Norway Chess 2014

[Chris Rice]

It's hardly surprising I guess that Norway is struggling to put up a bid for the next Carlsen-Anand match when they seem to be ploughing so much resource into their tournaments already. Before we even get to Tromso we've got Norway Chess 2014 starting on 2 June and featuring seven of the world's top ten. What a line up! Simen Adgestein deserves his place after beating Jon Ludwig Hammer in a mini-match to qualify but he'll have his work cut out to get any points.

1 Magnus Carlsen (Norway) 2882
2 Levon Aronian (Armenia) 2815
3 Alexander Grischuk (Russia) 2792
4 Fabiano Caruana (Italy) 2783
5 Vladimir Kramnik (Russia) 2783
6 Veselin Topalov (Bulgaria) 2772
7 Sergey Karjakin (Russia) 2770
8 Peter Svidler (Russia) 2753
9 Anish Giri (The Netherlands) 2746
10 Simen Agdestein (Norway) 2625

http://www.chessvibes.com/?q=field-norw ... -completed

[Chris Rice]

This tournament started yesterday with the blitz tournament to decide the pairings for the standard tournament and round 1 of the standard tournament is today (2.30pm UK time I believe). The blitz was won by Carlsen who has stated additional aims to be the world no 1 at rapid and blitz as well as standard. There is a report on ChessBase here: http://en.chessbase.com/post/norway-bli ... en-crushes

I was intrigued though that the sponsor of the tournament was "No Logo" as I had never heard of such an organisation. It was only later I realised that this is just a mechanism to get around the Norwegian gambling laws and it seems the tournament organisers seem quite proud of this achievement:

" Our main sponsor, Unibet, is one of the largest online gambling operators in the European market with over 8.9 million customers worldwide in more than 100 countries. According to Norwegian gambling law marketing of international online gambling operators is not allowed. However sponsoring is accepted if the commercial logo is not displayed to the public. Though the law still states that Unibet cannot claim for their logo to be used in connection with the tournament, or the event they are sponsoring. This partnership does not give Unibet commercial rights to advertise in Norway, and therefore a neutral sponsor-name for the tournament has been chosen. No Logo Norway Chess has no direct link to Unibet, nor its way of operations.
Towards their international markets Unibet will use the “No Logo” logo in combination with its own logo. The agreement also give Unibet the rights to stream matches from the tournament, and all of Magnus Carlsen’s matches will be shown live online on Unibet TV. This will coincide with a huge offering on odds for the event, both pre match and live."

A further piece appears on the Chess Vibes site going a little bit further on this theme:

Unibet

"Norway Chess is this year sponsored by Unibet, an online gambling company located in Malta. At first the logo could not be shown due to legal restrictions, and so the organizers dubbed the tournament “No Logo Norway Chess” and added “no logo” to their logo. It was both a simple and brilliant way to deal with the situation, but meanwhile the Unibet logo has appeared on the tournament website anyway.

And there is also an article on the odds given by Unibet: apparently Carlsen's odds to win the tournament outright are set at 1,75."

Is this unethical or just using your resources to get the job done? Wonder what our new ECF Commercial Director, Bob Kane makes of it?

[Graham Borrowdale]

It does seem slightly strange to me that the pairings for the main tournament, which will be FIDE rated and potentially impact on individual players' livelihoods, not just at this tournamnet but beyond, should be based on the results of a blitz tournament. I would have thought they should be determined by a random drawing of lots.

[Roger de Coverly]

It does seem slightly strange to me that the pairings for the main tournament, which will be FIDE rated and potentially impact on individual players' livelihoods, not just at this tournamnet but beyond, should be based on the results of a blitz tournament.

It's been done before, notably at the Tal Memorial when Luke was invited. The winners of the Blitz get more Whites than Blacks. Think of it as equivalent to a practice session in motor racing. Fastest in practice puts you at the front of the grid.

[Graham Borrowdale]

It does seem slightly strange to me that the pairings for the main tournament, which will be FIDE rated and potentially impact on individual players' livelihoods, not just at this tournamnet but beyond, should be based on the results of a blitz tournament.

It's been done before, notably at the Tal Memorial when Luke was invited. The winners of the Blitz get more Whites than Blacks. Think of it as equivalent to a practice session in motor racing. Fastest in practice puts you at the front of the grid.

I don't see the analogy with motor racing, where the qualifying laps to determine grid positions are seen as part of the 'game' itself. This would be more like Lewis Hamilton winning a go-kart race to claim pole position at Monaco: worthy and skillful no doubt, but not the same discipline.

[Alex Holowczak]

It does seem slightly strange to me that the pairings for the main tournament, which will be FIDE rated and potentially impact on individual players' livelihoods, not just at this tournamnet but beyond, should be based on the results of a blitz tournament.

It's been done before, notably at the Tal Memorial when Luke was invited. The winners of the Blitz get more Whites than Blacks. Think of it as equivalent to a practice session in motor racing. Fastest in practice puts you at the front of the grid.

I don't see the analogy with motor racing, where the qualifying laps to determine grid positions are seen as part of the 'game' itself. This would be more like Lewis Hamilton winning a go-kart race to claim pole position at Monaco: worthy and skillful no doubt, but not the same discipline.

At 10-player tournaments with 9 rounds, five players are going to get 5 whites and 4 blacks, and five players are going to get 4 whites and 5 blacks.

There are at least two ways of determining who has the advantage of having more whites than blacks:
(1) Draw lots
(2) A blitz tournament, as they've used in Norway
(3+) Some other methods

To throw your question back at you: Do you think it is better that the players with five whites should be determined by a skill-based process, such as a blitz tournament; or a luck-based process, such as drawing names out of a hat?

[Michael Farthing]

To throw your question back at you: Do you think it is better that the players with five whites should be determined by a skill-based process, such as a blitz tournament; or a luck-based process, such as drawing names out of a hat?

If it was an alternative between the hat and a swimming race, few people would have difficulty answering the question. Swimming races provide an every tournament bias against the old and the swimmingly challenged (I'm in both those categories). I'd give the same answer for the blitz idea. Blitz chess is a different game. If used as a standard it would be a permanent discrimination against 'proper' chess players. Apart from which it forces all competitors to demean and humiliate both themselves and the Noble Game!

[Roger de Coverly]

I'd give the same answer for the blitz idea. Blitz chess is a different game. If used as a standard it would be a permanent discrimination against 'proper' chess players.

For 1500 rated players perhaps. These guys are 2700+ and should be able to cope with playing quickly without that much dilution of their normal standards. I didn't check the exact rules, but don't they have a modest increment as well?

[Ray Sayers]

I believe it was 3mins + 2 secs

But its pretty irrelevant anyway - they all signed up on the basis of the rules given and none of the players seems to be complaining.

[Michael Farthing]

I'd give the same answer for the blitz idea. Blitz chess is a different game. If used as a standard it would be a permanent discrimination against 'proper' chess players.

For 1500 rated players perhaps. These guys are 2700+ and should be able to cope with playing quickly without that much dilution of their normal standards. I didn't check the exact rules, but don't they have a modest increment as well?

So:
Rd. 6, Carlsen- Caruana 1-0, 11 moves.
was not a diminution of Caruana's game?

[Barry Sandercock]

Todays game, Carlsen- Giri looks like a draw. Although, Magnus has a way of winning drawn positions.

[Roger de Coverly]

So:
Rd. 6, Carlsen- Caruana 1-0, 11 moves.
was not a diminution of Caruana's game?

I would suspect Carlsen used up some of his opening preparation, given that his Qf3 which sets the trick appears to be a novelty. That position from the French appears to contain more poison than might generally have been realised and in a regular game Caruana would have used up his time to work out a route to equality, rather than play O-O on autopilot . It certainly wasn't an example of a player moving a piece to a square where it could be taken.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Is that Nigel Short in the live commentary in a white tie?

[Alex Holowczak]

But its pretty irrelevant anyway - they all signed up on the basis of the rules given and none of the players seems to be complaining.

Quite. If you didn't like it as a player, you wouldn't sign the contract!

So:
Rd. 6, Carlsen- Caruana 1-0, 11 moves.
was not a diminution of Caruana's game?

No. The context is important.

Anyone who saw that game should know that it was a blitz game. In that context, that kind of blunder is known as something that happens in blitz occasionally, even by the best players. No one will see that game and extrapolate any ideas about Caruana's ability at classical time controls, which far better reflects his ability.

In the same way: If Ronnie O'Sullivan won a best-of-1 frame match against Barry Hawkins, because Hawkins missed an easy red and his opponent cleared up, then meh. A terrible blunder in a short game. No one will think it was a diminution of Hawkins' game. However, if O'Sullivan won a best-of-17 match because Hawkins missed a succession of such easy reds, then you might draw some conclusions about Hawkins' game.

[LawrenceCooper]

No. The context is important.

Anyone who saw that game should know that it was a blitz game. In that context, that kind of blunder is known as something that happens in blitz occasionally, even by the best players. No one will see that game and extrapolate any ideas about Caruana's ability at classical time controls, which far better reflects his ability.

In the same way: If Ronnie O'Sullivan won a best-of-1 frame match against Barry Hawkins, because Hawkins missed an easy red and his opponent cleared up, then meh. A terrible blunder in a short game. No one will think it was a diminution of Hawkins' game. However, if O'Sullivan won a best-of-17 match because Hawkins a succession of such easy reds, then you might draw some conclusions about Hawkins' game.

Even Ronnie O'Sullivan might struggle to play off a two second increment