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

🏆
TOURNAMENT STANDINGS
Dortmund Sparkassen Tournament

Fabiano Caruana5.5/7(+4 -0 =3)[games]
Georg Meier4/7(+2 -1 =4)[games]
Peter Leko4/7(+1 -0 =6)[games]
Arkadij Naiditsch3.5/7(+2 -2 =3)[games]
Michael Adams3.5/7(+1 -1 =5)[games]
Ruslan Ponomariov3/7(+1 -2 =4)[games]
Vladimir Kramnik2.5/7(+0 -2 =5)[games]
David Baramidze2/7(+0 -3 =4)[games]
*

Chessgames.com Chess Event Description
Dortmund Sparkassen (2014)

The 42nd Dortmund Sparkassen Chess-Meeting took place in the Orchesterzentrum NRW in Dortmund, Germany 12-20 July 2014. Rest days: July 14 & 17. Chief organizer: Ralf Chadt-Rausch. Players received 100 minutes for 40 moves, then 50 more minutes for the next 20 moves, then 15 more minutes for the rest of the game, with a 30-second increment from move one. Games started at 3 pm local time. Fabiano Caruana won the event for the 2nd time with 5.5/7.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Caruana 2789 * 1 1 1 1 5 2 Meier 2632 0 * 1 1 4 3 Leko 2737 * 1 4 4 Naiditsch 2705 0 0 * 1 1 3 5 Adams 2743 0 * 1 3 6 Ponomariov 2723 0 0 * 1 3 7 Kramnik 2777 0 0 * 2 8 Baramidze 2616 0 0 0 * 2

Category: XIX (2715). Chief arbiter: Andrzej Filipowicz

The Helmut-Kohls-Turnier (round robin) was won by Tigran Vaanovic Nalbandian and Mikhail Zaitsev with 8/9. The Open A swiss tournament was won by Daniel Hausrath ahead of Karl-Heinz Podzielny, both with 7.5/9.

Wikipedia: Wikipedia article: Dortmund Sparkassen Chess Meeting#2014
Dortmunder Schachschule: http://www.dortmunder-schachschule....
Chess.com: https://www.chess.com/news/view/car...
ChessBase: https://en.chessbase.com/post/dortm...
Chess24: https://chess24.com/en/watch/live-t...
DSB: http://www.schachbund.de/id-42-spar...
TWIC: https://theweekinchess.com/chessnew...
FIDE: https://ratings.fide.com/tournament...

Previous: Dortmund Sparkassen (2013). Next: Dortmund Sparkassen (2015)

 page 1 of 1; 3 games  PGN Download 
Game  ResultMoves YearEvent/LocaleOpening
1. D Baramidze vs Caruana 0-1752014Dortmund SparkassenA81 Dutch
2. Kramnik vs G Meier 0-1412014Dortmund SparkassenA30 English, Symmetrical
3. D Baramidze vs Naiditsch 0-1502014Dortmund SparkassenE04 Catalan, Open, 5.Nf3
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2)  

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 12 OF 12 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Jul-23-14  SetNoEscapeOn: <Cant be that difficult eh?>

Not if you understand the simple concept, which is exactly what <plang> said.

Jul-23-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  whiteshark: <SNEO> +1
Jul-23-14  dx9293: <Carlsen-Caruana> Caruana does not have to be as "dominant" as Carlsen to beat him in a World Championship match.

To become World #1? Yes, but that's small potatoes compared to being Champion.

I'm not saying Caruana *will* defeat Carlsen, I'm merely saying that he has his chances, and that fans <assuming> Carlsen will hardly be challenged over the next 10+ years are putting the cart before the horse.

Who knows, MVL might jump over Karjakin as Carlsen's 1990 challenger. One never knows with such things, and to try and predict it with statistics misses the point.

I don't think Vishy has a very good chance in Sochi, but maybe he will shock the world...

I think Sasha Grischuk would be a PITA to deal with in a WC match, actually. Don't say I didn't warn you.

The next few years should be interesting.

Jul-23-14  lakers4sho: whats PITA
Jul-23-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  WannaBe: Pain in the azz
Jul-23-14  Kinghunt: <dx923> Yes, that certainly <could> happen, I don't deny that. But when you compare Carlsen to his historical predecessors, it's clear that you should not bet on that proposition with anything close to even odds. I would think about it at 1:3 odds.
Jul-24-14  dx9293: <Kinghunt> The thing is, I think <the field> has better than 1:3 odds of taking Carlsen down within the next few cycles.

Long WC reigns are the exception, not the rule, and I think we can say in the case of Lasker and Alekhine that many worthy competitors did not get to challenge or did so after an overly long wait (Capablanca). Botvinnik of course never won a WC match as Champion, drawing 12-12 in 1951 and 1954.

Even Karpov only made two (complete) successful title defenses as undisputed champion.

We shouldn't hold our breath waiting for the next Kasparov.

Jul-24-14  Absentee: <dx9293: To become World #1? Yes, but that's small potatoes compared to being Champion.>

The other way round. Carlsen also happens to agree.

Jul-24-14  dx9293: <Absentee> You must be kidding.

Becoming undisputed World Champion is what it's all about. The notion of a World Chess Champion has been around since at least the 1850s. FIDE ratings were first introduced in 1970.

Carlsen is entitled to his opinion, but he should have learned the lesson when he got way more (casual fan) attention by dethroning Anand than he did by maintaining #1 for years. By his own admission he was surprised, but having the World Championship title gives immortality and exposure in a way that rating/ranking does not.

Jul-24-14  dx9293: Until Carlsen won the WC, he was not getting anywhere near my all-time Top 10 list. Now that he has done so, he is solidly in the Top 10 and with a couple of more title defenses he would probably enter my Top 5.
Jul-24-14  Absentee: <dx9293: The notion of a World Chess Champion has been around since at least the 1850s. FIDE ratings were first introduced in 1970.>

So?

<Carlsen is entitled to his opinion, but he should have learned the lesson when he got way more (casual fan) attention by dethroning Anand than he did by maintaining #1 for years.>

Public attention isn't an objective yardstick of a player's level or strength.

<By his own admission he was surprised, but having the World Championship title gives immortality and exposure in a way that rating/ranking does not.>

I'm not talking about exposure, fame, someone's fetish or anything which depends on the mindset of the public. I'm talking about objective, as far as possible accurate measurement. An arbitrary title awarded according to wildly changing procedures and on stake every X years isn't a very accurate tool. In fact, it's atrociously inaccurate. If it's still alive it's only because of the general mental laziness.

Jul-24-14  dx9293: <Absentee> Ok, if you're looking for the most objective approximation of a player's level or ability, ratings/rankings or tournament results do the best job over time.

But as time passes, numbers and stats lose their importance. A sportsman's AURA remains, and it transcends all else. THAT was what I meant by the "small potatoes" comment.

Becoming World Chess Champion provides that aura, and nothing else comes close, though memorable tournament victories would be second, and not rating/ranking.

Jul-24-14  Refused: Anyway, this was another terrible/dreadful tournament for Kramnik.

Dortmund used to be his living room (chesswise) and he ends up -2 with no wins. And it's not like the field was exceptionally strong.

I think the curtain starts to call for Kramnik and it's time for one last bow.

Jul-24-14  MarkFinan: <dx9293: <Absentee> You must be kidding. Becoming undisputed World Champion is what it's all about. The notion of a World Chess Champion has been around since at least the 1850s. FIDE ratings were first introduced in 1970.

Carlsen is entitled to his opinion, but he should have learned the lesson when he got way more (casual fan) attention by dethroning Anand than he did by maintaining #1 for years. By his own admission he was surprised, but having the World Championship title gives immortality and exposure in a way that rating/ranking does not.>

Great post. #Justsaying

Jul-24-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  plang: It is sort of like a sports team that has the best record during the regular season but then doesn't win the World Series/Super Bowl/NBA Title/World Cup etc

What people remember is who won the title

Jul-24-14  Absentee: <dx9293: But as time passes, numbers and stats lose their importance. A sportsman's AURA remains, and it transcends all else. THAT was what I meant by the "small potatoes" comment.

Becoming World Chess Champion provides that aura, and nothing else comes close, though memorable tournament victories would be second, and not rating/ranking.>

Probably, usually, but that's still a result of the irrational attitude of the viewer.

Jul-24-14  dx9293: <plang: It is sort of like a sports team that has the best record during the regular season but then doesn't win the World Series/Super Bowl/NBA Title/World Cup etc

What people remember is who won the title>

Yup.

Jul-24-14  1d410: Just reason it out. You an get the same rating by drawing two tournaments as winning a world championship tournament and then dismally failng in your next tournament. In my view the player who wins one stands better. The world championship is the ultimate measure of success in chess.
Jul-25-14  Wavy: I hope the world championship will be held like tennis grand slam tournament or the world cup. Everyone has a chance to join and the last man standing is the world champion. That is more exciting.
Jul-25-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  HeMateMe: your right, it was wonderful that Khalifman got his due recognition as world champion.
Jul-25-14  Absentee: <Wavy: I hope the world championship will be held like tennis grand slam tournament or the world cup. Everyone has a chance to join and the last man standing is the world champion. That is more exciting.>

There is the World Cup, even though most people always seem to forget about it. Hundreds of players of all ratings and from all federations have been participating since 2005, but the winner has always been one of the top-rated players. The Grand Prix events also had a fair number of semi-outsiders.

<1d410: Just reason it out. You an get the same rating by drawing two tournaments as winning a world championship tournament and then dismally failng in your next tournament. In my view the player who wins one stands better. The world championship is the ultimate measure of success in chess.>

Uhm... this just doesn't make sense. You can't draw a tournament. You can get a certain rating by any combination of wins or losses, whether in matches or tournaments. So what?

Jul-26-14  1d410: <Absentee> personally I would rather watch Caruana play as he does here and lose a few tournaments because he is too aggressive than watch him safely draw every game in every tournament. It really comes down to personal taste.
Jul-26-14  1d410: World Championship format is also good because if you really are the strongest player in the world, why shouldn't you be able to grab it?
Jul-26-14  1d410: It's not irrational! :P
Aug-31-14  Chess for life: Ratings are useful, but I find there is a lot of merit in seeing who can perform when it matters most, such as under the pressure of a Candidates tournament and a World Championship match. I personally think a World title is more meaningful than an accumulation of rating points.
Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 12)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 12 OF 12 ·  Later Kibitzing>
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, is 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, profane, raunchy, or disgusting language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate or nonsense posts.
  3. No malicious personal attacks, including cyber stalking, systematic antagonism, or gratuitous name-calling of any gratuitous name-calling of any members—including Admin and Owners—or any of their family, friends, associates, or business interests.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No malicious posting of or linking to personal, private, and/or negative information (aka "doxing" or "doxxing") about any member, (including all Admin and Owners) or any of their family, friends, associates, or business interests. This includes all media: text, images, video, audio, or otherwise. Such actions will result in severe sanctions for any violators.
  6. NO TROLLING. Admin and Owners know it when they see it, and sanctions for any trolls will be significant.
  7. Any off-topic posts which distract from the primary topic of discussion are subject to removal.
  8. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by Moderators is expressly prohibited.
  9. The use of "sock puppet" accounts in an attempt to undermine any side of a debate—or to create a false impression of consensus or support—is prohibited.
  10. All decisions with respect to deleting posts, and any subsequent discipline, are final, and occur at the sole discretion of the Moderators, Admin, and Owners.
  11. Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a Moderator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific tournament and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, 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 at the sole discretion of the Admin and Owners—who will strive to act fairly and consistently at all times.
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!


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 | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | contact us


Copyright 2001-2019, Chessgames Services LLC