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

🏆
TOURNAMENT STANDINGS
(SPECIAL SCORING IN EFFECT: 3 POINTS PER WIN; 1 POINT PER DRAW)
London Chess Classic Tournament

Magnus Carlsen13(+3 -0 =4)[games]
Vladimir Kramnik12(+3 -1 =3)[games]
Michael Adams9(+1 -0 =6)[games]
David Howell9(+1 -0 =6)[games]
Luke McShane7(+2 -4 =1)[games]
Ni Hua6(+1 -3 =3)[games]
Hikaru Nakamura6(+0 -1 =6)[games]
Nigel Short5(+0 -2 =5)[games]

 page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 28  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves YearEvent/LocaleOpening
1. Carlsen vs Kramnik 1-0432009London Chess ClassicA29 English, Four Knights, Kingside Fianchetto
2. McShane vs Short 1-01632009London Chess ClassicC45 Scotch Game
3. Nakamura vs Ni Hua ½-½462009London Chess ClassicD11 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav
4. D Howell vs Adams ½-½452009London Chess ClassicC45 Scotch Game
5. Adams vs Nakamura ½-½602009London Chess ClassicC03 French, Tarrasch
6. Short vs D Howell ½-½442009London Chess ClassicC42 Petrov Defense
7. Kramnik vs Ni Hua 1-0482009London Chess ClassicD10 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav
8. Carlsen vs McShane 1-0612009London Chess ClassicE94 King's Indian, Orthodox
9. D Howell vs Carlsen ½-½792009London Chess ClassicB22 Sicilian, Alapin
10. McShane vs Kramnik 0-1362009London Chess ClassicC24 Bishop's Opening
11. Nakamura vs Short ½-½432009London Chess ClassicE44 Nimzo-Indian, Fischer Variation, 5.Ne2
12. Ni Hua vs Adams ½-½362009London Chess ClassicC89 Ruy Lopez, Marshall
13. Short vs Ni Hua ½-½642009London Chess ClassicC11 French
14. Kramnik vs Adams ½-½462009London Chess ClassicD37 Queen's Gambit Declined
15. McShane vs D Howell ½-½402009London Chess ClassicA15 English
16. Carlsen vs Nakamura ½-½452009London Chess ClassicD17 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav
17. D Howell vs Kramnik ½-½532009London Chess ClassicC42 Petrov Defense
18. Ni Hua vs Carlsen 0-1422009London Chess ClassicB51 Sicilian, Canal-Sokolsky (Rossolimo) Attack
19. Nakamura vs McShane 0-1552009London Chess ClassicE94 King's Indian, Orthodox
20. Adams vs Short ½-½432009London Chess ClassicC80 Ruy Lopez, Open
21. McShane vs Ni Hua 0-1802009London Chess ClassicC07 French, Tarrasch
22. D Howell vs Nakamura ½-½412009London Chess ClassicC03 French, Tarrasch
23. Kramnik vs Short 1-0402009London Chess ClassicD38 Queen's Gambit Declined, Ragozin Variation
24. Carlsen vs Adams ½-½612009London Chess ClassicE46 Nimzo-Indian
25. Short vs Carlsen ½-½712009London Chess ClassicB76 Sicilian, Dragon, Yugoslav Attack
 page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 28  PGN Download
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2)  

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 69 OF 71 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Dec-15-09  chessmoron: <Kaspablanca> Except Adams blew a great chance on 25..Bc5, after 25dxe3! 26 Be2 Adams could have won by 26Re5!! against Carlsen which would put Kramnik ahead of Carlsen.
Dec-15-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  Eyal: <Except Adams blew a great chance on 25..Bc5, after 25dxe3! 26 Be2 Adams could have won by 26Re5!! against Carlsen which would put Kramnik ahead of Carlsen.>

Not really - they would have had an equal number of points, and the result of their individual game would decide as a tiebreak for Carlsen.

Dec-15-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  HeMateMe: < returnoftheking > Didnt you recognize him? Thats DeNiro, they're shooting "Godfather IV." Prmeise: A buncha wise guys are gonna hit the tournament payroll, before the prizes get handed out.
Dec-16-09  Turki M: The Future of New Chess Generation Has come!!!!
Dec-16-09  siamesedream: >>Magnus Carlsen`s Blog

London Chess Classics 2009. Final round, Dec.15th

After a tense fight today, I won the London Chess Classics with 13 points, ahead of V.Kramnik at 12 and Howell and Adams at 9. With classical score my result was 5 out of 7 which is enough to secure sole 1st place on the January 1st 2010 (official) FIDE rating list, ahead of Topalov, Anand and Kramnik! This has been a long term goal and I would like to thank my coach G.Kasparov for his help in reaching this goal now. I would also like to thank my main sponsors investment bank Arctic Securities and Simonsen lawyers for their support and for making it possible to continue the cooperation with Kasparov in 2010! I've asked my father to go into more detail on the persons and organisations that has helped us on my way to the top spot in his own blog later this month. My game today against former World Championship finalist Nigel Short was a Sicilian Dragon. I was quite satisfied with the opening. In the middle game I got an advantage but let it slip at some point. In the endgame I once again got an advantage but probably not enough to win. I tried and after 5,5 hours play I made an oversight and got into some real problems, but through accurate defence the game ended in a draw an hour later. As Kramink drew with Nakamura a draw was enough to secure sole 1st place. The prize giving ceremony was held as a private dinner at Simpson's-in-the-Strand, a venue with rich chess traditions which include hosting the "Immortal game" played between Adolf Anderssen and Lionel Kieseritzky in 1851. It has been a great experience to participate in such a well-organised event in London. Thank you! Magnus Carlsen

2009-12-16 03:14:03<<

http://arcticsec.no/index.php?butto...

Dec-16-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  virginmind: congratulations magnus carlsen!
Dec-16-09  mr.fisk: An outsiders look at the London Classic :)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blo...
Dec-16-09  Atking: <Eyal: <Except Adams blew a great chance on 25..Bc5, after 25Exe3! 26 Be2 Adams could have won by 26Ee5!! against Carlsen which would put Kramnik ahead of Carlsen.> Not really - they would have had an equal number of points, and the result of their individual game would decide as a tiebreak for Carlsen.>

That's realistic. But I can't close the feeling that Kramnik did play better in terms of quality (Even in the first great game with the move you and Hesam7 annoted (Kf8!)). Carlsen was in difficulty with Nakamura and Short too, never Kramnik was (The Game with Howell could come in mind but even in this game Kramnik knew taht at least he has the draw). Obviously Carlsen is playing up to 2800 Elo (No doubt about that and that's fantastic if we consider his age) but what makes the difference with Kramnik is in my opinion the "Will to win". Even if Kramnik changed his mind and play more aggressively compare to Carlsen he is still a bit lazy.

Dec-16-09  mr.fisk: <Obviously Carlsen is playing up to 2800 Elo> He's been playing way above 2800 for a while now ;-)
Dec-16-09  Bdellovibrio: "Carlsen, a 19-year-old Norwegian who looks a little like Matt Damon, is the world's No1 player. He has a penchant for wearing shiny silk shirts that shimmer under the stage lights." great stuff mr. fisk!
Dec-16-09  frogbert: mr.fisk, that was precious!

<Carlsen had just castled his king, a move evidently so latent with unforeseen ramifications that it stunned Howell into inaction. And so he sat there, staring, unmoving. And so did the crowd.

[...]

After 30 minutes had passed, Howell made his move. Carlsen responded with dismissive promptness, slapping his palm firmly down on his clock's stop-button. Howell ran his hands through his hair, and slumped his head back into his palms, resuming his pose of a moment before. This, it occurred to me, could be a very long afternoon.

[...]

Later, when the commentators jokingly asked if there was anyone in the room who had stumbled in by mistake, I felt it was time to go. McShane had long since lost to Kramnik, but later that evening Howell would battle his way to a draw against Carlsen. Baffled, I staggered out into the dark night, leaving behind me a world entirely beyond my ken.>

a very entertaining read! please read the full version: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blo...

Dec-16-09  The Rocket: is it meant that this tournament will now be played every year? or was this a one time deal?
Dec-16-09  pawn to QB4: The organisers seemed to be getting together at the end and getting their hopes up for a repeat next year, so I'd say your question probably doesn't have a definitive answer yet.
Dec-16-09  panzerkampf: where can we see the games of london fide rated open tournament?
Dec-16-09  Pjalle: <panzerkampf>http://www.londonchessclassic.com/f...
Dec-16-09  Mr. Bojangles: < is it meant that this tournament will now be played every year?>

I hope not.

Dec-16-09  pawn to QB4: On the other hand, I hope so. Very well organised tournament for us fans. Fascinating grandmaster analysis. I was there yesterday with a young clubmate who got to chat with Vlad Kramnik - at her age the nearest I got was newspaper reports from Iceland. I've been spending some time delivering chess sets round schools in the wilds of Derbyshire. Somehow this got me into a room where I was sat next to Korchnoi as he debated the Short-Carlsen game with John Nunn and Jonathan Speelman...Nakamura and Kramnik discussed their game at a table right in front of me. Sorry to sound like a groupie, but it was about as good as it gets for a chess fan.
Dec-16-09  Chessforeva: 3D games: http://chessforeva.appspot.com/C0_p...
Dec-16-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  Eyal: <Atking: But I can't close the feeling that Kramnik did play better in terms of quality (Even in the first great game with the move you and Hesam7 annoted (Kf8!)). Carlsen was in difficulty with Nakamura and Short too, never Kramnik was (The Game with Howell could come in mind but even in this game Kramnik knew taht at least he has the draw). Obviously Carlsen is playing up to 2800 Elo (No doubt about that and that's fantastic if we consider his age) but what makes the difference with Kramnik is in my opinion the "Will to win". Even if Kramnik changed his mind and play more aggressively compare to Carlsen he is still a bit lazy.>

I agree that Carlsen's game during the tournament was, on the whole, more uneven than Kramnik's, but I have the impression (quite subjective, of course) that when Carlsen was at his best it was the more brilliant one. Maybe this has to do with the fact that in all of Kramnik's wins, the battle was already half-decided by move 20 and the rest consisted of "just" converting the advantage he got from the opening indeed in the area of opening preparation/understanding, Carlsen is probably still not in Kramnik's league. On the other hand, Carlsen displayed phenomenal middlegame skills in the way he kept outplaying his opponents from positions which were apparently equal or even worse (as against Ni Hua) from the opening.

About the Kf8 move from Carlsen-Kramnik it's certainly interesting to analyze this possibility post-mortem and see how Black could have saved himself, but it doesn't affect very much my appreciation of the players' performance. I mean, had Kramnik actually figured all this out and played the move it would have been extremely impressive, but I wouldn't hold missing such a computer move against either of the players. I call that a "computer move" not just because it looks strange, but because it's based on tactics which is both complex and sort of incidental to the main "flow" of the game exactly the kind of moves it's so easier for computers to discover, both because of their brute calculating force and because they always check automatically all the legal moves in a position, including the most apparently "senseless" ones.

Dec-16-09  Mr. Bojangles: Good post Eyal, I appreciate your contributions.
Dec-16-09  GreenFacedPatzer: <Chessgames> A minor quibble.

In your front-page blurb about this tournament, you write:

<Carlsen edged out Kramnik by 1 point under the special "3 points for a win" scoring system.>

This seems to imply that Carlsen wouldn't have won except for the odd scoring system---which of course is wrong. Using traditional scoring Carlsen would've won just the same, 5/7 to 4.5/7.

I do understand the problem, though: to explain the 1-point margin, you've got to make reference to the scoring system, and space is very limited there. Perhaps simply saying "Carlsen edged out the tournament over Kramnik" would work better, leaving all particulars of the score to this page.

Dec-16-09  zarg: <Winner: Brilliancy prize - Luke McShane>

How Carlsen didn't win that prize, is a mystery.

Dec-16-09  Jim Bartle: I agree. That prize was effectively decided in round one.
Dec-16-09  Mr. Bojangles: Why does Carlsen deserve the prize?
Dec-16-09
Premium Chessgames Member
  rogge: McShane doesn't need the 10.000 (Goldman Sachs, is it?) Carlsen doesn't need it either. Maybe they should've given the prize to Howell.
Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 71)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 69 OF 71 ·  Later Kibitzing>
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, is 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, profane, raunchy, or disgusting language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate or nonsense posts.
  3. No malicious personal attacks, including cyber stalking, systematic antagonism, or gratuitous name-calling of any member Iincludinfgall Admin and Owners or any of their family, friends, associates, or business interests. If you think someone is an idiot, then provide evidence that their reasoning is invalid and/or idiotic, instead of just calling them an idiot. It's a subtle but important distinction, even in political discussions.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No malicious posting of or linking to personal, private, and/or negative information (aka "doxing" or "doxxing") about any member, (including all Admin and Owners) or any of their family, friends, associates, or business interests. This includes all media: text, images, video, audio, or otherwise. Such actions will result in severe sanctions for any violators.
  6. NO TROLLING. Admin and Owners know it when they see it, and sanctions for any trolls will be significant.
  7. Any off-topic posts which distract from the primary topic of discussion are subject to removal.
  8. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by Moderators is expressly prohibited.
  9. The use of "sock puppet" accounts in an attempt to undermine any side of a debate—or to create a false impression of consensus or support—is prohibited.
  10. All decisions with respect to deleting posts, and any subsequent discipline, are final, and occur at the sole discretion of the Moderators, Admin, and Owners.
  11. Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a Moderator.

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, 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 at the sole discretion of the Admin and Owners—who will strive to act fairly and consistently at all times.
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 | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | contact us
Copyright 2001-2019, Chessgames Services LLC