|Cairns Cup (2019)|
The 2019 Cairns Cup was a 10-player round-robin tournament taking place from 6-15 February in the St. Louis Chess Club, USA. Players received 90 minutes for 40 moves, followed by 30 minutes to the end of the game, with a 30-second increment starting from move one. No draw offers were allowed before move 30. (1) Valentina Gunina won clear first with 7/9.
Official site: https://www.uschesschamps.com/2019-...
(1) Chess24: Cairns Cup https://chess24.com/en/watch/live-t...
Elo 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
1 Gunina 2501 * ˝ ˝ 1 ˝ ˝ 1 1 1 1 7
2 Kosteniuk 2532 ˝ * ˝ ˝ ˝ 1 ˝ 1 1 1 6˝
3 Krush 2435 ˝ ˝ * 1 1 1 1 0 0 ˝ 5˝
4 Dzagnidze 2513 0 ˝ 0 * ˝ ˝ 1 1 1 ˝ 5
5 Harika 2471 ˝ ˝ 0 ˝ * 1 ˝ ˝ ˝ ˝ 4˝
6 Abdumalik 2468 ˝ 0 0 ˝ 0 * 1 1 ˝ 1 4˝
7 Zatonskih 2428 0 ˝ 0 0 ˝ 0 * 1 1 ˝ 3˝
8 Khotenashvili 2491 0 0 1 0 ˝ 0 0 * ˝ 1 3
9 Sebag 2476 0 0 1 0 ˝ ˝ 0 ˝ * ˝ 3
10 Paehtz 2466 0 0 ˝ ˝ ˝ 0 ˝ 0 ˝ * 2˝
| page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 45
|1. E Paehtz vs Kosteniuk
||0-1||36||2019||Cairns Cup||A62 Benoni, Fianchetto Variation|
|2. N Dzagnidze vs I Krush
||0-1||69||2019||Cairns Cup||A37 English, Symmetrical|
|3. V Gunina vs B Khotenashvili
||1-0||48||2019||Cairns Cup||C78 Ruy Lopez|
|4. D Harika vs M Sebag
|| ||½-½||45||2019||Cairns Cup||B51 Sicilian, Canal-Sokolsky (Rossolimo) Attack|
|5. A Zatonskih vs Z Abdumalik
||0-1||36||2019||Cairns Cup||D84 Grunfeld, Grunfeld Gambit Accepted|
|6. B Khotenashvili vs E Paehtz
||1-0||55||2019||Cairns Cup||A00 Uncommon Opening|
|7. D Harika vs N Dzagnidze
|| ||½-½||33||2019||Cairns Cup||D20 Queen's Gambit Accepted|
|8. M Sebag vs Z Abdumalik
||½-½||37||2019||Cairns Cup||C84 Ruy Lopez, Closed|
|9. Kosteniuk vs A Zatonskih
||½-½||41||2019||Cairns Cup||C42 Petrov Defense|
|10. I Krush vs V Gunina
||½-½||68||2019||Cairns Cup||A07 King's Indian Attack|
|11. N Dzagnidze vs M Sebag
||1-0||70||2019||Cairns Cup||B51 Sicilian, Canal-Sokolsky (Rossolimo) Attack|
|12. A Zatonskih vs B Khotenashvili
||1-0||52||2019||Cairns Cup||A56 Benoni Defense|
|13. E Paehtz vs I Krush
|| ||½-½||25||2019||Cairns Cup||B67 Sicilian, Richter-Rauzer Attack, 7...a6 Defense, 8...Bd7|
|14. V Gunina vs D Harika
|| ||½-½||31||2019||Cairns Cup||C42 Petrov Defense|
|15. Z Abdumalik vs Kosteniuk
||0-1||38||2019||Cairns Cup||C78 Ruy Lopez|
|16. M Sebag vs Kosteniuk
||0-1||47||2019||Cairns Cup||C47 Four Knights|
|17. I Krush vs A Zatonskih
||1-0||59||2019||Cairns Cup||D31 Queen's Gambit Declined|
|18. N Dzagnidze vs V Gunina
||0-1||51||2019||Cairns Cup||B11 Caro-Kann, Two Knights, 3...Bg4|
|19. B Khotenashvili vs Z Abdumalik
||0-1||52||2019||Cairns Cup||A45 Queen's Pawn Game|
|20. D Harika vs E Paehtz
|| ||½-½||31||2019||Cairns Cup||E73 King's Indian|
|21. E Paehtz vs N Dzagnidze
|| ||½-½||41||2019||Cairns Cup||B90 Sicilian, Najdorf|
|22. A Zatonskih vs D Harika
|| ||½-½||49||2019||Cairns Cup||D31 Queen's Gambit Declined|
|23. V Gunina vs M Sebag
||1-0||30||2019||Cairns Cup||B90 Sicilian, Najdorf|
|24. Z Abdumalik vs I Krush
||0-1||45||2019||Cairns Cup||B13 Caro-Kann, Exchange|
|25. Kosteniuk vs B Khotenashvili
||1-0||54||2019||Cairns Cup||D94 Grunfeld|
| 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 ·
|Feb-15-19|| ||PhilFeeley: I wouldn't have predicted Paehtz to be last.|
|Feb-15-19|| ||parmetd: I think MVL and Svidler.|
|Feb-16-19|| ||Olavi: <Everett: <Most world champions were brilliant annotators - Alekhine, Euwe, Botvinnik, Karpov, Kasparov, Kramnik and Anand come to my mind - but others rarely made the effort. To BE a chess genius and be able to transform it in a communicative way doesn't seem to be the same.>
Karpov was never considered to be a great annotator.>|
Karpov's first games collection, up to 1977, is an excellent book IMO. Mednis even put it (together with Chess at the Top 1979-1984) above Kasparov's The Test of Time - for the reader who wants to improve his/her own chess. There is more wisdom, even if he wasn't too scrupulous with his variations
|Feb-16-19|| ||morfishine: IMO <Anand> is a very entertaining, funny and self deprecating commentator when going over his own games in post mortem. I wonder how he'd do annotating other's games? I imagine quite well|
|Feb-16-19|| ||HeMateMe: Thanks Rex S for another great tournament!|
|Feb-16-19|| ||Everett: Anand discussed the latest WC match. Think it’s on YouTube|
|Feb-16-19|| ||HeMateMe: what about <Breaking Through> written by the three Polgar sisters. I assume they annotate their own games--is this book worth a look?|
|Feb-16-19|| ||Sokrates: Hi, <HeMateMe>, Just FYI, those who subscribe to NiC got a Christmas present: Charles Hertain "Strike Like Judit! - The Winning Tactics of Chess Legend Judit Polgar". A great 256 pages book with an abundance of highlights by this Wonder Woman of chess. As I mentioned, Judit's column in NiC proves that she's a brilliant annotator and analyst.|
|Feb-16-19|| ||HeMateMe: ah, I'll look for that one, thanks. A shame she's retired from chess. I think like Kasparov, Polgar decided when she had peaked it was time to bow out.|
|Feb-17-19|| ||Sally Simpson: ***
"Who do people think are the really good (written) annotators working today?"
Nigel Short has a popular following over at N.I.C. and now he has stopped writing for them...in his own words:
"A fear that my elevation to FIDE VP would constrain my independence, was the reason given."
Some say they are going to cancel their sub or write a protest to the editor.
|Feb-17-19|| ||Sally Simpson: ***
Following on the theme of the week. I've just been catching up on my Edward Winter.
C.N. 11215 "‘The greatest annotator who ever lived"
It's a shout for Paul Keres.
"‘Keres is profound, analytically sound, most readable and instructive....."
|Feb-17-19|| ||Sokrates: <Sally Simpson> Ouch, bad news. I liked reading Short's witty and eloquent musings in NiC. We know he is always very subjective and biased, but he always fights with his visor open, and his viewpoints are refreshing and to the point.|
I also understand the disposition by the NiC, though. Integrety is paramount, and Short's position HAS changed, even if it would make no difference to his writings.
|Feb-17-19|| ||Sally Simpson: ***
I too think Nigel would have been perfectly able to change hats when writing his piece but the next least bit of controversy would have invited the po-faces to add "..if this is the views of FIDE then it's a poor reflection etc..etc.."
Not that I agree in anyway with NIC but this is possibly their stance. As another tweeter put it, they would rather give us computer analysis of a Carlsen 100 move ending than rock the boat.
Staying with the theme, also from Edward Winter C.N. 11226 and a note from Jan Timman, we are now onto the worst writer:
"Bjelica was known as a gutter journalist who wrote books that were full of printing errors and plagiarisms."
|Feb-17-19|| ||LameJokes: |
Chess engine gives annotation during live games on chessbase. The annotation is so good, it's hard to tell that no human is involved.
Although I don't know which engine is used.
Can we rate annotation of different engines as we do with humans? Well, it's possible.
First let all the engines give their annotations.
This raises possibility, engines could occupy pride of place in the commentary box. Of course, they won't give human analysis. Only computer ones.
|Feb-18-19|| ||Sokrates: <This raises possibility, engines could occupy pride of place in the commentary box. Of course, they won't give human analysis. Only computer ones.>|
And they are as exiting as tables of logarithms! :-)
|Feb-18-19|| ||moronovich: <This raises possibility, engines could occupy pride of place in the commentary box. Of course, they won't give human analysis. Only computer ones.>|
I would prefer the episode from "Send him
on a banana boat" with D.Trump.
|Feb-18-19|| ||ChessHigherCat: I think good commentators like Seirawan are much more helpful than ongoing SF analysis, or at least they're more entertaining, because a computer can never understand what's difficult for humans to grasp or what's "counter-intuitive" or "surprising"and react emotionally . Only a human expert can do that.|
|Feb-18-19|| ||HeMateMe: I like both human and 'bot analysis, and then have the humans dissect and speak on what the bots have determined.|
|Feb-18-19|| ||AylerKupp: <<LameJokes> Chess engine gives annotation during live games on ChessBase. The annotation is so good, it's hard to tell that no human is involved.>|
I don't think that it's the engine (e.g. Fritz 16) making the annotations but the Playchess module available from ChessBase. At least that's what it looked like from this article: https://en.chessbase.com/post/autom....
I looked at earlier ChessBase annotation articles such as the video provided as part of https://en.chessbase.com/post/how-t... and the remainder of that post as well as other earlier articles and I got the impression that in earlier versions the annotations were done by hand by a human. Sure, the computer can help a lot by digging into its database and coming up with previously played games using the same sequence of moves, the won-draw-loss statistics from each position in the game, and an engine's evaluation of the position after each move. From the latter it can also come up with reasonable alternatives variations to the moves actually played.
But the "annotations" are not being done by the engines, they are being done by the Playchess module using, in part, information provided by an engine. So it wouldn't be possible to rate the "annotations" provided by different engines, just by the Playchess module. And, since different engines will provide different position evaluations and even different evaluations each time they evaluate a given position, it would be really hard to determine which "annotation" is best.
But that's just an opinion of how I think it works. If anyone knows better, I would certainly enjoy and appreciate an education on the subject.
|Feb-19-19|| ||LameJokes: <This raises possibility, engines could occupy pride of place in the commentary box. Of course, they won't give human analysis. Only computer ones.>|
Of course, engines wouldn't sit alongside human commentators.
Human commentators tell us, they don't look into engine analysis while commentating. I believe them.
Therefore, we would need separate boxes for either of them.
|Feb-19-19|| ||LameJokes: |
<AylerKupp:> Yeah. It may not be engine. What I meant was some kind of machine be it engine, computer, program or whatever.
Thanks for the links and your inputs. I always read your articles about computers, engines, statistics and everything else with great interest.
|Feb-19-19|| ||BOSTER: <AylerKupp>.If your Q. is:can modern engines, including artificial, annotate? I'd say Yes.|
|Feb-19-19|| ||BOSTER: To understand how computer can annotate we have to answer what do analysis mean, and the possibility computer to explain chess ideas.No doubt that computer can talking about feeling the pos, and what the weather in your city.|
|Feb-20-19|| ||BOSTER: <In TchessPro just click on the moved, when list pops up look at the bottom left on the screen and you will see "Annotatins">.|
|Feb-20-19|| ||BOSTER: Should be "Annotations".|
< 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, is 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, profane, raunchy, or disgusting language.
- No spamming, advertising, duplicate or nonsense posts.
- No malicious personal attacks, including cyber stalking, systematic antagonism, or gratuitous name-calling of any member Iincludinfgall Admin and Owners or any of their family, friends, associates, or business interests. If you think someone is an idiot, then provide evidence that their reasoning is invalid and/or idiotic, instead of just calling them an idiot. It's a subtle but important distinction, even in political discussions.
- Nothing in violation of United States law.
- No malicious posting of or linking to personal, private, and/or negative information (aka "doxing" or "doxxing") about any member, (including all Admin and Owners) or any of their family, friends, associates, or business interests. This includes all media: text, images, video, audio, or otherwise. Such actions will result in severe sanctions for any violators.
- NO TROLLING. Admin and Owners know it when they see it, and sanctions for any trolls will be significant.
- Any off-topic posts which distract from the primary topic of discussion are subject to removal.
- The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by Moderators is expressly prohibited.
- The use of "sock puppet" accounts in an attempt to undermine any side of a debate—or to create a false impression of consensus or support—is prohibited.
- All decisions with respect to deleting posts, and any subsequent discipline, are final, and occur at the sole discretion of the Moderators, Admin, and Owners.
- Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.
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, 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 at the sole discretion of the Admin and Owners—who will strive to act fairly and consistently at all times.
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 2001-2019, Chessgames Services LLC