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

Gashimov Memorial Tournament

Shakhriyar Mamedyarov5.5/9(+3 -1 =5)[games]
Vladimir Kramnik5/9(+3 -2 =4)[games]
Wesley So5/9(+2 -1 =6)[games]
Veselin Topalov5/9(+2 -1 =6)[games]
Sergey Karjakin4.5/9(+2 -2 =5)[games]
Radoslaw Wojtaszek4.5/9(+1 -1 =7)[games]
Michael Adams4.5/9(+1 -1 =7)[games]
Teimour Radjabov4/9(+0 -1 =8)[games]
Pavel Eljanov3.5/9(+2 -4 =3)[games]
Pentala Harikrishna3.5/9(+0 -2 =7)[games]
* Chess Event Description
Gashimov Memorial (2017)

The 4th Vugar Gashimov Memorial (Shamkir Chess) was a 10-player single round-robin held in the Heydar Aliev Centre in Shamkir, Azerbaijan, 21-30 April 2017. It was organized by the Azerbaijan Chess Federation and Synergy CSR LLC. Rest day: 26 April. Time control: 120 minutes for the first 40 moves, followed by 60 more minutes for the next 20 moves, then 15 more minutes for the rest of the game, with 30 seconds added per move starting from move 61. A Rapid playoff would take place in case of a tie for first place. Prize fund: 100,000 euros, with 25,000 euros to the winner. Chief arbiter: Faig Gasanov. Number of games played: 45.

Shakhriyar Mamedyarov won again with 5.5/9.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 Mamedyarov * 1 1 ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ 1 ½ 5½ 2 Kramnik 0 * 0 ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 1 5 3 So 0 1 * ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 5 4 Topalov ½ ½ ½ * 0 1 ½ ½ 1 ½ 5 5 Karjakin ½ ½ 0 1 * ½ 0 ½ 1 ½ 4½ 6 Wojtaszek 1 ½ ½ 0 ½ * ½ ½ ½ ½ 4½ 7 Adams ½ 0 ½ ½ 1 ½ * ½ ½ ½ 4½ 8 Radjabov ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ * 0 ½ 4 9 Eljanov 0 0 ½ 0 0 ½ ½ 1 * 1 3½ 10 Harikrishna ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 * 3½

Official site:

Previous: Gashimov Memorial (2016). Next: Gashimov Memorial (2018)

 page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 45  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves YearEvent/LocaleOpening
1. Eljanov vs Radjabov 1-0462017Gashimov MemorialC65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense
2. Wojtaszek vs Kramnik  ½-½832017Gashimov MemorialD41 Queen's Gambit Declined, Semi-Tarrasch
3. Topalov vs Adams ½-½422017Gashimov MemorialC84 Ruy Lopez, Closed
4. So vs Mamedyarov 0-1392017Gashimov MemorialC45 Scotch Game
5. Karjakin vs Harikrishna ½-½402017Gashimov MemorialD38 Queen's Gambit Declined, Ragozin Variation
6. Mamedyarov vs Karjakin ½-½222017Gashimov MemorialC53 Giuoco Piano
7. Adams vs So ½-½412017Gashimov MemorialA15 English
8. Wojtaszek vs Topalov 0-1342017Gashimov MemorialD12 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav
9. Kramnik vs Radjabov  ½-½732017Gashimov MemorialA48 King's Indian
10. Harikrishna vs Eljanov 0-1542017Gashimov MemorialE47 Nimzo-Indian, 4.e3 O-O 5.Bd3
11. Karjakin vs Adams 0-1392017Gashimov MemorialD37 Queen's Gambit Declined
12. Eljanov vs Mamedyarov 0-1662017Gashimov MemorialE67 King's Indian, Fianchetto
13. So vs Wojtaszek ½-½402017Gashimov MemorialD02 Queen's Pawn Game
14. Topalov vs Kramnik ½-½352017Gashimov MemorialD55 Queen's Gambit Declined
15. Radjabov vs Harikrishna ½-½282017Gashimov MemorialD38 Queen's Gambit Declined, Ragozin Variation
16. Wojtaszek vs Karjakin  ½-½252017Gashimov MemorialD40 Queen's Gambit Declined, Semi-Tarrasch
17. Mamedyarov vs Radjabov ½-½242017Gashimov MemorialE94 King's Indian, Orthodox
18. Topalov vs So ½-½642017Gashimov MemorialC67 Ruy Lopez
19. Adams vs Eljanov  ½-½422017Gashimov MemorialC50 Giuoco Piano
20. Kramnik vs Harikrishna 1-0422017Gashimov MemorialC78 Ruy Lopez
21. So vs Kramnik 1-0652017Gashimov MemorialA14 English
22. Harikrishna vs Mamedyarov ½-½512017Gashimov MemorialA04 Reti Opening
23. Karjakin vs Topalov 1-0302017Gashimov MemorialB12 Caro-Kann Defense
24. Radjabov vs Adams  ½-½322017Gashimov MemorialE06 Catalan, Closed, 5.Nf3
25. Eljanov vs Wojtaszek  ½-½452017Gashimov MemorialA08 King's Indian Attack
 page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 45  PGN Download
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2)  

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 20 OF 20 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: I'm bothered, some, by off-topic posts while an event is in progress. But this event is over. So it seems like AK and SQ could do their math here as well as anywhere.
May-07-17  zanzibar: <AK> Arpo ELO is an OK landing place.

(Did you delete a post in the Computer forum, btw?)

I still prefer the very-under-utilized Librarian forum.

I don't like personal forums for a couple of reasons -

1) They can go away when Premium membership expire.

2) They're subject to moderation, whereas I prefer the one-size-fits-all <CG> policy.

Some people really like forums, and they have their time and place. But for most of the stuff I like to do, a general public forum is the best place - no matter how arcane some of the details become.

Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <zanzibar> Well, I'm glad that you think that Arpad Elo is an OK landing place because I just posted the results of my search for articles on how to calculate P(W), P(D), P(L) from P(W/D) and P(L/D) starting in Arpad Elo (kibitz #314). I got sidetracked, as usual, but I think that I have a methodology for doing the calculations, although there is still work to be done. Let me know what you think.

<SwitchingQuylthulg>, <beatgiant> and others, take note, and also let me know what you think.

Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <keypusher> I suppose that we could continue to do it here but I think that it's a good habit for all of us to get into to pick the most appropriate (or least inappropriate) place to post information. Besides, I am conceited enough to think that some of the mumbo jumbo I post might be of some interest (and even use!) to future readers, and they have marginally better chances of finding it at Arpad Elo than at this page.
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: Hi AylerKupp,

It all depends on how you view a chess thread.

To me we are all in a pub sitting around a table with a chess set and talking chess.

This thread was hot (by the way well done Mamedyarov) so we stayed here. If you moved to another table, the computer thread table, I'd be shouting across the bar at you.

But if you are your chums want to go to the computer table (which btw is right next to the toilet) then go there on your own free will. Don't let none of the bar flies force you there.

I'm staying here (well done Mamedyarov) I have a nice seat by the window and I'm looking at the trolls pressing their wee pinched faces against the glass trying to get in.

Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <Sally Simpson> Well, that explains it. The pubs I frequent don't allow chess boards, pieces, or chess tables. Perhaps they make an exception in the vicinity of the toilet, but who wants to congregate there? Particulatly when the drinks woild take longer to arrive. So the concept of moving to another chess table was foreign to me.

I know, I need to start frequenting lower class pubs.

Did I mention Well done. Mamedyarov?

Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: Hi AylerKupp,

You go to a pub that does not allow chess!


Mind you it may not be bad idea. Sandy Bells still has two teams in the Edinburgh League, a majority of the first team were barred from Bells for fighting......over chess.

Congratulations Mamedyarov.

Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <zanzibar> I had an epiphany when I was reviewing the articles on calculating P(W), P(D), and P(L) and came up with a new approach – the Area method. You can see its description here: Arpad Elo (kibitz #316), and the post provides a link to download the revised probabilities spreadsheet.

Several good features, I think, about this method:

1. It does not use FIDE's P(W/D) and P(L/D) to calculate the P(W), P(D), and P(L).

2. It can incorporate the White win, draw, and loss (Black win) percentages from any games database; Opening Explorer, ChessTempo, or what have you at different player rating levels. Of course, the more accurate the database in removing non-classic time control games, duplicate games, etc., the more accurate the calculations will be.

3. It allows easy consideration of White's opening advantage calculated from the White win, draw, and loss percentages derived from the games databases.

I think that it holds some promise. Let me know what you think.

You should activate your forum so that I could have posted this there and not further "corrupt" this page. :-)

And, of course, Well done, Mamedyarov! This is needed to ensure that this post was tangentially on-topic.

May-09-17  morfishine: <Sally Simpson> I agree with you about posting what you want, where you want, its just not a huge issue


During team games like <"The World"> vs some GM or Team challenges. Its important to keep engine analysis posted in the engine forums; otherwise, the ever lengthening general discussion forum becomes overwhelmed with off-topic analysis and it becomes difficult to follow normal conversational thread

So except for that, I agree with you


Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <morfishine> I think that you meant to say user forums and not engine forums. If you restrict your comments to your own forums you can check two boxes in your forum preferences to hide your forum from the GMs involved in the current Chessgames Challenge, as well as hiding your posts from showing up in Recent Chessforum Activity.

For Team Games this is not enough. You have to take the further precaution of only listing any Team Game-related comments and analysis to the Sticky so that it cannot be seen by members of the other team.

And since to everyone's chagrin I try to never miss an opportunity to express yet another opinion, I think that in order to minimize the problem you indicated, overwhelming a game's main page with off-topic analyses (and even on-topic analyses), comments on the game's main thread should be limited to a brief discussion of the issue and a link to where the details can be found.

But these are rather specialized situations. Still, I will try to adhere to my self-imposed posting guidelines and post my detailed drivel on what I think is the most appropriate page, and restrict my off-topic postings on a page to perhaps only general drivel and a link to the detailed drivel. But please don't hold me to it; like a reformed addict, I can have lapses.

Well done, Mamedyarov!

May-09-17  blackdranzer: Almost anything tutti fruity posts is off topic and childish. I really enjoyed the so called mumbo jumbo discussions , although I rarely understood anything of it :)... I hope the grammar police miss scarlet does not find anything suspecting here...
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <blackdranzer> I'm glad that you enjoyed the mumbo jumbo discussions. One of my favorite poems is "The Congo" by Vachel Lindsay. It ends with:

"Be careful what you do,
Or Mumbo-Jumbo, God of the Congo,
And all of the other
Gods of the Congo,
Mumbo-Jumbo will hoo-doo you,
Mumbo-Jumbo will hoo-doo you,
Mumbo-Jumbo will hoo-doo you."

Well done, Mamedyarov! You too, Lindsay.

May-10-17  zanzibar: <AK> Saw your post, and intend to read up.

At the moment this is on the back-burner for me. Still, an alternative approach that's viable is by definition interesting...

Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: HI AylerKupp,

You might find this interesting, Moravec's Paradox.

We can make a an educated guess, usually within a few seconds on who is going to win, lose or draw.

A computer cannot make an educated guess. It needs to plough all kinds of statistics.

When you run your test also run a simple computer guess program , let it generate a random number between 1-3.

1=win 2=lose 3=draw. it might throw up an interesting string of correct guesses.

The paradox is we humans do many things we find easy, natural. These same things a computer finds hard and the it is the same in reverse.

Well done, Mamedyarov!

Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <Sally Simpson> Being involved with software development for 40 years or so, I have been aware of the equivalence of Moravec's paradox for a long time, although I didn’t know that there was a name for it. An examples is air-to-air missile guidance in which it is relatively simple to compute the missile's optimum trajectory for which the missile hits the moving target with a minimum of fuel expenditure. Non-cognizant people (i.e. software managers) are amazed that something like that can be done in so few lines of code.

Chess also falls in that category. For example, the current Stockfish 8 consists of only 6,434 source lines of code, with an additional 1,988 source lines of code which were written by Ronald de Man (developer of Syzygy) and provided free for use. 6,434 lines of code is remarkably small (IMO) to accomplish all the things that Stockfish accomplishes. And, having reviewed the code of this and previous versions, I think that I have at least an idea of how it works.

In contrast, as was pointed out in the article, things that are easy or instinctive for a person to do, are very hard for a computer to do and vice versa. Just look at all the effort that has been spent in developing autonomous cars, something (driving) that us humans find relatively easy to do (some of us easier than others, as the auto insurance companies are quick to point out with rate increases). Accepting, integrating, and translating the information received about our surroundings into action commands to get from point A to point B successfully (i.e. getting there in one piece with no one killed along the way) requires an immense amount of computing power and algorithmic development, and I still think that we are decades away from that.

But the above can be simply stated as a truism: Those things that we know how to do are easy, those things that we don't know how to do are hard. And given that it is humans who (mostly) program computers, it's not surprising that the concept carries over to computers as well.

But I will quibble about your concept of "educated guess". After all, if one ploughs through all kinds of statistics in order to make a decision, wouldn't that "guess" be "educated"? Particularly when it involves applying concepts that have been programmed or even learned using neural networks like the chess engine Giraffe does. And, of course, a computer can evaluate all those statistics quickly, although not as fast as humans, at least not yet.

As far as your test, I'm not sure a "correct guess" is supposed to be. If, for example, the correct guess is whether the random number is between 1 and 2 or 2 and 3 and you pick one or the other all the time, you will be correct approximately half the time, depending on how many guesses you made. When I first tried this for 1,000 random numbers, 488 of the numbers were between 1 and 2 and 517 were between 2 and 3. Additional trials, of course, yielded different results, but all were similar. When I tried it for 10,000 random numbers I got 4,966 of the numbers between 1 and 2 and 5,034 between 2 and 3. At the limit, as the number of random numbers approaches infinity, the numbers between 1 and 2 and the numbers between 2 and 3 will be the same. But I could have told you that without running any tests.

Well done, Mamedyarov!

May-10-17  tuttifrutty: The rule breakers continue to spew mumbo jumbo...

Go Wesley!!!

Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <tuttifrutty> Perhaps us rule breakers should have our own page. Some of us spew mumbo jumbo and some of us spew drivel. If we had our own page then we could spew our mumbo jumbo/drivel there to our hearts content and we would all be on-topic.

I think that I will ask <> to do that. Until they do, I will just have to post my mumbo jumbo in Wesley So. After all, one person's mumbo jumbo is another person's drivel, and who would be able to tell the difference?

Well done, Mamedyarov!

Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <Sally Simpson> As an aside, several times when I attempted to post my previous response to you, my post was rejected. I got an error message saying "Our server is temporarily overloaded. Please try your request again shortly" along with a cute picture of a circa 1950s computer.

So maybe <>'s server does have good judgment in rejecting or at least delaying my posts. And, since it did it so quickly, maybe its decision was an intuitive one. Perhaps we both need to rethink our opinions of whether computers are capable of intuitive actions. :-)

And, of course, Well done, Mamedyarov!

Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: Hi Aylerkupp,

I was getting that as well, I think all of us were.

It's probably all the 'Well done, Mamedyarov's!" that is doing it.

Well done, Mamedyarov!

May-10-17  tuttifrutty: <Until they do, I will just have to post my mumbo jumbo in Wesley So.>

Be my guest, that would be a perfect place. Be forewarned....geriatrics aren't welcome on that you might have to bring a truckload of napkins.

Go Wesley!!

Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<tuttifrutty> Be forewarned....geriatrics aren't welcome on that page.>

Oh, I realize that. Only infantile juveniles are welcome in that page. That way you can exchange your drivel without having to worry whether it makes any sense or not; no critical review for reasonableness. But who knows, you might learn something from the mumbo jumbo that I post, even though I'm not holding my breath. You can only learn if you're willing to learn.

Well done, Mamedyarov! Of course, that congratulatory statement will only last until we see how well you do in the FIDE Grand Prix in Moscow starting tomorrow. After all, us geriatrics are a very fickle bunch.

May-15-17  cro777: Listen to Wesley So.

After returning home from Azerbaijan, Wesley So talked to Tom Weber from MPR (Minnesota Public Radio) News.

May-16-17  Pulo y Gata: Yeah. Listen to him say who is his mother, which is his family, and omit the person who taught him the game.
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: Hi Alerkupp,

You may have missed this link from another thread.

Magnus Carlsen (kibitz #82645)

The main article was posted in April this year.

Mar-30-21  macer75: <Well done, Mamedyarov! Of course, that congratulatory statement will only last until we see how well you do in the FIDE Grand Prix in Moscow starting tomorrow.>

I hope he does well.

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 20)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 20 OF 20 ·  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.
  8. Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.

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, 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 2001-2023, Chessgames Services LLC