2016 Candidates Moscow 10-29 March

[LawrenceCooper]

Nakamura-Caruana drawn.

[Roger de Coverly]

Barmy isn't it. Presumably it's deliberate to not put the game score up, with the result that nobody can follow properly.

It was one of Andrew Paulson's more sensible novelties to activate the elapsed time feature of DGT boards, so as to record for the benefit of spectators, the time being taken on individual moves. Displaying the move number had always been a feature of live board coverage, going back to before the definition of pgn as a reporting format.

[LawrenceCooper]

Nakamura-Caruana drawn.

Quickly followed by Karjakin-Svidler.

[Chris Bernard]

Anybody else looking forward to the next Igor piece to camera (on http://worldchess.com/broadcasts) as much as me ?

[JustinHorton]

Both Anand and Topalov seem keen not to make the most of their chances today.

[JustinHorton]

I'm curious to know what Topalov missed. He can't have overlooked 41. Ne4, but why didn't he think it was strong?

[Jonathan Rogers]

Anand on course for his usual good start in these World championship/candidate events. He started with 2.5/3 in San Luis 2005 (win over Polgar in rpund one and Adamsd in round 3) , 1.5/2 in Mexico 2007 (draw with gelfand, who turned out to be a serious rival, and win over Aronian) and 2.5/3 in 2014 (win over Aronian again, and then Mamedyarov in round 3).

So it is interesting to see that he starts this event with Topalov and Aronian, the two players who (I said earlier in this thread) are likely to lose more games than most others. Tomorrow's game with Aronian already looks important. The chance to start an event lilke this with 2/2 is simply golden - to be a good starter by tradition AND to have such pairings...!

(A shame about Topalov missing ...Bxf2. Probably wouldn't have happened ten years ago. But nor is it a big surprise to see him creating chances and not taking them).

Meanwhile Caruana plays, I think, his other main rival, Giri, tomorrow. Hard to know whether it is good or bad to play one's main rivals so early. But it did Carlsen no harm in 2013.

[Barry Sandercock]

Anand has won and looks like being the only winner in round 1.

[Paolo Casaschi]

Winning against the Berlin defense should be awarded with 2 points for Anand

[LawrenceCooper]

(A shame about Topalov missing ...Bxf2. Probably wouldn't have happened ten years ago. But nor is it a big surprise to see him creating chances and not taking them).

It would be interesting to know what made him decide against it. I would be amazed if he hadn't seen it, without having a clue as to what made him reject it.

[JustinHorton]

Anand has won and looks like being the only winner in round 1.

But wait...

[JustinHorton]

(I think Giri-Aronian is still a draw, but it's a holding-on one if it is...)

EDIT: and on Chess24 Anna Rudolf is explaining to us exactly why that is right now.

[Ian Thompson]

You acknowledge that any breach, threatened or actual, of this Terms will cause irreparable injury to Company, such injury would not be quantifiable in monetary damages, and Company would not have an adequate remedy at law. You therefore agree that Company shall be entitled, in addition to other available remedies, to seek and be awarded an injunction or other appropriate equitable relief from a competent court restraining any breach, threatened or actual, of your obligations under any provision of this Terms. Accordingly, you hereby waive any requirement that Company post any bond or other security in the event any injunctive or equitable relief is sought by or awarded to Company to enforce any provision of this Terms

From the Terms and Conditions. Can anybody explain to me what this means?

I think the point it's trying to address is that injunctions can be granted to stop someone doing something (e.g. broadcasting the moves of a game of chess whilst its in progress) on the basis that they are probably not entitled to do it, and action is needed to stop them doing it immediately. It's left to a later date to determine whether they really had no right to do it. If it's ultimately decided they did have the right to do it (so the injunction should never have been granted) then the person on the receiving end of the injunction may be entitled to damages. A court may require someone seeking this type of injunction to deposit money, or guarantees of money, with the court to cover the potential damages arising from a final decision that goes against them. This condition is trying to prevent Agon having to do this.

[JustinHorton]

Ah OK. I think it's the first sentence that I found (and find) a bit barmy, the rest of it I could basically understand. But "any breach, threatened or actual, of this Terms will cause irreparable injury to Company" and so on....do me a favour.

[Roger de Coverly]

But "any breach, threatened or actual, of this Terms will cause irreparable injury to Company" and so on....do me a favour.

If you are one of the alleged six hundred million people interested in chess, it's not really something you would expect to have to sign up to in order to take a passing look at a chess tournament.