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

🏆 Corus Group A (2009)

PARTICIPANTS (sorted by highest achieved rating; click on name to see player's games) Magnus Carlsen, Levon Aronian, Teimour Radjabov, Sergey Karjakin, Alexander Morozevich, Vasyl Ivanchuk, Leinier Dominguez Perez, Gata Kamsky, Michael Adams, Yue Wang, Sergei Movsesian, Loek van Wely, Jan Smeets, Daniel Stellwagen

Corus Group A (2009) Played at the De Moriaan Community Centre in Wijk aan Zee, the Netherlands, 17 January - 1 February 2009. Rest days: 21, 26 and 29 January. The rounds began at 1:30 pm, except the last round which began at 0:30 pm. Time control: 120 minutes for the first 40 moves, then 60 more minutes for the next 20 moves, followed by 15 more minutes to finish the game, with 30 seconds added per move from move 61. Tournament category: XIX (2716). Chief arbiter: Pavel Votruba. Sergey Karjakin won with 8/13. Age Elo 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 1 Karjakin 19 2706 * ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 0 ½ ½ ½ 0 1 1 1 8 =2 Aronian 26 2750 ½ * ½ 1 ½ 0 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ 7½ =2 Radjabov 21 2761 ½ ½ * ½ ½ ½ 1 0 1 ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ 7½ =2 Movsesian 30 2751 0 0 ½ * ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 1 7½ =5 Carlsen 18 2776 ½ ½ ½ ½ * 1 ½ ½ 0 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ 7 =5 Dominguez 25 2717 0 1 ½ ½ 0 * ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 7 7 Kamsky 34 2725 1 0 0 ½ ½ ½ * ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 6½ =8 Van Wely 36 2625 ½ ½ 1 0 ½ ½ ½ * ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 6 =8 Wang Yue 21 2739 ½ ½ 0 ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ * ½ 0 ½ 0 1 6 =8 Smeets 23 2601 ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ * 1 ½ ½ 0 6 =11 Ivanchuk 39 2779 1 ½ 0 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 0 * ½ ½ 0 5½ =11 Stellwagen 21 2612 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ * ½ ½ 5½ =11 Adams 37 2712 0 0 ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ * ½ 5½ =11 Morozevich 31 2771 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ 0 0 1 0 1 1 ½ ½ * 5½ Official site: https://web.archive.org/web/2009020... Crosstable: https://history.tatasteelchess.com/... Chess.com: https://www.chess.com/news/view/kar... ChessBase: https://en.chessbase.com/post/wijk-... TWIC: https://theweekinchess.com/html/twi... FIDE: https://ratings.fide.com/tournament... Previous: Corus Group A (2008). Next: Corus Group A (2010). See also Corus Group B (2009) and Corus Group C (2009)  page 1 of 4; games 1-25 of 91  Game   Result Moves Year Event/Locale Opening 1. Carlsen vs Radjabov ½-½ 60 2009 Corus Group A B40 Sicilian 2. Stellwagen vs Movsesian ½-½ 33 2009 Corus Group A B80 Sicilian, Scheveningen 3. Aronian vs Y Wang ½-½ 43 2009 Corus Group A D17 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav 4. Ivanchuk vs Smeets 0-1 39 2009 Corus Group A D44 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav 5. Karjakin vs Morozevich 1-0 26 2009 Corus Group A B48 Sicilian, Taimanov Variation 6. Kamsky vs Adams ½-½ 23 2009 Corus Group A C64 Ruy Lopez, Classical 7. Van Wely vs L Dominguez Perez ½-½ 80 2009 Corus Group A D85 Grunfeld 8. Movsesian vs Adams 1-0 38 2009 Corus Group A C55 Two Knights Defense 9. Stellwagen vs Carlsen ½-½ 36 2009 Corus Group A C67 Ruy Lopez 10. Radjabov vs Aronian ½-½ 15 2009 Corus Group A C45 Scotch Game 11. Smeets vs Karjakin ½-½ 36 2009 Corus Group A B90 Sicilian, Najdorf 12. Morozevich vs Van Wely 1-0 43 2009 Corus Group A D97 Grunfeld, Russian 13. L Dominguez Perez vs Kamsky ½-½ 26 2009 Corus Group A B12 Caro-Kann Defense 14. Y Wang vs Ivanchuk 0-1 25 2009 Corus Group A D30 Queen's Gambit Declined 15. Van Wely vs Smeets ½-½ 30 2009 Corus Group A D44 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav 16. Ivanchuk vs Radjabov 0-1 41 2009 Corus Group A E97 King's Indian 17. Kamsky vs Morozevich 1-0 34 2009 Corus Group A C78 Ruy Lopez 18. Karjakin vs Y Wang ½-½ 75 2009 Corus Group A B30 Sicilian 19. Adams vs L Dominguez Perez ½-½ 43 2009 Corus Group A B87 Sicilian, Fischer-Sozin with ...a6 and ...b5 20. Carlsen vs Movsesian ½-½ 39 2009 Corus Group A D12 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav 21. Aronian vs Stellwagen ½-½ 22 2009 Corus Group A B13 Caro-Kann, Exchange 22. Smeets vs Kamsky ½-½ 22 2009 Corus Group A B18 Caro-Kann, Classical 23. Carlsen vs Aronian ½-½ 65 2009 Corus Group A D45 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav 24. Movsesian vs L Dominguez Perez ½-½ 34 2009 Corus Group A B52 Sicilian, Canal-Sokolsky (Rossolimo) Attack 25. Morozevich vs Adams ½-½ 50 2009 Corus Group A E37 Nimzo-Indian, Classical  page 1 of 4; games 1-25 of 91    REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2)   < Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 119 OF 120 ·  Later Kibitzing> Feb-02-09    Eyal: The correlation between the increase in the players' strength and in the draw percentage isn't something new or special, of course, it's just another example of a well-known phenomenon; so was last year's tournament, in which the respective number of decisive games in the A-B-C groups was 31-45-61, compared with the 32-48-66 of this year. There might be several (and combined) reasons for this, but I think the moss basic and general one, which is least dependant on the specific composition of the field of players, or their different styles and "psychologies", is simply related to the lower number of mistakes made at higher levels. It's similar to what <khursh> gave as his first reason, but I would put it somewhat differently. In order for a game to end in a decisive result, the loser has to make mistakes, which stronger players make less often - and when they do, those mistakes tend to be relatively small ones rather than outright blunders, and so harder to exploit. It's true that stronger players are also better at taking advantage of their opponents' mistakes, however minute, but usually one minute mistake isn't enough to decide a game, there has to be an accumulation of several of those for that to happen. Feb-02-09    gus inn: <al wazir> a crucial point is that the players in the B and C-gruops are fighting for a most wanted spot in the next years higher group - which makes Corus/Wijk an Zee as one of the established highways to the top of chess. Hence they are more likely to "play it all out". Feb-02-09    lostemperor: I read that when Smeets heard he will play in Corus A last May. He stopped his study and worked only on chess. It did pay off! Feb-02-09    Eyal: <a crucial point is that the players in the B and C-gruops are fighting for a most wanted spot in the next years higher group - which makes Corus/Wijk an Zee as one of the established highways to the top of chess. Hence they are more likely to "play it all out".> That doesn't really explain the difference between the B and C groups... also, the possibility of winning such an important and prestigious tournament has to be a very serious incentive for most of the players in the A group (and now the winner even gets an invitation to the Bilbao GS as well). But perhaps most importantly, the correlation between the players' strength and the draw percentage is far from being special to Corus; the simultaneous results of the three groups just make this general phenomenon immediately perceptible. Feb-02-09    khursh: Thanks <Eyal:> for your additions. I wish to open also pandora box on small mistakes which is "time control" The longer the time the higher the chance to refute and beautifully win on opponents small mistake. Indeed, short time control bring about many mistakes, and also losses on time. So this is a two sided sword. It's hard to make a rule but I wish that games like L Dominguez vs Aronian, 2009 should be given more time. Leinier Dominguez-Perez used computer prepared opening/trap which Levon Aronian needs to analyze OTB. And from another side game Radjabov vs J Smeets, 2009 highlights how short time control may bring about draws. what Teimour Radjabov and Jan Smeets agreed as a draw explicitly, happens many time when both players don't want to go to complications under time pressure. PS Those - who like chess as a sport rather then mind-game - should like such time controls and rules. Feb-02-09    percyblakeney: Stellwagen played quite well even if he didn't win any games. If he had been less careful and not taken draws when he got an advantage in several games he could have scored even better than -2. Feb-02-09    Eyal: One of the impressive things about Karjakin's performance is that he bounced back immediately after each of his losses (to Ivanchuk and Kamsky) and won the next game - just like Carlsen did last year. Feb-02-09    swordfish: Just to echo many others who have congratulated Karjakin on his victory - great job, Sergey! Who would have thought a six-way tie going into the last round would have led to a clear winner? Congratulations to the two other youthful talents who won Caruana and So. All have a bright future. Also, contrary to what some of us thought, the Dutch players in Corus A hung in okay and did not wind up at the bottom of the table. Feb-02-09    vanytchouck: About the Karjakin's victory. Indeed, Sergey fully deserves his first place. He's the sole winner, the one with the highest number of wins (5) and even if we take the mini-tournament made of the first 6 of the 12 th round, he would still be the clear #1(3,5 pts/5). Wich means that he didn't win the tournament only by beating the tail enders. Anyway, i don't think that this victory is that bright. I think that his victory is rather due to the lack of consistency of some other players (Carlsen and especially Aronian). First, a +3 in that kind of tournament is not that awesome. Aronian and Carlsen performed +3 in a much stronger tournament last year (with Anand, Topalov and Kramnik and there weren't all these dutch sub 2630 players). Karjakin was almost always in the top, but has never showed any sign of a clear supremacy and had few convincing wins. Not to mention that at the very end of the tournament, his final victory is a gift from Dominguez and Carlsen definetely out of the level is was expected to be. As there must be a #1, he has been the " chosen one ". And yes, he is - at the cost of a repetition - undisputedly the one who deserve the most to be winner (in every case more than Carlsen, Aronian or Radjabov). But i think that we have to wait for (at least) a +5 to see Sergey as a real contender for the world title. Feb-02-09    vanytchouck: <Augalv: <I don't know if it has already been said, but the three tournaments have been won by prodigies.> Let me correct you <vantychouk>, two prodigies. Being 19 years old, Sergey would be a former chess prodigy. > It's funny (in fact i think just the same) how chess has change our way to see things sometimes: We are so used to see 15-20 years old champions being among the very best that we don't consider a 19 years old as a prodigy. But he is ! In any disciplines, a 19 years old boy, # 4 and able to compete with the top 10 is a prodigy. But not in chess... I remember how disapointed i was when Kamsky failed to qualify in the Manilla Interzonal 1990 (he was the world #8 with 2650 at 16 !!!). An older member of the club told me then something like "oh! you're kidding? 16 years old ! He's nothing but a child !". What was really strange is that didn't convince me at all. I think it also why i've so much problem with Anand (even if i do like this player) being world champion so old ... Feb-02-09    YouRang: Fabiano Caruana beat Nigel Short in the final round to win the "B" tournament. If I understand correctly, that means Caruana will invited to play in the Corus 2010 - "A" tournament. Feb-02-09    al wazir: <Eyal>: If I can sum up your answer, a chess game should end in a win only if mistakes are made. Super GMs make fewer mistakes than lesser GMs, so their games are more likely to end in a draw. Have I got that right? This suggests an interesting experiment. It is generally agreed that the best engines play at a level even higher than GMs (in recent matches between carbon and silicon, silicon has won). I would like to see a tournament in which ALL the players are identical computers using the same program (Rybka 3, for example) with identical opening books, tablebases, and settings. What would the outcome be? The games would be played to a conclusion, without human intervention. (For a computer playing against another computer it is not bad form to play until checkmate, rather than resigning in a lost position.) The only qualification is that to avoid thousand-move games there would have to be some rule for deciding when a game is unwinnable, since computers can't offer or accept a draw. Maybe ten plies in a row after move 100 in which both engines rate the position between -0.05 and +0.05? This experiment would require some fairly extensive computational resources, even more than <RandomVisitor> has at his disposal. Maybe we could get Google to let us use the servers in its cloud . . . Feb-02-09    Kaspykov: Maybe i could do a software where people could share their computer ressource. i would like to know if e4 is really best by test :) Feb-03-09    znprdx: correction of my post while this game was in process: Feb-01-09 no Rybka 25.Rh4 does not deserve a “? “After Nh7 26.Rx[N]h7 and the Bishop cannot re-capture so Kx[R] h7 and 0-0-0 gets the brilliancy prize. I was actually looking at Rh4 when LDP played it... 42:02 | 0:22:24 addendum: What a tragic irony that the post mortem shows that 0-0-0 could have been played as early as move 24. This game is a gem as it represents the intangible nuances of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, proving once again that there is an element of “luck” in chess...in that winning vs. losing somehow seems momentarily at least, somehow beyond the players themselves.... Feb-08-09    WhiteRook48: is the tournament over? Feb-10-09    Dredge Rivers: <WhiteRook48> Yes. Also, Elvis is dead. Feb-12-09    wolfmaster: Anybody have the rating changes for all the players? Feb-16-09    amadeus: Nice article: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail... Feb-24-09    Dredge Rivers: Last! Feb-24-09    tamar: Congratulations! Feb-24-09    Dredge Rivers: <tamar> Arrrgh!! You're messing up my system! Feb-24-09    tamar: You're Aron Nimzovich? :-) Feb-28-09    Dredge Rivers: <tamar> No. Are you the Interruptor? P.S. <<<<<<<<<<<LAST!!!>>>>>>>>>>> Feb-28-09    whiteshark: Do you mean <CASE CLOSED> now? Feb-28-09    tamar: I do concede you were last. CASE CLOSED! Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 120) search thread:    < Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 119 OF 120 ·  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