Two GMs, One Cup

The video ("Magnus stops by for a post victory chat") is available at the tournament webpage and at Chessvibes. "I will be rooting for Vishy" is Carlsen's very last sentence, a little bit earlier he said that the match doesn't have a favorite.
IMO it's neither (particularly) interesting nor surprising: Carlsen and Anand like each other, in the past there were even rumors - neither confirmed nor denied - that they are working together.
A bit surprising, arguably odd that there is no "parallel" winner's interview with Ivanchuk - maybe "they" (Macauley and Peter Doggers) couldn't get hold of him? But there is probably a forthcoming video of the closing/prize-giving ceremony.

Final BTW: Credit for the Amber tournament tables should, for at least 99%, go to ebutaljib: he compiled the information and posted it on the Web. All I did was click on the link he gave at Chessvibes and copy it into one of my posts - this took less than a minute ,:) .

http://www.amberchess2010.com/photos.html

If this is the video you were talking about , it gets quite disturbing at some points.
But i like the part where he explains why his corporate blog was so boring , the guy must have loved our comments.
Another interesting thing is how he virtually covers his entire face to speak about the next WCH match , which some people would call a clear sign of trying to hide something.
Maybe there is some helping or sparring thing going on with Vishy...
At this point Topalov knows that he will be playing vs the rest of the world so i don´t think it makes such a big difference for him.

yeah so both Kramnik and Carlsen root for Anand.
Wonder who Aronian roots for.

Title
+1

I mean, other than Manu and the people on his payroll ?

"Toiletroll"

Rooting for Anand doesn't quite imply being his second - in any case, Kramnik may not want to travel to Bulgaria ... . And while I am also rooting for Anand, I wasn't interviewed yet and I am not his second - Vishy hasn't contacted me, my phone number is ..... ,:) .

@Manu: "At this point Topalov knows that he will be playing vs the rest of the world"
To my slight disappointment, rest of the world doesn't include the Netherlands, at least not Topalov's seconds l'Ami and Smeets - well, it's certainly a learning experience for them and he might pay well (so I won't blame them).

I'll root for him if he puts me on his payroll...can I send him an email of something?

I think the point is that Carlsen is exactly not dominating. He is winning and is the no 1 rated player but there is no domination at all. If he continues to progress it will come but its not there yet ....

Precisely. No. 1 was good enough last century, but modern chess fans expect a bit more!

sure, this is the dir :
chesshirecatisapussycat@gmail.com

:)
You're on a roll in more ways than one!

"Wonder who Aronian roots for"
why, Anand, for sure. well I don't know, but would sure prolong his bragging rights if Anand won, "hey, the world champ is my bunny!"

Sorry , i´m just impatient for the next WCh.

"I haven’t followed international chess long enough to have an opinion about the Topalov – Kramnik toiletgate".

Then I can recommend some light reading: http://www.chessbase.com/eventlist.asp?eventname=FIDE%20World%20Championship%20Elista

Or some more: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3670 http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3553
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3635
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3464
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3912

Ok, perhaps it's a bit much, but for all the serious issues involved it was also an entertaining circus!

Interesting that you stop exactly with the World Blitz Championship, not mentioning Tal Memorial (just a few days before) and Dortmund ... .

Regarding Kramnik, not too long ago (after his match loss against Anand) some people suggested that his best days are over, that he's getting old and should maybe best retire. Now his results, as well as Carlsen's, are very good (again).

About domination: chesshire cat's quip was a nice one, but IMO a misleading one. Domination is SO late 20th century, the period I started following chess: first Karpov, then Kasparov, shared between them for a while. Maybe Carlsen will follow in their footsteps (as andy actually proposed), or maybe not.

"Ivanchuk of course makes a particularly strong impression, going undefeated over so many rounds."

There has never been an Amber winner, with fewer wins and more draws.

"Interesting that you stop exactly with the World Blitz Championship, not mentioning Tal Memorial (just a few days before) and Dortmund ... ."

Obviously, you cannot include the first wins when you count a winning streak. The first three wins must be discounted, to adjust for anomalies... Btw, it's interesting that you do not mention Nanjing.

"There has never been an Amber winner, with fewer wins and more draws."

And there has never been a winner with fewer losses...

Seriously, if you win, you win. And if you win, you deserve it. Or should we now introduce "style points" in chess, and have the winner be decided by committee?

Mishanp, you are leading us in the abyss. I don't know if my frail constitution can stand the ignition of the Toiletgate "discussion" again.

Into* (although in the abyss grammar matters little)

The glass is half empty?

Yeah and people tuned in every day to watch his hideous growth on his face. The number one tiebreaker should also be most wins, that is what fans want and the more fans the more money. How many times are draws the game of the day? Carlsen played for a win every game, Ivanchuk was just stalling for a Herpeologist to get there. If I had to sit across from him forget the mask I would have had on an astronauts suit.

http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/carlsen-wins-2-0-again-joins-ivanchuk-in-the-lead/#more-23201

finlly someone who recognizes WHAT A 19 YEAR OLD HAS ACCOMPLISHED!!!!!!!!! Ivanchuck got punked by a 19 year old Pono when he could have won the fide WC and got a match with Kasparov, which Kaspy would have probably played but he CHOKED to an unknown 19 YEAR OLD. Ivanchuk is a coward, choker, and will be forgotten in 20 years like senile Kortchnoi. Carlsen will be in the line of history with Morphy, Capa, Ale-kine,Fischer,Kasparov and the best in history. He gave Kaspy the boot and still won Amber, after losing the first two games, accept him or his greatness will destroy you!

As for going undefeated v more wins and more losses being a wash I agree.

2-0 against Carlsen is certainly a big reason why Chucky feels like a "real" winner, but not the only reason. If you look at the games you will see that in most matchups he didn't win, Chucky had the better end of the draw including several very promising positions (for example against Kramnik, Dominguez and Pono) and was never in danger of losing. Carlsen, on the other hand, had several miraculous saves.

Cat, you may actually have been correct the first time. Have we not already been 'in' the abyss for some time now????

CO

"Carlsen, on the other hand, had several miraculous saves".

Carlsen's "miraculous saves" in Amber and in classic chess the last year are so numerous that they exceed “luck”. It has become a skill. S - K - I - L – L [skĭl]. Try to pronounce it a couple of times. -Originated from Old Norse, meaning “a developed talent or ability”.
-----------

I see a trend among kibitzers to declare an endgame as “lost” or “dead draw”. Then, if a player manage to hold it or win it, against the odds, he is merely “lucky”. Or it’s a “miracle”.

I think it’s time to acknowledge skill in endgames, on par with skill in openings and midgame play. It happens in every tournament. A player earning a hard fought half-point or full-point because of endgame skill. SKILL.

Some recent examples from memory: Nakamura had the skill to outplay Tiviakov in the endgame in the last round of Corus. In the same round, Caruana did not have the skill to convert his advantage in the game against Carlsen. Topalov had the skill to outplay Gelfand in the last round of Linares. And Carlsen outplayed Ponomariov in Amber. It happens all the time.

The majority of kibitzers and bloggers are patzers (like me). We have limited chess knowledge and unlimited debating power.We see a symmetrical pawn position and equal Rybka evaluation, and rush to the conclusion of “dead draw”. Ultimately this is an offence to the GM’s who actually have to play the game, because in real life the practical endgame play is much, much more difficult than what the patzer blogger thinks.

I know, I know, but it's just sad to think of the youth of today, unaware of the great chess heritage we have Danailov to thank for...

"The majority of kibitzers and bloggers are patzers (like me). We have limited chess knowledge and unlimited debating power.We see a symmetrical pawn position and equal Rybka evaluation, and rush to the conclusion of “dead draw”. Ultimately this is an offence to the GM’s who actually have to play the game, because in real life the practical endgame play is much, much more difficult than what the patzer blogger thinks."

That's not really true. I think kibitzers with Rybka are actually much more likely to think there's still play in these endgame positions than professional GMs - kibitzers see a slight edge for one side and think there's progress being made when professionals know which positions are simply drawn. And yes, the Ponomariov game should have been an absolutely dead draw, however brilliantly his opponent played.

Osbender: "If you look at the games you will see that in most matchups he didn't win, Chucky had the better end of the draw including several very promising positions (for example against Kramnik, Dominguez and Pono) and was never in danger of losing".

Just to correct that in reference to Kramnik - yes, Ivanchuk had very good winning chances in the first game (although even without Chucky's blunder that ending may well be drawn), but in the second game Kramnik was almost a full exchange up (+1.5 at one point according to Rybka) and had real chances to win. In the end Ivanchuk defended very well and deserved to preserve his unbeaten status - in general apart from the one blunder the endings of those two games were a great example of how well super-GMs are capable of playing them.

"There has never been an Amber winner, with fewer wins and more draws".

Funnily enough Ivanchuk won the first Amber with only 6 wins and 1 loss for 14 points. But Kramnik, Anand and Aronian have all won with 8 wins and 1 loss for 14.5 points. I'd prefer 7 wins and 0 losses!

Carlsen himself about winning Corus: "I had some good games; sometimes I played well and sometimes I played lousy. In the end, I won the tournament with a lot of luck."
http://coruschess.com/report.php?year=2010&report=13
Maybe there is a thing as winner's luck and earning luck with fighting spirit, but dominance is something else - and that's how this discussion started.

Yes, maybe Dortmund is (too) long ago, but I found it odd that you mentioned the blitz WCh but not the immediately preceding classical event - as if Carlsen's blitz victory overcompensated for not winning Tal Memorial.
I didn't mention Nanjing because you were comparing Carlsen and Kramnik. Besides, Nanjing clearly was an outlier - while and because it was an impressive result. Carlsen's cooperation with Kasparov, announced just before the event, may have had a psychological effect on his opponents. We will never know how Kramnik - maybe the only player who was, rightfully, never afraid of Kasparov - would have coped with that situation because he wasn't invited.

Another Carlsen quote on dominance (from an interview in the Dutch federation chess magazine after Corus):
Q You will not announce yet that you are already better than the big three?
MC "Well ... if you look at the current rating list you will see that I am number 1. This means something, but isn't that important for me at the moment. Right now it isn't easy to say who's the best player. The top is so closely packed right now. Opinions will therefore always diverge."
(earlier in the interview:) "People as Anand, Kramnik and Topalov have self-confidence. They believe in their own chess-power and in my opinion do so with right and reason."

My take on this: Fair enough, and in certain contrast to how Topalov and his fans (and maybe now Carlsen's fans) comment on what it means to be #1 on the rating list.

"Yeah, just like it's pretty hard for even the most hardcore Topalov haters to ignore that he was the most deserving winner of Linares 2005 since he won against Kasparov."

Good catch as such, pb. Of course the most deserving winner is in fact the one who played the best chess. I thought Kasparov did so in Linares, but only looking at the results you would certainly feel Topalov was the most deserving. And of course you are aware of the quite significant special circumstances -- that Kasparov was already certain to win the tournament and get the trophy according to the tiebreak rules BEFORE the last-round loss to Topalov.

So you distort the meaning of what I said. I didn't say Ivanchuk was definitely the most deserving winner. I say he felt like the most deserving winner. With ""'s around "deserving" at that. Anyway, sorry for even slightly questioning Carlsen's status. He is the greatest, he is dominating everything and always playing entertaining and fighting chess but everybody is against him and always downplays his achievements yadda yadda yadda. He was of course the best in Amber as well, not simply a mere second best, as if he were mortal or something! What was I thinking?

Kazzak: My point is that Carlsens endgame skill, in general, has improved during the last year. Because of his skill, he is able to outplay more and more competitors in the endgames. Not only in Amber, but also in several recent tournaments. If he doesnt succeed in the opening or in the mid play, he still collects point in the games final stage.

Yeah, Carlsen is remarkably objective about his win in that interview. I get an impression that he is disappointed the way he played and doesn't feel like he deserved to win. That kind of attitude certainly bodes well for his future. Most players would've been on the 7th haven after winning Amber regardless of the style it was achieved.

"in the second game Kramnik was almost a full exchange up (+1.5 at one point according to Rybka) and had real chances to win."

He had an exchange for a pawn, and to me it looked like black was quite comfortable at all times. But I wasn't watching with Rybka. If you say that eval was +1.5 with the queens on the board, then indeed white must have had serious advantage. So where did Kramnik go wrong and what was the line that lead to +1.5?

Just from memory - Kramnik was up the exchange for a pawn but also had good attacking prospects. He had to choose between going straight for an ending an exchange up which he might have managed to win, or to keep the pieces on and attack. He took (I think rightly) the second option and tried to get pressure on the 7th rank (Qa4, threatening Qd7) - but actually Qa4 turned out to be a mistake. Ivanchuk was able to counterattack with his queen,rook and bishop and force Kramnik to enter an inferior version of the endgame.

On third thoughts... I think black's probably ok in all lines - there's no need to create a potential weakness with 31...dxc4 when you can take with the rook instead. Kramnik had some practical winning chances, but only if Ivanchuk went astray.

Yeah, that's what I thought. Black have active pieces and an ideal pawn structure. Unless white can force black into fetal position, black should be fine.

Qa4 and g4 do not look right, I agree.

The interview referred to Corus, and then Carlsen clearly needed and got some luck in addition to skill or S-K-I-L-L: after all, he depended on other players' results:
- Anand had white against Carlsen, Shirov and Kramnik: 19-move draw against Carlsen, win (with luck) against Shirov, win (with skill) against Kramnik
- in the final round, Dominguez escaped with a draw offer when Shirov could have won by force.

None of this is bad luck for Shirov or Kramnik (after all, they made mistakes or blunders, no excuses), but it's still good luck for Carlsen. Whether Carlsen's own win against Ivanchuk was skill or luck is debatable: he faced Chucky on one of those days when he was worth 2600 or less.

At the very least, Carlsen wasn't dominating Corus ... .

I see. I thought you meant his post Amber interview, where he sounds quite downbeat about his play.

What you don´t seem to understand is that Bilbao rules are meant for classical chess , where the value of the win has increased considerably with the years.
There is not such thing as GM draw problem at blitz or blindfold , trying to apply the Bilbao rules to such competition is like giving sun glasses to a blind person.

What you don't seem to understand is that I was talking about a similar result in classical chess.
Would you REALLY say that Magnus would have deserved to win such a tournament if losing to three closest rivals, lacking half a classical point and also Elo would have pointed to Ivanchuk as winner?

I guess a similar result also can happen in a top tournament. Would be interesting to check against earlier elite events.
Anyway: It is UGLY and illogical whatever tournament it's used in. Blundering a drawn game increases the value of the game by 50 %.
Why do you think people world over think higly of a symmetric face? Symmetry rules!

What you don´t seem to understand is :
1)Great number of wins in a casual blitz/blindfold tournament cannot be compared with the same number of wins in a classical top event.
2)Nothing is simetrical in nature , only virus .

Sure, it can happen, but not very likely. Again, in the events where most games are drawn, blunders in drawn positions are rare. But there are not that many events where Bilbao system makes sense, I agree.

What you don´t seem to understand is :
I am NOT comparing to Amber I am talking about a classical tournament with similar result. You can maybe say I am INSPIRED by Amber. So again:

Would you REALLY say that Magnus would have deserved to win such a classical tournament if losing to three closest rivals, lacking half a classical point and also Elo would have pointed to Ivanchuk as winner?
Yes or no?

Would you mind making a complete crosstable of that imaginary event so i can answer accurately?

Maybe the organizer ponders: Hmm, now we invite Leko and then of course we count Bilbao-style. Or: We invite Moro and must count classical. Sounds a bit arbitrary to me.

Here:

http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/amber-r11-grischuk-wins-blindfold-as-carlsen-blunders-queen/#more-23479

Look for Rapid Final Standing and imagine Magnus losing to Kramnik. Yes, it IS an imaginary classical event, but can happen in real life.

You still don´t get it , what you need to compare is an event where the players knew that a win equals 3 points BEFORE playing it.

You still don't get it. In this imaginary tournament the players of course HAVE agreed upon the Bilbao rules. It even makes the result more probable. Since you are reluctant to answer clearly I will do it for you. You answer is:

Yes, since the players have agreed upon the rules, the result is perfectly ok and Magnus absolutely deserves the victory.

Of course you are entitled to this opinion. To me this is selling out the soul of chess.

Any reactions from somebody else?

"we invite Leko and then of course we count Bilbao-style. Or: We invite Moro and must count classical. Sounds a bit arbitrary to me."

But makes sense, doesn't it?

In a twisted way yes :-)

Another paradox: What to do if the dreadful draw is unavoidable? Yes, players flip a coin to decide who is going to resign! In long term this strategy will be best.

A counting system promoting such things is UGLY!
Maybe coins in players pockets must be forbidden too?

You still don´t get, it is not the game who has soul , just the players.

I doubt this is the real problem. I just have this mental picture of Kramnik resigning to Topalov because of the coin flip. I think he will commit seppuku first.

Maybe recently GM draws became less of a problem, but going several years back, 2 wins 0 loss out of 10 games was enough to win clear first in Linares and half of the games ended in a draw before move 30. As much as I like Kramnik's squeezes, that wasn't too exciting overall. Something had to be done.

One idea would be to have a blitz tiebreak in case of a draw (e.g. win=3, loss=0, tiebreak win=2, tiebreak loss=1), but the results would no longer be purely classical. It's hard to come up with one system suitable for all tournaments.

Agreed about reality of problem on top level. Just another example of disgusting asymmetry. On my level I would have done it if my opponent shared my view.

Time to stop this rant and return to my cave.
Seems like not many players share my disgust.

And what should organizers do if they invite Morozevich AND Leko??

BTW, if Leko had scored +7=15 to win Amber (like Ivanchuk, but with his supposedly solid and boring style), it would still be an achievement - if only to consistently(!) impose his style on other "more dynamic" players. Like it or not, like Leko or not, like his style or not (I won't even start arguing on whether his play is always solid and boring ....).

A mix of different styles makes a tournament attractive - IMO, this is the solution rather than the often-heard and read "don't invite Leko, period!".

Any style is good as long as it wins. Leko's doesn't anymore.

It's not that we don't get it, we just don't admit that we get it.

"Why do you think people world over think higly of a symmetric face? Symmetry rules!"

" Just another example of disgusting asymmetry."

Your thoughts about symmetry and beauty are not only wrong , but dangerous , please remember that this site is also available to children.
It is also counterproductive for your growth as a person , please spend some time researching the subject and if the problem persist get some help.
In the meantime stay away from Cronenberg 's work.

ELO-wise, Leko is currently exactly tied with Nakamura, 10 points ahead of Karjakin, 20 points ahead of Morozevich. We don't know yet if his recent series of bad results represent a lengthy crisis (from which he might recover), or the start of a decline that will continue in the future.
Anyway, comments that he shouldn't be invited were frequent to ubiquitous even during the many years when he was a top10 player. And the discussion here referred to the hypothetical case of Leko winning Amber.

Think you need to get some treatment and er take down the magoose poster from the bedroom ceiling. Although it not true that it makes you blind ;)0))

"Good thing not many people understood the "two g__'s one cup" reference!"

But did those who brought up toiletgate understand it?

@ggg
IRONY.
Children are harmed more by 'ideas about beauty and symmetry' than industrial language and illogical arguments, in this parallel universe of ours. That's why.

Symmetry represents lack of creativity and disdain for nature , symmetry is the trademark of a race that wont adapt to its environment but destroy it if the environment dont adapt itself.

Thanks! Great stuff!