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

Tata Steel Group A (2011) Played at the De Moriaan Centre in Wijk aan Zee, the Netherlands, 15-30 January 2011. Rest days: 18, 24 and 27 January. The rounds began at 1:30 pm, except the last round which began at 12:00. Time control: 100 minutes for the first 40 moves, then 50 more minutes for the next 20 moves, followed by 15 more minutes to finish the game, with 30 seconds added per move from move 1. Tournament category: XX (2740). Chief arbiter: Pavel Votruba. Hikaru Nakamura won his first super-GM event with 9/13. Elo 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 1 Nakamura 2751 * ½ 0 ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 1 1 1 9 2 Anand 2810 ½ * ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 ½ ½ 1 1 8½ =3 Carlsen 2814 1 ½ * ½ 1 ½ 0 ½ 0 1 ½ 1 1 ½ 8 =3 Aronian 2805 ½ ½ ½ * ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 ½ ½ 1 8 =5 Kramnik 2784 ½ ½ 0 ½ * ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 7½ =5 Vachier-Lagrave 2715 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ * ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ 1 1 7½ =7 Giri 2686 ½ ½ 1 ½ 0 ½ * ½ 0 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ 6½ =7 Ponomariov 2744 ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ * ½ 0 1 ½ 1 ½ 6½ =9 Nepomniachtchi 2733 0 ½ 1 0 ½ 0 1 ½ * 1 ½ ½ 0 ½ 6 =9 Wang Hao 2731 ½ 0 0 ½ ½ ½ 0 1 0 * 1 1 ½ ½ 6 =11 Grischuk 2773 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ 0 * ½ 1 0 4½ =11 L'Ami 2628 0 ½ 0 ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ * ½ ½ 4½ =11 Smeets 2662 0 0 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ 0 1 ½ 0 ½ * 1 4½ 14 Shirov 2722 0 0 ½ 0 0 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ 0 * 4 Official site: https://web.archive.org/web/2011020... Crosstable: https://history.tatasteelchess.com/... Chess.com: https://www.chess.com/news/view/nak... ChessBase: https://en.chessbase.com/post/tata-... TWIC: https://theweekinchess.com/chessnew... FIDE: https://ratings.fide.com/tournament... Previous: Corus Group A (2010). Next: Tata Steel Group A (2012). See also Tata Steel Group B (2011) and Tata Steel Group C (2011)  page 1 of 1; 20 games    Game   Result Moves Year Event/Locale Opening 1. Nakamura vs Grischuk 1-0 42 2011 Tata Steel Group A D38 Queen's Gambit Declined, Ragozin Variation 2. Smeets vs Shirov 1-0 25 2011 Tata Steel Group A C78 Ruy Lopez 3. Nakamura vs Shirov 1-0 93 2011 Tata Steel Group A C78 Ruy Lopez 4. Aronian vs Nepomniachtchi 1-0 26 2011 Tata Steel Group A D83 Grunfeld, Grunfeld Gambit 5. Anand vs H Wang 1-0 33 2011 Tata Steel Group A E25 Nimzo-Indian, Samisch 6. H Wang vs Grischuk 1-0 36 2011 Tata Steel Group A E63 King's Indian, Fianchetto, Panno Variation 7. Carlsen vs L'Ami 1-0 94 2011 Tata Steel Group A C77 Ruy Lopez 8. Nakamura vs Smeets 1-0 61 2011 Tata Steel Group A D44 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav 9. Kramnik vs Giri 1-0 59 2011 Tata Steel Group A D85 Grunfeld 10. Carlsen vs Nakamura 1-0 37 2011 Tata Steel Group A B92 Sicilian, Najdorf, Opocensky Variation 11. Giri vs H Wang 1-0 42 2011 Tata Steel Group A D45 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav 12. Shirov vs Grischuk 1-0 74 2011 Tata Steel Group A B90 Sicilian, Najdorf 13. H Wang vs Ponomariov 1-0 40 2011 Tata Steel Group A B18 Caro-Kann, Classical 14. Aronian vs Shirov 1-0 53 2011 Tata Steel Group A D52 Queen's Gambit Declined 15. Kramnik vs L'Ami 1-0 23 2011 Tata Steel Group A A15 English 16. Anand vs Shirov 1-0 26 2011 Tata Steel Group A D52 Queen's Gambit Declined 17. Ponomariov vs Grischuk 1-0 43 2011 Tata Steel Group A E81 King's Indian, Samisch 18. Nakamura vs Vachier-Lagrave 1-0 33 2011 Tata Steel Group A D86 Grunfeld, Exchange 19. Carlsen vs H Wang 1-0 29 2011 Tata Steel Group A B12 Caro-Kann Defense 20. Vachier-Lagrave vs Nepomniachtchi 1-0 36 2011 Tata Steel Group A D94 Grunfeld  page 1 of 1; 20 games      REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2)   < Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 120 OF 121 ·  Later Kibitzing> Jan-31-11    messachess: <plang> I think <acirce> was being ironic. Jan-31-11    plang: I usually need a few drinks to appreciate irony. Jan-31-11    Shams: <plang><Blunderdome><messachess> I don't think <acirce> is being ironic, or quibbling or any such thing. I take his comment at face value. Jan-31-11    acirce: <acirce is just quibbling that there was no top player named Fisher (because the correct spelling is Fischer).> What are you talking about? Nonsense. I don't agree with <plang>'s example. Palma de Mallorca 1970 wasn't close in strength or "remarkableness" to this year's Wijk aan Zee. Wijk aan Zee had all the four top rated players at a time when everyone has rightly been talking about the "big 5" and the field was extremely strong below that as well. One of those four was the reigning World Champion, one was the last World Champion before the current, one was the Wunderkind of Wunderkinds. Palma didn't have the World Champion (Spassky), it didn't have the then former World Champion (Petrosian), it didn't have Korchnoi, and the field had A LOT weaker bottom half. Still, it was remarkable enough in itself. Jan-31-11    Riverbeast: Mig Greengard mentioned Seirawan's win at Haninge in 1990 as a comparable win of a strong round robin by an American (outside of Fischer) But Seirawan won that one over Karpov (he beat Karpov in their individual game) and Ehlvest, who tied for 2nd...Kasparov, the WC, wasn't in it The crosstable of Haninge 1990 is not easily available online.... But luckily I happen to have informant #49 from 1990, which has that crosstable printed in the results section in the back Haninge was Category XIV, average rating 2580, which was pretty high category for the time, but perhaps not 'supertournament' category in terms of average rating Seirawan finished +6 (six wins, five draws, no losses)....He beat Karpov, Sax, Karlsson, Van der Wiel, Ftacnik, and Wojtkiewicz.....Drew Ehlvest, Polugayevsky, Ulf Andersson, Hellers, and Hector He was a point ahead of Karpov and Ehlvest who scored 7.5-3.5 Polugayevsky was 4th with 6.5, Andersson was 5th with 6 A strong field, but this one at Tata looks more impressive to me Jan-31-11    Riverbeast: Since I've been digging into Christiansen's old Linares results, it looks like his tournament in 1981 was even stronger than Seirawan's at Haninge The young Christiansen tied for first with Karpov, the reigning WC, at +5...But he lost to Karpov in their individual game and Karpov was declared winner on tiebreaks They were ahead of Larsen, Ribli, Spassky, Kavalek, Portisch, Ljubojevic, Gligoric, Quinteros, Bellon Lopez, and Garcia Gonzalez! Jan-31-11    Everett: I really appreciate Seirawan as a player and person, but I must consider him behind Fischer, Fine, Reshevsky, Pillsbury, Marshall and now Nakamura as far as American greats. According to a few sources like chessmetrics and Elo ratings, he was never higher than top 15 or so. Still, out of Christiansen, Benjamin, etc., I would rank him the top in that generation. Jan-31-11    Riverbeast: <Everett> You forgot to mention Morphyus :-) Jan-31-11    fixingguru: <Riverbeast: Mig Greengard mentioned Seirawan's win at Haninge in 1990 as a comparable win of a strong round robin by an American (outside of Fischer)> comparable strong field!? is that some sort of a joke or what? Haninge 1990 didn't have a especially strong field. Of those who played there Ehlvest seems to be the strongest player besides Karpov. Now in January 1990 Elhvest was rated 2620 points. Here are some players who were rated higher than him on that list but didn't participate at Haninge: Timman 2680 Ivanchuk 2665 Salov 2645 Gurevich 2645 Beliavsky 2640 Short 2635 Korchnoi 2625 My conclusion is Haninge 1990 doesn't even come close to Tata 2011. Jan-31-11    sevenseaman: Isn't Anand fed up with his lack-lustre tournament performance and missed wins against lower ranked players? The way he tried for a win against Anish Giri in the penultimate round was much more praiseworthy than his effort against, L'Ami, MVL, Grischuk and Nepomniatchi et al. Couldn't he have put in more effort there! Instead he kept clinging to 2nd position as though he had no ambition to win the event. I think a Kramnik like malaise has overtaken him. He just does not seem to be bothered. Jan-31-11    AgentRgent: <metatron2: It wasn't the US who made Kamsky the chess player that he is..> As a product of Soviet Chess, arising from the Cold War, there can be only one person responsible... Ronald Reagan of course! Jan-31-11    crazybird: <sevenseaman: Isn't Anand fed up with his lack-lustre tournament performance and missed wins against lower ranked players?> 2844 TPR...+4 in category 20 and unbeaten in each of the past 3 editions.. is lackluster. Dude, what are you smoking? Jan-31-11    vanytchouck: If it's about the great Naka's achievement in this tournament, there absolutly no dispute. But if it's about history, a closer look must be taken. The club of the + 2800 looks really scary but ... * Aronian hasn't won (sole first(*) ahead of likes of Anand, Carlsen, Kramnik and Topalov) a single super-tournament since Linares ... 2006 !! * Anand hasn't won a super-tournament since Linares 2008; Of course these two players are, really, really great but in term of "winner of a super tournament", even if they are indeed high favourite, they are not the best in term of results as tournaments winner lately. The Naka's + 5 score is impressive but still : 4 wins out of 6 are over the " bottom 4 ", one of the weakiest of the last 5 years in WAZ. Don't misunderstand me, this can't be used to diminish Hikaru's win as all the other favourites have either met the "bottom 4". He's not undefeated and hasn't performed well against the "big four" of the tournament. So even if the field is not (even relatively) as "strong" as the field of WAZ 2011, being ahead of Karpov in 1990 (when the #1 and #2 were just on another planet) and beating him is not that far in term of achievement. (*) first tie for WAZ 2008 and Tal Memorial 2010. Jan-31-11    sevenseaman: <crazybird> nearly 200 plus difference in TPR and 4 out of 4 insipid draws? What has he got to show for being a higher ranked player? He took all the risks against only Giri (where he could well have lost). Why not against the four weaker opponents? At least couple of them merely made up the numbers. My view is both Vishy and Kramnik are only trying to guard their stature and not enhance it, passing up opportunities in a kind of stupor. Not at all like Naka and Carlsen who are always pushing themselves to the brink. Jan-31-11    sevenseaman: Of his 4 wins I am impressed with only the one against Wang Hao wherein he sacs a N to repair his pawn structure quite daringly. Jan-31-11    NGambit: <sevenseaman: Isn't Anand fed up with his lack-lustre tournament performance and missed wins against lower ranked players?> If you see his interview after Game 13, you could see that he in fact was very disappointed at not having won. But, the fact is a +4 (TRP 2844!) in such a strong field is not bad at all! A +4 performance has won the tournament 7(!!!) times in last 8 years at Wijk ann Zee with the exception of year 2006 when he himself scored a +5. Therefore, your <He just does not seem to be bothered.> is definitely uncalled for. Feb-01-11    Udayan Chawdhary: Hello, I am from India, the land of Anand. I wish to say that when one is young like Carsen and Nakamura, one tends to be agressive and flamboyant without a care in the world. When a man approaches 40 and thereafter, one becomes conservative in his approach, as is happening with Anand. It's a natural phenomenon. Feb-01-11    anandrulez: Lol @ Land of Anand :) Its a new usage . What Udayan mentioned is correct , exuberance of youth and maturity of a wise player . Feb-01-11    theagenbiteofinwit: <Isn't Anand fed up with his lack-lustre tournament performance and missed wins against lower ranked players?> I'm sure he goes home after every tournament, cries, then wipes his tears with his championship wreath. Feb-01-11    chancho: <I'm sure he goes home after every tournament, cries, then wipes his tears with his championship wreath.> lol Feb-01-11    SetNoEscapeOn: Or the Euros. Feb-02-11    Texas Skybear: Udayan. Are you saying one has to be conservative in his approach to be a world champ? I haven't seen a teenager reach the top either. Feb-02-11    DAVI DE RAFE: texas skybear, u have to be agressive to become world champion. once u reach there, be conservative and assertive.thats wat anand done. Feb-02-11    Udayan Chawdhary: Real World champs in any field have a healthy blend of being aggressive and being conservative. Anand is one of them. In India, we have litle sports icons as compared to other countries. Hence being an Indian, it is quite natural to be proud of Anand's accomplishments. Garry Kasparov who is universally accepted as the greatest of them all had a healthy blend of both. Even his agression had a conservatism blend and not recklesness as is the case with other youth icons. Your comments please. Feb-02-11    iamsheaf: If any of you have noticed. Anand doesn't usually "over-perform" or "under-perform" by a huge margin. I don't remember Anand performing at 2900+ in a very long time. Perhaps in Mexico 2007 he had that kind of performance. On the other hand Anand very rarely performs at 2700 level either. I can think of only 3 occassions in last 14 years when he did quite bad. 2001 dortmund, 2006 Olympiad and Bilbao 2008. Otherwise his performance is usually consistent, between 2760 to 2840 range.. Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 121) search thread:    < Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 120 OF 121 ·  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