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

Tata Steel Masters (2021) The 2021 Tata Steel Masters was a 14-player single round-robin held from 16-31 January at De Moriaan in Wijk aan Zee, the Netherlands. Rest days: 20, 25 and 28 January. World Champion Magnus Carlsen was again heading the field, which included Top 10 stars Vachier-Lagrave and Caruana, as well as young stars Firouzja and Esipenko. Time control: 100 minutes for the first 40 moves, then 50 more minutes for the next 20 moves, then 15 more minutes to finish the game, with 30 seconds added per move from move 1. If a tie for first place between two players there would be two Blitz playoff games (5 min + 3 sec), and if necessary an Armageddon game (5 vs 4 min, with 3 sec added per move from move 60). If a tie between three or more players the ones to play the Blitz playoff would be decided by 1) mutual result, 2) Sonneborn-Berger score, 3) N games with black, 4) drawing of lots. Tournament director: Jeroen van den Berg. Chief arbiter: Pavel Votruba. N games played: 91 + 3 = 94. Jorden van Foreest won with 8.5/11, after he beat Giri in the Armageddon playoff game (see Tata Steel Masters Playoff (2021)). Age Elo 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 1 Van Foreest 21 2671 * ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 1 1 ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ 8½ 2 Giri 26 2764 ½ * ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 1 ½ ½ 1 1 ½ 8½ 3 Esipenko 18 2677 ½ ½ * ½ ½ 1 ½ 0 ½ ½ 1 1 ½ 1 8 4 Caruana 28 2823 ½ ½ ½ * ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 1 1 8 5 Firouzja 17 2749 ½ ½ ½ ½ * 0 1 ½ ½ 1 1 ½ ½ 1 8 6 Carlsen 30 2862 ½ ½ 0 ½ 1 * ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ 7½ 7 Harikrishna 34 2732 0 ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ * ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 6½ 8 Tari 21 2625 0 0 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ * ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 6 9 Grandelius 27 2663 0 0 ½ ½ ½ 0 0 ½ * 1 ½ ½ 1 1 6 10 Duda 22 2743 ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ 0 * ½ ½ ½ ½ 5½ 11 Anton 25 2679 0 ½ 0 ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ * ½ ½ ½ 5 12 Wojtaszek 34 2705 ½ 0 0 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ * ½ ½ 5 13 Vachier-Lagrave 30 2784 ½ 0 ½ 0 ½ 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ * 1 5 14 Donchenko 22 2668 ½ ½ 0 0 0 ½ 0 ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ 0 * 3½ Official site: https://tatasteelchess.com/ Regulations: https://tatasteelchess.com/about/to... Chess.com: https://www.chess.com/news/view/jor... ChessBase: https://en.chessbase.com/post/tata-... Chess24: https://chess24.com/en/watch/live-t... TWIC: https://theweekinchess.com/chessnew... FIDE: https://ratings.fide.com/tournament... Previous: Tata Steel Masters (2020). Next: 84th Tata Steel Masters (2022). The side events (Challengers, Qualifiers, etc.) were cancelled due to Coronavirus restrictions.  page 3 of 4; games 51-75 of 91  Game   Result Moves Year Event/Locale Opening 51. Harikrishna vs Firouzja 0-1 56 2021 Tata Steel Masters D10 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav 52. Vachier-Lagrave vs J van Foreest ½-½ 32 2021 Tata Steel Masters C78 Ruy Lopez 53. Caruana vs Giri   ½-½ 48 2021 Tata Steel Masters A45 Queen's Pawn Game 54. N Grandelius vs Wojtaszek ½-½ 55 2021 Tata Steel Masters B18 Caro-Kann, Classical 55. Duda vs D Anton Guijarro   ½-½ 50 2021 Tata Steel Masters C50 Giuoco Piano 56. A Esipenko vs Carlsen 1-0 38 2021 Tata Steel Masters B84 Sicilian, Scheveningen 57. Wojtaszek vs Caruana 0-1 39 2021 Tata Steel Masters E94 King's Indian, Orthodox 58. Firouzja vs A Esipenko ½-½ 41 2021 Tata Steel Masters D02 Queen's Pawn Game 59. D Anton Guijarro vs Harikrishna   ½-½ 45 2021 Tata Steel Masters B56 Sicilian 60. Giri vs Vachier-Lagrave 1-0 70 2021 Tata Steel Masters B90 Sicilian, Najdorf 61. J van Foreest vs A Donchenko   ½-½ 32 2021 Tata Steel Masters C78 Ruy Lopez 62. Carlsen vs N Grandelius 1-0 65 2021 Tata Steel Masters B90 Sicilian, Najdorf 63. A Tari vs Duda   ½-½ 32 2021 Tata Steel Masters B51 Sicilian, Canal-Sokolsky (Rossolimo) Attack 64. Caruana vs Carlsen ½-½ 42 2021 Tata Steel Masters E00 Queen's Pawn Game 65. Duda vs J van Foreest ½-½ 26 2021 Tata Steel Masters E60 King's Indian Defense 66. Harikrishna vs A Tari   ½-½ 52 2021 Tata Steel Masters C78 Ruy Lopez 67. A Esipenko vs D Anton Guijarro 1-0 56 2021 Tata Steel Masters C78 Ruy Lopez 68. N Grandelius vs Firouzja   ½-½ 45 2021 Tata Steel Masters B67 Sicilian, Richter-Rauzer Attack, 7...a6 Defense, 8...Bd7 69. Vachier-Lagrave vs A Donchenko 1-0 65 2021 Tata Steel Masters B12 Caro-Kann Defense 70. Giri vs Wojtaszek 1-0 49 2021 Tata Steel Masters D02 Queen's Pawn Game 71. A Tari vs A Esipenko 1-0 33 2021 Tata Steel Masters C79 Ruy Lopez, Steinitz Defense Deferred 72. Firouzja vs Caruana ½-½ 61 2021 Tata Steel Masters C53 Giuoco Piano 73. J van Foreest vs Harikrishna 1-0 60 2021 Tata Steel Masters C53 Giuoco Piano 74. Carlsen vs Giri ½-½ 42 2021 Tata Steel Masters C53 Giuoco Piano 75. D Anton Guijarro vs N Grandelius   ½-½ 30 2021 Tata Steel Masters D85 Grunfeld  page 3 of 4; games 51-75 of 91    REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2)   < Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 18 OF 19 ·  Later Kibitzing> Feb-07-21    Pedro Fernandez: <<AdolfoAugusto>: Now we are jumping in the So wagon?> Ergo, Cheap Chess. Cheers my dear <Adolfo>! (Espero que estés bien y bien lejos del Covid = Hope you're fine and not near from Coro) Feb-07-21    Pedro Fernandez: <<AylerKupp>: <<Sally Simpson> The only way you are going pick up serious G.P.'s as White is to win and a win as Black gets you a G.P. bonus type of thing.> And that is as it should be. If you are ranked #1 in the world then the only way that you should gain rating points is to win more than you draw or lose. After all, if you're the best player in the world, shouldn't that be what you are doing in a regular basis? And if you're not doing that consistently, well, you will soon probably stop "worrying" about being ranked #1 in the world.> Okay <AK>, mi excelso amigo. I know the case is some different, but anyway; let's take, e.g. Ted Williams, the only ball player batting for +400 ave. Now, he had a slump season, and therefore he must lose a lot of points in his cereer performance. Out of HOF! (yes, I know, I'm exaggeartig quite a bit); but, due to my ignorance in ERS details, that was I told to <metatron2> my big surprise. Do you understand me? PS. BTW, I can't accept you and our great <Sokrates> takes distance, because of it is totally absurd and stupid, sorry. Feb-07-21    metatron2: <AylerKupp: <<metatron2> There is a point when you stop being a gentleman.> Perhaps. But that point is NOT when you are told what's going to happen in case the circumstances that you encounter arrive> Well, I totally disagree with you on that one. Whatever they wrote in the invitation could never justify, the arbiter seriously disturbing a player who is in time trouble (+ plus a complex position!), and especially when it is a critical game of one of the most prestigious top tourneys... That is simply unthinkable. One has to be so obtuse to do something like that.. Obviously there were simple alternatives: They could just wait a few minutes until the end of the time pressure. If for some reason they had an obligation that they couldn't break, to start the tie breaks on 18:00 sharp (I don't think that was the case, but even if we assume that), then they should have just started it without interrupting the players that were in time pressure. That is just basic.. Feb-07-21    metatron2: <AylerKupp: So the K-factor, as used for players rated above 2400, has not had any effect on the rating change rate for players rated above 2400 for a long time, and maybe never> First, I never said that the rating-change-rate of players above 2400 changed over time, I only said that their rating changes slower than players below 2400, because their K-factor is smallar. As for their rate change over time, its and interesting question, but I tend to think that increasing the K-factor of players below 2400 did affect the change rate of players above 2400, because: With this K change, players could move into the above 2400 zone quicker than before, but dropping back to the lower zone, was still as slow as before. So it might have caused an accelaration in new 2400 players, and that change could have affected the behabvior of the the entire >2400 players pool. --- As for the different K factor for new players, and for young players, and the rating gap limit. I am aware of those of course (and there are other things that affect rating change, like rating floors, women only tounaments, etc), they were simply not relevant to the point I wanted to make regarding the way the K-factor is used to control rating change rate. However you did provide some initeresting elaborations there, regarding specific dates of K changes, and Arpad Elo point of views, so thanks for that.. Feb-07-21    metatron2: <AylerKupp: I agree with you, but I think (and at least one study has shown) that the problem with Armageddon games is that White's time advantage is not enough to compensate for the draw odds> Well I meant to say that black will have an extra motivation to play for a draw there, because not only that "draw with black is generally a good result", he will also get more rating for that as a bonus, so it will give him extra motivation. I didn't mean that it will actually start from a winning position for black (as is the case with Armageddon having wrong time ratio), but I agree that I should have clarified that.. <AylerKupp: <Another problem is that the gap between playing white or black is changing over time.> I don't know what you're trying to say [...] so I'm not sure that's a problem unique to Armageddon games> I wasn't referring to Armageddon there, but to the color rating compensation issue. I said that in high professional level, black's expected results can change over time, depending on the theory status of that time, and so it is difficult to provide the correct compensation level in rating. For example, there were times that Petrov's defence was considered almost impossible to break on top level (which made white's life much more difficult), but later new ideas were found there, same goes for the Berlin wall etc. <AylerKupp: <Also, in general, playing black has a key advantage over white: It is black that usually decides the opening.>. I don't know about that.> Well I said that also from my personal experience, but you can simply count the number of openings, variations and different types of pawn structures (that is the most siginificant issue there!), that 1 .e4 player needs to know with white, vs the amount theoretical knowledge (and types of pawn structures..) that this player needs to know with black, when playing (for example) caro-cann and slav structures. <AylerKupp: I think that the need for opening preparation is as much required for Black as it is for White but, again, that's just my opinion> Well, as explained, I disagree with that, in case white plays 1. e4 or 1. d4 and intends to go for the main lines there. For that reason, many players chose to walk away from the main lines when playing white, by playing openings like the London system (even Carlsen used to do it when he didn't want to get into theoretical discussions, but I am referring mainly to none-professional players here). So it is possible for players to serioursly reduce the amount of theory they need to know with white, by avoiding the main lines. But that comes with a price of giving black comfortable ways to equalize the game (even without him knowing too much theory). So its more like playing to "survive" the opening and try to win the phases afterwards, rather than trying to get advantage out of the opening. Feb-07-21    metatron2: <AylerKupp: there are several things that I need to do that I'm not particularly keen to do, so I'm trying to delay the inevitable as long as possible> :) Procratination - Unfortunately, I am too familar with that problem.. Feb-07-21    metatron2: <Pedro Fernandez: Thanks a lot <metatron2> by your excellent explanation> and thank you for the kind words .. <Pedro Fernandez: What do you think what it will happen in chess when a quantum computer (100 billion times faster than Summit!, [Oak Ridge National Laboratory]) be an effective reality? Those monsters will assist GMs in tournaments? (Classic Chess) I don't think chess will die.> I have a friend that is researching in quantum computing (theoretical research), and he once told me that there are some serious technical issues there, before we will see a real useful quantum computer. So I don't know when (and if..) that will happen. But even if it will happen, and even we will be able to "solve" chess, then I don't think that chess will die. From the human point of view, the fact that one move is the "right move" towards the optimal result, doesn't mean that it is any better than another move that should eventually lose (according to the "solved chess" database), because the human doesn't know that solution. So I think that it won't be much different from today (only with stronger engines), since the capacity of human's memory won't change much. Checkers was solved, and it didn't really affect the popularity of checkers competitions. Feb-08-21    metatron2: BTW <Pedro Fernandez>, it seems that people who are into quantum computing seem to think that it won't help solving chess. It seems that mainly because the problem is too sequential, and also because it requires enourmous space: https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience... https://www.quora.com/Would-a-quant... I am not too familiar with quantum computing (only read the highlights there at the time..), so I can't tell. Feb-08-21    Pedro Fernandez: Thanks again by your excellent form to think an inferring (I see it is not necessary to speak with metatron1, Lol!) our future in chess. Indeed I think we won't be here when that event it will happen, but book it! Like my great friend <perfidious>, and also <chrisowen> (now dedicated just to analize chess CG puzzles), I think you have some talent to play chess, but I must clarify I'm not one to qualify any other person. Cheers! Feb-08-21    AylerKupp: <<metatron2> Well, I totally disagree with you on that one. > Then we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. That's what was stated in the tournament's <Rules and Regulations>, not just a mere invitation. And, if the players objected to that, there was plenty of time to make the organizers aware of the potential problem. I don't know if the players did and the tournament organizers ignore them. <That is simply unthinkable. One has to be so obtuse to do something like that..> Well, it's obviously not unthinkable because the tournament organizers thought of it. I do agree with you that, as a minimum, it was obtuse to think of something like that, although I would probably use stronger words. Still, that's what the Rules and Regulations said and the players could have objected to it either before or at any time during the tournament. I guess that nobody, possibly including the players, thought that it would be an issue. In that case, they were all wrong. And yes, there were many possible alternatives, all of them probably better. Feb-08-21    AylerKupp: <<metatron2> First, I never said that the rating-change-rate of players above 2400 changed over time, I only said that their rating changes slower than players below 2400, because their K-factor is smallar.> True, you didn't say that the K-factor for players rated above 2400 changed over time. But I never said that you did. And you did say that the K-factor was a mechanism that allows it to protect higher rated players from logins lots of rating points when having a bad result. But that wasn't the intent of the K-factor, it was to "recognize the varying rates at which change occurs in a player's performance." (per Dr. Elo in 'The Rating of Chessplayers – Past and Present'). It was at most a possibly unintended side effect. So I thought that your discussion of the K-factor as a means "to protect higher rated players from losing rating points when having a bad result" was incorrect. I just pointed out that, unlike the K-factor for lower rated players the K-factor for players rated 2400+ hadn't changed over time. <I tend to think that increasing the K-factor of players below 2400 did affect the change rate of players above 2400> I don't think that increasing the K-factor for players below 2400 would allow them to reach a rating of 2400 if their playing strength was increasing. True, all things being equal, an increase of the K-factor from 15 to 20 would allow these players to reach the 2400 level sooner. But, once reaching the 2400 rating level then the rate of increase for these players would slow down, even if their playing strength continued to rapidly increase, simply because their rating change would be multiplied by 10 instead of 20. Only if the rate of increase in their relative playing strength at a level above 2400 doubled would their ratings increase at the same rate as when their rating was lower than 2400. And I don't see how this acceleration would have affected the behavior of players already rated at 2400+ but, not being rated anywhere near that level, I wouldn't really know. But why would it? If as a result of the higher K-factor the players were overrated once they crossed the 2400 level, they would have been brought down to earth soon enough although, since their K-factor would be 10 forever, it would have resulted in a slower rate of rating decline. I don't know why you think that rating floors, women only tournaments, etc. would affect the rating (change?) rate. Rating change is only based on the rating difference between the players, not any other circumstances. True, these other circumstances might affect players' ability to play at or near their peak, but that's not the fault of the rating system, that's the fault of the players for allowing themselves to be distracted by extraneous circumstances. BTW, if you are interested in rating changes at various rating levels over time, visit my forum and download one of the spreadsheets that looks at all FIDE-rated players' year-end rating from 1966 to 2020. <I said that in high professional level, black's expected results can change over time, depending on the theory status of that time, and so it is difficult to provide the correct compensation level in rating.> I have been looking at the scoring percentage difference between White and Black for many years and it has stayed pretty consistent around 55% - 45%. Sure, it may temporarily change for a particular opening variation if a novelty or a refutation of a particular line is uncovered but in that case the scoring percentage will quickly stability as players either find ways to counter the novelty or, if the opening variation is truly refuted, the abandonment of playing that variation. <Well I said that also from my personal experience, but you can simply count the number of openings, variations and different types of pawn structures> You can do that (I haven't done it nor do I know of anyone that has) but I think that it's too general to talk about Black's possible replies only to White's original move. Not only does Black have to be concerned about transposition from an 1.e4-type position to a 1.d4-, 1.c4- or 1.Nf3-type position but also the multiple ways that Black needs to respond to different opening variations by White. For example, Black's approaches to meeting 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d3 3.d4 will likely be very different than meeting 3.Nc3. And Black's approaches to meeting 1.e3 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 will also likely very different than meeting 3.e5. I don't really know whether it's White or Black that needs to be prepared to meet more openings and opening variations. All I do know that it's more than I can handle. Feb-09-21    metatron2: <AylerKupp: That's what was stated in the tournament's <Rules and Regulations>, not just a mere invitation> I don't really understand your claim here. Did those rules and regulations stated that the arbiter should seriously disturb a player in time trouble (or on his last move after the time control), without even stopping his clock from running while doing that ? Because <that> is the issue here, and <not> the fact that they wanted to start the playoffs on 18:00 (although, obviously they should have have postponed these playoffs as well, after realizing that they failed to calculate the games end time, but that's beside the point here..). Feb-09-21    metatron2: <AylerKupp: you did say that the K-factor was a mechanism that allows it to protect higher rated players from logins lots of rating points when having a bad result. But that wasn't the intent of the K-factor> I said that the K-factor mechanism <allows> the protection of higher rated players from losing lots of rating on each bad result, but obviously I did <not> say that that is the intention (or purpose) of the K-factor. I explained there, that the purpose of the rating system is to provide a good estimate for relative strengths between the players, and serve as a good predictive tool, and I said that if one wants to suggest K factor change, then he has to show that it improves that estimate. So I obviously meant that the purpose of the K-factor tool is to help achieving that purpose (and not to protect higher rated players from losting rating..). I only said that K-factor change allows the rating protection as a respond to <Pedro Fernandez>'s request to protect the higher rated players (and obviously not because it was the K-factor purpose). You will have much better understanding of my posts, if you'll read them along with their context, instead of looking at each sentence separately (I say that since it wasn't the first time that you ingnored the context..). Feb-09-21    metatron2: <AylerKupp: I don't know why you think that rating floors, women only tournaments, etc. would affect the rating (change?) rate> Rating floors and women only tournaments are usually mentioned as part of the mechanism that cause rating inflation, because they do something that is un-natuaral to system: Rating floors keep inside the rating pool, rating points that should have natually left it (somone got rating points but the other side did not lose them), and women only tournaments create an un-natural subgroup inside the rating pool, that is kind of protected from the natural affect that the rest of the pool would otherwise have on them (in fact, each country acts as sort of a "rating island" that has similar affect, but to lesser extent). If something causes rating inflation, then it means that it affects the way the rating changes inside the players pool. Of course it doesn't affect the direct rating change of each individual game (because it doesn't change the rating forumla), but it does have systematic affect on rating change. <AK: And I don't see how this acceleration would have affected on the behavior of players already rated at 2400+> I said that I <tend> think that the K-factor change had an affect on the 2400+ rated players pool. Again, I saw that sudden accelaration as something that was un-natural for the 2400+ players pool (only at that point of time of course), and could have a systematic affect there, that could have an affect on the rating change there. Again, I said that it was only an intuitive feeling, not something that is based on any study. Feb-09-21    metatron2: <AK: I have been looking at the scoring percentage difference between White and Black for many years and it has stayed pretty consistent around 55% - 45%.> OK so I'll take your word for this.. So the feeling that black feels much more comfortable at times (and also seems to be getting better results), is probably not backed up by the actual (global) numbers. <AK: I think that it's too general to talk about Black's possible replies only to White's original move. Not only does Black have to be concerned about transposition from an 1.e4-type position to a 1.d4-, 1.c4- or 1.Nf3-type position but also the multiple ways that Black needs to respond to different opening variations by White> The thing is that black usually gives the tone about the pawn structure. For example, if black plays slav structrures, then he will usually be able to get similar structures, regardless of white playing, 1. d4 or 1. Nf3 or 1. c4. or 1.g3 or 1. e3. White can choose a few different pawn structures against the slav structures, but other than these few, usually if white will try to go for rare sidelines with an un-popular pawn strcuture, then he won't get much, and black doesn't need to know much theory in order to face it. Same goes for 1. e4 openings. If black chooses the sicilian (for example), then after playing 2. d4, it is usually black that gives the tone about the resulting pawn structure. white can go for closed sicilian or alapin structures instead (I'm not sure wheather to consider the grand prix attack as a different pawn strcuture..), but other than these two, he doesn't have real attractive options (and actually these two are not that attractive either..). That doesn't seem to be the case for black's options. Any one of the main sicilian variations (Najdorf, Dragon, Kan, Sveshnikov, classical, etc) creates a very challanging pawn structure for white to face. And the same goes for 1.. e5, or French or Caro Can, or Pirc, or Scandinavian, or Alekhine. Each one of them creates a challanginng pawn structure for white to face (usually with multiple different pawn structures in each one of these openings). So because black usually decides about the resulting pawn structure (if white chooses to go for the main lines of course..), then he forces white to master a lot of different pawn structures (or to step away and go for sidelines, that are much less likely to give white an advantage out of the opening). Feb-10-21    Sokrates: Okay, let's make a 3 volume book series with the title "We'll discuss it, but why?" by the honourable Messrs. AylerKupp and Metatron2. Vol. I: The K-factor. What is it and why? Vol. II: Who behaved badly and why? Vol. III: What were we discussing and why? with the appendix: Left for the opera? Why? Feb-10-21    OhioChessFan: Vol. IV: Can we flood every single-yes every single-tournament page on the site with endless off topic conversation? Feb-10-21    Tabanus: Why not start with for example Corus Group A (2002). Feb-10-21    AylerKupp: <<metatron2> Did those rules and regulations stated that the arbiter should seriously disturb a player in time trouble (or on his last move after the time control), without even stopping his clock from running while doing that ?> (part 1 of 2) No, of course the Rules and Regulations didn't say that. Didn't you bother to read my post on Tata Steel Masters (2021) (kibitz #409) to see what the Rules and Regulations said at the time the tournament started? If you did, why are you asking this question? And if you didn't, please go back and read what I said in my post about what the pre-tournament Rules and Regulations said. And what's this nonsense about being in time trouble that I've also heard from you and others? Here's a video (presumably from the Dutch feed since one of the commentators is Sopiko Guramishvili who, in case you didn't know, is Giri's wife) of the situation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-h.... Look at the position. At the beginning of the video it's after Firouzja has played 60.Rd2 and then it quickly advances to where Wojtaszek has played 60...Qb1 and is presumably writing down his move on his scoresheet. So, if you are in time trouble, why aren't you sitting at the table waiting to make your next move as soon as possible? Look at the clocks. When the video starts Firouzja has 16:07 shown on his clock and Wojtaszek has 16:02. So presumably both players have had the 15 minutes for the post-60 moves added to their clock. Since when does having more than 16 mins on the clock mean that you are in time trouble? Yes, I agree that the arbiters should have stopped both players' clocks before they asked them to move. And from what I read and seen in the video, they waited until the players had reached the time control to inform them that they had to move to another table as stipulated in the Rules and Regulations in place at the start of the tournament, although Firouzja's clock was running and it should have been stopped. That was the fault of the arbitrators for not doing that. I would think that during the 13th and final round Firouzja would have wanted to know how the games of his competition for first place had finished. The scoring/Sonneborn-Berger (SB) status of those in contention for first place in the tournament after the 12th round were: Caruana: Score = 7.5, SB = 42.00 Esipenko: Score = 7.0, SB = 41.75 Firouzja: Score = 7.5, SB = 42.25 Giri: Score = 8.0, SB = 46.25 Van Foreest: Score = 7.5, SB = 43.25 From this it's not hard for his team to figure out before the beginning of the last round that: (1) If Firouzja and Caruana both won they would both finish with the same 8.5 score but Caruana would be ahead in SB score, 50.50 to 50.25. So Firouzja had to hope that Caruana did not win. (2) If Firouzja drew and Esipenko won, both would finish with the same 8.0 score but Firouzja would be ahead in SB score, 50.25 to 49.25. So, as long as Firouzja did not lose, he would be ahead of Esipenko in terms of qualifying for the tiebreak match. (3) Firouzja had to win and hope that Giri would do no better than a draw in order for Firouzja to score the same number of points as Giri. But if Giri drew and Firouzja won Giri would be ahead in SB points, 51.75 to his 50.00, so Firouzja had to hope that Giri lost. (4) If Firouzja drew and Van Foreest won Van Foreest would be ahead in SB points, 52.75 to his 48.00. If they didn't inform Firouzja of this then it's time for Firouzja to have a heart-to-heart talk with them about what their responsibilities are. But that, of course, if up to Firouzja or his manager. Feb-10-21    AylerKupp: <<metatron2> Did those rules and regulations stated that the arbiter should seriously disturb a player in time trouble (or on his last move after the time control), without even stopping his clock from running while doing that ?> (part 2 of 2) So in order for Firouzja to qualify for the tiebreaker match he could have known that the following must happen: (1) Caruana must do no better than a draw. (2) Esipenko had to win and Firouzja had to at least draw. (3) Giri had to lose or draw and Firouzja had to win in order to qualify for the tie breaker match, (4) Van Foreest could do no better than a draw. Here's a video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t16...) where the commentator says that Firouzja was only informed that he was not in contention for the first place tiebreaker even if he were to win this game. And here's yet another video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDr...) where a different commentator assumes that Firouzja learned of the tiebreak playoff situation when he went to check the results of the other games after he got up from the table following making his 60th move. I find the commentary in the second video more persuasive. Surely Firouzja would have wanted to find out as soon as possible the results of the games between his competition as listed above. If any of their games had finished while he still had time to get up from his table he likely would have done so, but at any rate he could have (and likely would have) done so after getting up from the table following his playing his 60th move. He would have found out that: (a) Caruana, Esipenko, and Giri drew. So Giri would outscore him in SB points even if he won. (b) Van Foreest won so he would also would outscore him in SB points even if he won. So when Firouzja go up from the table after his 60th move he would have found out that since Giri drew and Van Foreest won he could not qualify for the tiebreaker match. If he had won his game he could tie Giri and Van Foreest for 1st place in the tournament and they would each split the sum of the 1st through 3rd place money but the tournament title was out of his reach. Yes, that must have been disappointing to him, but it should not have come as a surprise to him if the arbiters had told him when they told him and Wojtaszek that they had to move to a different table. His position is subjectively better; he has 2 pawns for the exchange so material is approximately even. But those 2 beautiful bishops! And White's pieces are better placed for either an attack on Black's king or winning additional material. But, FWIW, Stockfish 12 at d=48 evaluates the position as providing even chances for both sides, [0.00] after either 61.Qd3, 61.Be5, or 61.Qf4 (the move that Firouzja actually played). So a draw was the likely outcome even if Firouzja was "rattled" by the situation. Of course, this is a theoretical result assuming best play by both sides. And in a game between two human players, particularly with a short amount of time, that's not likely to happen. And even if Firouzja had been "rattled" by the situation, a top level player must be able to keep his emotions under control and not lash out at the arbiters, regardless of the situation. There is a mechanism for filing a protest after the game and he's familiar with that, having filed a protest against Carlsen in the 2019 World Rapid and Blitz championship, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xr.... So I don't think that there's any justifiable excuse for Firouzja's temper tantrum. Feb-10-21    AylerKupp: <<metatron2> You will have much better understanding of my posts, if you'll read them along with their context, instead of looking at each sentence separately (I say that since it wasn't the first time that you ignored the context..).> Since you don't know how I read my posts, that's a big and unwarranted assumption on your part. Yes, I read every sentence of a post that I'm planning to comment on and I try to put it in the context of both that post and earlier posts in the same subject. But it seems to me that instead of responding to what I say in my comments you keep trying to avoid that by claiming that they are not made in the "context" of the complete post. Yes, they are. "Context" seems to be one of your favorite words, and I'm not the only poster you've taken this evasive action with. See, for example: Houdini (Computer) (kibitz #24) Houdini (Computer) (kibitz #24) Viswanathan Anand (kibitz #16734) Magnus Carlsen (kibitz #60454) Good luck following this approach to try to compensate for your inability to come up with a coherent argument against something that I or someone else said in a post. Feb-10-21    AylerKupp: <<metatron2> Rating floors and women only tournaments are usually mentioned as part of the mechanism that cause rating inflation, because they do something that is un-natural to system:> Does that mean that for any rating system we all have to consider what is "natural" and "unnatural" for that system? What does that even mean? For one thing, classifying something as "natural" or "unnatural" is highly subjective and depends on the biases of the person doing the classification. What's "natural" to me might be "unnatural" to you and vice versa. <Rating floors keep inside the rating pool, rating points that should have naturally left it > I don't think that you understand how the Elo rating system as implemented by FIDE works. A player gets a rating and updates his rating by playing in FIDE-sanctioned tournaments against other FIDE rated players. If his opponents are not FIDE-rated because their rating becomes lower than the ratings floor as a result of poor results, then for ratings calculation purposes that opponent is treated as an unrated player. Why should those rating points have "naturally left" the ratings pool? <I said that I <tend> think that the K-factor change had an affect on the 2400+ rated players pool.> I'm not sure of the difference between "thinking" and "tending to think" is, but I suppose you'll say that it depends on the "context" in which it is used. And just because you "tend" to think something instead of actually thinking it, or basing it on an "intuitive feeling" does not prevent you from explaining why you think, tend to think, or have an intuitive feeling for something. Of course, if you don't want to try to explain it, feel free to ignore it. <The thing is that black usually gives the tone about the pawn structure.> So do you think, tend to think, or have an intuitive feeling that after one of the examples I mentioned, that after 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 or 3.e5 that Black is "giving the tone about the pawn structure'? Whatever giving the tone means to you. <So because black usually decides about the resulting pawn structure ...> If you're going to throw around words like "usually' in order to make a case then you should have some data to back it up. Because I for one am not going to take your word for it. Not that it matters, you can continue to think, tend to think, or have an intuitive feeling about whatever you wish to post about. Feb-10-21    AylerKupp: <<Sokrates> Okay, let's make a 3 volume book series with the title "We'll discuss it, but why?"> Sounds good to me. But perhaps a better name for this series might be "AylerKupp / Metatron2 on Our Great Discussions." Feb-10-21    AylerKupp: <<OhioChessFan> Vol. IV: Can we flood every single-yes every single-tournament page on the site with endless off topic conversation?> And why do you think that a discussion of a situation that happened in this tournament and which might have had an impact on the final placings would be off-topic on this page? Feb-10-21    AylerKupp: <<Tabanus> Why not start with for example Corus Group A (2002).> A great idea. As a minimum it would hide the discussion where no one would apparently read it. Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 19) search thread:    < Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 18 OF 19 ·  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