Candidates Tournament 2020

[Mick Norris]

Big game for Nepo next, black v MVL who is +1 with no-one else above 50%

[Mick Norris]

(I just noticed that Giri's game still has play left in it. Still - who believes in it?)

Yes, loads of tricks with Q+N. I know these guys aren't supposed to fall for tricks, but they are human.

Indeed they are; very dramatic

[Daniel Gormally]

Ok here's my feeble, and no doubt wrong attempt
Grish- draw Caruana
Alekseenko-0-1 giri
Nepo-Ding Draw
Wang-MVL draw

off the bar!

[Chris Rice]

Ok here's my feeble, and no doubt wrong attempt
Grish- draw Caruana
Alekseenko-0-1 giri
Nepo-Ding Draw
Wang-MVL draw

off the bar!

Well done Danny! Nice technique from Giri to win that ending but still difficult to understand why Alekseenko went 38 Qd7 rather than 38 Qxb7.

[Chris Rice]

FIDE (Emil Sutovsky) had the following to say on social media following Grischuk's comments:

"People keep asking about Candidates - wondering whether FIDE had carefully reviewed the situation. I think the things should not be taken out of proportions. Obviously it is difficult for players - as the pressure is already high and issues add up. It is also difficult for FIDE - and actually cancelling it all would be the simplest thing to do from the beginning. It would have been considered a "responsible step".

But it is very easy to ruin the cycle, in fact cancelling the chess life altogether. I would say that stopping the event would be a huge blow for chess. Not for FIDE. For entire chess world. Would we prefer to stage it in a regular atmosphere, without all the problems and hype? You bet. But we were not in a position to choose - and most players understand it, even if they are not exactly happy with the situation.

But what was the alternative? How high is the risk? Of course we asked ourselves and reviewed it all more than once. Now, it is very important to understand the details. There is an actual problem in the World - when the situations that only look similar are tackled in the similar way. Here we talk about the event with only eight players. And actually there is a whole string of measures taken to minimize the risk. So we can't really compare it to other sports. And when it was about larger events - we did postpone them. Once again, we understand how difficult it is for players, and being myself a top-20 player in recent past, I understand them fully.

FIDE does its utmost both to minimize the risk and not to overwhelm Grandmasters who are already under the pressure with all sorts of check-ups. We often talk about one's responsibility - here we see our responsibility in finding the balance allowing players to compete, at the same time protecting their health. And of course tackling all the issues to make sure everybody gets home safely after the event."

[LawrenceCooper]

FIDE (Emil Sutovsky) had the following to say on social media following Grischuk's comments:

"People keep asking about Candidates - wondering whether FIDE had carefully reviewed the situation. I think the things should not be taken out of proportions. Obviously it is difficult for players - as the pressure is already high and issues add up. It is also difficult for FIDE - and actually cancelling it all would be the simplest thing to do from the beginning. It would have been considered a "responsible step".

But it is very easy to ruin the cycle, in fact cancelling the chess life altogether. I would say that stopping the event would be a huge blow for chess. Not for FIDE. For entire chess world. Would we prefer to stage it in a regular atmosphere, without all the problems and hype? You bet. But we were not in a position to choose - and most players understand it, even if they are not exactly happy with the situation.

But what was the alternative? How high is the risk? Of course we asked ourselves and reviewed it all more than once. Now, it is very important to understand the details. There is an actual problem in the World - when the situations that only look similar are tackled in the similar way. Here we talk about the event with only eight players. And actually there is a whole string of measures taken to minimize the risk. So we can't really compare it to other sports. And when it was about larger events - we did postpone them. Once again, we understand how difficult it is for players, and being myself a top-20 player in recent past, I understand them fully.

FIDE does its utmost both to minimize the risk and not to overwhelm Grandmasters who are already under the pressure with all sorts of check-ups. We often talk about one's responsibility - here we see our responsibility in finding the balance allowing players to compete, at the same time protecting their health. And of course tackling all the issues to make sure everybody gets home safely after the event."

I wonder if he'd have taken the same view in his previous role for the ACP.

[Jonathan Bryant]

FIDE (Emil Sutovsky) had the following to say on social media ....

It would have been fun to hear him repeat his justificaton for lying about Radjabov’s reasons for withdrawing being that he wanted to protect Radja from ridicule for over-reacting.

Maybe next time.

[NickFaulks]

It would have been fun to hear him repeat his justificaton for lying about Radjabov’s reasons for withdrawing being that he wanted to protect Radja from ridicule for over-reacting.

That was a tricky one. It is widely assumed that Radjabov didn't want to go to school because he hadn't done his homework - indeed, that idea was commonplace well before the virus entered the frame - but it would hardly have been politic for a FIDE official to mention it. There are limits even to Sutovsky's blunt speaking!

[Jonathan Bryant]

That was a tricky one.

I’m not sure I'd agree that deciding whether or not to say something you know isn’t true is that tricky.

[Matt Mackenzie]

Regardless of his previous comments, that seems a pretty balanced and reasonable overview of things from Sutovsky.

[Mick Norris]

Back to the chess tomorrow, as the first half concludes

Vachier-Lagrave (3.5) - Nepomniachtchi (4.5)
Caruana (3) - Wang Hao (3)
Giri (3) - Grischuk (3)
Ding Liren (2) - Alekseenko (2)

[Kevin Thurlow]

OK, I'll get in early

Vachier-Lagrave (3.5) draw Nepomniachtchi (4.5)
Caruana (3) 1-0 Wang Hao (3)
Giri (3) draw Grischuk (3)
Ding Liren (2) 1-0 Alekseenko (2)

I normally get 0/4 with predictions, so any better than that, I'll be amazed. I wouldn't be surprised though if Ding lost as he might try too hard. Oh well.

[Phil Makepeace]

Four white wins. Cat among the pigs.

[Nick Grey]

0-1
draw
1-0
draw

My wfh is 12 hrs but split over 8 with shop, walk, 2 meal breaks so catch up in the evening.

[Paul Cooksey]

I feel a bit less sympathetic to Emil Sutovsky than Matt. Maybe because of my own conflicted feelings. Although I am really enjoying the chess, I do not feel the players should not have been put in this position.

Anyway, looking at the next three game phase, I am most interested in Caruana's games - white v Wang, white v MVL, then black v Alekseenko. Although 50% after 6 rounds probably is disappointing for him, it is from 2 whites and 4 blacks. If he finished this set on +2, I'd consider him the favourite again, even if Nepo still on +3.

I'm not sure Caruana will score +2 though, I think good technical prep but lack of familiarity with the resulting positions is a classic thing that can go wrong, cf Tal-Botvinnik rematch for example. Of course, being a static target like Ding can go even worse. But still, I'm guessing good positions not being converted is a bit more likely than a winning streak. Either way, a critical phase.