If he had gotten such rich positions throughout the tournament, other players would have shared Kramnik's fate.

You're very correct.

There are many, many examples of where stats don't and cannot tell the whole story or important parts of it, for this reason I am always weary of statistics-driven arguments and statistics in general.

1989: +2 (=1st)
1990: = (=7th)
1996: +3 (2nd)
1998: +4 (=1st)
1999: +6 (2nd)
2000: +3 (=2nd)
2001: +4 (2nd)
2003: +4 (1st)
2004: +4 (1st)
2005: +3 (2nd)
2006: +5 (=1st)
2007: +2 (5th)
2008: +2 (=3rd)
2010: +2 (=4th)

In the Carlsen game he also said in the press conference that the computer would probably laugh at his ...Ne5, but in fact it was just slightly sub-optimal according according to Rybka. The same for ...c4. The psychological impact of the sacrifices and the pawn phalanx probably means that if Rybka saw no clear blunders then Kramnik's play was almost perfect from ...Ne5 onwards (even ...Be4 was perhaps better than ...Re4 given Carlsen's time trouble).

Yes, I meant worst between 1996 and 2006, he had some very good years around then. In 1999-2001 Kasparov won, if he had been absent the same way he was absent from Dortmund Anand would have won Wijk six starts in a row (apart from 1989 and 2006).

Just one note on that: the Dortmund tournaments in the 1990s were actually still very strong, and in fact seem to have been much stronger (relatively speaking) than the most recent editions. The fields did not have Kasparov, but they usually included Anand and many other players from the top 10. Still, I agree with the point about Anand's second place finishes.

Giri: Emulate is going a bit too far. But I think Kasparov was the strongest chess player of all time. At the moment I like the way Anand plays. Carlsen's play doesn't make a great impression on me, I find his style too dry. But, of course, he's a very strong chess player. I'd like to win some positions the way Kramnik does".

You can't blame statistics for not telling the whole truth. Nothing can do that. You should rather blame yourself or others for expecting, assuming or pretending that it does.

See the difference?

http://www.youtube.com/user/mehnavi...

I recall when Moro blundered away Biel against Vachier-Lagrave. I'm a Moro fan and maybe it was a shame that Moro made mistakes but summing up the event by saying that it was a shame that Vachier-Lagrave won it just wouldn't sound right...

Btw. Monokroussos, wasn't our banana the same guy, Kasparov had some beef with (allright that applies to a lot of people), during his press conference after that match with Kasimdzhanov was called off?

Um, no, or at least that would surprise me greatly as Monokrossous is a nobody that Kasparov probably has hardly even heard about. I'm not sure, but you may be thinking about Makropoulos, a totally different person, namely a FIDE honcho who, among other things, contributed directly to the Elista 2006 scandal (together with the other members of the Appeals Committee).

<I recall when Moro blundered away Biel against Vachier-Lagrave. I'm a Moro fan and maybe it was a shame that Moro made mistakes but summing up the event by saying that it was a shame that Vachier-Lagrave won it just wouldn't sound right...> Well, maybe it would have sounded better if he had said it's a shame Shirov or Kramnik didn't win, instead of it's a shame Carlsen won, but it more or less amounts to the same thing. I think some people are talking this as some kind attack on Carlsen, which I doubt is intended. In any case, I don't think it's a very serious matter. He hardly needs people writing in to complain or anything.