they smoke if tobaco. Is it cigar or pipe or cigarett. Who can say.

The Chinese players should be getting used to these strict rules, there were a couple of forfeits in the Chinese Championships a few months ago:

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5499

I also recall that Gunina was forfeited for being two seconds from the board (according to Russian sources) in the World Team Championship in China, and that later turned out to decide that the gold went to China instead of Russia.

At least 16.000 US$ would be a comfort loosing in the 3rd round ;) .

0 Tolerance is so stupid , if there is a broadcast i want to see games , no forfeit . I could understand zero tolerance for blitz games , but thats it . On the other side you can take "byes" in tornaments pre-dated , wtf ?

Thomas and boz - What evidence can you provide that would suggest that Carlsen is better than Hikaru at blitz? Just curious, in light of the 3-1 result in favor of Hikaru.

****
As several posters noted, you should look at the games -- it is quite easy to be *losing* a blitz game and win it in the end.

Thus, blitz really tells you little about the relative abilities of the players. Fast hands will compensate for a negative position.

The only reason these games were important is because of the identity of the players - the games could have been played at a local club.

"So it isn't surprising at all if he beats Magnus 3-1."

It's strange that people aren't able to distinguish whether that result is a big upset or not (it was not a big upset), and whether the result gives an accurate picture of the match.

I wrote somewhere else that Carlsen was much closer to winning 3-0 than the other way around.

When I talked to Nakamura after the final, he said he played 2 bad and 2 good games. That's true. I congratulated him on winning a close match, and he seemed to agree about the latter.

Carlsen played 2,8 good games or so - losing games 2 and 3 due to blunders at the very end (but he was worse in game 3, while he had been winning for 20 (twenty!) moves in game 2 - +5 to +7 in computer-speak for a while - and even the pawn-ending was easily winning - and he wasn't so low on time that playing f4, g4, f5 instead of the ridiculous king's march onto a square where black would queen with check should've been hard at all!

However, assuming that Nakamura could've repeated Carlsen's result in Moscow by the play he showed in Oslo, is a gross underestimation of the skills of the World Championship participants. In a distance of 4 games you can end up with a plus-result even if you're worse or losing in 3 of 4 games. in 40 games it simply would've resulted in way too many losses.

But the event was more evidence to Nakamura's exceptional blitz skills obviously. Prior to Oslo I predicted a hypothetical top 10 finish for Nakamura in a line-up such as the one in Moscow. Now I've adjusted that to top 5 (places 3rd to 5th).

Personally I consider that a GENEROUS estimate for a potential feat in a type of event not even tried before for Nakamura. A 2 or 4 game match is very, very different from playing a double round robin against different, potentially lethal elite players game after game.

I would very much like to see Nakamura in such an event soon, and I really hope his reluctancy to playing in Eastern Europe and Russia in particular will not remain a hindrance in that regard. This year my impression from the various rumours I've read, is that the invitation he got came so late that it was impractical to accept, so I consider that the reason we didn't get to enjoy Nakamura in a real, elite blitz field this year - with an all-play-all format. During my two brief chats with Nakamura yesterday, I didn't feel like bothering Naka with questions about these things, though.

I hope most people won't need an explanation why playing one elite opponent is radically different from playing 20 elite opponents. And there seriously were only two Elite Blitzers in Oslo yesterday. One of them won the 4 game final, and the match was really tight, and it featured an impressive but slightly lucky winner. But he's really got a thing for blitz! :o)

Impressive performance by Caruana so far , not only his chess is growing very fast, he is starting to show big results too...

Pity that Svidler and Shirov take each other out at this stage. Would have made a great final.

Poor Shirov fall apart to pieces for no reason.

In regards to Ivanchuck, I think we have to realize that his recent decision to retire from actively seeking the world championship is not one he made on the spur of the moment.

Granted, his distress may have peaked after his loss to So, and his announcement may have been emotional, but we have to know that this has been weighing on him for a long time. It's my impression that he was giving it "one more shot," and had decided already that failure was unacceptable. I would also think this may have interfered with his play, and the loss became self-fulfilling.

Regardless, we need to accept that his decision is what he feels is best for him and his family, and we cannot be selfish enough to beg him to stay. He's given us a great deal of joy in his time, and I for one cherish it.

Just an opinion from a chess observer...

CO

On the front page of Chesspro.ru today:

I apologise to my fans, friends, colleagues and numerous chess enthusiasts for my emotional interval. I was extremely upset after the defeat, but I absolutely do not intend to give up chess! And I want to refute media reports of my leaving the game...

With respect,

Vasily Ivanchuk

Very good for Ivanchuk to apolozige but to bad he did not say apology to his opponent who he say did not play good when actally he did play good much better than Ivanchuk. So at least he no more being a big cry baby and is almost a full man.

So agreed in an interview he didn't play very well in this match. No reason to apologise for saying so when there doesn't seem to be any dispute about it. So played better than Ivanchuk, to be sure, but that doesn't mean he played well; sometimes it happens that both players play badly and the less bad wins.

Enough with Naka, he is like a spoiled brat and expects everything handed to him. There are young players, younger than Naka who have desire and work hard to get to the top. For example - Wesley So and Cuarano are now and will always be better chess players than Hideki.