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

TOURNAMENT STANDINGS
Linares Tournament

Alexander Grischuk8/14(+3 -1 =10)[games]
Vassily Ivanchuk8/14(+2 -0 =12)[games]
Magnus Carlsen7.5/14(+3 -2 =9)[games]
Viswanathan Anand7/14(+2 -2 =10)[games]
Teimour Radjabov6.5/14(+1 -2 =11)[games]
Levon Aronian6.5/14(+3 -4 =7)[games]
Wang Yue6.5/14(+1 -2 =11)[games]
Leinier Dominguez Perez6/14(+0 -2 =12)[games]

 page 1 of 3; games 1-25 of 56  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves YearEvent/LocaleOpening
1. Aronian vs L Dominguez 1-0922009LinaresD27 Queen's Gambit Accepted, Classical
2. Wang Yue vs Carlsen ½-½572009LinaresD37 Queen's Gambit Declined
3. Anand vs Wang Yue 1-0332009LinaresD15 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav
4. Carlsen vs Ivanchuk ½-½342009LinaresD81 Grunfeld, Russian Variation
5. Radjabov vs Grischuk 0-1412009LinaresE17 Queen's Indian
6. Wang Yue vs Aronian ½-½262009LinaresD12 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav
7. Ivanchuk vs Anand ½-½652009LinaresD19 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav, Dutch
8. Wang Yue vs Radjabov  ½-½432009LinaresE92 King's Indian
9. Ivanchuk vs L Dominguez ½-½472009LinaresA04 Reti Opening
10. Carlsen vs Anand 1-0772009LinaresD45 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav
11. L Dominguez vs Anand ½-½422009LinaresB90 Sicilian, Najdorf
12. Aronian vs Radjabov ½-½422009LinaresE61 King's Indian
13. Grischuk vs Wang Yue 1-0572009LinaresD17 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav
14. Aronian vs Carlsen ½-½372009LinaresE06 Catalan, Closed, 5.Nf3
15. L Dominguez vs Grischuk ½-½302009LinaresC18 French, Winawer
16. Wang Yue vs Ivanchuk ½-½312009LinaresE11 Bogo-Indian Defense
17. Anand vs Radjabov 1-0612009LinaresB33 Sicilian
18. Ivanchuk vs Grischuk ½-½652009LinaresE20 Nimzo-Indian
19. Carlsen vs L Dominguez ½-½182009LinaresA33 English, Symmetrical
20. Radjabov vs Ivanchuk ½-½422009LinaresE94 King's Indian, Orthodox
21. Anand vs Aronian 0-1532009LinaresD47 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav
22. L Dominguez vs Radjabov ½-½622009LinaresB77 Sicilian, Dragon, Yugoslav Attack
23. Grischuk vs Carlsen ½-½342009LinaresB33 Sicilian
24. Aronian vs Ivanchuk 0-1442009LinaresE92 King's Indian
25. Radjabov vs Carlsen ½-½342009LinaresC53 Giuoco Piano
 page 1 of 3; games 1-25 of 56  PGN Download
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2)  
 

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 192 OF 192 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Mar-16-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: <Itís often said that if Morphy was given some time to learn modern openings he would beat most of todayís top players, Fischer himself meant that Morphy would beat everyone. I think the knowledge of modern players is underestimated, just look at how they can blitz out complicated middlegames and endgames while blindfolded.>

I have been watching the Amber blindfold tournament. I learned that in Amber they actually have boards (although empty) to look at. That makes blindfold games much easier by a mile IMO.

Blindfold chess today is mostly for fun. However, I think almost all the top masters of the 19th century until the 1930s depended partially on professional fees from simultaneous blindfold chess exhibitions without sight of board and men. They had to take blindfold chess very seriously as part of their income depended on it. Since it was their livelihood, and they did it regularly, these pre-WW2 masters would probably be super strong in blindfold chess by today's standards. Including Paul Morphy by the way.

If we were to get the strongest blindfold players in history, I would bet on Alekhine; he was regularly playing blindfold chess in a professional capacity until the end of his career, without sight of board and men. His experience in playing blindfold chess was an order of magnitude greater than today's top GMs.

As for openings, it's pretty well-known that blindfold chess and rapid games depend more on a chess player's native skills than on opening knowledge.

Mar-16-09  frogbert: <His experience in playing blindfold chess was an order of magnitude greater than today's top GMs.>

mimicking the way you argue regarding opening theory and all other advances & changes in modern chess, i guess we could give today's top gms 3 months of intensive blindfold training - and they'd match "the strongest blindfold player in history", right? or was that changed to 2-3 years of training in the latest estimates?

:o)

ps! lengthy arguments about "historical players" versus modern players are mostly futile, imho. there is no way to reasonably compare them. not even in terms of relative domination, due to the huge increase in professional (or semi-professional) players over the years.

Mar-16-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: <visayan> Note, historical masters didn't play blindfold against each other but against <amateurs> (and it were not always simuls!). They didn't have to calculate much, just keep the position in their head and calculate at the "critical" moments (f.x. to announce checkmate in x moves).
Mar-16-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: <frogbert> But how do you refute my "continuity of time" argument, connecting the different player pools?
Mar-16-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: <alexmagnus> Still trolling along? Why don't you try playing simultaneous blindfold chess with 10 people, with no board? A normal chessplayer might get a headache playing a single game without a chess board, but you probably won't as you don't seem to have have enough stuff inside your trollish skull to get a headache. Certainly statements such as this speak for themselves, of just about how much calculative powers their creators have.

<They didn't have to calculate much, just keep the position in their head and calculate at the "critical" moments (f.x. to announce checkmate in x moves). - alexmagnus>

And yes, the pre-WW 2 masters played each other blindfold. They would even play mini-matches with each other. Try visiting the Mieses page for one such blindfold match.

Mar-16-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: <i guess we could give today's top gms 3 months of intensive blindfold training - and they'd match "the strongest blindfold player in history", right? or was that changed to 2-3 years of training in the latest estimates?>

You are probably being ironic <frogbert>, but if you are asking a serious question, you could well be correct.

<lengthy arguments about "historical players" versus modern players are mostly futile, imho.>

There are many like you who think so; and certainly, since time machines are not available, masters from different eras would never meet. It's like comparing Newton and Einstein. However, other chess pundits don't think it's futile. So in this case, it's really a matter of opinion. <amadeus> betting on a disguised moustached Morphy beating Grischuk for example may sound futile to you, but for me, it brought a smile, and thoughts of, hey if <amadeus> is right, GM Grischuk would never know what hit him. (",)

<the huge increase in professional (or semi-professional) players over the years.>

The chess players of the former Soviet Union and its former satellite countries (Eastern European block) were supported by the state (either directly or via state-sponsored tournaments); which in my mind makes them professional players, who could concentrate on chess and nothing else much, without worrying where to get an income to buy their daily bread. And it's probably why Soviet masters began to grow in strength starting in the 1920s very quickly; and have totally dominated the chessworld until the 1990s. In this context, Paul Keres before WW2 would have been a chess professional in the present-day sense; he would play in tournaments for the prize money. Post WW2, Keres remained a chess professional in the sense that he was supported by the Soviet state.

We are still living in the post-Soviet aftermath: we still see chessplayers like Kramnik, Topalov, Morozevich, Leko, Shirov, etc.. who were trained in the Eastern European block chess system. The strongest products of this very professional Soviet - Eastern European system were Kasparov and Karpov; and so were World Champions Botvinnik, Smyslov, Tal, Petrosian, Spassky; and near champions Bronstein and Korchnoi. These players in their prime IMO are a match for any other top player from any era in chess history.

Regarding the capacity of the very top chessplayers to play chess, my views are in my profile.

Mar-17-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: <Still trolling along? Why don't you try playing simultaneous blindfold chess with 10 people, with no board? A normal chessplayer might get a headache playing a single game without a chess board, but you probably won't as you don't seem to have have enough stuff inside your trollish skull to get a headache. >

I actually once <played> two blindfold games simultaneously. The opponents were of course extremely weak (I myself am 1500, my opponents were one absolute beginner and one 900). I won both games, but I bet any 1200 would trash me (if he sees the board and I play blind).

So if a 1500 can play 2 games blind, I see nopthing special in a 2600 playing 10 games blind against amateurs who hardly play better than myself...

Mar-17-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: And just for clarification - yes, I have a very good memory (my limit in momentarily number memorization is, depending on the day, between 13 and 15 digits - an average human has 6-7). But far from a photographical one.

So I think is with that masters. They may have an exceptional memory, but I am <sure> it's not photographic. It may be synaesthetic though. Memory is always better with synaesthesia....

Mar-17-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: Also, <visayan>, you should read a definition of the troll. Also, you hardly win an argument by attacking me. Remember, I debated competitively in my teens, I know that attacks give you no points.
Mar-17-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: Aaand also, from my owwn experience... I played a semi-blind game (notation allowed for me, completely blind for him) against a 2000 once. It was <much> harder than that blind simul against beginners. And - I lost just as I would lose in a normal game.
Mar-17-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: The funny thing about you <alexmagnus> is that you are one of the trolls who try to deny they are trolling. You have been trolling my posts since the Kramnik page; and I have warned you already that I troll trolls like you.

By the way, I can help you think of a way to create a system wherein you can be the blindfold Chess World Champion of the world.

I can also give you pointers on trolling if you want to improve your trolling skills to a level as blind as your blindfold skills.

Mar-17-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: <visayan> I don't troll. While you yourself say you ARE trolling.

Not everybody whose opinion differs from yours is a troll!

You siply have no arguments to refute me and so say I a troll. Go ahead, look up the definition of a troll.

Mar-17-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: simply*; I'm*... Sorry, my M and E are sometimes not working ;)
Mar-17-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  whiteshark: * <alxagnus> ayb you should buy a nw kyboard so..ti..s!
Mar-17-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: Troll = Someone who has 450 cc of brain volume in his skull = <alexmagnus>
Mar-17-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: <visayan> LOL. Your attacks start going below the waist line. But before you calculate my brain volume, remember that I studied two grades ahead of my age through the entire secondary school ;)
Mar-17-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: <alexmagnus> Do trolls have waistlines?

You asked for a definition of a troll did you not? Is increasing the brain volume acceptable to you?

Troll = Someone who has 800 cc of brain volume in his skull = <alexmagnus>

Mar-18-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: <visayan> Stop trolling. You know, I'm not a troll. If I wanted to troll I'd do it somewhere else since chess players are not a category easily misled by trolling. But I don't troll and don't want to. I just see no sense in trolling.

By the way, definition. I didn't ask you for the difinition, I asked you too look up the dictionary definition ;)

Mar-18-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: Definition of a troll:

Begins his posts with:

<I am not a troll. I am not a troll. I am not a troll.>

Fills the middle of his posts with:

<What is the dictionary definition of a troll? What is the dictionary definition of a troll? What is the dictionary definition of a troll?>

And

<Here are my credentials, look how smart I am. Here are my credentials, look how smart I am. Here are my credentials, look how smart I am.>

Ends his posts with:

<;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)>

What can I say but:

(",) (",) (",) (",) (",) (",) (",)

Mar-18-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: <visayan> You get the title <discussion killer of the millenium>.
Mar-18-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: But don't worry, I won't sue you for the murder on this discussion
Apr-11-09  AnalyzeThis: <Mrs. Alekhine: Why wasn't my husband invited? >

The more I read your entries, the more they make me laugh.

Apr-17-09  Raisin Death Ray: The End?
Aug-29-09  Raisin Death Ray: I guess so!
Jul-25-13  Xeroxx: Maybe.
Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 192)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 192 OF 192 ·  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 members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No posting personal information of members.
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 | advertising | contact us
Copyright 2001-2017, Chessgames Services LLC