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

TOURNAMENT STANDINGS
Dortmund Tournament

Michael Adams7/9(+5 -0 =4)[games]
Vladimir Kramnik6.5/9(+5 -1 =3)[games]
Arkadij Naiditsch4.5/9(+3 -3 =3)[games]
Peter Leko4.5/9(+1 -1 =7)[games]
Dmitry Andreikin4/9(+2 -3 =4)[games]
Georg Meier4/9(+1 -2 =6)[games]
Wang Hao4/9(+3 -4 =2)[games]
Fabiano Caruana4/9(+2 -3 =4)[games]
Igor Khenkin3.5/9(+1 -3 =5)[games]
Daniel Fridman3/9(+0 -3 =6)[games]

Chessgames.com Chess Event Description
Dortmund (2013)

Previous: Dortmund (2012)

Next: Dortmund Sparkassen Chess Meeting (2014)

Website: http://www.sparkassen-chess-meeting...

 page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 45  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves YearEvent/LocaleOpening
1. Kramnik vs Wang Hao 1-0262013DortmundD16 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav
2. D Andreikin vs Caruana 0-1432013DortmundD80 Grunfeld
3. D Fridman vs Adams ½-½542013DortmundC47 Four Knights
4. Khenkin vs Leko  ½-½602013DortmundD85 Grunfeld
5. G Meier vs Naiditsch 1-0532013DortmundD81 Grunfeld, Russian Variation
6. Adams vs D Andreikin 1-0642013DortmundC67 Ruy Lopez
7. Khenkin vs G Meier  ½-½452013DortmundD37 Queen's Gambit Declined
8. Wang Hao vs D Fridman 1-0482013DortmundC42 Petrov Defense
9. Naiditsch vs Kramnik ½-½392013DortmundC67 Ruy Lopez
10. Leko vs Caruana ½-½282013DortmundC78 Ruy Lopez
11. Kramnik vs Khenkin  ½-½472013DortmundD16 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav
12. Caruana vs Adams 0-1412013DortmundC67 Ruy Lopez
13. G Meier vs Leko  ½-½412013DortmundD81 Grunfeld, Russian Variation
14. D Andreikin vs Wang Hao ½-½122013DortmundD10 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav
15. D Fridman vs Naiditsch  ½-½232013DortmundD85 Grunfeld
16. Leko vs Adams  ½-½272013DortmundD36 Queen's Gambit Declined, Exchange, Positional line, 6.Qc2
17. Naiditsch vs D Andreikin 1-0492013DortmundC70 Ruy Lopez
18. Wang Hao vs Caruana 1-0392013DortmundA07 King's Indian Attack
19. Khenkin vs D Fridman  ½-½442013DortmundE06 Catalan, Closed, 5.Nf3
20. G Meier vs Kramnik 0-1382013DortmundE06 Catalan, Closed, 5.Nf3
21. D Fridman vs G Meier  ½-½522013DortmundA35 English, Symmetrical
22. Caruana vs Naiditsch  ½-½532013DortmundC45 Scotch Game
23. D Andreikin vs Khenkin 1-0272013DortmundB12 Caro-Kann Defense
24. Adams vs Wang Hao 1-0312013DortmundA15 English
25. Kramnik vs Leko 1-0472013DortmundA37 English, Symmetrical
 page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 45  PGN Download
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2)  
 

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 40 OF 40 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Aug-05-13  DcGentle: In my opinion the following games were the best of the tournament:

Naiditsch vs Khenkin, 2013
Beautiful mate combination

Khenkin vs Wang Hao, 2013
Persuasive power play

D Andreikin vs Khenkin, 2013
Only one blunder was enough for checkmate

Often there is a brilliancy prize award with a bigger tournament, but I haven't heard anything official.

What do you think, should we have a voting on <chessgames.com>? Are there other candidate games for the best of Dortmund 2013?

Aug-05-13  Everett: Both of Adams wins on either side of the Berlin Ruy were very impressive.
Aug-05-13  Catfriend: I know people will use the numerous imprecisions, and of course the final blunder, against it, but Kramnik vs Caruana, 2013 is among the best games in 2013 IMO.

It is easy to quote Houdini evaluations, but in terms of ideas, complexity, intensity, originality - it beats them all hands down.

I watched it live, playing it a bit against myself, sometimes looking ahead at depth 25-30, and most of the time both players performed at an unbelievable, mind-blowing level.

Of course, both time pressure and exhaustion took their toll, but given the breathtaking depth of some of the lines (many of them in sideline variations), I can only admire the game.

Aug-05-13  jurado96: why didnt he go for a win
second anyway if he lost
i guess its the spirit he has lost
Aug-05-13
Premium Chessgames Member
  parmetd: Wooooooooo Mickey!
Aug-05-13  Dredge Rivers: You're so fine, you're so fine you blow my mind. Mickey!
Aug-05-13  csmath: Okay, where do we vote?

1. Kramnik-Caruana (for the drama)

2. Caruana-Adams (for immaculate precision)

3. Adams-Adreikin (for precision again)

4. Naiditsch-Khenkin (for blowout)

5. Kramnik-Fridman (for blowout)

and perhaps Khenkin-Wang but in this last game Wang entered known bad position and Khenkin central break is simply a theory. The rest of the game was good though.

Then agains Andreikin-Kramnik was fine win as well although it was a bit spoiled by Kramnik's fishy chess.

Aug-05-13
Premium Chessgames Member
  JointheArmy: Caruana-Adams, hands down.
Aug-06-13
Premium Chessgames Member
  Octavia: <I was surprised that Adams (41) could win Dortmund, and Gelfand (44) win the Tal Memorial, both well past what's considered prime age.> I hope they continue to help eliminate the age prejudice.

Why did Mickey play well? A few weeks ago he lost a blitz game against Keti much lower rated than himself. That was a wake up call! I've noticed it myself: Whenever I beat someone graded much higher that player usually does much, much better immediatedly afterwards.

Aug-07-13  justin2seo: Yes! Mickey won!
Aug-07-13  Maatalkko: I question the conventional wisdom that 40 is "old" for a chess player. I think this has more to do with numerology, physical sports analogies, and Kasparov than any preponderance of fact.

All throughout history, from Lasker in the early 1910s to Karpov in the early 1990s, there have been examples of players performing at their peak in their early 40s. Gelfand and Adams are continuations of the trend, not aberrations.

The real decline usually begins in the mid-40s and continues through the 50s. The latest peak in modern chess was Korchnoi at age 47. There are no examples of a world class chess player maintaining peak strength into their early 50s, though of course true class never fades and there are examples of brilliance among players in their 50s (and older).

Aug-07-13  csmath: <All throughout history, from Lasker in the early 1910s to Karpov in the early 1990s, there have been examples of players performing at their peak in their early 40s.>

Maatalko, some examples do not prove anything. They are as a matter of fact only counterexamples.

Karpov mentioned in one US interview that he thinks the peak for a player is in early twenties. I think he is right.

My selection of 40 as a certifiable retirement age is just based on personal situation which is what Octavia rightly guessed. I think leaving competetive chess has to do with many factors, age just being one that is important.

Basically what my experience is that you simply lack energy for long games. They are becoming increasingly hard to play in physical sense. Mental facutlties are intact and with most people they stay intact into 60ies and perhaps longer. However physical strength does not. Competetive chess requires serious amount of physical strength, people sitting infront of computer screen do not realize that fact.

Of course, you can stay and play as octagenarian but you will not be playing equally good as you did when you were 25. If you did not reach top level by 25-28 it is unlikely you ever will.

Aug-07-13  Whitehat1963: Leko again beat everyone for the coveted Draw Trophy!
Aug-07-13
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: <Whitehat>: That was, as we say in the trade, odds-on.
Aug-07-13  Whitehat1963: What's to blame, a particularly cautious style? A lack of creativity? Tried and too-true opening preferences? What gives?
Aug-07-13
Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: <Karpov mentioned in one US interview that he thinks the peak for a player is in early twenties. I think he is right.>

<Of course, you can stay and play as octagenarian but you will not be playing equally good as you did when you were 25. If you did not reach top level by 25-28 it is unlikely you ever will.>

Then why is the average age of top-10 closer tp 30? It fluctuates between 28 and 31 all the time. If one peaked in early 20s, it would never happen. Neither would it if one peaked at 25-28.

I always advocated the theory of <two> peaks. First peak, in mid-20s, lasting for about five years. Then a decline in early 30s. Then a return to the mid-20 strength either in mid-30s or in early 40s (second peak), with the second peak lasting for about five years too.

Aug-07-13
Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: Also, I think same thing would happen in other sports too. But in other sports they retire during the early-30-decline, never letting themselves to experience the joy of the second peak. Many of those retirements are due to the pressure from the society ("you can't keep up anymore, you are too old" or "a sportsman who does not retire at his peak is a bad sportsman").
Aug-07-13  csmath: <Then why is the average age of top-10 closer tp 30? It fluctuates between 28 and 31 all the time. If one peaked in early 20s, it would never happen. Neither would it if one peaked at 25-28>

Sounds convincing but you should consider the following problems with such an argument.

1. The distribution of age is not symmetric thus just the sample mean gives you skewered information. In plain English, only one player in the sample that is in advanced age can skewer the average easily. Also, the statistical sample of 10 is insignificant.

2. Some players in the top 10 are there for a number of years, they did not improve in the past say 5 years (Kramnik, Anand, Topalov), they are simply exceptional players that have a "litle longer shelf life." Meaning that there is a difference between "reaching the peak" and the "duration of the peak."

And the thing I did not say, regarding Lasker, is that Karpov's statement was about "nowadays" meaning the times are now different. Obviously in Lasker's times the age was somewhat irrelevant due to absence of information, education etc.

Aug-07-13
Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: <1. The distribution of age is not symmetric thus just the sample mean gives you skewered information. In plain English, only one player in the sample that is in advanced age can skewer the average easily. >

But the average age of top-10 is <always> around this level. Or higher (in late 1970s/early 1980s it was about 40).

Aug-07-13  csmath: Again, average (sample mean) is not a proper measure of central tendency in asymmetric distributions.

So for the some sort of methodology one would have to examine large sample (100+), consider some sort of method to determine the player's "entry into the peak" years and then model the distribution of this random variable. The median of the distribution would be somewhat more proper measure.

Aug-07-13
Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: <The median of the distribution would be somewhat more proper measure.>

Not if my two peak theory holds. Not all players play till their second peak, so that the median will likely be around the first peak. But, the second peak raises the average.

Aug-07-13  csmath: <Not if my two peak theory holds. >

It is unlikely. The most likely scenario is that we are dealing with Gamma distribution with one peak (distrubution peak).

I am talking about random variable "entry into peak age" which is also a sort of voodoo because I really do not know (scientifically) what that is.

This would be a nice topic for a research for undergraduate student. :-)

Aug-09-13  Maatalkko: <csmath: Maatalko, some examples do not prove anything. They are as a matter of fact only counterexamples.>

I don't know about this.

http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/...

Seems like all the top all time players maintained their strength with age. In fact, only Lasker peaks in his early 20's.

<Karpov mentioned in one US interview that he thinks the peak for a player is in early twenties. I think he is right.>

I think he is definitely wrong, and probably extrapolating from his own subjective experience. If he means 21-24 by "early 20's", then he's definitely wrong. Only people who get less serious about chess peak at that age. Karpov didn't objectively peak at that age either.

If you don't believe me, look at player graphs. If you have Chessbase (as I used to), the player's profile has an Elo graph over time and the vast majority of players peak sometime between 28 and 40.

Obviously, the situation is different for players who were most ambitious during HS and college, but the vast majority of players who keep trying DO improve after age 24.

<Of course, you can stay and play as octagenarian but you will not be playing equally good as you did when you were 25. If you did not reach top level by 25-28 it is unlikely you ever will.>

Well of course. But I'd guess average improvement between age 24 and peak is 50 points or so.

<The most likely scenario is that we are dealing with Gamma distribution with one peak (distrubution peak).>

Probably. I think the two peaks model is unlikely, as the reasons for it are pretty subjective, although it may be true for a small number of players such as Gelfand. But I'm telling you that the average peak age for career GMs is 27 or 28 minimum. I don't know where this early 20s stuff comes from, because if you look at the examples it almost never happens. Andrei Sokolov is by far the exception.

Aug-16-13
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: Adams played good openings and solid middlegames and fine endgames. It's his usual style, but played with more proficiency and power. I wonder what inspiration made the difference this year for him?

With Kramnik, I do not comprehend what has happened to his vaunted opening preparation. Aside from his game with Wang Hao, he got nothing from his openings. He did not seem to have prepared at all. In a couple of cases, he played his openings anti-positionally (vs Andreikin perforating his kingside with holes and nearly abandoning his queenside defenses early on; vs Leko shuffling his pieces and allowing black to take over the center without a fight). If this is his new strategy to avoid well beaten lines, I definitely would agree if he goes into little known sidelines, but at the very least he should play them according to sound positional rules. (Just an opinion and no disrespect intended.)

Sep-10-13  Alpinemaster: <perfidious>: <Alpinemaster: Calling it here, calling it now: Dmitry Andreikin will defeat future World Champion Magnus Carlsen.....> When, though?

<....Saw him play in person for the first time at the 2010 SPICE Cup in Lubbock Texas at Texas Tech.>

A momentous event in chess history.

Well, SPICE 2010 was the event where Ben Finegold secured his final GM norm after 20+ years as arguably the world's most underrated IM. Furthermore, IM Ray Robsen and FM Danny Rensch had a momentous last round, a draw or win giving Rensch his final IM norm, a win with Black for Robsen securing his final GM norm (which would have made him the US youngest ever GM, but it was not to be; its mismarked as 2009 currently, to view the game). So I would argue, for American chess, it was not only the highest category rated tournament ever held in the US at that time (feel free to fact check me there on Susan Polgar's Daily Chess News Blog), it also marked a rising for some highly active and outspoken US GM's.

With regards, more relevantly to our topic, to Andrekin, check out his recent success as T=1st in the 2013 FIDE World Cup (granted he was 2nd by tiebreak to Kramnik, but...) which secured his invitation to the 2014 candidates! So to answer your question of "when?" Andreikin could beat Carlson...

Assuming all the pieces fall into place, it is conceivable that Dmitry Andreikin could defeat Carlson immediately as he gets done celebrating a presently forecasted triumph over the aging Anand, in the follow-up match in 2015 to the 2014 candidates matches.

You may have spoke too soon, <Perfidious>.

Happy speculations,

-Alpinemaster

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 40)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 40 OF 40 ·  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