chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · 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)
Bilbao Tournament

Magnus Carlsen17(+4 -1 =5)[view games]
Hikaru Nakamura12(+1 -0 =9)[view games]
Wei Yi11(+1 -1 =8)[view games]
Wesley So11(+1 -1 =8)[view games]
Sergey Karjakin9(+0 -1 =9)[view games]
Anish Giri7(+0 -3 =7)[view games]

Chessgames.com Chess Event Description
Bilbao (2016)

Official site: http://bilbaochess2016.com/home/
Live games: http://bilbaochess2016.com/masters-...

 page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 30  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves Year Event/LocaleOpening
1. Karjakin vs W So ½-½46 2016 BilbaoC65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense
2. A Giri vs Wei Yi ½-½57 2016 BilbaoC50 Giuoco Piano
3. Carlsen vs Nakamura 0-150 2016 BilbaoB20 Sicilian
4. Karjakin vs A Giri ½-½83 2016 BilbaoC50 Giuoco Piano
5. W So vs Nakamura ½-½46 2016 BilbaoE32 Nimzo-Indian, Classical
6. Wei Yi vs Carlsen 0-160 2016 BilbaoB06 Robatsch
7. Carlsen vs Karjakin 1-040 2016 BilbaoB50 Sicilian
8. Nakamura vs Wei Yi ½-½35 2016 BilbaoD41 Queen's Gambit Declined, Semi-Tarrasch
9. A Giri vs W So ½-½56 2016 BilbaoC50 Giuoco Piano
10. Wei Yi vs Karjakin ½-½23 2016 BilbaoE00 Queen's Pawn Game
11. Carlsen vs W So 1-026 2016 BilbaoC65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense
12. Nakamura vs A Giri ½-½47 2016 BilbaoD45 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav
13. Karjakin vs Nakamura ½-½18 2016 BilbaoD37 Queen's Gambit Declined
14. A Giri vs Carlsen ½-½62 2016 BilbaoD22 Queen's Gambit Accepted
15. W So vs Wei Yi ½-½73 2016 BilbaoC42 Petrov Defense
16. W So vs Karjakin ½-½47 2016 BilbaoE46 Nimzo-Indian
17. Nakamura vs Carlsen ½-½32 2016 BilbaoE06 Catalan, Closed, 5.Nf3
18. Wei Yi vs A Giri 1-042 2016 BilbaoC67 Ruy Lopez
19. A Giri vs Karjakin  ½-½43 2016 BilbaoE00 Queen's Pawn Game
20. Carlsen vs Wei Yi ½-½60 2016 BilbaoD76 Neo-Grunfeld, 6.cd Nxd5, 7.O-O Nb6
21. Nakamura vs W So ½-½42 2016 BilbaoD02 Queen's Pawn Game
22. W So vs A Giri 1-057 2016 BilbaoC50 Giuoco Piano
23. Wei Yi vs Nakamura ½-½45 2016 BilbaoE06 Catalan, Closed, 5.Nf3
24. Karjakin vs Carlsen ½-½19 2016 BilbaoD38 Queen's Gambit Declined, Ragozin Variation
25. Wei Yi vs W So ½-½31 2016 BilbaoE06 Catalan, Closed, 5.Nf3
 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 23 OF 23 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Aug-01-16  not not: "Thanks to my bad play, the chess value of this game was equal to zero" Alekhine (losing to Capablanca at New York 1927, just before their WC match)

Alekhine vs Capablanca, 1927

AA still managed to finish second, though.

It is very clever of Karjakin - his plan to... I wish I knew to do what.

Aug-02-16  Pulo y Gata: Why the handsome Karjakin didn't want to win Bilbao--

https://scontent.fmnl2-1.fna.fbcdn....

Aug-02-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  diceman: <"I want to preserve energy,">

Wins: 17
Draws: 3
Loss: 1

Bobby Fischer, "preserving" energy
during the Candidates cycle, before
meeting Spassky in the 72 WCC.

Aug-02-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  diagonal: <Wins 17, Draws 3, Loss 1> Great! (no offense intended to Taimanov, Larsen, and Petrosian)
Aug-02-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: <donkrad: This guy is so stuck up his own behind... This what newcomers have to deal with when starting chess. Blowhards like Perfidious.>

Yew want stuck up, <boy>, look in the mirror.

<Perfidious, try getting laid more, and playing chess less. You seem stressed.>

Haven't played in fifteen years; I do believe your arithmetic is off.

You do rather better when you confine yourself to attempts at chess understanding, though absent computer assistance, that is all you shall ever achieve.

Now be a good boy and go get shtupped, you dreadful cretin.

Aug-02-16  Conrad93: An Aronian vs. Carlsen, or even a Caruana vs. Carlsen match would be far more interesting.

Both have a celebrity status behind them, and let's be honest aren't bad looking.

Aug-02-16  Conrad93: <<donkrad: This guy is so stuck up his own behind... This what newcomers have to deal with when starting chess. Blowhards like Perfidious.> Yew want stuck up, <boy>, look in the mirror.

<Perfidious, try getting laid more, and playing chess less. You seem stressed.>

Haven't played in fifteen years; I do believe your arithmetic is off.

You do rather better when you confine yourself to attempts at chess understanding, though absent computer assistance, that is all you shall ever achieve.

Now be a good boy and go get shtupped, you dreadful cretin.>

Yeah, as opposed to your God-like intellect. The forgotten genius who has battled all the World Champions, and is the world expert on endgames and openings.

Why has no one written a book about you? Oh, right, because no one will care who you are after you pass away.

Aug-02-16  Conrad93: By the way, I can tell you are old as hell. Your contempt for computer-assistance says quite a bit about yourself. Would there be a Carlsen if he wasn't born in the computer era? Many of today's openings are based on computer analysis. Openings that would have never been considered before the Computer Age.

There are endgames that have been solved using tablebases that would have been impossible to solve with pure human intuition.

Just admit it. We are better players today because we have the assistance of computers. It is not wrong to acquire the help of a player that would crush any GM in the world without so much as a sweat.

Aug-02-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  Arny1: I'm 30+ years old and I've never used computer-assistance. I'm a tough guy. I don't need a computer.
Aug-02-16  Conrad93: <I'm 30+ years old and I've never used computer-assistance. I'm a tough guy. I don't need a computer.>

That's a sign of arrogance. You need a computer in complex positions, especially if you're not a IM or GM.

Aug-02-16  schweigzwang: Yeah but last time I tried it, they threw me out of the tournament.
Aug-02-16  john barleycorn: < schweigzwang: Yeah but last time I tried it, they threw me out of the tournament.>

Yes, it happens.
And <Conrad93> now asks the arbiter when "en-passant" needs to be evaluated.

Aug-02-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: <donkrad: Yeah, as opposed to your God-like intellect....>

Nah....my intellect is immensely superior. (rolls eyes)

<....The forgotten genius who has battled all the World Champions....>

Never met Steinitz, so you need to get your 'facts' straight.

<....and is the world expert on endgames and openings.>

You forgot the part of the game which comes between those phases, O Great <donkrad>.

<By the way, I can tell you are old as hell. Your contempt for computer-assistance says quite a bit about yourself....>

My contempt, as you term it, is reserved for those who would use computers as substitutes for thought, rather than as aids to learning.

Speaking of aids, have you gotten your dose yet, or is that paresis from being the syphilitic buffoon that you portray here to the nth degree?

Who, other than a you and a detractor over at Rogoff, gives a hairy rodent's fundament about my age? I do not, and would crush you into fine powder were we ever to meet at a chess or poker table, you moronic twat.

<....Would there be a Carlsen if he wasn't born in the computer era?>

We shall never know, but this had to be reproduced, if only for the novelty of seeing a halfway intelligent question posted by yourself.

Aug-02-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: Hi Conrad,

"Would there be a Carlsen if he wasn't born in the computer era?"

Yes!

If computers were the sole reason for becoming a good player then there would be thousands of Carlsens. Where are they?

There are many other reasons why players become great players, all the great players before the computer era are testament to that.

If you are using a computer to look at so called complex positions then you are not learning anything.

What have you actually learned from a computer. What has a computer actually taught you.

And table bases are OK if you can remember EVERY position which currently takes up 150 Terabytes of disk space, to employ in your game.

And if you do then you have to assume your opponent has as well (It's what a computer does) even though you know they have not.

If a computer with access to a TB discovers that it is mated with best play in 45 moves, even though it's opponent might not have a clue how to win the ending, the computer will be in no doubt they can.

It either resigns or plays moves not designed to create problems or put up a stiff resistance, but to make the game last the 45 moves. This often results in the computer resorting to some silly or weak moves to stave off the mate

Aug-02-16  Conrad93: <What have you actually learned from a computer. What has a computer actually taught you.>

Quite a bit actually, especially regarding tactics. I can now play openings I would have never considered, because I am able to play it out with an engine all the way to the endgame, and spot tactics that would otherwise be missed by ordinary human players. This is the one thing computers are extremely consistent in.

The computer is also quite good at endgames (contrary to popular belief) and can evaluate bizzare, imbalanced endgames quite well. Endgames that would otherwise be botched because of their complexity. It shows you the overall strategy, which saves me a huge cost on endgame training tools.

<And table bases are OK if you can remember EVERY position which currently takes up 150 Terabytes of disk space, to employ in your game.>

That's not really necessary. You only need to know the basic strategy behind each endgame pattern. Memorizing every single position would be inefficient.

<Yes!

If computers were the sole reason for becoming a good player then there would be thousands of Carlsens. Where are they?>

I have to disagree. Carlsen's success is heavily dependent on his preparation, regardless of the popular belief that he's lazy.

There aren't thousands of Carlsen's simply for the reason that not all chess players start playing at the age of 6 or 7, nor does most of the chess populace devote as much time and energy to the game as Carlsen has in his youth. Carlsen was bred for chess, and to say that 3200+ level chess engines had no effect on it, is pretty ludicrous.

Aug-02-16  Conrad93: <You forgot the part of the game which comes between those phases, O Great <donkrad>>

This is quite funny, because there is no system for studying the middlegame.

There are opening databases, and endgame tablebases, but there is no such thing as middlegames database, is there? It would be difficult to be a expert in something you have no control over, and which is impossible to pin down.

Aug-02-16  Conrad93: <Who, other than a you and a detractor over at Rogoff, gives a hairy rodent's fundament about my age? I do not, and would crush you into fine powder were we ever to meet at a chess or poker table, you moronic twat.>

I doubt this. In a blitz game I can beat anyone.

Aug-02-16  Conrad93: By the way, I don't follow the engine evaluations blindly, but I do take its advice seriously. No one on ChessGames is as strong as Stockfish, and its not wrong to judge a position from an objective and consistent viewpoint.
Aug-03-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: Hi Conrad,

Need an example of a tactic a computer has shown you "that would otherwise be missed by ordinary human players."

"bizzare, imbalanced endgames"

Again I need an example and without being funny, when you say a huge cost in endgame in tools, do you not mean a huge amount of time working and studying these rare endings.

A strategy a computer will employ in a ending is to use it's TB. (and why not if it has one)

In 'bizzare, imbalanced endgames' it could fall down by failing to recognise the 50 move rule.

I just went here:

http://chessok.com/?page_id=361

and put this position on the board.


click for larger view

Within seconds it tells me White can mate in 63 moves.

The first capture is on move 57. Draw.

If it sees this ending coming and has a 5 piece TB it will happily go there.

My five million+ DB has 7 examples of Q v BB which gives you an idea of the chances of meeting one and in the above example if you mastered, without flaw the moves to mate what good would it do. You can only draw.

Then of course we have main weakness of a computer. It is gutless and worthless in a lost position.

Staying on endings and the computer is Black to move.


click for larger view

It will play 1....Kg4 because that mates in 6 moves - the longest variation.

Yet I have OTB games where the human purposely played 1....Kh2 with a trap in mind and was stalemated with 2.Kf3.

A very basic example but now they are so strong they can see (in more complex positions) they are lost in 30+ moves so give up all hope of setting tricks 'n' traps like a human would do (see above) and head for the longest mate variation. What are you learning there...how to have no hope.

In such situations it would be better to have a computer than only saw 2 ply ahead instead of 52. The stronger the machine the more useless it is to the average player.

Carlsen?

A gifted child prodigy (as is Karjakin.) You cannot teach just any kid the moves of chess at 7 and with the aid of a computer turn them into a Carlsen. There has to be some in born talent.

Then add in all the things a computer cannot give you to be a top player. Board presence, nerves, good health and stamina, an imagination. character....a desire to win.

If you hear a grandmaster saying they are great, 'I could not do without it'

You have to look out for the hype.

I'd say that as well if I was given all the software and a tip top machine to run it on for nothing. (and possibly some cash in hand.)

Why slay a goose that has just given you a golden egg.

"There aren't thousands of Carlsen's simply for the reason that not all chess players start playing at the age of 6 or 7."

They have been running under 8 tournaments all over the place for many years and, apparently, the computer age started with Carlsen, who is now 25, we should be knee deep in Carlsens from all over the globe.

Chilean Carlsens, Welsh Carlsens, Greek Carlsens, Eskimo Carlsens, Native American Apache Carlsens....

I can still see only one.

Aug-05-16  morfishine: Ha Ha, what a joke this site is with all the detestable posters like <Overbearing> and <Cluelessalem> but for once, I actually agree with <Overlyannoying> in that <chumpsalem> is absolutely totally detestable and worthy of being tossed out with the Friday trash

Wow, I actually agree with <Overlyobnoxious>

HaHaHa

*****

Aug-05-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  Appaz: <<Conrad93> Carlsen's success is heavily dependent on his preparation, regardless of the popular belief that he's lazy.>

You are saying he is out-preparing his opponents in the opening?

Now that's a quite a novel view.

Aug-05-16  john barleycorn: <Appaz: ...

You are saying he is out-preparing his opponents in the opening?

Now that's a quite a novel view.>

I do not think it is a novel view. but sure to know when to deviate from openings known to your opponent means you have to know your opponents openings *better* than him.

I think that it is a misconception to assume that Carlsen would sit down at the board and start thinking about the opening only then and trust in his god given talent.

Aug-05-16  john barleycorn: In a way similar can be said about Lasker and opening prparation. Sure Lasker knew the opening theory of his time but did not think very highly about it. He once said something along the line "Show me three opening variants and I show you mistakes in two of them".

Especially look at his games against "hypermodern" Reti.

Aug-05-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  TheFocus: I actually consider Lasker a great openings expert, although his endgames were beautiful.
Aug-07-16  Overgod: <morfishine: Ha Ha, what a joke this site is with all the detestable posters like <Overbearing> and <Cluelessalem> but for once, I actually agree with <Overlyannoying> in that <chumpsalem> is absolutely totally detestable and worthy of being tossed out with the Friday trash Wow, I actually agree with <Overlyobnoxious>

HaHaHa

*****>

You're regressing. Badly. You're five brain cells in excess of a lobotomy; and I have been known to overestimate you before.

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 23)
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 23 OF 23 ·  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