|Magnus Carlsen Chess Tour Finals (2020)|
The Magnus Carlsen Chess Tour Finals benefiting Kiva was the 4-player grand finale of the Magnus Carlsen Tour and took place from 9-20 August 2020 on the chess24 Playzone. The event had a $300,000 prize fund with $140,000 for 1st place. The participants were Magnus Carlsen and Daniil Dubov, who had won previous Tour events, and Hikaru Nakamura and Ding Liren, who had qualified as the best performing players not to win an event (since Carlsen won 3 out of 4). The semifinals consisted of up to five mini-matches, and the winner of three such would prevail. The final consisted of up to seven mini-matches, and the winner of four such would be the overall winner. The mini-matches consisted of four 15 + 10 Rapid games, and if necessary two 5 + 3 Blitz tiebreak games, and if still needed an Armageddon game where White had 5 minutes to Black's 4, while a draw counted as a win for Black. No draws offers were allowed before move 40. All rounds and matches began at 16:00 CEST (server time 10:00 am). Tournament director: Sotiris Logothetis. Chief arbiter: Panagiotis Nikolopoulos.
Magnus Carlsen beat Hikaru Nakamura 4-3 in the final.
Official site: https://events.chess24.com/tour/
Semifinals, 9-12 August
Carlsen 01½½ 01 0 / 11½- -- - / ½11- -- - / 10½½ ½1 - 3
Ding Liren 10½½ 10 1 / 00½- -- - / ½00- -- - / 01½½ ½0 - 1 Final, 14-20 August
Carlsen ½0½½ -- - / 0½1½ ½1 - / 1½0½ 0½ - / ½½1½ -- - / ½½½½ 10 0 / 1½½1 -- - / 1½0½ 01 1 4
Nakamura ½1½½ -- - / 1½0½ ½0 - / 0½1½ 1½ - / ½½0½ -- - / ½½½½ 01 1 / 0½½0 -- - / 0½1½ 10 0 3
Nakamura 0110 ½1 - / ½½11 -- - / ½½1½ -- - / ---- -- - 3
Dubov 1001 ½0 - / ½½00 -- - / ½½0½ -- - / ---- -- - 0
ChessBase 1: https://en.chessbase.com/post/magnu...
ChessBase 2: https://en.chessbase.com/post/magnu...
Previous Magnus Carlsen Chess Tour event: Legends of Chess (2020)
| page 1 of 1; 20 games
|1. Ding Liren vs Carlsen
||1-0||44||2020||Magnus Carlsen Chess Tour Finals||B80 Sicilian, Scheveningen|
|2. Nakamura vs D Dubov
||1-0||58||2020||Magnus Carlsen Chess Tour Finals||B60 Sicilian, Richter-Rauzer|
|3. Carlsen vs Ding Liren
||1-0||46||2020||Magnus Carlsen Chess Tour Finals||D02 Queen's Pawn Game|
|4. Ding Liren vs Carlsen
||1-0||46||2020||Magnus Carlsen Chess Tour Finals||B13 Caro-Kann, Exchange|
|5. Nakamura vs D Dubov
||1-0||34||2020||Magnus Carlsen Chess Tour Finals||B60 Sicilian, Richter-Rauzer|
|6. Carlsen vs Ding Liren
||1-0||24||2020||Magnus Carlsen Chess Tour Finals||D02 Queen's Pawn Game|
|7. D Dubov vs Nakamura
||1-0||17||2020||Magnus Carlsen Chess Tour Finals||E21 Nimzo-Indian, Three Knights|
|8. Carlsen vs Ding Liren
||1-0||46||2020||Magnus Carlsen Chess Tour Finals||D40 Queen's Gambit Declined, Semi-Tarrasch|
|9. Nakamura vs D Dubov
||1-0||43||2020||Magnus Carlsen Chess Tour Finals||B33 Sicilian|
|10. Carlsen vs Ding Liren
||1-0||55||2020||Magnus Carlsen Chess Tour Finals||B90 Sicilian, Najdorf|
|11. Ding Liren vs Carlsen
||1-0||31||2020||Magnus Carlsen Chess Tour Finals||E62 King's Indian, Fianchetto|
|12. Carlsen vs Ding Liren
||1-0||45||2020||Magnus Carlsen Chess Tour Finals||D44 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav|
|13. Carlsen vs Nakamura
||1-0||59||2020||Magnus Carlsen Chess Tour Finals||A20 English|
|14. Nakamura vs Carlsen
||1-0||39||2020||Magnus Carlsen Chess Tour Finals||C65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense|
|15. Nakamura vs Carlsen
||1-0||22||2020||Magnus Carlsen Chess Tour Finals||C65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense|
|16. Carlsen vs Nakamura
||1-0||36||2020||Magnus Carlsen Chess Tour Finals||C50 Giuoco Piano|
|17. Carlsen vs Nakamura
||1-0||41||2020||Magnus Carlsen Chess Tour Finals||E47 Nimzo-Indian, 4.e3 O-O 5.Bd3|
|18. Nakamura vs Carlsen
||1-0||31||2020||Magnus Carlsen Chess Tour Finals||C65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense|
|19. Nakamura vs Carlsen
||1-0||51||2020||Magnus Carlsen Chess Tour Finals||C65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense|
|20. Carlsen vs Nakamura
||1-0||43||2020||Magnus Carlsen Chess Tour Finals||A28 English|
| page 1 of 1; 20 games
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 17 OF 18 ·
|Sep-06-20|| ||Sokrates: Dear <Pedro>, you great man.|
Just to make sure: When I made my little good-willed joke about acronyms I was calling for the self-irony and humour I know and frankly expect that you and <AK> possess.
<Am I kidding or am I serious?>
While reading your post I was not quite sure how to interpret it (and why I was mentioned among this distinguished lot), but when I read the above question at the ending, you really had me confused.
If you are kidding, I should probably just laugh at myself taking it seriously for a second.
If you are serious, I think you are calling for some kind of moderating, which I would support. It should be instigated by the owners of CG, though, but after this has been discussed during the many years I have been here, and not resulted in any kind of moderation, I assume that CG doesn't want it.
Official posts from CG are very rare here and quite arbitrary. They seem to leave it up to us, the posters, to adjust ourselves and each other.
That reminds of the so-called Grook by Danish poet and architect Piet Hein:
Men, said the Devil,
are good to their brothers:
they don’t want to mend
their own ways, but each other's.”
|Sep-06-20|| ||AylerKupp: <<beatgiant> No, but by the end of a tournament in which this tiebreaker is required, I do expect them to have a good estimation of their own and their opponent's capabilities in the game at hand.>|
I would think that in a top level tournament when its participants have likely played each other and studied each other's games, that each player would have a pretty good estimation of their own and their opponent's capabilities well before the tournament starts.
<Because there is no one answer. The answer is different for each pair of players and even at each event..>
Nonsense. To say that there is no answer is the equivalent of saying that there is no worthwhile treatment for any ailment because each person is different and responds to treatments differently at various times, so there is no point in trying go treat an ill person.
We are looking for a set of time ratios vs. draw odds that, on the average, would statistically provide a fair set of White Time Control Ratios (WTCR) for all games at a particular time control. Of course there will be variations in player performance for different players and at different times. If there weren't then there would be no upsets and each and every chess game would be entirely predictable; the strongest player would always win and there would be no need for tiebreakers. What would be then be the attraction of chess?
|Sep-06-20|| ||AylerKupp: <Pedro Fernandez> Am I kidding or am I serious?>|
I assume you are kidding and I certainly hope that you are. One goal of this site is to, within reasonable limits, encourage chess discussions between posters having different opinions and ideas. To have such discourse be subject to censorship by an oligarchy runs counter to that goal.
Besides, what good would "a strong reprimand" from PASS do? This oligarchy would not have any means to enforce that reprimand, so it can simply be ignored. Only the <chessgames.com> staff has the capability to both reprimand and enforce such a reprimand on posters that repeatedly violate their posting guidelines. But it is a thankless and unpleasant job and not always done when and as quickly as it should be done. Understandably so.
Ideally, as <Sokrates> mentioned, we should be able to control ourselves. Sometimes that unfortunately doesn't happen and discussions get personal and out of hand. But it works reasonably well.
BTW, Google Translate indicates that in English "Erhaben" stands for "Sublime". A word that neither I nor anyone else would use to characterize me. So I guess I'm out as a member of the PASS oligarchy.
|Sep-06-20|| ||beatgiant: <AylerKupp>
<To say that there is no answer is the equivalent of saying that there is no worthwhile treatment for any ailment because each person is different and responds to treatments differently at various times, so there is no point in trying go treat an ill person.>
I see you've learned the great "A is just like B" argument.
But that can be countered by a similar argument. To say that the relative value of time odds and draw odds must be standard for all pairs of players is the equivalent of saying we should establish a single fixed price per square foot of housing across the United States. Why should each buyer and each seller negotiate this over and over again, when we could just do a large statistical survey and establish a standard? Great, you've solved real estate! Now would you be willing to sell your own home at such a "standard price"?
<We are looking for a set of time ratios vs. draw odds that, on the average, would statistically provide a fair set of White Time Control Ratios (WTCR) for all games at a particular time control.>
No, <we> are not. <You> are. And that search begins with the premise that <fairness means equal average outcomes>. Whereas the solution I proposed begins with the premise that <fairness means that neither player is placed in a position of thinking that the other player got better conditions.>
|Sep-06-20|| ||Sokrates: <AylerKupp> and <Pedro Fernandez>|
Erhaben comes from the verb "heben" - to elevate or lift. I think our good friend Pedro meant that the four he mentioned, somehow distinguished themselves by their postings here (still excluding myself). Right, Pedro?
Otherwise, I agree with your notions, AK, although I think you may have pushed Pedro's intentions a tad too much in the direction of censorship, but Pedro should explain himself, not me.
Anyway, I begin to long for a new internet tournament, since, dare I say it, this is a site about chess. :-)
|Sep-06-20|| ||nok: <...is the equivalent of saying we should establish a single fixed price per square foot of housing across the United States. Why should each buyer and each seller negotiate this over and over again, when we could just do a large statistical survey and establish a standard? Great, you've solved real estate!>|
Actually, that's much better than what we have. Could have averted an economic crisis or two.
|Sep-06-20|| ||beatgiant: <nok>
<Actually, that's much better than what we have. Could have averted an economic crisis or two.>
Sure, if you don't mind a massive housing shortage.
|Sep-06-20|| ||nok: Why? You just have to check hoarding.
<There Are Over 17 Million Vacant Homes in America>
|Sep-07-20|| ||beatgiant: <nok>
Let's take it to my forum if we want to do the whole "Otto Ludwig Piffl Meets C.R. MacNamara" scene. This isn't the Rogoff page.
|Sep-08-20|| ||Pedro Fernandez: Nice Reply <AK>, I liked it! Although difficult to answer for me. Please, let me try.|
Don't be scared by the word 'sublime' (BTW, this word is spelled exactly the same in English and Spanish). PASS is not a common oligarchy, it is an Elite. Take, for example, the Congregation of the Roman Curia. This Congregation is the sovereign entity of international law, governing the Vatican City. So that it is easy to infer that the Cardinals, commanding The Roman Curia, are considered as Sublime. But now, what does the word Excelsus mean?
Virtue, a quality that exists in its highest degree. For instance, "the Gods have the most exalted of gifts: the possibility of forming a world out of nothing."
That's why I used the word 'Erhaben'.
And you reply me: - But I am neither Cardinal nor much less a God. Of course not! I know, and this is the satirical part of the Story, and in your reply, there is too a satirical part!
So that, my great <AylerKupp>, if you quit, then PASS won't ever exist, and so, Game Over!
|Sep-08-20|| ||Pedro Fernandez: My great <Sokrates>, I did reply you shortly, since long, but for sure, I forgot clcking Kibitz. I wrote: ''My dear <Sokrates>, my ''Edict'' is plainly parallel to your acronym, so do not seek for a cat's fifth leg as he has four ones. Cheers!''.|
Sorry my friend.
|Sep-08-20|| ||Sokrates: <Pedro> What about Schroedinger's cat? :-)|
|Sep-08-20|| ||Pedro Fernandez: <<Sokrates>: <Pedro> What about Schroedinger's cat? :-)>|
Well, Scat. For sure the person responsible for that cat was an ancestor from Copperfield. David was born and raised in New Jersey seeing everyday that Statue on Bedloe's Island (Hudson River). He always said: - Someday I'm going to do the same thing my ancestor did with Scat, and he did it !!
|Sep-08-20|| ||AylerKupp: <<beatgiant> To say that the relative value of time odds and draw odds must be standard for all pairs of players is the equivalent of saying we should establish a single fixed price per square foot of housing across the United States.>|
More nonsense. First of all housing prices vary in <different areas>, not across the United States (and certainly not the world) according to many factors, particularly the size of the house and its location. Second of all "standard" housing prices <ARE> established for the different areas based on those factors. They are called "comps". Asking prices for home are based on those comps as a starting point, sellers take those comps and add their own factors to account for negotiation loses and buyers (who are equally aware of those comps) make their initial offer based on those comps minus the amount they expect to give up in the negotiations. In the end they settle for somewhere around the comps value. So, yes, I would be willing to sell my home for such a standard price if the price is "fair" according to the characteristics and location of my home. Sure, I would love to get more for it than the "fair" price, but that's not likely to happen unless the buyer is either ignorant or emotional about my home.
It's just like buying cars. Car values are based on the state of the car, its age, its mileage, and several other factors. A "standard" value is defined by databases like Kelley Blue book and others. Both the car seller and the buyer know this "standard" value and a negotiation similar to buying a home takes place.
And, using your "reasoning" you can never compare anything, because each person has different preferences and therefore comparison standards can't be defined. It would be like saying that no standard rules for chess can be defined because every person would like their pieces to move according to the way they want them to move. So sure, I would like all my chess pieces to be able to move like queens, or a combination of queens and knights, except that the horizontal and vertical length that my "super pawns" could move would only be limited by where my "super pawns" are located and the edges of the board.
<No, <we> are not. <You> are.>
Well, that's true. I am looking for a set of WTCR that provides a fair opportunity for each player to succeed. And you are not. But, frankly, I'm not sure what you are looking for other than to exercise your apparent desire to haggle. So I guess that in that case the winner of the tiebreaker is not necessarily who is the better chess player but who is a better negotiator. That certainly makes a lot of sense.
<And that search begins with the premise that <fairness means equal average outcomes>
It definitely does not. You seem to be confusing equal <opportunity> ("fairness") with equal <outcomes> (results). If the <opportunity> is equal, then the winner of the game will be the better player. Whereas if the <results> are equal, well, that defeats the purpose of using a procedure as a tiebreaker because, by definition, the results will be the same. Doesn't it?
<Whereas the solution I proposed begins with the premise that <fairness means that neither player is placed in a position of thinking that the other player got better conditions.>>
Sure, we just seem to be quibbling as to whether those conditions are best established by each and every player rather than organization that has more knowledge and resources to establish those <provably fair> conditions. And if the conditions are provably fair, why would either player think that the other player got better conditions? Unless, of course, one player's idea of "fair conditions" is a set of conditions that gives him an advantage.
After all what would we expect this organization to do next? Standardize the rules of chess? Horror!
|Sep-08-20|| ||AylerKupp: <Sokrates> Anyway, I begin to long for a new internet tournament, since, dare I say it, this is a site about chess. :-)>|
You don't have long to wait. See https://uschesschamps.com/2020-cham... and https://uschesschamps.com/2020-sain....
|Sep-08-20|| ||AylerKupp: <<beatgiant> Sure, if you don't mind a massive housing shortage.>|
Yes, just make another nonsensical claim and try to pass it off as a "fact" without any basis or justification.
|Sep-08-20|| ||AylerKupp: <<Pedro Fernandez> Don't be scared by the word 'sublime'>|
There is an old saying in the US: "Sticks and bones will break my bones but words will never hurt me." I'm not scared of words.
<PASS is not a common oligarchy, it is an Elite.>
But when a small group of people have all the power, that's the definition of an oligarchy as well as a subset of an elite. An elite could be a small group of people who are superior to their peers in a particular field, but they may not have any power, although they likely will.
<So that, my great <AylerKupp>, if you quit, then PASS won't ever exist, and so, Game Over!.
That reminds me of what William Sherman, a top general in the Union Army during the US Civil War, said something along these lines to his supporters who wanted him to run for president of the US. "If nominated, I will not run. If elected, I will not serve." Those weren't his exact words, but that was his message to them.
|Sep-09-20|| ||Pedro Fernandez: Nice <AK>; the big difference is that we are having some fun with our jokes, whereas general Sherman words was in serious. |
''Sticks and bones...''; Excellent proverb, and I think it fits perfectly with Politics.
Yesterday I did realize that the word ''Exalted'' (Spanish Exaltado) has the same force as the word Excelsus. BTW, the words, Notable, Elite and Sublime, are exactly written equal in English and Spanish.
|Sep-09-20|| ||Sokrates: Thanks for the link, <AK>. Let's hope CG also knows it's coming. |
What an impressive array of legendary players. If this becomes a success it might spawn other FischerRandom tournaments. I'd like that. The genre is a tribute to real chess talent and not to mindless repetition of computer moves.
I am glad that good old Yasser Seirawan is one of the commentators, but I would rather have Tania (in particular) and Leko instead of Shahade and Ashley (in particular). But it's not bad and I am sure we are in for some fantastic entertainment.
|Sep-09-20|| ||moronovich: <Eggman: News from Chessbase India:
<<The search for Magnus Carlsen's opponent had reached half way in the month of March 2020. FIDE Candidates 2020, which was stopped halfway due to the Corona virus scare, is now resuming from the 1st of November 2020 from round 8 onwards. All the results until round 7 will stay as they are. The tournament will resume in Yekaterinburg, which was the original venue of the tournament. The organizers have also arranged for an alternate venue in Tbilisi Georgia.>>>|
|Sep-09-20|| ||Sokrates: Thanks for these news, dear <moronovich>. Yekaterinburg or Tbilisi is potato potato for me, as long as they take proper measures. But who wouldn't trust Russian officials and the FIDE leadership?|
Meanwhile, I'll invest most of my attention in internet chess and the upcoming Chess 960 top event. I think Yasser may be trimming his eyebrows as we speak! (sorry - I just had a Cuban Island with my wife).
|Sep-09-20|| ||moronovich: Sounds like fine spirtits,my dear <Sokrates> ;)|
|Sep-09-20|| ||metatron2: <I think Yasser may be trimming his eyebrows as we speak!>|
hehe good one <Sokrates> :)
|Sep-10-20|| ||Sokrates: <moronovich: Sounds like fine spirtits...> |
:-) One of the easy cocktails: 3 cl of vodka, white rum, tripple sec and fresh lemon juice, shaken with lots of ice, sown into a cocktail glass, and voila, the world becomes a better place, even for chessplayers! :-)
|Sep-10-20|| ||moronovich: <:-) One of the easy cocktails: 3 cl of vodka, white rum, tripple sec and fresh lemon juice, shaken with lots of ice, sown into a cocktail glass, and voila, the world becomes a better place, even for chessplayers! :-)>|
Reminds me of the day I was born,the common opinion was that I was not too pretty."But as my father said:"We can always give hime some nice clothes".
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 17 OF 18 ·
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 2001-2020, Chessgames Services LLC