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

🏆
TOURNAMENT STANDINGS
Altibox Norway Tournament

Fabiano Caruana5/8(+3 -1 =4)[games]
Magnus Carlsen4.5/8(+2 -1 =5)[games]
Hikaru Nakamura4.5/8(+1 -0 =7)[games]
Viswanathan Anand4.5/8(+2 -1 =5)[games]
Wesley So4/8(+1 -1 =6)[games]
Levon Aronian4/8(+1 -1 =6)[games]
Shakhriyar Mamedyarov3.5/8(+0 -1 =7)[games]
Maxime Vachier-Lagrave3/8(+0 -2 =6)[games]
Sergey Karjakin3/8(+1 -3 =4)[games]
Ding Liren1.5/3(+0 -0 =3)[games]
*

Chessgames.com Chess Event Description
Altibox Norway (2018)

The 5th Altibox Norway Chess took place May 27 through June 8, 2018. The 10 player all-star field was: Aronian, Anand, Carlsen, Mamedyarov, Maxime Vachier-Lagrave, Caruana, Karjakin, Nakamura, Wesley So and Ding Liren, making this among the strongest tournaments of all time. (1) The pairings were decided by a 9 game blitz event on May 27, won by Wesley So. (2)

Bicycle disaster for Ding: Ding Liren injured himself in a bicycle accident after three rounds, and was forced to withdraw.

Time control: 100 min. for 40 moves + 50 min. for 20 moves, + 15 min. for the rest of the game with an increment of 30 seconds per move, starting from move 61. (3)

Draws: The "Sofia rules" applied. No talking between the players, no offers of draw. (Ref. article 9.1 of the FIDE rules.) Games can be drawn by stalemate, threefold repetition, the fifty-move rule and insufficient material. Other draws are only allowed with the consent of the arbiter. (3) In spite of this policy, 9 of the first 10 games were drawn.

Tiebreak methods: 1: Sonneborn-Berger points. 2: Most wins. 3: Most wins with the black pieces. 4: Drawing of lots. (3)

Official site: http://norwaychess.no/en/. Crosstable:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 Caruana * 0 ½ 1 1 ½ ½ ½ 1 5 2 Carlsen 1 * ½ ½ 0 1 ½ ½ ½ 4½ 3 Nakamura ½ ½ * ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 4½ 4 Anand 0 ½ ½ * ½ ½ ½ 1 1 4½ 5 So 0 1 ½ ½ * ½ ½ ½ ½ 4 6 Aronian ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ * 1 ½ ½ 4 7 Mamedyarov ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 * ½ ½ 3½ 8 Vachier-Lagrave ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ * 0 3 9 Karjakin 0 ½ 0 0 ½ ½ ½ 1 * 3 Ding Liren - - ½ ½ - - - ½ - 1½ (games cancelled)

Fabiano Caruana won the event with 5/8 after defeating Wesley So in the final round.

Previous edition: Altibox Norway (2017)

(1) Official site: http://norwaychess.no/en/
(2) Altibox Norway (Blitz) (2018)
(3) Regulations and prize-fund: http://norwaychess.no/en/regulation...

 page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 39  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves YearEvent/LocaleOpening
1. Carlsen vs Caruana 1-0772018Altibox NorwayC24 Bishop's Opening
2. Mamedyarov vs M Vachier-Lagrave ½-½252018Altibox NorwayD94 Grunfeld
3. Anand vs Aronian ½-½312018Altibox NorwayC65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense
4. Nakamura vs Ding Liren ½-½372018Altibox NorwayA18 English, Mikenas-Carls
5. W So vs Karjakin ½-½582018Altibox NorwayD02 Queen's Pawn Game
6. Aronian vs W So ½-½432018Altibox NorwayE06 Catalan, Closed, 5.Nf3
7. Ding Liren vs M Vachier-Lagrave  ½-½432018Altibox NorwayE60 King's Indian Defense
8. Nakamura vs Anand ½-½392018Altibox NorwayD37 Queen's Gambit Declined
9. Caruana vs Mamedyarov ½-½262018Altibox NorwayC42 Petrov Defense
10. Karjakin vs Carlsen ½-½412018Altibox NorwayC78 Ruy Lopez
11. W So vs Nakamura ½-½472018Altibox NorwayD56 Queen's Gambit Declined
12. Anand vs Ding Liren ½-½352018Altibox NorwayC78 Ruy Lopez
13. Mamedyarov vs Karjakin ½-½282018Altibox NorwayC53 Giuoco Piano
14. M Vachier-Lagrave vs Caruana ½-½402018Altibox NorwayC42 Petrov Defense
15. Carlsen vs Aronian 1-0312018Altibox NorwayC67 Ruy Lopez
16. Nakamura vs Carlsen ½-½332018Altibox NorwayD55 Queen's Gambit Declined
17. Karjakin vs M Vachier-Lagrave 1-0382018Altibox NorwayD86 Grunfeld, Exchange
18. Anand vs W So ½-½352018Altibox NorwayA29 English, Four Knights, Kingside Fianchetto
19. Aronian vs Mamedyarov 1-0702018Altibox NorwayD87 Grunfeld, Exchange
20. Caruana vs Karjakin 1-0412018Altibox NorwayA28 English
21. M Vachier-Lagrave vs Aronian ½-½252018Altibox NorwayE20 Nimzo-Indian
22. Mamedyarov vs Nakamura ½-½242018Altibox NorwayE32 Nimzo-Indian, Classical
23. Carlsen vs Anand ½-½452018Altibox NorwayA33 English, Symmetrical
24. W So vs Carlsen 1-0442018Altibox NorwayD10 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav
25. Aronian vs Caruana  ½-½282018Altibox NorwayD39 Queen's Gambit Declined, Ragozin, Vienna Variation
 page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 39  PGN Download
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2)  


TIP: You can make the above ads go away by registering a free account!

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 32 OF 32 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Jun-14-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sokrates: <ChessHigherCat> LOL. There is grotesque bonding for you. If you follow the press it seems as if the safety of the world depends on these two beings. Laugh or cry or both at the same time?

At this very moment two of Mr Trump's friends & allies, Russia and Saudi Arabia, meet in a soccer ball match for the world championship. The enemies (= former allies in Western Europe) will play later. The world goes on as usual, albeit now with strange hairstyles.

Jun-14-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  ChessHigherCat: Too bad there's not a general political/historical forum where we could discuss these things without being assaulted by demons.
Jun-14-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sokrates: <ChessHigherCat: Too bad ...> Agreed!
Jun-14-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  tpstar: <What I can see is a player posting far too soon after losing a won/drawn game of chess. Wes So is a great player but he really should count to 10 and maybe wait a week or two before posting.>

<Sally Simpson> Wesley So has said many times that he appreciates his fan support here:

"I know you have stuck by me through thick and thin and helped me along with prayers and good messages. All of that has helped me through my difficulties. I do not believe for a moment that I did this on my own. I am evelastingly grateful to all of you who believe in my potentil to achieve my dreams and also to my God who is so patient with my failings."

Wesley So (kibitz #205550)

During the pro-Wesley/anti-Wesley split of May 2015, there was a specific comment about chess professionals being paid to entertain fans, which is best left over there. Dot Dot Dot.

Go Wesley.

Jun-14-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  john barleycorn: <Sally Simpson: ...

Let us stay with chess. We are playing each other.

First case. We agree before to have a quick draw. That is a pre-arranged deal.

Second case. Before the game we have not met or arranged anything however during the game I see a few surprise results have gone my way. I say to you. 'Let me win and I'll give you half my winnings." I am offering you a deal there and then on the spur of the moment. Nothing pre-arranged about that deal.

A pre-arranged game. Stop messing about, you know perfectly well what that is. ...>

<Second case. Before the game we have not met or arranged anything however during the game I see a few surprise results have gone my way. 'Let me win and I'll give you half my winnings." I am offering you a deal there and then on the spur of the moment. Nothing pre-arranged about that deal.>

Do you see "prearranged" as a way to have the deal done before the opening move? Or before the "end of the game"?

Be clear about what is what. If after let's say 10 moves in our game and seeing the other boards we discover a draw is fine (we both need to see that!)what is your proposal? If we find out that you need a win and you offer me financial compensation before the game ends and I agree what is it? it is "prearranged" meaning the result was clear before the game ended.

Jun-14-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<Sally Simpson> Now days the analyst flicks a switch to look for a bogey. Fair enough, but they will always have to flick to switch and wonder why they are never getting any better.>

I agree. But I would hardly call someone who “flicks a switch to look for a bogey” an “analyst”. A <regurgitator> is more like it. And if that’s all that they do, it’s hardly surprising that they never get any better.

However, if after “flicking the switch” you analyze the moves that the computer made and try to figure out why they made those moves, come up with alternate moves of your own, analyze those alternatives, preferably with multiple engines (since each engine has different evaluations of the same position), you might begin to understand the game a little bit better. And if you do this often enough, you will likely get better. Subject to the limitations of your natural talent for the game, of course.

At least that has been the case with me. I used to max out at the Tuesday daily puzzles, Wednesday puzzles were pretty much beyond me. But after using engines in the manner I describe above I now get about 50% of the Thursday puzzles. Hopefully I will get better still.

Analyzing games with the help of computers is like most other activities in life. What you get out of them is directly proportional to the effort you put into them.

Jun-15-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: Hi Tpstar,

Don't think it is any secret that I am a Wes So Fan, maybe not as vocal but very noticable.

His distractors (thankfully very few) leap on any mistake he makes when he posts, and once or twice he has posted directly at them when ignoring them was the best policy.

Here I recall a post where he names people (using their real names..not niks) saying they celebrate his losses, 'their only joy is tearing me down' and hopes they get better jobs.

Those kinds of posts gave them ammo for months.

His understandable fingers slip when stating his final placings at Tata Steel, Wes finished 5th but was among the 3rd group of prize winners is still, tediously, being targeted and that was 6 months ago.

The occasional thank you is gratefully received, adding anything else has to read and re-read before posting, just as he does before making a move. Me and you Tpstar can get away with any mistake we make. One slip from Wes and the forum lights up.

Jun-15-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: Hi J.B.

"Be clear about what is what."

I do not think it can be clearer and by going over it again I feel as if I am stepping into some kind of verbal trap like taking a QNP with my Queen.

If we agree before a game begins to draw or let either of us win, then that is a prearranged agreement.

If during the game I suddenly say, 'Let me win and I'll give you half my winnings' that is a deal I am offering you there and then. It was not prearranged before the game.

Jun-15-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  WorstPlayerEver: <Sally Simpson>

We are not discussing a 'slip' though; Wesley deliberately stated it so. I assume it's their sense of humor.

Jun-15-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: Hi W.P.E.

Yes there is humour there, but like the Giri draws (that was two years ago) it's getting a bit thin. But I doubt if it will ever cease. (until another and that is what I was worried about.)

Jun-15-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: Hi AylerKupp:,

If you feel solving problems/puzzles and alike with computers is helping then I cannot argue with you. You know you best.

Also I have never analysed any position with multiple engines (what is the point ) but if it floats your boat then so be it. (Are you not looking to see which computer is better rather than bettering yourself?)

You should analyse first and then, after how long it takes, if you want to and feel you must, check it with a computer.

Really you should not have too but it can sometimes be fun busting other tries and yes occasionally a computer will come up with a wonderful hidden mate that you missed by being correct.

E.G. you find the mate in 3 and stop looking, you then discover the computer has found a sac-sac-sac mate in 5. (here writers sometimes add it in as their own analysis, but some are honest enough to say a box found it. A modern day Alekhine would change the game so the wonder mate in 5 actually happened.)

But because it is you and I like you I shall rephrase.

"Now days the analyst flicks a switch to look for a bogey...."

to:

"Now days the majority of analysts 'or regurgitators' flicks a switch to look for a bogey."

Jun-15-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  epistle: There is no end to the humour of silly things said in all seriousness.
Jun-15-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<Sally Simpson> Hi AylerKupp> (part 1 of 2)

Since you are probably not familiar with chess engines as I am, let me explain why I feel the way I do about certain things.

1. Analyzing with multiple engines; i.e. <what is the point>. The fact is that all engines are different. They have different evaluation functions and these functions consider different aspects of a position and give them different levels of importance (weights). So different engines give different evaluations for the same moves and rank the moves that they analyze differently, sometimes radically so. Furthermore, multi-core engines are non-deterministic; if you analyze the same position, on the same computer, with the same engines, and to the same depth, you will get different results. This has been observed by many and I have run controlled tests to demonstrate that is so. There have been several explanations posted but I have not been able to fully check them out by looking at the code that is in the public domain of engines such as Stockfish.

There is also the issue of evaluation bias. Most of us want to use the strongest and best engines when we are doing analysis, but those engines are selected on the basis of how well they play against other engines. When an engine is calculating which moves are best it does a pair-wise comparison between the evaluation of two positions and selects the move that leads to the position with the higher evaluation as the better move.

But this is a <relative> evaluation. If you were to add a fixed number to both evaluations, multiply both evaluations by a fixed number, or do both, the relationship between the two moves will be the same; the same move will be considered better than the other because it will lead to a position with a higher evaluation.

But when we’re analyzing a position to determine the best move we’re not only interested in what is the best move to play but we are interested in knowing how well we are doing relative to our opponent. Whether the evaluation is [+0.01] (equal), [+0.10] (equal), [+1.00] (we have a significant advantage), or [+10.00] (we have a winning advantage) is highly important to us. That is, we are equally (and perhaps more so) interested in the accuracy of the <absolute> evaluation as in the <relative> evaluation. But you can’t count on engines to give you a truly accurate <absolute> evaluation, even though Houdini’s developers say that they have calibrated their evaluations to represent the side to play’s winning probability. But they did that under blitz time controls and I’m now sure how accurate (or relevant) those results are when doing multi-hour analyses.

Now we have a conundrum. There have been several attempts in the past to determine how well humans, primarily world champions, play by comparing the moves they made to the moves that an engine evaluates at best in a given position. But they invariably use only one engine and run only one analysis on that position. And, if different nearly equally strong engine generate different evaluations and suggest different best moves in the same position, and if the same engine gives you different results if you run it several times consecutively under the same circumstances, how do you know whether the human was right or the engine was right?

Hence my attempt to determine a better approximation to the most accurate evaluation of a position by aggregating the evaluations of multiple engines and running the analyses using only 1 thread per engine to eliminate the non-determinism. It’s more (I think) than just floating my boat. And I hope that you understand my reasons for doing so even though you might not agree with them.

Jun-15-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<Sally Simpson> Hi AylerKupp> (part 2 of 2)

2. <Are you not looking to see which computer is better rather than bettering yourself?>

I’m trying to do both. But if I’m going to check the accuracy of my analysis against the accuracy of the analysis by a chess engine (which is a stronger player/analyst) than I am, shouldn’t I want to be as sure as possible that the engine(s) analysis is correct?

When I was a freshman in college and I was taking my first calculus course we had a session once a week during which a teaching assistant would help us learn how to solve the homework assignment problems. About half the time after he showed us the “answer” one of the students would invariable say “But the answer you showed is different than the answer shown in the back of the book.” To which he invariably would reply “The book is wrong.”

Needless to say, we couldn’t attach much credibility to the answers he gave us or the methods used to derive them.

3. <You should analyze first and then, after how long it takes, if you want to and feel you must, check it with a computer>

Perhaps, And sure, that’s an approach, and perhaps a better one. But the sad reality is that I’m not a good player/analyst (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Vr...), although I see signs that I’m getting better. So whatever analysis I come up with is realistically most likely to be wrong (as other posters keep reminding me) so, whether as a result of lack of confidence in my abilities or a realistic assessment of them, I <always> check my analysis against a computer. So it’s a question of whether you should try to find the answer yourself first and then have a teacher correct you or whether it’s more expedient for the teacher to teach you the subject and then help you understand it. Sometimes it’s better to use one approach and sometimes it’s better to use the other approach.

3. <but it can sometimes be fun busting other tries>

It’s <always>, at least to me, more fun busting other tries by those (human nor machine) who are better at it than yourself. “ :-) And, from a practical perspective, I don’t see much difference between a mate in 5 and a mate in 3, although (also from a practical perspective) the more moves that you have to play in order to force a mate the greater the chances of making a mistake. So I suppose that the shortest mate is the “better” one, although the results are the same.

4. <Now days the majority of analysts 'or regurgitators' flicks a switch to look for a bogey.>

Naaaah, don’t bother with the rephrasing. Most who hear this for the first time probably won’t appreciate the difference between the two, get confused, and that will dilute the message. As long as you and I know what I meant and that you somewhat agree with it, that’s good enough for me.

Jun-15-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<epistle> There is no end to the humour of silly things said in all seriousness.>

Yes, I agree. But unfortunately it’s also sad. After all, “a mind is a terrible thing to waste.”

Jun-15-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  john barleycorn: <Sally Simpson: ...
If during the game I suddenly say, 'Let me win and I'll give you half my winnings' that is a deal I am offering you there and then. It was not prearranged before the game.>

You are not getting my point. "prearranged" means getting the result arranged before the end of the game. At what time before the end does not matter. And then the players talking to each other during the game my not be allowed. But they have many other ways "to communicate".

Jun-16-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: Hi J. B.

When we are both dragged before the FIDE court my lawyer will say:

The players do not know each other and have never met before so there was no prearranged deal before the game began.

During the game John asked my client to let him win.

My client, shocked at such a request immediately resigned.

No prearranged deal.

Talking to opponents during a game is not allowed but it happens. Not so much at the higher levels but down on the lower boards....

My opponent in this league game G Chandler vs R Ratcliff, 1983 was a loveable renowned chatterer. Before playing Bd4 after I had 0-0 he said something like: "I cannot see what I am walking into but as it's you it will be good." My 0-0 was a daft blunder.

Jun-16-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  john barleycorn: <Sally Simpson: ...

During the game John asked my client to let him win.

My client, shocked at such a request immediately resigned.

No prearranged deal. ...>

A prearranged big lie then. Never sit at the board without your lawyer or have the action taped... hahaha.

And again let me emphasize a "prearranged deal" is an almost useless doubling of words. Deals and conditions of the deal are always prearranged before closing the deal. We are talking prearranged results.

Jun-16-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: Hi J.B.

Yeah...OK.

Jun-16-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  john barleycorn: Did not Anderssen and Szen (?, I am not sure whether it was Szen) have a prearranged deal in 1851? To share the money for first prize under certain conditions (which failed, afaik)?

A prearranged deal may not necessarily show the expected results. A prearranged result always does.

Jun-16-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: Hi AylerKupp,

My question regarding 'what's the point?' was why use two machines to see if you have solved a problem/study correctly If one agrees with your solution.

"But when we’re analyzing a position to determine the best move we’re not only interested in what is the best move to play but we are interested in knowing how well we are doing relative to our opponent. "

During a game I think most players are looking for what they consider the best move to play in that position. You should know if things are going well or not.

"But the sad reality is that I’m not a good player/analyst..."

You are probably OK, better than what you think you are. Perhaps your confidence has been undermined by the depth these modern computers go and because your solution does not match up exactly with them.

When I do solving session and I have to check an answer or two, if my chosen path still wins then I'm happy enough. If I have gone completely on the wrong path or missed a trick I'm pretty upset with myself.

(Well I use to be...these days I just shrug and blame old age but in my youth I would get upset...no computers then of course.)

Jun-16-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  john barleycorn: <Sally Simpson:...

During a game I think most players are looking for what they consider the best move to play in that position. You should know if things are going well or not. ...>

<You should know if things are going well or not.> More "Amens" here than in a Billy Graham crusade.

<You should know if things are going well or not.> Unfortunately and to my experience that is the hardest part in chess.

Jun-18-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<Sally Simpson> My question regarding 'what's the point?' was why use two machines to see if you have solved a problem/study correctly If one agrees with your solution.>

Well, the obvious answer is that just because <one> machine agrees with my solution doesn't mean that we are both right, particularly if the other 2 machines disagree with us and neither I nor the first machine can refute what the other machines indicate. Just as when you are facing possible surgery, you should always get a second (and third) opinion.

<During a game I think most players are looking for what they consider the best move to play in that position. You should know if things are going well or not.>

True, but playing the acknowledged best move may not be enough. Whether you get an assistance from a chess engine or not you need to assess whether the position is considered equal or not in order to determine whether you should press your presumed advantage or not, as you are likely to lose if you press an attack when it is not justified.

You should also consider whether your position is lost to see whether out of courtesy to your opponent you should resign or not. Playing the best move in that situation may delay the inevitable but that's all. Of course, nobody ever won a game by resigning but when playing against a team of strong players at correspondence-like time controls like the most recent Team White vs Team Black, 2017 you need to assume that your opponent will not make an out and out blunder that would turn a certain win for them into a loss.

You have probably been fortunate to have missed my 3-chess engine analysis posts but I typically post the results of each engine's evaluations (and calculate a ratings-weighted average of them for good measure) and a ranking of the moves by each engine without regard for their evaluation, and I also average their rankings. The first summary indicates how well I and my opponent are doing and the second summary indicates what the 3 engines consider to be the best moves. Sometimes the first summary is more useful and sometimes the second summary is more useful, particularly when you consider the true rankings of the moves since, say, a [0.01] difference in the evaluations is meaningless in determining which one is the best move in a given position.

<Perhaps your confidence has been undermined by the depth these modern computers go and because your solution does not match up exactly with them.>

I don't think so, but I may be wrong. I know that these engines will beat any player in the world today in a match so having them come up with different and better moves is hardly unexpected, and I don't get upset with myself in any way. I view it as a learning opportunity if I can determine why their moves are better than mine, and I get tremendous satisfaction if I find alternative moves that, usually because of the horizon effect, are better than the moves that the chess engine recommends. And to show how the horizon effect can affect position evaluations, here's an example: Stockfish (Computer).

<(Well I use to be...these days I just shrug and blame old age but in my youth I would get upset...no computers then of course.)>

Yeah, I do the same thing; blame old age. And in my younger days I would also blame myself if I lost or drew a game in which I achieved a winning position. So we do have at least two other things in common. :-)

Jun-18-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  john barleycorn: < AylerKupp: ... So we do have at least two other things in common. :-)>

Add talking endlessly about "half-cooked"
issues and you have a third thing in common .

Jun-18-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  WorstPlayerEver: AylerKupp: trollfeeder no1.... ignored.
Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 32)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 32 OF 32 ·  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 | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | contact us
Copyright 2001-2018, Chessgames Services LLC