The 7th edition of Altibox Norway Chess was a 10-player round-robin featuring World Champion Magnus Carlsen and six more of the world's Top 10 players. It took place from 3-15 June in the Clarion Energy Hotel (Rounds 1-6) and Stavanger Concert Hall (Rounds 7-9) in Stavanger. Classical games were worth 2 points for a win, but in case of a draw players got half a point and played an Armageddon game for the remaining point. Players received 2 hours for each classical game, with a 10-second increment only after ... [more]
Player: Viswanathan Anand
| page 1 of 1; 17 games
| page 1 of 1; 17 games
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 24 OF 24 ·
|Jun-16-19|| ||amadeus: <Sokrates: Does anyone know what will be the next high-end tournament? >|
2019 Croatia Grand Chess Tour
DATES: June 26 – July 8, 2019
FORMAT: 12 Player Round Robin
Players: Anand, Aronian, Carlsen, Caruana, Ding Liren, Giri, Karjakin, "Mamaderov", Nakamura, Nepo, Vachier-Lagrave and Wesley So.
|Jun-16-19|| ||AylerKupp: <<Sokrates> Does anyone know what will be the next high-end tournament? >|
A good source for this information is https://2700chess.com/. At the bottom of the page they have a Future Events section where not only do they list what they consider the top upcoming tournaments but they list the major players participating in it.
So it looks like the next major tournament is the Zagreb Grand Chess Tour 2019 from June 24 to July 9, 8 days away. Participants include: Carlsen, Caruana, Ding Liren, Giri, Mamedyarov, Nepomniachtchi, Vachier-Lagrave, Anand, So, Aronian, and Nakamura.
Don't these guys get tired of playing each other?
|Jun-16-19|| ||diceman: <AylerKupp:
Don't these guys get tired of playing each other?>
Not as long as it pays well.
|Jun-16-19|| ||diceman: <parmetd: .... Are you really telling me that a 75% draw rate is a problem? ...>|
Compared to the 91.67% draw rate of the
classical portion of the last two World
Chess Championships, it's a bare knuckle,
|Jun-16-19|| ||diceman: <Count Wedgemore:
Is there a daily 'Most Stupid Comment' award here on <CG>?>
They eliminated it.
(too many tie-breaks)
|Jun-16-19|| ||diceman: <fabelhaft: Carlsen said after the tournament that it was a mediocre performance by him and that he must play better.>|
<csmath: This is still pretty good "mediocre" chess for Magnus.>
Using the numbers in the tournament standings, the Magnus win looks a lot closer:
M Carlsen: 10.5/16 = 65.63%
Yu Yangyi: 9/14 = 64.29%
|Jun-16-19|| ||john barleycorn: <diceman: ...
M Carlsen: 10.5/16 = 65.63% ...>
Less than 80% is a desaster. Let's see how he does in Croatia and if it happens again he should retire. immediatey and unconditionally.
|Jun-16-19|| ||Sokrates: Many thanks, <amadeus>!|
Also my apprecitation to <AylerKupp>. I use the 2700chess site occasionaly, but forgot that it's also a source for future events, so thanks for reminding me.
And yes, the elite has become an inbreeding race, an ensemble touring around the world pushing rating placements only among themselves.
|Jun-16-19|| ||AylerKupp: <<Sokrates> And yes, the elite has become an inbreeding race, an ensemble touring around the world pushing rating placements only among themselves.>|
Actually, in that respect (other than the ratings part), top-level chess is not that much different than top-level games in most other sports. In the various leagues the top-level teams typically play round robins against each other, with a few "outsiders" from other divisions, year after year. So unless you prefer (and some on this site do) to have 2 or 3 top-level players in one tournament and the remainder of the field composed of much lower-rated players, you will have all the top-level players constantly playing against one another.
There are pluses and minuses to each approach. If you only have 2 or 3 top-level players in a tournament then the tournament winner will likely be one of those, and the tournament winner probably decided by which one of those players does best against the lower-rated players. On the other hand, these lower-rated players will gain valuable experience playing against top-level players, an experience that they would not likely get otherwise, and probably improve their game more quickly.
On the other hand, if the tournament is composed mostly of top-level players, the winner is not a foregone conclusion since any of the relatively lower players will be close in playing strength to the top-level players and, if they happen to be in good form, could take first place.
And, of course, upsets are always possible in either approach.
The top-level approach reminds me of a Capablanca story which I've repeated many times and I last posted here: Cochrane vs A Deschapelles, 1821 (kibitz #74).
|Jun-16-19|| ||soldal: |
<Using the numbers in the tournament standings, the Magnus win looks a lot closer:
M Carlsen: 10.5/16 = 65.63%
Yu Yangyi: 9/14 = 64.29%>
Using the correct cross-table at the top:
Carlsen 13.5/18 = 75%
Yu 10.5/18 = 58.3%
|Jun-16-19|| ||BOSTER: There is a big difference between Grand Chess tour, where is fighting only for money, and Grand Prix tour, where is fighting to play in Candidates, really for WC title. Ding Liren declined the invitation to play in Grand Prix tour, so he can take place in Candidates only by rating.|
|Jun-16-19|| ||Sokrates: Hi, <AylerKupp> I think it doesn't have to be "either-or" but rather "both-and", when it comes to the mix of first and second tier players.|
It is nice, once or twice a year, to have a tournament with the absolute elite - get a sense of the current placement between them. But there are many advantages - as you mention - of having mixed tournaments, where new talents can get their weapons whetted and we shall see, whether the elite actually still is the elite. Moreover the dynamics of different strengths often spark more daring, interesting games - we have seen that.
So, I am all in for a diversity of tournament formats and mix of players. Nothing is more trivial than conforming repetition.
Well, that's it from me for a while. Tomorrow morning it's off to the beautiful city of Wien/Vienna and its neighbor Graz. Auf wiedersehen!
|Jun-16-19|| ||moronovich: <Well, that's it from me for a while. Tomorrow morning it's off to the beautiful city of Wien/Vienna and its neighbor Graz. Auf wiedersehen!>|
På gensyn-auf wiedersehen-au revoir-viel
|Jun-17-19|| ||AylerKupp: <<soldal> Using the correct cross-table at the top: Carlsen 13.5/18 = 75%, Yu 10.5/18 = 58.3%>|
Yes. <chessgames.com> seems to have a some trouble keeping the Tournament Standings up to date and accurate while the tournament is going on and even some time after it completes. It's clear that with 9 rounds to be played and a maximum score of 2 points per round, the maximum number points is 18. So don't put too much faith on it.
The crosstable shown above matches the final standings from the official site, https://norwaychess.no/en/results-a... and so it's likely to be correct. As an aside, it shows Aronian taking 2nd place over Yu Yangyi due to his higher Sonnenborn-Berger score, 48.0 vs. 45.5.
But a great performance by Yu Yangi regardless to finish in 3rd place due to the tiebreakers given that he was the lowest rated player in the tournament.
|Jun-17-19|| ||soldal: |
Well, the first thing to realise is that the box called "Tournament Standings" at the top of the page does not necessarily reflect the real standings, and is not really meant to do so. cg.com is a database of chessgames, and the table is an automated result of the games put into it, with 1 and 0 points or 2x1/2 points for each game, irrespective of the tournament point system. In many open tournaments players can get a half-point, and even a whole point, in a round without actually playing a game. These points will not show up in the table (which regularly results in heated discussions about the hopeless admins failing to give us the correct standings).
And yet, although I know this very well, during this tournamant I've each day cast a quick glance at the table and wondered why it always was lagging behind the actual situation. So I was happy to correct <diceman>'s 10.5/16 = 65.63%
Then I turned off the computer and went to bed. Almost immediately I was hit with the explanation of the discrepancy. All games, classical and armageddon, are treated the same way of course, with traditional points! In my head I checked with Carlsen's results: 2 wins and 7 draws in classical, that's 5.5 points, and 6 wins and one loss in armageddon, that's 6 points, for a total of 11.5 points in 16 games. 11.5/16 = 71% and some, not 65%. At least I was right in implying that the table was wrong.
Waking up this morning, another fact dropped down in my head: in armageddon a black draw is a win. So, Carlsen must have had two black draws among his six wins, which would explain his
10.5 points. I haven't cared to check this out, I'm sure the table is technically correct (even if Carlsen offered a draw in a completely won game and there undoubtedly are other similar results).
|Jun-17-19|| ||lostemperor: Winners of Norway chess final standings prediction contest at my forum: <alfamikewhiskey>♔♕♕ <Keyser Soze>♔♕♖, <Penguincw>♔, <chessmoron>♖♖, <lostemperor>♖|
Next tournament Grand Chess Tour June 26 https://grandchesstour.org/2019-gra...
|Jun-17-19|| ||chancho: No one is perfect.
Flaws are commonplace and that applies to Magnus Carlsen as well.
But winning seven consecutive tournaments in different chess disciplines is still quite the feat.
No other player in the top ten has accomplished that.
|Jun-17-19|| ||fabelhaft: Top six at the moment are all 28 years or younger.|
|Jun-17-19|| ||AylerKupp: <<soldal> Well, the first thing to realise is that the box called "Tournament Standings" at the top of the page does not necessarily reflect the real standings, and is not really meant to do so.>|
I fail to follow your logic. If the box called "Tournament Standings" at the top of the page is not meant to reflect the "Tournament Standings", why is it labeled so? What else is it supposed to represent? Maybe the title should be changed to something like "Tentative Tournament Standings" or something similar. Then at least the title would be accurate. And once the standings accurately reflect the final standings, then the "Tentative" could be removed.
The fact that the standings were not accurately updated is understandable. This was a scoring system unlike, I believe, any scoring system used before. And, as with any automated system, errors are typically initially made when it is implemented. But the tournament has been over for several days and the proper scores and standings were shown in the crosstable. So the <chessgames.com> staff who updates the Tournament Standings have had time to update the Tournament Standings manually if desired.
And, yes, Carlsen had two draws while playing Black in the Armageddon games. This can be indirectly verified by looking at the official site at https://norwaychess.no/en/results-a... or directly by looking at the results of round-by-round for both regular ("R") and Armageddon ("A") games. The <chess24.com> site usually does a good job of accurately updating the game results as soon as each game is completed.
I think that the real reason that the Tournament Standings are incorrect is that they are calculated on the basis of the tournament games uploaded. And, if all the tournament games are not uploaded, then the Tournament Standings will always be incorrect. That would also explain the lag between the actual tournament results and the Tournament Standings since it depends on the staff, many of which are users, to upload them in a timely manner. And that's understandable also. But only <chessgames.com> can verify that.
|Jun-17-19|| ||Sally Simpson: ***
I think you made a good attempt at trying to post what was happening and what finally happened. (even the main site had it wrong.)
You are indeed correct, this is a games Data Base and the results tables are a guide. Best to scrap them and have a Carlsen thumbs up- thumbs down table.
The more thumbs down Carlsen gets then you know he has won whatever it was he was playing in.
For some unknown reason people don't seem to like him. What is there not to like? or to be more precise what is there to dislike? And that goes for the rest of them. They have got good at a game we love.
Jealousy? I'm jealous of their chess skill but I'm glad I'm me. I'm good at being me. I'm the best me here.
|Jun-17-19|| ||jphamlore: Carlsen has lost all confidence he can actually finish off Caruana in a classical time controlled game. His new style is not going to work against Caruana, because Carlsen has lost the patience to endlessly grind however long it takes.|
I am now leaning towards Caruana being the new champion by the end of the next world championship match, not exactly the outcome I am rooting for.
|Jun-17-19|| ||LameJokes: |
The main purpose of cg is to let kibitzers kibitz. More off-topic the better.
There are other sites that post tournament results. Why repeat the same thing here?
Keeping accurate database is a tedious process. LcZero and Stockfish play 100 games between them. Without getting tired. Since they are machines.
Does that mean Admin has to update all those 100 games? No. It's damn tiresome for humans.
|Jun-17-19|| ||AylerKupp: <<jphamlore> Carlsen has lost all confidence he can actually finish off Caruana in a classical time controlled game. His new style is not going to work against Caruana, because Carlsen has lost the patience to endlessly grind however long it takes>|
I think that you are getting ahead of yourself. Caruana first has to win the 2020 Candidates Tournament and that's not a certainty. And why do you think that Carlsen has lost all confidence he can actually finish off Caruana in a classical time controlled game?
Besides, even if this was true, what difference would that make? If the classical time control portion of the WCC match were to end in a tie, do you think that Carlsen has also lost confidence in beating Caruana in the Rapid and, if it came to that, the Blitz tiebreak sections of the WCC match?
Which, of course, doesn't mean that Caruana can't beat Carlsen in the classical time control portion of the WCC match. But his chances were better in 2018 when Carlsen was not playing as well as he's playing at the moment (although, also of course, that doesn't mean that he will be playing as well in the fall of 2020) and Caruana was playing at near his all-time best. Which also doesn't mean that Caruana will not be at his all time best in the fall of 2020. Nobody knows, it's just too early to make predictions.
|Jun-17-19|| ||perfidious: The world should simply accept that <hamhock> is a 3200 player manque whose erudition outstrips that of any player, living or dead.|
|Jun-18-19|| ||JustAnotherMaster: < chancho: No one is perfect.
Flaws are commonplace and that applies to Magnus Carlsen as well. But winning seven consecutive tournaments in different chess disciplines is still quite the feat. No other player in the top ten has accomplished that.>|
And he played the most interesting and determined chess even when he had nothing to play for in the final round, yet haters gonna hate...g'day chancho
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 24 OF 24 ·
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