Just a quick note because it's just about time to party. Happy New Year, everyone! I hope 2010 is a happy and healthy year for friends, foes, and every Dirt reader. What are the biggest stories of the year? The best and the worst? The honor and the dishonor? Best results, biggest surprises, best games, most memorable moments? The chess pieces of 2009 that made you laugh, cry, kiss six hours goodbye? I'll incorporate your nominations with my own on a January 1 look back.
Happy New Year, 2010 Edition
115 Comments
First of all, a Happy New Year to you and your family, Mig! (It's been 2010 here for quite a while, I think you have little to fear, in contrast to 10 years ago when all the world's computers failed. Or did they? Hmm.)
Biggest story: Magnus, of course. Not exactly surprising, except perhaps for his joining of forces with Garry.
Best chess blog in the cyberspace: The Daily Dirt
Best wishes to you, too, Mig ;-)
Happy New Year!
Biggest stories? http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/annual-survey-2009/
I kinda liked the Mamedyarov Rhapsody!
LOL
Stupid suggestion here, but I really enjoy the Dirt posters informed opinions. (Don't always agree, but that is NHNT) Since a new year has arrived, I wonder if you guys would mind issuing two cents (or more) on:
- Who's the best endgame player?
- Who's the best player with the initiative?
- Who's best with White? With Black?
- Who's the best defender?
- Who's produced the best opening preparation?
- Who's the next WC?
If you have any other categories to add, feel free. Mig, care to make a post out of this?
Fun questions!
- Who's the best endgame player?
Kramnik, Shirov
- Who's the best player with the initiative?
Carlsen, Aronian
- Who's the best defender?
Anand, Gelfand
- Who's produced the best opening preparation?
Kramnik, Anand
- Who's the next WC?
After Carlsen? Maybe not born yet :) Seriously though, don't overlook Topalovs chances in the interim.
Carlsen topping the FIDE list is my biggest story of the year (Gelfand winning the World Cup a #2); Carlsen's win over Kramnik the best game that I followed. But shouldn't there be a category for the best Danailov quote? I don't have the actual text, but his claim that Anand is hiding is one of the comedy events of the year in chess, right?
The biggest story of the year: it was finally made official that chess has changed. We have moved beyond simple opening preparations, beyond setting positions to play against computers to something else. And this new thing was shown in both Kramnik-Anand and Kamsky-Topalov matches. In both of those the side that played better chess didn’t win. It was the men with the more energy, with more drive, the men that set problems of an uncommon nature that won in the end. We have moved from preparing openings to preparing endgames and this has nothing to do with opening theory evolving
The publication of kasparov's 3rd volume of Modern chess series that details his '86 and '87 encounters with Karpov. This is an utter masterpiece. Especially when you get down to the nitty gritties. No.1 chess achievement of the year.
Carlsen rising to Number One
Kasparov-Karpov, the Valencia episode
Carlsen's new coach
Ivanchuk up and Ivanchuk down
Kramnik's new approach (lesson by Anand)
New stars: Maxime Vachier-Lagrave, Fabiano Caruana
The first Chinese hits the Top Ten
Rivalling powers: Azerbaijan-Armenia
Things that didn't work out as planned: Grand Prix, Bilbao
Rules? Kirsan rules!
The arrival of Nakamura. If he continues to take chess seriously, I think he can make the top 10.
Kramnik is motivated again.
Topalov won't beat Anand.
I do nto agree with your votes but mabey you could be correct.
My list (arguably including some Dutch focus or bias):
Highlights (things that worked out as planned): major tournaments that were either new/revived (San Sebastian, London) or stronger than ever before (Biel, Bazna, Tal Memorial)
Lowlights:
- Radjabov-Smeets controversy at Corus (and some other arbiter decisions)
- Mamedyarov for his cheating accusations
- Tiviakov, also for (less widely mentioned) cheating accusations and for dropping out of the Dutch championship
- Tkachiev for losing on time in 11 moves
ELO winners among established players: Carlsen, Kramnik, Aronian, Gelfand
Rising stars and their ELO gain from Jan2009-Jan2010:
Gashimov (2723-2759)
Vachier-Lagrave (2696-2730)
Nakamura (2699-2708) [does he belong on this list?]
Caruana (2646-2675)
Smeets (2601-2657)
So (2627-2656)
Sjugirov (2562-2610)
Giri (2469-2588)
Robson (2455-2570)
My last name is 13-year young Ukrainian Illya Nyzhnyk, who just scored (here reports diverge) his second or final GM norm at a Swiss tournament in Groningen,NL [TPR2741, winning 1 point ahead of several GM's]. No rating data available for him on the FIDE site, did Ukraine (like other federations before) fail to pay their membership fees and is punished accordingly?
Forgot one more name (now putting on a German hat): Georg Meier (2608-2658) [2558 on the October 2008 list]
I can not know almost half the players. They keep popping up like mouses from hole.
This is, in my opinion, the best game of 2009: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1563866 (Kramnik-Ponomariov, Tal Memorial 2009, 1-0). I like this one especially because of the interesting opening choices made by Kramnik and his exemplary endgame technique.
"The arrival of Nakamura."
Where did Nakamura arrive? From where?
Rating progress July 2008 - January 2010: 2697 - 2708
That's +11 points in 18 months.
Or January 2009 - January 2010: 2699 - 2708
+9 rating points in the last year.
Yes, he played two cat. 18 events this year, with an accumulated plus-score of +3 - and he even won one of them in great style.
Making it sound like Nakamura had some kind of big break-through this year is however a clear overstatement. He managed to get rid of the rating points he gained in San Sebastian and in Japan (in the latter place beating 1900-2100 players mostly, for 6 rating points taking him to 2735) - showing that 2735 is still nothing Nakamura is able to defend for any period of time. He may get there soon, but so far he isn't - no reason to get ahead of things.
Nakamura might have taken another step as a chess player in 2009, but there's some way to got before it leaves definitive traces in his results. 2009 was good for Naka, but making it a candidate for "biggest story of the year" requires you to be a very subjective US patriot.
It's comparable to nominating "the arrival of Hammer" for "biggest story of the year". Hammer who? The guy who made a bigger TPR in the open GM-event side-by-side with the London Chess Classic. The guy who gained nearly 100 rating points this year and is now the 10th highest rated junior in the World.
"Sjugirov (2562-2610)"
Admittedly Sjugirov is 3 years younger, but if that is noteworthy, then this might be too:
Hammer 2532 -> 2627 (+95 points)
Or January 2008 - January 2010:
Hammer 2441 -> 2627 (+186 points)
We're talking about "the other" 19 year old talented Norwegian chess player, of course. Jon Ludvig isn't doing very well in Rilton Cup right now, though - hopefully he can recover after a disastrous 2,5/5 start against weak opposition.
Players like Anand, Kramnik and Topalov have never been close to a 3000+ TPR in their long and successful careers but Carlsen scored such a result while still 18 (in a field with an average Elo of 2763), reached #1, and passed 2800. These things combined make a chess story that would top the list of most years. If one single story has to be picked I'd go for Carlsen's Nanjing, it really was an amazing performance.
Thomas, yeah, Nakamura belongs there. He made his way up to 2735 and nearly into the top ten a few months ago, and he'll be back.
Game of the year is tricky but one candidate is Ivanchuk-Alekseev in Jermuk:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1554268
...and of course there's always Carlsen-Kramnik in London.
Happy New year to Mig and family, and all my ICC and "Dirt" friends. I agree with Thomas selections above but would like to add two games from Rising stars vs Experience tournament as my favorites of the year: 1) van Wely vs Stellwagon round 9..."Almost Immortal". Stellwagon being one of my favorites to watch and 2)Beliavsky vs Nakamura because it was an exciting game to watch even though Naka was ill.
Biggest story of the year? Carlsen. The Nanjing performance was off the chart. We may not be fully aware of it but we are witnessing in Carlsen a player who only comes along once in a lifetime. It is a privledge to witness his games and thank you Mig, John Henderson, and all the ICC team for bringing it to us in fine style. Corus will be a great one. See you there!
Regarding Nakamura, I hinted at the same. I see three options to nominate him after all:
1) biggest American chess story of the year (after all, this is an American blog?). But even this might be unfair to Ray Robson.
2) biggest story of the first half of 2009 or, IMO, runner-up behind Aronian. But the second half would belong to
- Carlsen who reached a new level, at least (but IMO only) in Nanjing, and
- Kramnik who reached his old level again. Actually, his "new" style is rather similar to his "old" one before his first WCh match against Kasparov?
As far as Ivanchuk is concerned, the months February (Linares), June (Bazna) and August (Jermuk) would go to him, but not January (Corus), April (Nalchik) and May (MTel). November is tricky, as it included both Tal Memorial and World Cup ... .
3) If Uff Da is (proven) right ["he'll be back"], Naka may be(come) the story of 2010.
About Hammer, I didn't mean to claim that my list is complete, probably there are still some names missing. The points I wanted to make:
- Smeets is at least comparable to So (if we discard age arguments)
- Giri is comparable to, and slightly ahead of Robson
- I wouldn't be sure about wizardofoz's "After Carlsen? Maybe not born yet :) ". In other words, it's not a given that he will rule for the next 20 years or so.
Game of the year is easy: Morozevich vs. Vachier-Lagrave in Biel was absolutely stunning. Survive the near-fatal attack, dream up a rook-defying defense, win a study-like endgame with said rook tied to the back rank.
ha-ha, very funny! My sweet teens...:))
I'd say Kramnik-Carlsen in Dortmund or the Carlsen-Kramnik draw in Moscow were better games, though obviously there's plenty of room for argument!
Chesspro have a vote to decide the game of the month & then the year (e.g. the Ivanchuk-Alekseev game you mentioned won for August), though they've only got as far as November for now. A curiosity of the 2008 game of the year was that out of 40 games considered Kramnik featured 4 times - and all for losses! He "won" first prize for the Nxf7 loss to Topalov and came third for game 3 of the title match against Anand - which is probably a fair reflection of that year - http://chesspro.ru/_events/2009/best_year2008.html
So his recovery in 2009 definitely runs Carlsen at least a close second as the story of the year. I've argued before that the chess in Kramnik's wins tended to be more impressive, but also statistically he had the edge for the yearly performance for 2009. For tournament at classical controls: http://chesspro.ru/guestnew/looknullmessage/?themeid=110&id=1&page=20#110-1-2169
Kramnik: 2846
Carlsen: 2821
Topalov & Aronian: 2801
Grischuk: 2800
Anand: 2781
Or including all time controls: http://chesspro.ru/guestnew/looknullmessage/?themeid=110&id=1&page=19#110-1-2159 (so, e.g. the Tal Blitz)
Kramnik: 2836
Carlsen: 2833
Anand: 2827
Aronian: 2789
Topalov: 2781
Of course Carlsen played far more classical games - having a relatively average year right up until Nanjing - which possibly works in his favour.
Regarding Chesspro's 2008 competition, maybe Kramnik can even take things as sort of a compliment!? This is what jury lid Tomashevsky said (Google translation, maybe mishanp can come up with a better one):
"It so happened that on the first two places, my rankings were the defeat of Vladimir Kramnik. And this is probably not accidental: in order to beat such a great chess player, often has to invent something really earth-shattering."
Another game under consideration was Aronian-Volokitin with the final moves 31.Qh5:+ Kf2: 32.Qe2+ 1-0. With the alternative rules suggested in another thread, black could have played 32.-Kg1 and claim victory ... .
I share mishanp's view that Carlsen's London win against Kramnik wasn't THAT special, at least not if we (hypothetically) omit the names of the players. I have two more suggestions:
Aronian-Leko 1-0 from the last round of the Nalchik GP
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1544165
Tomashevsky-Khismatullin 1-0 from the Russian Championship
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1566310
(according to notyetagm in the comments at least the "greatest passed pawn game of 2009")
Sorry this should be Timofeev-Khismatullin
Daily Dirt Story of the Year 2009 - Mig continues to deliver high quality columns on a semi-regular basis, especially his tournament previews, reports and wrap-ups. He makes you feel almost like being there. Please don't stop. It's gone beyond 'we love you' to 'we NEED you!'
Other Dirt Highlights 2009:
frogbert regularly gives us his ratings expertise (but frogbert, the frog was Kermit, and Bert was Ernie's pal) and mishanp the translations from tricky languages - enough right there to make the blog's comments worth reading.
Emergence of commenter International Master Stoopid, who lowers himself to our level to comment on the intricacies of the chess world and our own interpersonal relations.
A series of Firsts happened this year, including Manu's first post which did not mention futbol, Greg Koster's first post that did not include deep sarcasm, and Thomas actually put someone's post "in other words" and got it right!
I'm sure there are more notable Dirters and deeds, I don't intent to leave you out, maybe I'll post more if I think of them, but I've got to go microwave my supper.
"Regarding Chesspro's 2008 competition, maybe Kramnik can even take things as sort of a compliment!?"
The translation was fine but I think that might be pushing things! In the comparable yearly performance rating for classical games in 2008 Kramnik was in 13th place (he was top for 2006, 2007 & now 2009) http://chesspro.ru/guestnew/looknullmessage/?themeid=110&id=1&page=10#110-1-309
1. Topalov 2817
2. Carlsen 2802
3. Anand 2797
4. Ivanchuk 2785
5. Aronian 2780
...
13. Kramnik 2741
I'm gonna second Bartleby. Can't improve on his post!
Happy New Year Mig, and thanks for digging the dirt!
My own nominations for biggest chees stories of the year:
1) The arrival of Movsesian - he almost reached top 5 (official 11th, 10th on the live rating list), and by Korchnoi's standards he's still a young man with lots of chess ahead of him.
2) Kamsky for nearly making Topalov sweat to win their ma... eh, for almost destroying Topalov - he missed the win in the crucial 7th game by a hair (and some 15 minutes on the clock), after which he'd surely taken the final game too.
3) Topailov for getting another match setup in Bulgaria, and FIDE and UEP for being mature enough to call it a day and stop negotiations faced with the risk of FIDE-logos not getting the correct placement on the Championship web-pages and other real-life banners and posters.
Other than that, I can't think of much noteworthy this year. Of course, from a somewhat narrow-minded perspective I could've mentioned myself missing promotion to the master-class in the national championship by losing a won position on 1st board in the final round against the eventual winner of my rating class, and obviously new personal records both in terms of FIDE-rating and national rating were also nice - I'm almost CM-strength now, with a 2041 FIDE rating; at this level 160 rating points mean less than you'd think. But well, outside my own duck pond it might not be that important after all, so I think I'll go with my previous nominations.
:o)
I sorry to say nothing.
Actually, this was the first time ever on an Internet board that a troll went unfed. I M Luke knows what I'm talking about.
"first time ever ... a troll went unfed"
You think I'm a troll?
I'll tell you what's trollish: Nominating anything Nakamura as "chess story of the year" in 2009, and doing it with a straight face, like you just did.
If you can't distinguish between sarcasms and irony on one side, and trolling on the other, then the internet isn't the right place for you.
Nakamura had a good year, seen from his perspective - relative to his previous achievements. If you limit yourself to the United States, his relative success might fight for a national "chess story of the year" - but Mig's blog appears to have intentions of covering the chess World; it's not some regional chess cafe where people discuss the wherabouts of the local heros.
But by all means, continue to lull yourself into the belief that Nakamura's brief visit to the 2730s was what the international chess audience found most noteworthy last year. Personally I find your "nomination" completely ridiculous - and it's my most sincere opinion. If you really considered my sarcastic post to be "trolling", you have pretty much locked yourself in.
Umm, frog, are you posting under the influence?Cynical's post wasn't about you *at all*.
Hey guys lighten up - sounds like some Seasonal Affective Disorder around here (or Jan 1 hangovers). For any who might miss it, all my comments above were meant as fun jests among friends, no meanness intended. I don't have a lot of friends, but y'all are some of them. May aulde...
Just go to hell, will you?
yeah, go to hell. frogbert: you go, girl!
I agree with frogbert's comments re. Nakamura and I find your comments about frogbert to be rather uncalled for and childish.
"babbling something negative about Nakamura"
Heh. Don't worry about CA's moronic posts - someone as clueless does more harm to himself than to anybody else.
Nakamura is a likeable fellow and a huge chess talent and a great player. That some of his dumber fans aren't able to see his achievements put in (global) perspective without interpreting it as someone saying "something negative about Nakamura" is sad and comical at the same time.
Luckily a great number of US chess fans are somehow able to make their eyes see beyond their own duck pond. It still doesn't stop me from getting a little worked-up about narrow-minded, self-centric and laughable national "perspectives" occasionally.
Happy New Year to everyone, also the silly "patriots"! :o)
For biggest disappointment of the year I'd nominate the way China won the women's World Team Championship, when Vietnam agreed to draw a match they were winning in the last round.
Interesting that Chesspro's game of the year of 2008 went to Topalov for the Nxf7 game against Kramnik, maybe other games were more "correct" but I guess it all depends on what it is one wants to see in a game of the year.
One maybe forgotten "moment" of the year was the Gashimov-Stellwagen endgame. All other games were finished, and the gold was going to Russia if Stellwagen avoided 70. ... Rf4. But he played just that and for the first time ever Azerbaijan won one of the big team events. Maybe more of a moment since it was caught on film by Europe Echecs.
Hi tjallen,
I hope you enjoyed your meal in the meantime - though microwave meals may be worth at most ELO 2200 ,:) . Let me add a few more names to your list:
- acirce for his detailed comments on chess (where I mostly agree with him) and international politics (where I often disagreed, and don't mean to restart these threads)
- chesshire cat primarily for his unique humor
Also in the spirit of friendship - if I can be friends with people I never met in person (in most cases, I do not even know their real names).
Beyond us mortals, I also want to mention three names who did comment here, albeit less regularly: Alexei Shirov, Hikaru Nakamura, Gata Kamsky. For all of them, 2009 was a mixed year chesswise - yes this includes Naka because my year runs from January until and including December. Maybe (some hints were given in comments, blogs and interviews) it was also a mixed year outside of chess. Anyway, cheers and best wishes also to them!
Ha frogbert,
(Also in the spirit of friendship) I think I caught you being inconsistent by your own standards. Movsesian's ratings:
Jan 2007 2637
Jan 2008 2677
Jan 2009 2751 (peak rating)
Jan 2010 2708
So throughout last year, Movsesian did what Nakamura did in the second half of 2009. Movsesian may have been the story of 2008, but then he had to compete with
- the successful first edition of Bilbao
- Anand's WCh win against Kramnik, and
- Armenia's repeated success at the Olympiad
I agree with you that 2009 had nothing comparable - for example, Bilbao 2009 could not compete with Bilbao 2008.
@Auditor: I'm really sorry to see you spent another New Year's alone. I hope you feel better after that charming little interlude.
@Thomas: cheers, it might interest you to know that I speak fluent German and am fairly frequently on what we call the "mainland", maybe I will look you up one day.
For me, top stories: Carlsen's amazing successes, the re-entry of Kasparov into the chess world, AND...another year where the older generation more or less maintained their top positions. That's pretty impressive, given the huge competition they face...(yes there are exceptions, such as that Norwegian fella announcing his presence rather loudly, of course.)
And many thanks to Mig of course, if our noble blogger has not been hospitalized due to excessive eggnog indulgence.
I think some more and decde it Carlsen.
Looks like nobody noticed the biggest (at least potentilly) story of the year. Look at the official FIDE site - "80th FIDE Congress Executive Board Minutes and Annexes" (of 16 December 2009)(http://www.fide.com/fide/minutes/4228-80th-fide-congress-executive-board-minutes-and-annexes) with the following small print:
"62. Agreement of Shareholders of Chess News Corporation between Chess Lane SA and FIDE."
The "Agreement" itself is also available at the FEDE site ( http://www.fide.com/images/stories/news2009/80th_fide_congress/minutes_and_annexes/annex_62.pdf ) - a very ambitious 34-page document covering a good chunk of the entire FIDE activity (no name of "shareholders" or executives, though). What does this mean?
Well, very soon a new President of Russian Chess Federation will be elected (the current president Alexander Zhukov, deputy Prime Minister, is to leave his post according to a recent decree by Russian President Medvedev). The leading (and, actualy, the only) contender has been formally supported by Kalmyk Chess Federation. He is Ziyavudin Magomedov - a wealthy businessman from Dagestan (the region in the North Caucasus not far from Kalmykia) who is supposedly worth around $1 bln. He has been very reclusive even in terms of business (it is only known that he owns a lot of companies of wide spectre). Of course, nobody (almost nobody?) heard about him in chess circles.
A few days ago his press-release has been published at some Russian chess forums ( http://www.e3e5.com/newsitem.php?id=11936 ) - probably, a kind of a very short (about 30 lines) pre-election manifesto (no doubt he will be elected as it is a matter of agreement between Kirsan Ilyumzhinov and Kremlin).
What are his achivements so far? "He has been sponsoring chess tournaments... During last two and half years he has invested more than $50 mln into chess... Chess News Corporation (sic!) has been created under his leadership - jointly with FIDE and the leading GMs... He helped with opening a FIDE office in Moscow...".
$50 mlns?! That's impressive but it is difficult even to guess where that good sum of money went. As to "the leading GMs", they all probably have the same name "Azmaiparashvili"...
What he is going to do? Let me cite actualy all concrete points from his press-release:
- "A special global chess portal which will attract more than 50 mln people is in the final stage of development."
- "A Chess Encyclopedia is being prepeared for publishing".
- "There are immediate plans to organise - jointly with FIDE - a number of tournaments on the borders of conflicting states (Armenia/Azerbaijan, Transnistria ("Pridnesstrovia")/Moldova, North Korea/South Korea, etc.)"
Very impressive targets for a president of Russian Chess Federation! Does all these mean that Ilyumzhinov has found a new global sponsor who requested for himself to have an influential llegitimate status (RCF's president)? Perhaps, FIDE and RCF will be actually the same organisation very soon. Anyway, one can only speculate - although, noone seems to be interested in this small matter...
Hi Chess Fans!
I live here in the USA among the dumb Nakamura fans always going about how great he is. Thank goodness Frogbert put an end to that cruel deception!
I think I'm falling in love. See, I was always looking for an overweight Norwegian with a receding hairline who knows the difference between 2735 and 2810 -- a Real Man! It's great someone out here is standing up to those dumb Nakamura fans. Finally someone got tough and sat front of his computer screen in his underwear at 4AM to really teach those Nakamura yuppies a lesson.
Can I call you Frog? Oh, I know you're forced to run away from like-minded Norwegian blondes chasing after you. With your obvious charm and good looks, you're definitely not a loser!
Love,
Svana
Hello Svana. Mr. Frogbert some times is wrong like me some time and mabey all peoples but he is most right the time and I like his talk also like other talk from Mr. cat and Mr. Manu and Mr. clubfoot and Mr. Thomas and Mr. Hardy and Mr. Mig and Mr. tallen and many other peoples. Any way I hope you have fun. Bye.
@Svana > :)
" If you can't distinguish between sarcasms and irony on one side, and trolling on the other, then the internet isn't the right place for you."
And that my friends should be the highlight of the year , frogbert announcing his retirement from this confusing threads once and for all.
Oh, and i would like to nominate the Mcshane vs Short marathon as the most perverted game of the year.
I sorry to forget Mr. mishanq and Mr. Koster and Mr. acirce and who other I forget I do nto know right now but mabey I rember some time soon and tell you. But there is some bad peoples too and I know who but do not say.
Looking back, throughout the last decade 12 players have managed to reach a Top 5 position and maintain it at least once, and thus might be considered Grand Masters in the original sense of the title:
Michael Adams
Viswanathan Anand
Levon Aronian
Magnus Carlsen
Vassily Ivanchuk
Garry Kasparov
Vladimir Kramnik
Peter Leko
Alexander Morozevich
Alexey Shirov
Peter Svidler
Veselin Topalov
Just curious - has any one managed to access Magnus Carlsens blog at arctic securities and if so how did you get to register?
Games of the year?
Kramnik-Ponomariov Tal Memorial 1-0
Carlsen - Mcshane London Classic 1-0
D Vocaturo vs T Hillarp Persson, 2009 1-0
I especially loved listening to icc commentary online during Carlsen - Mcshane. The stupid chess observers with their Rybka were shouting Nc5??? Carlsen won't blunder like that!!! GM Joel Benjamin on the mic saying no GM would ever see Nc5. Nc5 gets played and everyone rybka cock sucker to Benjamin goes "of course I saw that, it was easy to see." Meanwhile, i'm collecting my jaw from the floor at the pure beauty of the move. What a piece of work! I think the brillancy, gotw judges at the london classic had their heads too far up their asses to give the best game prize to McShane - Nakamura over Carlsen - Mcshane.
Not sure what you mean about registering, but Carlsen's blog is here: http://www.arcticsec.no/index.php?button=blog
That's classy.
...and the competition for rudest post of 2010 is under way!
Glad I already got two fans :) I don't sugar coat the truth. Carlsen - Mcshane was an awesome game that needs far more praise than it will ever get.
i think Carlsen is the story of the year...inspite of all the hype which you could say in the end was deserved.
Running a close second is the re-emergence of Kramnik, his re-invention was quite something...really nice fighting chess.
":) I don't sugar coat the truth."
You could express your unsugared opinion without referring to fellow online chess fans as "cock suckers" and ascribing anal self-penetration to brilliancy prize judges with whom you disagree.
Maybe you just meant to say "I don't know any other way to communicate." That's understandable as well, especially in your case.
Fully agree with you , i said it before when the chess oscar was discussed .
In fact IMHO if we circumscribe the "best of the year poll" to what actually happened at the board, Kramnik 's change of attitude was the most important event of the year .
I believe he continues to be essentially a plus 2 player, but a much more interesting and spectacular one.
Concur with the other three "fans". Save that language for some other site, #caleague.
Interesting - indeed only twelve names. But using slightly less stringent criteria Ponomariov, Mamedyarov and Jakovenko would also belong on the list (less than 5 points behind #5 in several consecutive lists). Yet they don't have quite the same reputation or career achievements - with the possible exception of Ponomariov, who was, after all, some sort of world champion.
Those which I would add even if they don't fit the formal criteria: Gelfand and Radjabov.
Thank you! Those are *real* Grandmasters.
Mr. Thomas if you start adding to list then it ballon ups to big list again. Back to begining square onec more.
it is called over the top language for a reason - because it attracts attention. It is funny that the three most vulgar and rude people on this site are the ones attacking me.
Cute try, kid. But in five years of posting here I've managed my rudeness and vulgarity with plain language. If you can't offend people without obscenity, you don't belong on the Dirt.
It would be nice if you actually got something to say before wasting your cutting-edge-marketing-tactics here.
hate to break it to you but I also have been here for 5 years, son.
'Looking back, throughout the last decade 12 players have managed to reach a Top 5 position and maintain it at least once, and thus might be considered Grand Masters in the original sense of the title:...'
Your list is missing Nigel Short, Evgeny Bareev and a few others who are clearly GMs by any critera, including self-acclamation in the case of NS. And a consistent top-5 position is a bit too restrictive a definition of 'true grandmaster', IMHO. I think the difference in chess strength between the bottom-85 of the top-100 is almost imperceptible.
> But using slightly less stringent criteria
Why should I? If anything I would make the "maintaining it" criterion a bit harder - over more than a year, or a minimum number of games.
The only one in danger of dropping out by stricter criteria is Shirov who had "only" three #5 positions during a peak in 2003/04. That's not much different from others who had one-season peaks. For the rest it's a clear-cut distinction: Everyone in the list has at least five Top 5 positions, while everyone out has at most one.
> Your list is missing Nigel Short
Short would have won his title in the late 80s/early 90s. He didn't even reach the Top 10 in the last decade.
If I checked correctly yesterday - don't feel like doing it over again - Bareev entered the top 5 only once and thus wouldn't fit Bartleby's criteria (I agree that they are a bit too restrictive). I also thought about Short, but his peak seems to fall in the last century, actually late 1980's to early 1990's, how time passes ... .
Some additional data from http://chess.eusa.ed.ac.uk/Chess/Trivia/AlltimeList.html (covering 1970-1997 - the FIDE archive goes back to 2000, I cannot fill the gap in 1998 and 1999):
- Of course Karpov was around (since 1973)
- Some other still-familiar names pop up in the top5, e.g. Gelfand and Kamsky ("version 1.0")
- Otherwise, the older guys from Bartleby's list already dominated the 1990's, i.e. when they were the youngsters. We have to go back to 1990 and earlier to find other names such as Beliavsky, Timman and Korchnoi in the top 5.
So, with respect to chesshire cat's statement ("another year where the older generation more or less maintained their top positions"), this seems indeed remarkable. In the 1990's, Karpov was the only oldie who could hang around for so long, and this may have been partly due to the competitive advantage he had (massive Soviet state support).
Your choice of top5 may have been motivated by the _current_ situation with a clear gap between #5 Aronian (2781) and #6 Gelfand (2761), but this wasn't always the case. Taking Ponomariov as an example (ranking and gap with the #5):
Apr2002 #6 (1 point behind Adams)
July2002 #6 (2 points behind Topalov)
Oct2002 #7 (equal with Topalov and Leko, less games played) [actually he played zero rated games in that period, hence maintained but didn't defend his spot]
Jan2003 #7 (2 points behind Leko)
Obviously your list - like mine of rising stars of 2009 - is subject to criticism or rather comments and additions. I am sure you don't take it personally. I agree with you regarding Short (see my previous comment).
If I recall correctly the first tournament to be called a Grandmaster event by the organisers may have been San Sebastian 1912. Rubinstein won but players like Forgacs, Leonhardt and Perlis were among the 11 participants. At the first official awards in 1950 Bondarevsky and Ragozin (none of them ever top ten according to Chessmetrics) were given the title.
Any definition that excludes for example Radjabov and Grischuk from the group of Grandmasters sounds dubious. Radjabov has a shared first in Corus, two more finishes 0.5 from first, a second place in Linares, second place in the ongoing Grand Prix series, and on average around #8 in the world the last years. Grischuk's results in Linares: 1, 2 (shared); Corus: 2, 4 (shared), 4 (shared); Russian Superfinals: 1, 2, 2. They ought to be considered Grandmasters, or the definition is too exclusive.
Highlights 2009:
#1: Carlsens No.1 spot with Kasparov in the picture
#2: Kramnik changing his approach
#3: Gashimov crushing through after brain surgery (s. NIC 8/2009)
#4: Anand and Topalovs poor play with the burden of WC matches on their shoulders
#5: Carlsens Nanjing performance
#5: Kamskys spoiled chance to take down Topalov
> Your choice of top5 may have been motivated by
> the _current_ situation with a clear gap between
> #5 Aronian (2781) and #6
5 is the original number of Grand Masters.
"I was always looking for an overweight Norwegian with a receding hairline"
Absolutely brilliant how the dumbest of Nakamura fans and supporters have to go out of their way to demonstrate their general level of sophistry: Nothing but the lowest of personal attacks as response to perceived slights against Nakamura. Let's see:
"Svana" and Chess Auditor have:
* Fat Hans
* overweight, need to lose weight
* receding hairline
* lonely, no girlfriend
* no real job
And Manu seemingly thinks garbage like the above is fun and appropriate - so he's hardly much better than the attackers whose posts he finds commendable.
I'll just repeat what I said in a previous post:
Nakamura is a likeable fellow and a huge chess talent and a great player. That some of his dumber fans aren't able to see his achievements put in (global) perspective without interpreting it as someone saying "something negative about Nakamura" is sad and comical at the same time.
I sincerely hope that the next person who wants to "challenge" the rather obvious fact that Nakamura still isn't on the A-team among the 2700+ players has something better to show for himself/herself than pathetically pointing out imperfections with my body. :o)
Regarding the 'original grandmasters', I recall the first formal use of the title was by Tsar Nicholas II. This prompts me to wonder what his qualification for assessing chess strength was and why his supposition(s) should carry any weight at all?
"5 is the original number of Grand Masters."
Really?
Before there was an official GM title - and when FIDE introduced it, more than 5 got it - it was awarded unofficially to various players at various times by various people.
The account that says the Tsar (such an obvious authority in the chess world) personally gave the GM title to the five finalists in St. Petersburg 1914 is questioned because of the lack of contemporary sources.
"5144. Tsar Nicholas II
Books continue to claim, without substantiation, that the title of ‘grandmaster’ was first conferred by Tsar Nicholas II at St Petersburg, 1914. The matter was discussed on pages 315-316 of Kings, Commoners and Knaves and pages 177-178 of A Chess Omnibus, and we have still found no earlier occurrence of the story than in an article by Robert Lewis Taylor in The New Yorker, 15 June 1940.
To pose a broader question: do 1914 sources contain references to Tsar Nicholas II in connection with any aspect of the St Petersburg tournament?" http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/winter38.html
Even if that story is true, I prefer transparent criteria for becoming GM to a random award by Nicholas - how appropriate, this is the German name of Santa Claus ,:) . And while 5 may have been adequate in 1914, today there are many more professional chess players!?
But I agree with Bartleby that the GM title is worth less than it used to be, maybe the minimum rating should be increased (from 2500) to 2600 or even 2700? In fairness to aspiring new GMs, existing ones then would have to lose their title if they never met the new tougher criteria!? It may be slightly odd anyway that the GM title is awarded for life ... .
However, while becoming GM is still an achievement, it is nowadays only really newsworthy if you do so at a very young age. Else, it may give you conditions at certain opens (no entry fee, free hotel accomodation), that's basically it, otherwise ELO rules.
"Kramnik 's change of attitude was the most important event of the year .
I believe he continues to be essentially a plus 2 player, but a much more interesting and spectacular one."
He was +3 at Dortmund & Moscow and even the +2 in London included winning 3 games in 7 rounds. In any case, the +2 label was based on his never winning any games with black, which made it almost impossible to beat the outsiders to post the +4 or +5 scores you need to win some tournaments. You can't win 4/5 games with white, as he did in the 2007 (?) Tal Memorial, too often.
But last year he won a game with black in all 3 tournaments - and more importantly for his potential he wasn't giving away any easy draws to weaker opponents. So if, and it's a big if, he can keep up the same form and style the +2 label can be well and truly consigned to history - even if he actually does end many tournaments with +2 (it's a common score for a strong player!) :)
I like Bartleby's list, and find it very representative of what I think most would consider the strongest players of the past decade. While others may become overwrought about the method that he used, I'll appreciate the result obtained. And if you are one that doesn't believe that even seemingly irrelevant data (not saying that Bartleby's criteria are such, btw) are prerequisite of success, then read the eye-opening "Outliers" by Malcolm Gladwell.
" And Manu seemingly thinks garbage like the above is fun and appropriate - so he's hardly much better than the attackers whose posts he finds commendable."
I just thought it was fun and appropriate for your case in particular , but you are seriously mistaken if you think i'm hardly better than them , i'm much worse.
You've hit a new low, Manu. Even I thought better of you than that. And only recently you were attacking me for perceived support of "bullies", your inconsistency is frankly jaw-dropping.
Mmm , i don't have time to explain you the differences between being bullied and getting what you asked for in the course of a confrontation , i have the feeling you wouldn't understand it anyways.
"Even I thought better of you than that."
It breaks my heart , but i have to confess i've been seeing other people too.
I am not calling insultings to peoples but wonder if mabey I can be grandmaster also some day.
"5 may have been adequate in 1914"
Those five don't include for example Rubinstein and Schlechter, based on one event where Schlechter was absent and Rubinstein had one of his few bad tournaments in the 1910s (according to Chessmetrics he's even #1 when S:t Petersburg took place)...
I stand corrected: 5 is the legendary original number of Grand Masters.
Of course everyone more relevant than Tsar Nicholas should feel free to compile his own list.
My knowledge of chess history doesn't go that far back in time (way before my own lifetime, childhood of my grandparents), but whether five was enough is one issue. Separate issues are
1) if the right five were chosen
2) if such a decision should be based on one event, and
3) if Tsar Nicholas is the right person to make the decision.
I plead ignorant on 1), and would answer "no" to 2) and 3)
If I was to give five players the Grandmaster title then I'd go for Lasker, Capablanca, Rubinstein, Schlechter and Tarrasch. So Nicky got three of them right :-) Rubinstein won the five tournaments he played before S:t Petersburg 1914:
http://storiascacchi.altervista.org/storiascacchi/tornei/1900-49/1912pistyan.htm
http://storiascacchi.altervista.org/storiascacchi/tornei/1900-49/1912breslau.htm
http://storiascacchi.altervista.org/storiascacchi/tornei/1900-49/1912sansebastian.htm
The fourth was Vilnius ahead of players like Bernstein, Nimzowitsch and Alekhine (2-0 against the latter), the fifth Warsaw, with a 13/14 score. Before that there's for example S:t Petersburg 1909 (shared first with Lasker, 14.5/18). So with most criteria he would definitely have been a worthy candidate for a Grandmaster title in 1914.
"i don't have time to explain you the differences between being bullied and getting what you asked for in the course of a confrontation"
Accidental tautology aside, if you're denying you bully other posters you may be reminded that whenever you lose an argument (which most often occurs between two of your posts), at least a dozen times in the recent past you have responded with "pick up your tooth from the floor".
To intimate you would knock out your opponent's teeth when an argument doesn't go your way -- if that isn't bullying, please redefine it for us. Again.
And hey c-cat, I was the perceived bully you were "helping". I sure hope this doesn't mean I can't count on your future support whenever I ambush the great undeserving. ;)
Im not sure of what you mean , in fact the " pick up your tooth from the floor " quote is a good example of what usually happens in arguments and confrontations , while attacking someone who did nothing to you (your case with the other poster ) is a text book example of bullying .
But i agree that you 2 should join forces and humbly suggest the use of the "turtle formation" for the next battle.
Don't worry Clubfoot, as long you are in the right we can always be "heroes in a half-shell".
It is funny watching the fihgting. Who can say who wins. We see. If time was spend studying chess the gihgters would mabey be grandmasters them selfs.
"If time was spend studying chess the gihgters would mabey be grandmasters them selfs."
No, they wouldn't! I'd think most GM's are pretty smart people...
"getting what you asked for in the course of a confrontation"
Brilliant again, Manu. When I say it is nationalist and narrowminded to consider Nakamura's achievements in 2009 "the biggest story of the year" (in chess), then I actually have _asked_ to have various people (you included now) tell me
* I'm fat, lonely/wihtout a gf, undesirable, uncharming,
* that I don't have a proper job
* my hair is thin (wow, didn't know that!)
and so on. (Most of the above have little or no basis in reality, but that's a different story.)
Is it only _you_ that have no idea about civil behaviour/arguments, or is it common in your culture or in the country you live to think personal attacks and hitting below the waist-line is a good way to respond to people saying things you don't like to hear?
Anyway, it's interesting to be called "fat". I've never heard that before, actually - probably because people who see me in real life doesn't base their judgement on this picture - http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=101612 - where mostly my face and upper body shows.
Yup, my face does appear a little fat now. However, for someone having used Prednisone (a kind of corticosteroid drug) for 12 years straight, I'm actually rather fit. :o)
But in Norwegian we even have a special "medical term" to describe the look that the use of corticosteroids typically result in - "kortisontryne" - or "corticosteroid pig face" roughly translated.
I'll spare the dirt for any further explanations of my anatomy - as long as my civil "opponents" here stick to the subject of our debates... ;o)
---
[excerpt from http://ibdcrohns.about.com/od/prednisone/f/predweight.htm ]
"Many people are taking prednisone due to an inflammatory condition or a chronic condition. These conditions often make physical activity difficult. When possible, physical activity can help prevent or lessen the weight gain from prednisone.
Prednisone can also cause the redistribution of fat, which makes even a small amount weight gain more intolerable. The weight tends to be located in the face, back of the neck, and the abdomen."
Do you have a girl-friend, frogbert? I thought you had a wife ... ,:)
But this as well as other personal remarks are, IMO, not even worth commenting on. As far as lack of hair is concerned, you have at least one person for company, the one on the left in the following picture:
http://www.chessbase.com/espanola/images/2005/Kasparov/gk-interview-with-mig.jpg
"I thought you had a wife ..."
Isn't one's wife the ideal girl-friend, Thomas?
But yeah, wife, 2 kids, house, station-wagon - and a well-paid and interesting job for a big, solid US software company... Pretty much settled down in most respects, in other words. Rather dull/boring for some, possibly, but I'm quite happy with this standard scenario. :o)
"As far as lack of hair is concerned, you have at least one person for company"
Oh, we're many - but I've never seen losing my hair as any kind of problem, and I often resort to a Mig-shave like in the picture you linked to; it's both practical and inexpensive!
Stop whining about the poster who called you fat , frogbert , or at least go and complain to him instead of annoying those who laughed at his/her remarks...
" Is it only _you_ that have no idea about civil behaviour/arguments, or is it common in your culture or in the country you live to think personal attacks and hitting below the waist-line is a good way to respond to people saying things you don't like to hear?"
It is that kind of statement that could make people attack you in ways you don't like ... not me , i find you very attractive ,smart and mature.
I start to think that some one is the sorce of all bad talking here and some one is probly Mr. Manu. He always insulting and unhappy it seem. Why I do nto know but who can say. He mabey will insult me but I do not care one little bit or pice because Mr. Manu is not very nice. If I am not right then I apologize to Mr. Manu. We shall see.
"It is that kind of statement that could make people attack you in ways you don't like"
Oh, Manu - I certainly think your twisted view on things is an individual/personal thing, but I'm simply trying to be understanding towards your lack of feeling for what's appropriate and what's not.
I started at society level - maybe your entire nation has different standards than what I'm used to. Or maybe it's some local culture specific for the place you grew up that makes you consider fat-"jokes" and other personal attacks commendable. In that case, you as an individual would be sort of excused.
But if these things fail to provide an explanation to your perverted view on "appropriate debate techniques", then maybe one needs to consider your specific life and/or your inheritage: what went wrong with your upbringing, who were your bad role models, and so on. I think you should appreciate that I gave you a chance to blame others for your lack of manners, but to no avail. Instead you're trying to make what I said into some kind of racist statement. That's just silly.
"Stop whining about the poster who called you fat"
Whining? Who's whining? Wasn't it the posters who called me fat that were whining? In my reality it was them that were unable to debate the topic in a civil manner, and they who resorted to irrelevant attacks - "buhu... you're dumb and fat because you don't love my hero as much as I do ...".
That's whining, Manu.
"annoying those who laughed at his/her remarks"
I saw exactly _one_ poster laughing, Manu. Other people told CA to "go to hell", and chesshire cat credited you for an all time low. Did all that escape your attention?
You need to sync to our reality, Manu. Being out of sync too long can lead to permanent damage. Maybe it's already too late.
"i find you very attractive ,smart and mature. "
And you consider me unable to grasp irony, obviously.
Look Manu, whether you're drooling or vomiting by looking at my picture, it's quite irrelevant for anything chess-related we might discuss here. Unless you suggest that all posters should make pictures of themselves available, and we make it an unwritten rule that whenever we're out of arguments, we're supposed to make some remark about how someone looks. Sprinkled with descriptions of their sex-life, how they can't get it up and their miserable life as seen from the back of the queue of unemployed job-seekers.
Will you ever get it, or will you not?
"I started at society level - maybe your entire nation has different standards than what I'm used to. Or maybe it's some local culture specific for the place you grew up that makes you consider fat-"jokes" and other personal attacks commendable. "
"Instead you're trying to make what I said into some kind of racist statement."
Did i ever accused you of racism?
I don't know what to say , it was not me who attacked you , i just laugh at it.
"But if these things fail to provide an explanation to your perverted view on "appropriate debate techniques", then maybe one needs to consider your specific life and/or your inheritage: what went wrong with your upbringing, who were your bad role models, and so on."
Again , i'm sorry the other kid teased you , but you should probably talk to him or his parents , if i knew it was going to be that traumatic for you i would never laugh at it...
"Look Manu, whether you're drooling or vomiting by looking at my picture, it's quite irrelevant for anything chess-related we might discuss here. "
I agree , and i suggest you stop posting pictures of yourself here, specially during lunch time , just kidding.
"Sprinkled with descriptions of their sex-life, how they can't get it up and their miserable life as seen from the back of the queue of unemployed job-seekers.
Will you ever get it, or will you not?"
Im not sure who you are talking about anymore , but this is getting creepy , please ask Mig about the id of your attacker and stop bothering me with your irrelevant problems .
Mr. Manu mabey is not so nice but Mr. Frogbert go over too much and also start to become a bad one too. But mabey he is only just very mad at Mr. Manu and not able to relax him self. I do nto see harm and wonder why oh wel.
I had two things in mind:
1) Some people have a wife AND a girl-friend (with different names and hair colors), I don't think you are that kind of person?!
2) Long ago, a high-school teacher introduced his wife to us: "This is Susanne, my ex girl-friend."
But generally - this goes primarily to those who brought things up, but also to you reacting - physical appearance as well as sexual orientation and satisfaction are completely irrelevant to this blog. Professional experience may sometimes be relevant, e.g. mishanp who also does paid translations. Chess strength (ELO) can be relevant - but I think most if not all people posting here at least know the rules of the game and play themselves over the board or over the Internet. Something which may not be true for the average football fan ... .
I sorry Mr. Thomas if I do not understand. You say many smart talks but some time I nto able to undrstand all you say. It must not be your falt must be my falt.
"Some people have a wife AND a girl-friend"
Thomas, I understood what you hinted at. :o)
If you think this blog improves by your commentary on the various posters, categorizing them as "good" or "bad" and so on, then I suggest that you rethink matters.
Cheers!
I have another think as you say and happyily agree so cheer to you also. !!
"I don't know what to say , it was not me who attacked you , i just laugh at it."
Otherwise known as crediting the "bully".
"Again , i'm sorry the other kid teased you "
(Good-mannered "teasing" with the best of intentions, right? I guess you're "teasing" people like that all the time too, right?)
Manu, when you're your age, it's about time to show some responsibility and own up to what you do. You explicitly said you approved of the posts in question - because they were directed AT ME. Specifically, you said:
"I just thought it was fun and appropriate for your case in particular"
It's "fun and appropriate" to write the kind of posts CA wrote, directed at me - according to you. That makes you as "guilty" as the original attackers, in my world. As a frequent poster on this blog, you should try to behave a little less like some primitive species with human features towards the other posters here. If you somehow doesn't understand that, I do really not know what to say.
I should probably adopt acirce's way of responding to beings like you, Manu: Just go to hell, will you?
It would appear appropriate and to the point.
"stop bothering me with your irrelevant problems"
I think you got it a bit wrong there. I have no problems, irrelevant or not. People who find personal attacks of the lowest kind "fun" and "appropriate" are the ones with problems.
If you want me to leave you alone, Manu, you can just do the same with me: If you made no direct or indirect comments about me, I wouldn't spend energy on your posts at all; honestly, your posts are not the reason why I read this blog. I read it _despite_ your contributions.
So now I must thing again. Mr. Manu is not nice person that we all can see but over and again you angry at him when you shuold need to just stop and say no more. So now mabey it must be you to think again.
I'll think and not post.