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

Norway Chess (2020) The 8th Altibox Norway Chess was a 6-player double round-robin taking place from 5-16 October 2020 at the Clarion Hotel Energy in Stavanger, Norway. Each player had 120 minutes for the whole game with an increment of 10 seconds per move after move 40. If there was a draw in the Classical game the players moved on to Armageddon, with 10 minutes for white and 7 minutes for black, with an increment of 3 seconds per move after move 40. The new scoring system was as follows: Outcome Pts Classical win (3) 3 Classical draw, Armageddon win (½, 1) 1½ Classical draw, Armageddon loss (½, ½) 1 Classical loss (0) 0 Originally scheduled for June, the event was the first undisputed super-tournament to be held with wooden boards since the Corona lockdowns began in March (2020), and measures were taken to make sure the it ran smoothly. Players and officials were tested at the playing venue in cooperation with a medical center. A doctor and a person solely responsible for infection control was present at the hotel to make sure regulations were followed. In addition to Norwegians Carlsen and Tari, four players from the world top 20 were invited: Caruana and Aronian and the young guns Firouzja and Duda. The total prize fund was 1,810,000 Norwegian kroner (NOK), with 700,000 NOK (about 75,000 USD) to the winner. Rest day: 14 October. Tournament category: XXI (2763). For the first time there was no opening Blitz tournament. Chief arbiter (instead of Karl-Johan Rist who was appointed for June): Anemone Kulczak. World Champion Magnus Carlsen won with 19.5 points: Elo 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 Carlsen 2863 ** ** 1½ 3 1½ 0 3 1½ 0 3 3 3 19½ 2 Firouzja 2728 1 0 ** ** 1½ 1½ 1½ 1 3 3 3 3 18½ 3 Aronian 2767 1 3 1 1 ** ** 3 0 3 1 3 1½ 17½ 4 Caruana 2828 0 1 1 1½ 0 3 ** ** 3 1½ 3 1½ 15½ 5 Duda 2757 3 0 0 0 0 1½ 0 1 ** ** 1 3 9½ 6 Tari 2633 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1½ 0 ** ** 3½ Official site: https://norwaychess.no/en/regulatio... Regulations: https://norwaychess.no/regulations-... Chess.com: https://www.chess.com/news/view/202... ChessBase 1: https://en.chessbase.com/post/norwa... ChessBase 2: https://en.chessbase.com/post/altib... chess24: https://chess24.com/en/watch/live-t... TWIC: https://theweekinchess.com/chessnew... FIDE: https://ratings.fide.com/tournament... Sally S: https://i.ibb.co/mqCdmzm/grid1.jpg Wikipedia article: Norway Chess#2020 Previous: Norway Chess (2019). Next: Norway Chess (2021)  page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 42  Game   Result Moves Year Event/Locale Opening 1. A Tari vs Caruana 0-1 55 2020 Norway Chess B47 Sicilian, Taimanov (Bastrikov) Variation 2. Aronian vs Carlsen ½-½ 30 2020 Norway Chess E51 Nimzo-Indian, 4.e3 3. Aronian vs Carlsen 0-1 37 2020 Norway Chess D37 Queen's Gambit Declined 4. Duda vs Firouzja 0-1 52 2020 Norway Chess B18 Caro-Kann, Classical 5. Caruana vs Duda 1-0 94 2020 Norway Chess D10 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav 6. Aronian vs A Tari 1-0 48 2020 Norway Chess C89 Ruy Lopez, Marshall 7. Carlsen vs Firouzja 1-0 47 2020 Norway Chess D35 Queen's Gambit Declined 8. Carlsen vs Firouzja ½-½ 52 2020 Norway Chess D35 Queen's Gambit Declined 9. Firouzja vs Caruana 1-0 73 2020 Norway Chess D04 Queen's Pawn Game 10. A Tari vs Carlsen 0-1 45 2020 Norway Chess B69 Sicilian, Richter-Rauzer Attack, 7...a6 Defense, 11.Bxf6 11. Duda vs Aronian 0-1 61 2020 Norway Chess C48 Four Knights 12. Firouzja vs Caruana   ½-½ 36 2020 Norway Chess A08 King's Indian Attack 13. Carlsen vs Caruana 1-0 51 2020 Norway Chess E32 Nimzo-Indian, Classical 14. A Tari vs Duda 1-0 65 2020 Norway Chess B51 Sicilian, Canal-Sokolsky (Rossolimo) Attack 15. Aronian vs Firouzja 0-1 56 2020 Norway Chess B18 Caro-Kann, Classical 16. A Tari vs Duda   ½-½ 34 2020 Norway Chess B23 Sicilian, Closed 17. Aronian vs Firouzja   ½-½ 31 2020 Norway Chess B18 Caro-Kann, Classical 18. Duda vs Carlsen 1-0 63 2020 Norway Chess B15 Caro-Kann 19. Caruana vs Aronian 0-1 52 2020 Norway Chess E20 Nimzo-Indian 20. Firouzja vs A Tari 1-0 50 2020 Norway Chess C53 Giuoco Piano 21. A Tari vs Firouzja 0-1 34 2020 Norway Chess B13 Caro-Kann, Exchange 22. Aronian vs Caruana 0-1 38 2020 Norway Chess B40 Sicilian 23. Carlsen vs Duda 1-0 26 2020 Norway Chess D10 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav 24. Caruana vs Carlsen ½-½ 39 2020 Norway Chess B31 Sicilian, Rossolimo Variation 25. Firouzja vs Aronian   ½-½ 59 2020 Norway Chess D78 Neo-Grunfeld, 6.O-O c6  page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 42    REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2)   < Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 15 OF 15 ·  Later Kibitzing> Oct-24-20    Pedro Fernandez: Right now we do not have tournaments, nor does anyone suggesting something interesting or new in chess for us to give our opinion, therefore: <THEME OFF TOPIC> This is a nice problem that a Colombian guy uploaded to the WEB. It is not too hard solve it. Just a little logic and elementary geometry and arithmetic, Good for High School. <Sokrates> is not graduated in HS, but he is <SOCRATES>, so not problem at all! (this guy gonna kill me! lol!). Seriously, let's starting with the enunciate: We have a square frame formed by 4 segments, 2 horizontal and 2 vertical, all of them attached in its ends. We are going to put coins in all of the four segments, as follows. On the top righ corner (or vertex) we put 4 coins. we go to the left (of course!), advance and put 1 coin on this top horizontal segment, advance (on the left, we never will change the sense of advance, in any of the 4 segments) and now we put on the top segment 2 additional coins. Finally we arrive to the left corner of our top horizontal segment. Put there 3 coins. Let's now count the coins we put on the top horizontal segment, i.e. (from right to left) 4 + 1 + 2 + 3 = 10 coins on the top horizontal segment. At the same way we put coins on the left vertical segment. Begining on the top left corner, we already have 3 coins there (right?). Advance down and put 1 coin, advance down and put 2 coins. Finally we arrive to the left bottom corner. Put there 4 coins and now we count the number of coins on the left vertical segment (from top to bottom): 3 + 1 + 2 + 4 = 10, too! It is public and notorious that we must continue to put the coins in the 4 segments and in each of them 10 coins. We are putting the coins on the segments in a counterclockwise sense. We need to fill 2 more segments where I put the coins without comments. Bottom horizontal segment: 4 + 1 + 2 + 3 = 10. Finally the right vertical segment: 3 +1 + 2 + 4 = 10, ariving where we start. At the center of our frame (inside the 4 segments) we have 10 additional coins. The challenge is to put these 10 coins into the 4 segments and yet the coins sum 10 in all of them. Hmm... that's impossible. No! Indeed it is not so hard; a very litle logic, and a bit of spatial vision, but you're a chess player! My dear members, please solve it! And Thanks! PS. For example, <Diademas> is a tiger, and for sure any others too. So please, give some chance to the other members who need a little more time. Slow but precise, that is the most important! Oct-24-20    AylerKupp: <<Sally Simpson> A good tournament this, I like the scoring system and straight to Armageddon rule, hope other tournaments adopt it and it is forever a fixture.> <Part 1 of 3 – Using Sudden Death/Armageddon games at Rapid/Blitz time control games to resolve draws at Standard/Classic time control games> Sorry for not responding to this post earlier but after reading it made me think, usually a bad thing, and I decided to calculate some objective data. And that took time. Basically I disagree with both of the things you like about the scoring system. I still don't think that games played at Rapid or Blitz time controls have any relevance to games played at Standard/Classic time controls, whether these Blitz or Rapid games are used to determine the result of a tournament or the result of a single game. Player playing strength at different time controls is simply different, as indicated in the different FIDE player ratings and rankings at Standard/Classic, Rapid, and Blitz. But that's just my opinion and a discussion for another time. I don't think that the 10:7 (1.43) White Time Control Ratio (WCTR) used in this Norway tournament is an improvement on the usual 5:4 (1.25) WCTR used in other tournaments in term of providing a fair result, i.e. a 50% chance of scoring for both players, particularly if the increments are the same for both sides. There were 24 Sudden Death/Armageddon games played in this tournament, and White won 8, Black won 8, and there were 8 draws. Which means that White scored 4 points (each Sudden Death/Armageddon win was worth ½ point) and Black "won" 16 games given its draw odds and scored 8 points, a White scoring % of 33.3% and a Black scoring % of 66.7%. Hardly fair. Similar results were obtained in Norway 2019. There were 68 Sudden Death/Armageddon games played; White won 21, Black won 21, and there were 26 draws. Which means that White scored 10.5 points (each Sudden Death/Armageddon win was again worth ½ point) and Black "won" 47 games given the draw odds and scored 23.5 points, a White scoring % of 30.1% and a Black scoring % of 69.9%. Again, hardly fair. So, overall, in the 2 Norway tournaments when a SD/A game was used to break a tie following a draw in the S/C time control game, White scored 14.5 points, Black scored 31.5 points, for a White scoring % of 31.5% and a Black scoring % of 68.5 points. So it seems evident to me that the WCTR must be increased and (likely) a proportionally shorter increment used for Black. Otherwise Black's draw odds advantage is just too high to achieve fair results. And a player with the Black pieces in the S/C game is even more motivated to go for a draw since he would have an advantage with Black in the SD/A game. Perhaps drawing of lots to determine which player has the White pieces and which player has the Black pieces in the SD/A game would eliminate this problem. Oct-24-20    AylerKupp: <<Sally Simpson> A good tournament this, I like the scoring system and straight to Armageddon rule, hope other tournaments adopt it and it is forever a fixture.> <Part 2 of 3 – Using a scoring system that gives more points for a win rather than the typical 1-½-0 scoring system to encourage more decisive games> This has been suggested many times and considered desirable by many. But how do the actual results match the expectations? The main use at the top level of a 3-1-0 scoring system has been at the Bilbao Masters tournaments from 2008 through 2016. In fact, the 3-1-0 scoring system is referred to as the "Bilbao scoring system". The London Classic tournaments from 2009 through 2014 (except for 2013 when Rapid time controls were used) also used the 3-1-0 scoring system. In 2018 and 2019 the tournament winner was decided by a combination of S/C, Rapid, and Blitz games, and the S/C games used a 6-3-0 scoring system, presumably encouraging decisive games even more. And the Norway tournaments of 2019 and 2020 used a 2½-1-0 and 3-1-0 scoring systems respectively, so I only used the results of the S/C time control games. How did the percentage of S/C time control decisive games in tournaments using the typical 1-½-0 scoring system compare with the percentage of S/C time control decisive games in tournaments using (mostly) the 3-1-0 scoring system? I'm glad you asked. :-) I compared the results of the Gashimov Memorial tournaments, London Classic tournaments from 2015 through 2017, and the Norway tournaments from 2013 through 2018, all using the 1-½-0 scoring system with the Bilbao Masters tournaments, London Classic tournaments from 2009 through 2019 (except for 2013), and the Norway tournaments from 2019 through 2020, all using mostly the 3-1-0 scoring system. The 15 tournaments using the 1-½-0 scoring system consisted of 627 S/C time control games with an average player rating of 2775 and the 19 tournaments mostly using the 3-1-0 scoring system consisted of 470 S/C time control games with an average player rating of 2785. So most tournaments except two, the 2009 London Classic with an average player rating of 2696 and the 2019 London Classic with an average player rating of 2807(!) ) were FIDE Category 19-22 tournaments. Top level tournaments indeed with players of roughly equal strength. The 15 tournaments using the 1-½-0 had 224 S/C time control decisive games (155 wins by White and 69 wins by Black) for a decisive game percentage of 35.7%. The 19 tournaments using mostly the 3-1-0 scoring system had 170 S/C time control decisive games (110 wins by White and 60 wins by Black) for a decisive game percentage of 36.2%. It doesn't seem to me that the additional 0.5% increase in the number of S/C time control decisive games using the mostly 3-1-0 scoring system is significantly greater than that of the S/C time control decisive games using the 1-½-0 scoring system. Maybe using additional data, when/if a greater number of tournaments make use of the 3-1-0 system will make a significant difference. Oct-24-20    AylerKupp: <<Sally Simpson> A good tournament this, I like the scoring system and straight to Armageddon rule, hope other tournaments adopt it and it is forever a fixture.> <Part 3 of 3 – Using a scoring system that gives more points for a win rather than the typical 1-½-0 scoring system to encourage more decisive games> But a 3-1-0 scoring system might still have its advantages. By providing a 1 point instead of a ½ point advantage of a win over a draw, it gives a late-charging player a greater opportunity to either finish first or finish closer to the top. And a 6-3-0 scoring system would be even better in this respect. This could create more interest in the final rounds of a tournament since the top finishers will be more uncertain. But how does that reflect actual results? I looked at the number of S/C decisive games in the first and second halves of the tournaments, throwing out the results of the middle round if there was an odd number of rounds. The results were the reverse of what might be expected. For tournaments using the 1-½-0 scoring system there were 88 decisive games at S/C time controls in the first half of the tournament and 112 decisive games S/C time controls in the second half of the tournament. For tournaments using the (mostly) 3-1-0 scoring system there were 90 decisive games at S/C time controls in the first half of the tournament and 77 decisive games S/C time controls in the second half of the tournament. The reverse of what might be expected or hoped for. And the difference in the number of S/C time control games in the various tournaments was not large. For tournaments using the 1-½-0 scoring system only 3 of the 15 tournaments had 4 or more decisive games in the second half of the tournament compared to the first half of the tournament and for the 19 tournaments using the (mostly) 3-1-0 scoring system <no> tournaments had 4 or more decisive games in the second half of the tournament compared to the first half of the tournament. So it doesn't seem that the (mostly) 3-1-0 scoring system encouraged any last rounds come from behind heroics. Of course, this could be due to many factors in addition to the scoring system used. Older players might tire at the end of the tournament and be unable to mount a heroic charge at the end. Or maybe the pairings were such that those in a position to mount a last round charge would meet better players when having the Black pieces and therefore they did not think that the risks involved in going for a win were worth it given the expected gains/losses. Or ... Whatever the reason(s) the (mostly) 3-1-0 scoring system did not result in any later round charges. So, if you have a preference for the 3-1-0 scoring system over the 1-½-0 and the use of SD/A games to settle any draws during the S/C time control games, that's up to you. I don't think that the use of SD/A games at Rapid or Blitz time controls has any relevance to determining who the better player is in S/C time control games but that's entirely subjective. But, based on the available data, the current 5:4 and 10:7 WCTRs are not fair to the player with the White pieces when giving draw odds. And, again given the available data, the use of the 3-1-0 scoring system does not significantly increase the number of decisive games in top level, S/C time control games over the use of the 1-½-0 scoring system, at least at the top level, and does not encourage last rounds charges to try to obtain a higher tournament placing. Oct-24-20    Clemens Scheitz: <Sokrates' scepticism towards " The Queen's Gambit " > As you probably know, at least with this one, we don't have to worry about the setting of the board or the pieces, and even the natural way of hitting the clock and the moving of the pieces has been learned by the actors courtesy of famed coach Bruce Pandolfini Oct-25-20    Sokrates: Hi, <Clemens>, Admittedly, I haven't seen more than the teaser to the series. It looks serious, so I expect the chess part to contain some measure of realism. Evidently, chess would be used as a metaphor for unusual talent, not as an interesting subject in itself, and that's perfectly all right with me. Oct-25-20    Sokrates: Dear Pedro, You lost me already at the beginning with this description <We have a square frame formed by 4 segments, 2 horizontal and 2 vertical, all of them attached in its ends. We are going to put coins in all of the four segments, as follows.>. Probably because I haven't gone to high school (don't exist here) :-) but I'm unable to imagine neither the <frame> nor the <segments>. But I'm sure it's just me, so I look forward to see the many erudite solutions to your riddle. Oct-25-20    Sokrates: PS to <Pedro> - When I chose my alias in 2005, entering CG, I had just received a new translation of Plato's great dialogue "Gorgias" and since I always had admired Socrates/Plato, I took the alias as a token of that admiration, certainly NOT to pretend I was anything near the master in wisdom. Today, I would choose a different name. Probably <Messiah>, <Overgod> or even <Pedro Fernandez>! Oct-25-20    Clemens Scheitz: ....don't forget dazzling options like <MAGA> or <Big Pawn> Oct-25-20    OhioChessFan: <Pedro> here's the best spot for the frame problem. Louis Stumpers Oct-25-20    Pedro Fernandez: My <Sokrates>, for sure you're the suficcient competent in your area of knowdledge. I take your name for make the joke because of I feel myself the enough confident with you, and because I love you. Simply I did take the name given for the Anglo-Saxons (and other countries) to the secondary studies. For instance, in LatinAmerica secondary estudies are to be said Bachillerato, Baccalaureate in French, or Gymnasium in German. Hope this clarify some doubts. Now I'm going to clarify all the doubts of the problem statement. A square frame = a geometric square formed for 4 equal sides. Segment = a side of the above square. Corner or vertex = is a extremum point of the square where you pass from a horizontal side to a vertical side or viceversa, However, my great <Sokrates>, I'm sure you're kidding me! Cheers buddy! Oct-25-20    Messiah: <Sokrates [...] Today, I would choose a different name. Probably <Messiah>, <Overgod> or even <Pedro Fernandez>!> OK I laughed. Oct-25-20    Sokrates: Dear <Pedro>, A friendly poster like you can make all the jokes with me he wants at anytime. And, across the Atlantic Ocean, we are friends at this place in cyber space, rest assured about that. Thanks for the explanation. I gladly admit that I don't know the precise English words for geometrical phenomena, so I wasn't kidding, sorry! :-) Oct-25-20    Pedro Fernandez: My great <OhioChessFan>, honestly I don't know how to reply you, as you're surpased my degree of abstraction. I swear that my problem is a lot easier. BTW, are you from Cincinnati or Columbus? I know your heart is in Tupelo, though. Did you know I have driven in car from Miami to Cinci? Ohio is the only USA TetraState I know. Oct-28-20    Sokrates: U.S. Championship: Wesley So in the lead with staggering 5½:6. Xiong and Robson sharing place 2 and 3 with also impressive 5:6. Nakamura/Shankland/Sevian at modest 3:6 (Nakamura just lost to Awonder (!) Liang). A pity that CG ignores such and important tournament/championship. Oct-28-20    Pedro Fernandez: <<The drive is particularly pretty if you take the coast road. > Nice! So it is not necessary to take the I-5. About a Caddy I'm wrong. This one is more proper for your father. My grand father owned a splendid dark blue ´48 Chrysler New Yorker (I know a president of USA used this car, but I don't remember who). As you and my father are of the same age, your American epoch cars were the Barracuda, GTO, Transam, Mustang Shelby, Camaro Z28, Corvette, etc. Oct-28-20    AylerKupp: <<Pedro Fernandez> I think that your father and I, and possibly you, have different tastes in cars. Which is fine; as I say in my forum "De Gustibus Non Disputandum Est" (there is no disputing taste). But this discussion is clearly off-topic for this page so I've posted some comments in my forum at AylerKupp chessforum (kibitz #1677). Oct-30-20    0ZeR0: I quite liked the point scoring system for this tournament. It seemed to have encouraged interesting play. What ultimately surprised me most was not Carlsen's domination. At this point it seems like there is an expectation that he will win and anything less is a failure (for him). This is simply a testament to how great he has become. I thought that young Alireza played well above expectations considering the level of competition. Although I am still hesitant to anoint him, I will simply say that I am excited for his future and look forward to following his games. Oct-30-20    AylerKupp: <<0ZeR0> I quite liked the point scoring system for this tournament. It seemed to have encouraged interesting play.> I don't know what you mean by "interesting" play, it seems to be highly subjective according to the preferences of the viewer. But that's OK. But if you mean it encouraged decisive games then maybe you missed my posts above (starting with Norway Chess (2020) (kibitz #344)) but, statistically, I don't think that the number of decisive games in tournaments using the 3-1-0 scoring system (36.2%) was significantly greater than for selected tournaments using the 1-½-0 scoring system (35.7%) and they didn't seem to encourage more aggressive play in the later rounds in order for a middle- or back-ender to try to catch up with the leaders. Maybe more tournaments with the 3-1-0 scoring system are needed in order to establish statistical significance. Now, if we could only convince the tournament organizers of that! Oct-30-20    0ZeR0: Greetings, <AylerKupp> I simply meant to say that there were many games I liked here, which as you point out is indeed purely subjective. I'm afraid I am completely ignorant of the statistics involved in the decisive games argument (and statistics in general), but I value your observations. Although I do not post often here, I am a longtime lurker and have enjoyed reading your contributions before. Yes, I too would like to see more of this system so that we could gain more data. Oct-30-20    AylerKupp: <0ZerR0> Well, I would hardly dignify the calculations I did as "statistics". I simply counted for those tournaments the number of games played using either the traditional 1-½-0 scoring system and the 3-1-0 (sometimes 6-3-0) scoring system. Some tournaments like the Bilbao Masters have always used the 3-1-0 system and some tournaments like the Gashimov Memorial have always used the 1-½-0 scoring system. Others like the London Classic and this Norway tournament have sometimes used the 1-½-0 scoring system and sometimes the 3-1-0 scoring system (or the 6-3-0 which had a similar goal to increase the number of decisive games). The result was that there were 627 Standard/Classic time control games played using the 1-½-0 scoring system and 470 Standard/Classic time control games played using the 3-1-0 or 6-3-0 scoring system. Then I counted the number of decisive games where either White or Black won. There were 224 decisive games when the 1-½-0 scoring system was used and 170 decisive games when the 3-1-0 or 6-3-0 scoring system were used. So the "statistical calculations" were: 1-½-0 scoring system: 224 decisive games / 627 total games = 35.7% 3-1-0 and 6-3-0 scoring systems: 170 decisive games / 470 total games = 36.2% I wish that all the "statistical calculations" were that simple! Oct-30-20    0ZeR0: <AylerKupp> Well thanks for taking the time to enlighten me on your methods. What I meant to say is that I never learned mathematics. It's rather embarrassing but I honestly wouldn't know the difference between "true statistics" and what you came up with. If you don't mind me asking, do you study mathematics? Nov-11-20    sitefix: I really can't see the game by the winner Nov-11-20    sitefix: have the rules changed is there armageddon? Jan-24-21    Demian: Is there a way to see which game is classical or armaggedon before clicking it? Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 15) search thread:    < Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 15 OF 15 ·  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 2001-2023, Chessgames Services LLC