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

World Blitz Championship (2016) The 2016 FIDE World Blitz Championship is a 21-round Swiss open taking place in the Ali Bin Hamad Al Attiya Arena in Doha, Qatar from 29-30 December. Alexander Grischuk will attempt to defend his title, with a $200,000 prize fund and $40,000 for 1st place at stake. The time control is 3 minutes per player for all moves, with a 2-second increment per move from move 1. No playoffs will be held if players end on the same number of points, with monetary prizes shared equally. (1) Official site: http://qatarchess2016.com/DohaChess... (1) chess24: FIDE World Blitz Championship https://chess24.com/en/watch/live-t...  page 1 of 46; games 1-25 of 1,134  Game   Result Moves Year Event/Locale Opening 1. Carlsen vs Bu Xiangzhi 1-0 45 2016 World Blitz Championship C42 Petrov Defense 2. R Jumabayev vs V Artemiev 1-0 95 2016 World Blitz Championship D78 Neo-Grunfeld, 6.O-O c6 3. Nakamura vs L Pantsulaia   1-0 39 2016 World Blitz Championship A30 English, Symmetrical 4. E Inarkiev vs Aronian   ½-½ 55 2016 World Blitz Championship C84 Ruy Lopez, Closed 5. I Nepomniachtchi vs A Volokitin   1-0 35 2016 World Blitz Championship B91 Sicilian, Najdorf, Zagreb (Fianchetto) Variation 6. N Grandelius vs M Vachier-Lagrave   ½-½ 64 2016 World Blitz Championship A33 English, Symmetrical 7. Mamedyarov vs D Anton Guijarro   ½-½ 70 2016 World Blitz Championship E12 Queen's Indian 8. D Flores vs Karjakin   0-1 34 2016 World Blitz Championship A20 English 9. Radjabov vs M Al Sayed 1-0 28 2016 World Blitz Championship D43 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav 10. F Bindrich vs L Dominguez   0-1 44 2016 World Blitz Championship D27 Queen's Gambit Accepted, Classical 11. R Mamedov vs E Ghaem Maghami   ½-½ 55 2016 World Blitz Championship A13 English 12. E Najer vs Grischuk   0-1 27 2016 World Blitz Championship C70 Ruy Lopez 13. F Amonatov vs B Lalith   1-0 27 2016 World Blitz Championship C46 Three Knights 14. P Maghsoodloo vs Tomashevsky   0-1 35 2016 World Blitz Championship A04 Reti Opening 15. Anand vs Bologan 1-0 38 2016 World Blitz Championship B90 Sicilian, Najdorf 16. B Adhiban vs Ivanchuk   1-0 51 2016 World Blitz Championship D26 Queen's Gambit Accepted 17. Jobava vs G Quparadze   0-1 48 2016 World Blitz Championship A45 Queen's Pawn Game 18. Dreev vs O Bortnyk   1-0 37 2016 World Blitz Championship A46 Queen's Pawn Game 19. V Onischuk vs V S Gujrathi   0-1 47 2016 World Blitz Championship B12 Caro-Kann Defense 20. R Svane vs A Adly   0-1 29 2016 World Blitz Championship D45 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav 21. D Dubov vs S Halkias   1-0 30 2016 World Blitz Championship A33 English, Symmetrical 22. A Aleksandrov vs Lu Shanglei   1-0 35 2016 World Blitz Championship A80 Dutch 23. H Melkumyan vs Ganguly   0-1 72 2016 World Blitz Championship D42 Queen's Gambit Declined, Semi-Tarrasch, 7.Bd3 24. F Perez Ponsa vs Yu Yangyi   0-1 58 2016 World Blitz Championship B30 Sicilian 25. S Zhigalko vs A Tari   0-1 50 2016 World Blitz Championship C58 Two Knights  page 1 of 46; games 1-25 of 1,134    REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2)     < Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 8 OF 8 ·  Later Kibitzing> Dec-31-16    1971: <Eyal: the "handicap" for Carlsen because of his higher rating wasn't as big as you seemed to think; it's meaningful only when the average ratings of opponents (not exactly TPRs, btw) are super-close, even more than what was the case in the blitz;> Can you explain this a little bit more? I'm not being antagonistic I genuinely want to know how this process actually works. <and that it actually wasn't the reason why he ended up with the worse tiebreaks.> So what was the reason he had worse tiebreaks? Also, instead of TPR let's say OR (opponent rating). Dec-31-16    zanzibar: Look up section 1.48 in FIDE regulations here - https://www.fide.com/component/hand... You basically take the average of all the opponent's ratings, Ra, then calculate a dp based on the performance. E.g. if all games are won, dp saturates at 800. If you win 9/10 games then dp ~ 400, which should sound familiar. (I.e. if you're 400 points stronger than your opponent then you should win 9/10 games). Etc, etc. for other scores via the table. Dec-31-16    starry2013: It would have been interesting if Karjakin had played in the online blitz matches at chess.com this year like Carlsen, then we could have seen better how he stood. I'm curious if Karjakin's new rating will hold up. Dec-31-16    Sokrates: <Imran Iskandar: <Being a numeric no. 1 in both rapid and blitz ....> I'm not so sure you can say that they were, since rating lists for rapid and blitz were only introduced in January 2012.> Hi Imran, I know, but I am saying it anyway :-) No, seriously, it is evidently based on my personal recollection and assessment of how the predecessors coped with all time formats, knowing well that not all formats were played as often and systematically as they are now. I am sure some of them probably would be on par with Carlsen, but hardly any of them would do better. My actual point is: You can't request more from a world champion than being no. 1 on all three formats, and that is what he has been and still is, albeit by sharing the title in the quicker formats. Dec-31-16    WorstPlayerEver: I heard there was some tournament.. when does it start? *burps* Dec-31-16    Rolfo: Sokrates, good reasoning Dec-31-16    Monatto: Karjakin beated Carlsen in their direct game. Then Karjakin finished with more wins and less losses than Carlsen. So what he had to do to prove to be the deserving first one??? People complaining with this tiebreak system, but put it this way: Karjakin came out to be the first in all respects, even in this stupid tb system.... which then is not so stupid at all. It makes perfect sense, provided of course that the highest and the lowest opponents ratings are not taken into account in the calculation, and I would be very surprised if it were not so:it's a simple and common operation for equalizing and standardizing data in order to make comparisons... In Italy we learn this stuff in middle school.. I would be very surprised if an official sophisticated algorithm hadnt been set up like that....... Dec-31-16    Monatto: Sorry Carlsen had one more win, but the sense does not change Dec-31-16    activechess55: Congratulations to Karjakin for splendid performance! Kudos to Carlsen, too, for running neck-to-neck all the way. Dec-31-16    Bureaucrat: Monatto, people always complain about tiebreaks, no matter who's the winner. Dec-31-16    Imran Iskandar: <Sokrates> Fair enough. :) By the way, I can never agree on most wins breaking ties. Yes, you may be rewarding the more aggressive player, but you are also rewarding the player who lost more often. Dec-31-16    denopac: <Imran> It's a question of taste. Do you value playing to win, or playing not to lose? Most would choose the former, since the chess tends to be more interesting. Dec-31-16    denopac: <1971> I think the point is: if you take a large enough sample set, like 21 games, against opponents with ratings like 2750, that works out to over 57,000 rating points in the tiebreak calculation. An extra 100 points in one of the games will only tip the balance if the ratings in the other 20 games was super close (which it was not in this case). Dec-31-16    Sokrates: <denopac: <Imran> It's a question of taste. Do you value playing to win, or playing not to lose? Most would choose the former, since the chess tends to be more interesting.> And with those words of wisdom - words that should be followed by all chess players - I now enter 2017. A Happy New Year to all posters on CG. It has been a pleasure reading your posts during 2016. Dec-31-16    denopac: <Sokrates> Thanks very much, and Happy New Year to you as well. Dec-31-16    John Abraham: Congratulations to Magnus Carlsen! Jan-01-17    nok: Indeed; no shame in being second. Jan-01-17    chessalem: magnus should find time for soul searching to provide explanation for his string of unsuccessful gold hunt despite finishing tied for first. giri would hint on Wesley's triumphs as having divine intervention. He failed to realize that Wesley would attribute all his victories to his Father...his last words would always be ADMG: "...Thank you all from the bottom of my heart. AMDG" GM Wesley So http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.c... Wesley would say...without you, I am nothing. Magnus would rather mention nothing about God. Jan-01-17    tuttifrutty: <magnus should find time for soul searching to provide explanation for his string of unsuccessful gold hunt despite finishing tied for first.> I agree....just like the World championship match against Karjakin. Tied for first. Nothing more, nothing less to be precise....really. Jan-01-17    starry2013: At least the classical title went to proper playoffs to decide. If it had gone to a tiebreak based on rating he would have lost that too. Jan-02-17    botvinnik64: Look: Magnus is king. I don't care if someone beats him here or there or the guy doesn't win every tourney, he's consistently (last 5 years) the top player. Maybe someone comes along in a year or two (So, Fab, Nepo, Sergei, Vlad, Vishy or MVL...), but until then, he's simply Top Dog. Jan-02-17    1971: <denopac> Thanks, I still don't really get it and I don't trust ideas that can't be explained simply. Anyway this is what happens when you have weak ass tiebreaks, @#$% that, let them fight til it's the last man standing. That's why I love the World Cup. Jan-05-17    siamesedream: <Magnus Carlen's blog> <I started well with 3/3. The quality of my play was pointing in the right direction, indicating that I handled the early rounds better than in Rapid. After a draw in round 4 I met leader Karjakin (4/4) with white and achieved a pleasant position from an innocuous opening. I somehow blundered a queen and rook fork and had to give my queen for a rook. In a normally dead lost position I managed to hang on, but eventually lost the king and queen versus king and rook ending having missed to claim a threefold repetition as some point. The rest of the tournament I played many good games and overall I have to be very satisfied with my play. After day 1 Karjakin and I shared the lead at 10/12, with the rest trailing by 1,5 points and more. Day 2: After a bit hesitant start, and another loss to Ivanchuk, I won round 17 and 18 and was sole leader with 14 points head of Karjakin at 13.5. Amazingly 2.5/3 in the finish was not enough. Karjakin managed to win all three and had slightly higher rating opposition overall. Losing another title on tie-break after the excellent score 16.5/21 was quite devastating. In summary, I was clearly the biggest favorite in the Blitz, and I played reasonably well generally being able to slowly outplay my opponents. That is not always enough as one of the others may have a brilliant event. This time, Karjakin had margins on his side and turned several lost positions into victory. He also played very well throughout the event and got a partial revenge from the New York-match. Dubov took third edging out Nakamura and Grischuk on tie-break, all at 14.5 points. Overall tying for first in both events is of course objectively a good performance, but I’m not satisfied, and I have to find better ways to improve and prepare for the 2017 World Rapid and Blitz and other fast time control events. Thank you organizer Mohamed Al-Medaihki and all the others involved in staging this great event! Magnus Carlsen, January 1st, 2017> https://www.arctic.com/secno/magnus... Jan-06-17    Sokrates: Thanks for this blog quotation, <siamesedream>. I think Carlsen shows great calibre, both in acknowledging Karjakin's excellent performance at the venue and being self-critical towards his own. A true champion never rests on his laurels: "Overall tying for first in both events is of course objectively a good performance, but I’m not satisfied, and I have to find better ways to improve and prepare for the 2017 World Rapid and Blitz and other fast time control events." Jan-06-17    WorstPlayerEver: The indication 'blitz' sounds pretty dumb. Coincedence? Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 8) search thread:    < Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 8 OF 8 ·  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: No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts. No personal attacks against other members. Nothing in violation of United States law. No posting personal information of members. 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