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

Grand Slam Chess Final (2012) The 5th Grand Slam Chess Final was held in São Paulo, Brazil 24-29 September (1st half) and Bilbao, Spain 8-13 October 2012 (2nd half). The tournament used the Sofia Rules, which forbids agreed draws before 30 moves, and the "Bilbao" scoring system of 3 points for a win, 1 for a draw and 0 for a loss (though for ratings purposes the traditional scoring method is used). (1) Crosstable: 01 02 03 04 05 06 1 Carlsen ** 01 ½½ ½½ ½1 11 6½ 17 2 Caruana 10 ** ½1 1½ ½½ 1½ 6½ 17 3 Aronian ½½ ½0 ** 1½ ½½ ½½ 5 11 4 Karjakin ½½ 0½ 0½ ** ½½ ½1 4½ 10 5 Anand ½0 ½½ ½½ ½½ ** ½½ 4½ 9 6 Vallejo Pons 00 0½ ½½ ½0 ½½ ** 3 6 Carlsen won the event after the tiebreak games Caruana vs Carlsen, 2012 (0-1) and Carlsen vs Caruana, 2012 (1-0). Previous edition: Grand Slam Chess Final (2011). The tournament in 2012 was the last Grand Slam event (although the term Grand Slam continued to be used). Later editions were composed of invitees by the Bilbao Masters organising committee: Bilbao Masters (2013). (1) Wikipedia article: Bilbao Chess Masters Final  page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 30  Game   Result Moves Year Event/Locale Opening 1. Aronian vs Karjakin 1-0 30 2012 Grand Slam Chess Final E15 Queen's Indian 2. Caruana vs Carlsen 1-0 91 2012 Grand Slam Chess Final C19 French, Winawer, Advance 3. Anand vs F Vallejo Pons ½-½ 59 2012 Grand Slam Chess Final D38 Queen's Gambit Declined, Ragozin Variation 4. F Vallejo Pons vs Carlsen 0-1 41 2012 Grand Slam Chess Final B07 Pirc 5. Anand vs Aronian ½-½ 35 2012 Grand Slam Chess Final C67 Ruy Lopez 6. Karjakin vs Caruana 0-1 36 2012 Grand Slam Chess Final C78 Ruy Lopez 7. Carlsen vs Karjakin ½-½ 67 2012 Grand Slam Chess Final E15 Queen's Indian 8. Aronian vs F Vallejo Pons ½-½ 33 2012 Grand Slam Chess Final D39 Queen's Gambit Declined, Ragozin, Vienna Variation 9. Caruana vs Anand ½-½ 70 2012 Grand Slam Chess Final B52 Sicilian, Canal-Sokolsky (Rossolimo) Attack 10. Karjakin vs Anand ½-½ 31 2012 Grand Slam Chess Final D12 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav 11. Caruana vs F Vallejo Pons 1-0 24 2012 Grand Slam Chess Final C02 French, Advance 12. Carlsen vs Aronian ½-½ 48 2012 Grand Slam Chess Final C65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense 13. Anand vs Carlsen ½-½ 58 2012 Grand Slam Chess Final E17 Queen's Indian 14. Aronian vs Caruana ½-½ 73 2012 Grand Slam Chess Final A04 Reti Opening 15. F Vallejo Pons vs Karjakin   ½-½ 55 2012 Grand Slam Chess Final C65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense 16. Karjakin vs Aronian ½-½ 33 2012 Grand Slam Chess Final C89 Ruy Lopez, Marshall 17. F Vallejo Pons vs Anand   ½-½ 39 2012 Grand Slam Chess Final C78 Ruy Lopez 18. Carlsen vs Caruana 1-0 66 2012 Grand Slam Chess Final C00 French Defense 19. Aronian vs Anand ½-½ 33 2012 Grand Slam Chess Final D38 Queen's Gambit Declined, Ragozin Variation 20. Carlsen vs F Vallejo Pons 1-0 43 2012 Grand Slam Chess Final C01 French, Exchange 21. Caruana vs Karjakin ½-½ 40 2012 Grand Slam Chess Final C67 Ruy Lopez 22. F Vallejo Pons vs Aronian ½-½ 56 2012 Grand Slam Chess Final B06 Robatsch 23. Anand vs Caruana ½-½ 45 2012 Grand Slam Chess Final D70 Neo-Grunfeld Defense 24. Karjakin vs Carlsen ½-½ 35 2012 Grand Slam Chess Final C18 French, Winawer 25. Caruana vs Aronian 1-0 39 2012 Grand Slam Chess Final C84 Ruy Lopez, Closed  page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 30    REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2)   < Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 41 OF 42 ·  Later Kibitzing> Oct-17-12    nok: <(Petrosian & Spassky) still wiped the floor with the rest of Karpov's generation>. Hmm, let's have a nice reality check together. Let's see who *really* wiped the floor with Karpov's generation. Petrosian - Miles 1-0 Petrosian - Andersson 0-1 Petrosian - Huebner 2-1 Petrosian - Yusupov 0-0 Petrosian - Beliavsky 3-2 Spassky - Miles 2-3 Spassky - Andersson 1-0 Spassky - Huebner 4-5 Spassky - Yusupov 1-3 Spassky - Beliavsky 4-3 Not bad. The WCs managed to hold their own. However, this is hardly floor-wiping. Now open your eyes... Karpov - Miles 13-2 Karpov - Andersson 13-1 Karpov - Huebner 7-0 Karpov - Yusupov 12-1 Karpov - Beliavsky 17-3 I think comments are superfluous. These players were not born broken. Karpov broke them. Oct-17-12    perfidious: <nok> Much ado has been made of some of those rare Karpov losses to that group, when rather more should be made of their infrequency, just as Kasparov held sway over many in his generation. Oct-17-12    Eggman: <nok> It's curious that Karpov does not have particularly impressive scores against his World Champion-calibre predecessors: Karpov vs Geller +2 -1 =6 Karpov vs Petrosian +1 -1 =12 Karpov vs Korchnoi +31 -14 =63 Karpov vs Tal +1 -0 =19 Karpov vs Spassky +14 -2 =23 Karpov vs Smyslov +3 -1 =10 Why didn't Karpov do better against all these over-the-hill adversaries (OK, Korchnoi wasn't over the hill)? Maybe Karpov's score against his predecessors is distorted by a lot of GM draws, and a general attitude of deference on Karpov's part to his elders? Of course, the big glaring exception is Spassky (Karpov's plus over Korchnoi is exaggerated due to many wins scored by Karpov when Korchnoi was well into his 50s and beyond), whom Karpov really dominated. Perhaps this is because Karpov had to play a match against Spassky, and was forced to take off the kid gloves? Oct-17-12    nok: <Eggman> You have a point. Of his 12 draws against Petrosian, just 3 are over thirty moves. He was also friends with Tal, despite a notorious 100-move brawl back in 1971. Oct-18-12    drik: <nok: <(Petrosian & Spassky) still wiped the floor with the rest of Karpov's generation>.Hmm, let's have a nice reality check together.> Your reality check ignores the complete inability of any of your players to progress in the 70's Candidates Matches. 1974: Candidates Semi-finals : Korchnoi beat Petrosian Karpov beat Spassky 1977-78: Candidates Semi-finals : Korchnoi beat Polugaevsky Spassky beat Portisch All oldies apart from Karpov. You have to go to the 1980 candidates final before Huebner (the sole representative of that generation to get to a candidates final, never mind a title match). Even then he loses to the 50 year old Korchnoi - by then clearly past his prime. Even as late as 1980 http://fidelists.blogspot.com.au/20... 1 . Karpov,An. USR 2725 2 . Tal USR 2705 3 . Kortchnoi,V. SUI 2695 4 . Portisch,L. HUN 2655 5 . Polugaevsky,L. USR 2635 6 . Mecking,H. BRA 2615 7 . Petrosian,T. USR 2615 8 . Spassky,B. USR 2615 The top 8 are dominated by 40+ year olds. Show me any other such period in chess history. Why does this contradict your list of head to heads? Perhaps, for example, because you ignore that 4 of Huebner's 5 victories over Spassky occured in the 80's - the last 2 as late as 1989. <Now open your eyes...> Perhaps you missed my response to <Shams> yesterday - "Karpov was doubtless much stronger than his contemporaries..." Oct-18-12    brankat: That the top players who emerged mostly in the 1950s were still the top masters of the 1970s only shows just how good they were, not how weak the opposition was. The same had happened before. In the '30s AAA, Capa, even Lasker (in his sixties) still held their own (at least) with Botvinnik, Reshevsky, Flohr, Keres etc. In the 1950s young Spassky, Petrosian, Geller, Gligoric, Tal...were not really dominating Botvinnik, Keres, Reshevsky, Euwe... Top level grand-mastership is not easily achieved. It requires not only extraordinary talent, but also years of hard work, persistence, commitment to the game, strong will, a dosage of good luck, too. But, then, it is durable. Longevity in the Elite is the most telling trait of a true Grand-mastership. Oct-18-12    brankat: As for a smaller top-level GM field of the 1970s, compared to the 1950, actually the opposite is the case. And always has been, ever since the start of the 20th century. 1920s were more competitive than the 1900s. 1930s more than the 1920s. 1940s and '50s more than the 1930s etc. It's easy to prove this. This also makes perfect sense: often called progress. Usually based on a growing interest in the game from decade to decade. More literature. More experience/knowledge to draw from. More coaches. Better training methods. More tournaments. Growing social status of the pursuit. More money. Etc, etc. Oct-18-12    Eggman: <<Keypusher: Larsen was the same player before and after Fischer -- he won interzonals and was never a serious threat to qualify for a title match.>> No, I don't think this is true at all. Larsen had many fine tournament victories in the late '60s, and was considered to be a real title contender. It is only with hindsight that we say he wasn't a serious threat to become challenger: <<It is hard to say how their match will end, but it is clear that such an easy victory as in Vancouver (against Taimanov) will not be given to Fischer. I think Larsen has unpleasant surprises in store for him, all the more since having dealt with Taimanov thus (a 6-0 victory), Fischer will want to do just the same to Larsen and this is impossible. – Mikhail Botvinnik>> And yes, it is true that the post-Fischer Larsen won an interzonal (in 1976), but his results by this time were far less consistent - for example he didn't qualify for the candidates in the previous cycle. Oct-18-12    Mr. Bojangles: <brankat: That the top players who emerged mostly in the 1950s were still the top masters of the 1970s only shows just how good they were, not how weak the opposition was.> Absolutely. Historically, the strongest of GMs (regardless of era) were/are able to perform well into their 40s and even 50s ... Lasker, Capa, Bot, Tal, Smy, Korch, Pet, Kar, Kaspy, Anand, Chucky, Gelf and I have missed a ton along the way. Oct-18-12    perfidious: < Eggman: ....Larsen had many fine tournament victories in the late '60s, and was considered to be a real title contender. It is only with hindsight that we say he wasn't a serious threat to become challenger....> In the period 1967-1970, Larsen may well have been the best tournament player in the world, but consistent success in match play eluded him. <....it is true that the post-Fischer Larsen won an interzonal (in 1976), but his results by this time were far less consistent - for example he didn't qualify for the candidates in the previous cycle.> Larsen's tournament performances were indeed less consistent after 1970, but have a go at comparing the respective interzonal fields held in 1973: Petropolis, with an average Elo of 2545: http://www.365chess.com/tournaments... Leningrad, average Elo 2546: http://www.365chess.com/tournaments... The fields, when matched strictly by rating, were close as close could be, but Larsen (amongst others, per the tournament book) objected to what he perceived as a clearly stronger field at Leningrad. Oct-18-12    Olavi: Somewhat off topic, as for the 1973 Interzonals, the undeniable inequality of the fields was partly a result of coincidences: 1)Karpov was on the rise, his rating was too low 2) Byrne had a once in a lifetime result, and so there was one more contender than expected 3) Stein died, he would have played in Petropolis. Oct-18-12    perfidious: <Olavi> Byrne's result was hardly a one-off; in the following cycle at Biel 1976, he very nearly qualified again, finishing one-half point short of the triple playoff for the final two slots: http://www.365chess.com/tournaments... Oct-18-12    Olavi: <perfidious> That's true, but the respective scores were 12,5/17 and 11,5/19. That just shows how exceptional Leningrad 73 was, the score needed to qualify. Oct-18-12    Eggman: <<perfidious>> I know that Larsen resented FIDE President Euwe for making him play at Leningrad, but are you sure it was because of the strength of the field? Oct-18-12    nok: <the complete inability of any of your players to progress in the 70's Candidates Matches> That's only natural. Success in the WC cycle demands great self-confidence. When one guy is beating you 13-1 or 17-3, you know you'll never be WC. So you settle for usual super-tournament life (and it's not that bad). Oct-18-12    perfidious: <Eggman> Yes: Huebner was (I think) another player who was unhappy with the composition of the fields vis-a-vis one another, believing Leningrad was clearly the tougher field (not that anyone gave Byrne a shot). This is perfectly understandable, as Leningrad had Korchnoi, Karpov and Tal, who entered Leningrad on a long unbeaten run. Then came the aforementioned Larsen, Huebner and Smejkal-who only fell from the running after throwing away a better position vs Karpov in the penultimate round. Oct-18-12    drik: <nok: <the complete inability of any of your players to progress in the 70's Candidates Matches> That's only natural. Success in the WC cycle demands great self-confidence. When one guy is beating you 13-1 or 17-3, you know you'll never be WC. So you settle for usual super-tournament life (and it's not that bad).> You don't KNOW beforehand that 'one guy' is going to have a lifetime 13-1 or 17-3 plus score against you - so that is a truly riduculous reason for lacking motivation. You are saying that their premonitions of disaster against Karpov, unmanned them to such a degree that they lost matches to other players? Even if it were true, it would show pathetic lack of spirit. Kasparov beat Shirov 15-0 but that didn't stop Shirov beating Kramnik & qualifying to face his personal demon. Did their supernatural fear of Karpov also explain their inability to enter the top 8 of the Elo ratings too? Oct-18-12    drik: <brankat: That the top players who emerged mostly in the 1950s were still the top masters of the 1970s only shows just how good they were, not how weak the opposition was.> Logically, it might show either or both. January 1980 - FIDE Rating List http://fidelists.blogspot.com.au/20... 1 . Karpov,An. USR 2725 2 . Tal USR 2705 3 . Kortchnoi,V. SUI 2695 4 . Portisch,L. HUN 2655 5 . Polugaevsky,L. USR 2635 6 . Mecking,H. BRA 2615 7 . Petrosian,T. USR 2615 8 . Spassky,B. USR 2615 Only two playera are under 40, Karpov & Mecking (who had to retire from chess with myasthenia gravis). Look at todays rating list - http://ratings.fide.com/top.phtml?l... 1 Carlsen, Magnus 2843 2 Aronian, Levon 2821 3 Kramnik, Vladimir 2795 4 Radjabov, Teimour 2792 5 Nakamura, Hikaru 2786 6 Karjakin, Sergey 2780 7 Anand, Viswanathan 2780 8 Caruana, Fabiano 2772 Only Anand is over 40 ... & he is struggling to stay in the frame. Seriously, isn't the contrast STRIKING? Find me any rating list from outside the 70's, as totally dominated by over 40s. Oct-18-12    badest: <dirk> That is one way to look at it. Now look at the players involved in the last 4 WC-matches. ... I don't see many 20-year olds. Oct-18-12    drik: <Mr. Bojangles: Historically, the strongest of GMs (regardless of era) were/are able to perform well into their 40s and even 50s> Show me the 40+ year olds, other than Karpov in the top 8 of the FIDE 1991 rating list -http://www.olimpbase.org/Elo/Elo199... 1 Kasparov 2800 1963.04.13 2 Karpov 2725 1951.05.23 3 Gelfand 2700 1968.06.24 4 Ivanchuk 2695 1969.03.18 5 Bareev 2650 1966.11.21 6 Gurevich 2650 1959.02.22 7 Ehlvest 2650 1962.10.14 8 Yudasin 2645 1959.08.08 NONE - that generation had already been shoved aside by the 20 & 30 something crowd. Something that that generation had been completely unable to do against those 15 years older than themselves. Oct-18-12    drik: <badest: <dirk> That is one way to look at it. Now look at the players involved in the last 4 WC-matches.... I don't see many 20-year olds.> It's the same way of looking at it. I'm not arguing that 20-year olds are inherently superior. I'm arguing that Karpov's generation (other than Karpov) was weaker than the generation that preceded it & weaker than the generation that followed it. The strength or otherwise of the current generation, has no bearing on this argument. Oct-18-12    Lambda: Through most of the 20th century, you'll find 2 or 3 over-40s in the top 10. 1980 has 7, in which respect it is matched by 1930, which also has 7, but those two are definitely strong outliers. In recent years, just one over-40 has become more common. Karpov's reign is quite strange in that it presides almost precisely over a temporary large blooming in the number of over-40s at the top, (including the most significant player; Korchnoi, to be undoubtedly a significantly better player in his 40s than he was before), but it's also strange in other ways; He is most renowned as a winner of an incredible number of tournaments, but actually has a significantly better record in match play, averaging a better win-loss ratio against other strong players. Notably, he fought Kasparov virtually to a draw in match play, but lost to him twice in tournaments over the same period. While we're thinking of Kasparov, Karpov does not actually reach his peak strength until after he has lost the world title! He seems at his absolute best from about 1986-1990. Oct-18-12    nok: <You don't KNOW beforehand that 'one guy' is going to have a lifetime 13-1 or 17-3 plus score against you - so that is a truly riduculous reason for lacking motivation.> It hardly matters whether it's gonna be 10-1 or 15-1 in the end; the point is that you're getting thrashed. By the time of Baguio, Karpov's score against Andersson was 79 %. Against Miles it was 81 %. Miles' first win came in 1980 with his famous "this guy is unplayable, so I might as well play 1.e4 a6!" inside joke. Shirov won a match against Kramnik, yes -- but that's just one match. Huebner also won one against Portisch (and almost Smyslov, roulettes notwithstanding). Overall I doubt that Shirov's score against Kasparov did him any good, and indeed he hasn't been your steadiest performer. Oct-18-12    nok: <While we're thinking of Kasparov, Karpov does not actually reach his peak strength until after he has lost the world title! He seems at his absolute best from about 1986-1990.> That's debatable. Certainly, the arrival of Kasparov forced him to exert himself a bit more, which upped his nominal performance. But Dvoretsky e.g. noticed that he was a touch more approximative in his calculation here and there (in late 85 iirc). Oct-18-12    celso chini: Hello from Brazil! Excelent debate! Thank you all! In my modest opinion karpov was the toughest chess competitor till 1985! he slautered the competition! he almost broke even kasparov! Anyway all of us have our preferences.......this is the reason I love chess! Abraço a todos! Best Regards! Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 42) search thread:    < Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 41 OF 42 ·  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