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

Norway Chess (2018) The 6th Altibox Norway Chess took place May 27 through June 8, 2018 in Clarion Hotel Energy (Rounds 1-6) and Stavanger Concert Hall (Rounds 7-9) in Stavanger, Norway. The 10 player all-star field was: Aronian, Anand, Carlsen, Mamedyarov, Maxime Vachier-Lagrave, Nakamura, Karjakin, Caruana, Wesley So and Ding Liren, making this among the strongest tournaments of all time. Tournament category: XXII (2791). The pairings were decided by the 9-game Norway Chess (Blitz) (2018) on May 27, won by Wesley So. Chief arbiter: Anemone Kulczak. Bicycle disaster for Ding: Ding Liren injured himself in a bicycle accident after three rounds, and was forced to withdraw. Time control: 100 minutes for 40 moves + 50 minutes for 20 moves, + 15 minutes for the rest of the game with an increment of 30 seconds per move, starting from move 61. Draws: 'Sofia rules' applied. No talking between the players, no draw offers. (Cf. article 9.1 of FIDE rules.) Games could be drawn by stalemate, threefold repetition, the 50-move rule and insufficient material. Other draws were only allowed with the consent of the arbiter. 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. Fabiano Caruana won the event with 5/8 after defeating Wesley So in the final round. 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 - games cancelled Official site: https://norwaychess.no/en/players-2... Regulations: https://norwaychess.no/regulations-... Chess.com: https://www.chess.com/news/view/car... ChessBase: https://en.chessbase.com/post/norwa... chess24: https://chess24.com/en/watch/live-t... TWIC: https://theweekinchess.com/chessnew... FIDE: https://ratings.fide.com/tournament... Wikipedia article: Norway Chess#2018 Previous: Norway Chess (2017). Next: Norway Chess (2019). Opening Blitz tournament: Norway Chess (Blitz) (2018)  page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 39  Game   Result Moves Year Event/Locale Opening 1. Mamedyarov vs Vachier-Lagrave ½-½ 25 2018 Norway Chess D94 Grunfeld 2. Anand vs Aronian ½-½ 31 2018 Norway Chess C65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense 3. Nakamura vs Ding Liren ½-½ 37 2018 Norway Chess A18 English, Mikenas-Carls 4. So vs Karjakin ½-½ 58 2018 Norway Chess D02 Queen's Pawn Game 5. Carlsen vs Caruana 1-0 77 2018 Norway Chess C24 Bishop's Opening 6. Karjakin vs Carlsen ½-½ 41 2018 Norway Chess C78 Ruy Lopez 7. Caruana vs Mamedyarov ½-½ 26 2018 Norway Chess C42 Petrov Defense 8. Nakamura vs Anand ½-½ 39 2018 Norway Chess D37 Queen's Gambit Declined 9. Ding Liren vs Vachier-Lagrave   ½-½ 43 2018 Norway Chess E60 King's Indian Defense 10. Aronian vs So ½-½ 43 2018 Norway Chess E06 Catalan, Closed, 5.Nf3 11. Carlsen vs Aronian 1-0 31 2018 Norway Chess C67 Ruy Lopez 12. So vs Nakamura ½-½ 47 2018 Norway Chess D56 Queen's Gambit Declined 13. Anand vs Ding Liren ½-½ 35 2018 Norway Chess C78 Ruy Lopez 14. Mamedyarov vs Karjakin ½-½ 28 2018 Norway Chess C53 Giuoco Piano 15. Vachier-Lagrave vs Caruana ½-½ 40 2018 Norway Chess C42 Petrov Defense 16. Nakamura vs Carlsen ½-½ 33 2018 Norway Chess D55 Queen's Gambit Declined 17. Karjakin vs Vachier-Lagrave 1-0 38 2018 Norway Chess D86 Grunfeld, Exchange 18. Anand vs So ½-½ 35 2018 Norway Chess A29 English, Four Knights, Kingside Fianchetto 19. Aronian vs Mamedyarov 1-0 70 2018 Norway Chess D87 Grunfeld, Exchange 20. Carlsen vs Anand ½-½ 45 2018 Norway Chess A33 English, Symmetrical 21. Caruana vs Karjakin 1-0 41 2018 Norway Chess A28 English 22. Mamedyarov vs Nakamura ½-½ 24 2018 Norway Chess E32 Nimzo-Indian, Classical 23. Vachier-Lagrave vs Aronian ½-½ 25 2018 Norway Chess E20 Nimzo-Indian 24. So vs Carlsen 1-0 44 2018 Norway Chess D10 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav 25. Aronian vs Caruana   ½-½ 28 2018 Norway Chess D39 Queen's Gambit Declined, Ragozin, Vienna Variation  page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 39    REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2)   < Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 32 OF 32 ·  Later Kibitzing> Jun-15-18    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    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    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    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    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    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    Sally Simpson: Hi J.B. Yeah...OK. Jun-16-18    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    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    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    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    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    WorstPlayerEver: AylerKupp: trollfeeder no1.... ignored. Jun-20-18    ChemMac: <Nowadays the majority of analysts 'or regurgitators' flicks a switch to look for a bogey.> Who cares whether an annotator has seen a good move on his/her own or had it shown by a computer? What one wants to read is the reasoning behind the moves, and I have yet to see a computer capable of this. "Intelligence" can have various meanings, and strategic thinking is different from calculating ability. Strategic principles can be programed in, of course, but no computer yet can have a feel for a position like a strong master player. For me, a truly great game isn't necessarily one with the most spectacular combination, but one in which there are seemingly incomprehensible moves that suddenly become clear. One satisfying game I had was one in which my GM opponent said afterwards after resigning. "I wondered what on earth you were doing at one point - and I found out!" Such moments do not come often. Jun-21-18    perfidious: <ChemMac...Who cares whether an annotator has seen a good move on his/her own or had it shown by a computer? What one wants to read is the reasoning behind the moves, and I have yet to see a computer capable of this....> This is what I view as irksome behind the strings of analysis which end in the laconic (-0.13) or (+0.97) as a reasonably competent player; as <Sally Simpson> once said to <AJ> (paraphrasing): <...You're a good player: shut the damn thing off!> <...Strategic principles can be programed in, of course, but no computer yet can have a feel for a position like a strong master player...> Doubt we will live to see this come off. (laughs) Hall Of Fame poker player TJ Cloutier once wrote of the difference between the very greatest players and merely competent professionals being that indefinable feel of which <ChemMac> writes. Jun-21-18    WorstPlayerEver: <...Strategic principles can be programed in, of course, but no computer yet can have a feel for a position like a strong master player...> A bold statement which cannot be proven true; because so called 'master players' simply refuse to play against engines. That said, so called 'master players' have made more silly statements about engines than vice versa :P Jun-21-18    Kapmigs: Since Kramnik is an honest man and knows what it takes to be a world champion, if he does not predict or see you as a world champion that means you will not become a world champion Jun-21-18    Dionysius1: That's a worry <Kapmigs> - your profile suggests you are dead. Who's using your account then? Is that something we should bother the cg.com administrators about? Jun-21-18    Kapmigs: Only the unremembered are truly dead-- “The living owe it to those who no longer can speak to tell their story for them.” ― Czesław Miłosz, The Issa Valley Jun-21-18    tpstar: <Only the unremembered are truly dead> Good thing your place in chess history is secure. Go User: kapmigz Jun-21-18    Kapmigs: Thanks. I wish you well, that you will always be remembered. Jun-22-18    ChemMac: <A bold statement which cannot be proven true; because so called 'master players' simply refuse to play against engines. That said, so called 'master players' have made more silly statements about engines than vice versa :P> Many quite genuine 2400-plus players I know do play against computers all the time for private practice; just not for public exhibition. I trust that my post did not qualify for the second sentence! That said, I'm wondering if playing games under tournament time limits against say Stockfish is really the best preparation for playing against usual human opposition. Against Carlsen, or Caruana. perhaps. Jun-22-18    WorstPlayerEver: <ChemMac> I'm just a patzer, but I think it does not make much difference. However, you already named it, humans are far more unpredictable. So I guess it all comes down to technique. Sep-03-19    perfidious: <ChemMac....In general, dogmatic assertions are more frequent from posters on Chessgames than from practising top GM's!> I'll sign that. Feb-06-23    generror: I know I'm living beyond the moon (in fact, I'm usually in my little UFO, chilling at the Saturn-Tethys Lagrange point L5, near Calypso; it's really nice and peaceful out here), so this is the first time I read about the "Sofia rules", and about talking being forbidden for players. I really have no words whatsoever how stupid and toxic I find this. I can just hear the marketing guys: "But draws don't make a marketable product!" As if that mattered. I'm just glad that chess is such a nerdy thing, with so little money to be made (at least relative to other sports) that everybody trying to turn it into a mainstream-consumable thing will fail. I'm also glad that the amount of draws here seems more or less normal. If I had to play under those rules, I would play ONLY for draws and make pantomimes the whole game through. And you know what, if you want less draws, you just should stop trying to organize only super-GM tournaments. Just like in the olden times, when tournament organizers were actually more interested in chess instead of money and status: get a top guy, a few GMs and IMs and bingo. "But we have to maximize the FIDE event category to make a good product!" Yeah, well, you know what, then just stop marketing chess and instead market something which has already been marketed to death, like soccer. Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 32) search thread:    < Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 32 OF 32 ·  Later Kibitzing> NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion. Please observe our posting guidelines: No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language. No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts. No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members. Nothing in violation of United States law. No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members. No trolling. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited. Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers. Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times. See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator. NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific tournament only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café. Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors. All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration. Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes! Home | About | Login | Logout | F.A.Q. | 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 2001-2025, Chessgames Services LLC