Corus 2010 R5: Shirov Unstoppable

Nice frikadellen link.

Poor Smeets. When the big sharks smell blood in the water it's Amity all over again.
But one day he'll likely be a Big White himself.

Smeets and van Wely are again in the shark tank, black against the two Ks.
Isn't the tournament getting a little lopsided? there are no decisive results amongst the top 8 - too much hammering of the Dutch.

Kramnik about his game with Smeets on the official website:

“Jan played the opening strangely,” Kramnik said, “and he used up a lot of time. In the endgame, he should have opted for a defence with a pawn down but he went for complications instead. Why I chose the Pirc? I’ve been playing the Petroff almost all my life and I was afraid Jan was going to refute it. I’d still play the Petroff against Anand, against Carlsen, but against this guy … no way!”

I wrote this before the tournament started, in reply to Mig's request for predictions:

***
After two weeks im Marrakesh with The Man, I do consider Carlsen the favorite.

Apart from that, I hope for some Shirovian magic.
***

I am truly satisfied on the second count!

I love the new laid-back Kramnik too, but is he perhaps being a bit patronising to Smeets?...

According to Rybka, Caruana could have been a piece up if he had continued with 24. Qd8. But that's not an easy move to find over the board...

"Has anyone ever lost a big tournament after starting 4/4, let alone 5/5?"

While 82% ain't 100%, another example is from the Corus A group in 2001: One player started with 6.5/8, then finished with 1/5 and shared fifth place in the end - his name is ... Alexei Shirov.

I sincerely hope he doesn't remember or considers it irrelevant ancient history - no need to panic if he loses one game in the remaining rounds, but two losses would be enough to put tournament victory at stake (and other players might start smelling blood?).

I thought Nakamura would win.
But he did not. Maybe there where two reasons.
Carlson don't like to lose and Nakamura thought it was easy to win this endgame. I can't belive this endgame was a draw. Carlson played very good and Nakamura played maybe careless.
Nakamura said he can win against everyone.
Why did he not do it?
Tarrasch said it is not enougth to be a good player. You must also play good.
Maybe Nakamura should read Tarrasch.

In the words of Mig.... TOTALLY WORTH THE PRICE OF ADMISSION!

But seriously, is there any chess tournament as spectator and fan friendly as Corus?! WOO!

Perhaps this would be a good time to confess how much I like this new, laid back version of Kramnik.

It's amusing, but more than a bit patronizing. The humor here stems purely from the fact that Smeet is a weaker player.

well heck, if Kramnik can patronize Carlsen, why not Smeets?

the real question now is which book on the pirc did kramnik pick up?

In that interview clip Kramnik specifically mentioned his opening choice was made partially because he noted how Smeets was getting into time trouble. He figured the earlier he could get him out of theory the better in that regard, and again he was proven correct.

I suppose Kramnik's jokes are a little patronizing, but I'll take that over the false modesty of the sort that leads to saying nothing at all, or at least nothing you would believe. Smeets is a great guy and a fine chessplayer, but he's also an amateur who is having a terrible event. Kramnik decided to say, "let's skip theory and just get to a whatever position and make moves and mine will be better than yours often enough to beat you because I'm Vladimir Kramnik and you're not." And so it was.

When a light-hitting rookie goes up against Mariano Rivera and strikes out on three cut fastballs it would be a little disingenuous for Rivera to say he got lucky because the young guy is dangerous, blah blah. I'd rather have a little fun poked and risk mild offense than have the level of anodyne insincerity that otherwise rules.

Anyway, it came off pleasant and jocular in the audio I heard, I'm sure things can read differently. I hope the clip with Macauley is made available, or I'll ask him to put it up here.

Time for my usual 5 hrs sleep before another long round. Nick de Firmian and Anand-Carlsen today!

I don't get this Kramnik talk about Smeets refuting the Petroff. Was that a joke? I don't get it.

If Anand doesn't win a game soon, Diarrhea in Sofia will feature #2 against #5.

Kramnik played Smeets in 2007, also evading the Petroff.
( http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1471666 )

I guess if the human race got stuck with black against the space aliens in chess, we would have to play the Petroff.

(Hat tip to International Master Stoopid for the 'competing with the aliens' concept).

Do the GM stats really show that the Petroff is the opening least likely to lose? Or, perhaps, the most likely to draw?

I wonder if its reputation as drawish makes it even more drawish? Like when a GM sees the Petroff across the board, he can say to himself, well my opponent is satisfied with a draw, so I'll play considering that fact.

This leads to the platonic dilemma: Is the Petroff drawish because of its reputation, or does it have its reputation because it is drawish?

So if the chance of "refuting the Petroff" is extremely small in Kramnik's mind, and in everyone's mind, is it insulting to consider that Smeets has the least chance of all opponents to be the one to do it?

Now I see, K is suggesting to Smeets a book title:

Refuting the Petroff
by Jan Smeets

"I was afraid he would refute the Petroff." I somehow suspect Smeets really LOLed when he heard this. I mean it's really funny.

Can't believe Vlad just decided to try out the Pirc on a whim. He's got to be working on an alternative to the Petroff for just such occasions. All this guff about seeing it in a book the day before is to have future "Smeets" wonder if they'll be facing the Pirc again!

"An editorial note with regard to Shirov's performance: this was assigned by the table generator of the ChessBase database program. Such performance calculations are not fully meaningful for players scoring 100% (or 0%). Mathematically Shirov's performance is infinite – we could expect a player rated 4000 or even 40,000 for that matter to achive no more than he has done. To obtain a practical value the program assumes he has scored 99% and adds up to 800 points to his nominal rating. If Shirov does not win a game – yes, Virginia, such things can happen – then the performance will be more realistic."
Source: Chessbase

Atlast, that one has been puzzling me for ages. Someone organize a chess trivia pub quiz, I'm there.

Ivanchuk and "There is no point in taking draws" Nakamura just drew in 16 moves and less than half an hour.

No mystery why Nakamura was happy with this as Black, of course, but why Ivanchuk?

Although just checking his ex-wife's birthday seems to be the 18th January, so scratch that (unless he has a girlfriend with a birthday on the 22nd!).

I thought he was married to somebody named Oksana now?

That Kramnik is hilarious. They should award the best GM-joke award yearly. I guess Kramnik and Aronian would be number 1 and 2.

Anand-Carlsen didn't last much longer, drawn after 19 moves. I am already glad that I didn't travel to Wijk aan Zee today, but I may go tomorrow ... .

Anand-Carlsen didn't even leave theory, btw - of course if the players knew about that is another question.

Maybe this game provides the background to Kramnik's joke about refuting the Petroff.

[Event "Sparkassen"]
[Site "Dortmund"]
[Date "2008.07.01"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Naiditsch,A"]
[Black "Kramnik,V"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2624"]
[BlackElo "2788"]
[EventDate "2008.06.28"]
[ECO "C42"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. d4 d5 6. Bd3 Nc6 7. O-O Be7 8. Re1 Bg4 9. c4 Nf6 10. Nc3 Bxf3 11. Qxf3 Nxd4 12. Qd1 Ne6 13. cxd5 Nxd5 14. Bb5+ c6 15. Nxd5 cxb5 16. Bf4 Nxf4 17. Rxe7+ Kf8 18. Re5 Qd6 19. Qd2 Ng6 20. Ree1 f6 21. Rad1 Kf7 22. Qe3 Rhe8 23. Ne7 Qxe7 24. Qb3+ Kf8 25. Rxe7 Rxe7 26. Qxb5 Rae8 27. g3 Ne5 28. Kg2 Nc6 29. b4 a6 30. Qb6 h6 31. a4 Ne5 32. Qc5 Kg8 33. b5 axb5 34. axb5 Nf7 35. h4 Kh8 36. Rd2 Kg8 37. Kh3 Kh8 38. f4 Kg8 39. h5 Kh8 40. Qf5 Nd8 41. Rd7 Ne6 42. Qd5 1-0

I guess it would have been foolhardy for Anand to reveal prep on such a crucial opening, but still, too bad it was a damp squib.

Gazza's New York Review of Books article is now up at http://www.nybooks.com/articles/23592

And the next draw between Karjakin and Smeets - a Petroff so Jan still believes in this opening from black's point of view ,:) . And HE certainly cannot be blamed for doubling his score in the tournament .... .

In the meantime, Shirov has another ending with opposite-colored bishops, this time queens for company. But I find it hard to believe that he has winning chances. Maybe at the end of the day he will have his first 'meaningful' TPR - is 5.5/6 still good enough for >3000?

OK, last live comment for a while: Shirov-Short was drawn, and (source: TWIC) Shirov's TPR is "defined" at 3079. This leaves us with three games (and ALL in the B and C groups) which should continue for a while and might have decisive results.

The KID in Kramnik-van Wely is somewhat reminiscent of Aronian-Nakamura from the World Team Championship: white advantage on the queenside AND adequate prophylaxis on the kingside? I don't see how Kramnik can make (further) progress, but it's him playing, not me ,:) and van Wely may be heading for time trouble. If Vlad wins, he "suddenly" joins the chasing group of Nakamura, Carlsen and Ivanchuk (all 4/6).

A hole bunch of chicken babys today so I nto need say any more every one see them selfs what bunch of baby boys play like. Ugly boy and baby boy and wolfman and flaplips and skuleton and boneyface all babys. Even ok ok mumbleman ok ok be big baby olny monster play for good today. I like monster. I sorry to tell all this and mabey I all wrong one more again but who can tell. Oh good bye.

"Has anyone ever lost a big tournament after starting 4/4, let alone 5/5?"

Beliavsky started the 1993 Biel Interzonal with 4/4, beating Yermolinsky, Piket, Kramnik, and Shirov. (He also had winning chances against Anand in round 5 before losing that game.) After the Anand game, Beliavsky fell apart and finished with only 5.5/11 and tied for 22nd place.

It was a Swiss System tournament, however, so perhaps it is not fair to compare it to an all-play-all tournament.

But it's Great Tournament so far! For me the best thing in long run is that Nakamura is no longer being tossed around but he's now a serious contender, something I though would never happend. But a bit slower approach to the top seems to working too.

I believe Nakamura could be even greater talent or at least different kind of talent as Carlsen. He has enough confidence and doesn't have much blind spots in tactis.

Combination of these two talents would be a terrific player. Somehow I see this like Kasparov - Karpov but this time so that modern Karpov has a Kasparov as a coach.

I'm really excited about possibility of Nakamura - Carlsen matches in near future. Perhaps first at the blitz but later with standard controls.

Some players' comments on the short draws already available at Chessvibes:
http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/corus-r6-live/

Essentially they blame their opening preparation, but Anand's comment is rather puzzling to me: "I tried. But Carlsen surprised me playing a tame Dragon. I had prepared nothing but sharp lines."
Huh? Isn't it up to the white player (Anand) to enter sharp lines with opposite castling, or not?

Anand on Shirov's lead: "I know he's unpredictable but hardly to such an extent."
And a bit later, Short was pleased that he "stopped the unstoppable machine".

Ha ha all ecuses for babys. No body care any more for baby play.

Thomas, despite its reputation, there are many lines in the Dragon that are just about gaining some space and long-term positional plus, especially the Nxd4 lines. I've played that line myself, and it is usually an offer of a sacrifice on a7, but Anand played Bb3 unprovoked, so ...Rc8 never even took place. Perhaps he could've gone for 0-0-0 instead of Bb3, but even then, after ...Rc8 Bb3 and ...b5, rare is the instance in which GMs grab the pawn, and so it would just turn into ...a5 and trying to create some chances on the Q-side with no major creative attack in the offering for white except for attacking the e7 pawn.

Hotep,

Maliq

Can anyone tell me how Vlad is doing please? Any winning chances? At work :-(

Lékó gets his first win in about 500 years. Not too unexpected though - he is very efficient against players below 2700.

I no nto that Leko is so old. He look much younger so big surprise unles you be funny ha ha. I think you must be funny ha ha becase if Leko 500 years he must be dead.

Kramnik will win this one. It is his bread-and-butter. He can win it even if blindfolded.

hm ... Van Wely collapsed too quickly, taking all the fun out of it :-). Should not have taken the c pawn with his B. Need to keep the Bishop to protect d6 square.

From chessvibes: "Short quite easily held Shirov to a draw, and received a “Congratulations!” whisper from Vladimir Kramnik on stage, to which the Englishman answered: “Thank you, it’s one of the best achievements in my career!”". :))

Anyway, 30 games without a single win _is_ "ages" by the standards of any player in or close to the top. Not sure why that should be denied.

Shirov's round 7 game with Nakamura will be very significant for Shirov's chances in this tournament. I certainly hope Alexei is up for the challenge which I'm sure Nakamura will try to unleash on him. Shirov's real problem will be begin with what to play against Nakamura's 1.e4 -- Sicilian or Ruy Lopez? In his Sicilian game vs. van Wely and his Ruy Lopez game vs. Carlsen, Nakamura displayed great chess, easily defeating van Wely and coming close to doing that again with Carlsen. There is a big possibility that Nakamura or Shirov will overreach. If it is Shirov who does the overreaching, that will spell big problems for him in the remainder of his games when he plays the top-ranked players who will then want to push him hard into prematurely lashing out again.

"Alexei Shirov was held to a draw easily by Nigel Short in round 6 of the Corus Chess Tournament. Besides a few quick draws, Leko beat Caruana, Dominguez beat Tiviakov and Kramnik beat Van Wely."

I'd love your opinions. Who is the best chess player in the Americas Dominguez (2714.6 in the live ratings) or Nakamura (2731.9 in the live ratings)?

This will for ever be kown as the big baby day. Mabey tomorrow they grow up to fight like mens.

I see Kasparov win big money playing poker. He push all money in and make big face and every one run away. Kasparov win again and world champion. I do nto never lose at poker.

Giri and Robson are close in age and only 18 ratings points apart. I'd like to see them play each other.

From the LA blog:

Magnus said, "I consider my main rivals to be (world champion Vishy) Anand, (former world champion Vladimir) Kramnik, and (Levon) Aronian. But Hikaru is playing very well now, so I guess in a short time I will consider him one of my main rivals.''

What, no Topalov?!

Sorry, those games are not exactly in chronological order. Anyway, the score is impressive.

Looks like Anand's strategy is to lengthen odds of his winning in WC matches by performing under par in pre-match tournaments and then betting on himself! That way he gets to remain WC and also gets a nice bonus :)

On a more serious note, I don't think this event is as much of a disaster for Anand as some make it out to be. He's not been in trouble in any of his games and I don't see why he can't finish at +2 or +3 given that he has so many easy games coming up in future rounds..

Nice piece about the Hikaru-Magnus game in the LA times--personal interest, not chess content, alas.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/sports_blog/2010/01/us-chesschampion-hikaru-nakamura-left-andthe-worlds-top-ratedplayer-magnus-carlsen-of-norwaymake-opening-moves-thur.html

Anyway, this quote from Magnus is fairly interesting--when asked whether he considered Hikaru one of his rivals, he said,

"I consider my main rivals to be (world champion Vishy) Anand, (former world champion Vladimir) Kramnik, and (Levon) Aronian. But Hikaru is playing very well now, so I guess in a short time I will consider him one of my main rivals.''

Wonder what Topy thinks of this :)

The more popular snackbar snack is actually the frikandel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frikandel (with an extra n).

The Dutch get this wrong pretty often too ;)

To prevent your head from exploding due to chess related causes, do not attempt to follow more than 2 (two) Corus games at a time. Viewing 3 (three) Corus games at a time will result in your head exploding.

Kramnik's "swimming" in time trouble - he used all his time presumably trying to calculate if 32...Bf6 33. Bxh6 was ok for black (it was & solved all black's problems, according to Rybka), but didn't play it. Short just needs to keep the queens on the board and it'll be hard for Kramnik not to blunder.

And Shirov's not swimming, but drowning. Going to be fun at the top with Shirov, Nakamura and Carlsen.

It appears Naka missed 35. c5 winning on the spot.. chessok gives a +5.5, I guess pawn pushes driving away the queen and winning the R on d8 with check..

he won anyway with a different series of moves.. 6 moves later!

Didn't matter for Naka in the end - Kramnik made an awful blunder on move 40 - Rb2 from Short was probably a nice thing to spring if Kramnik was down to seconds. It's odd as he could just have played ...Qe4 and made the time control fairly easily, but I suspect he just assessed that position as a completely won endgame after the a pawn had started it's procession.

Another $10 for Haiti courtesy of Naka.

Mig.

Gotta change that thread title. Shirov Unstoppable? Maybe for most of the GM's, but not for that American freight train which just ran the leader over in a very impressive win again. We've got a tournament and not just an exhibition again...

they make up for yesterday's short draws.

Kramnik suddenly has real chances of completing a Houdini act (Rybka's best line seems to a queen endgame that might well be drawn) - but in case he doesn't this is probably the time to mention that at least for a few minutes he's in third place in the live ratings, above Anand :)

there is a stalemate for Kramnik !!

According to USCF press release available on the USCF's website (you have to search for it; no direct link on the home page), the USCF's settlement with Susan Polgar and Paul Truong includes a payment of $39,000 from USCF's insurance company to Polgar's attorneys.

Money talks; looks like all the negativity placed upon Polgar and Truong in this matter was misplaced.

Short went wrong with 48.Nxh6?. He should have gone for 48.Nxg7! Qxg7 49.a7! Bd5 50.Qxd5 Qxa7 51.Qd6 Kg7 52.f5 with an easy win for White.

Shirov's amazing run has been stopped...by the Nak of Gibraltar!

argh !!! He missed it. Would have been a nice stalemate.

wow kramnik just missed the 2-move stalemate

"Nak of Gibraltar" is a good one.

Where are the Nakamura naysayers? They are silent now.

Nice trick - even more elegant would have been 61..Qxf4+ 62.Kxf4 g5+, but of course Kramnik didn't throw anything away. But how in the bloody hell did he save THIS game from the position he had earlier?? Already his second miracle save in the tournament.

Great save by Vlad. These guys are so tough to beat.

Tomorrow: Kramnik - Nakamura. Shirov - Carlsen.
Should be very exciting,
unless they will spoil it for us with short draws.

How about this. Every time Naka or anyone else wins or loses, we don't have someone say, EVERY time, "I told you so" "He'll be champ soon" "He's not really cut out for this level" or any other reflex remark based on too little info. Shucks, dudes, we KNOW the guy is good. And maybe people could stop seeing themselves as heroic defenders of the reputation of this or that player. This is not kindergarten. This blog is more mature than that, I just know y'all agree.

I declare the motion carried.

In the meantime Anand draws, again.
I like Anand, and i understand why he is not giving his best. However, there must be a rule in super-tournaments not to invite anyone who is going to be involved in a WC-related match within 4 month from the time of the tournament. They would just not perform.

I'll help the Naka naysayers get started: "Look, I never said Nakamura wasn't a terrific player, what I SAID was..."

"However, there must be a rule in super-tournaments not to invite anyone who is going to be involved in a WC-related match within 4 month from the time of the tournament."
Right, so they can practise top-level chess against the hustlers in the park.

There are people in this forum who are reading too much into Nakamura's playing strength.Look, he might be playing very well in this tournament and may end up winning the tournament as well. But, that in no way means he is on top of the chess world and can be compared to Carlsen. First he needs to consistently play well and prove himself in many super tournaments. Second, he needs to be consistently in top 5 rankings for at least a year or two. Then only, we can start talking about nakamura in the same breath as carlsen. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that Nakamura is one of the many talented youngsters but nowhere near to the top. He creates unusual excitement only because USA has failed to produce any great player after the legendary Fischer. Nakamura has not come even close to ten percent of Kamasky's achievement leave alone Fischer.

Supercapa.... I must add, one key reason to Carlsen's success; in conjunction to hard work and talent is early tournament invites ( or privileges) to fight with the top players on a 'regular basis', hence building blocks of experience quickly.

I am convinced without the last point Carlsen will not be where he is today; additionally with the last point Nakamura will be further than where he is now.

Is Karjakin playing in this years Corus? I can't recall anybody mention his name on ANY blog...

@Supercapa
If Nakamura wins this tournament he is on top of the chess world.

@Wijk
That was one great round of fighting. Nice they did it on Saturday when I can watch the whole show.

Supercapa,

I entirely disagree with you. Hikaru is clearly playing on another level now, and if he can get into straight-up fights with the world's elite, it is no longer a given that they are safe from him. His opening knowledge is improving greatly, his closing technique in subtle positions is stronger, and he always has had unquestioned capabilities as a dynamic player. This is EXACTLY the profile that Carlsen has had for some time.

Don't forget that, until recently, Carlsen's approach was based on getting into fighting positions against the best players while avoiding shortcomings of opening prep. He did not become the Magnus he is now overnight, but rather showed himself as a Top 10 contender with a few flashes of brilliance followed by a meteoric rise to #1 in recent times.

Back to the reason that Hikaru generates so much attention, yes, part of it is that he is a dominant American player in a sport that has longed for one. However, his success does, indeed, speak for itself. How much more often must he prove himself to be a mighty challenge for elite players (he has beaten Gelfand and Shirov and pushed Magnus to the brink twice in only recent weeks) before he is given his due? It is foolish to wait until somebody is a challenger for the title to finally admit that he has arrived at elite levels. Needless to say, this young man has arrived at an elite level, regardless of which country he is from.

Hotep,

Maliq

Exactly right, Maliq

While i'm sad for Shirov's result , i'm glad that Naka jumped to the center of the scene in this way , without having the fanciest trainer or the early invitations to help him grow like Magnus did.

Nakamura is clearly part of the elite now - I think the problem earlier was that he either wasn't getting the invites/or wasn't based in Europe so was a bit of a unknown. But it all seems to have worked out for him, I don't think you can push Carlsen (or beat him in a blitz match!) without having something special. And yes, he is nowhere near Kamsky, yet. (Kamsky beat Kramnik 4.5-1.5 for the love of God!)

Manu, Carlsen had the number 1 live rating in 2008 before he ever worked with kasparov so to mention kasparov as a reason at all for magnus reaching the chess elite is a lie.

Manu is sounding ridiculous. By the time Kasparov came onto the scene to work with Magnus, Carlsen had already defeated Kramnik and had several wins against Topalov under his belt. It is clearly outrageous to claim that he arrived in the world's elite due to Kasparov's intervention when it only took him a tournament or two to break 2800; it isn't so easy to get within a stone's throw of that number!

Hotep,

Maliq

Nakamura's unbeaten run should end tomorrow. I guess the only real question is whether he will play the KID against Kramnik. I think he will lose if he does so, so I'm expecting a Slav.

Carlsen did get more than his fare share of tournament invitations. Some people stress that he comes from a chess "C-nation", as opposed to the Eastern European countries, but I remember a couple of years ago when Carlsen and Karyakin were roughly the same rating, Carlsen got invited to like 6 supertournaments in one year, while Karyakin was not invited to a single one. Carlsen was playing dozens of classical games against Kramniks, Anands and Topalovs of the world, while Karyakin was pretty much boycotted. It was almost as if it was an organized conspiracy to make sure the right guy gets all the chances. And it was exactly after those supertournaments that Carlsen reached a whole new level, while Karyakin plateaued. So I don't buy this Carlsen overcoming the odds thing. The guy has got perhaps the most support a young chess player can ever hope to have - tournament invitations, corporate sponsorship, the greatest player ever as the personal coach, etc. Young talents from Eastern Europe cannot dream of having the support Carlsen got.

And the comment that "Young talents from A-nations, like in East Europe countries, gets to play against the local heroes much easier" could not be further from the truth. People like Jakovenko get only a fraction of supertounament chances that people like Wan Vely (forget Carlsen) get. And that very Jakovenko got to like 2760 when he finally WAS invited for a couple of supertournaments. Carlsen alone probably played Kramnik much more than all under-25 Russians combined. For reference - when Karyakin plays Kramnik later in this Wijk tournament, it will be his first classical game against Kramnik in 3 years! And it will only his 4th classical game ever against Kramnik (2 of then were in Dortmund 2004). Carlsen played Kramnik 4 times in 2009 alone.

Anyway, the Nakamura buzz is a little too much. Please. The guy had a good stretch in a supertournament. Big friggin deal. It is possible, maybe even probable, that he will lose to Kramnik with black tomorrow. Let him win multiple supertournaments and get close to 2800 before we begin to think of mentioning him in the same breath as the top players. If this tournament (which is not even close to being over) is grounds for claiming people have made the very top of the chess world, it would appears the case is even better for the notion it was Shirov, not Nakamura, who caught up with the elite.

http://tinyurl.com/yhdeqcb

I found this great link on chessgames.com.
November 2008 Video interview with Spassky. He's talking about Kortchnoi, Ivanchuk, Magnus Carlsen, Bobby Fischer, death, Karov, lack of Russian teamspirit, Kasparov and Kamsky.

Enjoy!

russianbear,

Your points are well taken and OK, maybe the buzz on Nakamura is a bit much. But so far he's gone through the 4/6 of the "Linares" death march of Anand, Carlsen, Ivanchuk, Shirov, Kramnik and Karjakin at +1, had Carlsen on the ropes, and hasn't been in danger yet. Not bad at all for someone who hasn't had the opportunity to play these top guys. And the buzz is because of HOW he plays, his electrifying demolition of Gelfand at the Worlds being a classic example. It's also great to see someone who isn't scared of Carlsen, like it appears so many of the top guys appear to be. He's great for the sport, period.

It seems that people mix up various stages in the career of Carlsen, as well as other players. I will define four steps:

1) Initially, Carlsen worked largely on his own - with support from his parents and some other Norwegians (GM Agdestein, frogbert mentioned a Norwegian FM as his coach)
[at this early stage, young talents from Eastern Europe - or rather ex-Soviet countries - may have an advantage related to an "established chess culture". Later, this could turn into a disadvantage because many names compete for invitations elsewhere]

2) Then (sort of overlapping because he got his final GM norm in Wijk aan Zee) Carlsen played Corus C and Corus B to _qualify_ for Corus A
[several others did the same: Karjakin, Caruana, next ones might be Giri, Wesley So and eventually Ray Robson.
What did Nakamura do? He _declined_ several invitations to Corus B, and apparently is proud of it. One might argue he has a disadvantage having to fly in from the USA. Closer to the truth is: he booked the wrong flights - to Madrid or Malaga rather than Amsterdam - preferring Gibraltar over Corus B.
Simple truth: If you qualify for Corus A, you get invited at a rather young age. If your name is Nakamura, you (im)patiently wait to be invited anyway, and it takes a bit longer ....]

3) After Carlsen played Corus A, other invitations followed, he became a top10, then a top5 player

4) _Only at this stage_, Kasparov became his coach and he obtained corporate sponsorship.

Russianbear might have a point about Carlsen vs. Karjakin. Due to Eastern European dominance in top level chess for many years, some western tournament organizers may have given priority to Carlsen in the name of diversity and public appeal. (History has proven them right. Carlsen is among the most popular players in the world. His games transmitted on PlayChess.com, attracts more kibitzers than Topalov, Kramnik and Aanand, since 2009).

The rest of Russianbear’s arguments, I don’t buy at all, because he is only looking back “a couple of years”. At that time, Carlsen was already a star. Not only by Elo rating, but by his playing style. Carlsen’s creativity and will to win made him an attraction already “a couple of years ago”.

Karjakin was send to chess school as a child. Read this interview about the “fantastic chess school in Ukraina, with very good chess teachers and coaches”.
http://www.chess.co.uk/twic/karjakinin.html

In Norway there was about 1 (one) player +Elo 2500 when Carlsen started. In Ukraina and other Eastern European countries you have large numbers of very strong players (2500 – 2699), and many tournament possibilities. No need for a youngster to go to Corus, Linares or Dortmund to get strong matching.

“Young talents from Eastern Europe cannot dream of having the support Carlsen got”. This is plain BS. The Soviet Union invested a lot of money in chess education and infrastructure. The strong players got state salary. Although USSR is split today, and the players have to support themselves, the competence and heritage are still intact in these countries. Norway chess federation has nothing in comparison.

Probably some people envy him today, his sponsors, coach and fame. But sponsors and coach came as late as 2009, when he was established as top 5.
Magnus Carlsen is truly a self made chessplayer, originating from a C-nation in chess.

#14 White Nakamura 2739 vs #17 Black Shirov 2735. The favorite had White and won. No reasonable person could have been surprised. So much for all the haters who predicted Nakamura would have a negative score here.

All this diatribe of ''Nakamura should not be spoken of in the same breath with elite'' that I read from time to time is quite revolting to say the least.... Don't worry, you Naka haters would soon be gasping for air when you seen him in top '5'.

Manu, you stated that Magnus had "the fanciest trainers", which has been soundly refuted here. The point that many have made is that Magnus, like Hikaru, is a self-made champion from a country that did not have the infrastructure to support his rise to the top. Since he never had serious high-level training until Kasparov came on board well after Carlsen had established himself as a contender, your statement about the effect of his training on his success is dubious. Also, my tone is just fine, thank you.

Hotep,

Maliq

I go away I come back and all the same again. Every one pick on Mr. Manu just becuase he has problem. I hope he is left a lone but do not pick on me ether.

"#14 White Nakamura 2739 vs #17 Black Shirov 2735. The favorite had White and won. No reasonable person could have been surprised. So much for all the haters who predicted Nakamura would have a negative score here."

A suspect use of live ratings, especially given the fact that these are up-to-date based on the fact that Hikaru just defeated Shirov. Live ratings are a mixed bag as regards usefulness, but certainly cannot be considered for purposes of determining who is the higher-rated player when updated ratings are based only upon the goings-on in the current tournament. The fact is that Shirov was the favorite going into the round, and Hikaru brought him back to the pack. Don't try to downplay it.

Hotep,

Maliq

This business about whether Nakamura is "in the elite" depends on who/what you think the "elite" is.

I agree with Mr. Fiske on who the top 5 are - Carlsen, Anand, Kramnik, Topalov, and Aronian - in a sort of arbitrary order. They are currently the "top tier".

After that, I think there is a "second tier" that runs from 2730 up to 2760 or so and includes such people as Shirov, Leko, Gelfand, Karjakin, Mamedyarov, and Ivanchuk. Some of them are former top-tier players who can still get off a good streak, like Shirov. Some are possibly still on their way up. Are you willing to call this tier part of the "elite" or not? Anyway I think Nakamura is solidly part of this "second tier" at least. Can he get into the "top tier"? I don't know. Getting into it is more than having a good tournament, it's more like having a good couple years. Nakamura hasn't had those years yet, but I don't see any reason to conclude that he can't. Is that fair?

Manu,

Make a case for your argument that this "fanciest trainer" made Magnus the player he is, or admit that your point is non-existent. Either training made him who he is (as you claim) or not; given the fact that Kasparov started training him practically yesterday, you have a lot of explaining to do. If you are not claiming that Kasparov made Carlsen into such a player, then mentioning trainers was pointless.

Hotep,

Maliq

Manu,

Make a case for your argument that this "fanciest trainer" made Magnus the player he is, or admit that your point is non-existent. Either training made him who he is (as you claim) or not; given the fact that Kasparov started training him practically yesterday, you have a lot of explaining to do. If you are not claiming that Kasparov made Carlsen into such a player, then mentioning trainers was pointless.

Hotep,

Maliq

Mig, where are you when you're needed ?

First off Carlsen did much to earn his chances, Naka was too much of a primmadonna to play in Corus c or B when he has done nothing, and still has done nothing but play a good half of one tournament so the logical conclusion is Naka > Carlsen and now that he has been unleashed everybody else will be playing for second, lmao. Keep these Naka comments coming , we all get a great laugh at how imbecilic people overreact to not only one tournament (that may be the weakest Corus A in quite a while) but to one, that is right ONE game. Wow and people think chessplayers are intelligent.....

Good point, Bear. Speaking of logos, one of them is located right on Carlsen's jacket's front pocket, giving him the appearance of a Mormon proselytizer. With the blond hair and uptight nonchalant attitude that comes with a life of having your father look over your every move, he looks like one of those brainwashed kids from Utah who ends up living in a polygamous compound. Worse, his chess prowess has given him an air of one who possesses intelligence in other subjects; however, this is highly unlikely. I would recommend Nakamura's blog, rather than the scripted "Carlsen" comments someone is obviously writing for him up at Arctic Drones.

"The Soviet Union invested a lot of money in chess education and infrastructure. The strong players got state salary. Although USSR is split today, and the players have to support themselves, the competence and heritage are still intact in these countries. Norway chess federation has nothing in comparison."

This is funny. The chess infrastructure? You mean, boards and chess sets? I guess it is all that amazing Soviet wood that is the secret to world chess hegemony. And Karyakin was, what, 1 year old when USSR fell apart? The value of living in the Ukraine is put in perspective when one considers the chaos the country underwent in the 90s, and things like the fact many talented kids in places like the Ukraine can't even afford things like the PCs to run Rybka on, or even books - compare that to the situation of their Norwegian goldenboy counterparts.

As for competence, Carlsen cannot complain about lack of competent coaches in Norway, as he clearly got world-class training from coaches, including a strong GM before Kasparov became his coach. Besides, with Kasparov training him, Carlsen is also a beneficiary of the "Soviet Chess School".

"Probably some people envy him today, his sponsors, coach and fame. But sponsors and coach came as late as 2009, when he was established as top 5.
Magnus Carlsen is truly a self made chessplayer, originating from a C-nation in chess."

Carlsen got world class coaching even before Kasparov. His coach's rating is about the same as that of Kasparov's own coach. The Carlsen fanboys like to downplay the fact Carlsen gets unprecedented level of support with the sponsorship and the coaching - by saying it "came as late as 2009". But the fact is: it isn't "late". Carlsen got a 2550+ guy to coach him very early in life, which is more than people can hope for.

"Magnus Carlsen is truly a self made chessplayer, originating from a C-nation in chess."

BS. As talented as he is, he got an unprecedented level of coaching unbelievably early. So, "self-made" is an exaggeration. When, as an 18 year old, you get the greatest player ever to coach you, and you are paid to wear logos on your shirt, you are not an outsider, overcoming unbelievable odds to beat the system - you ARE the system.

"As much as Carlsen fans would like to think otherwise, it is not him who has to overcome tremendous odds, it is people like Karyakin. Carlsen got an unprecedented level of support."

I agree with that , (not that Carlsen's talent didn't deserve it) and that's why IMHO seeing guys like Nakamura (who was not so long ago considered to belong to a lower tier ) eclipse him on a couple of tournaments is very refreshing and good for chess.
Tomorrow both play black against Kramnik and Shirov , it could be a decisive round from the psychological point of view to any of the 4 players.

Back to Nakamura - putting Nakamura's little run in perspective doesn't make me - or anyone else- a "hater". I know he is an American and people are excited, but this is too much. Who did Nakamura beat in this tournament - which is barely past the half-way mark? Short, who had a cold? Shirov, who was due to lose one, with all the risks he was taking? Smeets? Puhlease! He has been lucky he faced Carlsen with white. And Anand with black was supposed to be a test, but Anand seems content with drawing everyone with both colors in this tournament. So I guess it is up to Kramnik to finally test this guy for real. I would love to see another Dutch.

Say what you will about Carlsen - but he is like the Dalai Lama, being groomed to rule the (chess) world from a very early age. He was probably considered a world champion material since he was like 13, and now he is 19 and is right on schedule. Compared to him, Nakamura is a talented amateur, to borrow an expression from Carlsen's personal coach. Yes, Nakamura is fun to watch, but it remains to be seen whether he can even make it to the very top, so let's not put him up there with Carlsen, who seems destined to be the man to beat for many years to come.

Manu = The Backtrack

http://www.cracked.com/funny-3809-internet-argument-techniques/

Hear ye, hear ye!
The path of the righteous prophet is beset by everlasting grief and suffering. The non-believers casteth stones and doth spit upon thee, crafting spurious arguments of hysteria and irritation regarding pompous fanboy waffle more suited to moronic Football Supporters. However persist in thy belief and the heathens will be those who shall wail and gnash their teeth, and then you may claim your just reward for your Righteous Devotion-
to be able to crow such jewels as the following, among many other delights:
"Where are the Nakamura naysayers? They are silent now."
"Where will it stop?? HATERS!!"
"Don't worry, you Naka haters would soon be gasping for air when you seen him in top '5'."
"So much for all the haters who predicted Nakamura would have a negative score here"

Keep the faith, my brothers, and forget not to Cast Out those who now, too late, removeth the Beam from their Eye and leapeth upon the sacred Naka Bandwagon.

Well, personal appearance has never been a big factor in chess (thank heaven!), but if organizers or sponsors have to choose no wonder they choose cooler haircut (at least not a la seventies), healthier teeth and shaved face. Karjakin could have improved greatly in these areas. And wearing a tie, especially in this age, doesn't help being cool if you ask me. I don't think Magnus is much closer to Brad Pitt but they hit quite distant points on the coolness scale.

That's how it works in this world. If you want to have sponsors that means you are ready to be a marketing product so at least don't spoil it.

Interesting discussion regarding training regimes of Norway/Ukraine. Maybe Magnus was blessed NOT having the "Soviet school" support early on.
I get the feeling players like Pono, Grishuk, Radjabov and maybe Karjakin got "fed up" of chess when they arrived age 18-19. In the Karjakin interview above he talks about "hard work" explaining his GM title at 12.
Magnus could never have said that. For him chess was just fun and he made his "studies" of pure interest and joy. As I understand it he even rejected Kasparov at 14 because he didn't like the tough training methods.
Now at 18-19 he seems ready for changing his "peculiar working methods" (Kasparovs words). I think the most important influence of Kasparov is as a mentor, simply teaching him how a top player should organize his working day.

Maybe a combination is best? Norwegian laid back, "no pushing" approach as a child and Ukrainian "no nonsense" training as young adult.

sorry, but i found Naka's comments about Shirov's choice of opening and game, not very gracious. is he bragging already ? hmmm ...

Russian bears, including those living in Ukrainian forests, tend to be grumpy during winter time. Better left alone.

Alright, that wasn't that bad :)

In Gray's Elegy the poet wonders if the poor country cemetery contains great men, who never had a chance to exercise their talent, being born to such poor circumstances:

"Some mute inglorious Milton here may rest,
Some Cromwell guiltless of his country's blood."

With regard to great chess talents, if they are born randomly distributed, or nearly so, then perhaps there are world champions unfound among the Nunavit or Australian aborigines.

America was once praised as classless, or less so that Europe, and a place where a talent born to humble circumstances could raise himself up, could work his way to the top of a chosen field.

In both sides of the argument above, Carlsen's circumstances vs. Karijakin's circumstances vs Nakamura's, all sides seem to deny that it is any longer possible to "work one's way to the top onesself" and that the only possible way to attain chess greatness is to have trainers and talent nurturers in one's society. Are they necessary today?

Today with the internet, worldwide travel, and chess computers, we see the widest distribution of chess knowledge ever. Any talent in the world (almost) can read or play against grandmaster strength opposition. Maybe there is now more chance, rather than less, that a great talent will find trainers necessary. What do they offer that isn't available for free?

:-)

Oops my next to last sentence should be

Maybe there is now more chance, rather than less, that a great talent will find trainers unnecessary.

Russianbear,

"As talented as he is, he got an unprecedented level of coaching unbelievably early. "

With all due respect, you need to get yourself a copy of "Wonderboy", written by this GM - Simen Agdestein.

Even Simen's own book is trustworthy enough not to exaggerate his own role as a coach for Carlsen.

What Simen did for Carlsen, was basically to realize that Norway had a great chess talent, make some PR about him to international chess friends, and to assign then FIDE 2200-ish rated (later FM and IM) Torbjørn Ringdal-Hansen to have bi-weekly sessions with Carlsen (and a friend of Carlsen) of a couple hours each.

Repeat:

1 session every 14 days (a little less in practice)
Duration: 1-2 hours
Period of regular training like this: Less than 1 year

Method: According to Torbjørn himself, it was more or less completely unplanned - he typically grabbed a book from the book-shelf half an hour or so before Carlsen and his buddy would show up. [This is described in "Wonderboy" - read it for yourself. Personally I have more direct sources, obviously.]

If this is an "unprecedented level of coaching", then things in Eastern Europe in terms of chess teaching is much worse than I would've expected.

Nobody has the exact count, but the number of times Carlsen "trained" with GM Agdestein in the years 2000 to 2004 when Carlsen got his GM title have been estimated to 25-30 sessions IN TOTAL. And when I say "session", I don't mean days or weeks, but a couple of hours AFTER school and homework and such.

Between Carlsen got his GM title in 2004 and the current cooperation with Kasparov was started early last year (2009), 98% of Carlsen's training was performed by Carlsen himself - reading books, studying recent games and PLAYING lots of tournaments, as much as his shcool and his parents would allow.

The degree of involvement from players such as Peter Heine Nielsen and Simen Agdestein in the 5 years leading up to 2009 was very very modest - I refer you to Henrik's own account of it on blog.magnuschess.com

I will not try to educate people from Russia or Ukraine about the quality, the contents or the widespreadness of chess teaching in their countries - but I would request not to be taught how Carlsen was hand-held to a chess career from his early years, by means of "unprecedented coaching" here in Norway.

GM Agdestein could probably teach Carlsen to become a fighter, because Simen himself has always worked tremendously hard over the board and he has a great will to win chess games - but in terms of chess theory (and even chess training), I think Simen must be among the 5 weakest players ever to break 2600. When he was younger and at the top of his chess career in the early 90s, he simply didn't have the will or the patience to study theory nearly half as much as he probably should have. Instead he became known as a very "creative" player - but that wasn't due to a deliberate choice, but simply because he was out of book way before his opponents.

You're right about Carlsen getting sponsorship deals quite early on. I was physically present in the room next door, watching Carlsen play blitz when Simen and Henrik negotiated the first deal with the PR Manager of the company I worked for at the time. The deal was initially for 6 months, was not prolonged due to bad times for the IT industry right after year 2000, and it basically covered travelling costs for tournaments.

The total amount? Approximately $10 000 - in 2002. As pointed out by others - Carlsen has got essentially nothing from government or chess federation in Norway. The chess federation basically has no money at all, except for its most basic functions, and there is no official support for chess in Norway - at least not as long we're not part of the sports federation.

[The Norwegian government will give a notable amount to the organizer if Norway wins the right to organize the 2014 Chess Olympiad, but that's a first - and the money are all locked to concrete costs of hosting that event, obviously.]

Russianbear,

"but I remember a couple of years ago when Carlsen and Karyakin were roughly the same rating, Carlsen got invited to like 6 supertournaments in one year, while Karyakin was not invited to a single one."

You are thinking of which year?

Obviously not 2006. 2007? Karjakin was invited to play Corus in 2007, after doing very well there in his debut in 2006. In other words, it can't be 2007 either, but must be 2008. I suppose you do know that invitations go out somewhat PRIOR to the events, often as much as 6 months, so I'll list the ratings in the relevant "invitation period":

"Roughly the same rating" - Invitations for Year 2008

Jul 2007: Karjakin 2678 (19 gms) Carlsen 2710 (19 gms)
Oct 2007: Karjakin 2694 (11 gms) Carlsen 2714 (25 gms)
Jan 2008: Karjakin 2732 (36 gms) Carlsen 2733 (37 gms)
Apr 2008: Karjakin 2732 (no gms) Carlsen 2765 (27 gms)
Jul 2008: Karjakin 2727 (27 gms) Carlsen 2775 (16 gms)
Oct 2008: Karjakin 2730 (24 gms) Carlsen 2786 (31 gms)

In my book, they had "roughly the same rating" in one list - January 2008 - and when Karjakin continued playing games after that one list, his results stayed at the same level. Those 35 points from 2732 to 2765 aren't "just 35 points" - it's 35 points that very, very few players ever have managed to gain and hold onto until the next official list.

Btw, Karjakin did play cat. 18 Aerosvit both in 2007 and 2008, where Carlsen in 2008 touched 2790 in the live ratings. If Aerosvit is counted among Carlsen's 6 events, then it should probably be counted as One Single Event for Karjakin, too.

I would've liked to see more invitations to Karjakin during both 2008 and 2009 - or in 2007. And I understand the frustration of being caught in Carlsen's shadow. But I think that point can be made while still staying mostly true to the facts.

If you were some tournament organizer watching the above rating developments - which player would you choose to invite if you had to choose one?

Mig: "I hope the whole clip goes up at chessclub.com."

It HAS now, finally at http://www.ChessClub.com in the video "Soundbite: Kramnik's Prep"

"I would've liked to see more invitations to Karjakin during both 2008 and 2009 - or in 2007. And I understand the frustration of being caught in Carlsen's shadow. But I think that point can be made while still staying mostly true to the facts."

Wow, too bad you apparently don't live up to your own standard. Back to facts.

First, who said anything about it being a CALENDAR year? Second, even if I was wrong about it being a year - if it is a longer period, that would add to my case, not detract from it. Third: lately - since 2007, for example- I would consider something a supertournament if it features one of the following: Kramnik, Anand or Topalov. I think it is fair for my purposes to define it like that.

So, back to the facts. First, a question: do you know how many classical games Karyakin lost to Kramnik, Anand AND Topalov since Wijk 2007? I'll save you the trouble of looking it up: it is a grand total of 0 games. I'll ask another question: why is it the case that Karyakin is undefeated in classical games against the top 3? And the answer to that is simple: because he didn't play them for 3 years. Karyakin's draws against Kramnik and Anand in this year's Wijk were his first classical games against those two - in 3 years! With Topalov, it is 3 years and counting.

You cite their number of games played, as if that is relevant for the period in question. You don't even take what is actually the most important stat for the purposes of this discussion, which is their January 2007 rating - which is the last supertournament Karyakin played in (until now). In January 2007, they were both 16 years old and had the following ratings: Carlsen: 2690, Karyakin: 2678. That is pretty close, you have to admit. They both get invited to Wijk 2007. Great. (BTW, that Wijk was particularly strong, with Kramnik, Topalov and Anand all playing, and it is rare all 3 play in 1 tournament). In that tournament, Karyakin achieves a very respectable +3 -3 =7, a 50% score. Carlsen, on the other hand, fails to win a single game, scores -4, and ends up in the last, 14th place. Ok.

And what happens then? Karyakin fails to get a classical game against any of the top 3 elite players for THREE WHOLE YEARS, while Carlsen keeps being invited to pretty much every single supertournament and ends up playing in most of them: Linares-Morelia 2007, Dortmund 2007, Tal Memorial 2007, Corus 2008, etc, etc. I guess I stopped counting some time in 2008 - and only remembered it was roughly a year. While it may not have been actual 6 classical supertournaments in 12 months - so I may have slightly misrepresented it, since I was citing this from memory. But now it turns out it has been 3 years, not 1, since Karyakin played in one - and it has, of course, been way over 6 supertournaments that Carlsen played while Karyakin was boycotted - so in this respect the situation is even worse than I thought for Karyakin: the guy got 2 whole points more than Carlsen and got punished for that by a 3-year boycott, while Carlsen's last place got rewarded with an invitation to pretty much every single supertournament in 2007 and allowed him to amass a large number of games against the very top players, which definitely helped him improve.

Oops, I made it soumd like Karyakin has already played Kramnik in this year's Wijk - but he didn't yet.

"I would consider something a supertournament if it features one of the following: Kramnik, Anand or Topalov. I think it is fair for my purposes to define it like that."

First, I find it a bit strange to rule out Corus 2009 as a supertournament - it had the same category as the current event. Secondly, it's a bit strange to demand that other people should make their arguments according to definitions you make up in retrospect.

Also, when one refers to a year like you did, it usually means exactly a calendar year. And when you quote "6 events" in that one year, one expects that to be an exact number, not something taken from your fallible memory (mine is too, so I look up things when I want to state facts).

Moreover, Carlsen wasn't invited to Linares 2007 _after_ his poor result in Corus - that should be quite obvious even if you didn't know. And lastly, he finished shared 13th in Corus 2007.

I suppose you know how Carlsen did in Linares 2007? I don't need to ask whether or not you think that result had any impact on later invitations that year?

Why the Russians didn't invite Karjakin to Tal Memorial 2006 is something you need to ask them about - but with a relatively small and elite field (10 players), similar to the situation for Linares (8 players), my guess is that they reserved exactly ONE spot for a young, promising player.

Corus invited both, Tal and Linares only Carlsen. The later invitations must be seen as a consequence of what Carlsen did in Linares. You say that Karjakin's Corus was solid - and yes, result-wise it was a good and solid result (that he should've been -4 +2 instead, judging from the Navara-game is another issue), and yes Corus was very strong that year. But not as strong as Linares, and Karjakin's result a lot less impressive than Carlsen's Linares result.

---

And regarding facts - you have no comment to the several corrections I made to your description of Carlsen's "unprecedented level of coaching". I guess you might want to read Wonderboy first - but while I understand the frustration re Karjakin, I find that a lousy reason to invent things about Carlsen's career or the "missed" opportunities for Karjakin.

Carlsen has demonstrated, again and again, that he develops faster than Karjakin. Also at the time they played opens and lower category events. In lack of useful ways of spending time on training, Carlsen chose to play a lot of tournaments. I don't know to which degree that was a choice for Karjakin (pre-2007), but my impression of the "Soviet school" is that it considers studying to be as important as "practicing". Hence, I've been of the impression that relatively lower activity on Karjakin's part - again pre-2007 - was something they wanted. I might be wrong.

Another thing is that you also seem to have forgotten the 2005 WCC, and the very _different_ results they obtained there. Carlsen qualified to the candidates around his 15th birthday, and that did also create a lot of excitement about him.

At any rate - Carlsen has taken very good care of the opportunities he got and earned, and I think that if Karjakin's talent had been as great as that of Carlsen, we would've seen greater progress from him already. Saying that it's all got to do with "unfair treatment" and "missed opportunities" doesn't quite convince me.

I am surprised people find my point hard to understand or choose to split hairs about irrelevant details. My point is - right after Wijk 2007, there was no reason to believe Carlsen was any stronger or talented than Karyakin. Carlsen bombed and Karyakin did quite well in that tournament. Yet Carlsen became a regular in the supertournaments right after that, while Karyakin had to wait for 3 years for a chance to play the top guys. Alright, maybe you are a Carlsen fan and think Carlsen was the most talented kid ever. Fair enough. But in all honesty, wouldn't Karyakin have to be considered the second most talented kid ever - given his early GM title, and his early tournament success (Dortmund 2004, Wijk B 2005, Wijk 2007 to name some). I am just surprised more people don't find it strange that the youngest ever GM, one of the two most talented kids ever, and a kid who seems to do quite well whenever he is invited - doesn't just not get the invitations, but doesn't get them to an extent where he goes 3 years without playing the big 3 players. My basic point is not hard to understand, but I am sure frogbert will argue I forgot to put proper punctiontion someplace - and completely ignore my point.

How is this for a conspiracy theory of why Karyakin didn't get invited to any tournament with the top guys playing: maybe Karyakin embarrassed Carlsen so much in Wijk 2007, that the Wonderboy's futures seemed uncertain as his was being overshadowed by a superior young talent - so the Carlsen mafia decided to take drastic measures and bribed the organizers into not inviting Karyakin to the very top events, thus impeding Karyakin's development, and making sure the right junior gets all the chances and the spotlight.

Mind giving the links to all those statements?

"According to who?".

According to me. And I explained why. I'll repeat. Karjakin is(was) the youngest GM ever (12 years, 7 months; Carlsen got the title at 13 years, 4 months). He did well in the top tier events whenever he was invited (Dortmund 2004, Wijk 2009, isn't doing badly now, even though he was apparently sick in the course of this ongoing Wijk). I remember him having Kramnik on the ropes in Dortmund in 2004 when he was 14. He outperformed Carlsen more often than not when they played in the same tournaments.

As for he underlying fact that justifies the claim that Karjakin's development has been hampered because he hasn't been able to play official games against three particular players - well, I've taken the 3 players as the most obvious example, given that he hasn't played them at all. The truth is, it is not just the 3 players. These big 4 draw other top talent, and the events they play in tend to be quite a bit stronger than in the ones they don't. I haven't actually counted it, but it would make sense to guess that due to playing in the events that featured the top 3, Carlsen also got more games against other top players - Aronian, Morozevich, etc. If you don't play in the top tier events, chances are your opponents are quite a bit weaker than if you do - it is just common sense. And if you wish to challenge the idea that playing the superior players helps a young, talented player to improve - I am not sure what is there to talk about.

According to

http://members.aon.at/sfischl/cl2007.txt

Karjakin and Carlsen performed about the same in 2007, Karjakin's performance is 3 points better. But look at the opponent's average rating. Subtract Wijk 2007 from those stats (as I talked about the period after it) and the difference will be even more pronounced. Basically, it shows Karjakin was stuck playing the inferior people.

>> Why do you believe that you are a competent judge of chess talent?

coz he is usually "the man" trying to teach a thing or 2 to the boys ("the Carlsen fanboys", "the Anand fanboys" et al).

"Karjakin and Carlsen performed about the same in 2007, Karjakin's performance is 3 points better. But look at the opponent's average rating. Subtract Wijk 2007 from those stats (as I talked about the period after it) and the difference will be even more pronounced. Basically, it shows Karjakin was stuck playing the inferior people."

2004:
Karjakin opposition 2606
Carlsen opposition 2564

2005:
Karjakin opposition 2586
Carlsen opposition 2596

2006:
Karjakin opposition 2640
Carlsen opposition 2620

2007:
Karjakin opposition 2636
Carlsen opposition 2678

2008:
Karjakin opposition 2685
Carlsen opposition 2707

Picking 2007 was a good move since it is the only year that supports the idea that there's any big difference whatsoever in the level of opposition they faced those five years. On average over five years there's almost no difference at all.

It’s fascinating to observe how far some are willing to twist the truth, in order to win a discussion on internet forums like this. Take Russianbear, for example, who base his allegation on ”facts” like this (quotes from last 2 days):

1. In the beginning of Karjakin/Carlsen’s career, starting from late 90s, Norway's Chess Federation had as much to offer chess talents, as the Ukraine Chess Federation.

2. The Russian Chess Federation’s main asset is merely “wooden chess pieces”.

3. During 2007 the Carlsen mafia was controlling the European tournament circuit, through bribes.

LOL

You seem to pay too much attention to what the supposed experts supposedly said. Not sure about the Nikitin statement (as reading it in French is equivalent to not reading it at all), but Korchnoi is just being silly in this interview, as he often is. He also explained Nakamura's 2. Qh5 with Japanese mythology. Just because he is such a respected expert - should I take it seriously and look for symbols of Japanese mythology whenever I examine Nakamura's games? Old Norse mythology for Carlsen, maybe?

If I collected unflattering things that are supposedly attributed to the supposed experts, I am sure I could come up with things about Carlsen, too. But that would be pointless, because appeals to authority, especially ones to authority of what is often mistranslated/misstated interviews is probably not the best way to judge people's talent.

Besides, talent is a subjective thing, and everyone probably defines/understands it differently. I never said my point of view was the only valid one - but I explained it well enough.

"Btw, why do keep ignoring the almost one year age difference when comparing their yearly performance? "

I never actually compared their yearly performance. When I mentioned the 2007 performance, it was in passing and my actual point was about the quality of the opposition, rather than the performance itself. Thanks for ignoring the main point and going right for the secondary one.

And no I am not ignoring the (small) age difference anymore than you are ignoring the fact that Karjakin outperformed Carlsen more often than not - both in the classical tournaments and in the very rapid tournament you linked to for the Karpov comment. I am not ignoring it any more than the Carlsen fanboys in this blog entry have ignored the obvious when they claimed Kasparov only started working with Carlsen last year. To quote your own link (automatically translated, I guess): "Magnus Carlsen: Yes, in 2005, I received a few workouts with Kasparov. " So, the Kasparov-Carlsen collaboration was acknowledged by Carlsen to be as early as 2005, while some sticklers for facts here have claimed it was only a recent development.

Kasparov interview at Chessbase:
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6069

WHEN DID THE COLLABORATION WITH MAGNUS CARLSEN BEGIN?

I met him in Oslo in 2005. We spent a few hours together. After I stopped playing chess, Magnus actually came to Moscow with his father, and we spent a day maybe and that’s it. For the next four years, we didn’t communicate except that I sent him my book. We re-established our contact last Christmas [Dec 08]… because he has always had a problem of not having a real coach, someone who could organize things in the most efficient way...During Wijk ann Zee 2009, we spoke a couple of times on the telephone. It was just the beginning. And before Linares 2009 we had just one short session. Technically, in Linares, I had already offered him some advice, but it was not yet the full scale work because I also needed time to prepare for it. When summer [09] came, we had quite a good training session in Croatia. And, then we had another training session in Oslo.

----------

As can be seen, Kasparov has contributed very litle to Magnus Carlsen's success prior to Nanjing 2009. The best is yet to come! Right Bear?
;-)

"Only a complete retard would turn my words into something like that. I never argued Karyakin was supposed to be invited over Carlsen in 2009. I talked about a period after Wijk 2007, when they were roughly the same rating going into the tournament, and then Carlsen bombed with -4 and Karyakin did quite well with 50% score."

Yeah, and this short period was the defining moment that gave Carlsen his unfair advantage :) Linares was of course decided with regards to invitations a month before it started so it didn't affect anything that Carlsen bombed in Corus. Carlsen was higher rated than Karjakin at the end of 2006 and got the Linares 2007 invitation. He also stayed higher rated on every FIDE list in 2007.

Compared with Karjakin's Aerosvit Carlsen's Biel was weak, with players like Avrukh, Pelletier, Bu, Motylev, Polgar, Onischuk and van Wely. Then he also played a total of 16 games in Dortmund and Tal Memorial. I can understand why he got more invitations, not just because he was higher rated.

I don't know about comparing Karjakin to world number one, he seems to be number #21 at the moment and a few steps behind Nakamura.

I guess Naka is even more disadvantaged based on tournament invitation theories.

"Yeah, and this short period was the defining moment that gave Carlsen his unfair advantage :) "

This was not a short period.

"Carlsen was higher rated than Karjakin at the end of 2006 and got the Linares 2007 invitation. He also stayed higher rated on every FIDE list in 2007."

Yeah, but it is easier to improve when you play in those top events - especially if you keep being invited even after you bomb (like Carlsen) as opposed to not being invited after you do well (like Karyakin). But what is perhaps as important as the chance to play and improve: it is harder to lose points in these tournaments, especially for a young , improving player, since even if you do badly (like Carlsen's -4 in Wijk 2007, or his -1 in Dortmund 2007), you don't lose THAT many points. (And Karjakin seems less likely to bomb in a supertournament than Carlsen - or it least so it would seem at the time). So, basically, this was a self-fulfilling process for Carlsen - once he got a few supertournaments under his belt in a row, he got not just the experience needed to play in them, but also the rating needed to be invited to them. Karjakin seems to have even an easier job adjusting to them - and gaining points in them- whenever he gets to play, but he hardly ever gets to play- and I think this may be the primary reason why he fell a little behind.

"Compared with Karjakin's Aerosvit Carlsen's Biel was weak, with players like Avrukh, Pelletier, Bu, Motylev, Polgar, Onischuk and van Wely."

Yes, and what's the point of comparing what is probably Karjakin's strongest event from around that period to what is probably the weakest one for Carlsen? It won't change the fact that Carlsen played the much stronger people. Wijk 2007, Linares 2007, Dortmund 2007, Tal Memorial 2007, Wijk 2008, Linares 2008 - in a span of little over a year will do that to you.

"Then he also played a total of 16 games in Dortmund and Tal Memorial."

That may not seem like a lot, but he got more practice against the very best in those 16 games than Karyakin did in years. And if you add Linares 07 with 2 games each against the mighty field of Anand, Topalov, Aronian, Ivanchuk, Morozevich, Leko and Svidler - the amount of games against the top-level competition Carlsen faced in that stretch of a little over a year probably approaches - if not exceeds- the number of games against such competition that Karjakin had in his whole life. I think that was huge for his chess development, and it was exactly the primary factor he moved ahead of Karjakin. By mid-2008 Karjakin was by far the more experienced player and a share of first in Wijk (I think he lose out on tiebreaks to Aronian) gave him a spot in Bilbao, which was one of the strongest tournaments ever, and that was another great learning experience for Carlsen. So yes, you may laugh about the notion that certain key invitations gave Carlsen an important advantage, but IMO that's what happened.

Lagrave is ahead of Karjakin on the January rating list, and was no more than 4-5 points behind on the previous lists. He has only been invited to one top event (Biel, and he won that one ahead of Ivanchuk and Morozevich). That's one player that could talk about being neglected by the organisers.

You seem to think I somehow blame Carlsen for something. Reread my posts. I don't. I don't dislike Carlsen or anything. Though his touch-move and no handshake incidents from the Tal Memorial do show he takes after his coach :) And I don't appreciate his trashtalking via the Facebook status that was mentioned. But I don't dislike the guy. They may have been discrimination in the way people like Karyakin did (or DID NOT) get invited, but it hardly makes sense to blame Carlsen for that.

"That's one player that could talk about being neglected by the organisers."

There are probably MANY players who will rightfully feel that way.

Vachier-Lagrave has been particularly "unlucky", in being born in 1990, a year where MANY players have been good, at various times. Karjakin, Nepo, Carlsen and others, but with Vachier-Lagrave coming to market the latest of the four.

Like it or not, there are usually only room for so many "new-comers" - but I would be surprised if Vachier-Lagrave wouldn't get more invitations. He did play in San Sebastian, though, together with Nakamura. But I think I heard that he was sick there, and he didn't do very well. San Sebastian was cat. 18 and theoretically a good opportunity for someone like Vachier-Lagrave to shine.

"

"Carlsen has demonstrated, again and again, that he develops faster than Karjakin."

Nonsense. That wasn't really true before the supertournament invitation discrepancy I mentioned. "

Do you really want to say that again, Russianbear? Do I need to link to a curve for you?

Karjakin started playing competitive chess 3 years before Carlsen. And he's nearly one year older. So let's be fair and consider development after breaking 2500. At that point, Carlsen was working on his own, and I have no clue what Karjakin did. Compare the time they needed to reach ca. 2700.

"You are. Surely, even if Karyakin would prefer to play less, when he does play he'd prefer to get some games against the best in the world under his belt."

You aren't reading what I'm writing. I was talking about the period BEFORE they could "demand" getting games against the best players in the world. I said pre-2007 - or 2005 and 2006 if you want me to be exact.

And you keep misreading or pretending I've said things I didn't. When I said this:

"I think that if Karjakin's talent had been as great as that of Carlsen"

you return with the following blurb:

"It is a little pathetic to pretend that Carlsen is somehow vastly more talented than Karyakin."

Vastly more talented? Who said that? Nobody. Certainly not I. My statement above simply says that I consider Carlsen to be more talented. You can disagree, of course, but you don't need to twist what I say to fit your modus of ridicule. It doesn't suit you. It only makes you seem angry and bitter.

"he was rated about the same as Carlsen as late as January 2008 - and only then the lack of invitation to the very top events caught up with him and helped Carlsen move ahead."

Was this somehow meant to refute that Carlsen didn't develop faster? In that case, it's another case of fact-twisting. Read these numbers:

First Carlsen:

Oct 2006 2698
Jul 2006 2675
Apr 2006 2646
Jan 2006 2625
Oct 2005 2570
Jul 2005 2528
Apr 2005 2548
Jan 2005 2553
Oct 2004 2581
Jul 2004 2567
Apr 2004 2552
Jan 2004 2484

Despite having a dump rating-wise from Oct 2004 to Oct 2005, he got from below 2500 to roughly 2700 in less than three years.

Then Karjakin:

Oct 2007 2694
Jul 2007 2678
Apr 2007 2686
Jan 2007 2678
Oct 2006 2672
Jul 2006 2679
Apr 2006 2661
Jan 2006 2660
Oct 2005 2658
Jul 2005 2645
Apr 2005 2635
Jan 2005 2599
Oct 2004 2576
Jul 2004 2591
Apr 2004 2580
Jan 2004 2566
Oct 2003 2562
Jul 2003 2560
Apr 2003 2556
Jan 2003 2547
Oct 2002 2527
Jul 2002 2523
Apr 2002 2489

Karajkin spent 5,5 years going from sub-2500 to roughly 2700. That's almost twice the time.

In October 2006, when carlsen landed on 2698, his highest category event had been category 17. Karjakin had played both cat. 18 and cat. 19 events at that time.

The above comparison shows who develops faster. Not the given rating number at some point in time, but the time need from point A to point B. Carlsen didn't spend 3 years to do what Karjakin needed 5,5 years to do due to "invitations" - but something else.

"especially if you keep being invited even after you bomb (like Carlsen) "

Russianbear, you keep repeating this.

In 2007, Carlsen played 13 games, he lost only four, and one of the losses (against Navara) should have been a win, and he fumbled a win against Shirov in the last round too.

Surely, +0 -4 =9 was a disappointment, but unlike many other Carlsen fans, I thought there were lots of small signs for the better in Carlsen's play that event.

Just one month later, he came shared 2nd in Linares, after lots of wins (and some losses).

Again, you're the chess organizer. Carlsen has been developing like a rocket over the past 1,5 years. What would you emphasize? A win-less Corus or the 2nd place in the much tougher Linares.

You're not trying to be objective here. You're throwing "Carlsen fanboys" around as it automatically invalidates any argument we might have, but you're behaving like a complete "Karjakin-fanboy" yourself.

Like Bobby Fiske, I don't have anything against Karjakin - at all. I'd wish him both success, invitations and everything. And I've already said that. But I become worried when sensible people make a number of factual mistakes when they're describing Carlsen and his career. Obviously, from 2007 and onwards, Carlsen has had the very best opportunities to develop his talent - and I do certainly agree that the period from 16 to 19 is very important for the development of a chess player.

Still, it was what Carlsen did 2004 through 2006 that laid the foundation for the later successes. Back then I always commented that Karjakin played too little. Maybe he couldn't play more - or maybe he wanted to play bigger events. Carlsen has never been picky in his younger days. He's even accepted quite modest start money compared to several other players - something to think about regarding Nakamura's "no" to Corus B, because he wasn't happy with the offer he got in 2008.

Carlsen has had excellent management, from his father Henrik. Henrik, as a manager, has taken all the right decisions through-out. Things don't often happen by mistake, and when people quote "luck" or such similar things, they might not be thinking about the choices any professional player need to make - and the people that help them making those choices.

"No one has ever explained the rationale of saying Nakamura relies on blitz tactics to win. This is the kind of rubbish we hear."

I've spent too many posts arguing against that kind of rubbish myself. But that kind of rubbish coming from the loudest Nakamura fans over at cg.com.

Lots of Nakamura fans keep claiming that it's his "blitz tactics" that make the difference - that he doesn't study or prepare, that it's pure instinctive tactics and little else.

They typically ignore Nakamura's own comments about Nd5 against Van Wely being prepared, and such. He's ICC's Smallville, and he's there to teach the snotty Europeans that playing blitz is all it takes to become an Elite player.

So, that kind of rubbish is coming as much from Nakamura's "fans" as from the so-called dectractors. Those of us with some connection to elite players simply know being an elite player in elite events requires more than a little work.

You should not be the one to talk about fact twisting - as you do it as often as anyone, at least in this blog entry. "Develops faster" thing is actually a made up notion that is made up exactly for this type of twisting. They were close enough in age and rating at the time we are discussing, which means that If one "developed faster" during one period prior to that, that must mean the other developed faster in another period. And so it is: if Karyakin took longer to go from sub-2500 to 2700, that must mean he reached the sub-2500 level that much faster. How do you think he beat Carlsen to the GM title by almost a year (relative to his age)?

An interesting Carlsen fact that deals with both the support Carlsen got and his improvement: Carlsen was given a year off from elementary school to participate in international chess tournaments during the fall season of 2003. The guy was basically given a chance to be a pro when he was just 12 years of age. I don't remember hearing Karjakin getting that kind of a free pass.

"Vastly more talented? Who said that? Nobody."

I never said you did. You accuse me of misrepresenting your point, when in reality you just misrepresent mine- you've taken my general comment to be directed at yourself.

"that must mean he reached the sub-2500 level that much faster."

It must? Or mustn't it? Did you check when they STARTED training chess?

"How do you think he beat Carlsen to the GM title by almost a year (relative to his age)?"

I answered that in a previous post, actually. Karjakin started playing and studying chess seriously at least two years earlier, relative to his age. That's 3 years earlier in calendar time. Carlsen went quite rocket-like to the 2450+ level too - he simply started much later than Karjakin - which is a good reason why "earliest GM" is a less good indicator of talent than what one might think. When you start playing, when you start getting serious training, are both two factors that are very important here.

"you've taken my general comment to be directed at yourself."

Because it was my post you were throwing your sarcasms against. It was me you were building up your rhetorics against. It's not necessary to bring in idiotic statements from others, as long as you think I'm being ridiculous enough as it is.

"Carlsen was given a year off from elementary school to participate in international chess tournaments during the fall season of 2003. The guy was basically given a chance to be a pro when he was just 12 years of age. I don't remember hearing Karjakin getting that kind of a free pass."

Free pass? A year off? You know that Carlsen technically was in school, covering exactly what his class mates covered, doing homework supervised by his parents? He didn't skip any class at school - he simply used a right _every_ school boy or girl have in Norway: To be taught by their parents instead of at school, as long as they are given proper education.

"Jakovenko didn't make a jump from around 2700 to 2750+ until he got to play in a couple of elite events."

I suppose you're talking about when he went from 2709 to 2760. Prior to that, he was briefly at 2735 and a tenth place in the official rating list of July 2007.

Here's a little break down of how Jakovenko gained 51 points in the 79 games that were rated for the October 2008 list and the January 2009 list.

Gain against 2700+ players: -0,3 in 35 games
Gain against 2600- players: +44,8 in 34 games
Gain against 2500- players: +6,9 in 10 games

Against 2700+ players, Jakovenko has yet to gain very many rating points - he's basically very good at beating lower rated players, due to his excellent technique. He's like Moro, just with the opposite style.

If we look at the games against 2730+ players in the above, he dropped 9 rating points in 16 games, while his performance against all 35 2700+ opponents he played in those two lists was a little less than 2730 - but that was in two periods where he generally did well!

RussianBear, I don't understand your point here:

Frogbert: "Jakovenko's performance against 2700+ people is around 2725. Put differently, if he'd only played 2700+ people, he'd never passed 2725."

You: "http://members.aon.at/sfischl/pu2700_0509.txt

show you are wrong about Jakovenko under-performing against 2700+ crowd."

but here's the line from the link:
19.Jakovenko,D ... 2718 [Jako's Elo performance]

This seems to support Jako's underperformance rather than refute it. Did I miss something here?

"show you are wrong about Jakovenko under-performing against 2700+ crowd."

What I said was this:

"Jakovenko has a rather non-impressing record against 2700+ players. His gain to 2760 was boosted by beating LOWER RATED players.

Jakovenko's performance against 2700+ people is around 2725. Put differently, if he'd only played 2700+ people, he'd never passed 2725."

Fischl's stats show an even lower number for Jakovenko - 2719 against 2700+ opponents. If you were able to add two and two together, you would've realized that a performance of 2719 doesn't bring one to a rating of 2760. So how did that happen?

What does it take for you to realize that you are wrong about something, Russianbear? Which "elite events" made Jakovenko gain 50 points? The two grand prix events he played in that period?

You tried to make the point that Jakovenko only took a step forwards after being invited to Elite events, while the fact is that he first got his huge 2760 rating, then was invited to several Elite events, and then dropped back to 2730, because he's not good for 2760 against the best players in the world.

You're repeating myths - that everyone wins rating by playing in the top events - while the fact is that some players gain much more rating by player lower-rated players. Examples are Jakovenko, Mamedyarov and Morozevich.

Trying to make fun of me because you think I'm wrong about these numbers is just silly of you. I doubt there are many who has bothered to make the kind of detailed stats about this that I have. And unlike Fischl, who might have incomplete data (as his database is based on TWIC downloads of games), I've based my calculations on the official FIDE numbers, available for download for everyone.

"Participating in a top event can be beneficial for your chess even if you fail to win rating points."

That's true, but how did you try to "prove" that? By showing to his RATING GAIN. You're clever, but not too clever. He did NOT play any elite events in that period, unless you count the two Grand Prix events - and that wasn't what made him jump to 2750+ (or 2760 as it actually was).

Here's what happened to Jakovenko's performance once he _did_ play a number of Elite events (in 2009):

http://members.aon.at/sfischl/cl2009.txt

"regondi, but his performance against under 2700 crowd is even lower."

Hehe. I wrote my previous post before I saw this. You messed up again. Jakovenko was not a 2700+ player in 2005 and 2006. You are using his performance from back then to prove something about his strengths today (or in 2008/2009 if you like).

In 2009, when Jakovenko played all the elite events, his performance was down to 2710. Based on everything he's learned by playing those top players, I assume your next argument is that he will be 2750 again pretty soon. And he might. By beating 2600-players.

"I start to think that maybe your fanboyism is so strong Carlsen's opponents might be missing a rating point or five on your list."

Are you trying to be as dumb and unintelligent as CA?

What on earth does perceived fanboyism has to do with Jakovenko's performance profile?

You're wrong that Jakovenko joined the top 10 and got his 2750+ rating due to elite even invitations. He earned those points PRIOR to getting those invitations, and he did it against NON-elite players. Period.

If I had manipulated the live ratinglist in any thinkable way, then nobody would've paid attention to it. Even you understand that. Which means you're just being incredibly childish.

frogbert,

I refuse to have further discussion on this with a person who fails to understand (or pretends not to understand) the simple distinction between:

"Jakovenko didn't make a jump from around 2700 to 2750+ until he got to play in a couple of elite events."

and

"Jakovenko didn't make a jump from around 2700 to 2750+ until he started playing 2700+ players and gaining points from them specifically".

If the idea of a guy finally getting to play the big guys and improving his chess in the process of preparation for/ and playing in/ such events (without necessarily gaining points against the 2700+ people in/out of such events) is too hard for you to understand, I am sorry I (and you) wasted that much time on this.

"Jakovenko didn't make a jump from around 2700 to 2750+ until he got to play in a couple of elite events."

But this is false no matter which way you choose to look at it. It's simply wrong.

Geeez...

1. 2760-rating
2. Elite-invitations
3. Playing Elite events
4. Rating drop, 2710 performance
5. 2730-rating

He played those darn elite events AFTER his 2760-rating was a fact. You should be happy that I've explained in great detail to you how he in fact managed to get to 2760 in the first place. See it as a bonus - it's not at all necessary to prove your statement false.

"WRONG. I just pointed to Fischl's as evidence he doesn't particularly under-perform against 2700+"

And I've already explained that stats for 2005-2009 for an improving player like Jakovenko shows no such thing. The number you refer to for sub-2700 players is outdated and based on his results in 2005 and 2006 too - quite irrelevant for what he does these days.

And to use your repeated technique: I didn't use the word "under-perform" prior to your post - only compared to a 2760-rating does Jakovenko underperform against 2700+ players.

If you would've understood the basics here, you would understand that if Jako's performance aginst 2700+ players is around 2720, then he must have performed HIGHER than that (recently) in order to get to 2760. Since the 2700+ stats are mostly from 2007-2009, while the sub-2700 stats are from 2005-2009, it should've been really, really easy for you to understand that Fischl's stats don't prove your point - at all.

"I didn't try to "prove" anything."

That's so?

"Jakovenko didn't make a jump from around 2700 to 2750+ until he got to play in a couple of elite events."

So the above sentence doesn't try to imply any relationship between

1) Make a jump from 2700 to 2750+
and
2) Play in a couple of elite events

???

Whether it is prove/show/mention/point to a relationship between 1) and 2) - it's actually what you did: tried to make some argument about a positive effect of playing in elite events. Otherwise it would be no argument for anything at all.

Now, he DID make that jump prior to playing in those elite events in 2009. That's all it takes to prove you wrong.

If you want to deny any other sensible interpretation of what you said and why you said it, then be my guest. The statement still is wrong. It's also meaningless, if you claim that your purpose wasn't to illustrate any positive thing about playing in elite events. I hope you're not in those late phases of denial yet.

"I only brought up those stats because you made it sound like he chokes against 2700+ opposition"

Really. I explicitly said that he performed at around 2725 against 2700+ players. And that he gained his rating points against _other_ players. Both are documentable facts.

If you interpret performing at 2725 as "choking", then fine. That's in your head and not in any of my posts.

"Well, noone does :) The real fans don't even bother with the FIDE rating, let along live rating :)"

Haha. I suppose you're not interested in hearing which Ukrainian 2700+ players I have been in direct contact with via email about the live ratinglist, then. Or Russian, if that's your preference.

I bet there is a group of snotty "fans" who can afford to be agnostic about FIDE ratings, too - but the players whose bread and butter are closely linked to their rating numbers, are probably a little more interested in those numbers than you are.

I can even agree that in certain situations that might even be a shame - but that doesn't change the fact that the top players do care about their ratings. Some more than others, but the interest is generally high. Both Jakovenko and now Gashimov have got their first elite event invitations exactly because of high ratings - no matter how those have been achieved. The same goes for players that have entered the elite events previously, too.

"The connection you are postulating isn't there."

This referred to the concrete rating jump of Jakovenko and playing in a couple elite events. Obviously I agree that playing stronger players is likely to have some positive effect on you as a player.

Regarding "silly" statements, you have probably filled your monthly quota tonight, too.

Sorry I did not read all the posts but from the jism of it poor Sergey has been wronged and needs to contact the Law Offices of Ed Bernstein or Bokoff and Zambler cause they will get the Norwegian Mafia off the chess playing streets and the world will be safe for 12 year old GMS again. I will lite a candle for you Sergey next to the one for Haiti....

What about Radjabov? He played in for example Corus, Linares and Dortmund when he was much younger and lower rated than Carlsen was when he got his first invitation. It seems as if Carlsen has been able to overcome this disadvantage.

Actually 6/9 will get nothing in the Open Section unless you vie for the sectional prizes... under-2400.

So what if he nto lose any game. He nto win tornament. Next he lose to Topalov real bad.

Yeah so he nto lose game he nto win many, who thikn that si godo.