|London Chess Classic (2017)|
Played in London, England 1-11 December, as the fifth and final leg of the Grand Chess Tour 2017. The ten participants played nine games at classical time control for a total prize fund of $300,000. The event was won by Caruana after four tiebreak games* vs Nepomniachtchi. Official site: http://www.londonchessclassic.com/. Crosstable with Grand Chess Tour points (GP):
Grand Chess Tour final standings after GCT Paris (Par), Your Next Move (YNM), Sinquefield Cup (Snq), Saint Louis Rapid & Blitz (StL) and London Chess Classic (LCC):
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 GP
=1 Caruana * ˝ ˝ ˝ ˝ ˝ ˝ 1 1 1 6 12
=1 Nepomniachtchi ˝ * 1 ˝ ˝ ˝ ˝ ˝ 1 1 6 10
=3 Carlsen ˝ 0 * ˝ ˝ ˝ 1 ˝ ˝ 1 5 7
=3 Vachier-Lagrave ˝ ˝ ˝ * ˝ ˝ ˝ 1 ˝ ˝ 5 7
=3 So ˝ ˝ ˝ ˝ * ˝ ˝ ˝ 1 ˝ 5 7
6 Nakamura ˝ ˝ ˝ ˝ ˝ * ˝ ˝ ˝ ˝ 4˝ 5
7 Aronian ˝ ˝ 0 ˝ ˝ ˝ * ˝ ˝ ˝ 4 4
8 Karjakin 0 ˝ ˝ 0 ˝ ˝ ˝ * ˝ ˝ 3˝ 3
=9 Anand 0 0 ˝ ˝ 0 ˝ ˝ ˝ * ˝ 3 1˝
=9 Adams 0 0 0 ˝ ˝ ˝ ˝ ˝ ˝ * 3 1˝
Carlsen won the Grand Chess Tour with 41 points, and took home $245,417 in total. The table shows the nine contenders that played in four of the five events; there were 14 others (e. g. Adams) but each of them played in only one event. For the points allocated in the events before London (the first four legs) see Grand Chess Tour Paris (Rapid Tiebreak) (2017), YourNextMove (Blitz) (2017), Sinquefield Cup (2017) and St. Louis Rapid & Blitz (Blitz) (2017).
Par YNM Snq StL LCC GCT
1 Carlsen 12 13 9 - 7 41
2 Vachier-Lagrave 10 8 13 - 7 38
3 Aronian - 5˝ 6˝ 13 4 29
4 Nakamura 8 - 3 9 5 25
5 Caruana 3 - 4 5 12 24
6 Karjakin 5 - 6˝ 9 3 23˝
=7 So 4 10 1˝ - 7 22˝
=7 Nepomniachtchi - 4 1˝ 7 10 22˝
9 Anand - 3 9 2 1˝ 15˝
Official Grand Chess Tour site: https://grandchesstour.org/2017-gra... Previous GCT event in London: London Chess Classic (2016).
*See London Chess Classic (Tiebreaks) (2017). Caruana won the fourth game after three draws and got 12 Grand Chess Tour points - Nepomniachtchi 10. Both got $62,500 in prize money.
| page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 45
|1. Carlsen vs Caruana
||½-½||54||2017||London Chess Classic||D27 Queen's Gambit Accepted, Classical|
|2. I Nepomniachtchi vs Aronian
||½-½||28||2017||London Chess Classic||C78 Ruy Lopez|
|3. W So vs M Vachier-Lagrave
||½-½||31||2017||London Chess Classic||A04 Reti Opening|
|4. Adams vs Karjakin
||½-½||30||2017||London Chess Classic||A13 English|
|5. Nakamura vs Anand
||½-½||44||2017||London Chess Classic||A04 Reti Opening|
|6. Anand vs Adams
||½-½||48||2017||London Chess Classic||C65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense|
|7. M Vachier-Lagrave vs Nakamura
||½-½||47||2017||London Chess Classic||B77 Sicilian, Dragon, Yugoslav Attack|
|8. Caruana vs Aronian
||½-½||31||2017||London Chess Classic||C78 Ruy Lopez|
|9. Karjakin vs Carlsen
||½-½||30||2017||London Chess Classic||C50 Giuoco Piano|
|10. W So vs I Nepomniachtchi
||½-½||27||2017||London Chess Classic||D70 Neo-Grunfeld Defense|
|11. Adams vs M Vachier-Lagrave
||½-½||58||2017||London Chess Classic||B51 Sicilian, Canal-Sokolsky (Rossolimo) Attack|
|12. Aronian vs Karjakin
||½-½||33||2017||London Chess Classic||E00 Queen's Pawn Game|
|13. I Nepomniachtchi vs Caruana
||½-½||31||2017||London Chess Classic||A07 King's Indian Attack|
|14. Nakamura vs W So
||½-½||31||2017||London Chess Classic||A33 English, Symmetrical|
|15. Carlsen vs Anand
||½-½||31||2017||London Chess Classic||E04 Catalan, Open, 5.Nf3|
|16. Nakamura vs I Nepomniachtchi
||½-½||32||2017||London Chess Classic||B91 Sicilian, Najdorf, Zagreb (Fianchetto) Variation|
|17. M Vachier-Lagrave vs Carlsen
||½-½||42||2017||London Chess Classic||C53 Giuoco Piano|
|18. Anand vs Aronian
||½-½||31||2017||London Chess Classic||C84 Ruy Lopez, Closed|
|19. Karjakin vs Caruana
||0-1||42||2017||London Chess Classic||B48 Sicilian, Taimanov Variation|
|20. W So vs Adams
||½-½||31||2017||London Chess Classic||A07 King's Indian Attack|
|21. Carlsen vs W So
||½-½||68||2017||London Chess Classic||C65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense|
|22. Adams vs Nakamura
||½-½||32||2017||London Chess Classic||B76 Sicilian, Dragon, Yugoslav Attack|
|23. Aronian vs M Vachier-Lagrave
||½-½||25||2017||London Chess Classic||D70 Neo-Grunfeld Defense|
|24. I Nepomniachtchi vs Karjakin
|| ||½-½||30||2017||London Chess Classic||E34 Nimzo-Indian, Classical, Noa Variation|
|25. Caruana vs Anand
||1-0||39||2017||London Chess Classic||C65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense|
| 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 21 OF 21 ·
|Dec-13-17|| ||tuttifrutty: <Thanks, <AylerKupp> for another brilliant score of facts by your hand.>|
This... is a chilling assessment, brought to you lacking sufficient resources...meaning, a novel without imagination...pffft.
|Dec-13-17|| ||Kapmigs: While it is true that Carlsen has been beating the same players over and over again, it is equally obvious that So has been drawing the same players over and over again.|
|Dec-13-17|| ||not not: Giri, Leko and Kramnik enter the bar to find Nakamura sitting at their table with picture of Slechter in his hand.|
|Dec-13-17|| ||WorstPlayerEver: <Just like you can't convince a religious person with arguments of science.>|
Arguments of science? Science itself has no arguments. Which you probably did not realize, when you wrote such nonsense.
I suppose you mean the logic of scientific arguments. That logic tells me, ironically, that one can't convince a religious person.
Simply because science denies the concept of a conscious moderator when it comes to general existence. Et voilá! There you have YOUR *logic*
In comparison to the *logic* of a religious person, who denies a random factor, considered general existence.
Ironically, it's the same factor *random*, which is declared as the holy grail by our *logically* operating scientists regarded to that same existence.
Beware: it's not that both camps have any REASON, whatsoever, to make a call on reality with their claim. Go figure how pathetic it is!
It's just like two kids yelling yes! and no! to each other when they are having an argument.
And you're just one of those kids. Btw... it's YOUR turn, if I am correct..
|Dec-13-17|| ||Sokrates: <WorstPlayerEver> Wow, what a hurricane of words! I am slain to the ground gasping for air. You are obviously making comprehensive efforts to insult me, but - sorry to disappoint you - it doesn't work. |
I have read your response a couple of times to understand its substance - but I failed. Probably because I am not at your high level, so please bear with me.
|Dec-13-17|| ||WorstPlayerEver: <Sokrates>
Well, it's pretty low level, actually.
Usually when people are insulted by someone who gives an alternative vision, it simply means they have no argument.
|Dec-13-17|| ||Sokrates: <WorstPlayerEver: <Sokrates>
Well, it's pretty low level, actually.
Usually when people are insulted by someone who gives an alternative vision, it simply means they have no argument.>
I hesitate to reveal my codex in such cases, but here you go: It takes a person of great calibre to insult me.
|Dec-13-17|| ||AylerKupp: <<tuttifrutty> Yes I do, I see Wesley finding ways to beat these elite players one by one...and take my word for it... Magnus is...next.>|
At this level any player can defeat any other player, even Carlsen. So is certainly a top player and will eventually defeat Carlsen in a classical time control game, just like Nakamura eventually did. That's not a trend, that's perseverance and the rules of probability And I wonder where or when you looked up the definition of "trend". Clearly you just didn't understand it since what I showed by looking at So's quarterly rating averages was a <change in a general direction>. Which apparently you failed to see.
And you obviously failed to mention that So might have been by his lonesome some time ago, just like all top players when they were getting started, but he isn't any longer. His rating continues to fall even though he is now also a "pampered goldfish". Maybe it started to fall once he began to play against the elite? That's certainly a possibility.
And I can see how you lost count after 2 players against Magnus. You always had difficulty counting once the count reached high numbers.
You "command" me? Ha, ha, ha, don't make me laugh. We've been down this road before. You're just too lazy and inept to collect and present pertinent data so you "command" others to do it for you. Ha, ha, ha.
Mentioning that So won gold on board 3 seemed like a relatively small accomplishment compared to winning 5 of the 6 tournaments he entered. That's not inaccuracy, that's omission of less important details so not to distract from his more important accomplishments. Or did you think that winning gold on board 3 (even though he was the 2nd highest US player behind Caruana) was a more significant accomplishment than the tournament wins?
And don't worry about my intelligence going to waste, worry about yours.
|Dec-13-17|| ||AylerKupp: <Socrates> Yes, I know that trying to point flaws in <tuttifrutty>'s "reasoning" is a waste of time, he simply doesn't have the capacity to understand what you're trying to say.|
At any rate, he's just a troll trying to elicit a response from others. But from his virulent and nonsensical overreaction to my previous post it's clear than in this instance the troll has been goaded into the reaction that he himself was trying to elicit. So he didn't even get the effect that he wanted. Ha, ha, ha. What a silly person he is, just like the other <So>bots. Too bad that such a fine player like So is associated with such mindless "supporters".
|Dec-13-17|| ||zanzibar: <<Sokrates> Wow, what a hurricane of words! I am slain to the ground gasping for air.>|
Not wanting to fan the flames too much, but I do have to admire the above literary flourish.
|Dec-13-17|| ||WorstPlayerEver: <I hesitate to reveal my codex in such cases, but here you go: It takes a person of great calibre to insult me.>|
Lol it that case it can't be me :P
|Dec-13-17|| ||Sokrates: Well now, it's time to turn the last page of this tournament, pour a single malt (Ardbeg), laugh at nothing and grab the book you just bought on a trip to Hamburg (Tyll). Have a great evening, gentlemen, whereever you are.|
|Dec-13-17|| ||Dionysius1: Joining you with a Talisker. It's blowy outside, the snow's almost gone. Short of actually hibernating, this is the best.|
|Dec-13-17|| ||zanzibar: <Ardbeg>, <Talisker>, a rather cultured class hang out here!|
Let's add <Lagavulin> to the list then.
|Dec-13-17|| ||tuttifrutty: <Let's add <Lagavulin> to the list then.>|
I second that...it taste better than a blue label Johnny Walker...only cheaper... so every one can afford. A whooping 56 mighty US dollars...
But let me remind you all to stock up on napkins just in case you need to cry...to Daniel. Oh yeah...you know who you are. You did it once...twice...you'll do it again.
|Dec-13-17|| ||schweigzwang: Mmmmmm Lagavulin, my favorite.|
|Dec-13-17|| ||That Roger: <AylerKupp><Clearly you just didn't understand it since what I showed by looking at So's quarterly rating averages was a <change in a general direction>. Which apparently you failed to see.>|
Could it be considered a trend since his rating is higher now than it was at the start of 2015:
Of the years you listed 2017 is the only year in which he was +2800, the first 3 quarters.
You are suggesting he could only be considered to be positively trending if the last quarter did not lose points?
I have heard of players not wanting to give away their major preparation for the more major events, is there any truth to this?
|Dec-14-17|| ||tuttifrutty: <Clearly you just didn't understand it since what I showed by looking at So's quarterly rating averages was a <change in a general direction>. Which apparently you failed to see.>|
Crystal clear, you are being confuse on how the elo rating works. Read here so you have a little grasp of what rating is all about.
Rating is not an indication whether you can learn how to beat a player that has been beating you in the past. It's a history of past performances...Now, now, now...well, well, well...let's just give one little example so you may clear your foggy state of mind.
Ex...Nepo against Carlsen classical game record indicate 4-0. While Carlsen has steadily increased his elo rating in the past years, he failed to beat Nepo no matter how hard he tried...so Magnus elo rating chart has nothing to do with when he will...if ever, beat Nepo. Elo rating suggests that Magnus should win if ever they play again...but again...rating is just a predictor. Get it??? Your mumbo jumbo quarterly report was nothing but a failure on the subject <trend> I was referring to.
You also failed to answer a little known simple pattern IQ question...ie..
1...2...3...what comes next??? and the answer is...you tell me.
In summary... A pattern is a set of data that follows a recognizable form in relation to a change of general direction...ie... Wesley learning how to beat all competitors. Amen...
|Dec-14-17|| ||tuttifrutty: While sipping <Lagavulin> on the rocks...I am here to proclaim...|
<You're just too lazy and inept>
Sometimes I am lazy but who isn't??? You tell me.
Inept...I am not, coz' I showed you the light.:-)
<Mentioning that So won gold on board 3 seemed like a relatively small accomplishment>
I beg to disagree...Wesley has 5 total gold medal in the Olympics while Magnus has ZERO. I'm confident he is itching to get one at least...which is relatively small accomplishment according to your standards.
|Dec-14-17|| ||tuttifrutty: Now if you would excuse me...my IQ isn't that low...actually, it's above average so please do not be so mean and say...|
<he simply doesn't have the capacity to understand what you're trying to say.>
To consider somebody to be less capable and effective than actually am is a blasphemy... never underestimate any body...it's very dangerous.
|Dec-14-17|| ||frogbert: <You are suggesting he could only be considered to be positively trending if the last quarter did not lose points?>|
That's a bit of a strawman and not what <AylerKupp> suggested.
In the 12 quarters listed, So's rating is essentially unchanged for the first 7, then there are two extremely strong quarters where gains a lot of rating points, followed by 1 where he essentially defends his new rating, and eventually 2 quarters where he underperforms massively (based on his rating) and drops about 2/3 of what he gained when he was on his hot streak.
Caruana had a similar hot streak to reach his peak rating, and so did Carlsen (although his hot streak lasted much longer than the two others). The difference, of course, is that Carlsen has remained in front, stable over many years above 2820.
Regarding hot streaks; Kasparov also was on one when he temporarily touched 2850+ - he couldn't sustain it.
|Dec-14-17|| ||frogbert: Another thing: measuring how long someone sustains a rating level per time/date units is also misguided. The relevant measure should be number of games|
- for being #1
- for increase/decrease in rating
- for sustaining a certain level
If you don't play games, your current level isn't tested and your rating remains unchanged. With respect to rating qualification for events, a lot of people understand and agree with this. For rating change (increase/decrease), holding a certain position in the rankings and so on, most ppl still seem to measure it by periods of time - but that's basically a meaningless measure.
|Dec-14-17|| ||frogbert: <Kasparov also was on one when he temporarily touched 2850+ - he couldn't sustain it.>|
More precisely: he couldn't sustain the relative rating (strength) difference to his closest competitors.
|Dec-14-17|| ||perfidious: <frogbert: <Kasparov also was on one when he temporarily touched 2850+ - he couldn't sustain it.>|
More precisely: he couldn't sustain the relative rating (strength) difference to his closest competitors.>
Bang on: when Kasparov was enjoying his purple patch, there was no platoon of 2770-2800 players to maximise his gains and minimise his losses, same as when Fischer was 2780, he had no-one within 100 points of him.
|Dec-14-17|| ||frogbert: It's actually quite similar what happened when Carlsen broke away from the pack at around 2800 and leapt to 2880+ and what happened when Kasparov did the same from ca 2775 and briefly up to 2850+.|
The biggest difference was that Carlsen had more players to break away from. It's a logical mistake to think that this made it easier for him and harder for Kasparov.
The size of the gap that opened for the latter was also due to Anand having a small patch of bad form at the same time. If there would've been 5-7 at the same level as Anand at the time, Kasparov's max gap to the rest would've been smaller, not bigger.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 21 OF 21 ·
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