|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 * ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 1 1 6 12
=1 Nepomniachtchi ½ * 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 1 6 10
=3 Carlsen ½ 0 * ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ 1 5 7
=3 Vachier-Lagrave ½ ½ ½ * ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ 5 7
=3 So ½ ½ ½ ½ * ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ 5 7
6 Nakamura ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ * ½ ½ ½ ½ 4½ 5
7 Aronian ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ * ½ ½ ½ 4 4
8 Karjakin 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ * ½ ½ 3½ 3
=9 Anand 0 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ * ½ 3 1½
=9 Adams 0 0 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ * 3 1½
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 - 5½ 6½ 13 4 29
4 Nakamura 8 - 3 9 5 25
5 Caruana 3 - 4 5 12 24
6 Karjakin 5 - 6½ 9 3 23½
=7 So 4 10 1½ - 7 22½
=7 Nepomniachtchi - 4 1½ 7 10 22½
9 Anand - 3 9 2 1½ 15½
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 22 OF 22 ·
|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.
|Dec-14-17|| ||offramp: What might liven these events up a bit is having a team tournament inside the normal event, such as in Staunton Memorial (2007), where England played Holland.|
|Dec-14-17|| ||That Roger: <frogbert>The essence of the 'argument' appeared to have been: Is Wesely So getting better or not?|
Is he increasing his chances to win the candidates tournament, and then win the championship match, or not?
Someone said, they believed he was, (semantic tangent...) trending towards that direction.
Another suggested he was not, because he dropped rating points the past few months. (after more and more months prior he gained a bunch).
Is this suggesting that if the candidates tournament and championship match was played months and months ago, Wesley So would have had better chances at winning these? Good chances? Great chances?
And now, he has worse chances, much worse chances? Highly improbable chances?
|Dec-14-17|| ||thegoodanarchist: Congrats to Naka, the new Giri. No decisive games.|
|Dec-14-17|| ||thegoodanarchist: < offramp: What might liven these events up a bit is having a team tournament inside the normal event, such as in Staunton Memorial (2007), where England played Holland.>|
You want to liven things up? Try Monkey-cam!
|Dec-14-17|| ||AylerKupp: <<That Roger> Could it be considered a trend since his rating is higher now than it was at the start of 2015>|
Sure, it all depends on your choice of interval to detect the "trend". In this case you would choose your interval to be 3 years. And you can probably select any interval you want in order to prove or disprove whatever point you're trying to make. For example, you could choose the "interval" to be the player's FIDE-rated career, from his first game to his last game. In that case almost every player's rating "trend" would be positive, since every player will likely have a higher rating after playing his last rated game than he had after playing his first rated game. But that wouldn't tell you much.
So you have to choose a reasonable interval. The shortest possible interval is monthly since that is how often the FIDE rating lists are published. I chose a 3-month interval to try to smooth out the month-to-month fluctuations somewhat and still see some changes in the player's rating. But you could also use 6 months or 1 year as the interval. In that case, these are the trends that you would get for So.
2015-S1 2780 -
2015-S2 2772 (-8)
2016-S1 2773 (+1)
2016-S2 2784 (+11)
2017-S1 2817 (+23)
2017-S2 2796 (-21)
2015 2776 -
2016 2779 (+2)
2017 2806 (+28)
In the semiannual case you would see an increasing trend from 2016-S1 through 2017-S1 and <possibly> the beginning of a downward trend starting in 2017-S2. I say <possibly> because in order to see trend you need a minimum of two intervals, preferably 3 or more. So I wouldn't say that a 21-point ratings drop in 2017-S2 constitutes a trend, but possibly the beginning of one.
And in the annual case you can only see a positive trend for the 3-year period. But this is clearly inaccurate since So's rating change changed direction for a minimum of 2 monthly intervals 3 times; a 3-month period from Aug-2015 through Oct-2015 when he lost rating points in each of those 3 months, a 7-month period where he gained rating points from Aug-2016 through Feb-2017, and a 6-month period where lost rating points from May-2017 through Oct-2017. For simplicity I disregarded from consideration any months when his rating didn't change (most often because he didn't play any games) or when there was a 1 or 2 consecutive monthly rating decline in an otherwise series of monthly rating increases or where there was a 1 or 2 consecutive monthly rating increase in an otherwise series of monthly rating declines.
So <in this case> using a 3-month interval best approximated the trends in the monthly ratings data.
|Dec-14-17|| ||AylerKupp: <<That Roger> You are suggesting he could only be considered to be positively trending if the last quarter did not lose points?>|
I prefer to not call a change in direction (a rating increase or decrease) a "trend" unless it occurs for 3 consecutive intervals, regardless of your choice of interval, but that is just a guideline I follow. The US Government does not consider that the economy is in a recession unless there is a decline in the GDP for 2 consecutive quarter, and who am I to argue with them?
<I have heard of players not wanting to give away their major preparation for the more major events, is there any truth to this?>
I wouldn't know since I've never been invited to a major event. But if my rating ever gets above 2700 and I do get invited to a major event I will let you know. ;-)
|Dec-14-17|| ||AylerKupp: <That Roger> BTW, just to give equal voice to the <So>bots, here are Carlsen's quarterly average ratings and the trends I see from 2015 through 2017:|
2015-Q1 2863 -
2015-Q2 28572 (+8)
2015-Q3 2853 (-19)
2015-Q4 2845 (-8)
2016-Q1 2846 (+2)
2016-Q2 2852 (+6)
2016-Q3 2856 (+4)
2016-Q4 2849 (-8)
2017-Q1 2839 (-10)
2017-Q2 2834 (-5)
2017-Q3 2824 (-10)
2017-Q4 2833 (+10)
So, using my 3 consecutive interval guideline, I would say that I see 2 trends; a positive trend (although hardly a major one) from 2016-Q1 through 2016-Q3 and a 4-month negative trend from 2016-Q4 through 2017-Q3. This matches the "trend count" using the monthly data and the same 3 consecutive interval guideline. I'll let others debate whether these trends (or, for that matter, So's trends) are significant or not.
|Dec-14-17|| ||Chess Is More: <That Roger: And now, he has worse chances, much worse chances? Highly improbable chances?>|
What's up with all these questions?
Kind of counterproductive to the answers you seek in this particular discussion.
|Dec-14-17|| ||AylerKupp: <<tuttifrutty> I still don't think that you either (a) understand the meaning of a "trend" or (b) you do but are incapable of admitting that your initial interpretation was wrong and so you stick your foot deeper in your mouth in an attempt to continue to justify it.|
And I think that I do understand how the Elo system works. For instance, it deals with the probability of one player winning <or drawing> against another player as a function of their rating difference, with each player's performance treated as a random variable with a Normal Probability Distribution Function. But that's all it expresses, a <probability>. Just like it is possible, although unlikely, that a fair coin will land on heads 10 consecutive times, it's (obviously) been possible for Nepo to defeat Carlsen 4/4 games at classic time controls. Does that mean that Nepo will defeat Carlsen the next time they meet to make his score against Carlsen 5-0? Possibly. Does it mean that Carlsen will defeat Nepo the next time they meet to make his score against Nepo 1-4? Possibly. Their rating difference based on the Elo model specifies what the likely score would be if they played a match consisting of a sufficient number of games, at least 30, but that's all.
And I thought that the "trend" that you had been referring to had to do with So and not Nepo, but maybe I was wrong. And I also thought that we were talking about trends and not patterns, but maybe I was wrong about that also. Hard to keep straight what you're talking about when you keep changing the subjects.
As far as So winning 5 gold medals at the Olympics I think that he won 3 but that's not important. A great achievement. But we were talking (or, again, so I thought) about the last Olympics and not his entire Olympic history (there you go, changing the subject once again) and certainly we were not discussing Carlsen's Olympic achievements (or, as you might put it, non-achievements). As far as I'm concerned, it's a far greater achievement to win 5 out of the 6 tournaments that you enter in one year than to win a gold medal when playing 3rd board against much weaker opposition in an Olympic. At any rate, an Olympic is a <team> event and it's how well your <team> does that's important (or at least it should be), not how any one player does individually. And yes, for Carlsen to win a gold medal at an Olympics (or 5, or 10) is a relatively insignificant accomplishment as far as I'm concerned, certainly when compared to all this other accomplishments. But that's just my opinion; if you have a different opinion, so be it. And, of course, it's only Carlsen's opinion that counts.
Finally, I never said that your intelligence was low. On the contrary I think that you are very intelligent, probably more intelligent than I am. But it's what you do with your intelligence that counts. That's why I think it's sad that you seem to waste your intelligence in nonsensical posts, trivialities, and diversions in order to avoid having any worthwhile discussions. Remember, a mind is a terrible thing to waste. Act according to your intelligence.
|Dec-14-17|| ||AylerKupp: <<That Roger> Is this suggesting that if the candidates tournament and championship match was played months and months ago, Wesley So would have had better chances at winning these?>|
Players' performances over a period of time fluctuate. Sometimes a player is in a hot streak and sometimes he has a period of bad form. That's natural. So I would say that, yes, given that So was on a sizzling hot streak at the end of 2016 and the beginning of 2017 I would say that his chances of wining the Candidates Tournament during that period were better than they are today. But the Candidates Tournament is about 3 months away so it's not how well players are playing today that will matter but how well they are playing 3 months from now. And that is anyone's guess.
As far as a player's, any player's, chances at the WCC match are concerned, first let them win the Candidates Tournament and then I'll express my silly opinion. So watch out for my silly opinion around April 1, 2018.
|Dec-15-17|| ||That Roger: <AylerKupp> Especially with players all around this highest level, at the highest tournament, there is that incalculable 'any given sunday' adage; and we do not, or I do not know if there is any truth to the not wanting to show prep in games leading up to the biggest tourney. |
So, we do not know what is in So's heart and soul; how badly he wants to win; but we do know how badly one wants to win can only mean so much (if I was in the tournament it wouldn't matter how badly I wanted to win); though it maybe can be motivation to put one towards better positions to win; health, study, dedication, discipline, prepardness, calm cool collection; but when the whistle blows who knows.
|Dec-15-17|| ||perfidious: <AK: <<tuttifrutty> I still don't think that you either (a) understand the meaning of a "trend" or (b) you do but are incapable of admitting that your initial interpretation was wrong and so you stick your foot deeper in your mouth in an attempt to continue to justify it....>>|
When one considers that poster's reasoning that a performance by So of +1=8 is superior to that of another player finishing +4-1=4, hard to avoid the latter conclusion.
One more topic: what of the three years during which So's rating never budged from the 2650-2680 range? <glenn> never broaches <that> particular topic, I assure you, except to tell us how his hero was held down in some fashion or other.
|Dec-16-17|| ||AylerKupp: <<perfidious> what of the three years during which So's rating never budged from the 2650-2680 range?>|
I'm assuming that you're referring to the period between Nov-2009 and Nov-2012. Per the FIDE ratings site, the last time that So's rating was below 2680 (@ 2678) was on Nov-2012, and prior to that the last time his rating was below 2650 was on Nov-2009 (@2640).
But So is only 24 years old. In Nov-2012 he was just 19 and in Nov-2009 he was just 16. And it was in 2009 that he first began being invited to top level events, where he began to meet increasingly stronger competition. The fact that his rating stayed between 2650 – 2680 during that period in the face of stronger competition to me means that this rating range was justified. And, since he did not emigrate to the US until 2012, other than in international competition his opportunities to compete against stronger players (and learn) while in the Philippines was more limited. And, indeed, it was in 2013 that his rating began to increase substantially, from 2701 in Mar-2013 to 2822 in Mar-2017, an average of over 40 rating points/year. Very impressive, I think, particularly against top level competition.
Besides, that flat rating period was 5 - 9 years ago, a long period of time for a player who is currently only 24. I don't think that we should attach much importance to how a young player was performing such a relatively long time ago. If he was now 34 instead of 24 then perhaps it should be considered, but even then I think it would be of doubtful importance.
|Dec-16-17|| ||WorstPlayerEver: Carlsen's elo curve is easy to explain; the moment you reach the top everyone wants to beat ya. |
Carlsen is not like Karpov/Kasparov, he seems pretty confident in what he's doing. No egoboost needed.
|Dec-17-17|| ||BOSTER: <He (Carlsen) seems pretty confident in what he is doing>..
To prove this we may only after WCC.|
|Dec-19-17|| ||AylerKupp: <WorstPlayerEver> Not only do the other players want to beat you more than usual but it becomes harder to gain rating points and easier to lose them, since draws cause you to lose rating points. And the unavoidable occasional loss causes you to lose rating points big time.|
So any player that is at or near the top in terms of rating for a long period of time needs to be commended for a significant accomplishment.
|Dec-21-17|| ||tuttifrutty: <One more topic: what of the three years during which So's rating never budged from the 2650-2680 range? <glenn> never broaches <that> particular topic, I assure you, except to tell us how his hero was held down in some fashion or other.>|
It's a lie...I told you so many many moons ago...that Wesley stagnated on 2650 due to lack of invitations. I also told you before that Wesley is on his own, at a tender age of 16... then I told you before that Wesley is a full time student at Webster U...I told you before and I tell you again...to take them omega 3 supplement as it appears old age has caught up on you. You are just some toothless geriatric that can't remember things...or attract a fly even if your life depended on it. Is it time to check in them nursing home so someone can remind you when to brush your false teeth??? You tell me.
|Dec-21-17|| ||tuttifrutty: <He (Carlsen) seems pretty confident in what he is doing>|
Not when the best thing he can do is defend his classical crown by beating Karjakin on a rapid match...then call him the world champion...an insult to human intelligence.
|Jan-01-18|| ||tuttifrutty: <And I thought that the "trend" that you had been referring to had to do with So and not Nepo, but maybe I was wrong.>|
Yes, you are...I was referring to Wesley...only that I wasn't talking about his rating but his performances against the aforementioned players. Nepo vs Magnus was only for illustration to prove my point. There's got to be a recognizable pattern to arrive to a <trend> conclusion....so yes, you were confused.
< And I also thought that we were talking about trends and not patterns, but maybe I was wrong about that also.>
Although patterns is not a complete prerequisite of trend, I used it as a data to forecast future outcome...ie Wesley learning to beat players whom he never won a classical game against. So again...you were wrong.
I am not in any way changing the subject...and the subject is Wesley...currently finding ways to beat them all. Ratings has nothing to do with it...So again, you've seen ghost.
I wasn't the one who brought out Wes gold medal accomplishments...you did...so naturally, I added the missing gold...not changing the subject at all.
< I still don't think that you either (a) understand the meaning of a "trend" or (b) you do but are incapable of admitting that your initial interpretation was wrong and so you stick your foot deeper in your mouth in an attempt to continue to justify it.>
All I know is that my foot is now deeper in someone's mouth...and it's getting harder and harder to swallow.
<Act according to your intelligence.>
And I have...to reveal the truth and nothing but the truth...
<But it's what you do with your intelligence that counts.>
True, given the right circumstances...I'd rather use other intelligence to minimize and preserve my energy...one aspect of daily life in order to live longer. Less stress...more happy...longer life. So...use it or lose it.
Like some one aptly put it...
Life is fair...
Life is good...
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 22 OF 22 ·
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 2001-2018, Chessgames Services LLC