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

🏆
TOURNAMENT STANDINGS
Tata Steel Masters Tournament

Magnus Carlsen9/13(+5 -0 =8)[games]
Fabiano Caruana8/13(+5 -2 =6)[games]
Ding Liren8/13(+4 -1 =8)[games]
Wesley So7/13(+1 -0 =12)[games]
Anish Giri7/13(+2 -1 =10)[games]
Pavel Eljanov7/13(+4 -3 =6)[games]
Wei Yi6.5/13(+1 -1 =11)[games]
Shakhriyar Mamedyarov6.5/13(+2 -2 =9)[games]
Sergey Karjakin6/13(+1 -2 =10)[games]
David Navara5.5/13(+1 -3 =9)[games]
Evgeny Tomashevsky5.5/13(+1 -3 =9)[games]
Yifan Hou5/13(+1 -4 =8)[games]
Michael Adams5/13(+1 -4 =8)[games]
Loek van Wely5/13(+1 -4 =8)[games]
*

Chessgames.com Chess Event Description
Tata Steel Masters (2016)

Background

This category 20 event (average rating = 2748) was the 78th annual incarnation of the tournament. It was first staged in 1938 in Beverwijk, which is geographically adjacent to and slightly inland from the coastal village of Wijk aan Zee where the tournament is now held, and has been held annually since. (1)

Where

Eleven rounds were staged in De Moriaan in Wijk aan Zee in the Netherlands. Round five was staged in the Science Center NEMO in Amsterdam and round ten in the Spoorwegmuseum in Utrecht.

When

This year it took place between January 16 and January 31, 2016. Rest days were on January 20, 25 and 28.

Time control

100 minutes for 40 moves, followed by 50 minutes for 20 moves. Then 15 minutes for the remaining moves with 30 seconds cumulative increment for each move starting from the first move.

Format

The event was a round robin tournament featuring fourteen players, and therefore thirteen rounds of play.

Prizes

1st € 10,000
2nd € 6,500
3rd € 3,000
4th € 2,500
5th € 2,000
6th € 1,000
7th € 500

About the winner

This was World Champion Magnus Carlsen’s fifth win at this event, equalling the record set by Anand in 2006.

Comments

Carlsen kicked off with his traditional slow start, drawing his first four games. However he picked up the pace winning three successive games in rounds five, six and seven at which point he was joint leader with Caruana. He led outright from round eight, securing two more wins in the last five rounds. As the tournament drew to a close, Caruana and Ding Liren strongly challenged for the lead with first prize up for grabs between Carlsen and these two players.

Going into the last round and leading by half a point from Caruana and a point from Ding Liren, Carlsen drew with Ding Liren (2) while Caruana lost to Tomashevsky, giving Carlsen an outright win in this event for the fourth time and a fifth win overall. (3)

Official site and source

https://web.archive.org/web/2016020.... Crosstable (https://history.tatasteelchess.com/...) :

Elo 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 1 Carlsen 2844 * ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 1 1 1 9 2 Caruana 2787 ½ * 1 ½ ½ 1 1 ½ ½ 0 0 ½ 1 1 8 3 Ding Liren 2766 ½ 0 * ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 ½ 1 ½ 8 4 So 2773 ½ ½ ½ * 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 7 5 Giri 2798 ½ ½ ½ 0 * ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 7 6 Eljanov 2760 0 0 0 ½ ½ * ½ 1 ½ 1 ½ 1 ½ 1 7 7 Wei Yi 2706 ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ * ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ 6½ 8 Mamedyarov 2747 ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 0 ½ * ½ ½ ½ 1 1 ½ 6½ 9 Karjakin 2769 ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ * ½ 1 ½ 0 ½ 6 10 Navara 2730 ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ 0 0 ½ ½ * ½ 0 ½ ½ 5½ 11 Tomashevsky 2728 0 1 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ * ½ ½ ½ 5½ 12 Yifan Ho 2673 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ 0 ½ 1 ½ * ½ 0 5 13 Adams 2744 0 0 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 1 ½ ½ ½ * ½ 5 14 Van Wely 2640 0 0 ½ ½ 0 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ * 5

(1) https://www.google.com.au/maps/plac...; (2) Carlsen vs Ding Liren, 2016; (3) (Tomashevsky vs Caruana, 2016)

Previous: Tata Steel Masters (2015). Next: Tata Steel Masters (2017). See also Tata Steel Challengers (2016)

 page 1 of 4; games 1-25 of 91  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves YearEvent/LocaleOpening
1. Caruana vs Eljanov 1-0382016Tata Steel MastersD39 Queen's Gambit Declined, Ragozin, Vienna Variation
2. Navara vs Carlsen ½-½312016Tata Steel MastersD37 Queen's Gambit Declined
3. W So vs A Giri 1-0372016Tata Steel MastersA36 English
4. Mamedyarov vs Van Wely ½-½762016Tata Steel MastersD11 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav
5. Yifan Hou vs Karjakin ½-½402016Tata Steel MastersA07 King's Indian Attack
6. Ding Liren vs Adams 1-0612016Tata Steel MastersA20 English
7. Wei Yi vs Tomashevsky  ½-½232016Tata Steel MastersC84 Ruy Lopez, Closed
8. Eljanov vs Wei Yi  ½-½362016Tata Steel MastersE60 King's Indian Defense
9. Yifan Hou vs W So ½-½542016Tata Steel MastersC65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense
10. Tomashevsky vs Mamedyarov  ½-½332016Tata Steel MastersD06 Queen's Gambit Declined
11. A Giri vs Ding Liren  ½-½332016Tata Steel MastersD11 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav
12. Adams vs Navara  ½-½312016Tata Steel MastersB12 Caro-Kann Defense
13. Karjakin vs Van Wely ½-½202016Tata Steel MastersB79 Sicilian, Dragon, Yugoslav Attack, 12.h4
14. Carlsen vs Caruana ½-½322016Tata Steel MastersA07 King's Indian Attack
15. Caruana vs Adams 1-0642016Tata Steel MastersE21 Nimzo-Indian, Three Knights
16. Van Wely vs Tomashevsky  ½-½302016Tata Steel MastersE17 Queen's Indian
17. Mamedyarov vs Eljanov 0-1382016Tata Steel MastersD45 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav
18. Navara vs A Giri ½-½422016Tata Steel MastersD97 Grunfeld, Russian
19. Ding Liren vs Yifan Hou ½-½372016Tata Steel MastersD38 Queen's Gambit Declined, Ragozin Variation
20. W So vs Karjakin ½-½442016Tata Steel MastersE10 Queen's Pawn Game
21. Wei Yi vs Carlsen ½-½602016Tata Steel MastersC89 Ruy Lopez, Marshall
22. Adams vs Wei Yi ½-½522016Tata Steel MastersA37 English, Symmetrical
23. Karjakin vs Tomashevsky 1-0362016Tata Steel MastersC50 Giuoco Piano
24. Eljanov vs Van Wely 1-0382016Tata Steel MastersD11 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav
25. W So vs Ding Liren ½-½412016Tata Steel MastersD11 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav
 page 1 of 4; games 1-25 of 91  PGN Download
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2)  

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 66 OF 67 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Feb-16-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<Sally Simpson> For instance using my added 5 pts. a number I plucked from the air. (The Mannerheim/Schuller catch) Carlsen by my count won 12 games in classical chess with Black in 2015.> (part 1 of 2)

Going back to your Carlsen example. The ChessTempo database has Carlsen playing 125 games in 2015, 80 at classical time controls. His results at classical time control as White were 21 wins, 14 draws, and 5 losses; and 11 wins, 23 draws, and 6 losses as Black. And, again per the ChessTempo database, he was rated 2862 for his first game of 2015 on Jan-10-15, A Giri vs Carlsen, 2015, and was rated 2834 prior to his last game of 2015 on Dec-29-15, Carlsen vs Kramnik, 2015. That draw against Kramnik caused him to lose 1 rating point so his Elo rating change for 2015 was (2834 -1) – 2862 = -29 points.

Now, if you want to <add> to Carlsen's rating the number of points he should have won by playing Black and adjusting for color, you would also have to <subtract> from Carlsen's rating the number of points he shouldn't have won by playing White and adjusting for color, because in that case the color-adjusted rating differential between Carlsen's rating and his opponent's rating would have been effectively less.

And don't forget draws. They would be similarly affected, although to a lesser extent, since a lower rated player with the White pieces should have greater drawing chances against a stronger rated player with the Black pieces than if the colors were reversed and vice versa.

Let's look at the actual numbers. Of the 80 classical time control games Carlsen played in 2015, he conveniently had White for 40 of those and Black for the other 40. When he had White he won 21 games, drew 14, and lost 5. When he had Black he won 11 games, drew 23, and lost 6. To reduce the effort (even I get tired of all this work sometimes), I used the Kosteniuk Elo calculator's feature of calculating Elo rating changes using average ratings. I calculated Carlsen's average Elo when he won, drew, or lost with the White pieces and when he won, drew, or lost with the Black pieces. Similarly, I calculated his opponent's average rating when they won, drew, or lost with both the White and the Black pieces. The ChessTempo database is particularly useful in this exercise because they are very meticulous in recording the ratings of both players. <chessgames.com>, take notice.

I got the following Elo rating changes for Carlsen under the following conditions:

Carlsen has White, Carlsen wins +73.42
Carlsen has White, Carlsen draws -23.20
Carlsen has White, Carlsen loses -33.73

Carlsen has Black, Carlsen wins +36.22
Carlsen has Black, Carlsen draws -29.19
Carlsen has Black, Carlsen loses -40.55

Total Elo rating change -17.03

Feb-16-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<Sally Simpson> For instance using my added 5 pts. a number I plucked from the air. (The Mannerheim/Schuller catch) Carlsen by my count won 12 games in classical chess with Black in 2015.> (part 2 of 2)

This is fairly different than the actual -29 Elo rating change when each game was rated individually rather than using averages and I'll attribute the difference to the inaccuracies of averaging or some other non-obvious non-linearities but I am not really sure. But note that the ratio is -29 / -17.03 = 1.7. Speaking of pulling numbers out of the air or from parts of our anatomy.

Then I did the color rating adjustment as I indicated above, <subtracting> 36 points from the rating of the player with the White pieces and <adding> 36 points to the rating of the player with the Black pieces. I got the following Elo rating changes for Carlsen:

Carlsen has White, Carlsen wins +93.76
Carlsen has White, Carlsen draws -9.82
Carlsen has White, Carlsen loses -28.99

Carlsen has Black, Carlsen wins +5134
Carlsen has Black, Carlsen draws -49.90
Carlsen has Black, Carlsen loses -45.59

Total Elo rating change +10.80 x 1.7 = +18

So, if we had adjusted for color, instead of <losing> 29 rating points in 2015, Carlsen would have <gained> 18 rating points.

But, as <frogbert> indicated, over a large number of games ("large" is the operative word) the number of Whites and Blacks that a player has will even out, so the effect of adjusting the result for color should not be significant.

Therefore I think that a rating adjustment for color will only be significant when dealing with a small number of games. And remember that Dr. Elo was only interested in calculating ratings for a large number of games, so I wouldn't consider it a "flaw" any more than using a continuous probability distribution when calculating rating changes based on a discrete number of games. Still, since the "calculation" is trivial, it might be worthwhile to do. But we need to check it first to see what changes it causes as a function of the number of games considered.

If you or anyone else is interested in looking at ChessTempo's database of 2015 Carlsen game and the spreadsheet calculation for color corrections, you can download them from http://www.mediafire.com/view/a6504....

Feb-16-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<plang> An obvious example of rating inflation is when more points are added than are subtracted.>

Yes, that's a good example that I had not thought of. I was hoping for, but not really expecting, <tuttifrutty>'s definition of rating inflation. The informal definition that I use, imprecise and subjective as it is, uses the concept of "intrinsic strength" to determine if inflation is taking place.

We all have a concept of "intrinsic strength". How strong is player A really? If player A's intrinsic strength has not changed and his rating goes up, then the increase in his rating (if we're using rating as a measure of playing strength) is not really warranted, so rating inflation is taking place. If player A's intrinsic strength is increasing, then if an increase in his rating is also taking place, that increase is justified and rating inflation is not taking place.

The problem, of course, is that we don't have a method for measuring and calculating intrinsic (or absolute) playing strength, all we have are methods for calculating relative playing strength, so my informal definition is pretty useless.

Feb-16-16  Sally Simpson: Hi AylerKupp,

So it was 11 wins not 12. My bad, it's sorting out which games were and were not blitz games. I counted one in.

You have made things far too complicated.

I only want 5pts extra for a Black win.

No bonus for a draw.

White losses points as per the current system and no more. White does not lose an extra 5 pts. This would have White's playing too timidly. The object of the exercise is to encourage Black to have more ambition and not be happy with a draw.

So keep everything as it is. (warts and all) but if a player with the Black pieces wins he gets an extra 5pts.

The flaw is grades will go through the roof very quickly.

I was just suggesting a way to award a Black win through ELO without White suffering any extra penalty grading wise.

Of course if FIDE did accept my idea then through time some happy chappie will reach eventually 10000. The ELO database is programmed to hold only 4 digits and it will either crash and wipe out everything or start going backwards.

Feb-16-16  Bobwhoosta: Now that we've got that all wrapped up: Who's the greatest player of all time?
Feb-16-16  Sally Simpson: HI Bob,

Check the ELO grading list.

Feb-16-16  BOSTER: Marasmus is getting stronger.
Feb-16-16  tuttifrutty: There is no definition of elo rating inflation therefore there is none, it's all but thin air, a mumbo jumbo calculations, it's a product of malfunctioning brain and I don't want to know what the heck you all are smoking.
Feb-16-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<Sally Simpson> You have made things far too complicated.>

Thank you, I'll take that as a compliment. I take perverse pride in making even the simplest things complicated. :-)

But I think that Dr. Elo was trying to develop a system that was based on sound mathematical principles. And symmetry suggests that if Black is to be given a bonus for their performance in the face of White's advantage, then White should be given an equivalent demerit to compensate for its inherent advantage.

As far as difficulty is concerned, all I'm suggesting is that White's rating for the purpose of calculating their change in rating following a game to be reduced by 36 point to reflect the historically accurate measure of White's advantage, and that Black's rating be increased by 36 point for the same reason. After these "effective ratings" are calculated (one subtraction and one addition), everything is done the same way as it is being done today. One addition and one subtraction, everything else staying the same, doesn't seem all that complicated to me.

And your 5 points to be added to Black's Elo in case of a win, is somewhat arbitrary and asymmetrical, and doesn't address draws. In the case of a draw shouldn't Black's Elo be increased by 2.5 points (or 2 or 3, depending on how you feel about draws)? That only seems fair.

But you're right about what might happen if a (very) happy chappie's rating reaches 10,000. Kind of the Y2K issue of 16+ years ago. Maybe we should start referring to this as the R10K problem. Luckily, I think that we have an adequate amount of time to address the "problem".

Feb-16-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<Bobwhoosta> Now that we've got that all wrapped up: Who's the greatest player of all time?>

Like the story of a businessman searching for an accountant and asking each of their accountants applicants "How much is 2 + 2?" The accountant who was hired responded: "How much do you want it to be?"

So the answer to your question is: "Who do you want the greatest player of all time to be?"

Feb-16-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <tuttifrutty> I haven't been able to find a generally agreed upon definition of elo rating inflation either . But you were quite adamant (Tata Steel (2016) (kibitz #1661)) that there was no rating inflation. How can you categorically deny that there is no rating inflation unless you have at least a personal concept of what rating inflation is? After all, just because there isn't a definition of "something" doesn't mean that this "something" doesn't exist.

I told you what my flawed concept of "rating inflation" is. Why won't you tell us yours? It's personal after all, I'm certainly not going to challenge it.

Feb-16-16  frogbert: <plang: An obvious example of rating inflation is when more points are added than are subtracted.>

This is what I define as systemic rating inflation, plang. Or deflation, if the opposite is happening. And we need to consider the entire pool of players, although it's possible to say something about what's happening to certain sub sets of the pool as well.

Like I've posted about already years ago now, the highest rated players are on average losing rating points - quite contrary to what people seem to think. From one list to the next, usually we find that the sub set of all players rated 2700+ - and similarly the set of all players rated 2600+ (which includes the first sub set) - are losing rating points on average, or as a group.

Now, is that reasonable? Well, it is. It's just another example of what's called regression towards the mean. In order to have gotten as highly rated as they are, several of the 2700s have technically overperformed; they have achieved results that they can't maintain in the long run.

Still, being able to demonstrate systemic inflation in itself isn't enough to claim the kind of inflation people usually talk about. But since ratings aren't designed to map chess skills to rating numbers consistently over time, I don't care too much about that other discussion, which mostly rests on a misunderstanding of Elo-based rating systems.

Feb-17-16  Keyser Soze: <AylerKupp: <tuttifrutty> I haven't been able to find a generally agreed upon definition of elo rating inflation either . But you were quite adaman>

For him Elo rating mesures the volume of activity (feeding frenzy) of pampered goldfishes inside of an Aquarium. Therefore it doesn't apply for the Barracudas.

Feb-17-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: <plang: An obvious example of rating inflation is when more points are added than are subtracted. In the US there are some examples of rating floors. I believe a Life Masters rating can't fall below 2200 so if you defeat him your rating goes up but his doesn't go down.>

Correct--if still active, I would be one such player.

Feb-17-16  Absentee: <AylerKupp: I told you what my flawed concept of "rating inflation" is. Why won't you tell us yours? It's personal after all, I'm certainly not going to challenge it.>

You're talking to a tolengoy sock.

Feb-17-16  EvigOptimist: AylerKupp - You must have made an error in your spreadsheet, because with your calculations Magnus won more points with black AND white for those games that he won.

Carlsen has White, Carlsen wins +73.42
Carlsen has Black, Carlsen wins +36.22

compared to

Carlsen has White, Carlsen wins +93.76
Carlsen has Black, Carlsen wins +51,34

In the spreadsheet, it looks like you have subtracted points for white instead of adding it. Its easier to win with white, so you have to add points to reflect that.

I do agree that in a perfect system you should do such adjustments, but over a year I guess it will be under 5 point difference, maybe less, so I dont think its worth changing. And for lower rated players, the difference between white and black are less than for the top players.

Feb-17-16  Sally Simpson: Hi AylerKupp,

Again no bonus for a draw. That would only drive both players into a deeper shell and probably increase the number of draws.

The bonus only applies to a Black win.

It's not unfair because as has been stated the number of Whites and Black a player has over a year is close to 50-50.

Just wanted a wee cherry to dangle in front of the Black player. Make them sharpening up their repertoire. Give them the Larsen, Fischer, Kasparov attitude.

Everyone says there are too many draws, it's a possible method to combat it.

But of course grades will go bonkers.

If some lad wins 5 Black's (a 25 pt bonus.) and loses a game as White his opponent will feed off those extra 25 pts plus their own 5 pt bonus.

"..and everyone is getting fat 'cept Mama Cass."

Feb-17-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: <Sally S...."..and everyone is getting fat 'cept Mama Cass.">

<Creeque Alley> is a droll account of the group's early trials and tribulations.

Feb-17-16  Everyone: <"..and everyone is getting fat 'cept Mama Cass."> No, yo mama is so fat ....
Feb-17-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<Keyser Soze> For him Elo rating measures the volume of activity (feeding frenzy) of pampered goldfishes inside of an Aquarium. Therefore it doesn't apply for the Barracudas.>

Thank you. I had considered most of the items on your list but I had forgotten about the barracudas.

Feb-17-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<Absentee> You're talking to a tolengoy sock.>

Oh, I'm quite aware of that, they're quite easy to spot. I was baiting him since he (once again) dug a hole for himself and I was trying to see how much deeper he could get into it. I don't expect to hear from him again but, if he does respond, I look forward to being amused by another banality.

I suggested to <chessgames.com> that, in an effort to reduce the number of sock puppets, that they have a middle membership account between Regular members and Premium members. A Regular member account would be free and able to read what was posted but not post. A Posting member account, for a very nominal yearly fee (say US $ 5.00), would be able to post in addition to read. And Premium member accounts would have the same privileges as they have today.

This would not, of course, discourage determined and well-heeled sock puppets but it would at least give pause to those who indiscriminately create accounts for the purpose of trolling. Unfortunately (I think) <chessgames.com> did not agree with the concept. Oh well.

Feb-17-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <Sally Simpson> Well, I understand your bias against draws but to be fair, achieving a draw with the Black pieces against a higher rated opponent is an achievement and should be rewarded just like achieving a win with the Black pieces against a higher rated opponent, except obviously not as much. And if there is a 300 point rating differential between opponents and the much higher rated opponent has the Black pieces, then defeating the much lower rated opponent is not that much of an achievement, and I don't think that it deserves a bonus. But then again, De Gustibus Non Disputandum Est.

Perhaps draws could be discouraged if the 3-1-0 scoring system was more widely accepted. Do you know of any databases that compare the percentage of draws in tournaments with the 3-1-0 scoring system with the percentage of tournaments with the 1-½-0 scoring system? I don't remember any database where the scoring system in use for a tournament was one of the database fields. It would be interesting to know the difference, if any, between the two.

Feb-17-16  frogbert: <AylerKupp> You present your theory about rating inflation as a hypthesis. What I wonder is what it takes to falsify your hypothesis. And then I think of your specific hypothesis of what has driven the suggested inflation.

Since you're using a definition of inflation <that can not be proven> - simply because there's no agreed upon way to measure "intrinsic strength" - don't you think that you also have some bootstrapping issue? In short you have a hypothesis to explain some phenomenon that you can't show exists, given your definition of inflation. To me this would've been a slight problem... :)

I guess you see why I've taken the approach I did.

PS! A final comment: testing whether Elo-based ratings do or do not map "intrinsic playing strength" appears a slightly strange endeavour, since Elo-based systems make no claim to being capable of making such a mapping. Elo-systems measure relative success within a given pool of players.

Feb-17-16  frogbert: If you feel like moving this discussion to your forum, that's perfectly fine, of course. :)
Feb-17-16  morfishine: <frogbert: If you feel like moving this discussion to your forum, that's perfectly fine, of course. :)> Nice discussion, but <AlyerKupp> rarely digresses or adheres to suggestions like this where elongated or massive or continuously humongous posts which are off-topic or out-of-place or simply in the wrong forum and needs to be elsewhere and clearly needs to be placed in there appropriate location

Good luck with that one

*****

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 67)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 66 OF 67 ·  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 2001-2021, Chessgames Services LLC