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

🏆 Amber Tournament (Rapid) (2010)

Player: Vugar Gashimov

 page 1 of 1; 11 games  PGN Download 
Game  ResultMoves YearEvent/LocaleOpening
1. V Gashimov vs L Dominguez ½-½372010Amber Tournament (Rapid)C54 Giuoco Piano
2. V Gashimov vs Gelfand 0-1892010Amber Tournament (Rapid)A22 English
3. Kramnik vs V Gashimov 1-0532010Amber Tournament (Rapid)D15 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav
4. V Gashimov vs Ponomariov  1-0642010Amber Tournament (Rapid)C78 Ruy Lopez
5. Grischuk vs V Gashimov 0-1222010Amber Tournament (Rapid)A62 Benoni, Fianchetto Variation
6. V Gashimov vs Aronian  ½-½492010Amber Tournament (Rapid)C67 Ruy Lopez
7. Carlsen vs V Gashimov ½-½582010Amber Tournament (Rapid)D15 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav
8. V Gashimov vs J Smeets 1-0332010Amber Tournament (Rapid)C42 Petrov Defense
9. Ivanchuk vs V Gashimov  ½-½382010Amber Tournament (Rapid)A09 Reti Opening
10. V Gashimov vs Karjakin ½-½272010Amber Tournament (Rapid)B97 Sicilian, Najdorf
11. Svidler vs V Gashimov  ½-½432010Amber Tournament (Rapid)A46 Queen's Pawn Game
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2) | Gashimov wins | Gashimov loses  

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 17 OF 20 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Mar-24-10  corbulo: Personally I thought <SRILANKANMASTER> was doing a pretty great impression of <slomarko> although I guess the latter is unlikely to become a <mster>
Mar-24-10  frogbert: <but a fair indication of the players relative streight is if they seem even in their individual games...>

you have <two (2)> classical games between carlsen and nakamura in recent years. if you want to use head to head scores, then wait until they have played at least 10. the two games are quite useless as a basis for comparison.

we should rather look at how they do <in the same events> (if you don't trust ratings to handle different events in a reasonable way) - and i'm still talking about classical chess (where is where we have ratings). during the last few months, they participated in two events together:

london classic:
carlsen scored 2 points more than nakamura

corus a:
carlsen scored 1 point more than nakamura

or 3 points more in 20 games. does that indicate that they are equally strong? no, it doesn't.

Mar-24-10  Hovik2009: good job guys, by attacking the Srilankan dude so ferociously, I am afraid we lost him forever!

I will miss his original offbeat comments!

Mar-24-10  drnooo: Here's book for somebody to write.
The Chess Brain.
In it we would find the total freakery of it, all the components, from memory on down to visualization, optimum age for rapid calculation, and in general its general uselessness for practically any other skill except staring thoughtfully with precision at sixty four squares, white on right of course. A seperate set of tasks could be given to all gms willing to be the white rats. Smyslov once told Spassky when asked by him how many moves ahead he could see, replied, only one at a time now, but it used to be in a.........series. That's the sort of bang band band specialization I am talking about.

Fine could see the board as clearly away from it as looking at it: he said it was just a thing of his. some of the gms at the Amber tourney claim tiredness etc when playing blindfold. Again, be interesting precise tests given there. We know Ivanchuck complains that he has to LOOK at the board, says its better for him sometimes to just stare off into space. For a bonus toss in a whole blindfold section of players who were great but barely could visualize the board away from it, or whose rapid skills were not nearly up to their longer more cogitated results. Naka seems to be the reverse of that, great rapids not quite up to the other stuff. In short, take the car apart and show us all its interacting components, every last single bloody one of them

Mar-24-10  Karpova: Grischuk-Aronian 1/2
Dominguez-Smeets 0-1
Mar-24-10  The Rocket: this is a joke, ponomariov cant even hold an equal rook and pawn ending
Mar-24-10  siamesedream: <this is a joke, ponomariov cant even hold an equal rook and pawn ending> It was almost mission impossible, but Carlsen did it again! 2-0 before last round against Grischuk.
Mar-24-10  researchj: This real pazer was a world champion! Give me a break, please!
Mar-24-10  Mr. Bojangles: Pono v Carlsen

At move 42 or so, with 4 pawns and a rook each, on the same side of the board ... for a Super Grandmatser to lose like Pono did is shameful, very shameful.

At that point he had 6 mins, so it wasn't time trouble at all but lack of technique and understanding.

This games is not about Carlsen's play (of cos he played well) but about a SGM losing such a position.

It so embarassing and sad for me to watch.

Mar-24-10  turbo231: Does Ponomariov need help on his end game? Were did he go wrong? Fanastic game for Carlsen.
Mar-24-10  Appaz: Another one "playing like an idiot" against Carlsen. But of course Ponomariov would never say that, as it "would not be very respectful" against Carlsen.

The conclusion is, as always, that Kramnik plays brilliant beating Carlsen, while Carlsen is lucky that Pono plays like an idiot.

Mar-24-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  rogge: <The conclusion is, as always, that Kramnik plays brilliant beating Carlsen, while Carlsen is lucky that Pono plays like an idiot.>

Hehe, spot on :)

Mar-24-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  Peligroso Patzer: <Mr. Bojangles: Pono v Carlsen

At move 42 or so, with 4 pawns and a rook each, on the same side of the board ... for a Super Grandmatser to lose like Pono did is shameful, very shameful.

<At that point he had 6 mins, so it wasn't time trouble at all> but lack of technique and understanding.

*** >

Even with an increment, 6 minutes is way too little time to play such an ending accurately. Although the ending is theoretically a dead draw, it is technically tricky, and time was a significant factor in the result. Ponomariov is normally quite strong in the endgame.

Mar-24-10  siamesedream: Smeets won just one blindfold game so far... Guess who was his opponent in that game?
Mar-24-10  Mr. Bojangles: <while Carlsen is lucky that Pono plays like an idiot.>

One cannot blame Carlsen, he did what he had to do but such a win (and he has had many) is undermined by a cheap, derisory loss.

Mar-24-10  Mr. Bojangles: <siamesedream: Smeets won just one blindfold game so far... Guess who was his opponent in that game?>

hahahaha the perenial customer

Mar-24-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  rogge: <One cannot blame Carlsen, he did what he had to do but such a win (and he has had many) is undermined by a cheap, derisory loss.>

Yes, and when Carlsen wrote "I played like an idiot", it was disrespectful to Kramnik. Of course.

Mar-24-10  s4life: <frogbert: you're free to believe whatever you want - but if nakamura is as good as carlsen, then he surely hasn't shown that yet.>

Naka's shown he's stronger mentally, his better head-to-head record is an indication of that.. perhaps he has figured Carlsen out.. it happens often in chess, f.e. Kramnik and Kasparov.

Mar-24-10  frogbert: <his better head-to-head record is an indication of that>

s4life, you're into statistics, aren't you? what about carlsen and nakamura's head-to-head record do you find statistically significant?

5 otb blitz games? (3-2 nakamura)
2 otb classical games (after 2005)? 1-1
3 otb rapid games? (2-1 nakamura)

if you think you can derive anything meaningful from that, then you're less of a statistician than i thought!

Mar-24-10  frogbert: <5 otb blitz games? (3-2 nakamura) >

and if carlsen had cared about this "record", he would taken the draw in the 4th game in the bnbank final (making the "record" 2,5-2,5) - but he understands that 3-1 or 2,5-1,5 in that situation is the same for all practical purposes - so he tried winning even if the position really held nothing for anyone.

if you're trying to say that this difference (and that choice) means that nakamura has "figured carlsen out", then i seriously need to reconsider the relationship between heart and brain you put into your posts. :o)

Mar-24-10  Kinghunt: Combined scores after round 9:

Carlsen: 13.5
Ivanchuk: 13
Kramnik: 12
Grischuk: 11.5
Gelfand: 11
Karjakan: 11
Gashimov: 10.5
Svidler: 10.5
Aronian: 9.5
Ponomariov: 7.5
Smeets: 5.5
Dominguez: 4.5

Some quick analysis: if Carlsen scores 1/2 against Grischuk, Ivanchuk will need to score 1.5/2 against Gelfand to tie and 2/2 to win. Kramnik would need 2/2 against Karjakan just to tie for first.

Now, if Carlsen gets that 1/2 by two draws, he will not win either division but will win at least shared first overall as long as Gelfand holds Ivanchuk to no more than 1.5/2. But if Carlsen wins the blindfold game, he wins the blindfold division and still has a great shot at winning the whole thing even if he loses the rapid. Grischuk seems to be in great blindfold form this tournament, but his loss today may have shaken him up a bit.

Carlsen's also currently tied for first in the rapid. This means that if Carlsen wins either game tomorrow, he'll also win (or at least share first) its respective division. Thus, scoring 1/2 by winning one game and losing the other would be better for Carlsen than scoring 1/2 by drawing both games. Expect aggressive play from Carlsen tomorrow. He's going to try to win all three categories.

Best case scenario for Carlsen: he wins both games tomorrow, thus winning both divisions and overall. Worst case scenario: he scores 0/2, while Kramnik and Ivanchuk both score 2/2, making Carlsen finish 3rd in blindfold, 3rd in rapid, and 3rd overall. Still not at all bad.

Mar-24-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  kamalakanta: I am amazed that Carlsen won this endgame against Ponomariov. It is a testament to his patience and endgame skill. Reminds me of Rubinstein and Capablanca. For me, he is the most exciting player of this generation, although I have no statistics to prove that! :-)
Mar-24-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  Bobby Fiske: <kamalakanta: ...although I have no statistics to prove that!> Well, since frogbert hardly are going to argue against this matter, you have nothing to fear! LOL
Mar-24-10  frogbert: s4life, a couple more examples why one shouldn't draw any conclusions based on a few chess games:

after the first 5 encounters (ever) between wang yue and carlsen (all in classical chess, btw) the score was 2-0 in decisive games for wang yue, with 3 draws. had wang yue "figured carlsen out"?

the next 4 classical encounters gave 2 wins for carlsen and 2 draws - so now it's 2-2 in classical chess. (m-tel and nanjing 2009)

in other formats (mostly rapid) carlsen scored 4-1 in decisive games against wang yue in 2009 (in addition to 2-0 in classical).

with +2 -2 =5 in 2008 and 2009, should we assume that wang yue is as good as carlsen in classical chess, since their classical head-to-head score is equal? [carlsen won the last two decisive games.]

but at least 9 games make up something worthy of being named a "record" in classical chess. let's talk about carlsen's and nakamura's classical record when it comes into existence. :o)

similarly, carlsen was 0-4 against leko (including 0-3 in classical) before he got his first win in 2008. today it's 2-3 in classical, with 10 draws, in other formats (mostly rapid, plus some blitz and blindfold it's 3-1 carlsen). [all games 2007-2009]

+2 -3 =10 in classical chess - does that mean that leko is a better player than carlsen? after all he's +1 in 15 games... [carlsen won the last two decisive games.]

head-to-head scores can only tell us so much. but before we start talking about head-to-heads at all, we first need a record of some reasonable size. we will need to wait at least until the end of 2011 before there can be anything remotely meaningful to discuss regarding carlsen and nakamura in classical chess. until then, we're left with studying their accumulated results - against everyone. i.e. their ratings.

Mar-24-10  frogbert: <in other formats (mostly rapid) carlsen scored 4-1 in decisive games against wang yue in 2009 (in addition to 2-0 in classical).>

sorry, that wasn't precise at all: wang yue beat carlsen in corus and linares 2009, so he was leading 2-0 in classical games in early 2009 - but the record at the end of the year ended up being 2-2 after as much as 7 encounters that year. (corus, linares 2, m-tel 2, nanjing 2)

but like stated, after 5 classical games, wang yue was up 2-0.

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 20)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 17 OF 20 ·  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