Paris Grand Prix 2013

[Stewart Reuben]

I am in no way acting as an agent for, or against, Agon or Andrew Paulson in any capacity. I just want the best for chess. However, patently, having accepted a post at the Grand Prix a year ago, it must surely have been clear that I was prepared to work with the company.
Andrew Paulson has consulted me before and since, mainly to seek clarity on how chess works administratively.
My statement, 'Agon's job is not to publicise themselves, but to publicise the sponsors.' was to clarify why it would be incorrect to criticise his company, which I read into Roger's comment.
I have no idea what Jonathan Bryant meant by 'If one thing is clear from posts made on this forum over the past few days it's that Andrew Paulson consulted Stewart Reuben sufficiently early.'

[David Robertson]

And my first question? To repeat: is Agon, or is it not, to your knowledge involved in any sensible capacity with this Paris event?

[Roger de Coverly]

I have no idea what Jonathan Bryant meant by 'If one thing is clear from posts made on this forum over the past few days it's that Andrew Paulson consulted Stewart Reuben sufficiently early.'

Those of us who read the personal attacks by a now silent blogger understand the reference. It's an irony really, whilst AP would be a potential target for satire and abuse, the last postings in the blog were in AP's defence. Perhaps it depends who you have breakfast with.

[Jonathan Bryant]

I have no idea what Jonathan Bryant meant by 'If one thing is clear from posts made on this forum over the past few days it's that Andrew Paulson consulted Stewart Reuben sufficiently early.'

Those of us who read the personal attacks by a now silent blogger understand the reference.

And I in turn am not sure what Roger means by this. I certainly didn't have a defunct blog in mind. I wasn't a regular reader.

[John McKenna]

I'll confess that I was a regular reader of the notorious blog by the infamous blogger (or should that be infamous blog by the notorious... or maybe the defamatory blog by the libellous blogger) and immediately knew why Roger took your post to be an allusion to said blog.
The thing is you used the word consult ("... consulted Stewart Reuben sufficiently early"), which was the catch-word in the regular lampooning of Stewart. The other key was your use of "sufficiently early", which can be taken to mean 'sooner'. Put them together and you get "consulted (me) sooner" the catchphrase of the series that always began - Of course if... had consulted me sooner... I will not give a full example and hope that will suffice to establish where Roger (who was the other notable victim the character-assassinating caricatures) was coming from when he responded to your post.
(I admired the stoicism of Stewart and Roger in the face of such provocation but noted that when a certain MP was mentioned in certain terms on the forum it invoked censorship. The trick is - always play the joker when you want to verbally attack people.)

[Jonathan Bryant]

I'll confess that I was a regular reader of the notorious blog by the infamous blogger (or should that be infamous blog by the notorious... or maybe the defamatory blog by the libellous blogger) and immediately knew why Roger took your post to be an allusion to said blog.
The thing is you used the word consult ....

I imagine that infamous/notorious/quitter blogger and I were using the same source material for the same gag.

I'm reminded of the Stewart Lee routine when he talks about Jimmy Carr having a joke pinched and performed by Jim Davidson. The punchline being, 'If Jim Davidson *can* steal your material, maybe it's time to think about dropping it'.

[John McKenna]

Is there room to squeeze Bernard Manning in somewhere? No, I guess not.

[David Sedgwick]

Hugely amusing 'opening ceremony' clip. Get a look before it disappears. What a shambles. The local village pumpkin competition would be better organised. I wonder who the officious clueless fat bloke is? An arbiter, I bet. And why not get everyone to block the camera? Now there's a novel thought.

Too funny. Too FIDE

I see that you're being as courteous and respectful as always.

The person to whom you refer is not an arbiter, actually. I could identify him for you, but I'm not going to do so.

[Roger de Coverly]

Live coverage of the games is now available at the website. The venue is an ex-church so it's a rectangular shape. The boards are lined up alongside one of the long walls with both the clock and the camera wall side. The resolution of the cameras is such that you get an arbiter's eye view of the action with the difference that you cannot see the clock times. The commentary by Tiviakov appeared to be audio only. The game replay was standard DGT.

[Stewart Reuben]

David Robertson > is Agon, or is it not, to your knowledge involved in any sensible capacity with this Paris event?<

I have no knowledge about Agon in Paris. I doubt Andrew Poulson ia extensively involved there, he is very busy with the World Championship. But there are employees of his company.

I cannot speak for Roger. But I don't take notice of boring blogs. That is the worst sin.

[Roger de Coverly]

I have no knowledge about Agon in Paris.

The credibility point is that in 2012, Agon got the rights of involvement with FIDE's top events, not just on raising finance, but also promising a revolutionary approach to chess coverage which would appeal to a mass audience. What we've seen in the Grand Prix and World Cup is an evolutionary process which puts together elements from chess coverage that go back many years.

[David Robertson]

I have no knowledge about Agon in Paris. I doubt Andrew Poulson is extensively involved there

Extensively? I doubt, from the evidence, that he is involved at all

(H)e is very busy with the World Championship. But there are employees of his company

These two sentences deserve closer inspection. The first is straightforward - if true. But with respect, I don't think it is true, nor can be true in any sensible manner. From the evidence of the WC website, the event looks to be a wholly Indian undertaking, as one might expect when one takes into account Indian national pride in such things. As RdC mentions on another thread, and I confirm from my own trawl, AGON is not mentioned anywhere as far as I can see.

That brings me to the second sentence which looks like a typo. If not, I can't understand it. Where are these 'employees' - in London? in India? somewhere else? And are these 'employees' of AGON working on the WC? Apparently not.

I'll be frank: either Andrew Paulson is playing Stewart Reuben for a fool. Or Stewart Reuben is playing us for fools. Or they are both playing us for fools. Not good, if so. Nor wise

[Stewart Reuben]

I have met employees of Agon. So have other people in the chess world.
While I must admit it would be all too easy to play some people for fools, it has not been my intention to do so.

[Mick Norris]

Anyway, back to the chess

Gelfand was the only winner in round 1

Round 2 saw Grischuk lose to the only winner Fressinet, with an interesting draw here:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1732065

Round 3 saw Grischuk drawing in 86 moves, but Caruana got his first win, as did Nakamura and Ivanchuk

Gelfand still going at move 78 as I type this

[Mick Norris]

Gelfand wins to take back the lead - off to a good start with 2 white wins and a quick draw with black