Candidates 2014

[Christopher Kreuzer]

So Jonathan, you presumably know a bit about rook endings. What do you think of Karjakin's position (move 46...Rff5)? What tends to happen in these double R+P endings?

[Roger de Coverly]

Anand thought he was probably better but said his head was spinning with the complications and he didn't want to tempt fate.

The engine finds a plus 4 idea involving given up a Rook to avoid the repetition. The premise is that White is much better in the exchange down ending and eventually regains the material with a threatened promotion of the d7 pawn. It wouldn't have been easy to work out and trust your calculations. He could still have tried to compute this at move 41, or find a simpler version.

[Jonathan Bryant]

So Jonathan, you presumably know a bit about rook endings.

Not sure I deserve your confidence Chris. Particular with two rooks each which I’ve never really studied. Generally different themes available because mating attacks are often possible which is rarely the case with 'pure' rook and pawns endgames.

Interesting that Mamedyarov chosen not to exchange rooks on move 49 (he could have swapped and gone Rc4 looking at Rc7+ and coming behind the pawn). Presumably therefore he feels his chances are superior with all rooks still on the board. Can’t say I see a way through for Black at the moment.


[EDIT: What am I talking about? White would have gone Rh7+ and Ra7. Draw now anyway.]

[Chris Rice]

I'm guessing some of the players are getting very tired and this is leading to a few little outbursts. The latest is from Karjackin on the Chess Russia site:

Sergey Karjakin: "What Do I Pay ACP For? Why It Doesn't Protect Players' Rights?"

The Karjakin - Mamedyarov encounter of Round 12 was drawn. Before commentating on the game, Sergey Karjakin made an announcement:

"Why do we play the tournament with such a stupid time control? [without increment] What do I pay ACP for? Why isn't it protecting chess players' right? I also agree with what Kramnik said recently. We repeat the mistakes of London. I don't understand why."

"Did you contact the ACP or FIDE?" the GM was asked.

"I consider my work to be playing chess," Karjakin replied. "Preparation takes a lot of efforts, so I can't also be doing some technical stuff."

[Stewart Reuben]

Karjakin is right about the time control. The ACP made a big thing about unifying the time controls, causing British events some problems. (That has no been changed.) But they made no effort to make the time control in the late stages of the World Championship the same as elsewhere. Moreover that rate is inferior, in my view.
But it gives a built-in advantage to those players used to playing at 40/2, 20/1, all in 15 minutes + 30 seconds cumulatively after move 60. So a handful of players may prefer it.
Of course if you enjoy seeing Ivanchuk lose several games on time; Grischuk spoiling several games in time trouble; and old-fashioned time scrambles, then you will prefer that rate.
There is one definite advantage to 40/2. People still don't understand what constitutes time trouble when it is 40/90 + 30 seconds, or something similar.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Does anyone know how much GMs pay to the ACP? Is that on the public record? (Ditto other chess unions if known).

[Chris Rice]

Two types I think costing 30 or 100 Euros
http://www.chessprofessionals.org/register

[Stewart Reuben]

I'm not sure I ever pay the fee of €30. If I do, it must be by cash when I see the appropriate person. But I have been a 'member' since it started. The ACP is longer-lived than its predecessor. Emil Sutovsky is President and a member of the World Championship Cycle Commission.

[NickFaulks]

Karjakin is right about the time control. The ACP made a big thing about unifying the time controls, causing British events some problems. (That has no been changed.) But they made no effort to make the time control in the late stages of the World Championship the same as elsewhere. Moreover that rate is inferior, in my view.
But it gives a built-in advantage to those players used to playing at 40/2, 20/1, all in 15 minutes + 30 seconds cumulatively after move 60. So a handful of players may prefer it.
Of course if you enjoy seeing Ivanchuk lose several games on time; Grischuk spoiling several games in time trouble; and old-fashioned time scrambles, then you will prefer that rate.
There is one definite advantage to 40/2. People still don't understand what constitutes time trouble when it is 40/90 + 30 seconds, or something similar.

If Karjakin wishes to use his clock sensibly, there is no regulation which forbids him from doing so. Personally, if I am supposedly given two hours to play 40 moves, I greatly resent having the organiser specify that I must use it in a certain way. My understanding is that the reason that the top WC events have the time control they do is that most of the players themselves, when asked, felt the same way.

Grischuk did make an intelligent point, though. He accepts that he handles his clock foolishly but says that nowadays most of his games are played under the "nanny knows best" system, and he has simply forgotten how to manage his own time.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Thanks. I shouldn't have said GMs, as IMs can also join (and WGMs and WIMs). I wonder how strict the application process is?

"A player having none of the above mentioned titles may apply for admission. He/She will have to address an application to the ACP Board in order to prove that chess constitutes an important part of his/her professional activity, whether he/she is chess trainers, chess teachers, chess journalists, presidents of chess clubs, etc. This list is not exhaustive."

I suppose I could go through the list here and see what the 'others' are:

http://www.chessprofessionals.org/members

Seeing which England GMs are not there is interesting.

[David Sedgwick]

My understanding is that the reason that the top WC events have the time control they do is that most of the players themselves, when asked, felt the same way.

Nick, I haven't checked and my memory may be at fault, but I believe that is not so.

A couple of years ago the ACP did a survey of the top 30 players which produced roughly a two to one majority in favour of using a 30 second increment throughout. Karjakin is asking, reasonably enough in my view, whether the ACP has done anything to persuade FIDE to accept this outcome.

Grischuk did make an intelligent point, though. He accepts that he handles his clock foolishly but says that nowadays most of his games are played under the "nanny knows best" system, and he has simply forgotten how to manage his own time.

I certainly felt that this was true of Ivanchuk in the 2013 Candidates. He seemed automatically to move every 30 seconds or so, even when he could still avoid losing on time by moving every 10 to 15 seconds.

[Stewart Reuben]

Both Nick and David are correct. Initially the people asked supported the no increment rate until after move 60. Then more recently the ACP, now a more representative body, voted 2/1 in favour of a 30 second increment from move 1.
I have never disguised the fact that the 30 seconds increment from move 1 is nannyism. But why assume that is pejorative?

[NickFaulks]

Stewart,

When I use the term "nannyism" it is pejorative.

The increment was not introduced for the benefit of the players. It was introduced for the benefit of the arbiters. That does not rule out that some players like it.

You and I can remember when clock management was considered an important part of playing competitive chess, and the player's own full responsibility. Karjakin possibly cannot remember that era. What next, giving players access to tablebases so they do not have to trouble with simple endings which everyone knows are winnable or drawn? I know that sounds absurd, but not so long ago increments would have sounded absurd.

I was always suspicious of the ACP survey. I have some experience of surveys, and that one seemed designed to get the headline result they wanted.

[Stewart Reuben]

I introduced the increment to the 1997 World Knockout Chess Championship. Prior to that, although in the rules since 1993, it had not been used. I know exactly why I did so.
It was because otherwise I feared that the World Championship might be decided at the whim of an arbiter, possibly me, because of the need for the quickplay finish rule.
It had to be an increment for the whole game because the DGT clock at that time could not be programmed to come into effect later in the game. The rate of play I chose was 40/100, 20 in 50, all in 15 + 30 seconds from the first. I had no experience of using such a rate, but it seemed to me most like standard chess of the time. Less than 30 seconds would have been perverse. People had to keep score throughout. I was horrified when everybody seemed to assume 30 seconds was what it had to be. How could we possibly know what was best without experimentation?

Thus it was introduced to REDUCE the role of the arbiter. Fewer of them are needed.

My view is that the increment generally improves the efficiency of the clock handling by most players.
I will go further and assert it may be one reason why players have become stronger and why ratings have gone up.
But don't let's discuss that on this thread. The Candidates 2014 is more important and interesting to far more people.

[Mick Norris]

Standings
Rank SNo. Name Rtg FED Pts Res. vict SB
1 6 GM Anand Viswanathan 2770 IND 7½ 0 3 43,75
2 7 GM Aronian Levon 2830 ARM 6½ 0 3 37,75
3 5 GM Mamedyarov Shakhriyar 2757 AZE 6 1 3 35,50
4 2 GM Karjakin Sergey 2766 RUS 6 1 2 34,50
5 3 GM Svidler Peter 2758 RUS 5½ 4 3 32,00
6 1 GM Andreikin Dmitry 2709 RUS 5½ 2½ 1 33,50
7 8 GM Topalov Veselin 2785 BUL 5½ 2 2 33,25
8 4 GM Kramnik Vladimir 2787 RUS 5½ 1½ 2 34,25

Round 13
SNo. Name FED Res. Name FED SNo.
1 GM Andreikin Dmitry RUS - GM Aronian Levon ARM 7
2 GM Karjakin Sergey RUS - GM Anand Viswanathan IND 6
3 GM Svidler Peter RUS - GM Mamedyarov Shakhriyar AZE 5
4 GM Kramnik Vladimir RUS - GM Topalov Veselin BUL 8

Looks like a must win for Aronian, Mamedyarov and Karjakin, with a draw pretty much all Anand needs, plus presumably Kramnik desperate for a win - should be a good round, pity I'll miss it

Round 14
SNo. Name FED Res. Name FED SNo.
7 GM Aronian Levon ARM - GM Karjakin Sergey RUS 2
6 GM Anand Viswanathan IND - GM Svidler Peter RUS 3
5 GM Mamedyarov Shakhriyar AZE - GM Kramnik Vladimir RUS 4
8 GM Topalov Veselin BUL - GM Andreikin Dmitry RUS 1