|Your Next Move (Blitz) (2018)|
Played in Leuven, Belgium 15-16 June, as part of the first leg of Grand Chess Tour 2018. The participants first played nine games of rapid chess (see Your Next Move (Rapid) (2018)) then 18 games of blitz (this page) for a total prize fund of $150,000. The blitz was won by Sergey Karjakin with 11.5/18. Crosstable:
Combined standings (rapid points and blitz points) and Grand Chess Tour points (GP):
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 Pts
1 Karjakin ** ½½ 10 ½0 11 ½½ 10 ½1 11 ½1 11½
2 Nakamura ½½ ** 00 1½ 01 11 11 11 ½0 01 11
3 Vachier-Lagrave 01 11 ** ½1 00 ½1 ½0 ½½ ½1 1½ 10½
=4 Grischuk ½1 0½ ½0 ** ½1 10 ½1 ½½ 10 ½½ 9½
=4 Anand 00 10 11 ½0 ** 0½ ½½ ½½ 11 ½1 9½
=4 Aronian ½½ 00 ½0 01 1½ ** 1½ ½½ 10 11 9½
=7 Mamedyarov 01 00 ½1 ½0 ½½ 0½ ** 11 ½½ 0½ 8
=7 So ½0 00 ½½ ½½ ½½ ½½ 00 ** ½1 11 8
9 Caruana 00 ½1 ½0 01 00 01 ½½ ½0 ** ½½ 6½
10 Giri ½0 10 0½ ½½ ½0 00 1½ 00 ½½ ** 6
Wesley So won the overall event with 22 points using the scoring system which weighted rapid games (Ra) twice as much as blitz (Bli). He took home $37,500 and 13 Grand Chess Tour points (GP).
Ra Bli Pts GP
1 So 14 8 22 13
=2 Karjakin 10 11½ 21½ 9
=2 Vachier-Lagrave 11 10½ 21½ 9
3 Nakamura 10 11 21 7
4 Aronian 11 9½ 20½ 6
5 Grischuk 8 9½ 17½ 5
6 Mamedyarov 9 8 17 4
7 Anand 5 9½ 14½ 3
9 Caruana 7 6½ 13½ 2
10 Giri 5 6 11 1
Official site: https://grandchesstour.org/2018-gra...
TWIC report: http://theweekinchess.com/chessnews...
Chess.com report: https://www.chess.com/news/view/so-...
| page 1 of 4; games 1-25 of 90
|1. Mamedyarov vs So
||1-0||49||2018||Your Next Move (Blitz)||D02 Queen's Pawn Game|
|2. Aronian vs Anand
||1-0||32||2018||Your Next Move (Blitz)||C50 Giuoco Piano|
|3. Grischuk vs Aronian
||1-0||36||2018||Your Next Move (Blitz)||A45 Queen's Pawn Game|
|4. Nakamura vs Anand
||0-1||33||2018||Your Next Move (Blitz)||A45 Queen's Pawn Game|
|5. Vachier-Lagrave vs So
|| ||½-½||48||2018||Your Next Move (Blitz)||D73 Neo-Grunfeld, 5.Nf3|
|6. Giri vs Karjakin
|| ||½-½||68||2018||Your Next Move (Blitz)||C67 Ruy Lopez|
|7. Caruana vs Mamedyarov
|| ||½-½||54||2018||Your Next Move (Blitz)||B29 Sicilian, Nimzovich-Rubinstein|
|8. So vs Caruana
|| ||½-½||48||2018||Your Next Move (Blitz)||D78 Neo-Grunfeld, 6.O-O c6|
|9. Mamedyarov vs Nakamura
|| ||0-1||44||2018||Your Next Move (Blitz)||E06 Catalan, Closed, 5.Nf3|
|10. Karjakin vs Vachier-Lagrave
|| ||1-0||59||2018||Your Next Move (Blitz)||A33 English, Symmetrical|
|11. Aronian vs Giri
||1-0||38||2018||Your Next Move (Blitz)||C42 Petrov Defense|
|12. Anand vs Grischuk
||½-½||71||2018||Your Next Move (Blitz)||B52 Sicilian, Canal-Sokolsky (Rossolimo) Attack|
|13. Vachier-Lagrave vs Grischuk
|| ||½-½||46||2018||Your Next Move (Blitz)||C53 Giuoco Piano|
|14. Giri vs Anand
|| ||½-½||49||2018||Your Next Move (Blitz)||C67 Ruy Lopez|
|15. Vachier-Lagrave vs Aronian
|| ||½-½||55||2018||Your Next Move (Blitz)||A04 Reti Opening|
|16. Caruana vs Karjakin
|| ||0-1||54||2018||Your Next Move (Blitz)||E46 Nimzo-Indian|
|17. Nakamura vs Grischuk
|| ||1-0||42||2018||Your Next Move (Blitz)||B23 Sicilian, Closed|
|18. Karjakin vs Mamedyarov
|| ||1-0||72||2018||Your Next Move (Blitz)||C55 Two Knights Defense|
|19. Aronian vs Caruana
||1-0||21||2018||Your Next Move (Blitz)||B43 Sicilian, Kan, 5.Nc3|
|20. So vs Nakamura
||0-1||85||2018||Your Next Move (Blitz)||D56 Queen's Gambit Declined|
|21. Grischuk vs Giri
|| ||½-½||59||2018||Your Next Move (Blitz)||C42 Petrov Defense|
|22. Anand vs Vachier-Lagrave
||1-0||63||2018||Your Next Move (Blitz)||B23 Sicilian, Closed|
|23. Giri vs Nakamura
||1-0||38||2018||Your Next Move (Blitz)||C67 Ruy Lopez|
|24. So vs Giri
||1-0||38||2018||Your Next Move (Blitz)||A06 Reti Opening|
|25. Karjakin vs Grischuk
|| ||½-½||44||2018||Your Next Move (Blitz)||B50 Sicilian|
| page 1 of 4; games 1-25 of 90
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
|Jun-19-18|| ||WorstPlayerEver: <BOSTER>
No, but you probably were...
"He had a funny habit: while his opponent was pondering a move, he would now and then brush off specks of dust, real or imaginary, from the opponent’s side of the chessboard. Eventually, Petrosian broke him of the habit by giving him a rap on the fingers." -- Alexander Koblentz
|Jun-19-18|| ||Sokrates: I agree with <Sally S> that behaving badly at the board wasn't one of Fischer's shortcomings. All statements touching that subject tell the opposite. Fischer's increasingly outrageous behavior was very rarely directed against fellow chessplayers, it was mostly against organizers and various institutions.|
As for W. So, the videos I have seen state that he tends to bang the clock excessively, and I can only say that if I learned from my colleagues that they felt annoyed/bothered by this, I'd make efforts to adjust myself instead of keep doing what obviously becomes an unnecessary issue. With 24 years of age and so many years of tournament experience he should know that.
|Jun-19-18|| ||Sally Simpson: To be fair if you watch the vid.
Wes is not a consistently whacking his clock it only appears to happen when time gets very short and I've seen 100's of players do that when playing on fumes.
Here there is a much more at stake than a pint in a pub if Wes or any player did not get excited then they are not human.
Fabiano should have complained during the game. Any complaints after a game are groundless.
|Jun-19-18|| ||WorstPlayerEver: <Wes is not a consistently whacking his clock...>|
Irrelevant; one time is enough.
|Jun-19-18|| ||WorstPlayerEver: <Sally Simpson>|
So if everyone jumps in front of a train, you are the first to follow, I suppose.
|Jun-19-18|| ||OhioChessFan: <Sally: Fabiano should have complained during the game. Any complaints after a game are groundless.>|
I can see Fab reluctant to take a chance at stopping clocks and having his appeal denied.....
|Jun-19-18|| ||WorstPlayerEver: But really, why did he not hit So's hand? If he would punch the clock I would hit his hand when pushing.|
If they would make 'objections', I would punch their face. Simple as it is. Darn children!
|Jun-19-18|| ||Sally Simpson: Hi W.P.E.
"So if everyone jumps in front of a train....."
There you go again with yet another silly supposition telling people how they would re-act in one of these hypothetical situations you keep dreaming up that actually have nothing to do with anything we are discussing.
How you are getting from pressing a chess clock after a move to everyone stepping in front of a train is way beyond me.
"Irrelevant; one time is enough."
And after that one time Caruana, if it was upsetting him, should have stopped the clocks and made a complaint.
That kind of appeal would not incur any time penalty for a false claim. It would not be classed as an unreasonable claim. (it could only be classed as such if an arbiter was present and this was the 3rd or 4th claim and the arbiter saw nothing wrong.)
Also, if it was loud enough to cause a disturbance then any arbiter in the vicinity should have been across right away and warned Wes So.
All I was saying that this is not a Wes So secret trick. It's common and even the most placid of players can suddenly go clock berserk.
If you have ever played in a tournament you will know that often towards the end of a playing session somewhere in the room you will hear a clock getting slammed and then you watch controllers zoom in on the offender(s).
I've seen a player warned by an arbiter but never nothing more.
The most severe complaints come from the tournament suppliers or club treasurer who has to replace broken clocks. At my club blitz chess is banned unless you bring you own clock.
I play blitz with my clock, if someone keeps slamming it I ask them to stop, not because it distracts me, it can break the clock.
But if you must get your teeth into someone regarding chess clocks how about a player Najdorf called; “the bandit of the chessboards."
G Botterill vs Mecking, 1972
|Jun-19-18|| ||Sokrates: You are right, <Sally S> that in the heat of the battle, many blitzers become too eager to notice how hard they are pressing the clock. |
What we do not know about Caruana-So is whether Caruana may have remarked this informally to So on previous occasions. Caruana doesn't strike me as a player clinging to strict formality, but if he has felt that hints have gone unnoticed that may have led him to a formal complaint. All speculation, of course, but it is unlikely that those guys shouldn't have conversations about this and that between games.
|Jun-19-18|| ||BOSTER: < WPE>:< giving him a rap on the fingers>. When Bobby played in Chess Club in Moscow, A. Koblentz has been in Jurmala,near Riga.
"If you take the rap, you are punished for something that is not your fault or for which other people are equally guilty".|
|Jun-19-18|| ||AylerKupp: <<Sally Simpson> Arriving late, how is that behaving badly at the board.>|
Well, I did say that behaving badly at the board depended on your definition of "OTB". I would think that after the clocks are started the game has started, and that is therefore the definition of "OTB".
And FIDE (https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook....) indicates that "6.6 At the time determined for the start of the game White’s clock is started." So I think that FIDE agrees with me that once the scheduled time of the game arrives and (presumably the arbiter) starts White's clock, that indicates that the game has started. And arriving late, particularly if done on a regular basis, can then be considered "behaving badly at the board".
<Then a second hand story about Bobby playing a skittles blitz game.>
I also said that the story was uncorroborated and hence not necessarily credible. But I would think that a skittles game between two top class players would have been played according to the FIDE rules of chess at the time, regardless of whether it was a formal tournament game or an informal skittles game. These were, after all, two professional players who should have been well aware of the FIDE rules of chess. If the FIDE rules of chess were not being strictly followed, what other chess rules would they (or either one of them unilaterally) choose to ignore? Touch-move? White playing first? 50-move rule?
<He was always fair during the game and gracious in defeat.>
Here we can then have a discussion about what constitutes "fairness" but I would rather not open up that can of worms. And I doubt that, for example, forfeiting his second game in the Fischer - Spassky World Championship Match (1972) after blundering with 29...Bxh2 and converting what should have been an easy draw into, at best, a problematic one which he was unable to achieve constitutes being "gracious in defeat".
"We tarnish this great chess player's memory on many other matters often though ill informed posts." At leave him with this."
I don't agree that my posts were ill-informed. I indicated that being habitually late for games was an example of annoying his opponent OTB and that is certainly true. The other portion of my post was qualified by my indicating that it was not corroborated and therefore questionable. Had I not indicated that then I would definitely be guilty of being "ill informed". But I did.
As far as "other matters" I hope that you agree that Fischer's behavior off the board was not always commendable. They are well documented. So as far as tarnishing his great chess player's memory off the board I think that Fischer did a pretty good job of that himself.
|Jun-19-18|| ||AylerKupp: <<Sally Simpson> All I was saying that this is not a Wes So secret trick. It's common and even the most placid of players can suddenly go clock berserk.>|
No one said that this was So's "secret trick". Players have been doing this since well before So was born and they will likely be doing this long after he's gone. I suspect that we have both been guilty of doing this on occasion. But having everyone else do it, an excuse that I stopped using when I was 8 or 9 years old, doesn't mean that it is therefore OK to do, particularly when you are playing in a FIDE-sanctioned tournament which is expected to strictly follow FIDE's rules of chess and when you have been warned about it before.
Yes, Caruana should have stopped the clock and complained to the arbiter that what So did was annoying him. The arbiter should then have given So a warning as indicated by the rules. If So continued to bang excessively on the clock Caruana should have stopped the clock again and complained to the arbiter again. Then arbiter should then have either increased the time on Caruana's clock or reduced the time on So's clock (presumably not both, although it doesn't seem to me that is precluded by the rules as they are currently stated). If after those action(s) So still continued to bang excessively on the clock then Caruana should have again stopped the clock and complained to the arbiter. At that point the arbiter should have forfeited So, again as allowed by the rules.
But I don't think that Caruana's failure to stop the clock and complain to the arbiter indicates that it was Caruana who was at fault and not So.
I can just imagine the howl from So's supporters claiming (again) that So was treated unfairly, just as when repeatedly ignored the (same) arbiter's two warnings to stop making notes during W So vs Akobian, 2015 in the 2015 US Chess Championship. But So has a history of ignoring warnings about his behavior during games so I'm not sure that he would have stopped banging on the clock even after the second disciplinary action.
At any rate, to me the solution is a relatively simple one. Modify the clocks to incorporate g-sensors that measure the acceleration of the clock lever. Then, if an acceleration threshold is exceeded (an indication that the clock is being pressed too hard), the pressing of the clock is ignored, basically requiring the offending player to press his opponent's clock lever and repress his own clock lever, to stop his clock, losing valuable time in the process. It won't take too long for players to control themselves from going "clock berserk".
Small g-sensors/accelerometers suitable for this purpose are available in quantity for less than US $ 2.00 each, so they would not significantly add to the cost of a FIDE-official chess clock which is currently selling at Amazon for US $ 57.50. It then only remains to decide what the acceleration threshold should be.
|Jun-19-18|| ||BOSTER: < AylerKupp>:<FIDE rules of chess>. If you saw Women's US Champ when girls play Armageddon, you'd not say <FIDE rules of chess>.|
|Jun-19-18|| ||AylerKupp: <<BOSTER> If you saw Women's US Champ when girls play Armageddon, you'd not say <FIDE rules of chess>>|
I'm not sure what you're trying to say and in what context. That the current FIDE Rules of Chess, while they address Blitz and Rapid games, do not address Armageddon/sudden death games? Yes, that's true. FIDE also does not currently rate Armageddon/sudden death games so maybe that's the reason why they don't address them in their current Rules of Chess. I wish that they did, given that tournaments now usually call for Rapid, Blitz, and Armageddon/sudden death games as tiebreakers for first place. And, incidentally, they specify exactly that in the forthcoming Carlsen vs. Caruana WCC match (which FIDE refers to as the FIDE World Championship Match or FWCM; see https://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/...) that if the score is still tied after the Rapid (4 games) and Blitz (2 games), then a sudden death game will be played to determine the title. They refer to their current Rules of Chess for details of the conduct of the tie-break games which, as I indicated above, don't address sudden death games.
Probably an oversight and maybe someone should point it out to them (not me!). It might prove embarrassing if the WCC match gets to that point and either Carlsen or Caruana (or both) ask FIDE what their rules of chess are for playing sudden death games. :-) Then again, this is FIDE and they are apparently not embarrassed by any of their behavior.
But what does that have to do with my recent posts which did not address Armageddon/sudden death games? And to what, if anything (and where) should I change my references to the FIDE Rules of Chess to something else?
|Jun-19-18|| ||Sally Simpson: Hi AylerKupp,
I am surprised at you for continuing on this.
"Then again, a story doesn’t need to be true to be considered enjoyable,... "
Fischer was not a saint by any means but this utter nonsense about him being unfair in OTB play is just that, nonsense spouted about by people who have never met or played him.
Instead of enjoying and spreading tittle-tattle which you know as well me soon becomes taken as fact
How about from someone who knew Fischer and played him 7 times in tournament OTB play. and more than a few times at blitz.
Edmar Mednis, page 75, 'How to be a Complete Tournament Player."
"Robert J. Fischer was known for his impeccable behavior at the chessboard."
I repeat that was from someone who actually knew and played him. You will look in vain for any player who played Bobby , including Spassky, who he defaulted against because of the camera's, saying otherwise. At the board the man was a total gent.
"But I would think that a skittles game between two top class players would have been played according to the FIDE rules of chess at the time"
Strict FIDE rules do not apply in skittles blitz....and that is what it was.
Have you ever seen top players playing skittles blitz 'trash talk' is the order of the day. As is touch clock, taking the King and anything else they can think of. It's all just a piece of fun.
Even today in a lot places in blitz skittles taking a king is allowed, the move is not completed till the clock is pressed and touch move is ignored.
|Jun-20-18|| ||AylerKupp: <<Sally Simpson> I am surprised at you for continuing on this.>|
OK, I'll stop. We'll just have to agree to disagree. No point in continuing when our two sets of opinion are so far apart.
|Jun-20-18|| ||Sally Simpson: Hi AylerKupp,
Just surprised because you like me come from the Fischer era. I kept hearing in '72 despite the off the board antics how well he behaved during a game.
"Fischer, yes he was a gentleman and never any chess player had objections to his behaviour, only organisers."
Korchnoi, page 68, ' Finding Bobby Fischer: The Chess Interviews.'
" When he was sitting at the board his behaviour was immaculate. A kind of gentleman like Keres."
Vlastimil Hort: https://en.chessbase.com/post/vlast...
it's not just our opinions that are far apart. You are dismissing Mednis, Korchnoi and Hort. Three players (along with countless others) who played against him and knew him.
Hort also adds in that link that Booby turned up late for games, something you likened to bad sportsmanship, to avoid contact with the press and the photographers.
|Jun-20-18|| ||WorstPlayerEver: <Sally>
If I remember well, Fischer threw a Bishop at Spassky during the first game. Spassky took it from the ground and placed it on h2.
|Jun-20-18|| ||Sally Simpson: Hi W.P.E.
It was Spassky who was throwing pawns at Fischer.
Spassky won his two OTB games because Fischer played two of the most famous pawn captures in chess history.
They are still talking about both games and 1972 was 46 years ago.
A good theme that. (let's get more...it's better than arguing all the time.)
We have two famous pawn captures.
Most famous castling must be F A Hoffmann vs Alexander Petrov, 1844
click for larger view
Black castled. Or maybe that Wolfgang Heidenfeld game where he castled twice.
Wolfgang Heidenfeld (kibitz #3)
Anyone want to add anything.
Most famous Bxh7+ and Bxf7+ most famous under-promotion etc...etc..
Most famous computer move must be 34...Re8 here.
click for larger view
Duchess vs Kaissa, 1977
|Jun-20-18|| ||Howard: What was the other famous pawn capture that Fischer made?|
|Jun-20-18|| ||Sally Simpson: Hi Howard.
Taking the Poisoned Pawn in Game 11. (especially after Game 7.)
|Jun-21-18|| ||WorstPlayerEver: <BOSTER>
Weird, probably the soviets photoshopped Koblenz into this pic:
|Jun-21-18|| ||WorstPlayerEver: PS here you can find a pic of Koblenz (notice the spelling...), can you recognize him?|
|Jun-21-18|| ||WorstPlayerEver: Not convinced either, same guy?
|Aug-24-18|| ||Jambow: <frogbert: Judging by this event (rapid plus blitz), Caruana should really aim for deciding the WCC in the classical part>|
No no not at all Caruana is hoping Magnus will play for a draw like he did vs. Karjakin and then he will unleash his quick time control skills. Part of a bigger plan a little sandbagging is all.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!
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:
- No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
- No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
- No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
- Nothing in violation of United States law.
- No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
- No trolling.
- 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.
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.
Copyright 2001-2021, Chessgames Services LLC