|Altibox Norway (Blitz) (2018)|
This 9 round blitz event was a warm-up to Altibox Norway (2018) and also determined the pairings. The time control was 3 minutes per side plus 2 seconds increment per move. Wesley So won the event with 6/9:
Giving the Round 1 pairings Carlsen vs Caruana, Mamedyarov vs Vachier-Lagrave, Nakamura vs Ding, So vs Karjakin, and Anand vs Aronian.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 SonBe
1 So * ½ ½ 0 1 ½ 1 1 ½ 1 6
2 Nakamura ½ * ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 1 ½ 5½ 23
3 Anand ½ ½ * ½ ½ 1 0 ½ 1 1 5½ 22.75
4 Carlsen 1 ½ ½ * ½ ½ 1 ½ 0 ½ 5
5 Mamedyarov 0 ½ ½ ½ * 1 1 0 0 1 4½ 20
6 Vachier-Lagrave ½ ½ 0 ½ 0 * 1 ½ 1 ½ 4½ 19
7 Caruana 0 ½ 1 0 0 0 * 1 1 1 4½ 17.75
8 Karjakin 0 0 ½ ½ 1 ½ 0 * 1 0 3½
9 Aronian ½ 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 * ½ 3 14
10 Ding Liren 0 ½ 0 ½ 0 ½ 0 1 ½ * 3 12.5
https://www.chess.com/news/view/wes.... Live games: https://chess24.com/en/watch/live-t...
| page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 45
|1. W So vs M Vachier-Lagrave
|| ||½-½||62||2018||Altibox Norway (Blitz)||E60 King's Indian Defense|
|2. Karjakin vs M Vachier-Lagrave
|| ||½-½||29||2018||Altibox Norway (Blitz)||A01 Nimzovich-Larsen Attack|
|3. Nakamura vs Ding Liren
|| ||½-½||54||2018||Altibox Norway (Blitz)||A06 Reti Opening|
|4. Carlsen vs Caruana
||1-0||53||2018||Altibox Norway (Blitz)||E47 Nimzo-Indian, 4.e3 O-O 5.Bd3|
|5. Ding Liren vs Aronian
|| ||½-½||62||2018||Altibox Norway (Blitz)||E48 Nimzo-Indian, 4.e3 O-O 5.Bd3 d5|
|6. Caruana vs Mamedyarov
|| ||0-1||44||2018||Altibox Norway (Blitz)||B07 Pirc|
|7. M Vachier-Lagrave vs Nakamura
|| ||½-½||39||2018||Altibox Norway (Blitz)||C65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense|
|8. W So vs Karjakin
|| ||1-0||37||2018||Altibox Norway (Blitz)||C65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense|
|9. Anand vs Carlsen
|| ||½-½||29||2018||Altibox Norway (Blitz)||C65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense|
|10. Karjakin vs Mamedyarov
|| ||1-0||31||2018||Altibox Norway (Blitz)||A49 King's Indian, Fianchetto without c4|
|11. Aronian vs Anand
||0-1||42||2018||Altibox Norway (Blitz)||C50 Giuoco Piano|
|12. Mamedyarov vs W So
||0-1||39||2018||Altibox Norway (Blitz)||A45 Queen's Pawn Game|
|13. Aronian vs Caruana
|| ||0-1||46||2018||Altibox Norway (Blitz)||B40 Sicilian|
|14. Mamedyarov vs Ding Liren
|| ||1-0||25||2018||Altibox Norway (Blitz)||A45 Queen's Pawn Game|
|15. Karjakin vs Anand
|| ||½-½||24||2018||Altibox Norway (Blitz)||A01 Nimzovich-Larsen Attack|
|16. Nakamura vs Carlsen
|| ||½-½||38||2018||Altibox Norway (Blitz)||B09 Pirc, Austrian Attack|
|17. Anand vs Nakamura
|| ||½-½||39||2018||Altibox Norway (Blitz)||C65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense|
|18. Caruana vs W So
|| ||0-1||55||2018||Altibox Norway (Blitz)||A37 English, Symmetrical|
|19. Ding Liren vs Karjakin
||1-0||33||2018||Altibox Norway (Blitz)||A07 King's Indian Attack|
|20. M Vachier-Lagrave vs Mamedyarov
|| ||0-1||38||2018||Altibox Norway (Blitz)||B12 Caro-Kann Defense|
|21. Carlsen vs Aronian
||0-1||52||2018||Altibox Norway (Blitz)||C65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense|
|22. Anand vs Caruana
||0-1||29||2018||Altibox Norway (Blitz)||C50 Giuoco Piano|
|23. Nakamura vs W So
|| ||½-½||42||2018||Altibox Norway (Blitz)||A06 Reti Opening|
|24. Aronian vs M Vachier-Lagrave
||0-1||45||2018||Altibox Norway (Blitz)||B50 Sicilian|
|25. M Vachier-Lagrave vs Ding Liren
||½-½||62||2018||Altibox Norway (Blitz)||E48 Nimzo-Indian, 4.e3 O-O 5.Bd3 d5|
| 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 5 OF 5 ·
|Jun-18-18|| ||AylerKupp: <<Absentee> Have you considered the possibility that he might be doing this on purpose, especially since he's just found someone who will entertain him at length?>|
Of course I did. He’s been spewing his <So>-based fanaticism for a long time. And have you considered the possibility that he’s entertaining <me> with his nonsensical postings, just like <tuttifrutty> does, so I have also found someone else who will entertain me at length? I enjoy showing how much of a buffoon he is for anyone who might be unconvinced.
Don't get me wrong. It's a good thing to have favorite player(s) and praise them when they win and commensurate and support them when they don't. But these are all top players and regardless of how good you are, there will be some times when you just don't win, particularly when these rationalizations are presented as "truths". There is no need to try to make silly rationalizations about their lack of victories; they just weren't good enough on that particular day or days to come out on top. It just demeans the player that they supposedly support but they apparently don't realize that.
|Jun-18-18|| ||AylerKupp: <<perfidious> <glenn> in his various guises across the years has proven himself a malignant twat, not worth spitting on.>|
I disagree. All malignant twats are certainly worth spitting on if, regardless of the number of years that others ignore him, they continue to post their drivel and cheapen this site as a result. If everyone who considers it drivel decides to spit on them, they may pause to reconsider. Ignoring them certainly hasn’t worked. So, if you’re annoyed by their drivel, perhaps it’s time for a different approach other than perhaps putting them on your ignore list.
|Jun-18-18|| ||AylerKupp: <<Marmot PFL> and if their favorite player ever reaches #1 in the ratings they will be the first to boast about it.>|
And they would have a good reason to do so. Reaching #1 in any field is a remarkable achievement indicating top-notch talent and a lot of hard work. I would be the first to join them in congratulating their favorite player on his achievement, and to wish that player continued success.
|Jun-18-18|| ||AylerKupp: <<chessalem> Wesley So Stats @ chess.com>|
Very impressive statistics, I guess. I have always wanted to be a good player at 3 Check, King of the Hill, Crazyhouse, and Bughouse, but that has always eluded me. Too bad that these are not FIDE-recognized achievements.
But please congratulate So for me anyway for these achievements. I would do it myself but I am unable to do so because I have been banned from posting on his player page because sometimes I disagree with the opinions of some of those who post there. And this is somehow interpreted by those who have the ear of the So player page's webmaster as having an "Anti-So" attitude.
But doesn't it bother you that a post about chess.com's statistics is some-what off-topic for this page? It's definitely on-topic for the So player page; why don't you post his achievements @ chess.com there?
|Jun-18-18|| ||john barleycorn: <AylerKupp: ...
Don't get me wrong. It's a good thing to have favorite player(s) and praise them when they win and commensurate and support them when they don't. ...>
Yes, chess started somewhere around when Wesley So became 10 years old. Before that there was no chess tournament.
nobody of the "hardcore WS fans" has put 1 ("one" in writing) centavo where their mouth is. Maybe they need the money to pay their doctor for the knee injuries during praying hard.
|Jun-18-18|| ||AylerKupp: <<chessalem> why do you need to disturb it? In so doing, you woke me up again.>|
Oh, I'm sorry that I did that. It's hard to tell the difference from the things that you post when you are awake from the things that you post when you're awake. But at least you have some excuse for the things that you post when you're sleep.
<repetition can not be avoided because it appears it would not sink in to light up the doldrums of your brain as I hope it would.>
I don't see why you thought that repeating the same drivel over and over again would make what you post any less "drivelly" (if that's indeed a word).
<That is correct. The elo rating system can only be effective in measuring and comparing performance of players if they have played the same opponents over the same number of games. This is not the case at bar...It includes more games played by Magnus compared to Wesley...plus most of the games were against different opponents. Here lies the flaw in the system.>
Once again you demonstrate your ignorance of how the Elo rating system works. It has nothing to do with playing the exact same opponents over the same number of games, as long as it is sufficiently large number of games for the results to be statistically valid. It does not require whether the two players play the same opponents or not but only that their <opponents> play a sufficient number of games against the same players. That's why you can'tuse the Elo system to compare the playing strengths of different eras; not only didn't the players play each other or the same opponents but their opponents didn't play any games against each other, or at least not enough to make the results statically valid
<<Wesley has risen on top once again proven by his conquest of the field in the Leuven, Belgium tourney. There is no need for an elo system to validate this fact.>
If now you have changed your argument to claim that So was the best player in the Leuwen tournament I would be the first to agree with you. But to claim that he is the best player in the world because he won the Leuwen tournament by ½ point just shows how difficult it is for you to justify your claim.
<The winner in the single tournament is the best among the participants. Wesley has a long list of tourneys (i.e. classical, rapid and blitz) where he towered over the field including Magnus.>
True, he was the best player in those tournaments. And there is a long list of tournaments when he did not tower over the field. And he certainly was not the best player in the field in those tournaments. How does that differ from what I've been saying?
<the elo system can only serve its purpose of developing a reliable hierarchy of players if it database includes the same no. of games played by all the players against the same opponents. This is far from happening in the near future ...until then, this system placing Magnus on top is disputable...>
<It labels Magnus as the best in the world- how can this be when not all players are given the same opportunities to play the same number of games against each other? If not a myth, this is obviously a work of fiction.>
I again highly recommend that you read a translation into your native language (so that you have less difficulty understanding it) on Dr. Elo's book "The Rating of Chessplayers – Past and Present" or at least some of the on-line articles about the Elo system,. Your statements above again shows your ignorance of how the Elo rating system, as well as all the other modern rating systems, work. Of course, any results that contradict your opinions you will consider a work of fiction, particularly if you don't understand how the results are arrived at.
Why don't you consider doing so?
|Jun-18-18|| ||AylerKupp: <<chessalem> Tournaments where both played ... blah..blah..blah..the list goes on and on...>|
Well, if the list goes on and on then you should list the entire list, not just selected tournaments in order to try to "prove" a point. And the best player in the world is not the one that happens to have a good record against a particular opponent, but an overall better record against <ALL> opponents. Any one player can come in ahead of another player in a few tournaments, that's how closely these top players are matched. And all that proves is that in a given tournament one particular player was better than the others. And that same player could, and often does, come in the second half of the next tournament they play against many of the same opponents.
Even the WCC match (what FIDE calls the FWCM) only proves that the winner was the better player during that match. That's why when the player that was expected to win does not win it's called an upset. Does anyone seriously think that Karjakin was of equal playing strength in classic time control games because their 12-game match during the last WCC cycle ended in a 6 – 6 score after 12 games?
The only way to summarize how well the players do against all opponents is to consider their ratings which take into account <ALL> their games against <ALL> opponents. And we all know what that says.
|Jun-18-18|| ||john barleycorn: <AylerKupp: <<chessalem> Tournaments where both played ... blah..blah..blah..the list goes on and on...>|
Well, if the list goes on and on then you should list the entire list, not just selected tournaments in order to try to "prove" a point. ...>
And the point is <chessalem> has to go back in time - something he declared useless/unmeaningful for others. But then if <chessalem> is a prophet of the "messiah" he should give us a hint on future tournament results and declare to compensate us on all bets on Wesley So that did not materialize.
|Jun-18-18|| ||AylerKupp: <<john barleycorn> nobody of the "hardcore WS fans" has put 1 ("one" in writing) centavo where their mouth is. >|
I learned a long time ago not to attempt to use facts and logic to try to convince someone who has a different opinion based on faith as to the error of their ways. It's like trying to convince someone of the soundness of your opinion when you're both speaking different languages and can't understand one another.
The only reason I bother responding to <chessalem> and others that have similar opinions that are based on faith and wishful thinking instead of facts and logic is that there may be some readers of their posts that consider that they might have a point. But, of course, their "logic" is always very easy to unravel since the arguments are always selective, and sometimes they are even manufactured by them.
Besides, as I told <Absentee> above, it amuses me to do this. And perhaps it's time to treat these posters differently since ignoring them doesn't seem to work. Maybe it's better to show the errors in their thinking <provided> that you use facts to support your position and, if your position is based on your opinion, provide a basis for it. And, sometimes if you have different opinions, you just have to agree to disagree.
And, above all, always observe <chessgames.com> posting guidelines and, specifically, do not resort to personal attacks even though you might be tempted to do so. It only discredits your arguments and doesn't prove anything anyway.
|Jun-18-18|| ||tpstar: <closed his account due to a hacking incident>|
<chessalem> What do you know about that incident?
You know I mean.
|Jun-18-18|| ||chessalem: <hacking incident>|
an iranian accused wesley of posting unsavory remarks against their beliefs ...wesley denied it was him...his account was hacked at the time he was leading the Leuven tourney in an apparent effort to derail him.
Their strategy did not work as Wesley <alpha> So won the Grand Chess Tour first leg....He will soon augment a second leg to enable him to walk the path to Mt. Calvary for the realization of his prophecy.
|Jun-18-18|| ||john barleycorn: < chessalem: <hacking incident>|
an iranian accused wesley of posting unsavory remarks against their beliefs ...wesley denied it was him...his account was hacked at the time he was leading the Leuven tourney in an apparent effort to derail him. ...>
According to your "messiah" he stays away from social media and CG during tournaments. Any effort to "derail" him would be misplaced at Leuven tournament, wouldn't it?
|Jun-18-18|| ||chessalem: not misplaced at all...the accusation carries with it grave consequences:https://www.google.com.ph/search?q=...|
|Jun-18-18|| ||tpstar: <chessalem> You have been following Wesley's career for a long long time, and you know he doesn't talk like that. Who here would hate him so much to do this?|
Do you think it was a former close associate who later turned on him, or a Norwegian repeat offender who gained access to his old account?
|Jun-19-18|| ||chessalem: it was an iranian who claimed wesley accused a 14 year old GM from iran of cheating after Wesley lost to him in a blitz encounter at chess.com...|
the iranian was irked by the alleged accusation of Wesley against his countryman...I reckon he is behind the posts to put Wesley in a dire strait as a way of getting back at him.
|Jun-19-18|| ||chessalem: <Do you think it was a former close associate who later turned on him> this rests in the realm of possibility...|
|Jun-19-18|| ||epistle: And do you think it is the husband who killed the wife and not any unnamed intruder? Certainly within the realm of possibility.|
|Jun-19-18|| ||tpstar: <chessalem> Thank you for your help in solving this interesting mystery, as we must protect Wesley against repeat offenders of all nationalities.|
At the moment, Supremo is the only one who believes Wesley really did this - right in the middle of a tournament - while everyone else knows it couldn't have been him. We will have to see how deeply <Mohammad> himself was involved, as I wouldn't want <fat ugly philipino> or <fake egoistic American> anywhere on my record. Fortunately this tempest did not affect his play the next day, and perhaps even more fortunately, an entire group of onlookers is realizing that social media skirmishes have real life consequences, particularly involving name players.
One puzzling factor about this case is how the writing itself does not match any known cyberstalker here, so I am leaning toward <Francis> or <Bradah> as the most likely to create such childish content, but then who had access to his Chess.com account? Three theories:
1) A former BW Hardcore member who fancied himself as his manager and his handler, who drove him around RP and lobbied to become the Biographer of his page, who made a big deal about rewarding him with a computer. But maybe he retained secret access to that computer and his accounts, which he used later to sabotage his career.
2) During the practice sessions with Magnus Carlsen, a wealthy Norwegian patron let Wesley stay with them in their igloo, then the Norwegian host ranted and raved about "stupid americans" and "stupid american tournaments" and how Jon Ludvig Hammer should take modeling lessons so he could become a top model like Magnus Carlsen, and at some point Wesley used that computer for practice games, so they retained access to his account years later.
3) A British floorlayer career criminal chav potato repeat offender drug addict drama queen YouTube star <one of the good guys> sausage chaser was so giddy about the success of his new Web site, treating everyone fairly and equally except for Nigel Short, that he used his contacts in the criminal underworld to hack his handle and maybe get some straight sausage out of the deal.
|Jun-19-18|| ||Appaz: Dr. Nutcase is at it again. The slightest sign of controversies and he dives right in, with the usual vague accusations and conspiracy theories - and of course repeated childish threats of how the bad guys will be exposed one day.|
|Jun-19-18|| ||tpstar: <Appaz> 1) Did you really have to harass Wesley So on the Wesley So page right before the Candidate's Tournament?|
2) Why did Jon Ludvig Hammer leave this site again?
<The slightest sign of controversies> Someone hacked the Wesley So account during a tournament. This is serious.
|Jun-19-18|| ||AylerKupp: <tpstar> I don't know what the post said because it has been deleted but his wouldn't be the first time that someone claiming to be Wesley So posted offensive remarks that were completely out of character for So to make. Therefore I for one don't believe that it was So who posted the offensive remarks.|
I would clarify one thing that you said; hacking into anyone's account, whether it's done during a tournament or when there is not tournament in progress, is a serious matter, and it should be dealt with appropriately.
|Jun-19-18|| ||chessalem: hmmmm...these scenarios and plots could make for a blockbuster film or best selling novel. I'd like to see or buy one.|
I would go for my iranian model hypothesis...in any case, the perpetrator may have been an accomplished hacker or hired someone to crack wesley's password...using tested tactics:
hacking has evolved into a science...watch these videos to see what i mean.https://www.youtube.com/results?sea...
<we must protect Wesley against repeat offenders of all nationalities.> then again, Wesley should hire someone to help him in this area:
Personally, I suggest he makes up an extremely difficult password to hack...some tips: https://www.mkyong.com/computer-tip...
|Jun-19-18|| ||chessalem: < I don't know what the post said because it has been deleted >|
it's in the link I pasted. Just as I thought, you are not as resourceful as you make us believe.
can you prove me wrong instead? I doubt it. Your inability to do so will reflect of your posts and put them in question and scrutiny...whereas validating mine as more accurate and true.
|Jun-19-18|| ||Appaz: Get a life <tipsy> and start acting like a grownup. You are just very, very pathetic.|
|Jun-19-18|| ||Appaz: You know <tipsy>, your behavior in here is not normal for a grownup. Maybe you should visit a professional? It probably has a name. Or several names.|
Maybe you could get rid of this infantile, uncontrollable urge to create, stir up and feed of conflicts among strangers on the internet.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply.
Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous,
and 100% free--plus, it
entitles you to features otherwise unavailable.
Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should
Please observe our posting guidelines:
- No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
- No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
- No personal attacks against other members.
- Nothing in violation of United States law.
- No posting personal information of members.
See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.
NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page.
This forum is for this specific tournament and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or
this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.|
your profile |
Premium Membership |
Kibitzer's Café |
Biographer's Bistro |
new kibitzing |
Tournament Index |
Player Directory |
Notable Games |
World Chess Championships |
Opening Explorer |
Guess the Move |
Game Collections |
ChessBookie Game |
Chessgames Challenge |
privacy notice |
Copyright 2001-2018, Chessgames Services LLC