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

Norway Chess Tournament

Levon Aronian6/9(+3 -0 =6)[games]
Hikaru Nakamura5/9(+2 -1 =6)[games]
Vladimir Kramnik5/9(+3 -2 =4)[games]
Fabiano Caruana4.5/9(+1 -1 =7)[games]
Wesley So4.5/9(+0 -0 =9)[games]
Anish Giri4.5/9(+2 -2 =5)[games]
Maxime Vachier-Lagrave4/9(+1 -2 =6)[games]
Viswanathan Anand4/9(+1 -2 =6)[games]
Magnus Carlsen4/9(+1 -2 =6)[games]
Sergey Karjakin3.5/9(+0 -2 =7)[games]
* Chess Event Description
Norway Chess (2017)

The 5th Altibox Norway Chess 2017 took place in Clarion Hotel Energy (Rounds 1-6) and Stavanger Concert Hall (Rounds 7-9) in Stavanger, Norway from June 6-16. With an average rating of 2797 (Category XXII), it was the strongest tournament in recent memory. The pairings were decided by the Norway Chess (Blitz) (2017) on June 5, won by Magnus Carlsen. Chief arbiter: Anemone Kulczak.

Time control: Start with 100 min; add 50 minutes at move 40; add 15 minutes and 30s/move at move 60.

Tiebreak protocol: A) Sonneborn-Berger points, B) Most wins, C) Most wins with black, D) Drawing of lots.

The winner, by a full point, was Levon Aronian who finished on 6/9.

Elo* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 Aronian 2793 * ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 1 6 2 Nakamura 2785 ½ * ½ 0 ½ 1 1 ½ ½ ½ 5 3 Kramnik 2808 0 ½ * ½ ½ 1 0 1 1 ½ 5 4 Caruana 2808 ½ 1 ½ * ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ 4½ 5 So 2812 ½ ½ ½ ½ * ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 4½ 6 Giri 2771 ½ 0 0 ½ ½ * 1 1 ½ ½ 4½ 7 Vachier-Lagrave 2796 ½ 0 1 ½ ½ 0 * ½ ½ ½ 4 8 Anand 2786 ½ ½ 0 1 ½ 0 ½ * ½ ½ 4 9 Carlsen 2832 0 ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ * 1 4 10 Karjakin 2781 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 * 3½

Official site:
Wikipedia article: Norway Chess#2017

*FIDE rating list June 2017:

Previous: Norway Chess (2016). Next: Norway Chess (2018). Opening Blitz tournament: Norway Chess (Blitz) (2017)

 page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 45  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves YearEvent/LocaleOpening
1. Carlsen vs So ½-½632017Norway ChessC50 Giuoco Piano
2. Nakamura vs Giri 1-0672017Norway ChessD80 Grunfeld
3. Kramnik vs Karjakin ½-½442017Norway ChessC50 Giuoco Piano
4. Aronian vs Caruana ½-½582017Norway ChessD27 Queen's Gambit Accepted, Classical
5. Vachier-Lagrave vs Anand ½-½442017Norway ChessB12 Caro-Kann Defense
6. Anand vs Kramnik 0-1602017Norway ChessC78 Ruy Lopez
7. So vs Vachier-Lagrave ½-½432017Norway ChessE60 King's Indian Defense
8. Caruana vs Carlsen ½-½422017Norway ChessC84 Ruy Lopez, Closed
9. Giri vs Karjakin ½-½762017Norway ChessD37 Queen's Gambit Declined
10. Nakamura vs Aronian ½-½602017Norway ChessD38 Queen's Gambit Declined, Ragozin Variation
11. Carlsen vs Nakamura ½-½402017Norway ChessB90 Sicilian, Najdorf
12. Kramnik vs So ½-½712017Norway ChessC53 Giuoco Piano
13. Vachier-Lagrave vs Caruana ½-½512017Norway ChessC42 Petrov Defense
14. Karjakin vs Anand ½-½332017Norway ChessC67 Ruy Lopez
15. Aronian vs Giri ½-½532017Norway ChessD38 Queen's Gambit Declined, Ragozin Variation
16. Nakamura vs Vachier-Lagrave 1-0332017Norway ChessB90 Sicilian, Najdorf
17. So vs Karjakin ½-½712017Norway ChessC50 Giuoco Piano
18. Caruana vs Kramnik ½-½532017Norway ChessC65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense
19. Aronian vs Carlsen 1-0352017Norway ChessD45 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav
20. Giri vs Anand 1-0332017Norway ChessA21 English
21. Kramnik vs Nakamura ½-½492017Norway ChessB50 Sicilian
22. Vachier-Lagrave vs Aronian  ½-½382017Norway ChessC89 Ruy Lopez, Marshall
23. Anand vs So ½-½332017Norway ChessC50 Giuoco Piano
24. Karjakin vs Caruana ½-½732017Norway ChessC42 Petrov Defense
25. Carlsen vs Giri ½-½412017Norway ChessC50 Giuoco Piano
 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 31 OF 31 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: When <Glenn> wishes such mumbo-jumbo to carry on, he has no trouble subjecting all and sundry to it, as he has done in various guises across the years.

Iggydumb is the antidote for that.

Jun-19-17  Sokrates: Also my thanks to <tpstar> for this little pearl of a combination. Unfortunately undetected by Flohr himself, but nevertheless beautiful.
Jun-19-17  Rama: I estimate TPR by asking: What rating would neither gain nor lose points with my given result? The formula 16(W-L) 4% (R*-R) can then be solved for R*, the rating which balances the equation. (That is the USCF formula as I remember it from the 80's)
Jun-19-17  activechess55: Aronian has been terrific form this year. His play reminded his fans of the Aronian of the old. One of the trademarks of his play is the lusty finishing which was in ample evidence during this event. Congrats Aronian!

He was among the leaders, in early phases, in the candidates for the past few cycles. Unfortunately, towards the end he ran out of steam. I don't think, he is a choker. Could be exhaustion issues. Considering that candidates happens to be a long event, it wouldn't be a surprise at all.

Whatever may the reason, I do wish Aronian qualifies as challenger. If he continues his fine form into the 2018's, a keen tussle for world title would be on cards.

Jun-19-17  john barleycorn: <activechess55: ... Could be exhaustion issues. Considering that candidates happens to be a long event, it wouldn't be a surprise at all. ...>

It is a long event for every participant.

Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<Rama> The formula 16(W-L) 4% (R*-R) can then be solved for R*, the rating which balances the equation.>

Thanks, I did know this one which I recognized after solving for R*. This is the (somewhat) well known "algorithm of 400" which is used by some organizations and was probably used by the USCF in the 1980s. See It can be expressed as:

* If you win a game, your TPR will be the opponent's rating + 400

* If you lose a game, your TPR will be the opponent's rating - 400

* If you draw a game, your TPR will be the opponent's rating.

This equates to:

R* = RA + 400(W – L) / N, where:

R* = Performance rating
RA = Average of opponents ratings
W = Number of wins
L = Number of losses
N = Number of games played

In your formula I think that it should be –4%(R*-R) instead of 4%(R*-R) (because that makes it come out right), and 16(W-L) should be divided by N. Other than that, your memory is pretty good!

And for comparison, here is how "my" method (1st column) compares with yours (2nd column) and the difference (3rd column) after round 8:

Anand, Viswanathan <2749> <2748> <+1>

Aronian, Levon <2935> <2948> <-13>

Carlsen, Magnus <2749> <2743> <+6>

Caruana, Fabiano <2752> <2746> <+6>

Giri, Anish <2843> <2850> <-7>

Karjakin, Sergei <2707> <2699> <+8>

Kramnik, Vladimir <2799> <2796> <+3>

Nakamura, Hikaru <2888> <2899> <-11>

So, Wesley <2796> <2796> <0>

Vachier-Lagrave, Maxime <2754> <2747> <+7>

Pretty close. And, again, since TPR is a hypothetical number, there is no way determine which value, if any, is the correct value since it can't be measured.

Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<john barleycorn> It is a long event for every participant>

Yes it a long event with a lot of stress given the importance of the outcome. But remember that in the past the Candidates Tournament was often twice or near twice the current number of 14 games. And in those days they had adjournments instead of continuing to play with increments, although I wouldn't know which is more grueling, adjournments (with help) on their days off or continuing to play until the game is over. And today's prize fund is so much larger than in the past so I'm sure that increases the stress in today's tournament.

Jun-19-17  john barleycorn: <AylerKupp: <<john barleycorn> It is a long event for every participant>

Yes it a long event ...>

<AylerKupp> I was referring to <activechess55> making it look like it was a long event only for one player to explain a certain outcome:-)

Jun-19-17  BOSTER: <John barleycorn>:< It's a long event for every participant>. Time increment was invented by Fischer because chess world has problem with mechanical clock. But now, when we have digital clock, increment gives an advantage to players who are better in blitz even when we play classical games. So, I'd say that increment should be forbidden.
Jun-19-17  nok: Increment makes sense for the last session, or you could lose queen endings on time.
Jun-19-17  crwynn: Aronian's victory must be among the more impressive tournament performances in the game's history. To come in ahead of the world champion, his predecessor and at least 2 serious title contenders, a full point ahead of a field with absolutely no weak spots...that is amazing.
Jun-19-17  crwynn: According to this site anyway, the lowest-rated of Aronian's 9 opponents was Sergey Karjakin at 2781 - what a fish amirite?
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<crwynn> According to this site anyway, the lowest-rated of Aronian's 9 opponents was Sergey Karjakin at 2781.>

Yes, you are right. And according to this and other sites the lowest rated opponent of each of the players in this tournament was also Karjakin. Coincidence? I think not. But I could be wrong.

And, of course, this "fish" recently competed for the WCC title after winning the Candidates tournament, and held the defending world champion to a draw in the classical time control portion of the match. If this is a "fish", then I would love to be able to swim with the fishes. Alas, when I try, I sink like a stone. So sad.

Jun-20-17  activechess55:

<john barleycorn: It is a long event for every participant.>

Sorry, if I gave the impression that it’s a long event for Aronian only. My original intention was to suggest brain fatigue as a possible cause. So that I could offer some (unsolicited) advice to avoid the same!

How does one avoid brain fatigue?
1. By improving oxygenation: Poor oxygenation is one of the causes. Poor oxygenation is in turn caused by deficit of salts like zinc and iron or Vitamin B12/B6. This problem can be addressed by loading the diet with these supplements.

2. By ensuring adequate blood sugar levels.
3. By ensuring adequate stimulation: Of course, this cause is dismissed, out of hands, for a chess player. Modern chess exercises brain to such an extent that inadequate stimulation is ruled out altogether.

I was about to offer above-mentioned prescription. But I stopped short! First, I realized that I am an ordinary kibitzer and him a super-GM! I realized, moreover, that he won two super-GM events in recent times!

After reading my latest post, one might say, I offered the advice anyway!

The status of super-GM doesn’t make a chess player immune from unsolicited advice, however. Considering his tournament standing, Karjakin could get unsolicited advice. In fact, he might get a bagful of them. And poor Karjakin is in no position to protest. My heart goes out to him.

(Note: Above article is meant as a joke. Not to be taken seriously.)

Jun-20-17  Absentee: <activechess55:

How does one avoid brain fatigue?>

4. Don't be jet-lagged.

Jun-20-17  BOSTER: <crwynn>:<Aronian's victory must be among the more impressive tour performannce>. I don't want to undermine Aronian's great performance, but I don't think that this tour as a whole represents a step forward in the development of chess creativity like St.Petersburg 1914, or Zurich 1953.
Jun-20-17  not not: These guys should play each other every month, the last one being replaced by next one on rating list. Or perhaps every two months. It would make chess GREAT AGAIN!
Jun-20-17  BOSTER: < activechess55> :<I stopped short>. How dare you <stop short> with ordinary kibitzer. You stole this move from Frank Costanza (Seinfeld).
Jun-23-17  morfishine: F <BarleyCorn>


Jul-02-17  visayanbraindoctor: <frogbert: here's my point of view: there really is no objective way to tell whether the fact that there were only 2-3 guys at any point in time that were close to Kasparov at the same time, while there are 10 guys that are close to Carlsen now (at the same time) means that a) Kasparov (and Karpov) were better, or b) there are more exceptionally strong players around now. Your interpretation used to be - and seemingly still is - a), while mine is b).>

Quite right <frogbert>.

I think it's obvious why you choose (b).

My choice of (a) is influenced by the fact that I grew up in the Karpov era. I saw him win tournament after tournament playing a kind of chess that I thought could never be beaten (until Kasparov came along). Karpov I believe never self-destructed from his rise up the Interzonals and the Candidates until his failure against GKK, while now and then we see Carlsen turn out a forgettable performance (as in the Olympiads) or one that occasionally even lands him near the bottom of the tournament table. IMO Carlsen does not have the aura of invincibility that Karpov, and later Kasparov had. I also happen to think while going through their games that although all three play chess in the same upper tier, the two K's were just a tad better.

(This may yet change if Carlsen picks it up and plays consistently as well as he did in 2013 to 2014 for the next 10 years.)

(BTW I am no Kasparov fan. I hate his politics in and out of chess. I have to admit though that he is the most brilliant attacker humanity has ever produced.)

Fischer I believe was well within the level of the two K's. Had he continued playing chess, the 1980s might well have been the strongest era in chess history, with an 'old' but still strong Fischer, a Karpov just past his prime, and a surging Kasparov playing in the same tournaments together. As it is, a waning Karpov managed to play well enough until the 1990s, just in time to to contend with the rising Anand, Kramnik, Ivanchuk, Shirov, Kamsky, Gelfand, Topalov, Svidler, etc.. while GKK was still in his prime. That makes the 1990s IMO the strongest era in chess history ever.

Many kibitzers will probably find this strange but IMO the 1913 to 1925 period might arguably challenge the 1990s for the title of strongest era ever. It was a time that Lasker, Capablanca, and Alekhine were all playing superb and tremendously strong chess; Rubinstein was still playing strongly, and Nimzovitch, Bogolyubov, Reti, Tartakover, Spielmann, etc.. were rising. If the present top 10 generation happened to be born in the 1890s (assume they would know the openings current for that time and would have to use the pen and paper method in doing opening research), only Carlsen IMO would have had a decent chance of winning against the LCA trio in a World Championship match, and even he would find it difficult to win a tournament such as this St Petersburg (1914).

Unfortunately this era coincided with WW1, which must have affected all chess events and players for the worst.

These are just my opinions of course, which as I have said I expect to get flaked for. I respect your thoughts above, and thank you for giving them.

Premium Chessgames Member
  tamar: The Fifties was another incredible strong era. You had Botvinnik, Keres, Smyslov and Bronstein already established, to be joined by Geller, Petrosian, Stein (although he did not emerge right away), Polugaevsky, Taimanov, Spassky, Tal, Fischer, and Larsen. {Probably have forgotten some)

That is the period that most reminds me of the Nineties, when it seemed that Anand, Topalov, Ivanchuk, Kamsky, or Kramnik were poised to overtake Kasparov and Karpov but then fade as another rival got hot, and became the new hope.

Premium Chessgames Member
  offramp: I am not sure if this is the right place, I have looked through the FAQ and I can't see it.

Yesterday I brought my Altibox down to below 10,000ft, and it immediately started malfunctioning.

Now we are at sea level and it is fizzing and sparking constantly. On the screen is this big grinning picture of Rudolf Swiderski and the words "time 2 get a noo puter, dood!!"

Is there any quick fix for this? Altibox says it is a common problem but they give no solution.

Jul-05-17  WorstPlayerEver: <offramp>

Sure, but first you have to find the correct move after 1. c4 e5 2. e3 Nf6 3. Nc3 Nc6 4. g4 h6 5. Bg2

Otherwise I'm afraid Swiderski will haunt you forevah. You are not going to tell me there's no refutation ha ha haaaahhh

Premium Chessgames Member
  tamar: <offramp> Get out of there quick.

Edgar Allan Poe described the huge whirlpool off the coast of Norway which you have found yourself in, and which will soon take you and what remains of the Altibox into the center of the earth.

Feb-09-18  john barleycorn: <2017 ~ NORWAY ~ Altibox Norway Chess ~ Stavanger

♣ tied 4th Place>

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 31)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 31 OF 31 ·  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