This is a picture of Oxford
I still do not have access to any of the games due to lack of Internet. Can someone post in the comments section the results and perhaps even the game score of group A for everyone to see? Thank you everyone for helping out!
Susan Polgar
Updated results:
Tiviakov – Karjakin 1/2 (21 moves)
Anand – Radjabov 1/2 (42 moves)
Aronian – Kramnik 1/2 (28 moves)
Shirov – Motylev 1/2 (41 moves)
Carlsen – Svidler 0-1 (47 moves)
Ponomariov – Topalov 0-1 (58 moves)
Navara – VanWely 1-0 (67 moves)
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
Anand-Radjabov 1/2-1/2
Kramnik-Aronian 1/2-1/2
Everything else still in progress
[Event “Corus Wijk aan Zee”]
[Site “Wijk aan Zee”]
[Date “2007.01.20”]
[Round “7”]
[White “GM Ponomariov, Ruslan(UKR)”]
[Black “GM Topalov, Veselin(BUL)”]
[Result “*”]
[WhiteElo “2723”]
[BlackElo “2783”]
[Annotator “Robot 3”]
[PlyCount “83”]
[EventDate “2007.??.??”]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. h3 O-O 6. Bg5 c5 7. d5 e6 8. Bd3 exd5
9. cxd5 Re8 10. Nge2 Nbd7 11. O-O h6 12. Be3 Ne5 13. a4 Nxd3 14. Qxd3 b6 15.
Ng3 Nh7 16. f4 h5 17. f5 h4 18. fxg6 fxg6 19. Nge2 g5 20. Rf2 a6 21. Raf1 Ra7
22. Nb1 g4 23. hxg4 Bxg4 24. Nd2 Bxb2 25. Nc3 Rg7 26. Nc4 Bxc3 27. Qxc3 Bh5 28.
Bf4 Rxe4 29. Ne3 Qf6 30. Qc2 Bg6 31. Ng4 Qd4 32. Nh6+ Kh8 33. Bc1 Re1 34. Qd2
Rxf1+ 35. Kxf1 Bd3+ 36. Kg1 Ng5 37. Kh2 Ne4 38. Rf8+ Kh7 39. Qf4 Nc3 40. Qxd4
cxd4 41. Nf7 Ne4 42. Bb2 *
There was a flurry of moves the instant I posted the score:
42 … Bf1 43. Rh8+ Kg6 44. Rxh4 Kxf7 45. Rf4+ Kg8 46. Rxf1
Rh7+ 47. Kg1 d3 *
[Event “Corus Wijk aan Zee”]
[Site “Wijk aan Zee”]
[Date “2007.01.20”]
[Round “7”]
[White “GM Navara, David(CZE)”]
[Black “GM Van Wely, Loek(NED)”]
[Result “*”]
[WhiteElo “2719”]
[BlackElo “2683”]
[Annotator “Robot 3”]
[PlyCount “92”]
[EventDate “2007.??.??”]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. h3 g6 7. g4 Bg7 8. Bg2
h5 9. g5 Nfd7 10. Be3 Nc6 11. Qd2 O-O 12. O-O-O Nde5 13. b3 Qa5 14. f4 Nxd4 15.
Bxd4 Nc6 16. Bxg7 Kxg7 17. Kb2 Be6 18. Rhf1 Rac8 19. Qe3 Nb4 20. Rf2 Qc5 21.
Qxc5 Rxc5 22. Na4 Rc7 23. f5 b5 24. Nc3 Rfc8 25. fxe6 Rxc3 26. Rdd2 R3c7 27. e5
fxe6 28. exd6 exd6 29. a3 Nd5 30. Bxd5 exd5 31. Rxd5 Rc6 32. Rfd2 Rd8 33. h4
Rd7 34. R5d3 a5 35. Rd5 Rb6 36. R2d4 a4 37. Rb4 Rdb7 38. Rbd4 Re7 39. Rxd6 Rxd6
40. Rxd6 Re4 41. Rb6 Rxh4 42. Rxb5 Rg4 43. bxa4 h4 44. a5 h3 45. Rb7+ Kg8 46.
Rb3 Rxg5 *
Svidler just won against Carlsen:
[Event “Corus Wijk aan Zee”]
[Site “Wijk aan Zee”]
[Date “2007.01.20”]
[Round “7”]
[White “GM Carlsen, Magnus(NOR)”]
[Black “GM Svidler, Peter(RUS)”]
[Result “0-1”]
[WhiteElo “2690”]
[BlackElo “2728”]
[Annotator “Robot 3”]
[PlyCount “94”]
[EventDate “2007.??.??”]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 O-O 8. a3
Bc5 9. c3 d6 10. d4 Bb6 11. Be3 h6 12. h3 Re8 13. Nbd2 Bb7 14. dxe5 dxe5 15.
Bxb6 cxb6 16. Nh2 Qe7 17. Ng4 Rad8 18. Nxf6+ Qxf6 19. Qe2 Na5 20. Ba2 Bc8 21.
Nf1 Qg6 22. Kh2 Be6 23. Bxe6 Rxe6 24. a4 Nb3 25. Rad1 Rxd1 26. Rxd1 bxa4 27.
Qxa6 Qxe4 28. Qc8+ Kh7 29. Rd8 Qf4+ 30. Ng3 Nd2 31. h4 Qxh4+ 32. Kg1 e4 33.
Rxd2 e3 34. Rd3 Qf4 35. Rxe3 Rxe3 36. fxe3 Qxg3 37. Qf5+ Qg6 38. Qd5 Qe6 39.
Qd4 g6 40. Qxa4 Qxe3+ 41. Kh2 h5 42. Qd1 Kg7 43. Qd6 f6 44. Qc7+ Kh6 45. b4 Kg5
46. Qc6 Qe5+ 47. Kg1 b5 0-1
Two other games just ended in draws:
Shirov-Motylev 1/2 – 1/2
Tiviakov-Karjakin 1/2-1/2
Svidler!!!
1)Shirov-Motylev drawn.It was a Russian Defence(Petroff).Shirov had more space and some attacking chances,then Motylev change queens(move 16) and everything vanished.They played the rooks endgame,but it was easy for black.
2)Tiviakov-Karjakin drawn.It was a Sicilian,Alapin(2.c3) line.At the move 9th Tiviakov has both bishops but an isolated pawn on d4.The pressure on d4 forces massive changes.In the final position i think white is a bit better.
3)Navara-Van Welly.It is a Sicilian Najdorf,transformed to Dragon.Navara just can try f5 if he wants to checkmate his opponent,but this square is well defended.In the two rooks per side endgame,Van Welly has a weak point and finally he loses a pawn.It is move 48th now,but i think Navara will win with his extra and passed pawn(2 pawns queen side vs one pawn king side).I predict 1-0
4)Ponomariov-Topalov.0-1 Initially a King indian transformed to Benoni lines.Topalov gives his e5 Knight in order to have both bishops.The game is very wild on the kingside,Ponomariov attacks…the game is a middlegame with opposite coloured bishop:both are trying to attack.Under time pressure Ponomariov blunders and loses a Knight.
5)Anand-Radjabov.Drawn.It is a Sicilian,Pelikan line.Anand controls d5 and Radjabov has both bishops.Finally Anand fight with a good knight against bad bishop(and Q+R each one)but the Anand´s first line is weak and this give a Radjabov a chance to hold.
6)Aronian-Kramnik.Drawn.It is a Slav defence,Alapin line(5.a4).They change queens in ten moves.Aronian has just more space and Kramnik´s bishop on h7 is not playing,but he plays f6,Bg8 and Bf7 and it was drawn at 28th move.
7)Carlsen-Svidler.0-1 It is a Spanish opening and the norwegian choose his own way out of the main line playing 8.a3.Carlsen try to change because his opponent has doubled pawns,but he blunders and loses a pawn.The russian attacks just to force the changes.They arrive to a queens endgame,with the Svidler´s queen centralized and supported by a pawn…he has 3 vs 1 on the king side and Carlsen resigns:he has not chances.
Sorry if i cannot give you better explanation Susan,:)
The more I watch Topalov play in tournaments (I was not yet into chess when he played in San Luis) the more I am convinced that there should be 2 categories for World Champion: Match Champion (classical champion) and Tournament Champion. If Topalov consistently outperforms Kramnik in tournaments, it hardly seems fair to me that Kramnik is the “undisputed” World Champion. Though I am a big Kramnik fan (I rooted for himin Ellista) I think Topalov, having the highest rating and among the best tournament results vs top competition, has earned the right to receive WC title, at least in some form.
[White “GM Navara”]
[Black “GM Van Wely”]
.
.
It’s 55th move and white is winning.I don’t know why Van Wely still plays (position is hopeless for black)
It is move 67th now and Van Welly loses in two moves.The game is over.
why doesn’t Susan have the internet…is Oxford too backward?…
Banjanx
(er…..Scotland…)
Wely resigned in 67th move.
Group B:
Eljanov loses against Bologan and is not clear who will win this group.
Group C:
Nepomniachtchi wins again and has 6,5.He is leading clearly and he defeated Krasenkow three rounds ago…the only real opponent for him in this group
I think that van Wely played the rook endgame bad.
Why didn’t he went with the king to the queen side? would that have been too slow?
The World Champion is the best chess player or the one who can defeat everyone else. So if Topalov wants some kind of world champion status then he has to sit down with Kramnik and the winner is the better player.
The real solution to the Tournament and Match champion idea is to have a deeper understanding of what is happening. The person who will win a tournament is the person who is not the better player but plays a little more risky. The better player is the one who does not lose and can defeat everyone.
So the real solution is for you to understand the concept of the world champion better.
Here is a scientific article that you must understand if you are going to understand why kramnik is the champion and not topalov. I hope you enjoy reading it.
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3528
Navara 1-0 VanWely finished at 67th move
“both are trying to attack.Under time pressure Ponomariov blunders and loses a Knight.”
By the way this has never happened.
Pono was outplayed by Topa, no real blunders here.
To the one who pointed the chessbase article:
– It’s true that the ‘deviation’ caused by playing risky makes that risky players win more tournaments. But ELO takes into account that risky players lose against weaker players. So the one with most ELO is the best player
– It isnt scientific to equalize ‘playing for the win’ to ‘play risky’. I mean: In that ‘scientific’ article thinks that ‘playing for the win’ only affects the standard deviation, but one could think that it affects also the average mean (the assumption of the article is that the percentage of win/losses is the same playing risky or not, so that Topalov playing against another Player drawishly would get an average of 0.6 points per game, and playing risky, the same 0.6 points per game; but in real life, if Topalov plays risky could get 0.7 points per game [or 0.5 points per game], so you have to take into account a function riskiness/performance to make valid stadistics)
-Besides, since you cannot measure the riskiness of a player, saying that a drawish player lost the tournament because of the odds is like saying that he lost because other players had good luck
Topa outplayed Pono? Yes pono did not give knight with a blunder but saying “topa outplayed pono” is exactly not correct and only a subjective comment. Pono did many things to loose today.
First he started to get silly with 28.Bf4?? simply gave the one more pawn for free this was so strange. And after that point he played 30.Qc2?? was another silly thing. He could easily choose Qd3 still would attack a6 pawn but he missed and moved meaningless Qc2. And after this Qc2 the natural Bg6 came and pono this time played another strange 31.Ng4?? He did not stop this and played 33.Bc1?? and 33…Re1 was finishing game for me!
so if I were instead of topa I would win this game, too. Because pono was helping opponent to win
It’s strange to see how a GM can make so much mistakes in a row? At 27th move Rybka was saying just -0.20 but after 33.Bc1?? it was +1.50. That is because he had played the worst 4 moves in last 6 moves between 28 to 33.
So there is nothing to claim about topa’s win this was completely lost of pono! He did everything to loose game.
Best regards
I wrongly typed +1.50 I am correcting. Rybka was saying of course -1.50 after Bc1 of pono.
hayri kaya: it’s very comfortable to dissect other player’s mistake when having a never-faltering computer by your side…
it was a complicated game, and it’s not so easy to keep your cool over the board. in fact, it’s very, very difficult. whether or not pono was outplayed or outplayed himself, it was a great game by topa. topa plays people, not machines…
It’s funny, “anonymous” the moves that pono made was so meaningless i gave numbers from rybka to support only. but loosing one more pawn with Bh4 is not the genious of tofilof! that was a draw if in the same position there were any other player than pono, pono played horrible today.
By the way why people avoiding to give their names? (to all anonymous!)
Bf4 typed wrongly Bh4
hayri: I don’t know… You suggested 30. Qd3, eyeing the a6 pawn. To my mind, it’s very “computerish” to try and grab the a6 pawn in this position, to a human it looks very dangerous to decentralize your queen.
My main point is that Topalov is very good at putting the pressure on his opponents, provoking mistakes from them and making them look bad. Chess is also a psychological game.
As for me being anon, I distincly hate keeping track of usernames/password, and nobody knows who I am anyway.
Hi Susan, Here’s the A section crosstable: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Score
1 V. Topalov 1 ½ 1 ½ ½ 1 ½ 5
2 L. van Wely 0 ½ 1 ½ 0 0 ½ 2.5
3 S. Karjakin ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ 4
4 A. Shirov 0 0 0 ½ 0 0 ½ 1
5 S. Tiviakov ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ 0 2.5
6 D. Navara ½ 1 ½ 1 ½ ½ 0 4
7 R. Ponomariov 0 ½ 0 1 ½ ½ ½ 3
8 V. Anand ½ ½ ½ 1 0 ½ 1 4
9 L. Aronian ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 4
10 M. Carlsen ½ 0 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ 2
11 P. Svidler ½ 1 ½ ½ 0 ½ 1 4
12 V. Kramnik ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ 4.5
13 T. Radjabov 1 ½ 1 1 1 ½ ½ 5.5
14 A. Motylev ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ 3
crosstable C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Score
1 T. Kosintseva ½ 0 1 ½ 1 0 ½ 3.5
2 V. Georgiev ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 0 0 2
3 F. Nijboer 1 ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ 0 3
4 G. Sargissian 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ 1 1 3.5
5 Bu Xiangzhi ½ ½ 1 1 ½ 1 0 4.5
6 S. Atalik 0 1 ½ ½ 0 0 0 2
7 J. Werle 1 0 ½ 1 0 0 0 2.5
8 V. Bologan 1 ½ ½ 1 0 ½ ½ 4
9 D. Stellwagen ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ 3
10 E. L’Ami 0 ½ 0 ½ ½ 1 1 3.5
11 J. Smeets 1 ½ 1 1 0 ½ 0 4
12 M. Vachier-Lagrave ½ ½ 0 1 1 1 1 5
13 P. Eljanov 1 ½ 0 1 1 1 ½ 5
14 D. Jakovenko ½ 1 1 0 ½ ½ 0 3.5
crosstable C NOW The previous post was crosstable B
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Score
1 S. Brynell ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ 2.5
2 P. Negi ½ 0 ½ 1 0 1 1 4
3 N. Kosintseva 1 1 0 ½ 0 0 0 2.5
4 M. Krasenkow ½ ½ 1 0 1 1 1 5
5 J. van der Wiel ½ 0 ½ ½ 0 0 ½ 2
6 E. Berg ½ 1 1 ½ ½ ½ 1 5
7 M. Bosboom 1 ½ 1 1 0 ½ 0 4
8 H. Jonkman ½ 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.5
9 E. van Haastert 0 0 1 ½ 0 ½ 1 3
10 Z. Peng ½ ½ 0 1 ½ 0 1 3.5
11 I. Nepomniachtchi 1 1 ½ 1 1 1 1 6.5
12 Hou Yifan 1 0 1 ½ ½ 1 ½ 4.5
13 W. Spoelman 0 1 0 ½ 0 1 1 3.5
14 T. Willemze ½ 0 1 0 0 0 0 1.5
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
QUOTE
To the one who pointed the chessbase article:
– It’s true that the ‘deviation’ caused by playing risky makes that risky players win more tournaments. But ELO takes into account that risky players lose against weaker players. So the one with most ELO is the best player
QUOTE
You missed the entire article. Read it again more carefully. It is exactly the point that the best player does not necessarily have the highest elo or win the tournaments. He shows that the less best player usually wins tournaments because of his higher risk taking.
The one who wins tournaments will have the highest elo so it is basically the same thing.
Notice how Topalov rose to 2813 and immediately dropped 30 points. He is not stable. He is a risk taker. But definitely not the best player.
The prima facia or number one proof is that Kramnik beat Topalov in a Match twice. once in the regular part and once in the rapid part. Clearly Kramnik is the better player. And clearly Topalov is not as good a player as Kramnik.
enough said.
There can be one and only one best chess player called the World Chess Champion. The article proves that the Match Champion is better than the Tournament Champion if you want to think of it that way.
If you do not understand the article, then please try to understand that mathematicians understand it.
About Ponomariov-Topalov
I agree,Ponomariov was doing two or three weak moves previusly…he had the idea e5 two times and probably he did not analise it in deep.I think he was worse,and then blundered,but the blunder is there anyway.
And he was not outplayed…he was worse because he did mistakes.
Kramnik did not beat Topalov in the first part of their match. It’s a fact.
Again, to the one who pointed the chessbase article:
– The article is simplistic
– I study Physics, i know stadistics, i have done computer simulation of stadistical events.
– The one who has most ELO can be the one who isnt better. But the fact is that then, he will tend to keep the 1st position less time: so some other risky player will likely replace him. Topalov has been on the top spot for a long time, enough to consider him the best for that period of time.
– Kramnink is not the best in every aspect of chess. If you want to discuss stadistics, I will discuss stadistics. But if what you really want is to say ‘Kramnik is the best’, go ahead, but dont try to proof it mathematically, because you cant.
Well, if you change stadistics with statistics, I also agree with the previous post : ) (I am also a physicist)
The article in chessbase wanted to highlight the fact that a player with smaller strength (and thus rating) could have better chances of winning a tournament due to his style of game (risky).
It was not that players with the highest rating are risky but not the best, as was clearly missinterpreted from a previous post of someone with limited knowledge of mathematics.
I think it is ineducated to say that i dont understand mathematics. I am sorry that i mispelled statistics, I am not an English speaker.
Look if the model is so simplistic that the worst player with 100% drawinesh against the best player with 100% drawinesh will inevitably tie with each other in a match. You cant extrapolate that model to real life.
If you want more precision than the one that tournaments, ELO, and matches offer, you should track 1-on-1 games of the best players for a long period of time, and then consider some kind of scoring (for your purposes, a 1-round league in which the result of match is the total winner of the games played during the last 4 years (or the period of time you want) would be OK)
>> The prima facia or number one proof is that Kramnik beat Topalov in a Match twice
Ridiculous statement repeated too often. The truth is that Kramnik barely could win against Topalov with the help of computer.
>> Again, to the one who pointed the chessbase article:
– The article is simplistic
I noticed that each time ChessBase publishes some article with statistics, it is heavily criticized for the flaws it contains. This usually happens when someone misuses statistics to prove his preposterous statements.