chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

King's Tournament (2010)

Player: Teimour Radjabov

 page 1 of 1; 3 games  PGN Download 
Game  ResultMoves Year Event/LocaleOpening
1. Gelfand vs Radjabov 0-130 2010 King's TournamentE94 King's Indian, Orthodox
2. Ponomariov vs Radjabov 0-148 2010 King's TournamentE81 King's Indian, Samisch
3. Radjabov vs Gelfand 1-038 2010 King's TournamentC42 Petrov Defense
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2) | Radjabov wins | Radjabov loses  
 

from the Chessgames Store

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 29 OF 30 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Jun-29-10  frogbert: zarg, i'm not sure if i understood any of your two points.

no matter what kind of monitoring you do of the chess ratings, a component of "skills" doesn't magically enter the rating formula. adjusting current ratings up or down (or painting them in new colours) doesn't create any anchor to skills - except possibly in some people's heads.

but yes, the uscf seems to be repeatedly making tweaks to an already broken system (having "rock-solid" rating floors, amongst others) if that's what you refer to.

<the rating committee can decide on countermeasures to combat inflation/deflation.>

"inflation" as defined how?

if you speak in terms of "chess skills", then i would like to see the first person capable of defining the chess skills you are supposed to get for a rating of 2500. btw, did you read what i wrote about how i think the skill sets needed to be successful probably have changed?

anyway, no matter what a fide committee or a uscf committee would think about the current day level of a 2500-player, a 2400-player, and so on, it will remain subjective views and little else.

<Isn't the USCF rating system widely used? >

well, yes - it's widely used in the us. and it clearly provides <no direct mapping> between absolute "chess skills"/"quality of chess"/"chess level" and the ratings, which are calculated based on results only.

well... i guess the ratings also are based on some auxiliary rules, some of which drive nominal inflation, like the counter-measures against sandbagging. but that's got more to do with con-man skills than chess skills. ;o)

Jun-30-10  Kramer: You're pretty quick to assume that you're being attacked, frogbert.

I think zarg asked a valid question, and I think he did so in a civilized manner. Then he deserves a civilized answer too.

Jun-30-10  zarg: <frog>
Previously, there was a significant problem with deflation in the USCF rating system. USCF members complained about rating loss, which didn't reflect any real change in play strength and/or chess abilities. So, USCF has very much implemented countermeasures to combat inflation/deflation in the past, and I presume they will continue to do so.

<"inflation" as defined how?>

I think the definition used by USCF rating committee is quite good. They take the average rating of a stable age group, think it's somewhere around 30-40, and if this ave rating is ca. constant, I assume they consider there is no inflation/deflation in the rating system.

While I wouldn't call this "direct mapping" to chess skills, when countermeasures are implemented which cause this ave rating to be approx constant, it's at least a normalization process of the rating system – directly linked to performance.

Jul-01-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  Kinghunt: With the release of the July rating list, Carlsen is officially in territory when none but Kasparov have ever tread before.
Jul-01-10  frogbert: <You're pretty quick to assume that you're being attacked, frogbert.>

i didn't consider zarg's post an attack, kramer.

<I think zarg asked a valid question, and I think he did so in a civilized manner. Then he deserves a civilized answer too.>

zarg and i go back several years now, and i don't feel any need to wrap my reactions and opinions in cotton when i discuss things with zarg. there was nothing "uncivilized" about my response either - dismissing his point(s) as irrelevant to my claim was just that, an expression of my honest opinion.

if you feel a need to discuss politeness, kramer, then i wonder about the following: do you often start analysing the behaviour of strangers, telling them how they should talk to their friends? to me, that appears both quite impolite and inappropriate, and regarding the topic of the discussion, it's also completely irrelevant - unless it's something you do to indirectly weaken my position. in the latter case it sorts under the label "ad hominem".

i suggest you stick to the topic of debate in the future and refrain from telling other people how they should address their friends.

Jul-01-10  frogbert: <While I wouldn't call this "direct mapping" to chess skills, when countermeasures are implemented which cause this ave rating to be approx constant, it's at least a normalization process of the rating system Ė directly linked to performance.>

yes, it's some kind of normalization process, but it's not linked to any measure of skills - at all. when you say "directly linked to performance", performance again simply means "results" and nothing else.

<USCF members complained about rating loss, which didn't reflect any real change in play strength and/or chess abilities.>

what the uscf members reported might and might not have been true, but again it was based on the subjective perception of the members. of course, if a large number of people share the same perception, it increases the chance that they are right - and it's not unthinkable that they were. however, the <countermeasure> will remain highly heuristic and not directly linked to any measure of chess skills.

<They take the average rating of a stable age group, think it's somewhere around 30-40, and if this ave rating is ca. constant, I assume they consider there is no inflation/deflation in the rating system.>

as a heuristic method of trying to monitor inflation levels, this appears to be a reasonable approach. imo it all comes down to two things regarding whether it will result in anything meaningful or not:

1) are active and inactive players differentiated when they calculate these averages?

2) the methods used when "countermeasures" are taken

instead of several different "actions" to correct unwanted development, i think it would be better to completely remove features of the system that clearly are in contrast to the goal of accurately describing the relative performance of the players. my prime example of this is the use of "solid" rating floors to avoid sandbagging: that's a perfect example of a rule that's got nothing to do with performance measures, but everything to do with money and the "gambling"-element there is to the prize model of many (big) amateur events in the us.

and as i already said: the countermeasures taken will <not> be linked to anything skills-related. at best it makes the rating <numbers> stable, but it can't possibly reflect any theoretical general improvement (or decline) in how chess is played by the monitored group. hypothetically, if the population somehow was infected with a virus that quickly made the individuals' intellectual skills detoriate (over some decades), the rating of the group of 30-40 year olds would remain the same - if the countermeasures were successful at correcting any possible nominal inflation/deflation.

what i <agree> that a rating committee can provide, is a way to compensate for nominal inflation/deflation, even if the system itself doesn't work well enough to do that automatically. in that respect it can be viewed as an extension to the system, and in some ways an integral part of it. however, <it does not introduce any direct mapping to skills>, and hence it does not oppose my original, rather obvious claim.

Jul-01-10  metatron2: I'm just curious <frog>:

How would you estimate the expected outcome of a 20 games match between, say, an 2100 player from Norway and an 2600 player from Russia, both randomly picked from the current fide players pool ?

Would you say that their ratings give a good prediction for the outcome of such match?

I am talking about picking 2 players with more or less stable rating, when none of them is inactive or a provisional player.

Jul-01-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  Kinghunt: < metatron2: I'm just curious <frog>:

How would you estimate the expected outcome of a 20 games match between, say, an 2100 player from Norway and an 2600 player from Russia, both randomly picked from the current fide players pool ?

Would you say that their ratings give a good prediction for the outcome of such match?>

Well I'm not frogbert, but I'd say the match would probably end with a 20-0 score. A match between a 2300 and a 2600 might be more worth talking about.

Jul-01-10  metatron2: <Kinghunt>

The point of my question was whether we can consider such random players ratings, a reliable estimate for the outcome of such hypothetical match, i.e. whether the expected result based on their ratings, is a good estimate or not.

But since expected result based on rating is problematic when the gap is too large, I am modifying my question as follows:

The Norwegian player will be picked from the 2150-2200 rating range, and the Russian player from the 2500-2550 rating range. Or alternatively: 2250-2300 range vs 2550-2600 range.

Jul-01-10  frogbert: meta, i'm not sure if i get your point: the <relative strength relationhip> between two <contemporary> players is quite well depicted by the <difference> between their ratings.

this still doesn't create any direct mapping from (one) rating to chess skills; the expectation of the outcome between two players whose ratings are 500 (or 400 or 300) points apart is the same now as in 1985, for instance. <completely> unrelated to the actual skills of the players.

a 2200 player from 1990 facing a 2600 player from 1990 was expected to score the same as a current 2200 player from 2010 facing a 2600 player from 2010.

a direct mapping from rating to chess skills is very different from a mapping from <difference> in rating to <difference> in chess skills. neither says anything about absolute skills, though.

Jul-01-10  metatron2: <frog: a direct mapping from rating to chess skills is very different from a mapping from <difference> in rating to <difference> in chess skills. neither says anything about absolute skills, though.>

Indeed that wasn't my point.

What I wonder is: How come you consider the rating based expected result of a match between 2200 and 2600 as a good prediction, if those two players:

- Played against very different pools of players (not only because of the rating gap, but also because they live in different countries).

- Their opening preparation has nothing in common: one is a high level pro, and the other is just a decent amateur.

- The frequency of their tournaments play is probably very different (the professional usually plays much more).

- The type of their pools is completely different: There are much more players around 2200 then around 2600, making the preparation work tougher for the 2200 player (from that point of view).

- The 2600 player can usually find most of the games of his opponents instantly on the net, while the 2200 player usually cannot.

- Even the time controls they play is probably different in many cases, considering the different types of leagues and tournaments they participate.

- etc.

Why do you think their ratings difference represents their chess skills differences, if they play such different type of (chess) games?

The types of chess they play is so different, that it wouldn't be much different if one would've introduced a new piece or allowed the bishop to jump over one piece diagonally, given that it didn't move more than 2 (or 3) squares, now wouldn't it ?

Jul-01-10  frogbert: <The types of chess they play is so different, that it wouldn't be much different if one would've introduced a new piece or allowed the bishop to jump over one piece diagonally, given that it didn't move more than 2 (or 3) squares, now wouldn't it ?>

haha. the finer points about changes in chess relevant for the world elite players (from where you got that quote and most of your "points"), is quite irrelevant for two players who are already divided by an ocean of chess understanding.

if the "real" difference turns out to be equivalent to 350 or 450 points (instead of 400) based on 4-6 games, then nobody really cares, and the 2600-player will crush the 2200 player convincingly regardless, now as he did in 1990.

however, if someone would suggest that a 2010 player rated 2826 is nearly as good as a 1990 player rated 2800, then 1000 chess fans will get mild heart attacks, their faces will go red, and chess forums will be spammed with angry posts. :o)

<therefore> my points from chessninja are valid for elite chess, but not so relevant in your clever example.

Jul-01-10  Blunderdome: <How would you estimate the expected outcome of a 20 games match between, say, an 2100 player from Norway and an 2600 player from Russia?>

Well, frog could just play a 20-game match again Sergey Ionov, Alexander Rustemov, or Alexander Volzhin, and tell you what the result of that match was ;)

Jul-01-10  frogbert: maybe i'd get a draw or two if i were lucky? :o)
Jul-01-10  Kramer: <i suggest you stick to the topic of debate in the future and refrain from telling other people how they should address their friends.>

I thought maybe that could be the case, that you knew him from before... and that you thus didn't need to be as polite as with a complete stranger. I thought of that afterwards, though.

I wrote what I wrote, because your response would have been rude, if you did not know him.

Or, rather, it appeared rude to me.

Also, if you take the pleasure of being as direct as you are to me here, i will not hesitate to be equally direct to you in the future. You stick to the topic, I'll stick to the topic. ;)

Jul-01-10  metatron2: <frog: the finer points about changes in chess relevant for the world elite players (from where you got that quote and most of your "points"), is quite irrelevant for two players who are already divided by an ocean of chess understanding.>

That doesn't explain why you consider two ratings numbers that represent results against two <completely different> pools of players, to be perfectly comparable, while you consider two rating numbers to be totally incomparable, if their respective pools are different because of a time gap, instead of a rating+geographical gap.

As for the rest of the points: What if you look at 2250 vs 2500 (or even 2300 vs 2500) instead of 2200 vs 2600 players? The difference in chess understanding is not that huge any more, yet my points are still relevant since it is still amateur vs pro/semi-pro.

Why do you consider the rating system to be reliable in such cases, while you consider it to be unreliable if similar differences are generated over time ?

<if the "real" difference turns out to be equivalent to 350 or 450 points (instead of 400) based on 4-6 games, then nobody really cares, and the 2600-player will crush the 2200 player convincingly regardless, now as he did in 1990.>

So are you actually saying that you don't find the rating system reliable in case of 400 points gap ? what about 300 or 250 points gap ?

Also recall that I was talking about 20 games match (and not 4-6 games).

Jul-01-10  frogbert: kramer, i have no interest in discussing personal issues or my or other kibitzers' behaviour.

i'll make one small clarification, though. in the following:

<adjusting current ratings up or down (or painting them in new colours) doesn't create any anchor to skills - except possibly in some people's heads.>

i did not mean to refer to "zarg's head" (or mind) [an impression you possibly could've got], i just expressed that i wouldn't be surprised if some people would be guilty of the mentioned misconception.

with that sorted out, i'll just assure you that as long as you refrain from personal comments about me or how you perceive my behaviour, i'll make absolutely no such comments related to you and your presence on cg.com.

but please be direct: if you think something i write makes no sense or is logically or factually wrong, don't hesitate to say just that, with no sugar coating. however, i'd appreciate an explanation of why you think i'm wrong, of course. :o)

Jul-01-10  frogbert: <That doesn't explain why you consider two ratings numbers that represent results against two <completely different> pools of players, to be perfectly comparable, >

i didn't claim that - you have added the prerequisite that their numbers represent results against "two <completely different> pools of players" in retrospect - it does in no way follow directly from your original question to me.

norwegian players play a lot abroad in international tournaments, thereby ensuring that their fide ratings are very well adjusted to the european sub-pool (we're talking thousands of recent games), while a 2600 gm from russia (or most countries, actually - possibly except china and similar distant countries) would also play the majority of his games abroad or against other players that regularly play abroad.

in short, the interaction between "regional subpools" today can be <demonstrated> to yield very comparable ratings (did you see the calculations i posted on chessninja, showing that us 2400+ fide ratings were basically in perfect harmony with european 2400+ ratings?). a similar demonstration can <not> be made with players divided by time instead of space.

also, i suppose you know my "rule of thumb" from previous discussions: rating comparisons over time make reasonable sense up to ca. 5 years (although gradually degrading in accuracy), while i advice increasingly bigger grains of salt to be applied when the time gap goes towards 10 years. after roughly 10 years i think the number and size of changed factors are making it very questionable to assume too much on the basis of ratings alone.

hence, i do "allow" a certain time gap - actually quite a big one, i think - before i say "stop". and note: i consider the "gap" across time to be of a fundamentally different type/nature than any geographical gap in our modern, globally interconnected today.

Jul-01-10  frogbert: <So are you actually saying that you don't find the rating system reliable in case of 400 points gap ? >

i find it realiable; i'm perfectly convinced that the higher rated player has used to have much better results than the lower rated one, making me think the rating favourite will win any match of 5+ games very convincingly. :o)

an exact prediction of a <match outcome> between two specific players can never be made based on the ratings alone, though. no matter how close the ratings are to each other.

first, any player's rating mostly reflect tournament play, not match play. secondly, between a specific pair of two players, there are a number of additional factors to be taken into account. and finally, ratings aren't first and foremost a predictor, but a <descriptor>. it's a misunderstanding to think that ratings give any guarantees about the future - they are simply a (usually pretty good) summary of <past> results.

the latter should be part of the rating abc, but let me just give one little example to illustrate this point.

two players, a and b, play a match. both are rated 2500. one year prior to the match, player a was rated 2400 and player b was rated 2600. the current rating number says absolutely nothing about current form, recent rating development, the players' ages, health and so on. but they describe the two players' past results as good as the rating system possibly can.

what is the "expected" outcome of a 10 game match? technically, for the rating adjustment formulas, both players need to score 50% to keep their rating - but the rating system does not <predict> that this will be the outcome, it merely requires a 50% score for each to retain their ratings. no bells and whistles go off if player a wins 6,5-3,5 - the rating system is perfectly happy and simply adjusts the two players' ratings accordingly, stating that it's got a new and updated number describing the players' accumulated results. that's what there is to it, a summary of past results.

Jul-01-10  metatron2: <you have added the prerequisite that their numbers represent results against "two <completely different> pools of players" in retrospect - it does in no way follow directly from your original question to me.>

Well, that was the main idea behind my original question, and appeared as the first item in my players comparison list in the post you replied too.

<norwegian players play a lot abroad in international tournaments, thereby ensuring that their fide ratings are very well adjusted to the european sub-pool (we're talking thousands of recent games), while a 2600 gm from russia (or most countries, actually - possibly except china and similar distant countries) would also play the majority of his games abroad or against other players that regularly play abroad.>

I'm not sure how many international tourneys 2200 Norwegian players actually play, but even if they played a lot of them, how much overlap they really have with the pools 2500-2600 players play? Even when they play in the same tourneys with the GMs, they usually meet quite different pools of players in most of the rounds. Also they usually play in different leagues (or at least different boards in their league teams), that further separates their pools.

<i consider the "gap" across time to be of a fundamentally different type/nature than any geographical gap in our modern, globally interconnected today.>

That should be: geographical <and rating> gap. And I still didn't understand why consider those two to be "fundamentally different".

<i suppose you know my "rule of thumb" from previous discussions: rating comparisons over time make reasonable sense up to ca. 5 years>

Of course I know it. That's what I'm actually challenging here frog ;)

My question remains:

Here you have 2 players, playing in 2 different pools of players, having various different types of chess properties, and yet you assume that the rating system is strong enough to cover those big gaps. How come ?

Jul-01-10  frogbert: i've already answered:

1) geographical "gaps" are overcome on a daily basis: it's called travelling. time travelling is fundamentally different.

2) repetition: <in short, the interaction between "regional subpools" today can be <demonstrated> to yield very comparable ratings (did you see the calculations i posted on chessninja, showing that us 2400+ fide ratings were basically in perfect harmony with european 2400+ ratings?). a similar demonstration can <not> be made with players divided by time instead of space.>

hence, i can give you empirical evidence that geographical gaps represent no big challenge (today). you can only speculate about time gaps.

Jul-01-10  metatron2: <i've already answered>

No you did not, because as I said, its not just "geographical gaps", but "geographical <and rating> gaps". And you didn't answer that at all.

And regarding geographical gaps only:

How would you estimate the percent of games an average 2550 Russian player plays outside Russia? And what about the percentage of games an 2200-2300 Norwegian player plays outside his nation? I'd say less then 40%.

Can you give an estimated average overlap between the 2 pools of players those 2 types players (with their rating gap!) are expected to meet? What should be? 5%, 10%, 30%, 50%, or maybe more?

My guess would be around the 5%.

Jul-01-10  frogbert: as i already told you: it can be demonstrated that the interaction is big enough for present day players. simple empirical methods are sufficient to do that: players from (very) different geographical areas score basically as "expected" from their fide ratings also when they play abroad, and when foreigners play in "their" country. the only notable exception i can think of is young 2400 and 2500-rated chinese (and other east-asian) players that seem to have too little interaction with the rest of the (current) pool, and they appear to become underrated as a consequence.

the general interaction between russian (2600-)players and western-european players is certainly as big as that between us and european players, and even in the latter case, where the contact is basically limited to less than 100 players going each way, calculations showed amazing coherence.

the strength of transitive relationships are never 100% in chess, but what you can infer about a and c if a plays b and b plays c is <radically more> if the games take place within months or a year, as compared to a scenario where a plays b, 10 years passes, and b plays c.

gaps in space (and rating) are covered quite fast and reliably by transitive relationships in our modern world - again, as can be <demonstrated> by looking at how the chess travellers do home and abroad. i don't have to guess about sub-pool overlaps in order to show that.

but while we have chess travellers in rather decent numbers, the time travellers are few. if gelfand beat karpov convincingly in 2002, it wouldn't say much about how gelfand would've done against korchnoi in 1978. introducing numerous links on the path between the two games/matches is just an alternative source of error. and then we haven't even started to talk about the changes to the environment in which chess is being competed at.

Jul-01-10  metatron2: <the general interaction between russian (2600-)players and western-european players is certainly as big as that between us and european players>

I'm sorry frog, but talking about general interactions between 2600- players, doesn't really answer my question, regarding the estimated (average) pools-overlap of two specific players: an 2250 Norwagian and 2550 Russian.

Here is my question again:

"Can you give an estimated average overlap between the 2 pools of players those 2 types of players (with their rating gap!) are expected to meet? What should it be? 5%, 10%, 30%, 50%, or maybe more? My guess would be around the 5%."

<frog: and then we haven't even started to talk about the changes to the environment in which chess is being competed at.>

Actually I talked about those competing-environment changes right from the start..

<gaps in space (and rating) are covered quite fast and reliably by transitive relationships in our modern world>

OK, Now we are getting somewhere:

If I understand correctly, What you are saying here is that the 2 players can play against <different pools>, as long as you assume that transitivity is kept between the players they play against (from the different pools). And you assume that if we have enough interactions between the pools, the transitivity property will indeed be kept.

Right?

<it can be demonstrated that the interaction is big enough for present day players. simple empirical methods are sufficient to do that: players from (very) different geographical areas score basically as "expected" from their fide ratings also when they play abroad, and when foreigners play in "their" country.>

I am sure they score around their expected ratings. That's my <whole point>.

You claim that because the pools change over time, and because of competing environmental changes over time, there is no meaning at all in trying to compare ratings separated by time, or talk about "rating inflation" with regard to chess skills.

But if we can show that the old pool that changed over time, had enough "interactions" with the new one, there is no reason for losing the transitivity property between those two pools.

And we also have big competing-environment-differences between players within the current pool, and yet those differences do not invalidate rating comparison between such players, and so there is no reason for such changes to invalidate comparisons of ratings separated by time.

What I wanted to show, is that you cannot completely rule out such comparison and the whole concept of rating inflation with your arguments, since we can find similar symptoms to those you mention within players in the current pool.

I'm not saying that the rating inflation problem is solvable. I'm just saying that you canít rule out the entire concept.

Now I'm going to sleep. To be continued tomorrow (today actually..).

Jul-01-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  Bobwhoosta: <metatron2>

I believe you're missing <frog's> point here.

His claim is that the FIDE ratings of current players is relatively accurate in describing past performance relative to the field- and therefore somewhat reliable in predicting match results- because of a simple principle... (enter pure Whoosta comments):

When a player enters a tournament, every player in that tournament is carrying direct information from a series of players they have (in most cases) played recently. When Player A plays Player B, it may be they have not played in the same pools recently. Possibly never. However, they have played people who have played people who have played people... And so on. By the time you iterate this information to the third or fourth step, you have branched out significantly into the world population.

Example: Our Norwegian player, an amateur, plays in a local tournament. In this tournament there are two NM, one IM, and one GM, along with a significant number of amateurs of varying strength. This is not a stretch of an assumption. The NM, IM's, and GM bring into the tournament information from every player they have competed against, and the amateurs the same. Whether the amateur even has the opportunity to play the GM, he will most likely play someone who will play someone who will play the GM. Therefore, the information latent in the GM's rating, being derived from a world population, will influence the tournament. This may seem to be a small influence, and yet it is continuous, offering many little corrections to keep the rating system fairly accurate. And it is impossible to assume it is merely the GM who is playing outside the Norweigan's "pool" of players, because there are many amateurs who travel, and the Norwegian will encounter enough 2400 rated players (who play against enough 2600 rated players) to ensure any discrepancy in ratings between separate locations remains small.

The difference between geography and time is not a quantitative difference, rather a qualitative difference. 10 years in the past cannot be represented in any tournament today, unless of course you have a GM who quit playing 10 years ago, and decided to play in the tournament you're in. As mentioned before, this "GM" effect would be decidedly small, and must happen numerous times in order to have a cumulative correcting effect on the population.

How many GM's IM's, and amateurs do you know of who haven't touched the game in 10 years, and are now entering the ratings pool?? Therefore, you can assert that- within simple limits- the length of time between the ratings of two players will have a negative effect on the accuracy in predicting a match outcome.

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 30)
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 29 OF 30 ·  Later Kibitzing>
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other users.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.


NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific tournament and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!


home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | contact us
Copyright 2001-2014, Chessgames Services LLC
Web design & database development by 20/20 Technologies