You're absolutely right.Christopher Kreuzer wrote:They were hoping for a Caruana win, surely, not Aronian.
I'm easily confused by all these Americans with non-American names, particularly after a glass or two of red.
You're absolutely right.Christopher Kreuzer wrote:They were hoping for a Caruana win, surely, not Aronian.
Sorry for the late replyJohn Brewitt wrote:Joshua Gibbs wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpmDIP3Fn2YKeith Arkell wrote:
Which just goes to show how you can manipulate statistics to say just about anything!
I wonder whether I could make a similar claim regarding myself and all other participants of the Hastings Premier?
Just for the Record I predicted Karjakin to win from the start
So what did you think to the final coup de grace Qh6+?
Sam Shankland too; interesting choicesMick Norris wrote:Carlsen interview
I knew Nielsen & Fressinet were seconds, but not about Grandelius
He had been conspicuously absent from chess24, but cunningly disguised this by becoming a father at the same time.Peter Heine Neilsen on Twitter wrote:@TarjeiJS @peterdoggers @GMJanGustafsson Gusti best example of why secrecy pre-match is crucial. Known Marshall-guru.
I like the idea of playing the match with an odd number of classical games (13 or 17 for example), with the challenger given one more game with white and the champion retaining the crown in case of a draw. It retains the concept of a new champion having to defeat the old one, but it makes it slightly easier for the challenger. It probably works well with the challenger playing white in odd games, including most important the last game. No rapid/blitz tie-break ever needed.10. In case of a tie at the end of the match, you would prefer