|YourNextMove (Rapid) (2017)|
Played in Leuven, Belgium 28-30 June, as part of the Grand Chess Tour 2017. The ten participants first played nine games of rapid chess (this page) then 18 games of blitz (see YourNextMove (Blitz) (2017)) for a total prize fund of $150,000. Wesley So won the rapid with 7/9. Crosstable:
Combined with the blitz chess (YourNextMove (Blitz) (2017)), Carlsen won the event with 25.5 points using the scoring system which weighted rapid games twice as much as blitz.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 Pts
1 So * ˝ 1 ˝ ˝ 1 1 1 ˝ 1 7 14
2 Vachier-Lagrave ˝ * ˝ ˝ 1 0 ˝ 1 1 1 6 12
3 Carlsen 0 ˝ * ˝ ˝ 1 1 ˝ ˝ 1 5˝ 11
4 Giri ˝ ˝ ˝ * 0 1 ˝ ˝ 1 ˝ 5 10
=5 Nepomniachtchi ˝ 0 ˝ 1 * 1 ˝ 0 0 1 4˝ 9
=5 Aronian 0 1 0 0 0 * 1 1 ˝ 1 4˝ 9
=5 Kramnik 0 ˝ 0 ˝ ˝ 0 * 1 1 1 4˝ 9
8 Anand 0 0 ˝ ˝ 1 0 0 * 1 1 4 8
9 Ivanchuk ˝ 0 ˝ 0 1 ˝ 0 0 * 1 3˝ 7
10 Jobava 0 0 0 ˝ 0 0 0 0 0 * ˝ 1
Official site: http://grandchesstour.org/YourNextM...
| page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 45
|1. Carlsen vs Aronian
||1-0||49||2017||YourNextMove (Rapid)||E49 Nimzo-Indian, 4.e3, Botvinnik System|
|2. Jobava vs Ivanchuk
||0-1||33||2017||YourNextMove (Rapid)||C15 French, Winawer|
|3. A Giri vs Aronian
||1-0||30||2017||YourNextMove (Rapid)||A29 English, Four Knights, Kingside Fianchetto|
|4. M Vachier-Lagrave vs Kramnik
||½-½||44||2017||YourNextMove (Rapid)||C53 Giuoco Piano|
|5. Carlsen vs W So
||0-1||51||2017||YourNextMove (Rapid)||E53 Nimzo-Indian, 4.e3|
|6. Anand vs I Nepomniachtchi
|| ||1-0||67||2017||YourNextMove (Rapid)||B90 Sicilian, Najdorf|
|7. Aronian vs Jobava
||1-0||32||2017||YourNextMove (Rapid)||D16 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav|
|8. Kramnik vs Anand
||1-0||39||2017||YourNextMove (Rapid)||C50 Giuoco Piano|
|9. I Nepomniachtchi vs A Giri
|| ||1-0||50||2017||YourNextMove (Rapid)||B90 Sicilian, Najdorf|
|10. W So vs Kramnik
||1-0||62||2017||YourNextMove (Rapid)||C65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense|
|11. A Giri vs Anand
|| ||½-½||48||2017||YourNextMove (Rapid)||A08 King's Indian Attack|
|12. M Vachier-Lagrave vs Ivanchuk
||1-0||38||2017||YourNextMove (Rapid)||C41 Philidor Defense|
|13. Jobava vs I Nepomniachtchi
||0-1||54||2017||YourNextMove (Rapid)||E60 King's Indian Defense|
|14. Ivanchuk vs Carlsen
||½-½||33||2017||YourNextMove (Rapid)||C89 Ruy Lopez, Marshall|
|15. W So vs M Vachier-Lagrave
|| ||½-½||60||2017||YourNextMove (Rapid)||D85 Grunfeld|
|16. Anand vs Ivanchuk
||1-0||34||2017||YourNextMove (Rapid)||B09 Pirc, Austrian Attack|
|17. W So vs Anand
|| ||1-0||60||2017||YourNextMove (Rapid)||C65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense|
|18. M Vachier-Lagrave vs A Giri
|| ||½-½||44||2017||YourNextMove (Rapid)||C53 Giuoco Piano|
|19. Ivanchuk vs I Nepomniachtchi
||1-0||74||2017||YourNextMove (Rapid)||A20 English|
|20. Carlsen vs Jobava
||1-0||33||2017||YourNextMove (Rapid)||E67 King's Indian, Fianchetto|
|21. Kramnik vs Aronian
||0-1||56||2017||YourNextMove (Rapid)||C53 Giuoco Piano|
|22. Jobava vs M Vachier-Lagrave
||0-1||71||2017||YourNextMove (Rapid)||A45 Queen's Pawn Game|
|23. I Nepomniachtchi vs Aronian
|| ||1-0||51||2017||YourNextMove (Rapid)||A29 English, Four Knights, Kingside Fianchetto|
|24. Carlsen vs Kramnik
||1-0||44||2017||YourNextMove (Rapid)||A02 Bird's Opening|
|25. W So vs Jobava
||1-0||57||2017||YourNextMove (Rapid)||E70 King's Indian|
| page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 45
TIP: You can make the above ads go away by registering a free account!
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 5 ·
|Jul-01-17|| ||HeMateMe: did his blood parents actually end up in prison in the PP?|
|Jul-01-17|| ||tuttifrutty: <did his blood parents actually end up in prison in the PP?>|
Nope...sugardom is just a sour puss...nothing more, nothing less. LOL a million times.
Let it go...let it go...just enjoy the show.
|Jul-01-17|| ||Jambow: <SugarDom> Surely there is more to this story. He filed suit for a bad haircut?|
|Jul-01-17|| ||BOSTER: If we see in Candidates 2017 such "russian" players like Karjakin, Aronian, Mamedyarov, Kramnik or Svidler, I don't think that players from US like So or Caruana can go forward.|
|Jul-01-17|| ||activechess55: |
Congrats to So for standing first in Rapid and kudos to Carlsen for the Blitz. So beats Carlsen in Rapid, Carlsen beats So in Blitz. We are, probably, heading for the play-off.
May be, we are already in the middle of Carlsen-So rivalry.
|Jul-02-17|| ||Whitehat1963: This tournament, perhaps more than any before it, confirm that the old guard is quickly on its way to irrelevance in elite-level chess. I will miss the likes of Ivanchuck, Kramnik, Anand, Topalov, etc.|
|Jul-02-17|| ||tpstar: <the old guard is quickly on its way to irrelevance in elite-level chess> AIEEE!|
Rapid and blitz are different animals than classical time controls. It was great seeing Kasparov in action last year against Nakamura, Caruana and So. Who cares about the results?
|Jul-02-17|| ||AylerKupp: <Whitehat1963> How do results in irrelevant Blitz and Rapid tournaments show any irrelevance in tournaments held at classical time controls?|
|Jul-02-17|| ||WorstPlayerEver: If I wanna see a circus I probably will go to a circus 😄|
|Jul-02-17|| ||Whitehat1963: I think blitz results are mostly irrelevant because no one prepares for blitz much or plays with anything approaching the same level of seriousness as they would a world championship match. And I'm sure that's true of a run-of-the-mill rapid tournament, too. But I think the results of rapid games provide an indication of the near future. Rapid games are a good indication of natural talent in evaluating positions quickly, S well as an indicator of general preparation. Sure, anyone can make a mistake when time controls are accelerated, but look at these results. They almost scream that Anand, who used to be Incredible in rapid time controls, is well past his prime. The same goes for Kramnik and Ivanchuck. I've often thought of rapid chess as a look into the future. I could easily be wrong. It's just an opinion.|
|Jul-02-17|| ||botvinnik64: Whitehat1963:
I think you're right: we have seen the future and it is getting faster and faster; we're being sucked into the black hole of commercialization. Well, it had to happen if our game is going to have a chance to "survive" economically. As for the chess, we'll see.
|Jul-03-17|| ||starry2013: It could be like that, just like test cricket doesn't seem the future of cricket.|
|Jul-03-17|| ||HeMateMe: might we see a GM tournament of bullet chess? It would be played via computer screens, not by hand (impossible to referee, pieces getting knocked over, time forfeits...).|
|Jul-03-17|| ||AylerKupp: <Whitehat1963> I would think that Blitz games, with their faster time control, would be a better indication of natural talent in evaluating positions quickly than the slower Rapid time control, not the other way around. What am I missing?|
|Jul-03-17|| ||diceman: <AylerKupp: <Whitehat1963> I would think that Blitz games, with their faster time control, would be a better indication of natural talent in evaluating positions quickly than the slower Rapid time control, not the other way around.>|
Maybe, if you group players by age.
Id imagine there's some natural age
degradation in blitz.
|Jul-03-17|| ||Whitehat1963: Blitz is just way too fast. The quality of play is nowhere near what you get with classical time controls. I'm certainly no chess expert, but I suspect that the quality of rapid chess is probably 70 to 80 percent of what you get in classical games. But blitz is probably in the 40 or 50 percent range. Just a guess. It would be interesting to see some kind of computerized scientific analysis on the quality of play in all three. Regardless, something happens to the play of middle-aged elite-level players that they just don't compete very well at faster time controls compared to younger players. And, for example, where Anand, Topalov, Kramnik, and Ivanchuk MIGHT stand a chance against the likes of Carlsen, So, Nakamura, Giri, etc. in a 24-game match at classical time controls, I think the older guys would get smoked at faster time controls. Just a hunch.|
|Jul-03-17|| ||QueentakesKing: Filipino rules!!!|
|Jul-03-17|| ||Nina Myers: <Faillipino rules!!!> FTFY|
|Jul-04-17|| ||Jambow: <AylerKupp> I agree about faster time controls and natural talent. I doubt the quality of blitz falls off as much as we might expect on average. Most moves will have very high agreement with engine evaluations certainly not less than half? Maybe the breakdown would be 90% 85% 80% or that is my guess. 40% couldn't imagine that even in bullet.|
|Jul-04-17|| ||WorstPlayerEver: Anyway, it will not popularize chess. People think chess is an odd game. And it is. It's too abstract.|
For a while it maybe adds some occasional interested people but after a while it gets boring for them.
There are billions of people, though in the game business chess is hidden in the margin. Oh they sell a lot of chess sets. But chess doesn't sell itself well.
|Jul-04-17|| ||ChessHigherCat: I think blitz and rapid are definitely more interesting as a spectator sport than watching a entire slow game, which I don't think I've ever managed to do in my life. On the other hand, the fact that it's more interesting watching the artist in action doing sketches, like the famous Picasso documentary (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jya...), doesn't mean that sketches can compete in quality with a masterpiece that was well-planned and revised millions of times (like the chess masterpieces, which are almost all slow games).|
|Jul-04-17|| ||SugarDom: <Jambow>. The only perfect engine game was accomplished by Carlsen. And it was in a rapid game.|
Carlsen's accuracy does not fall much in a rapid game. So the new standard in chess should be the rapid 25/10 time controls. In a tournament, the players should play each other twice in one round, alternating colors.
|Jul-04-17|| ||AylerKupp: <<diceman> Id imagine that there's some natural age degradation in blitz>|
I would think that there would eventually be an age degradation of performance regardless of the time control. In his book, "the Rating of Chessplayers Pas & Present" Dr. Elo used data from tournaments since the 1850s through 1975 to determine the change in ratings for 36 master and grandmaster-level players based on games played at classical time controls. He also used this data to determine a composite player development curve. Not unsurprisingly, the curve rises relatively quickly during a player's teenage years, slows as the player approaches his peak at about age 35, then it starts a relatively slow decline. The actual shape of the curve, of course, depends on the player.
I would think that a player's development curve at rapid and blitz time controls would be similar, a rise in performance when the player is young, a leveling off, and then an eventual drop in performance is older. But the rate of performance increase and decrease, as well at the player's age at their peak, could presumably be very different than the same player's development curve at classical time controls.
So I looked at the ratings of those players currently ranked in the top 30 at classical time controls and who are currently older than 40: Adams (45), Anand (47), Gelfand (49), Ivanchuk (48), Kramnik (42), Svidler (41), and Topalov (42). Ratings, after all, give an indication of the player's relative performance against his contemporary opponents.
FIDE's site lists the players' ratings for classic time control games since Jan-2000; initially semi-annually, quarterly since Jul-2000, then bi-monthly Jul-2009, and monthly since Jul-2012. It also lists the number of games on which the rating is based and the total number of games rated range from a low of 774 (Topalov) to a high of 1,385 (Ivanchuk). I then plotted each player's rating over time. None of them showed a nice, clean parabola-like performance curve like Dr. Elo indicated and, in particular, none showed a drop in ratings starting at age 35 or so. Most player's ratings have remained steady; only Gelfand and Topalov have shown a decline in the last 2 – 3 years and some and some, like Kramnik, have shown an increase. Perhaps the player's ratings need to be adjusted to take ratings inflation into account.
FIDE's site lists the players ratings for rapid and blitz time control games only since Sep-2013 (for Rapid) and since Jun-2013 (for Blitz). There hasn’t been enough time (less than 4 years) or games (an average of 99 for Rapid and 138 for Blitz) to establish a development performance pattern. There have been some drops in Rapid ratings (Adams, Svidler, and Topalov) and some increases as well (Gelfand). For Blitz ratings there have been both decreases (Anand) but mostly increases (Adams, Gelfand, Svidler, and Topalov). But, given the relative amount of time and games considered, I don't think that anyone should form any definitive opinions based on this data.
If you or anyone wants to the data, you can download it from http://www.mediafire.com/file/60tz3....
|Jul-04-17|| ||ChessHigherCat: <SugarDom: <Jambow>. The only perfect engine game was accomplished by Carlsen. And it was in a rapid game.|
Carlsen's accuracy does not fall much in a rapid game. So the new standard in chess should be the rapid 25/10 time controls. In a tournament, the players should play each other twice in one round, alternating colors.>
You sound like Carlsen's lawyer. I'm sure he would love that, but maybe the others can find beautiful moves, too, just not at lightning speed. Should they be penalized and should the overall quality of the games suffer by using speed as a general criterion?
|Jul-04-17|| ||AylerKupp: <<Whitehat1963> Blitz is just way too fast.>|
Way too fast for what? To say that the quality of the games is less than the quality of the games at classic time controls is hardly news, and the same can be said for the quality of games at rapid time controls. If you really want to see the best quality of games, go check correspondence games, particularly if computer assistance is allowed.
As far as seeing a comparison of the quality of games at rapid and blitz time controls, yes, that would be interesting. But I have not seen an article that I believe uses a proper methodology that will stand to critical scrutiny to determine game accuracy at classic time controls based on engine/player move comparison so, until that's done, I doubt that I will see any attempt to determine game accuracy at either rapid or blitz time controls. And I wouldn't trust the results anyway.
But the data that I recently looked at (see YourNextMove (Rapid) (2017) (kibitz #99) above) shows that the older players (older than 40) seems to be able hold their own at Rapid and Blitz time controls against the younger players as evidenced by the ratings increase in some of the older players, or at least a maintenance of their rating. But, as I said above, given the short amount of time that the data has been gathered and the relatively small number of games rated, I don't think anyone should form a definite opinion based on the data. Still, it does not show a consistent inability of the older players (with perhaps some exceptions, Anand being the most notable) to keep up with the younger players as evidenced by their ratings increase.
One thing that I thought was interesting was that there did not seem to be a correlation between the players' performance at Rapid time controls and Blitz time controls. Some players that showed a rating increase at Rapid time controls showed a ratings decrease at Blitz time controls and vice versa. You and anyone else can download the data from the link above and see for yourselves.
As far as your guesses as to the relative quality of Rapid and Blitz compared to Classic time control games, I think that they're too high. But that's also just a guess on my part. As you said, we're not experts.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 5 ·
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!
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
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.
posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.|
your profile |
Premium Membership |
Kibitzer's Café |
Biographer's Bistro |
new kibitzing |
Tournament Index |
Player Directory |
Notable Games |
World Chess Championships |
Opening Explorer |
Guess the Move |
Game Collections |
ChessBookie Game |
Chessgames Challenge |
privacy notice |
Copyright 2001-2017, Chessgames Services LLC