chessgames.com

TOURNAMENT STANDINGS
Dortmund Tournament

Vladimir Kramnik6.5/10(+3 -0 =7)[view games]
Peter Leko5.5/10(+1 -0 =9)[view games]
Dmitry Jakovenko5.5/10(+2 -1 =7)[view games]
Magnus Carlsen5.5/10(+2 -1 =7)[view games]
Etienne Bacrot4/10(+0 -2 =8)[view games]
Arkadi Naiditsch3/10(+0 -4 =6)[view games]

 page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 30  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves Year Event/LocaleOpening
1. Naiditsch vs Bacrot ½-½42 2009 DortmundC89 Ruy Lopez, Marshall
2. Carlsen vs Jakovenko 1-049 2009 DortmundC67 Ruy Lopez
3. Leko vs Kramnik ½-½24 2009 DortmundE04 Catalan, Open, 5.Nf3
4. Jakovenko vs Naiditsch 1-062 2009 DortmundB90 Sicilian, Najdorf
5. Leko vs Carlsen ½-½25 2009 DortmundA32 English, Symmetrical Variation
6. Kramnik vs Bacrot ½-½30 2009 DortmundE15 Queen's Indian
7. Bacrot vs Jakovenko ½-½22 2009 DortmundC67 Ruy Lopez
8. Carlsen vs Kramnik ½-½19 2009 DortmundE32 Nimzo-Indian, Classical
9. Naiditsch vs Leko ½-½29 2009 DortmundB13 Caro-Kann, Exchange
10. Jakovenko vs Leko ½-½22 2009 DortmundE49 Nimzo-Indian, 4.e3, Botvinnik System
11. Bacrot vs Carlsen ½-½46 2009 DortmundD44 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav
12. Naiditsch vs Kramnik 0-127 2009 DortmundC42 Petrov Defense
13. Kramnik vs Jakovenko ½-½19 2009 DortmundD38 Queen's Gambit Declined, Ragozin Variation
14. Leko vs Bacrot 1-039 2009 DortmundE15 Queen's Indian
15. Carlsen vs Naiditsch 1-060 2009 DortmundC67 Ruy Lopez
16. Jakovenko vs Carlsen ½-½45 2009 DortmundB33 Sicilian
17. Bacrot vs Naiditsch ½-½24 2009 DortmundE17 Queen's Indian
18. Kramnik vs Leko ½-½25 2009 DortmundE55 Nimzo-Indian, 4.e3, Gligoric System, Bronstein Variation
19. Naiditsch vs Jakovenko ½-½70 2009 DortmundB35 Sicilian, Accelerated Fianchetto, Modern Variation with Bc4
20. Carlsen vs Leko ½-½22 2009 DortmundC88 Ruy Lopez
21. Bacrot vs Kramnik ½-½38 2009 DortmundC42 Petrov Defense
22. Leko vs Naiditsch ½-½27 2009 DortmundD39 Queen's Gambit Declined, Ragozin, Vienna Variation
23. Jakovenko vs Bacrot 1-081 2009 DortmundC89 Ruy Lopez, Marshall
24. Kramnik vs Carlsen 1-036 2009 DortmundD37 Queen's Gambit Declined
25. Jakovenko vs Kramnik ½-½54 2009 DortmundC42 Petrov Defense
 page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 30  PGN Download
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2)  
 

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 78 OF 78 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Jul-15-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: <bisdak- Bisayang Dako> Unsay gipangutana nimo? May ginapamangkot ka? May ginapamangkot timo? Yaoy pangasubo mo? What are you trying to ask?

<dehanne, KamikazeAttack: "This victory ends the illusion that Kramnik is a bad tournament player.">

Where did Kasparov say this? It seems like an awfully loaded 'praise'.

Jul-15-09  timhortons: <visayanbraindoctor>

doc ,check this link.

http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt...

Comments from Garry Kasparov

Game 11: "A difficult position for Kramnik to be in after 1.e4. Final games like this have their own logic so you cannot compare it to his attempts to play the Sicilian in 2004. 12..f5 was suspect, not something I would have considered. That's what can happen when you are in openings that aren't yours. You want to play by instinct but they are not used to these positions and this leads to poor decisions. After the Berlin and the Petroff, playing a Rauzer is a shock to the system. He looked very uncomfortable, but of course the match situation was close to impossible. The final position was unpleasant for Black and this Kramnik understands."

Match in general: "It was a very well-played match by Vishy. Except for the loss of concentration in the 10th game, he played consistently and managed to enforce his style. His choice to open with 1.d4 was excellent. He reached playable positions with life in them so he could make Kramnik work at the board. Anand outprepared Kramnik completely. In this way it reminded me of my match with Kramnik in London 2000. Like I was then, Kramnik may have been very well prepared for this match but we never saw it. I didn't expect the Berlin and ended up fighting on Kramnik's preferred terrain.

[In this match] Kramnik did not expect tough, sharp challenges with white and this was the key for Anand. He kicked some sand in Kramnik's face and hit Kramnik's weakness: his conservative approach to the game itself. Suddenly Kramnik had to fight in these sharp positions and he wasn't able to do it. <This result ends the illusion that Kramnik is a great match player.> London was a unique occurrence and I still stand with Leonid Yudasin as the only players Kramnik has ever beaten in a match! Kramnik now has some work to do. His overly-defensive play seems to represent a general decline in strength.

A great result for Anand and for chess. Vishy deserved the win in every way and I'm very happy for him. It will not be easy for the younger generation to push him aside."

<anyways kaspy wait for fischer to die before he say good things to fischer.>

Jul-15-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: <timhortons> I found the endgame in Granda - Nakamura very interesting. What does your computer say about it?

Thanks for the link. If Kasparov really said that <"This victory ends the illusion that Kramnik is a bad tournament player">, well... useless to speculate why he said that. Could just start another flame war.

<his conservative approach to the game itself>

Many of his supporters are glad Kramnik has resurrected his fighting chess. It's what got him to the top; and if he wishes to get there again, this is the way to do it. I have little doubt he can. He is the only chess player in the world who could duke it out on at least an equal basis with Kasparov in his prime in complications, which must mean something. No other player could even come close to Kasparov.

If you think about it, the next generation after Vishy (and the Ivanchuk, Gelfand group) is actually Kramnik's cohort of Topalov, Svidler, Morozevich, Leko. In the 'normal' course of things, Anand's group would have given way slowly to Kramnik's group. As it is, things have reversed. Kramnik's age group has given way to a rejuvenated Anand's group. I don't think there has been anything like this in chess history.

Jul-15-09  timhortons: <I found the endgame in Granda - Nakamura very interesting. What does your computer say about it?> doc as what percyblakeny said though the engines is giving plus 2 eval in grandas position but still naka hold it in a draw ,so maybe such position is the one where human GM's had better understanding than engine.

in days to come lets see how top GM would analyze that game.

in nakamura -vallejo pons game, in the 34th position caruana at icc kibitz "naka seen deeper"

few move after the 34th naka is winning, but mind you prior to that kibitz of caruana the rest of GM's at icc say that position is dead equal/dead draw.

<in the granda -naka game Gm's kibitz at icc that naka is lossing, they kibitz in unanimous evaluation that naka is lossing the position,this are caruana, rustemov,buffon, and few IM's and FM...but naka draw the game>

i find it exciting because when the GM's say naka is drawing , naka actually wins, when they say Naka is lossing , actually naka draw....

icc kibitzing is full of crap especially on patzers side, but GM's know what they talkin.

only one thing that matters among the patzers at icc is that there fully armed to the teeth with strong engines and most say they kibitz using there brain..

Jul-15-09  timhortons: <doc>

i read GM rustemov kibitz that GM in todays generation play better endgame than those GM in the 60's but time control as this one in nakas game wont help you so much...

Jul-15-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: <timhortons> I posted two possible variations for White in the

Granda-Zuniga vs Nakamura, 2009

page that I believed would have given Naka some trouble. Does your computer have any clear drawing lines for these variations? Sorry but I don't have an engine. You don't have to answer this, of course, if you are busy.

Jul-15-09  theagenbiteofinwit: <I don't think there has been anything like this in chess history.> If you discount 1958 and 1961, this statement would be correct.
Jul-15-09  KamikazeAttack: <Kramnik now has some work to do. His overly-defensive play seems to represent a general decline in strength. > -- G Kasaparov

LMAOOO

Jul-17-09  Endikat: The game Nr. 29 from Dortmund Tournament( Kram-Naid). The Opening ist not D44!
Jul-18-09  dumbgai: <London was a unique occurrence and I still stand with Leonid Yudasin as the only players Kramnik has ever beaten in a match!>

Somebody seems to have forgotten about Toiletgate.

Jul-18-09  dumbgai: <This victory ends the illusion that Kramnik is a bad tournament player.>

Heh. I guess it goes: if you win Dortmund 8 times, you're a bad tournament player; good players have to win it 9 times.

Jul-18-09  KamikazeAttack: <London was a unique occurrence and I still stand with Leonid Yudasin as the only players Kramnik has ever beaten in a match!>

That Kasaparov deliberately chose to ignore Kramnik's win over Topalov in Elista is testimony to his bitterness towards Kramnik and his petty mindedness.

Jul-19-09  Karnatakiaditya: <dumbgai>, <kamikazeattack> I suppose Kasparov does not take Elista in account as it was won over tiebrakes ...
Jul-19-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  AgentRgent: <Karnatakiaditya: I suppose Kasparov does not take Elista in account as it was won over tiebrakes ...> It was won in classical AND in tiebreaks. It was AWARDED after tiebreaks.
Jul-19-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: <AgentRgent: <Karnatakiaditya: I suppose Kasparov does not take Elista in account as it was won over tiebrakes ...> It was won in classical AND in tiebreaks. It was AWARDED after tiebreaks.>

Classical Chess:

Kramnik 3 wins, Topalov 2 wins, 6 draws

Rapid Chess:

Kramnik 2 wins, Topalov 1 win, 1 draw

Plus one default by Kramnik. Defaults are not real chess games.

This must be the only World Championship match where the winner in effect won two matches in terms of the number of real chess games played - one a classical match and the other a rapid match. In terms of sporting results, the default counted as a point for Topalov, but hardly any one would imagine a default to be a real chess game.

Jul-19-09  slomarko: <Classical Chess:

Kramnik 3 wins, Topalov 2 wins, 6 draws>

corrected that for you:
Kramnik 3 wins, Topalov 3 wins, 6 draws

Seems that the Kramnik fanboys are still in denial.

Jul-19-09  dumbgai: <Seems that the Kramnik fanboys are still in denial.>

Seems that Kramnik haters are still in denial. I mean, you seriously believe that Kramnik didn't win that match? Oh whoops I forgot, it's <slomarko>.

Jul-19-09  Phoenix: <Kramniks Anonymous>

A few years ago, I became an avid Kramnik fanboy. Soon after, I couldn't stand the sight of a game lasting longer than 20 moves. I recognized something with me was wrong. I thought I saw the light, and became a Kramnik hater. This also had its problems...suddenly I found myself throwing up when my opponents responded to 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 with 2...Nf6.

I could sense that being a Kramnik fanboy and a Kramnik hater was taking a toll on my mental health. My brain was becoming all smokey inside. And don't get me started on the effects of second-hand Kramnik.

This had to stop. So, I googled "Kramniks Anonymous" and followed their rigorous 64 step Kramnik de-obsession program.

It's been 2 years since I quit, and I feel great! I recommend everyone give it a try.

Jul-19-09  slomarko: <Seems that Kramnik haters are still in denial. I mean, you seriously believe that Kramnik didn't win that match? Oh whoops I forgot, it's <slomarko>.> What are you babbling? Kramnik did win that match in the tie-break. The classical part of the match ended 3-3, if you don't play a game you are forfeited, it's as simple as that. Even Kramnik himself accepted the result and later commentated that not playing the game was probably an error. But the Kramnik fanboys are still comming up with these "Alice in wonderland" claims that the result was 3-2. Interesting how they don't go to whine that Fischer beat Spasski 7-2 instead of 7-3. Grow up.
Jul-19-09  KamikazeAttack: <but hardly any one would imagine a default to be a real chess game>

Unless you're Bulgarian or a Kramnik hater.

Jul-19-09  KamikazeAttack: <<Kramniks Anonymous> A few years ago, I became an avid Kramnik fanboy. Soon after, I couldn't stand the sight of a game lasting longer than 20 moves. I recognized something with me was wrong. I thought I saw the light, and became a Kramnik hater. This also had its problems...suddenly I found myself throwing up when my opponents responded to 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 with 2...Nf6.

I could sense that being a Kramnik fanboy and a Kramnik hater was taking a toll on my mental health. My brain was becoming all smokey inside. And don't get me started on the effects of second-hand Kramnik.

This had to stop. So, I googled "Kramniks Anonymous" and followed their rigorous 64 step Kramnik de-obsession program.

It's been 2 years since I quit, and I feel great! I recommend everyone give it a try. >

LMAO.

Aug-03-09  Bradah: I just want to say GOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Kramnik!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A win is a win, there's no ifs or butts about it.

Once again, GOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Kramnik.

Sep-20-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  tpstar: TIME FLIES

"For some it remains a normal part of the game, for others it's the curse of professional chess. Yes, we're talking short draws. Particularly in these lean days when sponsors are hard to come by, no organizer likes to see games end prematurely. And that's not even mentioning the spectators. An increasingly popular countermeasure against short and tepid games is a ban on early draws, for instance as phrased in the Sofia Rules. Inevitably, these rules create a new species of players well versed in finding move repetitions where we never expected them, but all in all they seem to work. They certainly would have prevented what happened in the third round of the Dortmund tournament, much to the horror of everyone present, with the possible exception of the players. The round took place on a Saturday and the theatre was filled with fans that had paid to be entertained. The fun didn't last long. After three quarters of an hour and 19 moves, Kramnik and Carlsen left the stage, soon followed by Bacrot and Yakovenko [sic], who had worked for 22 moves. About one hour later Naiditsch and Leko also drew their game after 29 not overly exciting moves, leaving the audience no other choice than to go home. For tournament director Stefan Koth it was an embarrassing moment, and he indicated that for next year he might consider anti-drawing measures."

"Let's hope he made a note of his intention, because one year passes quickly. Last year Mr. Koth was asked why on earth he had repeated the 15-minute delay in the transmission of the live games. After all, this anti-cheating measure made no sense if it was not combined with other measures. With admirable honesty he replied that they had mainly copied the script of last year and that it might be a good idea to abolish the delay for next time. So what happened this year? Right, faithfully copying the script of last year, the games were again broadcast with a 15-minute delay. And they were delayed because additional measures had been introduced? Not really. The players were not frisked, phones and radio signals were not blocked and the players' seconds were allowed to sit in the hall. But you're right, at least some of the viewers at home may have got the impression that the third round lasted 15 minutes longer than it did."

Nic's Cafe, "New In Chess" 2009 Issue 6.

Jul-14-10  Blunderdome: There's no forum for the 2010 edition yet, but User: YouRang has opened a prediction contest on his forum.
Jul-14-10  AuN1: the tournament starts tomorrow and there is still no forum? shameful.
Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 78)
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 78 OF 78 ·  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 | Little ChessPartner | privacy notice | contact us
Copyright 2001-2014, Chessgames Services LLC
Web design & database development by 20/20 Technologies