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

TOURNAMENT STANDINGS
World Chess Championship Candidates Tournament

Viswanathan Anand8.5/14(+3 -0 =11)[view games]
Sergey Karjakin7.5/14(+3 -2 =9)[view games]
Shakhriyar Mamedyarov7/14(+3 -3 =8)[view games]
Vladimir Kramnik7/14(+3 -3 =8)[view games]
Dmitry Andreikin7/14(+2 -2 =10)[view games]
Peter Svidler6.5/14(+3 -4 =7)[view games]
Levon Aronian6.5/14(+3 -4 =7)[view games]
Veselin Topalov6/14(+2 -4 =8)[view games]

 page 1 of 3; games 1-25 of 56  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves Year Event/LocaleOpening
1. Mamedyarov vs Topalov ½-½36 2014 World Chess Championship CandidatesD11 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav
2. Anand vs Aronian 1-047 2014 World Chess Championship CandidatesC88 Ruy Lopez
3. D Andreikin vs Kramnik ½-½32 2014 World Chess Championship CandidatesE32 Nimzo-Indian, Classical
4. Karjakin vs Svidler ½-½26 2014 World Chess Championship CandidatesB48 Sicilian, Taimanov Variation
5. Kramnik vs Karjakin 1-039 2014 World Chess Championship CandidatesD20 Queen's Gambit Accepted
6. Svidler vs D Andreikin 1-031 2014 World Chess Championship CandidatesB32 Sicilian
7. Topalov vs Anand ½-½54 2014 World Chess Championship CandidatesA11 English, Caro-Kann Defensive System
8. Aronian vs Mamedyarov 1-044 2014 World Chess Championship CandidatesD38 Queen's Gambit Declined, Ragozin Variation
9. D Andreikin vs Karjakin ½-½30 2014 World Chess Championship CandidatesC65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense
10. Mamedyarov vs Anand 0-131 2014 World Chess Championship CandidatesD11 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav
11. Topalov vs Aronian ½-½35 2014 World Chess Championship CandidatesC84 Ruy Lopez, Closed
12. Svidler vs Kramnik ½-½51 2014 World Chess Championship CandidatesA35 English, Symmetrical
13. Anand vs Kramnik ½-½30 2014 World Chess Championship CandidatesD39 Queen's Gambit Declined, Ragozin, Vienna Variation
14. Mamedyarov vs D Andreikin 1-042 2014 World Chess Championship CandidatesD45 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav
15. Karjakin vs Topalov ½-½40 2014 World Chess Championship CandidatesA29 English, Four Knights, Kingside Fianchetto
16. Aronian vs Svidler 1-057 2014 World Chess Championship CandidatesD85 Grunfeld
17. Kramnik vs Aronian ½-½60 2014 World Chess Championship CandidatesE10 Queen's Pawn Game
18. Svidler vs Topalov 1-048 2014 World Chess Championship CandidatesC78 Ruy Lopez
19. Karjakin vs Mamedyarov ½-½31 2014 World Chess Championship CandidatesB52 Sicilian, Canal-Sokolsky (Rossolimo) Attack
20. D Andreikin vs Anand ½-½42 2014 World Chess Championship CandidatesC65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense
21. Anand vs Karjakin ½-½33 2014 World Chess Championship CandidatesC67 Ruy Lopez
22. Aronian vs D Andreikin ½-½48 2014 World Chess Championship CandidatesA11 English, Caro-Kann Defensive System
23. Topalov vs Kramnik 1-041 2014 World Chess Championship CandidatesD37 Queen's Gambit Declined
24. Mamedyarov vs Svidler 1-031 2014 World Chess Championship CandidatesA81 Dutch
25. Kramnik vs Mamedyarov 1-054 2014 World Chess Championship CandidatesD38 Queen's Gambit Declined, Ragozin Variation
 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 222 OF 222 ·  Later Kibitzing>
May-09-14  Petrosianic: Occasionally, I've heard people argue that Steinitz gave up the title, Tchigorin won it at New York 1889, and that Steinitz-Tchigorin 1892 wasn't a title match. The idea was that Tchigorin was Steinitz's successor despite losing the two matches to him.

I've only heard this idea from 1 or 2 people, who pretended to have no idea that there was anything controversial about it, and seemed to think that everyone regarded it the same way, even though they had no sources for it (which is why I called it a trolling argument).

May-09-14  Chessinfinite: That is very strange about Chigorin and Steinitz. Without wanting to disclose too much for the moment, i will just say that for this question, Steinitz played 6 world title matches from 1886- 1896.
May-10-14  Chessinfinite: The answer :)

"Those 3 are the only players who do not have a continuous world title cycle matches in all their title matches played - someone else played a world title match in between any two World title matches played ever played by Chigorin, Anand , Topalov. "

Between two of Chigorin's matches against Steinitz, there was a world championship match between Steinitz and Gunsberg in 1890, for Anand there was the match in 95 vs Kasparov and a long gap before 2008 match with Kramnik, for Topalov there was a match played in 2008 (Anand v Kramnik) between his two title matches in 2006 (vs Kramnik) and 2010 (vs Anand) . None of the other players had a 'break' in the middle of all of their matches played for world title, including of course those with just one match played !

Petrosianic almost got it, if the Gunsberg match was considered as a world title match and in view of the reasons, it is possible that it was missed ! Very close !

Sep-22-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: Compare this Candidates tournament with the original ones:

Budapest Candidates (1950)

1 Bronstein ** ˝˝ 01 ˝1 11 1˝ 01 ˝˝ 1˝ ˝1 12.0/18
2 Boleslavsky ˝˝ ** 1˝ ˝˝ ˝˝ 1˝ ˝˝ ˝1 ˝1 11 12.0/18
3 Smyslov 10 0˝ ** ˝˝ 1˝ ˝1 01 ˝1 ˝˝ ˝˝ 10.0/18
4 Keres ˝0 ˝˝ ˝˝ ** ˝˝ 10 1˝ ˝˝ ˝1 ˝˝ 9.5/18
5 Najdorf 00 ˝˝ 0˝ ˝˝ ** ˝˝ ˝˝ 11 ˝1 ˝˝ 9.0/18
6 Kotov 0˝ 0˝ ˝0 01 ˝˝ ** ˝1 10 10 1˝ 8.5/18
7 Stahlberg 10 ˝˝ 10 0˝ ˝˝ ˝0 ** ˝˝ ˝˝ ˝˝ 8.0/18
8 Lilienthal ˝˝ ˝0 ˝0 ˝˝ 00 01 ˝˝ ** 10 ˝˝ 7.0/18
9 Szabo 0˝ ˝0 ˝˝ ˝0 ˝0 01 ˝˝ 01 ** 10 7.0/18
10 Flohr ˝0 00 ˝˝ ˝˝ ˝˝ 0˝ ˝˝ ˝˝ 01 ** 7.0/18

Zurich Candidates (1953)

1 Vasily Smyslov ** ˝˝ ˝1 11 ˝˝ ˝˝ 11 ˝0 ˝˝ ˝˝ ˝˝ ˝˝ 1˝ 11 1˝ 18.0 2 David Bronstein ˝˝ ** 11 1˝ ˝˝ ˝˝ ˝0 ˝˝ 1˝ ˝˝ ˝˝ 01 1˝ ˝˝ ˝˝ 16.0 3 Samuel Reshevsky ˝0 00 ** ˝˝ ˝˝ ˝˝ ˝˝ 10 ˝˝ ˝1 ˝1 1˝ ˝1 11 1˝ 16.0 4 Paul Keres 00 0˝ ˝˝ ** ˝1 ˝˝ ˝1 ˝˝ ˝˝ 0˝ 11 1˝ ˝1 ˝˝ 11 16.0 5 Tigran Petrosian ˝˝ ˝˝ ˝˝ ˝0 ** 0˝ ˝˝ ˝˝ 00 ˝˝ ˝˝ 11 ˝1 1˝ 11 15.0 6 Miguel Najdorf ˝˝ ˝˝ ˝˝ ˝˝ 1˝ ** 00 1˝ 1˝ ˝0 ˝˝ ˝˝ ˝˝ 0˝ 11 14.5 7 Efim Geller 00 ˝1 ˝˝ ˝0 ˝˝ 11 ** ˝0 01 ˝˝ 01 1˝ ˝1 01 ˝˝ 14.5 8 Alexander Kotov ˝1 ˝˝ 01 ˝˝ ˝˝ 0˝ ˝1 ** 10 1˝ 00 10 1˝ 0˝ 01 14.0 9 Mark Taimanov ˝˝ 0˝ ˝˝ ˝˝ 11 0˝ 10 01 ** 10 ˝˝ ˝˝ ˝0 0˝ 11 14.0 10 Yuri Averbakh ˝˝ ˝˝ ˝0 1˝ ˝˝ ˝1 ˝˝ 0˝ 01 ** ˝˝ ˝˝ 0˝ 11 00 13.5 11 Isaac Boleslavsky ˝˝ ˝˝ ˝0 00 ˝˝ ˝˝ 10 11 ˝˝ ˝˝ ** ˝0 ˝˝ ˝1 ˝˝ 13.5 12 Laszlo Szabo ˝˝ 10 0˝ 0˝ 00 ˝˝ 0˝ 01 ˝˝ ˝˝ ˝1 ** 1˝ ˝˝ 1˝ 13.0 13 Svetozar Gligoric 0˝ 0˝ ˝0 ˝0 ˝0 ˝˝ ˝0 0˝ ˝1 1˝ ˝˝ 0˝ ** ˝1 11 12.5 14 Max Euwe 00 ˝˝ 00 ˝˝ 0˝ 1˝ 10 1˝ 1˝ 00 ˝0 ˝˝ ˝0 ** 1˝ 11.5 15 Gideon Stahlberg 0˝ ˝˝ 0˝ 00 00 00 ˝˝ 10 00 11 ˝˝ 0˝ 00 0˝ ** 8.0

Amsterdam Candidates (1956)

1 Smyslov ** ˝˝ ˝˝ 0˝ ˝˝ ˝1 11 ˝1 1˝ ˝1 11˝ 5000 2 Keres ˝˝ ** ˝˝ ˝˝ ˝˝ ˝1 ˝˝ ˝0 1˝ 1˝ 10 3500 =3 Szabó ˝˝ ˝˝ ** 1˝ ˝˝ ˝˝ ˝1 0˝ ˝˝ 01 9˝ 1310 =3 Spassky 1˝ ˝˝ 0˝ ** ˝˝ ˝1 0˝ ˝˝ ˝˝ ˝1 9˝ 1310 =3 Petrosian ˝˝ ˝˝ ˝˝ ˝˝ ** 0˝ 01 1˝ ˝˝ 1˝ 9˝ 1310 =3 Bronstein ˝0 ˝0 ˝˝ ˝0 1˝ ** ˝1 1˝ ˝˝ ˝1 9˝ 1310 =3 Geller 00 ˝˝ ˝0 1˝ 10 ˝0 ** 11 ˝1 1˝ 9˝ 1310 =8 Filip ˝0 ˝1 1˝ ˝˝ 0˝ 0˝ 00 ** 10 ˝1 8 650 =8 Panno 0˝ 0˝ ˝˝ ˝˝ ˝˝ ˝˝ ˝0 01 ** 1˝ 8 650 10 Pilnik ˝0 0˝ 10 ˝0 0˝ ˝0 0˝ 0˝ 0˝ ** 5 500

Bled-Zagreb-Belgrade Candidates (1959)

1.Tal XXXX 0010 ==== 01=1 1111 1=11 111= 111= 20 2.Keres 1101 XXXX 0=== 1==0 0101 ==11 1110 1111 18.5 3.Petrosian ==== 1=== XXXX ==0= 11== 0==1 100= =11= 15.5 4.Smyslov 10=0 0==1 ==1= XXXX ==10 0=10 =1=1 =011 15 5.Fischer 0000 1010 00== ==01 XXXX 10=1 ==10 =1=1 12.5 6.Gligoric 0=00 ==00 1==0 1=01 01== XXXX ==10 =1== 12.5 7.Olafsson 000= 0001 011= =0=0 10=0 ==01 XXXX 00=1 10 8.Benko 000= 0000 =00= =100 =0=0 =0== 11=0 XXXX 8

Curacao Candidates (1962)

1.Petrosian XXXX ==== ==== =1== ==11 ==1= 11=* =11= 17.5 2.Keres ==== XXXX ==== 0=1= ==1= 1110 1=1* =11= 17 3.Geller ==== ==== XXXX 11=0 ==1= ===1 =11* =11= 17 4.Fischer =0== 1=0= 00=1 XXXX 010= 01=1 =1=* 1=1= 14 5.Korchnoi ==00 ==0= ==0= 101= XXXX ===0 10=* 1111 13.5 6.Benko ==0= 0001 ===0 10=0 ===1 XXXX 10=* 011= 12 7.Tal 00=* 0=0* =00* =0=* 01=* 01=* XXXX 10=* 7 8.Filip =00= =00= =00= 0=0= 0000 100= 01=* XXXX 7

The old ones were a lot longer. The players look to me just as tough as the ones now. Any one has any speculation on how Anand, Karjakin, Mamedyarov, Kramnik, Andreikin, Svidler, Aronian, Topalov might do in such company in such a marathon tournament format?

Two players immediately stand out IMO. Smyslov wins 2 out of 4. Keres not only is the only one to qualify and play in all of them, he takes second place 4 out of 5 times!

Oct-10-14  jphamlore: The real chess tragedy apart from Nakamura this event may be Mamedyarov. After all, the event is being held in Baku and Mamedyarov was good enough in the last FIDE Grand Prix cycle to qualify for Candidates 2014.

But as Candidates 2014 showed, Mamedyarov's defense as Black to 1. d4 has simply collapsed. He simply can't find anything to play that can reliably draw. He's tried just about everything in his career. And it's killing him this event as well.

Karjakin as a 1. e4 opener has used that mostly against Mamedyarov for indifferent results, including Candidates 2014. But Karjakin has shown more variety this event. This may be the time for Karjakin to try 1. d4 as White.

Oct-10-14  Troller: <The real chess tragedy apart from Nakamura this event may be Mamedyarov. After all, the event is being held in Baku...>

This is an interesting point and has some relevance for the ongoing GP tournament also in Baku. In fact Sutovsky, another strong Baku GM, opined that Mamedyarov would be affected negatively by playing in his home city. Mamed has of course a history of nervousness - often falling apart in the games following a loss - but he seems to have improved in this respect recently. However, (according to Sutovsky) Mamedyarov has a great awareness of his fans which in turn triggers his old nervousness when fans are closely following him, as they will do in Baku.

Oct-10-14  jphamlore: <Troller: This is an interesting point and has some relevance for the ongoing GP tournament also in Baku. In fact Sutovsky, another strong Baku GM, opined that Mamedyarov would be affected negatively by playing in his home city. Mamed has of course a history of nervousness - often falling apart in the games following a loss - but he seems to have improved in this respect recently. However, (according to Sutovsky) Mamedyarov has a great awareness of his fans which in turn triggers his old nervousness when fans are closely following him, as they will do in Baku.>

That would be highly unfortunate if Mamedyarov plays worse in Baku than elsewhere because Baku is always a potential bidder for a Candidates tournament or even to host a World Championship match if Mamedyarov were to benefit by being a potential player, particularly if hosting a Candidates tournament would allow Baku to select Mamedyarov as the sponsor's choice.

Dec-16-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: There have already been two matches to decide the final placement in Candidates tournaments. Why not again?

1. Bronstein - Boleslavsky Candidates Playoff (1950)

This was played in order to determine Botvinnik's Challenger after Bronstein and Boleslavsky tied in Budapest Candidates (1950). Bronstein won and went on to Challenge Botvinnik.

2. Keres - Geller 2nd place Candidates Playoff (1962)

Another Candidates play-off match was held for theCuracao Candidates (1962) 2nd and 3rd placers, because it wasn't certain if Botvinnik would continue to defend his Title. Had Botvinnik had decided to retire we would have seen a Petrosian vs Keres World Championship match in 1963.

Speaking of the FIDE rules for tiebreaks in the 2014 Candidates, it was just 'lucky' that we had a clear winner (which happened to be Anand). Imagine if Anand had tied one or two others for first. It's as if FIDE has not learned anything from the controversy that resulted in Candidates 2013 when Carlsen and Kramnik both winded up first with the same score, but Kramnik got disqualified because he had less wins (and to make it more bitter, Kramnik even obtained the higher SB, which might have qualified him instead had the rules been slightly different).

I do hope FIDE would announce that in the next Candidates, joint winners would have to fight it out in a match.

Dec-17-14  Conrad93: if only Anand had played this well in the WC, then Carlsen would have stood no chance.
Dec-17-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: <donkrad: if only Anand had played this well in the WC, then Carlsen would have stood no chance.>

By all means you are permitted your fantasies, but Anand was not at all likely to defeat Carlsen, even playing better than last year as he did. It was only with a supreme effort that he kept this match close in the face of a determined titleholder.

Dec-17-14  Petrosianic: <It's as if FIDE has not learned anything from the controversy that resulted in Candidates 2013 when Carlsen and Kramnik both winded up first with the same score, but Kramnik got disqualified because he had less wins (and to make it more bitter, Kramnik even obtained the higher SB, which might have qualified him instead had the rules been slightly different).>

Yes, but winning by Sonnenborn would hav been as bad as winning on some other tiebreak. There was a time when tiebreaking systems weren't considered good enough to even determine interzonal spots much less a challenger. They still aren't, it's just that FIDE doesn't care. You say they haven't learned anything, but what is there to learn? That the chess world would be unsatisfied with a tiebreak challenger? They know it, they just don't care. This is the same FIDE that's perfectly willing to let someone lose the world title by drawing an armageddon blitz game. That's much worse than rules for the candidates tournament.

Dec-17-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: <petrosianic> to me, winning the title by Armageddon is not worse than winning it by having beaten some completely different chap three years ago... Also, the probability of an Armageddon game in WC match is extremely low. Look at a whole bunch of rapid and blitz games placed before it. Likely if we keep the current mode forever, we won't witness an Armageddon WC game in our lifetime. As for Candidates tiebreakers: direct encounter and number of wins depend only on the tied players themselves. SB depends also on the opponents. For this reason I find Candidates tiebreakers as they are now fair.
Dec-17-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: By the way, visayan, no "luck" here. In the last Candidates <all eight> places could be arranged solely by scored points plus direct encounter. Actually, such a scenario is more likely than having to resort to second, let alone third, tiebreaker. In the 2013 Candidates, two tiebreakers were enough to arrange all eight.
Dec-17-14  1d410: Magnus deserved to challenge Anand, at least eventually because of his anomalously high rating anyways. That's how I justify him challenging Anand over Kramnik. If there weren't even candidates cycles then somebody would have chosen him.
Dec-18-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  visayanbraindoctor: <Petrosianic: Yes, but winning by Sonnenborn would hav been as bad as winning on some other tiebreak. There was a time when tiebreaking systems weren't considered good enough to even determine interzonal spots much less a challenger.>

I agree. No tiebreaking system can take the pace of an outright match between tied players. But as you put it <They know it, they just don't care.>. Hoping for a future FIDE that would care.

As another poster said, the main barrier to a play-off match may be financial. In the old days, I guess the Soviet state machinery could always dole out the cost of these matches. Not anymore. If this is the real reason, then the issue of using tiebreakers over play-off match will continue to remain.

A financially friendly alternative I would propose is a play-off mini-match of two classical games. One player gets two blacks, the other two whites. If the mini-match is tied, the player with two blacks qualifies. The player with the higher SB, or won games, or who won their individual encounter gets the choice if he would have two whites or two blacks.

<This is the same FIDE that's perfectly willing to let someone lose the world title by drawing an armageddon blitz game. That's much worse than rules for the candidates tournament.>

This possibility is quite galling. Yet the present FIDE rules allow such a possibility. I imagine that if it comes to that, the world championship page would have reams of additional posts of heated debate.

There have been discussions on this before. I would propose the same thing as above, if finances for an extended play-off are lacking. This time the Challenger gets two whites. This is his advantage. The sitting champion retains the Title if he ties. This is the champion's traditional advantage that he retains, but for which he must pay for with two blacks. Fair trade-off IMO.

Thus the Challenger must still beat the sitting Champion in order to seize the Title. IMO it's the possibility of the Challenger taking the Title without beating the sitting Champion, under present FIDE rules, that opens the way for another schism. I expect that a significant number of the Champion's supporters would still regard him as Champion.

Let us suppose that in 2016, Carlsen loses the Title (according to FIDE rules) by drawing an Armageddon blitz game with White to Caruana. Who is going to regard Caruana as the new World Champion? Official FIDE obviously, but I expect that many chess fans won't.

Dec-18-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: I will. Even if the winner is determined by throwing a dice five times. Because these are the rules, rules known in advance. World champion is just world champion, not that mythical "best player" creature which never existed.

As for champion retaining the title - no matter the comensation for it - as I said, why should having beaten someone else years ago matter with respect to the new opponent? I mean, if Caruana draws MC why should it matter that MC beat Anand two years before? The two events are unrelated, the only constant being MC himself.

Dec-18-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: And if the player achieves a whole <streak> of drawn matches after taking the title, it becomes even more absurd. The player retains the title because some 10 years ago he beat some other player, who possibly retired 5 years ago :D
Dec-18-14  Petrosianic: Are you saying that all rules are good, simply by virtue of being rules?

If FIDE decreed that the winner of a Pin the Tail on the Donkey Contest would be the next world champion, would you accept it?

To be fair, in one sense, you should. He would be the official FIDE World Champion. But in another sense, if they told you that this was the next champion in a line of existing champions, that wouldn't be quite true, would it?

Dec-18-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: < Are you saying that all rules are good, simply by virtue of being rules?>

I'm saying that if both participants accept the rules, the shouldn't complain after they fail under them.

Kramnik is known for such complaints:

Before Mexico 2007: "I accept this tournament as world championship.". After it: "Anand is champion, but only on paper, I'm a match player".

Before Candidates 2011: "It's pretty long, it's four games". After it: "The matches were ridiculously short".

Before Candidates 2013: No objections. After: "The tiebreak was unfair".

Dec-18-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: ... And if you don't accept the rules, just don't play. Like Carlsen did by dropping out in 2012.
Dec-18-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: By the way schism: note how Kramnik competed in both cycles before he eventually beat Kasparov.
Dec-19-14  Petrosianic: Smart move. With a reunification match perpetually on the horizon, winning the FIDE title could have been equal to winning the PCA Candidates.
Dec-19-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: <visayan.....No tiebreaking system can take the pace of an outright match between tied players....>

+400

Dec-19-14  Conrad93: <By all means you are permitted your fantasies, but Anand was not at all likely to defeat Carlsen, even playing better than last year as he did. It was only with a supreme effort that he kept this match close in the face of a determined titleholder.>

Another narcissistic and clueless comment from you.

Anand was not at all playing at the same level as he was at the Canditates. Anyone with a brain and some common sense would see and know this.

He had excellent positions against Carlsen and completely ruined them. If he had the same precision as in the Canditates, he would have never lost.

Dec-19-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: <donkrad: Another narcissistic and clueless comment from you.>

Sez the projectionist as he looks in the mirror......

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 222)
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 222 OF 222 ·  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 | Store | privacy notice | advertising | contact us
Copyright 2001-2014, Chessgames Services LLC
Web design & database development by 20/20 Technologies