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

🏆 Qatar Masters (2015)

Chessgames.com Chess Event Description
Played 19-30 December 2015. Crosstable: ... [more]

Player: Magnus Carlsen

 page 1 of 1; 9 games  PGN Download 
Game  ResultMoves YearEvent/LocaleOpening
1. Carlsen vs N Batsiashvili ½-½572015Qatar MastersA06 Reti Opening
2. C Aravindh vs Carlsen 0-1372015Qatar MastersB20 Sicilian
3. Carlsen vs D Yuffa 1-0272015Qatar MastersE62 King's Indian, Fianchetto
4. J K Duda vs Carlsen 0-1422015Qatar MastersB92 Sicilian, Najdorf, Opocensky Variation
5. Carlsen vs Li Chao 1-0362015Qatar MastersD70 Neo-Grunfeld Defense
6. W So vs Carlsen ½-½392015Qatar MastersC97 Ruy Lopez, Closed, Chigorin
7. Carlsen vs A Giri ½-½522015Qatar MastersB92 Sicilian, Najdorf, Opocensky Variation
8. Mamedyarov vs Carlsen 0-1252015Qatar MastersD38 Queen's Gambit Declined, Ragozin Variation
9. Carlsen vs Kramnik ½-½302015Qatar MastersC67 Ruy Lopez
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2) | Carlsen wins | Carlsen loses  

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 46 OF 46 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Jan-09-16  Clemens Scheitz: <AylerKupp>,I was under the impression that the ultimate goal was to determine if a machine can establish the absolute strength of a player, and the result of a game as well as the frequency of matching "the computer best moves" by a player are not sufficient. My example of the 3 players points to the fact that there could be significant factors that will always be unknown to the computer.

<Karne>, unfortunate? why?,.. because I will be judged negatively by<Bobwhoosta>'imaginary god?. That's actually a compliment. I would never want to have the same moral standard of that genocidal maniac ( remember that time when things didn't go his way, he threw tantrums and killed millions Genesis 7.21)

Jan-09-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  nok: <I think SS mentioned Alekhine.>

Klaus Junge even played Alekhine.

Jan-09-16  Bobwhoosta: <Clemens Sheitz>

Oh it's far worse than that. Death itself started because Adam ate a piece of fruit.

Jan-09-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: Hi,

Yeah I meant players strengths, we have enough armchair psychiatrists to sort out that view of the players.

Ignoring computers for now as they need a giant leap in a new direction to play like humans, the views of strong players should be noted by the fact they are strong players and therefore in theory should understand the game better.

(Of course although they understand the game better this will not stop Kibitizers from advising them on what openings to play, how they should train, what seconds to use and what side to part their hair. I think Carlsen should sport a Mohican for 2016 just to show he means business.)

However these strong players do change their minds on who was the greatest.

Aronian was of the opinion it's Alekhine in 2012, then in 2015 it was Kasparov.

In 2005 Kramnik had Kasparov as the best ever till 2011 when he changed it to Anand.

Anand in 2008 said Fischer and Kasparov with Kasparov slightly ahead. In 2012 he changed his mind to simply just Fischer.

Carlsen recently rated Fischer & Kasparov as the best but also gave a firm nod in Kramnik's direction. Possibly when Kramnik retires he will be Carlsen's top choice.

in 2001 Chess Informant ran a readers poll it came out. Fischer, Kasparov, Alekhine, Capablanca, Botvinnik, Karpov, Tal, Lasker, Anand and Korchnoi.

I reckon if they took a poll of all the players over 2700 and keeping the choice to inactive players then Kasparov would figure in everyone's top three and in the majority of cases have him as number one. (provided of course they can stick to chess and not chess politics.)

---

Grades are OK in lieu of a better method (it's probably the best we will ever have) but inflation and regional games where an overrated player can spread his grade around like the pox making it possible to get a grade of over 2600 without ever beating a player over 2600 thus giving birth to the ridiculous term 'a weak grandmaster', can produce lopsided and some eyebrow raising results.

If you think that Nakamura, Wes So, Radjabov, Karjakin, Morozevich and Ivanchuk are better than Fischer and Karpov (all of those six have posted higher grades than Fischer and Karpov) then the grading system is your back up.

Although all six are admirable players capable of displaying flashes of pure brilliance ...better than Fischer and Karpov? (you might get more than a few disagreeing with you on that one.)

I'm also thinking if you asked any of that six if they thought they were better than Karpov and Fischer they would all answer 'No' or hedge their bets and say 'Not yet'.

Jan-10-16  BOSTER: < AzingaBonzer: The average centipawm loss feature>. I don't know what is the correct direction, but my feeling that <average > is very rough tool to compare real game with computer.
Jan-10-16  AzingaBonzer: <BOSTER> Erm... what?
Jan-10-16  BOSTER: Maybe the smallest loss , or max loss during the game can be criterion for comparison.
Jan-10-16  BOSTER: Or 1/2( max loss +min loss).
Jan-10-16  latvalatvian: For a computer to help a human it would have to emulate human thought and this it will never do just like a computer will never drink coffee and go to the bathroom.
Jan-10-16  1971: Yet no human can beat a computer why is that?
Jan-10-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  diceman: <latvalatvian:

just like a computer will never drink coffee and go to the bathroom.>

...guess you've never seen a water cooled computer take a leak?

Jan-11-16  BOSTER: <AzingaBonzer : What?>. Let's consider one ex.
Two players as white played two games.
First player.
Move N- 50 cp loss.
Move N+1-shot in best -0 cp loss.
ACL for him 1/2 (50+0) = 25cp loss.
Second player .
Move N- 30 cp loss.
Move N+1 -20 cp loss.
ACL for second player 1/2 ( 30+20)=25
My Q is: are these two players really <equal good>? My guess that <average> hides a big mistakes.
Jan-11-16  AzingaBonzer: I'd say they're equally good. What's the problem with that?
Jan-11-16  BOSTER: Thanks.
Jan-11-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <latvalatvian> So I suppose that you judge human greatness by our ability to drink coffee and go to the bathroom?
Jan-11-16  john barleycorn: <AylerKupp: <latvalatvian> So I suppose that you judge human greatness by our ability to drink coffee and go to the bathroom?>

The greatness comes from doing it in the right order at the right time. :-)

Jan-11-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  diceman: <AylerKupp: <latvalatvian> So I suppose that you judge human greatness by our ability to drink coffee and go to the bathroom?>

If we're going there,
I'm rated 2731.

Jan-11-16  BOSTER: <If we're going there>. Ktamnik was rated 2743.
Jan-12-16  john barleycorn: < diceman: ...

If we're going there,
I'm rated 2731.>

Is that achieved by going to and from the bathroom with dry pants?

Jan-12-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  diceman: <john barleycorn: < diceman: ...

If we're going there,
I'm rated 2731.>

Is that achieved by going to and from the bathroom with dry pants?>

...depends.

Jan-18-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: <Sally....(not being their field of expertise has never stopped any of the kibitzers on here.)>

I resemble that remark!!

Jan-18-16  john barleycorn: <perfidious: <Sally....(not being their field of expertise has never stopped any of the kibitzers on here.)>

I resemble that remark!!>

that is why CG was invented.

Jan-18-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: <john b> Till now, the purpose behind the inception of CG was unfathomable to me--there are some mysteries in life which are inexplicable, try as one might.
Jan-18-16  john barleycorn: <perfidious> never, never, never give up. Who ever strives with all his might, that man we can redeem.

Or ask me hahaha

Feb-24-16  King Radio: I think it's more true that Lasker would play the move that led to a position that better suited him. I think it's nonsense that he'd play a move that made his opponent uncomfortable even if it was objectively inferior. Nunn's recent book pretty much puts the lie to that myth.
Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 46)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 46 OF 46 ·  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:

  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
  3. No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
  6. No trolling.
  7. 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.

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: 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!

Copyright 2001-2020, Chessgames Services LLC