London Chess Classic 2013

[Simon Brown]

Were there any norms in the Open? Can't see anything on the website.

[Alan Walton]

Looks to me there were 3 IM norms

Sowray
Buchicchio
Bao - though this is dependent on his 1696 moving up to 2050 (which I think will take is performance up from 2441 to 2450)

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Final results are here:

http://www.classic.livechess.co.uk/2013 ... index.html

It looks like it was a very tough event at both ends of the table. GMs taking the first 10 spots. The next non-titled player after Qilin Bao (in 32nd place on 6/9) was Clement Sreeves in 42nd place with 5.5/9. Looks like a lot of players will have gained a lot of experience from this event. Good to see Joshua Altman getting 3.5/9, a rating prize and lots of rating points.

http://www.classic.livechess.co.uk/2013 ... /p084.html (Bao)
http://www.classic.livechess.co.uk/2013 ... /p187.html (Altman)
http://www.classic.livechess.co.uk/2013 ... /p055.html (Sowray)
http://www.classic.livechess.co.uk/2013 ... /p057.html (Buchicchio)

Peter Sowray already has a conditional IM title application in - needs to reach 2400:

http://www.fide.com/component/content/a ... -2013.html

Will say more in another thread.

[Simon Louchart]

congratulations to Nakamura ! A great fighting player.
What a shame we won't see him at the next candidates tournament...

[Sean Hewitt]

I am delighted to have issued 4 norm certificates from the classic.

Peter Sowray
Bao Qilin
Giampaolo Buchicchio

all received IM norms.

Veronica Foisor

achieved a WGM norm in the Women's Invitational.

[Mats Winther]

The chess master of old would never play like this. Would Petrosian or Smyslov, in practice, lose in the beginning of the game, or make obvious blunders?

Perhaps modern GMs take rather more risks. Petrosian was capable of losing quickly with risky openings.

From the 1969 match

Event "Ch World (match)"]
[Site "Moscow (Russia)"]
[Date "1969.??.??"]
[Round "5"]
[White "Spassky Boris V (FRA)"]
[Black "Petrosian Tigran V (ARM)"]
[Result "1-0"]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 Nbd7 7.Bc4
Qa5 8.Qd2 h6 9.Bxf6 Nxf6 10.O-O-O e6 11.Rhe1 Be7
12.f4 O-O 13.Bb3 Re8 14.Kb1 Bf8 15.g4 Nxg4 16.Qg2 Nf6
17.Rg1 Bd7 18.f5 Kh8 19.Rdf1 Qd8 20.fxe6 fxe6 21.e5 dxe5
22.Ne4 Nh5 23.Qg6 exd4 24.Ng5 1-0

Historic annotations tend to condemn his opening play as incorrect. However the opinion of the chess engines is that he was OK, if a little worse, until a losing blunder of 19. .. Qd8.

So the reason why Svidler, for instance, plays 6.Qc2?! and 7.c5?! in Réti is that the players today are keen on confusing the opponent, in order to evade theory and the "computerized brain" of the opponent(?). Thus, they are prepared to play unsoundly and take strategical risks. It seems as if there is a lack of self-confidence. Perhaps it is a consequence of computerized chess. Arguably, the computer has affected the players to the extent that they imagine that they are playing a computer and not a human being. It is remote from Lasker's view of chess. Carlsen, of course, doesn't suffer from this syndrome. Or perhaps it's another phenomenon, and they are trying to develop their chess away from exactitude, and play a more organic chess.

M. Winther

[John Cox]

I suspect if Petrosian and Smyslov and that lot had played rapid events we'd have seen plenty of blunders just like the ones here.

[AustinElliott]

Isn't there some remark about Bobby FIscher winning the famous 1970 Herceg Novi blitz event where someone said (admiringly) 'Fischer never put a single piece en prise in the whole tournament'... the clear implication being that others did, thus meaning all the great players of the day, but playing blitz pace?

..which rather supports what John Cox just said.

Of course, rapid (25 min + increment) is not blitz, but a lot of the games in the Classic went down to finishes at blitz pace.

[Roger de Coverly]

So the reason why Svidler, for instance, plays 6.Qc2?! and 7.c5?! in Réti is that the players today are keen on confusing the opponent, in order to evade theory and the "computerized brain" of the opponent(?).

A more plausible explanation is that Svidler played the routine 6 Qc2, thinking that Adams' idea would be to take on c4. After 6. .. d4, he played 7. c5 to avoid Adams himself playing 7. .. c5 as he evidently didn't want to play a Benoni reversed. The interesting feature is to understand when White should provoke or not provoke a reversed Benoni and when Black should oblige. There's a belief among some players that the sequence 1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 should be met by 2. .. d4 with the idea that if White continues in a routine manner with g3 and Bg2, of gaining a bind with .. f6 and .. e5.

[Mats Winther]

Isn't there some remark about Bobby FIscher winning the famous 1970 Herceg Novi blitz event where someone said (admiringly) 'Fischer never put a single piece en prise in the whole tournament'... the clear implication being that others did, thus meaning all the great players of the day, but playing blitz pace?

..which rather supports what John Cox just said.

Of course, rapid (25 min + increment) is not blitz, but a lot of the games in the Classic went down to finishes at blitz pace.

Then it's time to discontinue these type of tournaments, since the quality is so low. I want to see good chess. At sports arenas, the public boos when the play is bad. It's time that the public takes a more critical stance also in chess. It isn't true that such a player like Petrosian played like this. He was known as "iron Petrosian", because he hardly made a mistake. Chess must, above all, revolve around competence, like all other sports, crafts, and arts.

Another theory is that chess knowledge has come so far that it's now much more difficult to be creative. In order for the players to evade preprogrammed methods of play, they have no other choice than to play silly moves. Maybe an enhancement of the chess rules is necessary, in order to increase strategical variability.
M. Winther

[Paul McKeown]

First he spends all his time moaning about chess being played out and recommends everyone to try some variants as a solution. Then he declares that he wants "proper" chess.

[Simon Louchart]

Then it's time to discontinue these type of tournaments

I actually enjoyed a lot watching this tournament, many funny openings, many crazy games in parallel, but I cannot stop thinking that I preferred the old formula with classical time controls: less fun, but as a spectator, you can feel the tension in the games, there is something dramatic going on.
Unfortunately, there is just not as much tension in rapid tournaments. I do hope that next year's London tournament will come back to the previous formula.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I agree with Simon. The games were great fun to watch, but the tension wasn't really there. At this sort of time control, the GMs all (quite rightly) resigned or agreed draws once the result was clear. At blitz time controls, you get people playing on to try and exploit the time factor. At classical time controls, you get less errors and better games. You also get the feeling that the players' reputations and ratings are on the line more during a classical event, as opposed to this event. If there were enough arbiters available, I would love to see a massive super-GM level blitz tournament in London one day!

[Matt Mackenzie]

First he spends all his time moaning about chess being played out and recommends everyone to try some variants as a solution. Then he declares that he wants "proper" chess.

Did you see the end of his last post - I think that's called "having your cake and eating it"

[Mats Winther]

First he spends all his time moaning about chess being played out and recommends everyone to try some variants as a solution. Then he declares that he wants "proper" chess.

Did you see the end of his last post - I think that's called "having your cake and eating it"

There are many intellectually weakly gifted persons in a chess forum. They seem to be more prevalent in chess forums than in other forums. As a matter of fact, it seems like few chess players have an intellectual passion at all. In other forums, such as psychology, philosophy, religion, etc., people are interested in theoretical issues. But not so in a chess forum. Many chess players seem allergic against "theory". I don't know how many times I have met players who believe that I am loaded with theory, with the consequence that they deviate from "theory" in the second move.

This anti-intellectual characteristic is a curious phenomenon, especially since chess is a game that is associated with intellectual refinement and sophistication. That's how chess is portrayed in many a movie. Probably the directors have never visited a chess club.

M. Winther