Airport Delay Dortmund Blogging

@ Naiditsch may have tried a surprise

It looks like that, he gambled on Mamed playing 12..Qe7 as Kaspy, he did not have anything new (and strong) for 12..d5.
A poor bet (since the Topalov-Kasparov/1996 game is a very known game) which got called off.

Impressive the 21 moves walk by Ponomariov over Kramnik. Or it may be that Kramnik is playing in his new style ?
As he put it in his last "thx mishanp" :

"I’ve become cleverer: before I’d waste a lot of strength and energy, while now I use it more efficiently. As a result I actually get less tired during tournaments, and the quality of my play isn’t inferior to before. So I confess that I don’t yet feel the onset of old age"

Then he shuold play poker and gamble not play chess. Who want him to be general of army.

You can say your score sheet are secret code. You can say ecellency will attack from space ship. You can yell look out from flying penis. You can say you beat master and show how you are master beater. You can say Mr. Mig is frend. Well mabe not good idear that one.

Interesting. Was it a digital or analog clock?

Analog...And they kept asking me why my opponent's time stops while it is my turn to make a move!

Makes interesting food for thought...an explosive clock..might fix time management problems once and for all if the thing explodes when you flag.

Le may have just missed with 37..f7, 37..Rxh4 38.gxh4 f5 wins

Leko is a 2700 "tourist". How he ever played for a WC is beyond me except that Kramnik was too scared to play Kasparov again.

You are asking important questions, I M Stupid. Surely, such information would keep us far more important about the real state of affairs among the players than the routine pedantry of game analysis.

I think he qualified by winning the very strong Dortmund qualifier.

Leko is not a tourist, but a permanent resident in the 2700+ zone. Why he played a WCh match? He won the qualifier (Dortmund 2002) finishing ahead of Adams and Morozevich in the group phase, then winning his matches against Shirov and Topalov.

His recent results suggest that he might gradually fall out of the world top - like Adams did - but that's no reason to question or minimize his past achievements.

And I cant even spell your name correctly!

I agree with you Thomas. Leko is a great player and his games are excellent sources of study. He has an uncanny positional sense and is one of the toughest defenders in the game today. He does play very steady chess but he lacks the poison and risk-taking which other more aggressive players in his class have, which make the percentage of his draws greater than that of other players in the highest echelon of the game. Still, there are few players who can play with the same strategical depth and insight as can Leko.

Quite right you are, noyb.
Leko got there the same way that "tourist" Khalifman got the FIDE title - by winning a random knockout event. A randomness that Kasparov refused to countenance.

(Agree with you also, noyb, on your postings in other threads regarding Ilyumzhinov.)

They walked around a lot. Caruana and Giri wore T shirts and sneakers, the others business-like clothes. None wore a soccer dress with name on it. I didn't take a close look of their pens, but Vachier-Lagrave obviously had his lucky escape one (remember last year against Morozevich?) with him.

Correct, but can we blame Leko (or Kramnik) that Kasparov didn't bother trying to qualify, but instead insisted on an automatic rematch? Rematches happened in the 20th century, but not in the current one - even though Topalov also wants to revive that "tradition".

Anyways, the issue wasn't whether Leko was a worthy WCh challenger (he did beat everyone else who was interested), but if he deserves his 2700+ rating. If noyb calls him a 2700 tourist, he seems to live in a different world where holidays can last for more than 10 years ... .

Such people never retire, they only "go on strike" indefinitely if their conditions and egocentrism are met with refusal. Just like Bobby.

Kasparov is pretty stalking much around, coaching Magnus, helping Anand prepare openings, pushing Karpov for FIDE presidency.
One can safely assume that if Karpov succeeds this will mean too a golden opportunity for Garry to settle some old scores and grudges.

We need a chess president so that we have another face to put on a chess-themed postage stamp in fifteen years.

Looking forward to it as usual! ,:) Actually Le Quang Liem has already won two games - against Leko and (before) Ponomariov.

Good point! He's won two in a row and is half a point ahead of Kramnik...

Ok sorry. I go away for two months.

Now you are offering us "live translations" !
I agree with the guy who suggested that Mig adds to his blog an Java-applet button with "thanks mishanp" so we won't have to type it each time :)

If Kramnik should win today (with black), it means two in a row and 1/2 point ahead of Le Quang Liem - who will probably still be the happier one regarding the tournament as a whole ... ,:)

Thank you.

You beat me with this remark - but for the time being, black can ignore the white knight on d6 which looks beautiful but doesn't threaten much (f7 seems securely defended).

In any case, Ponomariov's dose of Catalan medicine was more bitter for Kramnik - indeed deadly, so the metaphor may be questionable?

it seems that Kramnik has just screwed it with 26..Bxd6, missing the intermediary 27.Rb3!

26..Qb2 (attacking the e5 and e2 pawns) 27.Rc5 Qxe2 28.Qd1 Qxd1 29.Rxd1 Rd7 was equalizing completely

Or Kramnik knows what he's doing? Shipov (in mishanp's translation) says that "black's chances of a draw are very close to 100%".

Today it seemed to be mostly home preparation!? As a matter of fact by whom? As far as I know Le's coach is Bareev, formerly second of Kramnik ..... .

it was up 21..c4, I don't think that all was prep, 24.Rd3 was not that good, Shipov suggests 21.Qe4 followed by Rc6

This would actually confirm what I wrote - today Le's home preparation was fine, his play over the board was "not that good" or rather 'not as good'!? Even though Shipov initially considered 24.Rd3 "also a good, flexible move", and only in hindsight, after Kramnik's simplifying queen sacrifice, (again) preferred his own 24.Qe4.

Basically this only means that, on a relative scale(!), today Le was less impressive than during his wins against Ponomariov and Leko - when he outplayed his opponents in technical positions while both are or were (Leko?!) specialists in that kind of chess.

I shouldn't really be promoting the competition :), but Landa's commentary on the game is here: http://chesspro.ru/chessonline/onlines/index_3256.html He mentions at the end that Le had just walked into the press centre and he wanted to go over and thank him for bringing the game to an end so quickly :)

Interestingly Landa's not sure that Kramnik's queen sacrifice was planned (rather than a complete oversight). The NYTimes has the same: http://gambit.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/21/two-draws-and-a-blunder-in-dortmund/ "Kramnik never seemed in any trouble until he miscalculated and allowed his queen to be trapped in the middle of the board." Though Kramnik's position was clearly tricky and if the queen sac was a blunder the speed with which Kramnik played the moves suggests he's a very good bluffer :) My money's on him having seen the line and known it was an easy draw (i.e. Shipov's version).

That's right - sorry for the ambiguity!

He wrote: "I'll go and thank the Vietnamese [player] for deciding not to torture either Vladimir, or your commentator - he's just come into the press centre now".

"Though Kramnik's position was clearly tricky and if the queen sac was a blunder the speed with which Kramnik played the moves suggests he's a very good bluffer :)"

What moves? What led me to think it was an oversight was that if the relay was OK he played the two preceding moves quickly and then thought for about 4 minutes before playing ..Qxb3 even though it was forced. Not an eternity of course, and it doesn't hurt to double-check stuff, but it gave the impression that he was surprised. You don't really expect your queen to be trapped on an open board like that.

@Interestingly Landa's not sure that Kramnik's queen sacrifice was planned (rather than a complete oversight)

that was my impression too during the game because the simpler 26..Qb2! would have equalized fully, so why playing 26..Bxd6 and going for the trickier Q-sacrifice ?

Interesting! I guess my sense of the game was a bit warped by the fact that I was just waiting for Shipov's updates and then translating - so it seemed to me that the moves came all at once, but if he did think for 4 minutes... As you say, it's quite amazing that the queen got trapped where it did.

It's a shame that there's been no-one interviewing the players. Today seems to have been the first effort by the official site!? Vasiliev isn't there for Chesspro, though you'd think Landa could add something (except that the on-line commentary takes up so much effort that you can understand him just wanting to relax afterwards...).

Yeah, true, there was 27..Bb4. I remember looking at it now, but I thought it seemed rather clearly bad. But as I said, you can afford spending a few minutes. Personally I would be scared to death that the pawn endgame White can force by 29.Qxa8 Qxb4 30.Rc8 is just winning.

One where black doesn't play -d5 for the time being, AKA Queen's Indian Defense ... ,:)

@What is the idea behind ...a5?

the idea "would have been" (rather than "is") had Black continued after a5,Na6 with c5, d5 (cxd5 exd5) Na6-Nac7-Ne6 and Re8- resulting in an often seen set-up

however after a5,Na6 Pono reverted to the standard QID plan with Ne4/f5, and in this set-up the a5/Na6 isn't quite right.

Pono is playing a "hybrid" of the d5 and f5 plans/set-ups to control the e4 square

I'm glad I'm not translating Shipov live today as there seems to have been a technical hitch on move 7 (no more commentary) - but what he'd managed to type was:

7. Re1 I move I used to play in my time. White temporarily holds back from the move Nb1-c3, to avoid exchange variations after the reply Nf6-e4! White's plan is the same as before: to seize the centre with pawns.
7...a5 In essence, a waiting move.

Though looking at the position now Nc3 & Ne4 both happened anyway!

it is an interesting game of trying to out-witt the other with transpositions

"a5" is useful if Black continues with d5 and c5 since the resulting pawn structure (after cxd5-exd5 and dxc5-bxc5) position is that with c5&d5 "hanging pawns" (as in QGD-Tartakover). In such postions White tries to undermine the c5&d5 hangig pawns with b4 (amd/or e4 if possible) and then the "a5" is useful to prevent b4 (or, if White manages b4 nonetheless) to get rid of the weak a5(a7) pawn after axb4 ( a5 is played "automatically" for this reason in QGD-Tartakver).

That's (maybe) why Kramnik played a3 after Pono's a5, that is Kramnik was anticipating the c5&d5-hanging pawns structure but, alas!, after Kramnik's Nc3 Pono "reverted" to the Ne4/f5.

It is a "subtle" game of playing with transpositions.

In the meantime, Shipov's full commentary is up - at the end, he mentions "unusual heat and disruptions to the Internet".

It is not completely clear to me what Shipov wants to say in his introduction (Google-translated): "After today's party opponents in the first round , I said that we should invite Kasparov - to restore order. And depending on Kramnik , will it be great predecessor to return to the chess ...". He seems to refer to the first game between Kramnik and Ponomariov, then he wrote something like 'once upon a time both players were at the same level, then a gap emerged'. Would Russia need Kasparov's comeback to reclaim superiority over Ukraine?

Yep, that's he what he was referring to. By the way there should be a full translation of today's game here soon: http://www.danamackenzie.com/blog/

Thanks, it seems that I was on the right track!? It is unclear whether Shipov is serious (probably not), and what of the following deceives or annoys him most:
- Kramnik's poor form in Dortmund
- that Kasparov quit chess, and/or
- that Kasparov became a (would-be?!) politician

it was a tricky drawing combination

It may rather be that
- Dortmund is the last in a series of top events (this year including a WCh match) and falls into the holiday period.
- some people have prejudices about the event which they like to see confirmed, this can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

True, with the exception of Kramnik there are no players that have lots of fans as well as detractors/enemies (Carlsen, Ivanchuk, Nakamura, Topalov) - and Kramnik's performance is neither good nor, at least compared to Leko, bad enough to make either group happy ... .

Taking the players one by one:
Ponomariov - current TPR 2871, nuff said
Le Quang Liem - a more than successful debut at the highest level (in general, the organizers should be praised for the Aeroflot qualifier spot)
Mamedyarov - good or bad, there is always something happening in his games, sometimes with a touch of Ivanchuk's madness: resigning against Ponomariov which puzzled even his opponent, blundering against Naiditsch
Kramnik - cf. above
Naiditsch - struggling as usual, even though he won the event once (and he doesn't get to show the rather entertaining chess he often plays against somewhat weaker opponents)
Leko - sad result even for those who don't like him (but someone has to be the tailender, not necessarily the lowest-rated player)

BTW, in the picture of Karpov's press conference
http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6538
do we know the guy second from left (black T-shirt, undefined hair color)?

Sjw, great idea and execution! Though just in case any men in white coats knock on the front door you might want to take a brisk stroll out a back window :)

From 1907: "The idea of an international chess committee, or perhaps federation, seems most promising, and designed to assure the smooth administration of the world's championship. After two decades of squabbles and contentious negotiations between champions, challengers, and potential challengers, how could an international federation possibly do any worse?"

I'm also curious what will become of the tactically astute Herr Fritz - will he meet his match in an enigmatic Frenchman called Monsieur Petite Poisson...

I don't think I'll have time (I'm translating Shipov's commentary again tomorrow), but it looks like another fine FIDE mess. It's not clear if Dvorkovich and Ilyumzhinov already have some sort of agreement...

Chessdom were very quick to publish some articles about how everything is going ahead in Baku, but the Azerbaijanis actually said that what's most important to them is having a nominee i.e. they might be willing not to run the tournament. Though to add to the fun now Topalov's back claiming he was hard done by in Elista: http://letters.chessdom.com/topalov-candidate-matches (which maybe explains Chessdom's take)

Chessbase have also just published this: http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6541 Though as of now the "video on Planet Kirsan" link goes to the wrong place - so it's better to find it within the interview they mention :)

p.s. and sorry Monsieur Petite, or rather, Petit...

Thanks, mishanp-- very, very, much appreciated.

I really do love the old stuff in chess, and I had long thought about doing what I'm doing now. My biggest regret is that my own personal circumstances didn't allow me enough time for this sort of thing in (19)08 through early (19)10, as I missed the Lasker-Tarrasch match, the St.Petersburg 1909 tournament, and the Lasker-Schlechter match, among other big events. But there's lots of good stuff still to come-- the Hamburg tournament continues, Lasker and Janowsky are scheduled to play a championship match later "this" year, and I understand that young Master Capablanca may cross the ocean for the first time to compete at San Sebastian in 1911.

I had almost forgotten that I wrote the quote you cited about an international federation taking responsibility for the world championship, but one thing that has really struck me during my research is how the very same themes-- e.g., maladministration, multiple champions, too many draws, and playing chess via new technological means-- were just as prevalent 100 years ago as they are today. Gens una sumus.

As for Herr Fritz and his analytical prowess, I was actually thinking of introducing, at some point, a Miss Rybka, a young Russian prodigy with an exceptional talent for the game...

Finally, those with an interest in chess history (and/or those attempting to make sense of the foregoing paragraphs, which may seem like insane gibberish) are invited to visit oldinchess.blogspot.com for "the latest chess news from 100 years ago". Gotta go now, as the men in white coats are at my door. :)

-sjw
oldinchess.blogspot.com

Both mishanp and sjw deserve highest praise for what they do, and I hope they will eventually reap some financial rewards. A question to sjw though, shouldn't Miss Rybka be a young Polish prodigy rather than a Russian one? Although "ryba" == "рыба", some other circumstances suggest her Polish origin :)

You could well be right, Simple Pole. I'll look into it. Perhaps she's of mixed parentage...

Please bear in mind, though, that both my knowledge and technological skills are a century out of date-- and as for financial rewards, I've never reaped them from chess or anything else, so I'm quite unlikely to start now. Many thanks. though, for both your praise and your hope. :)

-sjw
oldinchess.blogspot.com

Missing from the picture is Sutovsky's open letter on proposed changes to the candidates matches:
http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/sutovsky-on-the-candidates-matches-change-the-regulations/ (previously published at Chessbase)
According to Sutovsky, he was "invited to meet FIDE President, Mr.Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, in order to discuss the situation with the Candidates Matches 2011", and Kirsan encouraged him to publish that open letter.
Basically, that proposal comes down to
- make the quarter- and semifinals six games instead of four, and
- make the final eight games, and organize it separately in September/October 2011.

One "advantage"(!!??) would be that time is gained to find a venue for a possible controversial final, either Topalov-Kramnik or Aronian-Radjabov/Mamedyarov (according to Chessdom, Mamedyarov is the Azeri wildcard and has signed a contract). These players couldn't meet at an earlier stage.

BTW, why should the Azeris keep their wildcard if they no longer organize the event? What's your source, mishanp? Would they still need to pay some sort of FIDE fee (bribe)?
In that case, it might make more sense to give the spot to Ponomariov who very narrowly lost the World Cup final against Gelfand - we would then get a first-round match Kramnik-Ponomariov ... .

I'm going to try and write something now on my site... (in summary, every's suddenly completely up in the air again!) For now I just "fast-tracked" my archiving of the interview with Aronian on playing in Baku that I translated a while ago: http://www.chessintranslation.com/2010/05/aronian-i-wont-travel-to-baku/

If it all moved to Russia then I'm sure the Russians would pay for it all - but personally I'd have thought it's completely unacceptable for FIDE to take the whole tournament away from them at this stage. So if they actually did it then I can well understand them keeping a nominee as "compensation". Anyway, back to the article...

Yes, the Azeris have allready transfered the €150,000 to FIDE, and they have signed a contract with Mamedyarov to be the wild card player. So the 8th spot of the Candidates is finally setled.

Probably, Azerbaijan is willing to give up running the tournament on home ground, because of Aronian's protests. Also, they save some money from not running the arangment (they lose the PR, though).

"Yes, the Azeris have allready transfered the €150,000 to FIDE, and they have signed a contract with Mamedyarov to be the wild card player"

OK, even more clear that there will be no changes with regards to at least that then.

You probably mean "completely unacceptable for Azerbaijan" (rather than FIDE)? This is the latest reaction (July 23rd = yesterday) from Mahir Mammadov, vice president of the Chess Federation of Azerbaijan (Google-translated):
"While difficult to say what may be the limit of compromise from our side. Is important for us as a venue for matches applicants and the availability of the nominee from Azerbaijan ."
http://www.extratime.az/article.php?aid=16645
Earlier he pointed out that Azerbaijan is supporting Ilyumzhinov in his FIDE presidential campaign ... .

@gg: I was slightly ambiguous in my previous post - "in that case" referred to the entire event being moved to Kazan. It seems that Russia wouldn't insist on an own wildcard (Grischuk? Karjakin?), then the decision should be up to FIDE rather than "Baku [un-invited] or Kazan". And Ponomariov would be a logical choice because he "almost qualified". It is, or should be irrelevant that he "isn't Azeri or Russian". - BTW, his upcoming Dortmund result would just be an additional and unrequired a posteriori justification, adding intrigue to a potential match against Kramnik.

To make things even more interesting, the Azeris want to use a more recent list than January 2010 to establish pairings of the candidates matches (see link above). Based on the July 2010 list, pairings would be(come)
Topalov-Kamsky
Carlsen-Gelfand
Kramnik-Radjabov
Aronian-Mamedyarov (bingo!)
[or Aronian-Radjabov if Kramnik falls behind Aronian, depending on his final Dortmund result]

"It seems that Russia wouldn't insist on an own wildcard (Grischuk? Karjakin?), then the decision should be up to FIDE rather than "Baku [un-invited] or Kazan". And Ponomariov would be a logical choice because he "almost qualified". It is, or should be irrelevant that he "isn't Azeri or Russian"."

It seems as if the Azeris already have paid for their spot, according to the rules, and a contract has been signed with Mamedyarov. If they would agree to have the whole event transferred to Kazan they could probably be allowed to do so, but they would hardly agree to give away their nomination.

Aronian said that he won't play in Azerbaijan, the Azeris said that if Aronian wouldn't play there they would accept that his half was played elsewhere, if I recall correctly.

"It seems as if the Azeris already have paid for their spot ..."
'It seems' "seems" correct - so far this was only stated at Chessdom, which has its own interests: if not pro-Azeri, they are pro-Topalov hence anti-Russian. Neither the money transfer nor the signed contract with Mamedyarov is mentioned by the Azeri source I gave!!??
But if the Azeris paid, of course they should get their money back under certain circumstances. Else, it comes down to spot #8 in the candidates event being based on money rather than merit - IMO still a sub-optimal situation, with the Azeri money constituting bribery.

Still odd that several things happened within a few days after months of relative silence:
- Chessdom being (mishanp's words) "very quick to publish some articles"
- Mamedarov reportedly signing a contract
- Sutovsky's open letter
- the Russian initiative to host part of the event in Kazan
Interestingly, Chessbase writes that "FIDE wants to move half the matches to Kazan in Russia". Do they have inside information? So far it seems nothing more than a Russian (Chess Federation) or Dvorkovich offer!?

How could I be so naive to expect clarification on the FIDE website? Headline news are Ilyumzhinov's visits to Zambia, Latin America and the Caribbean and meetings in Moscow - Sutovsky's name and picture is given, but not what the meeting was actually about ... .

Here's my take on the whole situation: http://www.chessintranslation.com/2010/07/candidates-matches-once-more-in-turmoil/

I thought I was going crazy with the Extratime interview, but it did indeed read differently the first time I looked at it :)

And in about an hour an a half I'll be doing something more fruitful, i.e. translating Shipov's commentary from Dortmund: http://www.chessintranslation.com/live-game/

It's Mamedyarov - Ponomariov, of course!

> And Ponomariov would be a logical choice because
> he "almost qualified".

Lol. You would make a good Kirsan successor. Give a spot to everyone who just crosses my mind, and don't care about petty regulations or details like who lost.

A SIDE NOTE:

Topalov's letter is obviously written by his manager Danailov. Such openly published letters are carefully authored. It is interesting then, that he dedicates a full paragraph repeating the same accusations against FIDE, as Team Karpov does:

Quote:
"I believe that it is a strategic mistake to stage almost all the cycle in one country. Four events of the FIDE Grand Prix, the World Cup, and now possibly Candidates Matches are in Russia. THIS TRANSMITS THE MESSAGE THAT FIDE CAN'T FIND SPONSORS AND ORGANIZERS FROM OTHER COUNTRIES, WHICH IS VERY SAD."

-Which makes me wonder Danailovs standing in the ongoing FIDE President election. He, himself is running for European Chess Union President. Till now Kirsan has got rather few European supporters. Maybe Danailov is sitting on the fence, waiting to take side, until the outcome becomes clearer?

In case you don't remember: The World Cup final between Gelfand and Ponomariov was tied after four classical games, four rapid games, two blitz games, then decided in two additional blitz games - while Gelfand obviously won in the end, it was a pretty close call.

Another possibility would be to give the spot to the #3 in the final Grand Prix standings - actually this had been speculated about - which happens to be Grischuk (interesting in the context of my forthcoming post).

"Giving a spot to someone crossing one's mind" might mean nominating a fan favorite, e.g. Ivanchuk or Nakamura, despite the fact that they didn't come close to qualifying or didn't even try (at the World Cup, Nakamura didn't participate and Ivanchuk was eliminated at an early stage).

Thanks again, I will comment here where the discussion is in full swing:

- The Azeris might get mad at both you and Google (for keeping an earlier version of the interview in their Cache). Strange that they (or he, Mamedov) got things "wrong" in the first version. Also slightly strange that the news agency accepted to change the content after initial publication!?

- As I just wrote, Grischuk might replace Aronian if the entire event is held in Baku and Levon refuses to participate - I guess he cannot "forget" his definite earlier statement, barring the rather unlikely case that Armenia and Azerbaijan suddenly sign a peace treaty? Then the Russian proposal can hardly be considered selfish, unless one really thinks that they spend much effort and money just to make Topalov feel (subjectively) uncomfortable ... .

- You correctly bring up the earlier UEP bid, but Topalov would also feel uncomfortable about matches organized by them given their ties with Kramnik. This could even be the actual reason why the UEP bid was rejected?? Well, Topalov feels perfectly comfortable with matches organized in Bulgaria ... .

I wondered about bringing up the cached version, but frankly it had already become public knowledge - e.g. e3e5.com (read by everyone interested in this sort of issue) still link to it with the original title: "For us it's more important to have the nominee" I didn't really check, but I'm sure it's e.g. found its way onto lots of forums.

Ok, now to concentrate on translating Shipov's commentary (for the final time at Dortmund). Last link of the day :) http://www.chessintranslation.com/live-game/

Ahh, it's *great* to see the Kramster finally do something else than the tired petroff. Here's hoping it's not a "special treat" reserved for his very good customer Naiditsch only.

Kramnik had already played the Pirc at Corus against Smeets, so it was no complete surprise for Naiditsch. He was successful then, but less successful at the Amber event (0.5/3 against Dominguez, the same Smeets and Karjakin).

Mamedyarov's 5.g4!? looked almost like a "mouse slip", but the prior 4.Nc3 is inconsistent with a g3 Catalan setup ... by now the game seems to peter out to a draw.

1-0, there it goes the Pirc and Kramnik 2.0 "the aggressor", back to Petroff now.

I remember some nice victories many years ago with the Classical Sicilian (not popular at top level now but maybe some line can be rehabilitated), why didn't he try that, or at least some Sicilian variation (e.g. Paulsen)? Afraid of all the English Attack theory? Or how about an off-beat Lopez? The Pirc doesn't fit, although it was nice to see him try it.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1085933

such states are called "the topalov-experience"

I dunno what you mean with "Classical Sicilian" (Richter-Rauzer as Ovidiu suggests?). I am not a theory buff, but I think in some lines black ends up with a - for a Sicilian - rather passive position: white exchanges on f6, black has to recapture with the g-pawn and then (also) castle queenside, white slowly builds up pressure on e6 (f4, g3, Bh3, f4-f5 at the right moment).

For a while Kramnik tried the Najdorf but gave it up because his results were as bad as with the Pirc ... . But a Paulsen or Kan setup could indeed make sense, he tried it once before in a must-win or want-to-win situation against a Hungarian friend:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1541027

Le-Leko held almost as many moves as the entire 6th round of the Biel young'uns tourney. They might be talented, but seems they're all competing to be the next Svidler. Future... so bright... time to buy those shade stocks.

Le passed the 2700-club entry exam, having been tortured by Leko and Kramnik (1st round) and still held onto the half point.

Nothing wrong with the piece sac at all, and after allowing 16.Bxa6 the alternatives are worse. He should probably have followed it up with 19..Rxb2 instead of 19..c5, and my FireBird keeps insisting on 0.00 (!) but quite obviously anything could have happened.

And he needed to play ambitiously anyway, given the tournament situation - so I don't think he regrets neither the piece sac nor the opening choice even now.

I might have guessed Leko, but never Kramnik. Those two are in freefall.

though it may be all theory of course, Fritz gave 13..Nxc5! 15.Be7 Bb4 16.Bxf8 Be6 with complications..

So far Kramnik-Mamedyarov follows Kramnik-Ponomariov, Tal Memorial 2009:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1563866

On Kramnik's overall tournament result, acirce already pointed out that it isn't unprecedented. Still it is an outlier compared to both his long-term Dortmund record and his recent supertournament record: first or second in Dortmund 2009, Tal Memorial, London and Corus. Too early to say that he's "in freefall"!?

Maybe he suffered from the unusual heat more than others: His health problems are, as far as I know, under control but not completely cured. And two of his opponents, Mamedyarov and Le Quang Liem, come from countries where temperature above 35 degrees Celsius aren't that uncommon (Ponomariov is living in Spain, though not in the hottest part of the country). Anyone may take this as an excuse or explanation, or consider it irrelevant - regardless of what Vlad himself may say in forthcoming post-Dortmund interviews.

@Kramnik-Mamedyarov follows Kramnik-Ponomariov

now Kramnik deviated with 16.cxb6, so it's all home cooked, Shak has spent 50 min ! to get here

there are no webcams, no online GM-commentary, no press conferences..very disappointing for a supertournament, what can you then ask from less important ones ?

In his Chesspro live commentary, GM Sakaev mentions that Ponomariov could have forced a draw by repetition after Kramnik's 16.c6 (good that he didn't at the time and the memorable game continued).
After 24.-Bf6, Sakaev writes (I love Google translations ...) "White closer to victory than to black tie. Moreover , the position in the style of Vladimir Kramnik, who had an outstanding endshpilnoy technique."

On your other point: As I wrote before, there is some PR in German - no problem from my selfish point of view, but I criticized Linares for "Spanish only" ... . At least Kramnik and Leko may appreciate that there are no compulsory press conferences. Yet they have a press center but, for some reasons, apparently few foreign journalists attending.

after Rf5 (g6) Re5 follows cutting King, afterwards the d pawn advance is unstoppable

Still an early resignation in Mamedyarov's trademark style.

..Bd4?? was a howler, although it wasn't obvious (to me) immediately.

Well (not kidding, just checked on the Internet), the worst heat is gone at the moment, current temperature is 22 degrees. But I had been to Dortmund myself one week before the tournament for a family reunion, and then some people (including my 80 and 88-year old aunts and 1 1/2 year young nephew) were suffering ... .

BTW, rather detailed analyses of Kramnik-Naiditsch by Lebedev at Crestbook (never heard of him, just another Russian!?):
http://online.crestbook.com/vasa/2010-1/dortmund-10-09-01.htm
It would be quite a challenge for mishanp to come up with a proper (rather than Google) translation, but the variations speak for themselves.

When Mam resigns, it is totally lost so it is not too early. Why waste time, Kramnik can't fail to convert that one 100 times out of 100.

100 out of 100 is a lot. I disagree.

Yeah, but I think it's, at least partly, due to Ponomariov's strangely passive play - it can backfire to play (only) for a draw with white? Pono can ruin ... well not everything, but quite a bit of his tournament which was also impressive so far.

And Leko gets another chance to play many moves trying to score his first victory - and get rid of (clear) last place ... .

Huh? Why would Mamedyarov be interested in such a "deal"??

Some people (including GMs Yemelin and Eljanov) had speculated that Radjabov-Mamedyarov 1-0, Astrakhan GP, was a "deal" - but that's another story, helping to secure spots in the candidates event for BOTH players.

What? Mamedyarov "cheat?" Oh, what a scandal that would be!!! (re: Mamedyarov Rhapsody, or the Kurnosov saga)

CO

If you have to ask... $$$

Well, that's a big insult to both players, particularly considering how little was at stake in the game. Mamedyarov followed an earlier Kramnik game and didn't have an improvement, so what? Even top players can have such gaps in their preparation.

It would make some sense in the other game I mentioned, but here Mamedyarov's (financial) compensation was obtained in a different way. Put it that way: then he didn't really mind losing ... .

It does look as a "deal", difficult to understand why Mamed would eneter such a tactical variation unprepared only to go straight to a pawn down, almost lost, endgame. Easy game for Kramnik.

And cheap too because if you look how many strange things happened to Mamedyarov this tournament one more of such kind would only fit the trend

OK you must know best ,:) but isn't Ponomariov at least a regular visitor to the Basque country? Anyway, congrats to him for tournament victory - he may have been a bit lucky that Le Quang Liem didn't try harder in the end (safe to say that today wasn't his best game) but played well in earlier rounds.

On Kramnik-Mamedyarov: As I wrote before, Mamedyarov has "a touch of Ivanchuk". Chucky also doesn't always follow recent opening theory developments, maybe Mamedyarov was already out of book after Kramnik's relatively unusual 8.dc5: ? In any case, here conspiration theories must include a fair dose of (unwarranted) hatred for both players.

On Radjabov-Mamedyarov: I wouldn't have brought this up if two respectable GMs, both present in Astrakhan, hadn't done so before (in the German magazine "Schach"). As I said it was a win-win situation for both players, AND the game was rather strange. The 50,000 Euros are new to me - and quite surprising given the circumstances (when Shak, or at least others in his situation, might have been "willing to lose" even without such a hint).

I agree on everything you wrote ,:) . Ponomariov was in some danger of "doing a Leko" and losing a still-important last round game, nerves may have played a role but everything turned out fine in the end. For the original Leko, it was probably some, but not too much consolation that he won his final game at this occasion ... .

Still, I agree with acirce that Le Quang Liem is the other hero of Dortmund 2010 - not only, but also because of his two games against the tournament winner. Incidentally, he prevented Ponomariov from "doing a Carlsen" and winning all of his mini-matches!

The tournament homepage promises analyses of their game with comments from both players in due course ("in Kuerze"), I may do some translating from German later on.

I think I've probably translated enough game commentary for now! Lebedev's not that highly rated (I don't think he's "even" an IM), but he specialises in very detailed computer analysis and trying to find the "truth" in a position (his analysis of e.g. Kramnik's win against Carlsen at Wijk was very good).

Amusingly, in a way, he's just applied his skills to Kramnik - Mamedyarov: http://online.crestbook.com/vasa/2010-1/dortmund-10-10-01.htm Though Mamedyarov's play was so awful there isn't really that much to comment on. As far as I can tell Lebedev points out that everything up until 21. Nd2 (when black's close to lost) was pointed out by Maxim Notkin in the January issue of the Russian chess journal "64" - which is all a bit embarrassing! Though you've got to give Mamedyarov some credit for the speed he managed to lose the ending :) By the way, if you're going to fix a game no-one in their right mind would fix it so badly!

@if you're going to fix a game no-one in their right mind would fix it so badly!

if you are going to fix a game your first concern would be to do it in such a way than nobody would think that you have done it

Well, as I pointed out before on Chessvibes, it's always "fashionable" to criticize the field of supertournaments - of course all those, often anonymous, people play chess much better than Ponomariov ... . Now the hatred is focusing on Leko - as if he hasn't achieved anything ever in his career.

As promised, some bits and pieces from the tournament homepage:
Ponomariov: "I cannot at all remember when I won such a strong event the last time. Hence I am very happy. Tonight I will celebrate ["party" would be another translation] with my second Zahar Efimenko." One could sense that the pressure that had built up throughout the tournament was gone.
Le: "It is a pity that I couldn't convert my better position. The position was complicated and I simply had too many good possibilities. Apparently this confused me."
"Before the tournament I didn't expect such a result. It is a confirmation for my hard work, because I prepared intensively before the event."

Ponomariov on the game itself:
move 1: "Before the game I had doubts regarding what I should play. The tournament situation required to avoid risks. Hence I played a quiet variation against the Caro-Kann."
move 8: "Here I started having doubts. I prepared well with Efimenko who played this line against Landa at the Russian Championship. But it looked as if my opponent was well-prepared even here."
move 12: "It was unclear to me what my opponent wanted in this game. Normally I would have offered a draw to see what his ambitions are, but due to Sofia rules this wasn't possible."
17.-g5! "I underestimated this. I thought I could swap pawns and mate my opponent on the h-file. Of course this was nonsense."

it just the continuation of a trend that's been going on for some time, imo

If this trend started with a WCh match, it may already have been Kramnik-Leko. Leko switched to 1.d4, for the first time in his career, after getting nothing (0.5/2) against the Petroff. Kramnik played 1.e4 at the time and later switched (back) to d4, maybe rather because some Sicilian lines became too sharp, complex and theoretical.

@ Ponomariov was in some danger of "doing a Leko" and losing a still-important last round game

Le was too restrained, too slow, in this final game and let pass the chance for a strong attack (which was the natural, logical, continuation for his postion) Nerves probably.

After 20..e5 (20..Qf6 was played) 21.dxe5 Nxe5 22.Qc2 f4 23.gxf4 gxf4 23.Bxf4 Qh4 there seem no way that Pono can defend without losing at least an exchange. (24.Bg3 Nxg3 25.fxg5 Qh5 ~26..Ng4)

I haven't checked this, and Shipov was posting live so couldn't go into anything too deeply, but he had this to say about 20...e5 (he, and the computers, thought move 30 was the moment Le let his chances slip):

"It was not at all easy to analyze the move 20. … e5 to a conclusion. There are too many branches … Here is a small illustration:
21. f3 (21. de Nxe4 22. Qd1 Nc4 etc. does not look good, and risky is 21. Ne2 f4 22. f3, for example 22. … Nd6 23. de Nxe5 24. Qxd5+ Ndf7 25. Qxd8 Nxd8 26. gf Nd3 winning an exchange) 21. … Nxg3 22. Kxg3 f4+ 23. Kg2 fe 24. Rxe3 ed 25. Rxe8+ Qxe8 26. Nd4 and White holds."

http://www.danamackenzie.com/blog/?p=887

By the way, all the translations of Sergey Shipov's commentaries can be found here: http://crestbook.com/en

Ponomariov himself gave Ovidiu's line (with 23.-Qf6 at the end) at the tournament homepage. BTW, Peter Doggers at Chessvibes has now translated all comments by the players, complete with game viewer - yesterday evening I was a bit selective.

Maybe not only Ponomariov was hesitating during the game (his post-game comments confirm my earlier impression), but Le at some stage decided that a draw would be a fine result securing clear second place - once Kramnik-Mamedyarov 1-0 was approaching or official.

Leko's last-round losses were against experienced players - Kramnik once or twice, Aronian and Gelfand in the GP series. Le Quang Liem isn't quite there yet - no disdain implied at all, but obviously there is still room for improvement.

I gotta 2nd "The Flash" at this point. I've been pretty supportive of Mig's schedule/situ for a long time, esp. with all he has going on. But we're starting to feel like a cactus (or a camel...).

How 'bout at least a guest blogger while things are busy?

Hmmm, how could Mig (or Kasparov) explain Kramnik's and Ponomariov's performances, apparently Pono himself doesn't really know (see below)? As to the Catalan, in Dortmund it fitted the generally solid positional style of four players (Ponomariov, Le Quang Liem, Kramnik, Leko) - games as Ponomariov-Kramnik or Carlsen-Kramnik, Corus 2010 can happen, but are rather the exception.

Winner's interview with Ponomariov at German Chessbase ( http://chessbase.de/nachrichten.asp?newsid=10677 ):
- His result came as a big surprise, given the strength of the field and the fact that he had only ten days to prepare (before, he played in Romania). He points out his shared first with Leko(!) and Aronian at the 2006 Tal Memorial, but has never before been clear first in a strong round-robin.
Q Where and how did you prepare?
Pono: "With my second Zahar Efimenko at a nice place in Spain nearby Bilbao. There was always a fresh wind, so we didn't suffer from the heat as much as later in Dortmund. For a change, we went to a concert of the German rock band Rammstein in Bilbao which we liked a lot." [so much for Pono's boring reputation, which would rather suggest classical music, softrock or jazz?]
- He has lots of praise for his second and will return the favor, being his coach when Efimenko plays a match against Naiditsch in August.
- On the Olympiad: "We want to fight for a medal. The Ukrainian federation is under new leadership, the new president Viktor Kapustin is very active. He paid all federation debts to FIDE, and will certainly also have an open ear for financial demands of our team."
- On the FIDE presidential campaign: "I support Anatoli Karpow. I appreciate him a lot as a player, have trained with him and learnt a lot. Regarding chess politics, in my opinion it's high time for a change within FIDE after 15 years."
Q When Karpov visited Dortmund, he had lots of praise for your play and spoke about Ponomariov's second birth.
Pono: "Really? This makes me feel shy (and a bit embarassed? What's the best translation of "verlegen"?)"
Q What's your favorite piece?
Pono: "I don't have a special one, I don't want to single our any piece on the board. Or do you mean women? (laughs) There is nothing more beautiful than a well-growwn woman."
[Was the interview actually held in German, where "Figur" is ambiguous? Or is this also the case in Russian?]
- Finally, Pono says that he would very much like to return to Dortmund next year to defend his title.

Thanks for the translation

I can also offer Dutch and French, and I wrote before that mishanp is welcome to copy my translations. But this particular interview may not be memorable enough to be prominently and permanently archived, except maybe the remarks about the Ukrainian federation - have things really changed much to the better?

BTW about the Olympiad (this became a mixed thread anyway):
- Germany is sending a B-team, because financial negotiations with top players Naiditsch, Meier, Gustafsson and Fridman failed.
- What about the USA?? Long after the deadline passed, the official list ( http://chess-results.com/olympiad/TeilnehmerSuche.aspx?lan=1 ) only mentions "Dummy, Dummy" for male and female players, plus some officials including Zsusza Polgar. Chessdom has a list of many teams, from medal candidates to countries as Australia, Singapore and Suriname, but no info on the USA.

And regarding "verlegen" - in any case, it should be "shy and embarassed" rather than "embarassed and angry". Freely translated it could also be "I don't know what to say" or "I am flattered, this is too much of an honor" (given WHO had said so).

Any translations are welcome :) Seriously, just send me anything and I'll probably put it up - though sadly there's no financial reward... My site says "Russian chess news and interviews in English", but to be honest at the moment there's probably only one post with "news", there are various game commentaries, and at the moment I'm working on a long Polish interview (and have all the Bulgarian stuff from the Sofia match to add). So basically everything fits :)

Anyone interested in the British Championship - there should be live video commentary here: http://www.livestream.com/leylandchess (I couldn't get a picture in the cafe where I'm sitting - though that's probably because the internet connection's so bad).

I have been wondering about the Olympiad USA team as well. During the recent U.S. Women and Juniors tournies, several Olympiad participant names were mentioned by the commentators (I think Nakamura, Onischuk, and Robson were mentioned). But there has been no mention of U.S. Olympiad team members on any chess blog I've visited. I wonder if there is some sort of last-minute political maneuvering going on there, with players getting added/dropped right to the deadline.

This could make sense, but the deadline was July 20th, one week ago ... :
http://www.ugra-chess.ru/eng/index.htm
Maybe they will get away with such things as a medal winner of the last event ... .

Hikaru Nakamura suggests that himself, Onischuk, Kamsky and Shulman play on the USA Olympiad Team.

http://www.hikarunakamura.com/

"My congratulations to Gata Kamsky on winning the title in 2010. However, I think that if all four of us from the quad final can play at a high level in the 2010 Chess Olympiad, we'll have a great shot at winning the gold medal in Khanty Mansiysk this upcoming September."

If they are still allowed to participate .... .

"Going for gold" sounds like typical American optimism, I prefer the restrained European Ponomariov who aims for "a" medal. Ukraine (Ivanchuk, Ponomariov, Eljanov, Efimenko) may be searching revenge for their drastic last-round loss against the USA in Dresden, both Russian teams should be motivated on home ground, further there is at least Armenia, Azerbaijan and China.

BTW I don't quite understand Nakamura's "However", but maybe it's just a filling word!?

Apparently the Russian team members are only going to get paid if they get a medal, $50,000 for gold, $25,000 for silver and $15,000 for bronze. Which should help with the motivation... It seems better to be a captain or trainer, as they get paid regardless, though they have to work with the players at least 8 hours a day. All part of the brave new world of Russian chess :)

@All part of the brave new world of Russian chess :)

it would have worked better for the Russian team if besides money for a medal the "no medal" variant would have meant 4 weeks vacation in an winter camp in Siberia.

Well, they'll already be in Siberia, all it would take is cancel their returning flights!

" 'Going for gold' sounds like typical American optimism, I prefer the restrained European Ponomariov who aims for 'a' medal. Ukraine (Ivanchuk, Ponomariov, Eljanov, Efimenko) may be searching revenge for their drastic last-round loss against the USA in Dresden, both Russian teams should be motivated on home ground, further there is at least Armenia, Azerbaijan and China."

Perhaps it was that "American optimism" that led the US to defeat the 'restrained' European attitude (not sure when Ukraine became considered "European"...)? It's always best to aim for the optimum result and give that effort due. Oft times even great efforts fall short of desired goals, so do your best at all times. Who aims for mediocrity?!

...you mean like this?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p008w072

"That would be the most impressive level of players that the USA has fielded at the Olympiad for quite a while, especially if Shulman can keep his good form, and Onischuk can recover his. Definitely a team that could punch above its weight."

It's the same team as in 2008 when they won the bronze.

I was just reading in Dan Ariely's wonderful _The Upside of Irrationality_ how offering high rewards for success in creative tasks (chess, not weight-lifting) is self-defeating.

Aronian and Topalov are on the same side of the draw basically because Topalov got yet another privilege - being seeded first (and getting a rather easy first match against Kamsky) as world championship loser, even though Carlsen is now ahead of him by rating in both the Jan and July 2010 rating lists.

In the given situation, Sutovsky's proposal to separate the final match and hold it elsewhere at a later stage would make sense. A possible final Topalov-Kramnik could be held in Baku after all. A final including Aronian could still take place in Kazan - or wherever outside of Azerbaijan. A final Topalov-Aronian can't happen ... .
However, Sutovsky's proposal seems to have little chances: according to Peter Doggers from Chessvibes who spoke with Sutovsky yesterday, Gelfand - while liking Sutovsky's ideas - is fundamentally against further changes to the cycle.

On Vachier-Lagrave: Why would his victory in Biel 2009, in a much stronger field, be "just a fluke" if he cannot repeat it this time?

"Perhaps it was that "American optimism" that led the US to defeat the 'restrained' European attitude (not sure when Ukraine became considered "European"...)?"

Perhaps you should take into account that Ponomariov wasn´t playing in the last Olympiad in protest to lack of funding, and now Pavel Eljanov is in the top 10. The Ukrainian team has at least as many reasons as the US to take "going for gold" as a realistic option, but I agree with Thomas that when you´re playing world elite it is adviseable to show some restraint or modesty. The American way is more optimistic and self-encouraging, well, nothing wrong with that! We (Europeans) just do things differently.
And as for the Ukraine being "European" or not, well, the continent of Europe reaches as far as Russia, but if you look at it from the cultural point of view Ukraine might be more "slavonic", I guess. Depends on how you look at it.

As others wrote before, Ukraine is of course part of Europe, rather than Asia or Africa. "American" is somewhat ambiguous, as it could refer only to the USA, or to one or two continents. In noyb's usage, "European" may only refer to countries which are currently part of the European Union or only to those west of the now defunct Iron Curtain - my usage was geographic ... .

I just found it rather amusing that two medal candidates (or rather players speaking for themselves and/or the whole team) came up with statements that were both ambitious, but still different in tone. What could be Nakamura's intention?
- impressing or scaring competing teams? I don't think this will work ...
- putting pressure on himself AND his teammates? This might work, but can also backfire. Over the past 1 1/2 years, Nakamura did best whenever he was not the (self-, fan-declared or objective) favorite ... .

IMO, for either team silver or bronze wouldn't be a "mediocre" result. Indeed, gold requires not only that they overperform, but also that Russia underperforms. Before Dortmund, Ponomariov didn't say "I want to or will win this thing", still he did it ... .

BTW, regarding the Ukrainian team, they (re)gained Ponomariov but lost Karjakin, so the main net change is that Eljanov improved over the past two years. If federation problems had been solved earlier and Karjakin was on the Ukrainian rather than the Russian team, they might have the right to be unhappy with silver!!?

..Topalov didn't have a problem playing in Russia, just playing a Russian player in Russia... And the only Russian player in the Candidates Matches is... Kramnik

I wouldn't play Kramnik in Russia myself, and for the same reason as Topalov.

You´re right Thomas. However, I seem to remember that the real star of the Ukrainian team during the last Olympiad was Zakhar Efimenko. Without him probably they wouldn´t have had the chance to aspire for either medal. This just means that everything is up in the air, there is no way of guessing who will win :D

Looks like Ukraine isn't really considered a "proper" part of Europe still today. Apparently Ukraine itself began to lobby to be thought of as "European" after the breakup of the U.S.S.R.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe

That is just totally wrong. Ukraine has been part of Europe since I learned geography in the 1970's, and for a long time before that I'm sure.

Nobody would use "Europe" as a synonym for the European Union, unless that meaning was clear from the context. And maybe not even then.

"It's the same team as in 2008 when they won the bronze."

True, the *players* are the same, but they are not necessarily playing at the same level as in 2008. In particular, Shulman seems to have stepped up his game, at least based on his recent impressive play at the US Championship.

My point is that as a group (in aggregate), those 4 players are playing at a higher level than they were going in to the last Chess Olympiad.

"It is with american optimism that they learn geography in the USA (btw, even if it's totally accepted by now, i've always found that using America when meaning USA was a total disrespect to almost a continent)."

Perhaps, but what is the alternative? The name of the country is The United States of America. When referring to the Country, I prefer to use USA. When referring to the citizens of that country, it is awkward to use anything else but American. There was a fellow that tried to convince other online posters to use "United Statesian"(!) to refer to USA citizens. That just rolls off the tongue, doesn't it? The irony is that many countries use "The United States" as part of their official title. So, it is not clear that many citizens of "The United States of Mexico" would even be mollified if such a change were to be made.

One should note that the USA was the first country in the Western Hemisphere (Americas) to gain independence. The USA was the only state (or Federation of 13 states) in 1776. All of the rest of North and South America and the Caribbean was still under (at least nominal) colonial rule. I doubt that there was any intent to cause umbrage to other areas of the American continents.

@i've always found that using America when meaning USA was a total disrespect to almost a continent

abolutely, the correct (politically) usage is "whiteish european invaders, criminals, and robbers"

"When referring to the citizens of that country, it is awkward to use anything else but American."

I thought "Yanks" was the accepted international standard now.

:-)

At first I thought Son, with 7-draws in a row, was a Leko-wannabe in this tournament. Then he surprised me, and I guess everyone else, with two straight wins. Note that Son and Le both tied for first in the penultimate round in Aeroflot this year (with Le won the final round to clear first, and Son lost the final round and got 3rd).

I am now waiting for the game between Wojtaszek and Morozevich. Am I only dreaming that Morozevich was Number One on the live ranking list for just one day, some time ago (two years or so)?

Also a bit surprising is the high rank for Athens, though it's consistent with statistics for other chess sites discussed here a while ago - quite a lot of chess interest in Greece (was it you who proposed, in jest, that Nigel Short is behind this?).

On Morozevich: Well, he has always be an erratic player, capable of beating strong players as well as losing against relatively weak ones - other recent examples include Laznicka (World Cup), Papaoiannou and Akopian (World Team Championship). How many comebacks did Ivanchuk have over the years? Chucky had fallen even deeper, briefly below 2700 on the live rating list.
At Pamplona, Morozevich might still gain some rating points at the end of the event. A more serious test on where he stands now might be the Olympiad where he plays board 1 on the second Russian team (it seems their lineups are strictly by current rating).

@vooruitgang: Germany will be represented at the Olympiad, but with a young B-team (Buhmann, Bindrich, Bogner, Huschenbeth, Kraemer) - seems they forgot about Baramidze and Braun ,:) . I will leave the discussion at Chessvibes where it's in full swing - just mentioning that mishanp (there Colin McGourty) and others pointed out that such problems aren't unique to the German federation.

I believe in five or so years, Carlsen will have his hands full battling with his contemporaries.

Jim, I guess wathing the development of these 19 year olds (Vachier Legrave, Caruana, Le) shows just what an incredible rate of progress Carlsen has had in the same timeframe. Those others are progressing really well, but Carlsen has been something else again.

Well done to Caruana. The tourney finally woke up near the end (R8 had lots of decisive games). Will any of them start being invited to the SuperGM tourney's, or is the "bright young star" spot now reserved for Le?

Who is Mig?

Not that bad, d_tal, it's produced many good players over the years, and still is...Short, Howell, Sadler, Nunn, Chandler, etc are some names past and present.Just not many of them playing there I guess, so Adams is a shark stuffed into a fishtank most of the time : )

As often (also in other countries), not all of the strongest players participate in the national championship. Adams is currently (again) the highest-rated English player, second seed GM Nicholas Pert is #8.

Dennis Monokroussos speculated that Adams' reason to participate might be gaining a few rating points. On the live rating list, he went from 2706 to 2726 - which also includes ten games from the French Team Cup and Turkish Team Championships. What kind of opposition did he face there?

The real English championship may be the London Chess Classics: Adams, Short, McShane and Howell with some foreigners thrown in. ,:)

Thomas wrong?! No way, impossible... lol

Thomas wrong?! No way, impossible. Just ask Thomas... lol

Please note also that I was initially replying to d_tal, who suggested that British chess may be "that bad" because Adams plays only considerably lower-rated opponents.

Altogether, isn't it a bit like games of chess? Sometimes we think pretty well, sometimes we think poorly, and sometimes we may have a good idea but play the wrong move or - here on this blog - use the wrong words.

I'll go along with that. I'm sure you did not intend to diminish the importance of being the 2010 British Champion by suggesting that the real Championship would be played some where else at a later event. For what it's worth, this is the real Championship being played right now, and one of the current particpants will be recorded as the 2010 British Champion. Not McShane, not Short, not Howell.

As for d-tal's comment, I'll let him speak for himself about what he meant. I understood it to mean not that the lower-rated opponents Adams has faced are weak, but that the objective quality of their opposition has been abysmally weak. It's almost as if Adams has played 5 games against "N.N"

Can we agree that this year there is one tournament which is the official British championship, but another one - London Classics - may be more meaningful to determine who's the best British player? That's all I meant to say ... .

While it would be a major surprise if Adams doesn't win the British championship, it is not a priori a given that he dominates the way he does - notwithstanding his draw against second seed Pert today. But Adams generally seems to do well against "weak" opposition, see also his result at the European Team Championship. His 6.5/7, TPR 2863 included
- one win against Andriasian (2612)
- five wins against players rated 2300-2500
- one draw against Yemelin (2570)
His expected score would have been 5.49/7, hence two draws with black or one loss by overpressing would have been "acceptable".
[Baden-Baden had their lineup strictly by rating, putting Adams on board 5 behind Movsesian, Bacrot, Vallejo and Naiditsch]

Spot on hag. I meant exactly that. Adam's opponents have played like the B team at an under 15 school championship. They played like 1800 rather than GMs and IMs. Maybe it was the legend of the man.

You have a good point, but everything is relative. Here Michael's class is so much higher than his opponents that he really should win fairly easily. I'm a decorated veteran like him knows how to handle that and won't put too much pressure on himself.

Adams also has one of the best records in the FIDE KO's, he's used to being the favorite and winning- against stronger opposition.

True, Mick is a step or two up in class, but never underestimate the desire of someone trying to obtain their IM or GM norm. It's fierce. I really have a lot of respect for Adams wading in to this. He's human. He can make mistakes. And if he does, one of those lower-rated blokes is still strong enough to punish it.
Finally, how many rating points can you acquire by beating someone rated one hundred fifty, two hundred points below you?

I agree that Adams has more to lose than to win in this event (but should this keep him from showing up at the national championship?).

In terms of rating points to gain: The live rating list was last updated after round 3 of the British Championship, Adams' wins against FM Eames (2287), GM Summerscale (2428) and IM Pert (2460) together gave him 4.4 rating points. Not much, but if we include his previous events (French Team Cup and Turkish Team Championship) he gained 20 points from 13 games. And the difference between Elo 2706 and Elo 2726, between #34 and #18 on the live rating list may start to matter in terms of future invitations?

"At Pamplona, Morozevich might still gain some rating points at the end of the event."

He lost 15.5 :(

http://chess-results.com/tnr34216.aspx?art=9&lan=1&fed=RUS&turdet=YES&flag=30&m=-1&wi=1000&snr=10

"And the difference between Elo 2706 and Elo 2726, between #34 and #18 on the live rating list may start to matter in terms of future invitations?"

That's a good point, Thomas. That would be a smart move on Mick's part. And being arguably Britain's best player at this time should also appeal to tournament organizers.

But perhaps this exposes flaws in the rating system... Is Adams now somehow magically that much better of a player (#34 to #18)? What does it really prove having a 2700+ beat up on 2300-2500 players, whose own ratings may be inflated?

Could the personal reason be due to the Russian who shall not be named is invited? Or may be the Russian with no name is invited because Topalov already decided not attending.

But does beating 2300-2500 players justify moving up in the ratings? It's virtually expected that the superior player should win. And by moving into the top 20, players do gain better invitations and money earning potential, despite the fact that they may not be better than the players they "leap-frog". Seems we need more of a rankings than a ratings system. Move up when you beat "up" and vice versa.

Seems a little bit farfetched as the person with no-name (Kramnik) has to play in Shanghai and qualify for Bilbao whereas Topalov would have been directly in Bilbao final as he won Linares. There could be a more genuine personal reason (e.g. he has not got over the loss to Anand).

Indeed, the flaw lies in the organizers' absolute belief in ratings and, related, the hunt for the highest possible category - a rating average of 2724 is category 19, an average of 2726 is category 20. A very recent example is that Wang Hao rather than Wang Yue now gets the Shanghai (Bilbao qualifier) spot because he is 8 points ahead by rating - of course Wang Yue can't really complain, he had plenty of invites ... .

Adams' expected score at the British Championship (so far) is 5/6, he scored 5.5/6 - hence he overperformed and gained Elo, makes sense if the statistical assumptions of the Elo system make sense.

If the players you leap-frog would have the same results against similarly rated opposition, there wouldn't be any leap-frogging. And 20 points, or 15 ranks, is not much of a difference. That's two games won. Normal fluctuation. Good form. Luck. The misconception lies in the assumption that those numbers would somehow mean big differences in playing strength.

Seems that some known tough guys are just inconsistent. Ponomariov and Gelfand come to mind. They can win strong tournaments one week, and finish half-way down the leader board the next. As we've seen only recently, Ponomariov, who has a heck of time with Carlsen, only finished half-way up the leader board in the Kings Tournament; but followed that with a full point win in Dortmund. If I was an organizer looking for invitees, I'd be scratching my head.

Request for background data for anonymous.

Why should organizers scratch their heads? They know beforehand that player A will finish first, player B will finish last, and the others are in between - but the game would be boring if the names corresponding to A and B were also 100% predictable beforehand. Moreover:
- They like if the local wildcard does well, which means that at least one or two other (nominally stronger, more established) players have to underperform.
- Even Carlsen depends on the presence of other players whom he can beat. He can only gain rating points if others lose/donate rating points.
- Some of the more inconsistent players (e.g. Ivanchuk, Shirov, *) are rather popular among both fans and organizers.

* also in response to acirce: not sure what to say about Morozevich at this moment in time

I think being a Tal fan was slightly more predictable. If he was ill, which was most of the time, he might just about be able to win a super tournament. If he was healthy, which was quite rare, the pieces would dance to the magic tunes that only the most talented player in history could create, and his opponents would stand back and marvel in awe.

"we're killing time waiting for the return of Mig...."

You will have to wait a long time for the return of Mig. Mig has alienated Kirsan.

Do you mean that Mig and Kirsan went to the alien mother ship in a stolen spaceship, to plant a computer virus and a nuke?

16-day data point request...hope you're simply
busy. best wishes.

Stuart may have lost the game, but he still gets the grand prize for the best name of a chess player EVER.

"The flaw is not in the rating system, but in the belief that #34 is much worse than #18. It's only 20 points."

Excellently put. Very often when people have "problems" with something rating-related, the "problem" isn't with the rating system, but with how it's being misintrepreted.

""The flaw is not in the rating system, but in the belief that #34 is much worse than #18. It's only 20 points."

"Excellently put."

How do you tell who the better player is if you don't believe that the ranking number is important? If #34 is not "much worse" than #18, then who is the better player? How do you distinguish between say #24 & #25? If the ratings aren't that relevent, what's the point of having a ratings system? You could put players in buckets and say, well this group of players are all about the same, and that group of players is all about the same, and you'd never have an idea or appreciation of who is best.

What's wrong with saying that players are "about the same", if this is indeed the case? I actually like your bucket model, though it's sort of a continuum rather than discrete buckets - e.g. 2699 is about the same as 2701, NOT a different bucket.

At the top of the live rating list, bare numbers suggest that Carlsen (2826) is at most a little bit stronger than Topalov (2803) or Anand (2800), probably slightly stronger than Kramnik (2780 - but their head-to-head results "paint" a different picture), most likely stronger than Grischuk (2760), there is a 90-99% probability that he's stronger than Dominguez (2716), ... .

This is still a simplistic picture, as it ignores or neglects two things:
- Some players, e.g. Carlsen, may be "underrated" - basically because the rating system has elements of inertia and cannot fully keep track with the progress they make.
- Some players, e.g. Ivanchuk, have a large standard deviation or error margin around their Elo. On one day, he can play at the level of Topalov - on another day, he plays like Dominguez or worse.

"I love watching Mickey Adams' games."

Agreed! I've said it before, but he's one of those players who adds something to a tournament simply by the fact that he plays in an almost unique style (even when he's unlikely to challenge for first place). It's great to see him climbing back up the rating list.

On Mig's absence - I guess he's just working hard with the Karpov campaign, which has suddenly sprung back to life.

I just translated an entertainingly surreal, if slightly worrying, conversation between the FIDE Vice President Israel Gelfer and the organisers of the Olympiad in Khanty-Mansiysk. Bizarrely the organisers spend the whole time arguing with each other even though Gelfer and the press seem to be present. http://www.chessintranslation.com/2010/08/making-a-drama-out-of-a-crisis/

It made me think of Mig because I translated it based on a tip-off at my site, but then realised that tip-off came from New York. Still, it's a fairly big place :) (and Mig's probably in Singapore or Dubai or wherever else the two Ks are nowadays!)

Yes, and I think Adams is a top, top player when in a bit of form. His "spidey" positional style is very high class. I think he's beaten everybody except Kasparov at some point or the other.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1014405

I would think it's more of an indication of how well he's dominated his particular set of opponents, not necessarily a comparator. The only way to say that he is the most dominant at this time would be for him to have played the exact same set of opponents as everyone else in the rating system.

This problem of ratings and accuracy reminds me of that of the BCS system in U.S. College Football, only even more exaggerated. The participants only compete vs. such a small percentage of the total volume rated that it's difficult to acheive a certain degree of accuracy.

For instance, Bobby Fischer was considered extremely dominant in his time, and he played opponents that were substantially weaker at times, and lost a few of those games. Many of the top 10 players now won't even participate in tournaments or competitions where they play opponents that are rated more than 100 or 200 pts. lower than themselves. They expose themselves to less risk than others so we don't get as clear a picture (i.e. as complete a dataset if you will).

I'm pretty sure that wasn't a serious classical game. Must have been a Blitz game or something. Adams has never beaten Gary in classical according to my recollection.

How is this possible? The expected result is calculated based on rating difference, not based on actual rating. Thus it should not be "progressive"? The only problem is that after a certain point, chess strength itself is much harder to gain. You can't add more calculating power very easily to human brain, so there are some limits in practical performance.

At the very top ratings should be quite accurate since they are based on games where people are always supposedly performing at their best level. I can see this as only reason why 20 points means more at top level than it does at lover levels - the ELO points are much better tested by high level games than by some random hangover games by chess hobbyists all over the world.

20 points are 20 points. 2720 to 2700 is exactly the same difference (in measured results) as 2020 to 2000. 2700 and 2000 are just arbitrary numbers, but 20 points difference does have a well-defined meaning. It translates to the same expectation value.

I am not sure about "20 points are 20 points". There is definitely some difference between the 20-point-difference of Carlsen-Anand (#1 - #3) and Kramnik-Grischuk (#5 - #6).
Carlsen and Anand is on the same chess level, whereas Kramnik is generally considered as above Grischuk.
In fact, I've noticed that the difference between #5 and #6 is generally roughly 20 points. Somehow that twenty points is pretty hard to get across.

That might be because many players fluctuate within "rating intervals". Kramnik usually has around 2775-2800 in rating, so he is closer to his "low" right now. Grischuk is usually around 2720-2760, so he is near his "peak".

One of the things that separate the top 5 from the rest, is their stability. If Gris gets more stable, he might be able to cross that gap.

"at least for the list topper (currently Magnus Carlsen) - the leading points are more hard earned"

I guess this should be 'only' (or primarily) for the top player or - referring to your previous post - for a 2800 player in a 2700 field. Similar situations occur at lower levels, e.g. Adams in the British Championship or even myself: my rating fluctuates between 1900 and 2000, and I mostly face players rated 1500-1900 in club and team competitions.

Of course I have a choice - I could join a stronger club to play in a higher league, or could play some open tournaments with stronger opposition. Adams has a perspective, maybe he will (again) be invited to strong round robins. Carlsen is stuck in his situation - too bad for him but I don't hear him complaining ,:)

It was a very Adams-esque conclusion. After 24...f5 I was only looking at things like Bh4 & Ne6, but Adams quietly switches play to the queenside and it turns out the pawns can't be held (and that's even the least of black's worries!). Nb6-c8 (or d5?) looks winning if black tried to struggle on with ...Rca8.

It changes at 1800 then again at 2000 then again at 2200 then again at 2300. The goal is to prevent more people from getting higher ratings.

I agree with your post, but this has nothing to do with the rating system, nor with differential k-factors: with a higher k-factor it is easier to gain 20 points, but also easier to lose 20 points.

Quite simply: the higher you have climbed, the harder and rarer it becomes to make further progress. Many people can walk up a hill ("Elo <2000"), less people are capable of strenuous hiking or rock-climbing in the Alps (Elo 2200-2400), even less do mountaineering in the Himalaya (Elo 2600-2700), and even in the Himalaya some peaks are tougher to conquer than others (Elo 2800).
Here as well as in chess, it depends on your inherent ability or talent, as well as on the amount of time, effort and maybe money you're willing and able to dedicate to your hobby or (eventually) profession.

You crack me up Thomas.

"I agree with your post, but this has nothing to do with the rating system..."

It's all about the rating system!

At any rate, the rating system is deeply skewed to make it artificially harder to get above a certain point, and then makes it too easy to keep going up after a certain point, without nearly the same ability to fall. All of this has arisen because of post-Arpad Elo tinkering by FIDE, etc. to maintain a certain image for the players and Federation.

A "true" rating system would not be so convoluted. Better still, have a ranking system, not a rating system.

It's hard to comment on your post because you don't specify the 'certain point' in "artificially harder to get above a certain point". Let's assume you mean 2700. A priori, step 1 (2670-2690), step 2 (2690-2710) and step 3 (2710-2730) are all equally difficult, or it becomes incrementally more difficult the higher you get - but why would step 2 be (much) harder than step 1 AND step 3?

Maybe it's sort of an optical illusion. A player already gets lots of local attention when he _approaches_ 2700, followed by global attention only after he _crosses_ 2700. Hence step 2 _seems_ harder, and the relevance of this step is "overrated" by chess organizers and the general public.
I will use Nakamura as a case study to falsify your (suggested) hypothesis:
1) For 2 1/2 years (Apr 2005 - Oct 2007), his rating fluctuated between 2632 and 2664
2) Then it took him 1 year to cross 2700 in October 2008
3) Then (ignoring the San Sebastian outlier in Sep 2009), it took him 1 1/2 years to cross 2730.

If anything, 2665 was incredibly hard to cross - but this is Nakamura, Vachier-Lagrave (another random example) had stagnation points at 2600 and 2640.

Beyond the apparent lack of empirical evidence: IF the current rating system had artificial and deliberate stagnation points, how would this be mathematically implemented?
Staying within the 2700+ club may in practice be easier than getting there, because once you're a member of the club you can join club evenings (top-level invitations) and a 50% score is generally sufficient to remain a member - no more need for big plus scores in Swiss opens. But that's due to how the rating system and the magic number 2700 is (mis)interpreted, not due to mathematics and statistical assumptions of the rating system.

"At any rate, the rating system is deeply skewed to make it artificially harder to get above a certain point, and then makes it too easy to keep going up after a certain point, without nearly the same ability to fall. All of this has arisen because of post-Arpad Elo tinkering by FIDE, etc. to maintain a certain image for the players and Federation."

WOW.

That's probably the most fundamentally misunderstood paragraph I've read about the FIDE rating system in a very long time.

If it had been target at the USCF rating system, it would've made a tiny little bit of sense (due to USCF's inflation-driving & solid rating floors, due to how it stops players to drop below those floors), but directed at the FIDE system that paragraph was complete and utter nonsense.

noyb, do you care to acquire some knowledge before you post about OTHER topics, or should we draw conclusions about those posts as well, based on the rubbish you write about the FIDE rating system?

It's funny how some people insist to provide practical "definitions" of terms like "clueless" and "ignorant".

Wow, once again.

"It changes at 1800 then again at 2000 then again at 2200 then again at 2300. The goal is to prevent more people from getting higher ratings."

Well, that's not the traditional reasoning behind different K-values at different rating levels - and it certainly isn't the effect.

The assumption is that a player's rating is considered more stable and certain at higher levels, i.e. one expects bigger fluctuations for the lower rated players.

One point of having high(er) Ks for the lower-rated players is the opposite of what you suggest, namely that lower rated players (which more often are in rapid development UPWARDS) faster should have their ratings adjusted to a more correct level.

On the other hand, lower Ks for the top players reduce too big "random effects" of normal variations in performances, variations that seldom are due to positive development or decline, but rather players going in and out of form.

In FIDE, players that aren't considered "established" (= have less than 30 rated games in total) have a K of 25, while the rest have a K of 15, until the players pass 2400 for the first, after which the K changes to 10 and stays at 10 "forever".

"the purpose of the rating system is to gauge future probabilities of performance using past results."

Chesspride, I wrote an elaborate answer once, explaining in quite some detail that this is dead wrong. You never answered that post of mine, but you're still dead wrong.

The purpose isn't to make "guesses" or estimates of what will happen in the future, but to measure past results.

You're mixing means with motive and purpose. From that basic misunderstanding, you're bound to go on to make even more serious mistakes.

"Ratings are assumed to be more variable at the lower end (i.e. chess ability changes more in beginners and performance is more subject to non-chess factors in amateurs).

That is precisely why K changes along the rating scale -- the assumption is that ratings at the low end are more likely to be "wrong" and so recent results are more likely to be "right" so the correction factor is larger."

Strangely, this and the rest of what you went on to write in that post of yours mostly made good sense, although it was rather unrelated to your initial, wrong claim about the rating system's purpose.

I guess understanding something's working mechanics (which it appears that you do) is different from understanding something's purpose. :o)

[And I must admit that my statement - "From that basic misunderstanding, you're bound to go on to make even more serious mistakes." - was less than perfectly appropriate at this time; My apologies. Maybe I should start reading the entire posts before I respond ... ;o)]

"Staying within the 2700+ club may in practice be easier than getting there, because once you're a member of the club you can join club evenings (top-level invitations) and a 50% score is generally sufficient to remain a member - no more need for big plus scores in Swiss opens."

Thomas, that's absurd, for several reasons. But let's try a little, simple argument.

1) ALL the current 2700+ players managed to GET there.

2) Clearly, not every one manages to STAY there.

What's harder - to get there, or to stay there?

Similarly, it's a fact that it's EASIER to gain rating points from lower rated players (unlike what the myth claims). How do people become 2700+ players? Exclusively by scoring highly against LOWER rated players. Lower rated players are lower rated because they are WEAKER players, and it's easier to score highly against weaker players than higher rated ones.

Moreover, players in a postive development - mostly younger players, but not always - typically score above their RATING-dictated "expectation" against ALL kinds of opposition, but (again, contrary to common belief) they score MORE above their expectancy (due to being temporarily underrated), thus gaining more points per game, against LOWER rated opposition.

Players "stagnate" (rating-wise) when they cross 2700 because then they start playing a higher percentage of their games against the best players in the world - players with more experience and skill, players that exploit every mistake and players (of a quality) that the fresh 2700 players aren't used to facing. To stay 2700+ when playing these "new" type of opposition, they need to change and adapt their game.

Clearly not everyone is able to do that, and they either drop below 2700 again and stay there, or they keep bopping up and down, LOSING rating points to the established, stable 2700+ (or stable 2720+ is probably more accurate) players, while WINNING the points back from the weaker, lower-rated players. If you manage to get to 2700, you are after all more successful against 2600 and lower opposition than players that get stuck on 2650.

Never understood the point some people hold about "double posting": If I respond to 4 different posters/posts, what's better?

a) Lump everything together in one big post, without the option to provide direct links to the post responded to, or

b) Make a separate reply to each individual post, complete with references and such.

Btw, 5 is far from my "personal best" in successive posts... ;o)

Now all we need is Mig :)

In the meantime... my translation of Michal Krasenkow's Q&A session with Crestbook readers has just been published: http://www.crestbook.com/node/1287

He answers some more general questions than you'll find in the usual topical interviews e.g.

"Vasa: Why do we need chess?

Practically speaking you could say that we don’t, as it’s only a spectacle for those in the know, while in terms of its educational functions it can no doubt be substituted by other games. But chess is part of human civilisation: of history, tradition, culture – it’s one of those things that distinguish us from the Neanderthals."

Basically I was trying to make sense of noyb's post - I agree with you that it was complete nonsense but don't have your authority to say so ,:) .

Still I would say my suggestion was probably simplistic, but isn't absurd. I think your "simple argument" is misleading:
"1) ALL the current 2700+ players managed to GET there"
Here you forget that they are the successful ones from a larger group of candidates who may also have the ambition and potential to join the club, but still don't make it. I could name many but will limit myself to the letter N ,:) : Naiditsch, Nepomniachtchi, Nielsen, Nisipeanu. Yes, this is also simplistic. They were or are all knocking on the door: Nepo and Nielsen just started their 2700+ career, the others briefly joined the club but didn't stay.

What I wanted to say:
- In a Swiss Open or subtop round robin (say, Elo 2500-2650) maybe 10-20% of the field can score a 2700+ TPR. And starting from Elo 2650, one needs several such results (and few or no worse ones in between) to officially join the club.
- In a supertournament, 50% or even -1 is enough for such a TPR, doable for half the field or more.
So statistically or empirically, it is "more common" in a supertournament - another story may be whether it is indeed "easier".

As you have the data (and if you have time to spare ...) maybe you can come up with statistics comparing sucess rate of potential 2700ers with survival rate of those who made it. Of course many subjective definitions would be involved:
- Who is a 2700+ candidate? Anyone rated >2650? Anyone who already had a 2700+ TPR? Anyone who beat world top players (e.g. Naiditsch has two wins each against Kramnik and Shirov)? Anyone whom you already 'monitor' because he might join your live rating list in the nearby future?
- What exactly is 2700+ survival? How many tournaments or games are required before a 2700+ rating is considered confirmed?

Never said it was a bad thing! What was your P.B., 7, was it?

Thomas - You obviously subscribe to the "if you can't beat 'em with facts, baffle 'em with Bravo Sierra" theory. Your voluminous sputtering doesn't support your premise, or any premise, if you are seeking one.

I gave facts, maybe not the right ones because it is unclear what YOU were talking about ... .

Referring to your previous post: "the rating system is deeply skewed to make it artificially harder to get above a certain point, and then makes it too easy to keep going up after a certain point, without nearly the same ability to fall" - which 'certain point' do you mean?

"Basically I was trying to make sense of noyb's post"

Why?

If 19...Rxd4 then 20 Qxa7

Chesspride: "But 20 pts difference means the same thing. Or to put it this way -- Rating X means nothing."

While I understand your point of view, there HAS to be a fundamental difference (re: USCF ratings).

Although each of the following is a difference of 20 points, the relative 'strengths' of the players seems to be different, because of the amount of points awarded due to rating threshold:

2175 vs 2195 (consider this 20 'basis points')
2195 vs 2215 (then this would be 35 'basis points,' because the points above 2200 are twice as hard to get)
2205 vs 2225 (and so this would represent 40 'basis points')

While 20 points is trivial, the same argument can be made for a 100 point difference, which would not be so trivial. The difference in 'strength' between an 1800 and 2000 would be the same as between a 2201 and 2301. (I understand that the word 'strength' is an arguable distiction, but it serves the purpose here as for example)

I don't claim this is true, but it sure seems logical. Oh, and thanks for confirming my admitted ignorance about FIDE ratings! I'm sure it made you feel good. :)

CO

That's what I was just about to write. Then white threatens to open the b-file (20.-c4 is impossible because the rook is hanging), so maybe 20.-Rb4: 21.Rb4: cb4: 22.Ba6 is forced and seems to lead to perpetual check - which wasn't enough for Adams.

You are right in this one , but you forgot to mention how the russian chess federation is playing monopoly with the chess world . Again.

I did not see all the perpetuals after 20.Qxa7, but I think Adams probably did. At the end, he may have wanted to go drink some beer.

[Discussion on why 2205 vs. 2225 means 'more' than 2195 vs. 2175]
"I don't claim this is true, but it sure seems logical."

I would argue it's logical in one out of three cases. It isn't really harder to gain additional rating points above 2200, due to the decreased K-factor it just takes longer. The three scenarios for, e.g., Elo 2300 would be
1) a rapidly improving (young) player may be underrated: He already had several TPRs of 2350-2400, but his official rating doesn't reflect this _yet_. At a higher level, Caruana, Giri, Le Quang Liem and Carlsen(!) may all be underrated.
2) for a stable player, whose strength hasn't changed over the last two or five years, 2300 actually means 2300.
3) an (old) player may be on a decline, but his official rating still partly reflects his former strength, hence he is overrated. Karpov may be an example: whenever he played in the last three years (he doesn't play much these days) he lost some rating points.

The chosen K-factor is a compromise setting between
- adequate Elo number for players showing consistent long-term trends and
- avoiding to overemphasize erratic short-term fluctuations: Ivanchuk's rating yoyos between 2700 and 2800, with a higher K-factor his dynamic range might be 2650-2850 or 2600-2900.

"maybe you can come up with statistics comparing sucess rate of potential 2700ers with survival rate of those who made it."

Thomas, that's comparing apples with oranges. I.e. YOU are the one who suggests a misleading comparison.

The two comparable percentages are

1) Percentage P1 of the "potential 2700ers" that make it above 2700.

2) Percentage P2 of the "potential 2700ers" that make it above 2700 and STAY there.

Which is exactly what I compared. The group of players that make it above 2700 do that for a reason and they constitute a quite different "population" from what you coined the "potential 2700ers".

Here's an analogy, men's high jump in track & field:

Let's consider the group of talents that are able to pass 2.20 meters. What is more difficult of

a) passing 2.30
b) passing 2.31

Your suggestion of how to find out (from the above 2700+ discussion) is equivalent to the following:

Consider the percentage P1 of the entire population (passed 2.20) - the "potential 2.30+ ers" - who manage to pass 2.30. Compare this to the percentage P2 of those who pass 2.30 who also manage to pass 2.31

In this example you are VERY likely to find that P2 is notably higher than P1, and hence we can conclude that passing 2.31 is easier than passing 2.30.

Which indeed is a "brilliant" piece of rhetorics. :o)

"However, that would be boring and trivial if it weren't possible to make predictions on future performance from that effort.

[...]

If all we did with ratings was say "wow, Kasparov's 2851 shows he won a lot of tourneys" that would be trivial -- akin to the accumulation of master points in bridge."

No, it's NOT boring and trivial to make results from VERY DIFFERENT types of tournaments comparable in a weighted, fair way. The FIDE rating system does that quite well, unlike sports with typical ranking systems like tennis, snooker and golf. The weights of various tournaments are quite random and completely unscientific for those other sports I mentioned (and most others that employ ranking system).

The crux of relative rating systems is that there is some meaning to the differences in ratings - which is what you have understood - but this is only the MEANS to make results from vastly different types of tournaments comparable. The (important) element of "expectation" is HOW we manage to normalize results over different tournaments and compare players that haven't competed directly.

You are mixing HOW with WHAT & WHY.

WHAT: normalize results and achieve a metric based on results from many different types of tournaments all over the world

WHY: be able to compare players' results fairly, even players that haven't competed directly (which is the normal situation with a huge player mass), and to use the normalized result metric as an APPROXIMATION of player strength

HOW: employ a notion of "expectation" based on rating differences (the relation of the ratings of two players, i.e. a relative measure)

It shouldn't be hard to understand what I'm saying. You appear to think that I ignore the importance of the concept of "expectation" in chess ratings, but I clearly do not. You, on the other hand, are elevating the MEANS to achieve a meaningful normalization of results across tournaments - the METHOD of providing an estimation of player strength - to the very purpose of the rating system.

Jeff Sonas does a litle of the same, in the way he promotes (immediate) prediction strength as the holy grail of rating systems and the only true measure of a rating system's quality. I've already shown by means of a hypothetical rating system (google "brainmetrics" site:chessvibes.com) that we clearly DO NOT WANT a rating system with perfect predictional strength; such a rating system would be utterly useless. But it can serve as a reminder and illustration that "prediction" is NOT the purpose of chess rating systems.

"but you are wrong."

No, you are wrong. ;o) And I bet my dad beats your dad at chess, too! ;o)

Let's forget about "easy" or "hard" - as you wrote yourself, task 1 (getting to 2700) and task 2 (staying there) are quite different ones. And in the first instance it's irrelevant that task 1 is a prerequisite for task 2.

Picking up your high jump analogy (I will use different numbers, never mind that they are well above the current world record):
Getting to 2700 means passing 2.75 two or three times - crossing Elo 2700 generally requires some TPRs well above that level. (Some of the "potential 2700ers" may have done the same thing, but had worse results in between.)
Staying at 2700+ means passing 2.72 on a regular ("routine") basis - once you've reached 2700, you don't need >>2700 TPRs to keep your rating, only if your ambitions reach higher.

And, also consistent with what you (and I) wrote: task 1 usually implies big plus scores against weaker opposition, task 2 often a 50% score against stronger opposition. Hard to find a track & field analogy, indoor vs. outdoor high jump? ,:)

Anyway, maybe I (still) don't find the right words, but I don't think that my initial suggestion is completely ridiculous ... .

Impressive, but (before anyone makes predictions about the Olympiad) China has their strongest lineup, Russia doesn't. Dunno what Kramnik is doing at the moment, Grischuk and Karjakin are now playing the Mainz rapid (Aronian, Shirov, Movsesian and Gashimov are the other top seeds).

Don't we need to subtract about 100 points from those ratings to make them more real?

Thomas: "It isn't really harder to gain additional rating points above 2200, due to the decreased K-factor it just takes longer."

Huh? The higher you get, the harder it is. Period. But let's not confuse head to head abilities (playing strength) with mathematics (ratings).

LOL!!

CO

"The higher you get, the harder it is."
Generally agreed - but all I meant to say is that it doesn't suddenly get much harder above 2200.

At a certain point, it will get harder because all or most of your opponents take chess very seriously (and may have to earn their living from it). So you won't face opponents who have a hangover, aren't fully concentrated at the board or don't prepare for the game - but whatever that level is, it's probably >2200.

If frogbert doesn't correct you, I will ... ,:) . Even if Wang Yue gained rating points from weaker players, he has shown before that he can compete with the world elite:
- At the FIDE Grand Prix series, he was in competition for the second qualifying spot to the candidates event until the end.
- In 2009, he had a series of -1 results in supertournaments: Corus, Linares, MTel, Nanjing. This wasn't impressive, nor was it that bad. He had wins against Gelfand, Radjabov, Carlsen (twice), Ivanchuk and Morozevich - plus many draws.
- His "slide" or freefall now is essentially related to one bad result (3/10 at Bazna this year). Ivanchuk, Shirov, Morozevich had similarly bad results and came back [OK, Wang Yue lacks their excellent results at other occasions].

If you don't like his playing style, fine ... but don't question his achievements. Incidentally, I wrote similar stuff about Leko ... .

Okiedoke,sir. We'll just have to see what the future brings. Small wager on one thing: the guy will never beat Carlsen again.

"Don't we need to subtract about 100 points from those ratings to make them more real?"

There's approximately a 70 point difference between USCF and FIDE.

Nakamura is 2806 USCF and 2729 FIDE Live
Caruana is 2773 USCF and 2707 FIDE Live
Kamsky is 2770 USCF and 2705 FIDE Live
Onischuk is 2761 USCF and 2688 FIDE Live

"the guy will never beat Carlsen again"
Never say never, but I tend to agree with you. But that's a matter of Carlsen getting used to Wang Yue, and of Carlsen getting stronger rather than the Chinese getting weaker - who (but Kramnik) can beat Carlsen at the moment?

For what it's worth, Wang Yue is back to #17 on the live rating list - yes, mostly by beating weaker opponents but he just won against (World Cup hero and live #16) Malakhov in the Russia-China match.

Very good. Thanks.

Ivanchuck, of course.

> who (but Kramnik) can beat Carlsen at the moment?

Agree 100% on Yermo and all his writing.

"Once you analyse your games in detail, you may not like what you see"

" Another bad case is when your advantage is gone, but you're still playing under the impression of the past glory. That's why so many "won" positions turn into losses".

In a recent interview on John Watson's superb show on ICC Yermo said he had been writing an endgame book but he has stopped work on it. I hope he will reconsider. He knows his endgames and he is one of the best commentators on ICC. Honest and refreshing. He tells it like it is. Can't wait for NH this year!

Yeah, I knew what you meant. And I agree with your analysis of what point folks get 'serious.' It might even be >2400, but definitely >2300.

CO

Thanks for the update Dylan. Hopefully Mig's enjoying a nice vacation then and we'll enjoy a refreshed and recharged GM-Blogger soon.

For chesspride:

Caruana plays for Italy and per FIDE, and his only transfer occurred in October of 2005 at age 13.

http://ratings.fide.com/fedchange.phtml?year=2005

Hi George -

Do you know why Switzerland is given as the state of Caruana's residency on the USCF rating page?

http://main.uschess.org/component/option,com_wrapper/Itemid,181/

Is Switzerland simply the default setting for any USCF member who does not live in the USA? Or, does Caruana actually live in Switzerland?

Hag

Well, good for him. A true citizen of the planet. USA citizen, lives in Switzerland, plays for Italy. Thanks.

Hag

Thank you.

Speaking of Kamsky, he just won the Mainz Rapid tourney over Aronian, Grischuk, Gashimov, Shirov, et al. with a 10/11. http://www.chesstigers.de/

I am impressed. Congratulations Gata Kamsky!

"And, also consistent with what you (and I) wrote: task 1 usually implies big plus scores against weaker opposition, task 2 often a 50% score against stronger opposition."

Thomas, first - like Bartleby pointed out - you don't necessarily need performances much bigger than 2700 to break 2700. And these days it's NOT like the players who manage to get just above 2700 suddenly start playing all the super-gm events. In fact, having between 30 and 40 2700+ players don't leave too many elite events for the fresh faces.

And in fact, I claimed that several of those who manage to stay 2700+ (if they aren't in the Carlsen-league) often do that despite "underperforming" slightly against established 2700+ (2720+) players, while continuing to score "above expected" against the lesser players - like they did in the first place in order to break 2700.

Anyway, based on the live top list I assembled some data about traffic crossing the completely arbitrary "2700 border" [as there is no meaning to that specific number, except in relation to the other numbers in a given list, and in that respect the "meaning" of 2700 is different in every rating list, because it positions you differently in the ever-changing pool/distribution of players].

Somewhat randomly I chose to consider the first list I published in 2009, http://chess.liverating.org/toplist.php?id=2009010301#table-top and the current list as of today, http://chess.liverating.org/toplist.php?id=2010080801#table-top

The first list has 32 entries, the current one has 36. The lists are 19 months (ca. 1,5 years) apart. Of the 32 players in the first 2009 list, 24 are also 2700+ in today's list. Hence 8 of the 32 players have dropped below 2700. During the same period 12 new players have entered the list - whether all of them are there to stay obviously is too early to tell, and that goes for those (maybe only temporarily) being below 2700 too, of course.

Additionally, there's a group of 8 players that have touched 2700+ in one or more lists between these two points in time, but once again are below 2700 today.

As I've explained multiple times before, my view regarding "rating inflation" is that many people don't take into account the increase of young, strong players when considering the topic of inflation. The flawed idea of anchoring the inflation definition to the rating of number X (say, 100) in every rating list, is simply a way of postulating that the number of strong players over time is constant - blatantly ignoring the development in the chess world, where technology has made chess more "balanced" and "fair" in the sense that players from nations without (major) chess traditions have got much better chances to develop their talent. In short, many more people play organized chess today than ever, and the number of interesting chess tournaments around the world have probably never been higher

This is part of my rationale for attaching the players' birth years to the following data, comparing the Live Top List of January 3rd 2009 and the one of today, August 8th 2010:

2700+ then, not now (8 players):

Akopian 1971
Alekseev 1985
Bu 1985
Morozevich 1977
Ni 1983
Rublevsky 1974
Sasikiran 1981
Vallejo 1982

Avg of birth years: 1979,8 (ca. 30 y.o.)

2700+ between these two lists, but not now (8 players):

Georgiev 1965
Kasimdzhanov 1979
Motylev 1979
Naiditsch 1985
Nielsen 1973
Onischuk 1975
Short 1965
Tiviakov 1973

Avg of birth years: 1974,2 (ca. 36 y.o.)

2700+ now - new entries (12 players):

Almasi 1976
Caruana 1992
Eljanov 1983
Fressinet 1981
Jobava 1983
Nakamura 1987
Navara 1985
Nepomniachtchi 1990
Tomashevsky 1987
Vachier-Lagrave 1990
Vitiugov 1987
Wang Hao 1989

Avg of birth years: 1985,8 (ca. 24 y.o.)

2700+ then and now (24 players):

Carlsen 1990
Topalov 1975
Anand 1969
Aronian 1982
Kramnik 1975
Grischuk 1983
Mamedyarov 1985
Ivanchuk 1969
Shirov 1972
Ponomariov 1983
Radjabov 1987
Karjakin 1990
Gelfand 1968
Svidler 1976
Wang Yue 1987
Adams 1971
Malakhov 1980
Jakovenko 1983
Leko 1979
Movsesian 1978
Bacrot 1983
Gashimov 1986
Dominguez 1983
Kamsky 1974

Avg of birth years: 1979,5 (ca. 30 y.o.)

---

Of the 20 "new" appearances, 12 players are still 2700+, while 8 have dropped below again. In addition, another 8 have fallen below 2700 of the original 32 players above. So, of the 28 players involved in "2700-crossing", this or that way, 12 remains above 2700. Of course, this is something of a "rhetorical trick" with words, since there HAS been a net growth of 4 of 2700+ players in this period. But it can be seen as a way to emphasize that there are always many ways to consider and judge an issue.

What I find interesting, is WHO the players are, as gauged by the players' ages. We note that the age of both the players remaining 2700+ and those 8 that were 2700+ but fell below was approximately 30 years on average. However, of those 8 who touched 2700+ temporarily to fall below again, the average age was nearly 36, while in the group of (12) new entries that currently are 2700+, the average age is only 24!

To me it appears hard to deny that the increase in 2700+ players is strongly related to the emergence of new talent in greater numbers than before.

That the data above actually say anything meaningful about breaking 2700 and staying 2700+, isn't anything I would bet on. But possibly it's interesting to note that 24 + 8 + 12 + 8 = 52 players that have been in and out of the Live Top List between these two lists, only around 24 have been there more or less consistently for 1,5 years [I say "around 24" because e.g. Moro has been there more often than Adams for instance, but the above is just a rough sketch anyway.]

My main point, though: those who break 2700+ and stay there, do it for a reason - and this reason is youth and chess strength, not artificial mechanisms in the rating system itself.

Not where the metric is ONE SIMPLE SCALAR VALUE, like in most chess rating systems, no.

Isn't that pretty obvious?

Of course, people forget all the time that individual player records are full of stuff like that, if not as extreme as in the well-known case of Kasparov/Shirov. Those who think like chesspride and seemingly believe that PREDICTION is the main feature of our current rating systems will invariably raise unwarranted criticism against a system's lacking capability of making "correct" predictions.

But the rating systems don't claim to be able to do any such thing, regarding the outcome of a game or match between two specific players; The players' ratings do NOT first and foremost represent a prediction of how they will do against each other (based on the rating difference), but rather say something about the difference in how they HAVE performed on average against ALL their past opponents (based on the rating difference).

Of course, if each were to face a representative collection of their past opponents AGAIN, one would expect them to score approximately according to their current ratings - but that's quite a different proposition. :o)

Thank you. Another question: should ratings be lowered for inactivity?

I never claimed that there are "artificial mechanisms in the rating system itself" (noyb did), but there may be artificial mechanisms due to how organizers perceive the completely arbitrary boundary (or 'magic number') 2700. True, a 2700+ rating doesn't guarantee _many_ invitations to top events - but one gets _hardly any_ invitations without such a rating. Exceptions are qualifying spots such as Corus B and Aeroflot (but that's it!?), and wildcards partly based on passport rather than Elo merit - available to Naiditsch, Nisipeanu, Vallejo, various Dutch players, not available to (e.g.) French and US-American players.

In summary, there seems to be a "2700 threshold effect" - partly due to organizers' preferences, partly because 2700+ players hardly play opens which are open to everyone. Hence >2700 and <2700 are somewhat different worlds, even if there is of course some overlap. Another story is whether this has a noticeable effect on future ratings - your data suggest that this isn't really the case.

"I never claimed that there are "artificial mechanisms in the rating system itself""

Sure, I know that was noyb's claim. You're too sensible to make such claims. :o)

"In summary, there seems to be a "2700 threshold effect" [...] Another story is whether this has a noticeable effect on future ratings - your data suggest that this isn't really the case."

Where is the "threshold effect" if there's no "noticeable effect on future ratings", Thomas? That sounds a bit self-contradictory to me ...

I do not see a major flaw in your system (see below for a minor one), but obviously it is designed for, and only works within a closed pool. You can compare ratings within your club, you cannot compare them with another club - not even if it uses the same system. The Elo system can compare players across the whole world: when outsiders ask me about my playing strength, I tend to say (based on a rating of 1900-2000) "about halfway between beginner and world champion".

The flaw would be that any newcomer starts with 500 points. If he is an absolute beginner, he will be overrated. If he is new in town and has played for another (stronger) club before, he may be underrated. In both cases, it will take some time until his club-rating more or less accurately corresponds to his real strength. And if the newcomer happens to be a GM thrown into a bunch of amateurs, all amateurs may "suddenly become weaker" - but for every single one this effect is only felt once he plays the GM.

Thomas, of course, in terms of being a potential "door opener", 2700+ adds visibility and exposure to the eyes of organizers [and maybe even more so now, as a potential side-effect of the live ratings 2700+ "poster" that I keep updating].

Hence, I understand and partly agree if you're only referring to a "threshold" for being considered. However, like I pointed out, with the increasing number of 2700+ players, it appears as if it takes more than just showing up on the Live Top List, just above 2700, to earn invitations.

Btw, MTel used to invite several high 2600s not too long ago - see 2007 or 2008 (didn't bother to check).

What happens if a member quits?

Unless all other members in the club lose a few points each, the number of points may NOT be 500 x the number of members:
*If a 0-499 - player quits, the others will have gained rating (inflation)
*If a 500 - player quits, there will be no effect
*If a 500+ - player quits, the other will have lost rating (deflation)

Don't know if this is a weakness, though.

If players quit, you can either hope it will even out over time, or you can adjust the ratings across the board:

If a strong player quits, distribute the excess points by adding to the rating of active players (always a popular move). If a weaker player quits, subtract points (and then quickly retreat to your shelter).

I think the following applies for most players:

1. You get your first rating (club, online) based on a period where chess is important to you
2. You gain strength and rating
3. You lose interest/get old, lose strength, lose rating
4. You quit playing (or play only with your friends)

Strong players obviously stay a long time in step 2, and end up with a much higher rating than their original. Weak players, and I assume there are orders of magnitude more of them, may however jump from 1 directly to 3 (like myself), and quit, having pumped points into the system.

Anyway, this kind of "tourism" could be a driving force of what looks like inflation, but actually only represents an accurate description of normal people losing strength when playing less. I also think similar effects are common in most sports and hobbies.

"Weak players, and I assume there are orders of magnitude more of them, may however jump from 1 directly to 3 (like myself), and quit, having pumped points into the system."

Well, but as I've shown, across the ENTIRE population, the FIDE rating system is "leaking" rating points (not much, but a little), not the other way around. That doesn't contradict a slight inflationary trend for some parts of the pool though, in particular for the really ACTIVE players - but based on my calculations (which are REAL calculations of rating change, not postulated rating inflation with no solid documentation), the changes are quite more modest than most popular "guesstimates" suggest. In the ballpark of 30-35 points since 1990 ...

I never claimed that Thomas. Do a search on the phrase, you won't find it in any of my posts.

"artificial mechanisms in the rating system itself"

Once again, Thomas in fantasy-land...

Not literally, so searching indeed wouldn't yield any results. But (Aug 5th 4:13PM) you wrote "the rating system is deeply skewed to make it artificially harder to get above a certain point, and then makes it too easy to keep going up after a certain point, without nearly the same ability to fall."
You never clarified what that 'certain point' would be - it could also be 1623 or 2267, but then your comment would be even more cryptic.

" Well, but as I've shown, across the ENTIRE population, the FIDE rating system is "leaking" rating points (not much, but a little), not the other way around. That doesn't contradict a slight inflationary trend for some parts of the pool though, in particular for the really ACTIVE players [...] "

Exactly. This was my point. Thanks;-)

Thomas - So you misquoted me...

As for calling my posts "cryptic", "pot-kettle" my friend. You are skillful at deflecting attention and changing the subject when being scrutinized. I take it you must be either an American Executive or a Russian... lol.

So what is the (artificial) difference between "artificial mechanisms in the rating system itself" and "the rating system is deeply skewed to make it artificially harder ..."? Who are you in real life, an American Executive or a Russian?
Maybe you referred to Level 42 ... ?

"Am I alone in not giving a monkey's todger about ratings and rating debates?"

Probably not. Similarly, you're not alone in being unable to provide something you find more interesting to debate - unless you suggest that we should talk about your aversion to rating debates, of course.

Let's hope Mig returns soon to spoonfeed the poor bastards incapable of igniting a thread they care for ...

Now frog, the fact that I and doubtless some others am utterly bored by a certain topic and consider it an unimportant side issue of actual chess obsessed about by fellow club-players- whose chess suffers as a result and who become idiotic snobs- (avoiding local events to try to "maintain their 2000 rating" and similar nonsense) the general chess world, where we also see this absurd obsession with damned "rating points" at every level, and to which far too much attention is devoted on this blog - to the detriment of analysis of actual chess play and players - by persons repeating the same tired, utterly irrelevant questions (your own expertise- you know of what you speak- and service to the chess world derives my respect, and my post was in no way an attack on you)-does not merit such an acidic response. I and others are not gagged from expressing our displeasure by your over-sensitivity, either. Neither are we obliged to supplement our negative opinions by suggesting other topics every time we open our beak to express our annoyance. And yes, annoyance with the topic of ratings IS a topic in itself, about which I cordially invite all parties to express their opinions. While your point regarding those who only criticise and never contribute is valid, that nevertheless does not preclude our right to compain if we see fit. Otherwise this would swiftly become a fascist mini-empire where all must humbly either remain silent or come up with other topics when they express violent dislike, which is surely their democratic right.
Your language is unbecoming of this blog, sir. You have been the subject of several attacks here in the past and we can only presume that you have become over-prickly as a result. If such language was used on you, sir, you would scream blue murder. And neither do you control what is said on this blog space, whether it irritates you or not, and if you wish to express YOUR displeasure, you are invited to do so in a civilized way. Yes, "hel" may be used by one to describe your hobby-horse. Not everyone has the same interest as you in this topic. Nobody asked you to discontinue your posts. I merely expressed boredom with the subject-matter.

The feature is a bit silly, as it conflates those who knew they had little to no chance of winning, but were running to advance a cause (e.g., Kasparov), with nutjobs (notably Mailer as candidate - I'm a big fan of Mailer as writer) and "mere" failed polticians.

From the outside, it does seem that Kasparov is sometimes tonedeaf as to how Russians perceive him, but that does not make his cause a wrong one.

Wasn't San Mateo County Reagan country in the 1960's? How did McCloskey (far to the left of Rockefeller) ever beat Shirley Temple Black?

"And neither do you control what is said on this blog space, whether it irritates you or not, and if you wish to express YOUR displeasure, you are invited to do so in a civilized way."

I take it we don't agree about what "a civilized way" is, assuming your last post was meant as an example of such. :o)

Anyway, the habit of many to simply complain about things without offering an alternative is a little annoying (at least to me, personally), and my personal choice when something doesn't interest me, is just to go elsewhere to find something I care for. Or - as I suggested - to offer an alternative.

Whatever I do, though, I never feel the need to grab a new anonymous handle when I consider it appropriate to raise some criticism, whether it's personal or not.

Btw, I agree that (several) people on most levels pay too much attention to ratings. But also (several) people misunderstand and misinterprete ratings. And (several) people make up and keep alive lots of false myths about ratings.

If I have a "personal mission", it certainly isn't to make people more concerned and occupied with ratings; they are useful for a number of things, of course, but less so when misused and applied to stuff they aren't meant for. No, my "mission" would rather be to facilitate better and more fact-based knowledge about ratings, to the best of my ability.

I'm sorry if that goal of mine causes you much pain, but I'm sure that you'll see that I usually _respond_ to other people's posts about ratings, much more often than I start such discussions myself - at least here.

"obsessed about by fellow club-players- whose chess suffers as a result and who become idiotic snobs- (avoiding local events to try to "maintain their 2000 rating" and similar nonsense) the general chess world, where we also see this absurd obsession with damned "rating points" at every level, and to which far too much attention is devoted on this blog - to the detriment of analysis of actual chess play and players"

First, regarding the latter point that "rating discussions" somehow take up lots of space that otherwise would've been used on analysis of "actual chess play and players" - well, I doubt that's true. At least there are a dozen other "topics" or "issues" that play a much bigger role in that respect - like trolling, response to trollers, personal fights (the same ones, over and over again) ... plus all the repeating subjects we've been over a million times, like was Kramnik a true champion in 2000, was he right to decline Kasparov a rematch, was Morhpy, Fischer or Kasparov the bigger talent - or the greatest ever - and all the other utterly boring discussions where all arguments have been mentioned a 100 times and we never will reach a concensus. That's boring, if you ask me.

Next, you claim that people's chess (in general) suffer from obsession with ratings - I assume you're mostly concerned with amateurs like me.

This is of course a valid opinion to hold, but I fail to see any evidence presented for this opinion - except the occasional anecdotal evidence who doesn't convince guys like me much. I don't have any evidence to the contrary either. However, there seems to be rather broad agreement that young, improving players seem to find quite some inspiration in having a relatively clear measure of improvement readily available, i.e. their increasing ratings. So indirectly I think it's safe to say that the presence of the rating system(s) has indirectly improved the level of very, very many chess players.

Another obvious point is that decently accurate ratings are instrumental in creating fun and appropriate tournaments for lots and lots of club players, because they allow players at basically the same level to compete against each other, making for both a more enjoyable and educating experience than when being paired against either much stronger or much weaker opponents.

[It follows that I'm a lesser fan of huge opens with huge differences between the best and weakest players, where the primary function of the ratings seems to be to make sure that the best players get all the prize money by means of strict seeding. I much prefer rigidly divided events based on ratings to make each game of chess as interesting as possible.]

"does not merit such an acidic response"

If I would've been responding to a "signed" post and not an obviously anonymous (or anonymized) one, I can assure you that I wouldn't have used an expression like "poor bastards". But if you choose to wear a coat of invisibility hiding the person beneath, you can hardly be personally offended by something addressing the invisible coats ... ;o)

Here we go again, more references to poop. Very childish. Try to be more mature.

Well, I'll just thank our dear greg for giving another example of the kind of posts we've seend hundreds of times before, not adding a shred of new content or refreshing perspectives, but confirming his own a..l obsession - you know, the p word ... :o)

In fact it creates a kind of triple-combo: trolling, personal fight (and/or comments) and rehashing of old comments. All 3 were among the aggressive space-stealers that I mentioned, occupying notably more bandwidth on futility than the few serious and civilized rating discussions that occur once in a while.

Thank God everyone isn't here just to pamper greg with something that's to his taste!

Greg, interesting poop theory. It is more entertaining than the endless rating discourse.

Poop does seem to be more appropriate in the daily dirt, that's obviously a valid point. And its history goes back much, much longer than chess ratings - or even chess itself!

But I'll take my own advice and abandon the stage, as my interest in this particular area reached its height sometime in my preschool years.

PS! My bet's on the apes to accompany the poop any minute now, as per standard procedure ...

Too bad, you don't have as much interest in this as you have for the ratings. Else, you'd own two rating lists then. Both live

Hardly.

The rights for that live list are held by greg's laxation company Priiiiiiinghles, The Ooriginal - which shamelessly has stolen (stoolen?) both the name and the slogan of the company that sells potato chips in big tubes, only with VERY minor modifications to brand and slogan.

[Pringles' slogan is "Once you pop, you can't stop" in case anybody didn't know.]

Shaaaaving cream
Be nice and clean
Shave every day and
you'll always look MEAN!

I knew the smell of poo would draw you out. By the way, just to be helpful, you don't need an apostrophe in "monkey's".

Meanwhile, we haven't heard from Greg for a while. Perhaps he is still sitting and thinking.

Hag

Errata: Please read the date on the last line of ‘Sofia 2010: Actual dates’ as May 13. Sorry.

Hag - And you don't need a coma after "Meanwhile".

No "coma" needed? You need some rest. Or something. Good luck. And you, of all people, trying to give someone a lesson in grammar? I must admit it, you can be funny.

Hag

Another thing to note is that neither the last regular game nor the tie-breaks were scheduled or played on weekends in the last three World Championship Matches (of course, the tie-breaks were scheduled for a Sunday in the Bonn Match, but the match ended on the preceding Wednesday).

Hey Bill Brock: San Mateo County, California, just to correct what you more or less asked, has never been Reagan country. Reagan was never popular in Northern California, just as no right-wing politician has ever been welcomed here. If Meg Whitman gets close to Brown in the Governor's race, it will be because of the southland (expletives deleted).

Aha! At least some people left the topic of ratings to this equally mundane topic.
My point is: why stick to 3.43 games on weekends (S/S)? Why not schedule the match in a manner that at least 5-6 games out of twelve are played on S/S? And, particularly the crucial ones, viz., the 12th game and/ or the tie-breaks?
Anyway.
Besides, what irks me is that sequence of colour of pieces changes mid-way in the world championship matches. In fact, I am not the only one who is annoyed by this. I have got worthy company in The Week In Chess “The regulation whereby Anand has white twice is in my view wrong-headed. It is a cure that is worse than the disease. The idea is to switch the player who has the white pieces immediately after the rest day around (there are two days play followed by a rest day). A much better solution would be to eliminate the extra rest day before Game 12 and go Game 6 then Rest Day, Game 7 then Rest Day which would achieve the same thing but not use this rather false construct.” here http://www.chess.co.uk/twic/chessnews/events/world-chess-championship-2010/anand-topalov-world-championship-game-6.
Other opinions on these issues …

Keep trying to make yourself feel better by putting other people down. That will win you lots of friends...

Back to chess ... : Chessdom also writes "The presence of Topalov [in Nanjing] and his heavy schedule explains why he will miss the 2010 Bilbao Final Masters."

By itself, this makes sense - but could have been mentioned right away rather than cryptic "private reasons". Nanjing starts just three days after Bilbao, now Topalov will arrive fresh, while Anand and Carlsen may already be tired and jetlagged. Carlsen will also play the Olympiad in Khanty-Mansiysk - another change of time zone and climate, but at least there is about a week between the Olympiad and Bilbao. There would have been room to postpone Nanjing by one or two weeks, now that Tal Memorial is unlikely to happen this year (due to, hmmm, problems within the Russian Federation).

Altogether, lots of top events (and basically each and every one wants Carlsen in the field) - how could they possibly have squeezed in the candidates event which, according to initial plans, should also take place in fall 2010?

Provocative question: Should a player who repeatedly declines the Bilbao invitation - after all, the supposed climax of the whole series - still be invited to Grand Slam events??

Jetlag isn't necessarily a matter of age: Wang Yue and Nakamura aren't much older than Carlsen. "The panda" was obviously jetlagged during some European events (or at least looked really tired), Nakamura's illness during last year's NH tournament may have been partly due to the fact that he travelled from the US East Coast to Amsterdam via Seattle and Japan - this could have affected his immune system? Anyway, my comment also referred to good ol' Anand.

It may be a matter of physical fitness: Wang Yue earned his nickname because he is Chinese AND because he is overweighted and may not practice other sports besides chess.

Of course ... that's why I called my question "provocative" even if Danailov's role in the Grand Slam may be exaggerated a bit by himself and others. He is/was involved in MTel (which now has an uncertain future), Nanjing and Bilbao (which no longer seems to have high priority for "the Bulgarians"). He deserves no credit for Corus and Linares, events with a longstanding tradition (older than Danailov himself?).

Anyway, what would we think of someone who plays the candidates quarter- and semifinals and then refuses to play the final for whatever "personal" reason? It might actually happen for a final between (here we go again) Topalov and Kramnik ... .

It is absolutely vital to be in very good physical condition for anyone who wants to devote themselves to something so sedentary as chess. Actually, this goes for everyone, not just chess players. Good physical conditioning helps keep the mind alert, attention span from wavering, as well as the ability to sit for hours on hours concentrating on something so spatial as chess. My advice to Nakamura, if he wants to become a long-term member of the chess elite and compete with the likes of Carlsen, is to get to the gym and workout at least two hours per day. That will do him a lot more good than sitting in front of a computer screen playing rapid chess games online.

[in my opinion the rest day before the final game is much more appropriate than in the middle of the match.]

I, too, totally agree with this point. The rest day before the final game is, indeed, much more appropriate. I do not have any argument against this. But there are ways of tweaking the schedule in a way that not only there is a rest day before the final game, but also that the colour switch is not required.
Both players agreeing to the colour switch does not mean that this is correct. Top players in the world can agree on many incorrect things which may not be good for chess in general, such as KO World Championships, Round Robin World Championships, etc.
Since the colour switch makes it possible that the player who had White pieces in the first game, has White in the last game, too. No one can deny that having White in the first game is advantageous. And, having White in the final game is even more so. So one player ends up having all the luck. (It is a different matter, that against Anand, this advantage in itself was not sufficient enough).

San Mateo County had had a Republican representative for several years in the 1960s. I was shocked that Pete McCloskey (anti-Vietnam) could beat SHIRLEY TEMPLE (pro-war America's sweetheart) in a REPUBLICAN PRIMARY!

But you're certainly right: it's more likely that the Republican Party (not a Goldwater/Reagan monolith in the 60's) had changed, not that San Mateo Co. had changed.

"First I thought the US didn't have any participant, but then I noticed why I was mistaken."

Frogbert - Why is that?

So at least one more person is following the World Junior Championships ,:) - my two cents on it:

1)Today's round had lots of fighting spirit and/or tricky endgames: out of thirty games, ten continued beyond move 70, four beyond move 100.

2) Your post may have been "in support of the Elo system", but there are exceptions further down the tournament table. Salgado Lopez and Spoelman (seeded 5th and 9th) are stuck at 50% [Spoelman's coach is Jan Smeets, did you use all his opening ideas for Topalov?]. Players with 5.5/8 (8th-19th place) include Blomqvist (Sweden, #52), Panjwani (Canada, #55) and Soors (Belgium, #86). All had several victories against players rated 100-200 points above them. Is it coincidence that they all come from relatively "small" chess countries, and may not have many opportunities to play strong opponents and improve their Elo?

"Your post may have been "in support of the Elo system", but there are exceptions further down the tournament table."

Perhaps. However, it is more likely that frogbert was once again trying to denigrate the USA players. He's done it many times before. I think that is the reason for his cute little jab "then I noticed why I was mistaken."

What frogbert may have meant: The US participant is Marc Tyler Arnold - never heard of him before (neither has frogbert apparently) and he is "hiding" in the middle of the tournament table. The USA could have sent Hess and Robson - but they are currently playing other tournaments in Greece and Hungary, respectively.

At the last U20 World Championship, Robson and Lenderman (now past the age limit) participated, both played some games on the top boards and had "intermittent" medal chances.

Whether frogbert's remark was necessary is another story - presumably a reference to some posts here claiming how talented young American players are.

Thomas, quit being an apologist for frogbert. You know that when he saw Arnold with only 4.5 points, frogbert gleefully tapped out his little snide remark. In any event, he has apparently lost his voice.

Hag

I think you're wrong. greg pretended to be "defending me" - while ridiculing everything he could think of while doing that. I saw no need for any "defence" in the first place - if "Ratingshmating" wanted to continue our exchange, it wouldn't have troubled me at all.

And there's nothing wrong with my "irony-monitor", but you need to check your greger-decoder. :o)

["Prickly porcupinebert" is one of the most flattering things I've been called lately, btw.]

"You know that when he saw Arnold with only 4.5 points, frogbert gleefully tapped out his little snide remark."

What do you mean, "only" 4,5 points? Hag, after 6 rounds Arnold was at 2,5 points having faced an average 180 points or so lower than his own rating. After round 7 he was 50% against an average of 2198, dropping 20 rating points.

"Your post may have been "in support of the Elo system", but there are exceptions further down the tournament table."

Thomas, exceptions are NORMAL according to the rating system - that's what I've been saying all along. However, on the top 3 boards tomorrow you have seeds number 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8. If you think that's somehow NOT a confirmation of the meaningfulness of the players' pre-tournament ratings, then I wonder what might would've convinced you. Some high-rated player(s) will always disappoint, and some lower-rated will always surprise us positively in such a big field - in particular when we're talking young players. Everything's normal - and the rating system shows that it does a decent job on average.

And Hag, have a look at TWIC's tournament table, which is what I've been looking at until yesterday. ( http://www.chess.co.uk/twic/chessnews/events/world-juniors-chess-2010 )

"Whether frogbert's remark was necessary is another story - presumably a reference to some posts here claiming how talented young American players are."

Necessary?

We've had dozens of post here, by several famous US chess/blog names, talking about

a) how Europeans struggle in US swisses

b) how underrated US players are

c) how wrongly rated US juniors are, or how they can't get titles, because there are almost no FIDE-rated events in the US (the latter is also obviously false)

and so on. Having watched the partial table put up by Mark on his site, I actually seriously thought there were no US players participating - only when I eventually went to the organizer's site I realized that Arnold was in. And was losing more rating points in the first 7 rounds than nearly 120 of the 121 other participants.

But no, it was not necessary to mention that there's a World Junior Championship going on (chess-related as it is) or hinting that the US participant is underperforming big time (which is a fact) - but it's rather funny that Hag considers it to be such a "denigrating" comment - about "the US players".

When US fans (and amateur players) enjoy speaking in bold letters about their own greatness despite lacking everything except "great talent and the best attitude in the world", then I can think of better things to do than attacking the messenger for pointing out simple facts - like US players NOT being underrated, or not ALWAYS being best when it matters.

If Hag wants to prove he's any different than the stereotypical picture of quite many US fans, he'd rather try to explain what's gone wrong for Arnold in Poland, instead of dreaming up "denigration" of US players that haven't taken place.

"Isn't Mr. Arnold's performance primarily a matter for HIM? [...]

Certainly not Frogbert."

Huh? His performance is a "matter for me" as much and as little as any other players' performance anywhere. It's a sport result. It's not some private thing.

"Caruana is Italy, not USA."

Caruana is representing one country, hails from another and lives in a third. Obviously I know that he represents Italy, but I also know that lots of US fans are clearly more interested in Caruana than in other Italian GMs ... :o)

Sorry about your mood. Go beat some patzers on some chess server - maybe you'll feel better afterwards... ;o)

Note that I was talking about US _chess_ fans - people from the US that are enthusiastic about chess in general and not only about US wins or their own games. I was of the impression that those exist, even if you might not want to be associated with that kind of people.

And btw: chess works out very well for me, both as a participation sport and as something I enjoy following as a "fan", either ring-side or from my living room. :o)

I do not question that the rating system overall does a decent job, even if it took some rounds for the current pattern to emerge: Hammer (#2) started with two draws, Sjugirov (#4) started with modest 2.5/4, Safarli (#7) started with 1.5/4 and may be the next one to catch up. Overall, it _seems_ to me that there are relatively many "rating upsets", at least in single games. I would say this is rather consistent with what you suggest yourself: ratings may be less reliable for some young players, particularly as different chess cultures or biographies mix: how many participants already played lots of events outside their respective home countries or regions?

And what do you think of the explanation I proposed for the three "overperformers"? It may well be that they were underrated prior to the event (due to lack of opportunities) rather than overperforming during the event. Another explanation could be that they are quickly improving only recently (new coach? more serious approach to chess?).

I hinted at your motivation for posting, actually only referring to the final sentence about (the) American player in the event. The denigrating or unfair part may be that you (implicitly) take one player as representative of the entire country.

The main issue would be that the strongest young US players actually prefer other events. Dennis Monokroussos wrote that the Hungarian event (Gyorgy Marx Memorial with Laznicka, Almasi, Berkes, Timman and Acs) is "good practice for America's youngest GM!" - IMO it's debatable whether it's a "better" event for him than the World Junior Championships. But well, Robson has several more chances to play the World Junior, in forthcoming years he may be a serious medal candidate.
Hess playing in sunny Greece rather than a village in Poland is somewhat reminiscent of his compatriot Nakamura repeatedly preferring Gibraltar over Corus B ... .

Methinks it's also a bit odd that the NH tournament collides with the World Junior Championship, effectively depriving Giri, Caruana, So and Howell of the opportunity to play in Poland (here their choice for Amsterdam rather than Chotowa-Czarna is fully understandable). Of course it's hard to find a suitable date, given that some of the "Experience" players also still have busy tournament schedules.

Frogbert - To answer your question ("What do you mean, "only" 4,5 points? Hag, after 6 rounds Arnold was at 2,5 points having faced an average 180 points or so lower than his own rating."), here is what I was looking at yesterday:

http://www.chessarbiter.to.pl/turnieje/t_3905/tournament_table_acc_places.html

You can be forgiven for basing your pronouncements on stale news. That partially explains things.

Hag

"The denigrating or unfair part may be that you (implicitly) take one player as representative of the entire country. "

I have done no such thing, Thomas. Why should a person like me, whose drive is to disprove false myths by means of statistics, make idiotic generalizations?

Arnold's event/performance is just one little piece of data. If you're looking for people who apply pick and choose to their available data, you need to look elsewhere.

Have I claimed that US players are overrated in general? Have I suggested that US players always underperform on important occasions? Have I even claimed that Arnold in particular is overrated? No way.

The fact is that I haven't made a single generalization. To the contrary, what I typically tend to attack, are the silly generalizations and claims put forward by people who are NOT interested in an objective and representative picture of matters, but who instead try to create an image of reality that suit them.

Your suggested "implication" is nowhere to be found. Btw, it's only a couple of days ago that I said that I consider Kamsky slight favourite to advance if he would be able to hold Topalov in the 4 classical games of the 1st round candidate match. But there was no "implicit" message in that statement (either), saying that Kamsky is representative for all US players.

I am Hag.

Hag

OK, then it was all a misunderstanding - you have to admit that your initial post was prone to misunderstandings (people WILL read between the lines).
It is also a matter of selection criteria by various federations, two western European end members:
- The Dutch federation requires a minimum rating of 2500, corresponding (in their view) to a realistic chance of finishing in the top 10.
- The Belgian federation sent "everyone", including four boys rated between 2050 and 2100 (and one girl with Elo 1779).

Incidentally, untitled Stef Soors (Belgium, Elo 2259) is currently 12th, and GM Wouter Spoelman (Netherlands, Elo 2580) 79th ... .

Innocent, Hag?

What should I be "guilty" of, if I may ask?

My "first" post implicitly said that Arnold wasn't doing too well. Hence, I'm "guilty" of saying that the US participant isn't doing too well. (Or at least he wasn't in the first 7 rounds - the last two rounds have yielded good results I think.)

Does that equal "denigration" of US players? [Your claim.]

Does that imply (as Thomas suggested) that NO players from the US are doing well, anywhere, at any time (or any other similar, silly generalization)?

No, it doesn't.

"Frogbert doth protest too much, methinks."

Frogbert is pretty darn tired of super-prickly US fans like yourself, Hag.

Let's try one more thing: Nakamura was the only "rising star" that won his game today, against the slightly over-the-top 2572-rated Ljubo - a man with great chess understanding and his best years far behind him.

What am I "guilty" of if I claim that Nakamura's game wasn't very impressive, that he seemed somewhat "rusty" and that the best thing that can be said about it, from a fan's viewpoint, is that he nevertheless was able to pick up a full point?

Remember the context: Nakamura and his fans consider him world star material, soon to be top 10 and future World Champion contender. Did Naka deliver according to those criteria today?

"OK, then it was all a misunderstanding - you have to admit that your initial post was prone to misunderstandings (people WILL read between the lines)."

No, it wasn't ALL a misunderstanding. There was a slight sting in that tiny post of mine that both you and Hag picked up on - and probably others too.

However, that doesn't mean that ANY wild interpretation of it is something that I can be held responsible for. Neither your nor Hag's (specific) generalizations were backed up by anything I wrote, and your suggested implications (yours and Hag's) were unreasonable and way overstated.

"Does that imply (as Thomas suggested) that NO players from the US are doing well, anywhere, at any time ... ?"

Sorry but this is rather silly from your side - I certainly didn't make such a generalization. At most it could say something about _young_ US players, IF Arnold was the best they have in store. But let's stop picking at poor Arnold - he may still play the tournament of his life so far (not in terms of result, but in terms of experience and atmosphere).

Interesting however that the USCF homepage almost ignores the event - just one short item in a general article "Update on Americans in Europe". As far as I remember, they were more enthousiastic last time when Lenderman and Robson were doing well ... . (The Dutch federation also doesn't have much on Spoelman).

"Sorry but this is rather silly from your side - I certainly didn't make such a generalization. "

Not explicitly, but you wrote this:

"you (implicitly) take one player as representative of the entire country."

IF Arnold would be "representative of the entire country" (i.e. all its chess players), and he is NOT doing well, then you simply need to add two and two to get to that generalization you "didn't make". The idea that Arnold's slightly disappointing performance somehow should be _representative_ of US players in general originated with you - and certainly not with me. I simply spelt it out to show that it was silly.

"Interesting however that the USCF homepage almost ignores the event "

I don't know to which extent it is a news site. In Norway the news provider about chess isn't the federation site but rather www.bergensjakk.no - IM Gullaksen's excellent news portal. But there results from youth championships with Norwegian participants are reported quite independent of whether they do well or not.

Well, this certainly turned out to be the most interesting thing Mig has ever written, judging by the comments.

"What should I be "guilty" of, if I may ask?" (frogbert)

Well, since you asked, a few things come immediately to mind:

1. Paranoid reaction to any and all criticism.
2. Repetitive keyboard pounding about ratings.
3. Some type of grudge against USA players.

Hag

Yes, but then you took my comment out of its context, the World Junior Championships.

Let me exaggerate a bit: if someone wrote that -Nc6 is a bad move in the Najdorf variation (because the knight should rather go to d7), it doesn't mean that -Nc6 is bad in all other openings ... .

And you added an "implicit" message I never intended. I thought that you might realize how annoying it is to be held responsible for a statement you haven't made - and see the connection - when I made you experience it, too. But obviously I need to work on my pedagogical skills.

Meanwhile, in other news, Nakamura barely survived against van Wely today, after blundering in time trouble and going two pawns down in a rook ending. Questionable technique from the dutch and stubborn defence by Naka saved half a point and "victory" 3-2 for the youngsters over the experience team in today's game. Again it was Ljubo that took the beating.

A very nice thing to say about a USA player.

After round 11 (today he lost against another 2500 player), Arnold was both over- and underperforming: He was higher up in the table than his rating would imply, but still losing Elo points - a peculiarity of the Swiss system and "Swiss gambit" approach, of course hardly ever done on purpose.

Tournament situation before the final round:
- three Russians on top
- Andreikin and Sjugirov 1 point ahead but not through yet, as they have black tomorrow against Hammer (#2 vs. #1 to conclude the event) and Salem (#31) from the chasing group.
What are tiebreak rules? Last time it was TPR, rather odd IMO because ratings for young players are a bit unreliable after all.

"...ratings for young players are a bit unreliable after all." (Thomas)

Carlsen?

Carlsen may be a bit underrated because his official rating doesn't quite keep track with (some of) his recent results. BTW, the German federation archives and Web-documents both national Elo (DWZ) and TPRs (Leistung) for all players, including Carlsen who plays for Baden-Baden in the Bundesliga:
http://www.schachbund.de/dwz/db/spieler.html?zps=10614-334
A casual visual inspection suggests that his DWZ of 2845 is "more accurate" than his FIDE Elo of 2826 - but don't ask me how such differences arise ... .

Something similar might also be worth the effort for FIDE lists and/or the live rating list?

But with respect to the World Junior Championship, I was rather referring to players as Soors (Elo 2259, TPR 2524) and Blomqvist (Elo 2407, TPR 2614). Either they play the tournament of their life (so far), or they are genuinely underrated - as I suggested before, due to overall lack of opportunities against strong players?

repeated for emphasis, rather than joining
subsequent threads, which i kind of don't have the heart for, anymore. thank you again. and best of wishes.