Linares 2010 r4: Steady On

"Aeroflot's website needs more bandwidth!"

Let me offer another observation: Chess organizers shouldn't broadcast games to the world. That's the job of broadcasters or "professional relayers".

Establish a good "organizer to relayer" protocol(*) that is (input-)technology agnostic (well, almost), find a way to have some amount of the organizers' sponsors get (some) visibility through the relayers, and we might get an end to the ridiculous situation where tiny bits of data like CHESS MOVES can't be successfully.

Broadcasting chess games shouldn't be a technical problem at any level - and if the chess community can't find a solution to the minor political/economical issues (sponsors, "broadcast rights", etc.) it's just another example of the amateurism of chess as a sport.

As far as I know, the Semi-Slav proper involves e6 AND c6, Slav proper just c6 (normally followed bd dc and Bf5 etc). So the Slav proper usually involves the bishop appearing at f5 or g4, the Semi-Slav usually at b7. The Meran involves e3 and Bd3 for White, the Anti-Meran is Bg5. The mainline of the Meran involves Bd3 and Black subsequently gaining a tempo with dxc4, so the Qc2 lines (delaying Bd3 and sometimes putting the bishop on e2) are also a kind of anti-Meran, but the real anti-Meran is the Bg5 line (one can argue it is the most ambitious system vs the Semi-Slav), which can be answered by h6 (Moscow variation, favoured by Anand among others, White can capture on f6 (positional option) or retreat to h4 (very sharp tactical option)), and the Botvinnik system dc. Alternatives for Black after Bg5 are transposing to the QGD Orthodox or Cambridge Springs, but this is already a kind of concession since the play is not as sharp as the Meran lines. Hope that helped. Any inaccuracies please correct, someone.

Thanks! One thing that's a bit confusing re: the nomenclature is that you'd think that "Anti-Meran" would be something that Black would play, not White, if as you say the Meran proper is a White system, i.e., with Bd3...or is the Meran the fact that Black gains a tempo by playing ...
dc after White's Bd3? (in other words, Black's playing the Meran, not White) Also, I'd think that in just about all lines of the "true" Slav, Black eventually plays ...e6 at some point, no?! (though I suppose there are a few lines where he plays ...e5 or doesn't move the KP in the opening at all, rather fianchettoing the KB) So does the timing of ...e6 determine if the opening's called a Semi-Slav? Or the QB being outside the pawn-chain before Black plays ...e6? Anyway, thanks again; it does clarify some stuff...

Yes, as chesshire cat already pointed out, the position of black's light-squared bishop makes the difference. Another way to explain or define things would be: anything that did, or could have transposed from the Orthodox Queen's Gambit (e.g. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6) is a Semi-Slav. This move order is often chosen when black must win, and white needs only a draw - because under the circumstances 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6?! could run into 3.cd5:! favoring white in the given tournament situation.

BTW, after Bg5 (anti-Meran) h6 we only enter the Moscow variation if white captures the Nf6 - the alternative Bh4 is called the anti-Moscow gambit, this variation doesn't have its own city (though Mexico variation could make sense because it was extensively tested at the Mexico WCh).

Finally, maybe the most popular proper Slav line where black plays -e5 immediately is 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 dc4: 5.a4 Bf5 6.Ne5 Nbd7 7.Nc4 Qc7 8.g3 e5 (here we go), usually continuing 9.de5: Ne5: 10.Bf4 Nfd7 11.Bg2 g5!? ("Morozevich variation"!?).

"I´m not sure if this guy [Topalov] understands that he is not entirely responsable for the fun in this event."
Whatever the evaluation of 21.Nf5 is, Gashimov also had fun today - showing that the Benoni isn't that bad, or at least good enough to beat Vallejo with black (something Topalov and Aronian hadn't managed).

British fan, please don't post the same at multiple forums(e.g. here and Chessvibes) - it's not the first time you've done it. "I can't wait to read your opinions" also grates. Just say what you want to say and others will respond naturally. I can't believe anyone's actually that excited about the views of readers at either Chessvibes or here :)

Andrew Martin´s dvd on the Benoni is quite entertaining , at least for patzers like me , take a look at it if you can.

I always like the idea of yet another new chess star, especially from an untypical chess power, such as Vietnam. However, I feel it is way too early to declare Mr. Liem as the next star. Remember when Zhang Zhong cleaned up at Corus a few years ago? His rating flew up there and then we haven't heard squat about him since. His subsequent performances have proven to be remarkably pedestrian. Oh well!

I probably won't buy the CD (as the Benoni isn't part of my own repertoire, and unlikely to ever become), but the point I wanted to make is: maybe the Benoni isn't that bad after all, and Kasparov isn't always right just because he is Kasparov? Gashimov plays it all the time (IMO one reason why he is a welcome addition to the world top), Topalov plays it occasionally, even Kramnik picked it up in his WCh match against Leko in a must-win situation with black (and reached a better rook ending which he couldn't convert). I wrote "even Kramnik" because I think he wouldn't ever play an opening which he considers inferior [at least the Kramnik of a few years ago wouldn't].

Point taken, but IMO, two firsts in the strongest Russian Opens (and he beat some strong players too, not rabbits or middling GMs) beats being first in Corus B at a time when Corus B wasn't even the tournament it is today.

At the top level it seems to be very much alive for the moment , so it is hard to believe Kasparov´s assesment.

BTW , what a great game Topalov-Grishuk!!
One of the best of the year,at least in terms of tension and excitement , i guess the fighting spirit cares little about forthcoming matches.

I agree that the Topalov-Grischuk game today was incredible. Topalov had an objectively lost game, but he kept enough things going to create all kinds of tension and problems for Grischuk to think about. Against a computer, Topalov would have failed miserably in this game, but he's not playing a computer, he's playing a human being who can't help but be handicapped by time pressure and the fact that he has a won game but how to best go about converting it. All hail to Topalov for what he did today -- hanging on by his fingernails to the edge of the precipice and actually getting himself on firm ground and pushing his opponent over the cliff. Wow, what a display of nerves!!

Thanks a lot!
I find it rather unpleasant (but completely unsurprising) that Kasparov is not willing to look at his opponent when resigning or conceding a draw.

An additional question, can I find the games anywhere without major effort? (I don't have a huge database.)

www.chessgames.com Is this what you had in mind?

Yes, thank you!

I'm not sure about the great psychology - when Grischuk played quickly after the sacrifice, including the very nice ...a5 allowing ...Ra6, I got the impression that in a way he'd tricked Topalov into a dubious line (knowing that Topalov would try to exploit his time problems). If he'd played 27...Kh7 instead of 27...Kg7 then he'd probably have found the other moves as he went along (though I can imagine that allowing lines with Rxh6 as check isn't to be taken likely). As it was it was funny that he managed to make consecutive "blunders" (according to the computer) twice, moves 27,28 & 31, 32, but still had a drawn position! Ironically the near decisive mistake 43...Qd6 instead of ...Qd4 was made when he wasn't really in time trouble.

That said - I agree that time trouble is what's preventing Grischuk becoming a top 5 (or 6) player. He acknowledges the same himself. In his conference interview on Crestbook he was asked by a few members about time trouble and said: http://www.crestbook.com/?q=node/1087

Yes I've tried everything to fight it, but nothing helps. Of course I consider it a flaw. And, by the way, as people are always asking me about time trouble and there's essentially nothing I can say in response, I've long wanted to cite the Yekaterinburg rapper Ak-47:

Мама говорит
Это все план тормозит
Слышь, Малыш,
В меру потребляй гашиш!

(not sure about a translation! But without the rhymes something like:
Mum says
It's the plan that slows everything down
Listen, Kid,
Use hashish in moderation!)

In fairness to Giri, your quote seems to be a wrong (or exaggerated) editorial summary, his own words were merely
"I felt Vallejo was better at some point, but with some energetic play e.g. 19...b5!, 21...Rb4! Gashimov made it tricky enough to fool his opponent. Vallejo missed several opportunities to keep the game level, and in the arising endgame the connected a and b-pawns were unstoppable."

This is in line with what others wrote about opening and game:

"Against Vallejo, Gashimov was confident enough to go for the Benoni again, and it’s really amazing how the grandmaster from Azerbaijan keeps on surviving, and even winning these positions that are actually just better for White. He just knows them very well and has a great sense of timing and counterchances, like his compatriot Radjabov in the King’s Indian. Moves like 19.Nb6 or 20.Ncd2 should be better for White, and 26.Qxc8 was a clear misjudgement of Black’s play on the queenside." [Peter Doggers, Chessvibes]

"Vallejo - Gashimov saw the third Benoni of the tournament - the second from Gashimov - and once again White seemed to gain the upper hand from the opening. Once again, though, Gashimov did a better job of handling the middlegame, and Vallejo seemed to self-destruct in time pressure, going from better to having dead equality if he wanted it to completely lost, and all before the first time control." [Dennis Monokroussos, Chessmind - details can be found in his game analysis]

Either these statements are correct, or noone - but Gashimov - really understands the Benoni!?

"Le Quang Liem – a new star in the Vietnam sky
18.02.2010 ...

Do you guys agree with Chessbase that he is "a new name to be reckoned with at the highest echelons of chess" or do you think he'll just be another very good player such as Motylev, Alexander, Rublevsky, Sergei, or Nielsen, Peter Heine? I can't wait to read your opinions."
*****************************************
New star or not, who is he? ChessBase gave several of his games from Aeroflot, but not one word about his life. I didn't even know Vietnamese played chess. How did they get two -- maybe more, I just know -- grandmasters?

Thomas,
The analysis of Dennis Monokroussos is flawed.
In the variation of 19. Nb6, black has 22. ..Rxf3 at the end (gf, Qg5, Kf1 Qh4)

"Sorry to hijack the thread, but I thought everyone would enjoy watching three new Kasparov videos on youtube--a great little documentary on his clock simul with American juniors in 1988. His dressing down of Danny Edelman ont he second video is both cringe-worthy and classic Kasparov."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgHBFgyhGvg

**************
Three fascinating videos. Thank you for calling them to our attention. I thought Reshevsky had been a bad sport during his simuls, but Kasparov makes him look angelic by comparison.

I don't know the details, but apparently a Russian IM, Anatoli Shvedchikov, has been working with the Vietnamese for 10 years now - http://tinyurl.com/ycaok4e (also in a photo here http://tinyurl.com/yzhane2).

Bareev mentioned in a recent interview that he was in Vietnam over the summer working with "the Vietnamese Carlsen, Le Quang Liem". So apart from the internet they've also had some old school training.

This looks scary - I would say for both sides. At the end of your line, did you analyze white's counter 25.Re5:!? - with ideas such as d6+ and d7, on -c4 Qb7:, on -Qh3:+ Ke2 to take over the g-file. I didn't go very deep, and I am one of those old-fashioned people who still don't have an engine ... .

I think I saw the idea of an early -g5 and -h5 in the English opening just recently in a supertournament, but don't remember when and where. Can anybody tell me which game I am referring to? ,:)

Well spotted! (& Thomas) http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1569889

Thanks! I was just about to search myself - players like Shirov, Ivanchuk or Morozevich would have been the usual suspects. Today, Topalov deviated from that game on move 11.

But keeping things double-edged in time trouble has the predictable result - you'd have thought he might have learnt from yesterday. 31(or 32)...Qb4, holding the g4 pawn, preventing Be4 and opening the path for the a pawn wasn't the trickiest move to find, surely? Lol, add 33...Qb4!

2 min+ on Chessok - I hope that's correct! Or Vallejo needs some premoving...

My information was from live coverage on the tournament homepage - 00:00:00 after move 40, for the time being it is unclear if Vallejo flagged or resigned (after blundering a whole rook on move 38). Tragic end for the Spaniard, and a strange way for Topalov to (probably) overtake Carlsen on the live rating list.

The music is by one of my favorite contemporary composers, Arvo Part. Provides great mood to the footage.

Thank you, mishanp! The conference with Grischuk is very interesting and amusing reading. It's probably better to know Russian, but there is always Google translator (getting better and better). I kind of speak Russian, but what is this "Мона-мона" in reference to Carlsen? Thanks!

Hmmm, it may be great news once it's confirmed news - but for the time being it's old news or no news. Danailov has been talking about new Grand Slam events in Argentina and USA (Seattle?) for the last two years, so far nothing happened.

His "opinion" regarding Romania (Bazna) seems to deviate from the official Grand Slam association press release:
http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/grand-slam-dates-announced-masters-final-in-shanghai-and-bilbao/ (from 7 February this year):
"This month the Kings Tournament in Bazna will decide whether they’ll be part of the Grand Slam" (this reads like "all the Romanians have to do is say yes"!?)

London already said yes but is put on hold, and it would really surprise me if the Tal Memorial is interested to become part of Danailov's Grand Slam. Of course it may be an issue for Danailov that Kramnik did well in both events ... .

One have to praise Paco´s fighting spirit when he chose to avoid castling with so little time on his clock , i hope he recovers quickly from this 2 losses.

Wow Jim from Sudbury - That's quite a turn around from your comments on the last post!!!

Jim from Sudbury, MA replied to comment from noyb | February 16, 2010 7:00 PM | Reply

How has his play looked uneven? Seems to me Topalov has been playing enterprising chess.

Jim from Sudbury, MA | February 19, 2010 4:07 PM

Wow, for the second day in a row, Topalov got a highly dubious position which was compensated for by his opponent's awful time trouble.

I smell a certain "shoot-from-the-lip" mentality here... lol.

Not a turn around at all and definitely not a "shoot from the hip mentality"... This is how Topalov plays. He's very willing to fight in a do-or-die situation and he's not afraid to lose. He throws whatever he has at his opponent to complicate things. It doesn't matter if it's all that sound or not, what really matters is that his opponent thinks and thinks and thinks, and anything to put pressure on his opponent is good. It's no small coincidence that Grischuk and Vallejo both broke down in time trouble vs. Topalov, something they would less of a problem against most any other opponent. Yes, compared to some player like Kramnik, Topalov's play looks unsteady, but that's his style. He is an extraordinarily dangerous opponent.

Lobster,

Maybe maybe you only visit a few websites that cover the same news. Le Quang has been a promising talent a long time. He seems more focused on chess than Truongson who is also a great talent.

Asian chess has gotten under the radar of the chess world. China and India are recognized, but not Vietnam and the Philippines. These two nations have immensely talented players. Philippines has always had a knack for producing good talent with such a small community.

¨it would really surprise me if the Tal Memorial is interested to become part of Danailov's Grand Slam.¨

Well, they are mentioned as mere ¨candidates¨ to the Grand Slam , im sure that in the case that such ¨accusations¨ were untrue they would clarify them inmediately , but until then i am afraid that i´ll stick to the GS announcement ...
The expansion of the Grand Slam is indeed great news , entering the ¨i hate Silvio¨ deep denial state of mind wont change anything.

Thanks. I'm always glad to be educated. ... I visit a number of websites, but none has covered chess in Vietnam. As you say, Asian chess is developing under the radar.

No... it's not your fault. Regions outside of Europe and North America. are rarely covered. So you'd have to seek other regions out on specific sites and hope they are English-based. It's unfortunate, but it will change in about 5-10 years.

No... it's not your fault. Regions outside of Europe and North America are rarely covered. So you'd have to seek other regions out on specific sites and hope they are English-based. It's unfortunate, but it will change in about 5-10 years.

First, it is not clear whether the Chessdom piece is really a "GS announcement" rather than a Danailov press release that wasn't coordinated with the other team members. After all, it differs from the earlier report on Chessvibes, based on information from (Corus tournament director and) GS "Spokesman" Jeroen van den Berg - Danailov is "Executive Director". I think everyone, also neutral observers and Danailov fans, must agree that van den Berg is a less controversial figure!?

Next, it is worthwhile reading the entire report on Chessdom, not just the first paragraph. Later on it says "The other two tournaments have mostly been rummored [sic] about - the Bazna Kings in Romania and the Tal Memorial in Russia. Both have had very strong editions last year, and are supposed to repeat the success in 2010 and 2011, thus making another step towards entering GSCA."
Hmm, always odd to mention "rumors" without giving their source, it may well be Danailov himself!? Also odd that Bazna and Tal Memorial would first need to prove themselves for another two years, while Nanjing was admitted immediately - so would San Luis and Seattle, provided they actually take place!?

Finally, there was a precedent: In an early stage, there were "rumors" that Dortmund might join the Grand Slam - Dortmund denied that they were even interested only when a journalist directly asked them (pointed out by mishanp here who is better than me in finding back some dated sources). It could well be the same story with Tal Memorial, why should they bother to react immediately to a piece on an IMO slightly obscure webpage? [Chessdom is notoriously pro-Danailov and pro-Topalov, by implication at times anti-Russian]
From a PR or propaganda point of view it may sound better to suggest that "Tal Memorial wants to join, but we [or rather I, Danailov] don't want them (yet)", instead of "Tal Memorial wants to remain independent and doesn't want to join the GS". It would still be plausible that the second version is closer to the truth ... .

"But will he once again unexpectedly lose the following WC match?"

Please see your doctor.

"I kind of speak Russian, but what is this "Мона-мона" in reference to Carlsen?"

I also only "kind of" speak Russian! I assume it's a slangish version of "можна-можна", so here meaning "yes, of course" [you can still compete with Carlsen]. But maybe a Russian native speaker can say how it's actually used?

"Philippines has always had a knack for producing good talent with such a small community."

92 million people isn't that small, surely!?

There's a Russian interview with Liem here: http://chessmoscow.ru/index.php?topicID=2

He says he's been working with Bareev for around a year now and owes a lot of his success to him (no mention of Svedchikov). I've seen some mentioning Liem's record online - he comments:

"I play at the ICC and on Playchess. I try not to spend a lot of time there - I don't think you can improve your level by playing blitz. For me it's relaxation, I log in to play a few blitz games only when I've got free time".

"First, it is not clear whether the Chessdom piece is really a "GS announcement" rather than a Danailov press release that wasn't coordinated with the other team members. "

Deep denial , pure speculation with no proof whatsoever , it is indeed a GS announcement Thomas , you may be the first person to question its signature .
I never heard the rumors about Dortmud being a candidate , was it published in a chess site?

He could even still win on time... you do wonder if Danailov's standing in the background setting light to the other player's contract for future Grand Slam events. That or voodoo :)

It isn't "proof" (in any case, I won't convince you), but Danailov's statements - first published in a Bulgarian newspaper, then picked up by Chessdom - deviate considerably from the Chessvibes report I mentioned. Most notably (I have to repeat myself): Jeroen van den Berg said that Bazna is free to join and only has to say yes, now Danailov says that maybe it could join in 2011, but his preference goes to so far non-existing events in Argentina and USA. And the earlier release followed on a meeting of the entire Grand Slam board during Corus ... .

Regarding Dortmund's candidature (or maybe rather the Grand Slam wanting Dortmund, but not the other way around), it was at Chessvibes March 10,2007 - back then still bilingual Dutch-English:
http://tiny.cc/XMqh0
"The Grand Slam will initially be comprised of four tournaments (Corus, Linares, MTel, and one to be determined), but the GSCA is open to new tournaments. E.g. two from Mexico will propose to join, Dortmund, a tournament from Russia, may also be considered."

¨Dortmund, a tournament from Russia, may also be considered."¨
Shouldnt be: ¨ Dortmund , a tournament from Germany ¨ or ¨Dortmund AND a tournament from Russia¨ , in any case it looks more like a missprint and nothing indicates that it wasn´t the other way around (Dortmund interested , GS looking for a better tournament) ...

¨It isn't "proof" (in any case, I won't convince you)¨
That´s right , your biased speculations on the GS announcement wont convince me for now .

We'll see. Right now, I'm rating Topalov a slight favorite based on recent results and rating. Both players have had some difficulties playing matches in the past; both are extremely strong both dynamically and technically. As far as Anand being a notch above the competition: Aronian is no pushover. In fact, he "owns" Anand. We'll have to see how Topa fares as white against Aronian. Anyway, these are three of the most exciting players around today.

I hope that you are wrong in yours vain hopes.

I believe we'd had this topic here before. About 100000 times. But heck, same with most topics.
I'm liking the look of Topalov's position-maybe we'll see a point without any "dodgy" moves? :)
Vallejo's vicious assault came to nothing, whereas Gashimov once again has a positional disadvantage with only a slight current of counterplay...but that's all he's needed before!! May he prevail and may the Benoni rise from the ashes..

The Bilbao rules are indeed vital for the future of chess.

Nope - this playing purely on time makes sense if your opponent's on top but it leaves you looking a bit foolish when you miss a fairly simple win with 40 minutes on the clock. You can of course defend it as a calculated gamble, just as long as no-one comes along here and claims it was just inevitable that Topalov's Super-GM opponent would miss all the chances. Mentioning no trolls :)

No, he didn't... The position is practically crying out for such a move. Instead, Topalov played a safe and stupid move which allowed Aronian to draw the game easily. And it wasn't time trouble that caused Topalov to miss the move as he had around 40 minutes to make time control. It's a chess sin not to have seen a move like this and I'm sure Topalov, right about now, is kicking himself for missing such a beautiful move. According to the live chess ratings, Topalov is the best chess player in the world, but missing something like Rxe4 makes you wonder. It almost goes without saying that the great classical world champions of the past would have have sensed the potential of Rxe4 right away and, after a short think, would have played it.

Re: "Aronian is no pushover. In fact, he "owns" Anand" - perhaps, but remember when Spassky owned" Fischer before their '72 match? And, I believe, Capablanca "owned" Alekhine before their match as well; and in both cases the underdog was the winner. Methinks it would be the same in an Anand-Aronian match...

You seem to know all about it...
"a better player than Sasha" : he's number 6 in the world; a better player could have seen it, but a lesser player also.
Sometimes grandmasters screw up, it depends on circumstances, time,...
"but Topalov knew" : bull**it, he didn't know it, it was just an unsound sacrifice, it could have turned out differently
"who should be blamed for it ?" : nobody is blaming or attacking Topalov, there's just some
mild irony in the interview with Khismatullin...
"i wonder why he didn't prepare Grischuk for it" :
you seem to think seconds are clairvoyants.
When Khismatullin says "i didn't even doubt he would play 21.Nxf5" he more than probably describes what he was thinking when he was following the game; seconds only very rarely predict only very rarely the opponent's moves until move 21 !
But nevertheless, keep on barking, watch-dog !

The "great classical world champions" of the past made plenty of mistakes and blunders. I don't think a single oversight reveals anything about Topalov's chess intuition, or lack thereof. It's possible this is a result of Topalov's playing style, which is to keep a lot of time on the clock for the ensuing complications. It works well enough for him.

Agreed. When Grischuk's second mentions knowing he'd play the move I'm sure he means when they got close to the position. The live commentator on Chesspro also thought the idea of Qb2 might be a knight sacrifice on f5 or d5 - even if he did describe the sacs as "not dangerous" :)

Grischuk probably saw it as well considering how quickly he played the next few moves - but he'd already used a lot of time by then and was clearly out of preparation. To be fair to Topalov I think it was actually a sound sac (just not the best move), but surprisingly white had to play more accurately than black to prove it (I doubt Topalov had seen how tricky ...a5 & Ra6 make things for white). The computer's calm Kb1, Qc1 plan is hard for a human to play a piece down - so instead Grischuk quickly got an almost decisive edge and only needed to play a couple of good moves. More often than not you'd expect him to find them.

Of course when it comes to the Anand match Topalov's unlikely to try and beat his opponent on time, and he'll have some very deep preparation ready. So probably Linares isn't much of an indication of anything.

About his next game with Grishuk he said that he was not worried , but not in the terminator sense , he added something like any of the 3 possible results wouldn t change much for him.

Re: "Aronian is no pushover. In fact, he "owns" Anand" - perhaps, but remember when Spassky owned" Fischer before their '72 match? And, I believe, Capablanca "owned" Alekhine before their match as well; and in both cases the underdog was the winner. Methinks it would be the same in an Anand-Aronian match...

-- Not at all. Anand used to "own" Magnus, but no more. Aronian's dominance over Anand has manifested over the last eight decisive games played between the two of them (if you include rapid and blindfold as well as classical.) This is a recent domination. Looks like the trend is in Aronian's favor, and not Anand's!

let us pray together for Topalov to be massacred by Anand.

Yes, all the past classical world champions made mistakes, but I doubt a Tal or a Morphy would have missed Rxe4 -- it's really not that deep, especially when the Black King was so open to checks. To play Bb3 in its place seems very odd and, as he said, is a move that reveals more about Topalov's sense of disappointment than his actual chess skill. His emotions clouded his ability to analyze at a level worthy of him. I don't think Anand will miss the meaning of all this...

i am, however, confused as to why Topalov was disappointed in his paly vs Aronian. Aronian was doing everything he could to obtain a lost game and many of Topalov's moves were right on target. I don't really see anywhere Topalov could have been disappointed in his play until, of course, his boner of move Bb3. Why was he disappointed in his play in this game before that move?

I was asking myself the same question , his play before that was almost perfect . Maybe he got disappointed because of that very move and mixed the explanation (or it was me who mixed it ,although i think i heard him quite well) , because he was also asked about the possible 40 c4 and some other moves by Leontxo at the same time , it was almost the first thing they asked him.
I remind you that he was dragged to the interview few minutes after signing the draw so i guess it was still an emotional moment.

misanp,

I'm referring to the small chess community.

"I wonder how many of those posting about Topalov not playing Re4 would actually have found it themselves in a tournament game?"

I always find the relevance of this kind of comment quite limited. Most of us are not nearly as strong as Topalov, so we can't be expected to see the same things as he should. But, I also agree with rennokie; of course everyone makes mistakes. The way people tend to romanticize the great players of the past probably has a lot do to with selective bias - it's not their mediocre-to-bad games we remember, it's their good-to-great ones. The other ones just get forgotten, while today we sit and watch every single top game live with engines running.

I honestly didn't understand it even after being told it wins on the spot. I had to look at it for a solid two minutes before I finally understood why it wins. I know its sad to admit this but thats the truth. The honest to god answer is most people are engine whores. They sit and when they see their computer say something is winning... they are all too ready to call X player a retard for not playing it. With all that said though... I would expect most grandmasters to find that move easily.

I readily admit to romanticizing a bit about the great players of the past and about how truly great some of them were. While it's true each one of them overlooked good moves in good positions, it is still difficult for me to believe that, with 40 minutes remaining to make 14 moves, players like Kasparov, Fischer, Tal, or Alekhine, to name several, would be blind to such a move. Besides, with the unimpeded progress he was making, Topalov had every reason to feel confident about his play in this game vs. that of Aronian. I guess only Topalov knows the answer, Maybe he just lost his concentration and went on a thought break.

Jim, more likely than not they would have seen it and played it.

But if it had been for instance a patzer like me missing it, then we could have said that Topalov would likely have seen it if he had my position, and we would have been equally right.

He missed it now, but he usually sees such things - just like Kasparov and others usually saw such things but sometimes missed them.

Im not sure about it , but isnt that study a little bit old by now?
Im not sure Kramnik's play remains so error-free these days , at least the study doesnt seem to include this:
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3509
:)

Huh?...did you read the Abstract Greg?....specific account was taken of positional vs tactical players. The full paper goes into this in much more detail.

What surprised me was Fischer's middling position given the widely held view of his "computer-like" accuracy eg Petrosian's comments.

Like it or not, nit-picking or otherwise, this study suggests Kramnik's accuracy is up there with the legendary Capablanca....and there is quite a bit of daylight to the rest of the pack of world champions.

Keep in mind that the study examined just games in their world championship matches....

Hi Manu! punto que?....the Abstract clearly states that world champioship games were the object of the study...ie the chips are down, the money's on, no more "what ifs", no more woulda-coulda-shoulda, this is the big one....

I know , the question is if that study includes his match with Anand , does it?

Hi Manu! Huh?...the link you drew my attention to is a Kramnik - Deep Fritz match, nothing at all to do with world championship games which were the study games set.

If you haven't seen the original paper see the author's write up:
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3455

The study was published circa 2006, cannot of course include the 2008 WC match.

Unless you claim a recent sudden and drastic fall in Kramnik's ability then the study's outcomes regarding Kramnik are intact.

BTW, the study found Kramnik's victory over Kasparov rated as the best ever play in a world title match in terms of accuracy, surpassing even Capa's best.
Also, Kramnik rated alongside Fischer and Alekhine as the world champions who were most able to consistently find the best moves in their title games.

I thought the main criticisms against this study were

1) The choice of Crafty (Crafty ?!?) as the judge of good and bad moves.

[For a seemingly more long-standing effort along the same lines, refer to the work of chessgames.com user nimh, see

a) http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessuser?uname=nimh - paragraph starting with "I'm currently doing an analysis study ..."

b) http://web.zone.ee/chessanalysis/summary450.pdf

Engines Rybka 3 and Stockfish 14 are used]

2) How the "difficulty" [complexity] of the games were analysed

There are dozens of discussions sprinkled throughout cg.com about the pros and cons of nimh's approach compared to that of Bratko & Guid.

Hi frogbert!
The authors anticipated some of your concerns, and others, in their discussions within the paper including whether different engines would have made a difference. They also looked at the question of the opening moves in the light of changes to opening theory over time and to questions of "complexity" of positions faced by different players.
IIRC Steinitz, in the authors methodolgy, faced the most complex positions which would go some way to explaining his error rate being the worst.

OTOH Capa steered towards "simple" positions where the more obvious (at world champ level anyway!) tactical errors were lessened. Kramnik of course does this too though of late he seems to be moving to a more proactive stance esp with black.

Are you claiming Capa's and Kramnik's error rate would be much worse vis-a-vis other world champions if different engines were used as the benchmark?

You write Crafty(?!?).
I haven't spoken with the authors but the use of Crafty could be due to this proggie of Dr Hyatt's being free and open source hence the code and associated evaluations should be quite transparent. Commercially secret code or "black box" solutions may make scientific scrutineers nervous.

The first Google link threw up
http://www.taccl.org/ACCAChampionships/ACCA2009Championships/2009ACCCResults.html
Sure enough Rybka won the event, Crafty was second a point behind. In their individual encounter Rybka had white but only managed a draw so Crafty(?!?) can't be too big a duffer even though the scoretable has Rybka rated at a stellar 2813 and Crafty at a lowly 2692.

Hi Manu!

"No they are not ¨intact¨, if the study includes only games in WCH matches then it should also count the one Kramnik lost ..."

Huh?....you wanted them to include matches that had not yet been played....Duh!

"Of course i claim a ¨recent sudden and drastic fall of Kramnik´s abilities ¨ at least according to the standars of the study you presented."

Huh?....based on what?

"Kramnik went from winning to losing so i guess the numbers would be quite different if that somehow dubious analisys were up to date , hence the point of my question..."

The study showed Kramnik has played many world title games with moves of consistently high accuracy, an accuracy rate matched only by Capablanca. I suspect his recent losses to Anand would have little effect on his overall accuracy rate unless you could point to a large number of inaccurate moves in this match.
I will hold to that until I see contrary evidence.

Hi frogbert!
Thx for those links....interesting stuff.

When asked if he was going to present his study to the ICGA coference the discussion suggests this work may get peer review which I like.

Some comments like:
"Discussion on methods how to eliminate bias towards positional players."

and

"Curiously many people have measured occurrencies of engine's choices and moves actually played as if the best move matter in every position. My data suggests that about more than a half of positions it is totally irrelevant. I also hope after I've completed the current study I have enough experience to be in position to point out rights and wrongs in Bratko & Guid's work. :)"

suggest he has not yet got as far as the study I mentioned?

¨(Manu)"No they are not ¨intact¨, if the study includes only games in WCH matches then it should also count the one Kramnik lost ..."

(Dysgraph) Huh?....you wanted them to include matches that had not yet been played....Duh!¨

I´ve seen many holocaust deniers in my life , but you are the first Bonn denier i met...:)
That´s the point!, the study is out to date and should not be presented as evidence of Kramnik being in the same cathegory as Capa until update ...

¨(Manu)"Of course i claim a ¨recent sudden and drastic fall of Kramnik´s abilities ¨ at least according to the standars of the study you presented."

(dysgraph)Huh?....based on what?¨

Based on the fact that your study compares ALL the games in WCH matches , except for Kramnik who has the benefit of his loss in Bonn not being included , meaning that the study favours Kramnik by ignoring the match he lost (and the consequent decrease on his level of play acording to that criteria) .
I don´t mean no disrespect but adding lots of Huhs & Duhs to your statements is not helping you look any clever.
Just a thought , lets not start a war over this , if you want to believe that Kramnik´s play is as flawless as Capa´s go ahead with my blessings.
Another idea would be for you to post the same study 4 years ago when it (sort of ,but not really , nevermind) mattered.
;)

"I suspect his recent losses to Anand would have little effect on his overall accuracy rate unless you could point to a large number of inaccurate moves in this match."

Yep, I think that's probably right. Even the losses tended to be one or two clear blunders surrounded by a lot of good moves - nothing like the "mad" [Topalov's word] blunderfests of games like Topalov-Grischuk or Topalov-Vallejo. Of course that's not to say there aren't a lot of flaws to the study, especially only counting the title matches. I wonder if the unimpressive showing from Fischer isn't just because the Spassky match wasn't actually his finest hour in purely chess terms. Kramnik in his interview about the World Champions said that it was one of the few matches where the final score didn't really reflect the balance of play.

Manu!....try a little more bran in your diet...it will help to free up your thinking...

"Blah , blah , blah ,show me the updated results of the study then and we will see how different or similar the results are , there is no need for speculations here."

Why demand the peer reviewed study of two scientists be "updated" as you say....a lot of effort and expense no doubt for others.

Any "updated" study would merely lead to a further round of inane nitpicking anyway... when all you have to do is publish the inaccurate moves of Kramnik in his match v Anand....you do already have the list?....or are you just a pretender?
Ensure you follow the provisos re opening moves and evaluation cut-offs of the study then simply add up your list of "inaccuracies".....hardly a few minutes work and you have your answer in front of you no need for idle speculation.
If Kramnik's ratio in the Bonn match markedly exceeds that of his error ratio in the study, that is 0.1058, then your case is proved otherwise all you have for your comfort-rug is your "blah , blah , blah".

You wrote:

"I´ve seen many holocaust deniers in my life , but you are the first Bonn denier i met...:)"

I will let this further inanity go through to the catcher.

Hi mishanp!
Yes, you make some valid points.
I guess any study has time/cost/resources limitations. World championship matches are, I agree, a restrictive dataset. However including other games may not necessarily be improvement eg likely contenders may avoid disclosing strong novelties in lead up matches preferring less inaccurate moves....this may well have been the case in all/most past WC matches(?).

The work in progress mentioned by frogbert is much more extensive and it will be interesting to see its conclusions.
The point you make regarding Fischer's title match makes sense...his lead up Candidates demolition jobs were remarkable.

Hi Thomas!

"2) On the other hand, it is based on several methods and assumptions - certainly explained in detail in the full paper or book (chapter?). Which reviewer would really be competent? He/she would need to have a strong background in both chess (minimum ELO 2400!?) and computer science!?"

In peer review it is common to assign a different reviewer to each specialized area so chess-related claims would go to a chess expert, computer science to a similar specialist.
Peer review is not perfect but the alternative is.....?

"There are no error bars on the average errors, or any other data given in the Chessbase summary."

A useful point. The editor's hand?

"Giving four digits behind the decimal point implies that the results are VERY accurate (at least the authors think so), is this really the case? If the actual values for Kramnik and Karpov would be 0.106+-0.015 and 0.128+-0.015, Vlad would no longer be "clearly in a class of his own".

Most likely the values were merely Crafty's output or derived therefrom?
The normal assumption in science is that when significant figures are quoted as here then we follow convention unless the authors declare otherwise. I would have liked some discussion in the text of this or, as you comment error bars, ..... but editors can be editors!!

"My secondary (and somewhat unfair) criticism might be that the database is limited to world championship matches - for practical reasons, dozens of games are more manageable than hundreds or thousands."

Dozens of games?
The paper says a total of 1397 games and approx 37000 poitions were examined. 36 computers running for 10 days were used to do the analysis.

I think the sampling of random players of a given strength category (modern 2700, modern 2500, modern 2300 etc) makes an interesting frame of reference in nimh's approach.

Nimh also has focused on the career peeks (according to Chessmetrics) of each player - the point of his approach is to compare "quality/strength" across eras. Hence, the tendencies between eras are more important to him than between individual players.

Hi dysgraphia,
Based on some own experience (as author and reviewer) I agree that peer review is imperfect, but don't see a better alternative. In any case, other peers retain the right to discuss and criticize work of others, even if it is published in the peer-reviewed literature - peer review can only (hopefully!) exclude flawed, insignificant or duplicate work.
One general problem is that reviewers are unpaid volunteers with limited time, who have to do their job next to many other obligations - including writing their own manuscripts. Not every reviewer is equally thorough and critical, while remaining fair and constructive ... .
At least to some extent, such random effects are minimized by sending a manuscript to several reviewers (usually two or three, sometimes more). In the given case, I would argue that one and the same person needs to have at least some knowledge about both chess and computer science. The key issue is the "method to assess the difficulty of positions", IMO a reviewer would need to address the following questions:
- Does their method make sense, BOTH from a chessic point of view and regarding how it is implemented?
- Would other approaches also make sense, but lead to different final results? Is this discussed, and is the final choice properly motivated, explained and defended?
- Can we rule out that the authors are "Kramnik fanboys" who either pre-tuned their approach or, among several possible ones, subjectively/ arbitrarily chose the one which yields the best score for Kramnik? [says someone who might himself be considered a Kramnik fanboy ...]

Another possibility would be that two reviewers, a chess expert and a computer scientist, discuss things together. But I never even knew the names of other reviewers, and formally a reviewer is not at all allowed to show an unpublished manuscript to colleagues (as it is confidential until publication).
In the given case, it might have made sense to send the manuscript also to non-academic (read: not working at a research institution) chess experts such as "Professor Gelfand", Mig Greengard or Hans-Arild Runde? There are certainly also academic chess experts (Kenneth Regan is one name coming to my mind), would an editor know them and find them?

More briefly on the two other issues:
- I don't know how much an editor (this particular one) interfers, in any case it remains the authors' choice and responsibility to give four significant (!?) digits.
- "Dozens of games" referred to 'per person', e.g. for Kramnik it may be based on 29 games (15 against Kasparov, 14 against Leko - his matches against Topalov and Anand weren't included). Or does it also include candidates matches? Even then the database would be "expandable" regarding both number of games and number of strong opponents.

Hi frogbert!
Thx for your comments....always an interesting read. A little off topic but do you have any figures as to the statistical significance of rating differences over different rating bands?

I have read that "small" differences in rating are insignificant with "small" sometimes being quoted around 30 points. If this is roughly correct it seems FIDE's (and others) obsession with very small point differences is misplaced.
A simple ranking list would make more sense with players separated by statistically insignificant rating points placed at the same rank.

Hi Thomas!
Thx for an interesting reply!
I am involved a little on the SciFraud list and from time to time some egregious examples of the failure of the peer review process arise but of course this process is still the best. Editors of prestigious journals like Nature are not spared either, some coming in for a severe spanking at times.

" - "Dozens of games" referred to 'per person', e.g. for Kramnik it may be based on 29 games (15 against Kasparov, 14 against Leko - his matches against Topalov and Anand weren't included). Or does it also include candidates matches? Even then the database would be "expandable" regarding both number of games and number of strong opponents."

Only actual world championship games were included in the study. Since the study was concerned with players move accuracy compared to an arbitrary "gold standard" (Crafty was used because it is open source code therefore any numerical results ought to be transparent and reproducible. Also, the authors needed to make some custom adjusments to the code for the specific purposes of their study. Commercially available engines though maybe stronger have closely guarded secrets in their code so would be inaccessible.)
Hence, because the study was comparing distint move accuracy, the number of games included was not so important provided of course the total number of moves examined for each player was "sufficient". I don't have in front of me the actual number of distinct moves examined for each individual world champion but I would guess it ranged from hundreds to thousands and certainly enough for some general trends to emerge.
As I understand it the dataset was about 37000 distict chess positions distributed, albeit unevenly, over the 14 players.

At one level studies like this are more in the realm of "popular science" and a little bit "light hearted" though of course the ramifications of the techniques developed may be quite significant elsewhere.
( I always smile at the genius of John Kelly and Claude Shannon getting Bell Labs to fund their researches into information transmission ....oops their betting algorithm, the now famous Kelly Criterion!)

Some more comments ... :
Off-topic (for a chess blog): I don't think we can expect peer review to detect fraud (falsified data, manipulated images, ...), plagiarism or dual publication - at least not reliably and consistently. At one occasion, I caught authors (trying to) publish the same nonsense twice - unfortunately only after I had already spent some time to write up my review and recommend rejection in a polite and constructive way. Both journals were obscure ones (impact factor <1) which I had never heard of before ... so it was pure coincidence.
Regarding fraud, there are two issues:
1) A priori, a scientist should trust his peers - making it harder to detect fraud (you only find what you're looking for ... !)
2) If you suspect fraud, you have to be quite sure to even raise the issue - same story as for cheating accusations in chess. On the other hand, as a first step a reviewer can ask for additional documentation by the authors.
I also think it's a bit unfair to single out Nature or Science, again for two reasons:
- Since they require spectacular results, they are more prone to (attempted) fraud than other journals
- If fraud occurs, it's an immediate headline, and they talk rather openly about it themselves. If an article is retracted from another (specialist) journal, the wider scientific community, let alone the general public may not even notice!?
Next question is: Can we blame editors or reviewers, can we accuse them of negligence - let alone collaboration or bribery? Again in a chessic context: Should a highly-rated GM find a forced win, or defend an inferior rook ending?

On-topic: The problem with focusing only on WCh matches is not a limited number of games or moves, but a limited number of opponents (and openings, types of positions, ...). If Kramnik did well against Kasparov and Leko, he may do not so well against Ivanchuk, Shirov or Morozevich. For Kasparov,his score is much influenced by his many games against Karpov - even though he also played matches against Anand and Kramnik later on.

Hi Thomas!

"I don't think we can expect peer review to detect fraud (falsified data, manipulated images, ...), plagiarism or dual publication - at least not reliably and consistently."

Mmm....this view worries me!...so the purpose of peer review is...?

"I also think it's a bit unfair to single out Nature or Science, again for two reasons:
- Since they require spectacular results, they are more prone to (attempted) fraud than other journals
- If fraud occurs, it's an immediate headline, and they talk rather openly about it themselves."

Your faith here is touching in theory but in practice definitely not the case! There are plenty of cases discussed on the SciFraud list which contradict your claim. At times the principals themselves are involved in the discussions and we get some fascinating insights into the machinations when Big Science-Big Name-Big Reputation-Big Money climb into the ring.

If fraud occurs or is alleged to have occurred the first reaction is most likely to be a cover-up or attempt to muzzle the whistleblower with drastic legal threats and intimidation. Some of the personal experiences detailed on the list are dreadful.

"On-topic: The problem with focusing only on WCh matches is not a limited number of games or moves, but a limited number of opponents (and openings, types of positions, ...). If Kramnik did well against Kasparov and Leko, he may do not so well against Ivanchuk, Shirov or Morozevich. For Kasparov,his score is much influenced by his many games against Karpov - even though he also played matches against Anand and Kramnik later on."

Yes, I see where you are coming from, however, in the main especially in the modern era, the title contenders got there by a rigorous qualification process. One can always find examples of luck in individual games but in a long and arduous qualification process then instances of luck being decisive or an inferior player surviving to reach the title are unlikely.
In the past of course we know of some "dodging and weaving" tactics to avoid certain competitors.
Interestingly, a valid study of move accuracy would tend to expose weak challengers: their accuracy rate would be an outlier and/or the ensuing champion's accuracy rate needed to win
would similarly reflect this.

Your concern of a "limited number of opponents" will of course always be the case since the study examined the first 14 world champions' games in world championship matches, always a v.small subset of possible matches. What may or may not have occurred in non-title matches is not relevant to the study under discussion: the study looked at approx 37000 positions faced by WCh contenders and attempted to determine how accurate were the moves played. With such a large number of positions, any clear trends that emerged, within the constraints of the assumptions made, ought to be reliable.
Of course some of the study's constraints eg only WCh games, only first 14 WCh's, opening move cutoff at 12th move, "complexity" adjustments, using open-source Crafty engine etc etc and the author's explanations for them are open to challenge/modification.
I believe the rival ongoing study mentioned by frogbert is addressing some/all of these issues.
For example the opening move cutoff instead of being fixed is being varied over time so that the cutoff relects advances in opening theory over the past century+.

I wonder how many other people are interested in our discussion, but in any case we do not interrupt or disturb currently active threads!?

"the purpose of peer review is ... ?"
While each journal has different instructions for reviewers ,:) for me it comes down to three questions with respective sub- or follow-up questions:
1) Is the manuscript flawed? Are the conclusions insufficiently supported by the data? Are there demonstrable major mistakes in data acquisition, processing or interpretation - which the authors didn't or couldn't hide? [If the answer is "yes", the manuscript - in its present form - isn't at all suitable for the peer-reviewed literature. The reviewer may offer suggestions on how it could be 'saved': additional experiments or different, more modest interpretations]
2) Is the contribution original, novel, substantial and within the scope of the journal? [If the answer is "no", the manuscript may still be suitable for another journal - lower impact and/or more specialized]
3) Can the manuscript be improved, even it would already be suitable for publication? Can the reviewer help the authors? Issues might be manuscript organization, (English) language, quality of figures, missing key references, ... . [This may partly also be the editor's job - he usually has less specialist knowledge, but is more familiar with standards and conventions of his journal]

Fraud is another story - mistakes which were deliberately (well-)hidden by the authors, inventing raw data or treating them selectively (e.g. drawing conclusions from 20 data points while ignoring and not even mentioning 50 "outliers"). Don't get me wrong: if a reviewer detects fraud, of course he should say so! But what if he merely suspects it? Should a manuscript be automatically rejected based on 'arguments' such as: this is hard to believe; too good to be true; questioning, contradicting or seemingly refuting previous work (which might include the reviewer's own work)?
If such 'standards' are applied, one case of fraud may be detected at an early stage, but 10 valid contributions might be unfairly rejected!? And an editor will not be happy if they are subsequently published elsewhere and later win a Nobel Prize ... .

It is tempting to draw comparisons to other fields: A chess player who is cheating is bad, a player wrongly accused of cheating is also bad news. A corrupt politician is bad, so is his competitor or a sensational journalist who wrongly accuses him. In those cases, a victim retains the right to sue the whistle blower, and "innocent unless/until proven guilty" applies.

Now the chessic part: The issue is not whether, for example, Shirov or Ivanchuk would have been worthy WCh challenger who somehow didn't survive the qualification process (let's also ignore that Shirov was robbed or deprived of a WCh match, and that Ivanchuk once reached the final in a FIDE KO event). The issue also isn't whether Kramnik does better or worse against them: in terms of results (source chessgames.com) he has a roughly even career score against Kasparov, Shirov and Ivanchuk. Yet maybe he made more mistakes against the latter, so did his opponents and things cancelled out in the end - but it would still affect Kramnik's ranking with respect to other players from present and past.

The issue is that they play different chess, possibly of different "complexity". Even if the authors correctly parametrized complexity, what is the relationship between complexity and number of mistakes? Is it predictable - linear, exponential, stepwise function? Is it the same for all players?
Thia makes me think of what Kasparov said about Radjabov: "He has to go for complex positions (KID) because he doesn't understand simple ones". Of course Radjabov will also make less mistakes in simple positions, while doing _relatively_ better in complex ones (compared to other world-top players). If Garry is right (no guarantee!) maybe Radjabov's error function against complexity is linear, while it is exponential for other players?

Obviously this is a limitation rather than a flaw of the study. Personally, I wouldn't tell the authors to wait with publication until they processed 10,000 or 100,000 games - only to mention and discuss this caveat (maybe they did, I don't have access to the full paper and anyway might not understand technical issues of their approach). The rest would be "suggestions for future research" - by the authors or anyone else who is interested and competent.

Hi Thomas!
Thx for your reply and comments.

"Personally, I wouldn't tell the authors to wait with publication until they processed 10,000 or 100,000 games - only to mention and discuss this caveat (maybe they did, I don't have access to the full paper and anyway might not understand technical issues of their approach). "

Yes there was discussion in the paper on the various choices the authors made and their rationale for so doing. Given that they say they needed 36 computers running continuously for 10 days to process the data for 1397 games then just going to 10,000 games would be daunting.