| World Rapid Championship (2012) |
|
The first official FIDE World Rapid Championship was a 16-player round robin held in Astana, Kazakhstan, 6-8 July 2012. The field consisted of 10 players from the FIDE rating list of January 2012, 3 players qualified from a 9-round Swiss open (for players rated >2300) tournament in Astana on 2-3 July (Kurnosov, Dreev and Tkachiev), 2 players selected by the organizer (Kazhgaleyev and Ismagambetov), and 1 player picked by FIDE (Bologan). Time control: 15 minutes per player for all moves, with 10 seconds added per move from move 1. Prize fund: $200,000, with $40,000 to the winner. Chief arbiter: Andrzej Filipowicz. Sergey Karjakin won with 11.5/15, ahead of Carlsen (2nd) and Topalov (3rd on tiebreak). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 Karjakin * 0 ½ 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 ½ ½ 1 1 1 1 11½
2 Carlsen 1 * ½ 1 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ 1 1 1 1 1 1 10½
3 Topalov ½ ½ * 1 1 ½ 1 ½ 1 ½ 1 1 0 ½ 0 ½ 9½
4 Mamedyarov 1 0 0 * 0 1 0 1 ½ ½ 1 1 1 1 ½ 1 9½
5 Grischuk 0 1 0 1 * ½ 0 ½ 0 1 ½ ½ 1 1 1 1 9
6 Gelfand 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ * ½ 1 ½ 1 1 0 ½ 1 1 0 8
7 Svidler 0 ½ 0 1 1 ½ * 0 ½ 1 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 7½
8 Ivanchuk 0 1 ½ 0 ½ 0 1 * 1 0 ½ ½ 0 1 ½ 1 7½
9 Radjabov 0 ½ 0 ½ 1 ½ ½ 0 * ½ ½ 1 1 0 ½ 1 7½
10 Dreev 0 ½ ½ ½ 0 0 0 1 ½ * 1 ½ 0 ½ 1 1 7
11 Morozevich ½ 0 0 0 ½ 0 1 ½ ½ 0 * 1 ½ 1 ½ ½ 6½
12 Kurnosov ½ 0 0 0 ½ 1 ½ ½ 0 ½ 0 * 1 0 ½ 1 6
13 Kazhgaleyev 0 0 1 0 0 ½ ½ 1 0 1 ½ 0 * 0 ½ 1 6
14 Bologan 0 0 ½ 0 0 0 ½ 0 1 ½ 0 1 1 * 1 ½ 6
15 Tkachiev 0 0 1 ½ 0 0 ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ 0 * 0 4½
16 Ismagambetov 0 0 ½ 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 ½ 0 0 ½ 1 * 3½
Official site: https://web.archive.org/web/2014051...
Regulations: https://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/...
Chess.com: https://www.chess.com/news/view/ser...
ChessBase: https://en.chessbase.com/post/karja...
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4v...
TWIC: https://theweekinchess.com/chessnew...
FIDE: https://ratings.fide.com/tournament...
Wikipedia article: World Rapid Chess ChampionshipPrevious: Cap D'Agde FRA (2003) was recognized by FIDE as a World Rapid Championship. Next: World Rapid Championship (2013). See also World Blitz Championship (2012)
|
|
| page 1 of 5; games 1-25 of 120 |
     |
 |
|
| page 1 of 5; games 1-25 of 120 |
|
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8 OF 8 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jul-08-12 | | Jim Bartle: "You know, one thing I find seriously enlightening is Carlsen detractors now think it's time to gloat when he gets second place." Well, it certainly is shameful to lose to such weakies as Ivanchuk and Grischuk. |
|
| Jul-08-12 | | badest: <voyager39: And I am happy for Topalov - he could have been #2 but for the terrible snafu where he blundered away a simple mating net against Carlsen. Yet, Topa seems to be back on his feet again and that's good for the game.> Indeed. He also did quite well against the stronger players (losses only towards Tkachiev and Kazhgaleyev, esp. the Tkachiev loss was a classic Topa achievement ;) Chessgames: shouldn't Topa be 3rd in the table. He won the game against Shak (which is the first tie-break criterion). |
|
| Jul-08-12 | | Arcturar: Congrats to Karjakin for a well-deserved victory!
Congrats to Topalov for looking like himself again. Perhaps he has come back to stay with the big guns for more than just this tournament. Congrats to Carlsen for a solid performance and a strong attempt. Finally, congrats to Boris Gelfand. 6th place out of 16 players in such a field is really quite a good performance. I doubt many will mention or even notice it though, which is too bad. |
|
| Jul-08-12 | | Everett: I love rapids, chess at the pace of life! Who wants to sit on their tuchus for 5 hours when one can play quite good chess in an hour? Hour to play, hour to analyze, and twenty-two hours to live! Even better here, five games a day, packed with information regarding one's intuition under time pressure. I think rapid (25m + inc.) is a great time control. |
|
| Jul-08-12 | | Everett: BTW, I wonder if they can have a prize for the least draws while having a winning record. This could also reward those who strive to win each game. Both Karjakin and Mamedyarov fit the bill. |
|
| Jul-08-12 | | Everett: Sorry I missed all the other kibitzing; where are Aronian, Kramnik, Anand and Nakamura? |
|
| Jul-08-12 | | messachess: This is great for Karjakin. It's interesting what Korchnoi said a few years ago in an interview when he was talking about the young players. He liked Carlsen and Morozevich, but not Karjakin. I wonder what he thinks now. |
|
| Jul-08-12 | | drik: <Chessinfinite: One thing Carlsen must have learnt, having a good rating only means so much in chess, not everything.> I'm sure he learnt this whilst carving his way through higher rated players as a teenager. He outperformed his rating - Karajakin just did so by a greater margin. <All this should be a good learning experience for him for the more important.> He might learn how to bounce back immediately after a loss - but I think rapids are different. You have minutes instead of hours to compose yourself ... & who plays the Berlin in Rapids? The Berlin needs greater precision from black than white, which is fine when you have time. The fact is that rapid & blitz need a different opening repetoire to standard & it doesn't look as if Carlsen has prepared one. I used to play the Sicilian regardless of time control, when a blitz specialist took me aside and explained that I was burning time defending & liquidating into won endings, which I lost on time. In the fast stuff the initiative trumps strategy. |
|
| Jul-09-12 | | Augalv: <OBIT: This is rapid chess. You can't assume Karjakin will be able to get a short draw, even with the White pieces. Well, except in this case he is playing a countryman, so the likelihood of a draw is looking pretty good.> You are funny. |
|
| Jul-09-12 | | voratco: <Chessinfinite: One thing Carlsen must have learnt, having a good rating only means so much in chess, not everything.> Including free pass. The worst example was Topalov, he had a backdoor entry. I wonder how many games he had this year to preserve his rating. When reality settles in, the tournament wasn't supposed to be billed as a World rapid Championship but merely an invitation only rapid/blitz tournament. Fide brainwashing working at <best>. |
|
| Jul-09-12 | | vinidivici: Carlsen got beaten by double CHUKs.
Wow, CHUK Curse |
|
| Jul-09-12 | | SetNoEscapeOn: Two takeaways:
1. Carlsen-Karjakin has the potential to be one of the greatest rivalries in the history of the game. With Caruana two years younger and Naka two years older but both already in the top 10, we have a lot of great battles to look forward to over the next 20 years. 2. Yes, we can't forget about Topalov. He was the best tournament player for a few years and if he had beaten Kramnik or Anand he might well have been considered player of the decade (that's an interesting one to ponder, btw). But Tkachiev vs Topalov, 2012 was just hilarious! That certainly would be impossible for Magnus. |
|
| Jul-10-12 | | visayanbraindoctor: Each player played 15 games against different opponents in a round robin tournament. For me though, what is more interesting is for Karjakin and Carlsen to face off in a 15 (or 16) game rapid match. Or to make things even more fascinating, each of Karjakin and Carlsen plays a 15 game rapid match with Anand (who last time I counted has a 15 times 2 rapid game unbeaten streak, correct me if I am wrong). Just watching kibitzers bet would be cause enough for fascination, not to mention the dozen pages of kibtizing such a match would generate. Any sponsors? (",) |
|
| Jul-10-12 | | visayanbraindoctor: After replaying all his games here, and recalling past ones, I have just about changed my mind on Carlsen's style. Previously I thought he played like Capablanca. Now I believe he plays more like Lasker. Capablanca style: Perfectionist. Playing the board. 'See' everything, find the best objective move in any given position, and do not commit any error at all. Lasker style: Practical. Playing the man. Treat chess as a psychological struggle between you and you opponent. Find the move or series of moves that best trouble your opponent and that gives you a game that you find easy to play; thereby inducing him to commit errors and maximizing your own practical winning chances. Carlsen seems to fit in the latter mold more. Actually so does Aronian and Nakamura, but Carlsen does it best. |
|
| Jul-11-12 | | achieve: <VBDoctor> In addition to the fact that I find it heartwarming that you view Carlsen's "style" in relation to players of a century ago, it is also a bit awkward and probably does not justice to either three of them, as Carlsen is an allround highly skilled player, prize fighter par excellence, and has composed combinatorial masterpieces as well as long grinds in the endgame, as well as endgame miniatures. As have shown, the masters of yesteryear, Emanuel Lasker and Jose Raul Capablanca. Here is what <Lasker> said just prior to the match in Havana, 1921: Lasker: 'I do not think the decision in this match will be influenced by external factors, but will appear from the "core of the problem": Strategy. 'Because I am aware of the difference of Capablanca's views and notions on this, and my own. Capablanca is generally <not> a theoretician. He is the genius and luminous representative of Practical Chess. He is, and wants to be. Probably every theory that doesn't immediately show transparancy and applicability, he will be suspicious of. He is cunning, nimble, flexible, strong and resourceful. <Odysseus> probably is his idol. 'As for myself I have always been a theoretician, a philosopher. Understanding meaning and solving in the present, I am more like Julius Caesar.' <Max Euwe> writes on Capa following in depth analysis of the match with Aljechin 1927: 'The Cuban, who has always had an aversion to theoretical studies, managed the opening phase through position feel and general principles. This did make him vulnerable to prepared novelties from time to time, and it showed in the 32nd, and to an extent 34th game. During several games Aljechin obtained positional advantages, but Capablanca, "a la Lasker", kept posing problems for Aljechin, which was rewarded several times with a draw. 'Aljechin, during that match, played with increasing confidence, kept his imaginative urges in check, and developed a technique himself that neared perfection.' - - - -
As you can see, those icons from the past were so versatile, that they can hardly be narrowly categorized and confined to a box, school of thought. <Tarrasch> on the other hand would be more of a candidate in that regard. Capa wasn't too complimentary on Tarrach, Nimzowitsch... One GM once said that "it is perceived that Lasker didn't create a School of Thought, but we all are his students." Capablanca, years later, was quoted as saying "If the old man would come back to play, seriously, he'd probably beat us all, and I mean no exception!" Enormous mutual respect, and Carlsen as a personality and in his approach of Chess obviously resembles Capablanca the most, but in his play, his armory, there's quite a bit of Lasker, Karpov, Smyslov and on occasion even Fischer; he can play, and has played, it all. Embodies it all. |
|
| Jul-11-12 | | Octavia: well done, Serge !!! |
|
Jul-13-12
 | | HeMateMe: Hey, Topalov finished tied third. Maybe he is getting his chess chops back? |
|
| Jul-16-12 | | visayanbraindoctor: <achieve> I do agree that the top masters, past and present, to a large extent have a universal style. As an addendum I still think that individually they do exhibit tendencies to play in a certain manner, what we usually refer to as 'style'. <Lasker: 'I do not think the decision in this match will be influenced by external factors, but will appear from the "core of the problem": Strategy.'Because I am aware of the difference of Capablanca's views and notions on this, and my own. Capablanca is generally <not> a theoretician. He is the genius and luminous representative of Practical Chess. He is, and wants to be. Probably every theory that doesn't immediately show transparancy and applicability, he will be suspicious of. He is cunning, nimble, flexible, strong and resourceful. <Odysseus> probably is his idol. 'As for myself I have always been a theoretician, a philosopher. Understanding meaning and solving in the present, I am more like Julius Caesar.'> Thanks for this quote. It came as a surprise to me. Lasker thought that it was Capablanca who was the practical player! In a sense Capa was, in the way Carlsen is today. If one studies Capablanca's games, he played openings just to get into playable middlegames. The only game I could discover that he prepped for a tactical novelty was Capablanca vs Levenfish, 1935 (see my comments on that page). Lasker in addition describes himself as a theoretician. He certainly was in his match with Schlecter. Both Lasker and Schlecter obviously went into it prepared in the Berlin and Open Ruy, as well-prepped as one can be under the no-computer, few chess opening books conditions of that era. |
|
Jul-16-12
 | | perfidious: <achieve> That's the first time I've seen any sort of actual quote from Capablanca regarding Lasker, though in 'Grandmasters of Chess', Schonberg paraphrases Capa's appreciation of Lasker's abilities as late as 1937. |
|
Jul-16-12
| | perfidious: <visayan> As to Carlsen, he reminds me too of Lasker; while he seems prepared to play an eclectic blend of openings, one doesn't get the impression that he places quite the emphasis on that phase that Kasparov did. In my opinion, Carlsen is a practical player par excellence. Just as Lasker did once in a while, he falls off the tightrope, but more often, his opponent finds himself unable to cope with the immense problems at the board. |
|
| Jul-17-12 | | visayanbraindoctor: < perfidious: <visayan> As to Carlsen, he reminds me too of Lasker; while he seems prepared to play an eclectic blend of openings, one doesn't get the impression that he places quite the emphasis on that phase that Kasparov did. In my opinion, Carlsen is a practical player par excellence. Just as Lasker did once in a while, he falls off the tightrope, but more often, his opponent finds himself unable to cope with the immense problems at the board.> My thoughts too.
In openings, Carlsen is more like Capablanca; he mainly just wants to get into playable middlegames. Once in the middlegame and endgame, his style resembles Lasker's more. Many kibitzers may not be aware of Lasker's games so here is one example, against another World Champion, of his typical style: Alekhine vs Lasker, 1914
The endgame grind-out resembles Carlsen's endgames (or taking in to account temporal order, Carlsen's endgame grinds resemble Lasker's). |
|
| Jul-17-12 | | achieve: <VBD>-<In openings, Carlsen is more like Capablanca; he mainly just wants to get into playable middlegames. Once in the middlegame and endgame, his style resembles Lasker's more.> That might be a way to put it, but the Carlsen approach to- and philosophy of- Chess, practical play, tournament play, is very much Capablancian. Carlsen doesn't usually go for the big guns, heavy piece batteries, but likes to use the least amount of energy to conduct his games, with maximum effect, and like Capa, let's his hands guide him. Not too much cerebral interference. This is what Kramnik said of Capa, "Do not THINK too much!" - and indeed we wish Carlsen puts in more time when calculations are needed, but as the coop with Kasparov showed, it is not yet his strength, but he may further develop it, actually I think he already is... Also you are correct that when it gets "messy", or a position is not to his liking, or gets out of a Benoni really badly (check the game with Van Wely, a few years ago), then Carlsen can set the board alight, and it turns into an all-court wrestling bout. Carlsen indeed seems to be more of an all-court player, but realize that at some point comparisons and characterizations provide rather less clarity than the intended "more." <Perfidious> <VBD> FYI: I quoted and translated from a book, <"The Chess Phenomenon: José Raul Capablanca Y Graupera">, written by Max Euwe and Lodewijk Prins, publisched in 1949, by Batavia, Van Goor Zonen's Publishing Company, The Hague. It's my most precious possession, as far as Chess books goes, perhaps of all my books. My father acquired it, probably over 50 years ago. |
|
| Jul-17-12 | | achieve: <visayan> This is the game v Van Wely I referred to: Van Wely vs Carlsen, 2008 (Corus 2008) 
click for larger viewIf v Wely had simply played Bxe7, Carlsen's house of cards would have come tumbling down, likely, but v Wely misses it, and Carlsen seizes the opportunity to deliver blow after blow, after van Wely misses win after win. Even after 39 ... Bf5
click for larger view...Black is utterly hopeless, there is counterplay in sight (my comp evals this as <+7> fwiw), van Wely fears a mating net or a perp, plays 39.Qe3, and Carlsen seizes the opportunity, as v Wely misses the simple Qe7, and a few moves later he gets mated: 
click for larger viewMate in 6
How about that?!! |
|
Jul-17-12
 | | moronovich: One of the vest "swindles" in the history of chess.According to my limited knowledge. |
|
| Jul-18-12 | | achieve: <moro> I think with a rating of 2300+ your "knowledge" is not as limited as you say it is ;) But I see what you mean, as "the history of chess" contains quite a few games... I must correct my hinting that prior to the 39th move Van Wely had missed quite a few wins. This is not true; Loek played most of the time the strongest moves, the Carlsen Take-over seemingly from nowhere goes full steam <after> the missed 39 Qe7. Coffee house chess? Not sure if that's the right term, but a super swindle of the higest calibre it sure is: a Houdini Act |
|
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8 OF 8 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
NOTE: Create an account today
to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users.
Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username,
then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.
|
Please observe our posting guidelines:
- No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
- No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
- No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
- Nothing in violation of United States law.
- No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
- No trolling.
- The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.
- Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.
Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.
NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic.
This forum is for this specific tournament only. To discuss chess or this site in general,
visit the Kibitzer's Café.
|
Messages posted by Chessgames members
do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration. |
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!
Copyright 2001-2025, Chessgames Services LLC
|
Kibitzing
