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

🏆 Chess.com Speed Chess Championship 2017/18

Chessgames.com Chess Event Description
Official site: ... [more]

Player: Maxime Vachier-Lagrave

 page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 26  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves YearEvent/LocaleOpening
1. M Vachier-Lagrave vs Grischuk 0-1232017Chess.com Speed Chess Championship 2017/18A07 King's Indian Attack
2. Grischuk vs M Vachier-Lagrave  0-1342017Chess.com Speed Chess Championship 2017/18C67 Ruy Lopez
3. M Vachier-Lagrave vs Grischuk  ½-½572017Chess.com Speed Chess Championship 2017/18A45 Queen's Pawn Game
4. Grischuk vs M Vachier-Lagrave 1-0242017Chess.com Speed Chess Championship 2017/18B23 Sicilian, Closed
5. M Vachier-Lagrave vs Grischuk  0-1292017Chess.com Speed Chess Championship 2017/18B40 Sicilian
6. M Vachier-Lagrave vs Grischuk  0-1302017Chess.com Speed Chess Championship 2017/18E60 King's Indian Defense
7. Grischuk vs M Vachier-Lagrave 0-1402017Chess.com Speed Chess Championship 2017/18B23 Sicilian, Closed
8. M Vachier-Lagrave vs Grischuk  0-1352017Chess.com Speed Chess Championship 2017/18A45 Queen's Pawn Game
9. M Vachier-Lagrave vs Grischuk  1-0642017Chess.com Speed Chess Championship 2017/18A49 King's Indian, Fianchetto without c4
10. Grischuk vs M Vachier-Lagrave  1-0402017Chess.com Speed Chess Championship 2017/18B06 Robatsch
11. M Vachier-Lagrave vs Grischuk  ½-½522017Chess.com Speed Chess Championship 2017/18A00 Uncommon Opening
12. Grischuk vs M Vachier-Lagrave  ½-½892017Chess.com Speed Chess Championship 2017/18B01 Scandinavian
13. M Vachier-Lagrave vs Grischuk 1-0522017Chess.com Speed Chess Championship 2017/18A15 English
14. Grischuk vs M Vachier-Lagrave  0-1562017Chess.com Speed Chess Championship 2017/18A48 King's Indian
15. M Vachier-Lagrave vs Grischuk  ½-½652017Chess.com Speed Chess Championship 2017/18A36 English
16. Grischuk vs M Vachier-Lagrave ½-½692017Chess.com Speed Chess Championship 2017/18C02 French, Advance
17. Grischuk vs M Vachier-Lagrave  1-0682017Chess.com Speed Chess Championship 2017/18A04 Reti Opening
18. M Vachier-Lagrave vs Grischuk 1-0332017Chess.com Speed Chess Championship 2017/18C65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense
19. Grischuk vs M Vachier-Lagrave  ½-½352017Chess.com Speed Chess Championship 2017/18A04 Reti Opening
20. M Vachier-Lagrave vs Grischuk  0-1602017Chess.com Speed Chess Championship 2017/18B49 Sicilian, Taimanov Variation
21. Grischuk vs M Vachier-Lagrave  ½-½582017Chess.com Speed Chess Championship 2017/18A48 King's Indian
22. M Vachier-Lagrave vs Grischuk 0-1182017Chess.com Speed Chess Championship 2017/18B48 Sicilian, Taimanov Variation
23. Grischuk vs M Vachier-Lagrave  1-0452017Chess.com Speed Chess Championship 2017/18A48 King's Indian
24. M Vachier-Lagrave vs Grischuk 0-1162017Chess.com Speed Chess Championship 2017/18A05 Reti Opening
25. Grischuk vs M Vachier-Lagrave  ½-½572017Chess.com Speed Chess Championship 2017/18A48 King's Indian
 page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 26  PGN Download
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2) | Vachier-Lagrave wins | Vachier-Lagrave loses  

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 2 OF 3 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Jan-04-18  SirRuthless: <nok> Yep. Carlsen gets special rules for these events.

He gets to come late, skip press conferences, get special time controls, change everything to suit his taste.

Bullet was never 1 1 until he decided he needed increments and these slurpers have the nerve to say 1 0 is just a mouserace... No @#$% that's part of it otherwise they'd play 3 1. You don't need increments with a mouse anyway. It takes 1/10 of a second to make a move. Carlsen isn't the best at bullet, he's the best at 1 1. That's not bullet by the common definition. That's bullet by the Carlsen definition and he knows it.

Jan-04-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  chancho: Same time control in bullet as in their first match:

From 10.28.2016:

<The final was split into three phases: the first was 90 minutes in which the two would play non-stop blitz games of five minutes plus two seconds of increment. This went badly for the American who found himself constantly far behind in time, with easily two minutes difference. A line of the Nimzo-Indian seemed to plague him especially badly as he lost in it three times with white. This phase ended 5.5 - 3.5 for Carlsen. The second phase was 60 minutes long, with non-stop games of three minutes plus two seconds increment. If anything, it went even worse and ended in a 5.0 2.0 victory for Magnus. Finally, the last and fastest set was thirty minutes for unlimited bullet games of one minute plus a one-second increment. Finally the expertise of Nakamura came through as he managed to edge out his opponent and take it 5.0 - 4.0, but this was insufficient to balance the overall bout.>

https://en.chessbase.com/post/carls...

Jan-04-18  scholes: In 1+0 bullet games handling of mouse is worth 500-1000 elo. It is nothing but mouse race. You can sacrifice a queen for time lol.
Jan-05-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sokrates: So, <SirRuthless>, Carlsen is a privileged swindler and manipulator, who only beat Nakamura because of time-rules only beneficial to him. You really have a grudge against the world champion, and that, of course, is okay, even if it borders conspirational theories.
Jan-05-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  WorstPlayerEver: Actually I think speed chess is kind of boring to watch; after a few games with b3/g3 formations I've had it. A lot ado about nothing.

Psychologically it can never be good for your confidence, no matter how much Carlsen bobs his head to his headphones to show how confident he is.

You might think I am a turd, which is true; I admit it, but this never gonna sell much copies to a worldwide audience.

The spectators say much +- 30K/2B users. The silliest vid at yt gets plenty more views.

And since Kasparov's spamming chess lost its elite status, which simply means they play for the benefit of the living Ghadaffis.

Wot a life (without any status, whatsoever: blank bullets)!

Jan-05-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sokrates: If you meant me, <WPE>, please note that I don't think that about you - at all! I quite agree with you on the bullett chess format, actually. It's merely a circus performance in my book. It shows that Carlsen is world champion in mustering quick positional game plans, workable patterns, and eminent time managing, nothing else. Facing his opponents in slower formats those skills don't count as much anymore - an observational fact which is easily seen. When Ding Liren was crushed, it was not in the slow format, only in the quicker.

IMO Carlsen still has to prove - after a rather meager year of classical chess - that he is so much better than his competition.

That said, we are far from the wildly exaggerated assessments of Carlsen trying to belittle him as a player. Even in the classical format it remains to be seen who for the moment would have a chance to surpass him or even being close to becoming his equal.

All the players in the coming candidates have a history of many defeats against the world champion. MVL pathetically blew his chances, now I only see Aronian and Caruana as sort of dangerous challengers. The others don't stand a chance. Still: IMHO!

Jan-05-18  zborris8: <Sokrates: Wonderful statements... <USA's Hikaru was clearly better in the majority of these games...but would lose focus>>

This was not an exaggeration. Magnus Carlsen was the one to admit it:

"It did upset me that I was outplayed in several of those games and I think it was indeed a critical part of the match since he was only a couple of games behind and dominating most of the games." - Magnus Carlsen <Twitch TV 2018 SpeedChess Championships, @4:06:45.>

I think that one reason for Nakamura's lost focus was all the distractions during the match - so many people were gawking down at him, moving around, shuffling their feet, coughing, taking photos, etc. Take a look: https://tinyurl.com/NakamurasAudience

Jan-05-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  WorstPlayerEver: <Sokrates>

Lol no, my post was not addressed to you. But now I think of it, I think this year was kind of a sabbatical for Magnus 😉

Jan-05-18  john barleycorn: <zborris8: ...

This was not an exaggeration. Magnus Carlsen was the one to admit it:

"It did upset me that I was outplayed in several of those games and I think it was indeed a critical part of the match since he was only a couple of games behind and dominating most of the games." - Magnus Carlsen <Twitch TV 2018 SpeedChess Championships, @4:06:45.>

I think that one reason for Nakamura's lost focus was all the distractions during the match - so many people ...>

Another "theory" : with that audience Nakamura was eager to show off how to outplay both. first Carlsen and then how to outplay himself.

Carlsen's comment is to be taken with a pinch of salt. He may have been upset but admitting having been outplayed (and not beaten) is a shot at Nakamura, imo.

Jan-05-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  chancho: They have a match at 960 next month.

Maybe Naka will fiiinally win and get one over on Sauron. 🤔

Jan-05-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: < zborris8: <Sokrates: Wonderful statements... <USA's Hikaru was clearly better in the majority of these games...but would lose focus>> This was not an exaggeration. Magnus Carlsen was the one to admit it:

"It did upset me that I was outplayed in several of those games and I think it was indeed a critical part of the match since he was only a couple of games behind and dominating most of the games." - Magnus Carlsen <Twitch TV 2018 SpeedChess Championships, @4:06:45.>>

Yes, it was an exaggeration. There's an obvious difference between <he was dominating most of the games> in one phase of a particular segment of the match and <<Nakamura> was clearly better in the majority of these games>.

I have no intention of playing through all the games, but the chess.com story points out two Nakamura losses from won positions against one Carlsen loss from a won position in the 5/2 segment; blunders from both of them in the 3/2 segment; and Carlsen overlooking a Bxh7+/Qxd8 combo in bullet (as Tal once did).

Jan-05-18  john barleycorn: <chancho: They have a match at 960 next month.

Maybe Naka will fiiinally win ...>

No doubt in my mind :-)

Jan-05-18  KoNUlla: Its worth noting that Nakamura played at stage at a chess conference in South Africa live in front of an audience of several hundred during the final.
Jan-05-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<Monocle> Carlsen completely slaughtered So, 27.5 to 9.5 - I'm surprised there hasn't been more wailing and gnashing of teeth.>

Even the <So>bots, except for <tuttifrutty> who is in a class of his own, would have a problem rationalizing this lopsided score. Then again, it was reasonably predictable. Carlsen's Dec-2017 Blitz rating was 2986 and So's 2824, for a rating differential of 162 points. This equates to a predicted 71% winning percentage for Carlsen and most likely score of 26 11 in Carlsen's favor. Carlsen therefore did a little bit better than expected but not all that much.

Jan-05-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<tuttifrutty> Well, let's not look at the overall score and proclaim Wesley was buried like Naka>

Well, you're right there, So was buried <worse> than Nakamura, 27.5 to 9.5 (a 74% winning percentage for Carlsen) vs. 18 to 9 (a 67% winning percentage for Carlsen). Whether So won a portion or not is irrelevant, it's only the total score that matters. Or perhaps you didn't read or understand the rules.

Then again, as I indicated in my post above, the burial was expected and reasonably predictable. The result against Nakamura was also predictable, so here's is some more mumbo jumbo for you: Nakamura's Dec-2017 Blitz rating was 2853 and the 133 rating differential equates to a 68% winning percentage for Carlsen and a most likely score of 18 to 9 in Carlsen's favor, exactly what happened.

Then again, as you've pointed out, I don't understand how the Elo rating system works. And the Nile is not just a river in Egypt.

Jan-05-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<zborris8> USA's Hikaru was clearly better in the majority of these games against the Norwegian. But he would lose his focus in winning positions and give up the point. It's quite obvious from these results that he should beat Magnus every time they play.>

In case you also didn't read or understand the rules, it's results of games that count, now whether a player had a better position at some point earlier in the game. And, according to their ratings, no, Nakamura should not beat Carlsen every time they play.

Jan-05-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  WorstPlayerEver: In chess we speak about key moves. Moves which are hard to find. Finding the key moves in a position determine -for a great deal- the rating of player.

Compare it to this post; I speak like an authority but... well.. I think you understand ;)

Jan-05-18  john barleycorn: <KoNUlla: Its worth noting that Nakamura played at stage at a chess conference in South Africa live in front of an audience of several hundred during the final.>

<several hundred>? can you be a bit more exact, please? I have not seen a hundred.

Playing under such circumstances. How did it happen? would not it need the players agreement?

Jan-05-18  tuttifrutty: <Well, you're right there, So was buried <worse> than Nakamura, 27.5 to 9.5 (a 74% winning percentage for Carlsen) vs. 18 to 9 (a 67% winning percentage for Carlsen). Whether So won a portion or not is irrelevant, it's only the total score that matters. Or perhaps you didn't read or understand the rules.>

Again...these mumbo jumbo percentage blah blahs has no bearing whatsoever...

The rule stinks...and I...understand it very well. How can you add the total score when the games were in different time controls??? That's insane...it's beyond human logic and can only come from a brainwashing machine hoping that it reaches the core of gullible human brains.

Blitz is defined as a game with time control of 3 to 14 minutes.... Bullet is defined as a game with time control of 1 to 2 minutes...

Now let's look deeper into the abyssssss...shall we???

There are different types of chess games and you all will agree with me...correct???

There are also different kind of fowls that we all know about, ok??? And here they are...right before your very eyes...

1. Duck
2. Goose
3. chicken

Anyone who doesn't agree with me at this point need not look any further and just go visit a brain doctor.

But... I disagree that Wesley winning a portion of the match is irrelevant. In fact, if you examine the situation carefully, you will solve the unsolved mystery easily...even a blind man can see.

Blitz- 5 min...Magnus won a duck.
Blitz- 3 min...Wesley won a goose.
Bullet- 1 min...Magnus won a chicken.

Wesley and Magnus tied in blitz. Each won a fowl for their troubles...so I submit that for the sum of any integer and it's opposite is equal to zilch...even steven...

Magnus won the bullet. Hands up...but not for long.

So...to tell me that Wesley was buried worst than Naka is an insult to human intelligence...you all must quit listening to all these brainwashing websites that incite unreal logic. They...are unfit for human consumption...

Jan-05-18  Rolfo: Zborris8, some will say Hikaru had better positions in some games. Else you happened to sound like Sara Huckabea Sanders :)
Jan-05-18  tuttifrutty: And...what did Naka win???

None...he is made for pick up duck, goose, and chicken poop.

Jan-05-18  john barleycorn: <tuttifrutty: ...

The rule stinks...and I...understand it very well. How can you add the total score when the games were in different time controls??? ...>

Ask your hero Wesley So when he wakes up from his hibernation about his reasons to accept that format and scoring. Then come back here. Until then keep shut.

Jan-05-18  tuttifrutty: What do we expect...Wesley has some bills to pay...so generally, he can't be choosy. Simple as 1,2,3...
Jan-06-18  zborris8: <Rolfo> ROFL! I was merely exaggerating when I said that I wasn't exaggerating. ;)

<Keypusher - There's an obvious difference between <he was dominating most of the games> in one phase of a particular segment of the match and <<Nakamura> was clearly better in the majority of these games>.

I have no intention of playing through all the games, but the chess.com story points out two Nakamura losses from won positions...etc.>

<KeyPusher> - I watched all of the games and many times, not "some" times, the IM and GM commentators thought Nakamura was about to bring home the point. But then he would lose these games. It was clear that he was losing games in winning positions. And I went over each of the games with Hou1.5/d12. With this method, I found that Nakamura had 10 games in which he either blundered or held the advantage heading into the endgame, but lost. I scored these games as a loss for Nakamura and not as a win for Carlsen.

I admit that I don't have the ability to discern the difference between the strength of Carlsen's endgame vs. Nakamura suffering poor technique at speed. I simply followed the flow of the engine's evaluation graph throughout the game. But despite the shortcomings of engine evaluations, the results support Carlsen's statement that he had been outplayed in several of those games with Nakamura dominating most of the games. I do think that Carlsen was being sincere when he said this,<john barleycorn>, because he was answering a point made by the commentators, so there was no need to badger Nakamura with mockery.

Here's the engine evaluation summary, you all may disagree, or find different results from a different method, but this is what I had done to draw my own conclusion that something other than chess was responsible for Nakamura's results against Carlsen - playing the player and not the board, syndrome.

CARLSEN WON 4 GAMES:
TOTAL DOMINATION IN THESE ROUNDS: 13,18,19,21

CARLSEN LOST 3 GAMES:
SQUANDERED ADVANTAGE, BLUNDER, ETC ROUNDS: 3,11,23

NAKAMURA WON 0 GAMES:
NEVER HELD AN ADVANTAGE TO CLOSE THE WIN.

NAKAMURA LOST 10 GAMES:
SQUANDERED ADVANTAGE, BLUNDER, ETC. ROUNDS: 1,4,5,7,8,10,16,20,22,24

BOTH HAD 7 DRAWN GAMES

Jan-06-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: <zborris8> Thanks for that response. Not only did you spend way more time on the match than I did, it looks like you spent more time than the players! But even by your own account Nakamura "lost" 10 games, which is far less than a majority. I'm not even addressing <he should beat Magnus every time they play>, which I assume was a joke.

Is your source of game #s the chess.com video? The games on cg are not in order, I think.

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 3)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 2 OF 3 ·  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