Members · Prefs · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing User Profile Chessforum
Member since Oct-26-08 · Last seen Sep-21-14
Welcome to my forum. My forum is a place for open discussion of all issues, and is free from all forms of censorship. I only ask that you keep the discussion civil and refrain from personal attacks on other users. (Oh, and no trolls.)


Career supertournament wins by player
Updated 30 April, 2014

Kasparov: 40
Karpov: ?
Kramnik: 23
Topalov: 21
Anand: 21
Carlsen: 21
Ivanchuk: 15
Gelfand: 11
Aronian: 10
Karjakin: 4
Caruana: 4
Grischuk: 1
Nakamura: 1

My definition of supertournament is quite broad: any closed international event with at least two players who have been in the top 10 in the last year constitutes a supertournament. Neither matches nor rapid/blitz events count as supertournaments, regardless of who is playing.

If there is a tie for first, it will be counted for all players involved unless the tournament used tiebreaks, in which case only the player they declared winner gets to count it. Please see posts below for details on the events considered but not counted for this list.

Also, for what it's worth, in case of a tie, the first player to reach X supertournament wins will remain listed higher.

>> Click here to see Kinghunt's game collections. Full Member
   Current net-worth: 4,521 chessbucks
[what is this?]

   Kinghunt has kibitzed 4051 times to chessgames   [more...]
   Sep-12-14 Magnus Carlsen (replies)
Kinghunt: I would say a contradiction in terms is simultaneously claiming that Caruana is a stronger player than Carlsen <right now> but that Carlsen would be the favorite in a hypothetical match/tournament held immediately.
   Sep-10-14 Sinquefield Cup (2014) (replies)
Kinghunt: <In order to popularize the game, draw has to be removed. There is a need to popularize the game because of survival. Popularity puts food on the table.> The simplest way to do that (at least mostly) would be to make stalemate the same as checkmate (after all, there are no ...
   Sep-09-14 Viswanathan Anand (replies)
Kinghunt: <Reisswolf: Anand has hired Caruana as a second. His other seconds are Peter Svidler and S. S. Ganguly.> Source?
   Sep-05-14 Caruana vs Carlsen, 2014 (replies)
Kinghunt: Just to expand on my previous comment, Stockfish scores 20. Nf3 at +1.61 at d=33, with the following main line: 20. Nf3 Bxg4 21. Ng5 Bxe2 22. Qxe2 Bh6 23. Ne6! fxe6 24. Bxh6 Rf7 25. Qg2 [DIAGRAM] So it seems Caruana did likely miss a win here. But it's tremendously complicated and ...
   Sep-05-14 Fabiano Caruana (replies)
Kinghunt: Nevermind, answered my own question. For anyone interested, Caruana is working with Vladimir Chuchelov.
   Sep-03-14 Carlsen vs Nakamura, 2014 (replies)
Kinghunt: My biggest question about this game isn't how Nakamura could go so badly wrong so early on, but why did he insist on dragging it out so long? After move 28, black is just down two pawns without any compensation. That would have been a great time to resign. After move 35, black is ...
   Sep-03-14 M Vachier-Lagrave vs Caruana, 2014 (replies)
Kinghunt: While I am not typically one to criticize the play of GMs, MVL's 14. Qa4 and the plan associated with it was simply <absurd>. It does nothing over there, at least not without several more tempi to get a minority attack going, and danger is imminent on the kingside. The white ...
   Sep-02-14 Caruana vs Carlsen, 2014 (replies)
Kinghunt: <Everett: BTW Fischer never played a game like this in his life, playing inferior and insipid positions only to get out of theory.....> Fischer did not have to contend with computers. Fischer was the strongest player in his era, so his opening prep was also the strongest. The
   Sep-02-14 The World vs Naiditsch, 2014 (replies)
   Sep-01-14 Stockfish Nakamura Match (2014) (replies)
Kinghunt: I think the more interesting metric wouldn't be what odds can the computer give and still win the match, but rather what odds can the computer give and not <lose> the match. Yes, Nakamura could have drawn these games if that was his goal, but playing for a draw just goes ...
(replies) indicates a reply to the comment.

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 29 OF 29 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Premium Chessgames Member
  KKDEREK: Merry Christmas!!
Premium Chessgames Member
  juan31: Kinghunt: sorry for write in your forum, will you tell where you read about the schedule of the games in Zurich? Thank you in advance
Premium Chessgames Member
  Kinghunt: <juan31> Hi Juan, sorry for the delay, I actually don't check my own page often. I got my information from the official site:
Premium Chessgames Member
  juan31: Thank you for the information
Premium Chessgames Member
  Kinghunt: <My proposed world championship format>

There are <six> Candidates, selected as follows:

1. World #1 by rating
2. World #2 by rating
3. World #3 by rating
4. World Cup Interzonal Winner
5. World Cup Interzonal Runner-up
6. Organizer nominee

FIDE picks its rating qualifiers by average rating. I would pick them as the players who maintain the highest live rating over any 20 game period. Only games played against foreign GMs count towards the 20 games. This would incentivize playing more games and risk taking, as only their best 20 game period is considered.

I would change the World Cup from its current KO format. Keep it at 128 players, picked in the same manner, but make it a 14 round Swiss. This would allow it to be quicker, eliminate the need for rapid/blitz tiebreaks, and reward aggressive play, rather than aiming to drawing to force tiebreaks. If there is a tie at the end, head-to-head is the first tiebreak, followed by average opponent rating.

The organizer nominee must have been ranked in the top 10 at some point since the last Candidates, either officially or by live rating.


The Candidates themselves are a 6 player QRR (20 rounds total). It may be divided between two cities, or otherwise have a long break introduced in the middle to reduce fatigue.

In case of a tie, the default tiebreak is a classical six game match for no additional prize money. One player receives two extra whites, and the other receives draw odds. If both players want the same side, they have a standard tiebreaker rapid/blitz playoff, and the winner picks what side of the match they play on. Upon request from <both> players, this entire match may be replaced with a typical rapid tiebreak.


The match itself is best of 18 games. The challenger gets 10 whites, and the champion only 8. In exchange, the defending champion receives draw odds.


This system has minimal events to organize, is open to everyone, and should do a great job picking the best challenger. It could be easily implemented on a biannual basis, with the Candidates and title match occupying the same calendar slot in alternating years.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Kinghunt: List of Candidates Winners and world rankings, 1950-1990

1951 - Bronstein - World #1
1954 - Smyslov - World #1
1957 - Smyslov - World #1
1960 - Tal - World #1
1963 - Petrosian - World #1
1966 - Spassky - World #1
1969 - Spassky - World #3
1972 - Fischer - World #1
1975 - Karpov - World #1
1978 - Korchnoi - World #2
1981 - Korchnoi - World #2
1984 - Kasparov - World #1
1987 - Karpov - World #2
1990 - Karpov - World #2

All winners were the highest rated players in the world (besides the defending champion), except for 1969, when Spassky was behind Fischer (who didn't compete) and Korchnoi (who Spassky defeated in the Candidates Final).

This suggests that the old Candidates format can be replaced with a much, much shorter one where players are picked by rating. I will post one such concrete suggestion soon.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Kinghunt: From Gelfand vs Aronian, 2013:

<An interesting idea is to look for a surprise down the line. But how do you define a “surprise”? One possibility is to be able to find a good move that the opponent, human or machine, does not see. And one way to do this is to be able search to a deeper depth than the opponent, but I don’t see how this is any different than seeing farther over the horizon than the opponent.>

I have given some thought to this, as it may be the best way to tune engines to play well against humans. (Not that they need any help, but they may get better results by not jumping at so many incredibly hard to find threats.)

I think a "surprise" may be considered as a move that causes a drastic evaluation shift above a certain depth. Suppose an engine searches to d=24, and has two moves that it evaluates roughly the same. Normally it just picks whichever one is a centipawn higher. But I think it can do better than that. It should play the move that scores <worse> at lower depths (say, d=18).

The idea is simple - if the evaluation has risen with depth, it means the engine refuted several defensive tries - defensive tries that seemed very plausible even at d=18. Anything engine approved at d=18 is likely to tempt a GM, or at least make them spend time thinking about it.

Let's make this a little more concrete. Suppose we have the following position, black to move:

click for larger view

Let's say the two candidates are 17...d5 and 17...O-O. At d=18, we get the following lines and scores:

17...d5 18. g6 hxg6 +1.25
17...O-O 18. g6 d5 19. +1.77

Then say the engine runs to d=24, and gives the following:

17...d5 18. g6 hxg6 +1.13
17...O-O 18. Rdg1 Rfc8 +1.15

I would argue that the engine should choose the second line. Why? Because the opponent is going to be tempted by 18. g6, as was the engine at d=18. However, at d=24, it found that after 17...O-O 18. g6, it has the resource 18...Bf6!, which drops the eval to +0.78.

That is how an engine can detect "surprise" and use it to "trick" its opponents. It risks very little, as at full depth, the moves evaluate similarly anyway.

It is, of course, a matter of parameter tuning to determine when two moves evaluate "close enough" to employ this strategy without undue risk, as well as the lower search depth being compared with, and some kind of function to integrate the two.

I would appreciate any and all feedback on this idea. I may cobble together my own version of Stockfish with the move selection changed in such a manner to be deliberately difficult for humans to play against.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Patriot: <Kinghunt> Here's a copy of my response.

<That's an interesting idea. So if it happens to be losing it goes with a move that is actually better for its opponent while giving them a tempting way to screw up, since their limited search depth only allowed them to see how "great" 18.g6 is. Very clever!

That's sort of the way strong human players play. When they are losing they may go with a crazy move that is worse but gives them the best chance to get back in the game. After all, they are only going from "lost" to "dead lost" if it doesn't work.>

Premium Chessgames Member
  Kinghunt: I don't think such a strategy has to be limited to when losing, though. I could imagine the same system giving very good results whatever the evaluation.

For example, consider this position:

click for larger view

White to move

Let's say the two candidate moves are 18.Ra5 and 18. Bh6. At d=24, we get the following lines and scores:

18. Ra5 O-O-O 19. Rxa7 +1.05
18. Bh6 Na4 19. Qh4 +1.08

However, at d=18, we have these:

18. Ra5 Qb3 19. Nxe4 +0.72
18. Bh6 Na4 19. Qh4 +1.03

Clearly, something changed dramatically in calculation of the 18. Ra5 line. Indeed, if you take the start of the 18 ply line to 24 ply, it finds the resource 19. Rfa1, which brings the evaluation to +1.7. Thus, 18. Ra5 is considered the trickier move and should be favored.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Kinghunt: (Lines and evals above are illustrative only. Some have been altered for sake of example.)
Premium Chessgames Member
  Patriot: <Kinghunt> <I don't think such a strategy has to be limited to when losing, though.> Very true! I guess if I was the programmer one of my big concerns would be that the more "heuristic" logic interjected into the main calculation function, the slower it would be and would have a more limited horizon.

It may have something that goes "IF d>=18 THEN Trick_Eval() END" so the more complex logic is bypassed until it reaches that depth. But even such a simple statement could have a dramatic effect since it will be executed billions of times.

It's not to say it won't work--that's just a concern that I would have to test. Nonetheless I think your idea is brilliant!! It's definitely something worth looking into.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Kinghunt: Yes, this may also require MV analysis, which would also slow down the search. I guess it's a question of which would have a larger benefit: the slight increase in accuracy from getting in one extra ply in "normal mode" or the extra trickiness playing in "anti-human mode."
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: I have had ideas of engines using surprise moves. Your idea seems pretty straight forward and captures most of the important variants. As for your extra ply vs trickiness, an extra play isn't an extra ply. In some closed positions, one more ply is almost meaningless, whereas in an open position, it's crucial. But I would guess it's the open positions where the trickiness factor is also most important. I don't know if an eval factor could include an appeal to the type of position on the board before invoking the tricky subroutine, but it's an interesting thought.
Premium Chessgames Member
  Patriot: <OhioChessFan> <I don't know if an eval factor could include an appeal to the type of position on the board before invoking the tricky subroutine, but it's an interesting thought.> You make a good point about open/closed positions. I guess you could set a global variable such as "OpenPosition = True" after a central pawn capture is made for example. And then that logic could be used along with search depth to determine if "Trick_Eval()", which is more complex, should be executed.

It's been years since I've done any real programming and I miss the creativity behind it.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Kinghunt: Event added:
Zurich 2014, won by Magnus Carlsen. His new career wins list:

Career tournament wins of Carlsen:
Wijk an Zee 2008, 2010, 2013
Baku 2008
Aerosvit 2008
Nanjing 2009, 2010
London 2009, 2010, 2012
Bazna 2010, 2011
Biel 2011
Bilbao 2011, 2012
Moscow 2011, 2012
Candidates 2013
Sinquefield Cup 2013
Zurich 2014

Events excluded: Biel 2007 (insufficient strength)

Premium Chessgames Member
  Kinghunt: Tournament added: Candidates 2014, won by Vishy Anand.

Updated career tournament wins of Anand:
Corus 1989, 1998, 2003, 2004, 2006
Dortmund 2004
Reggio Emilia 1992
Linares 1998, 2007, 2008
Alekhine 1992
Gronigen 1993
Biel 1997
Dos Hermanas 1997
Belgrade 1997
Madrid 1993, 1998
Tilburg 1998
Mexico City 2007
Baden-Baden 2013
Candidates 2014

Events excluded: Open tournaments from his youth, World Cup 2000 (insufficient strength), Dortmund 1996 (lost on tiebreak), Dortmund 2000 (lost on tiebreak)

Premium Chessgames Member
  Kinghunt: Tournament added: Wijk an Zee 2014, won by Levon Aronian

Career supertournament wins of Levon Aronian:
Linares 2006
Wijk an Zee 2007, 2008, 2012
Sochi 2008
Nalchik 2009
Bilbao 2009
Tal Memorial 2010
Alekhine 2013
Wijk an Zee 2014

Events excluded: Tal Memorial 2006, 2011 (lost both on tiebreak)

Premium Chessgames Member
  Kinghunt: Kinghunt: Event added:
Gashimov Memorial 2014, won by Magnus Carlsen. His new career wins list:

Career tournament wins of Carlsen:
Wijk an Zee 2008, 2010, 2013
Baku 2008
Aerosvit 2008
Nanjing 2009, 2010
London 2009, 2010, 2012
Bazna 2010, 2011
Biel 2011
Bilbao 2011, 2012
Tal Memorial 2011, 2012
Candidates 2013
Sinquefield Cup 2013
Zurich 2014
Gashimov Memorial 2014

Events excluded: Biel 2007 (insufficient strength)

Premium Chessgames Member
  Kinghunt: Career supertournament wins of Sergei Karjakin:

Wijk an Zee 2009
Tal Memorial 2010
Tashkent 2012
Stavanger 2013

Events excluded: Russian championships (no international players), Bazna 2011 (lost on tiebreak)

Premium Chessgames Member
  Kinghunt: Career supertournament wins of Fabiano Caruana:
Dortmund 2012
Zurich 2013
Paris 2013

Events excluded: Bilbao 2012 (lost tiebreak playoff), Sigeman 2012 and Reykjavik 2012 (insufficient strength)

Premium Chessgames Member
  Kinghunt: Career supertournament wins of Hikaru Nakamura:

Wijk an Zee 2011

Events excluded: Donostia 2009 (insufficient strength)

Premium Chessgames Member
  Kinghunt: Career supertournament wins of Alexander Grischuk:

Linares 2009

Events excluded: Russian championships (no international players)

Premium Chessgames Member
  Kinghunt: Career supertournament victories of Garry Kasparov:

Frunze 1981 (shared)
Bugojno 1982
Moscow 1982
Nikšić 1983
Brussels 1986
Brussels 1987 (shared)
Amsterdam 1988
Belfort 1988
Moscow 1988 (shared)
Reykjavík 1988
Barcelona 1989 (shared)
Skellefteĺ 1989 (shared)
Tilburg 1989, 1991, 1997
Belgrade 1989
Linares 1990, 1992, 1993, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2005 Novgorod 1994, 1995, 1997
Amsterdam 1994
Horgen 1994
Riga 1995
Las Palmas 1996
Amsterdam 1996
Wijk an Zee 1999, 2000, 2001
Sarajevo 1999, 2000
Astana 2001
Dortmund 1992

Events excluded: Russian Superfinal 2004 (no international players)

Premium Chessgames Member
  Kinghunt: <Career supertournament wins of Fabiano Caruana:

Dortmund 2012, 2014
Zurich 2013
Paris 2013

Events excluded: Bilbao 2012 (lost tiebreak playoff), Sigeman 2012 and Reykjavik 2012 (insufficient strength)>

Premium Chessgames Member
  DrNyet: <kinghunt> "given the complete lack of evidence for the existence of god"

Except future telling (predicting a messiah who, lo and behold, appeared)?

I certainly don't expect anyone to accept that on my saying, and much that is said by believers is bunk, but for me there is evidence enough that while I can't say I *know* it, I can't disbelieve it.

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 29)
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 29 OF 29 ·  Later Kibitzing>

Take the Premium Membership Tour
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 users.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
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 user 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, its employees, or sponsors.

You are not logged in to
If you need an account, register now;
it's quick, anonymous, and free!
If you already have an account, click here to sign-in.

View another user profile:

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 | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | advertising | contact us
Copyright 2001-2014, Chessgames Services LLC
Web design & database development by 20/20 Technologies