2017 World Cup 2-27 September, Tbilisi

[NickFaulks]

Anyone watching the chess? Aronian has a time advantage at move 20

but now a material disadvantage of one pawn. I expect he will draw, but should go on for a while.

[Mick Norris]

Anyone watching the chess? Aronian has a time advantage at move 20

but now a material disadvantage of one pawn. I expect he will draw, but should go on for a while.

He's a pawn up on chess24live

[NickFaulks]

Anyone watching the chess? Aronian has a time advantage at move 20

but now a material disadvantage of one pawn. I expect he will draw, but should go on for a while.

He's a pawn up on chess24live

Oops, sorry. Got the players the wrong way round. Still predicting a draw, even if the computer isn't convinced.

[LawrenceCooper]

Drawn in 52 moves.

[Chris Rice]

Peter Doggers report, Sagar Shah report, Chess24 report and Chess Mind report on game 4 of the final which again ended in another draw with Aronian yet again doing all the pressing. So the inevitable tie breaker to decide the match.To reverse the usual analogy this match has been like a game of tennis with Aronian having a string of break points but failing to break Ding's serve. Sooner or later one feels at some point Ding is going to get a break point himself and put it away immediately.

Of course, as Mick has indicated above, both players have achieved their places in the Candidates, so we're only talking about money now. The winner gets $120,000 whereas the loser takes home $80,000.

[Stewart Reuben]

Chris >Of course, as Mick has indicated above, both players have achieved their places in the Candidates, so we're only talking about money now. The winner gets $120,000 whereas the loser takes home $80,000.<

There is also the prestige of the title to play for. After all, it is the strongest-ever tournament of its type. But, sometimes players come to private arrangements in such situations. They might agree the winner gets $105,000 and loser $95,000.

[Mick Norris]

The chess is underway; Aronian has white in game 1 today

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Chris >Of course, as Mick has indicated above, both players have achieved their places in the Candidates, so we're only talking about money now. The winner gets $120,000 whereas the loser takes home $80,000.<

There is also the prestige of the title to play for. After all, it is the strongest-ever tournament of its type. But, sometimes players come to private arrangements in such situations. They might agree the winner gets $105,000 and loser $95,000.

It would be disgraceful if that happened, or was proved to have happened. I would hope that in such cases, the players involved would be banned for a period of time and fined, along with any other measures needed. Having said that, there is no indication at all that this has ever happened (or will happen here). I am not sure why you (SR) thought it was appropriate to say this at this time, especially while the match is still in progress. If either of the players end up reading what you have said here, I am sure they (and other players) would be deeply offended at even the merest hint that this sort of arrangement was anything they would have anything to do with.

As Mick said, the chess is underway. That would be a better topic of debate.

[IM Jack Rudd]

There is also the prestige of the title to play for. After all, it is the strongest-ever tournament of its type. But, sometimes players come to private arrangements in such situations. They might agree the winner gets $105,000 and loser $95,000.

It would be disgraceful if that happened, or was proved to have happened. I would hope that in such cases, the players involved would be banned for a period of time and fined, along with any other measures needed.

Are private arrangements between players as to how they will split their prize money really within the organizers' domain? (Particularly in the case of a knockout, where you're not affecting the prizes of third parties by making such arrangements.)

[Nick Burrows]

These arrangements are the norm in poker tournaments.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Chris,

Stewart did say 'the' players and not 'these' players.

Usually it's an agreement amongst friends or players from the same Federation.
I'm sure Lev and Ding respect each other but they are not yet drinking buddies.

With the pressure of the money out of the way the two (not these two) can
settle down and play chess.

Stewart has been milling around in chess circles since before The Beatles cut
their first record. He will know of a few cases where this has happened.
It's up to him if he supplies names and dates (no reason to we know it has happened).

Have to admit I've not seen one move from this final as of late I've been more
interested in the Isle of Man. That first round random draw was a superb idea,
it really shook up the pack and it's vibrations are still being felt.

Judging by the other sites I visit it's the same there. This is the Final Fans Forgot.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

There is also the prestige of the title to play for. After all, it is the strongest-ever tournament of its type. But, sometimes players come to private arrangements in such situations. They might agree the winner gets $105,000 and loser $95,000.

It would be disgraceful if that happened, or was proved to have happened. I would hope that in such cases, the players involved would be banned for a period of time and fined, along with any other measures needed.

Are private arrangements between players as to how they will split their prize money really within the organizers' domain? (Particularly in the case of a knockout, where you're not affecting the prizes of third parties by making such arrangements.)

Maybe not. I should explain that the reason I was so affronted by Stewart's suggestion, was that I thought he was suggesting that the actual result of the tournament was being pre-arranged by this private agreement (the loser agreeing to the arrangement due to thinking they were unable to win). I now see that Stewart almost certainly meant that the players would still fight tooth-and-nail to win, just having agreed a different split of the prize money. The trouble with such arrangements is that the player in a losing position might think "oh well, at least I still get $95,000 and not $80,000" and not bother to try and turn around a losing position.

This assumes, of course, that the players are motivated by money in the first place, and not prestige. By the time you get to this point, the amount of prize money on offer is so much that it shouldn't really make any difference. Any 'arrangements' are more likely to occur earlier in the tournament (but again, there is no suggestion that any sort of collusion between any of the players has ever happened).

[Christopher Kreuzer]

These arrangements are the norm in poker tournaments.

Really? The players privately even out disparities in prize monies? Why?

[MartinCarpenter]

Ropey position anyway but taking h5 really was a bit overly brave

[LawrenceCooper]

Ropey position anyway but taking h5 really was a bit overly brave

1-0 after what looked like some Aronian prep that caught Ding out and insufficient time to try and navigate his way through the complications.