Here's a discussion on the subjectNickFaulks wrote: You have said that a number of times, but have never produced one. Until you do I shall doubt their existence.
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess9 ... -for-white
Here's a discussion on the subjectNickFaulks wrote: You have said that a number of times, but have never produced one. Until you do I shall doubt their existence.
9.Be2 was a "new move", but it looks as though both players' computers had analysed it to a draw.LawrenceCooper wrote:Aronian-Svidler was drawn in 19 moves.
In the after game interviews neither side seemed completely happy with their play. Aronian was regretting trying f4 but not too concerned by the lines where black could grab on g2 whilst Svidler had been intending to dodge the repetition with Bh7 but then decided it wasn't good. MVL appears to have made the biggest gain of the round with white against Nepo to finish.NickFaulks wrote:9.Be2 was a "new move", but it looks as though both players' computers had analysed it to a draw.LawrenceCooper wrote:Aronian-Svidler was drawn in 19 moves.
NickFaulks wrote: 9.Be2 was a "new move", but it looks as though both players' computers had analysed it to a draw.
Now down to World no 8.Matt Mackenzie wrote:So loses again.
Perhaps this is worthy of a new thread, but when you put these players in age order, it stands out that there are 17 players in the age range 30-34, zero in 35-39 and then eight in 40+.Chris Rice wrote:2700+
YesNickFaulks wrote:Perhaps this is worthy of a new threadChris Rice wrote:2700+
Which players are we potentially thinking of?NickFaulks wrote:but when you put these players in age order, it stands out that there are 17 players in the age range 30-34, zero in 35-39 and then eight in 40+.
You have to be careful with statistics, since by definition unlikely things do happen, but this still seems to point to some kind of a missing generation. Any possible reasons? All I can think of is that their early professional careers were blighted by the almost universal application of G/90, so they never got to play properly.
I am guessing Anand and MVL will both be happy enough if they can take relatively early draws and see what happens in the glamour pairing.LawrenceCooper wrote:GM Carlsen, M. (4½) 2822— — GM Aronian, L. (5) 2799
GM Vachier-Lagr. (5) 2789— — GM Nepomniachtc. (3) 2751
GM So, Wesley (2½) 2810— — GM Anand, V. (5) 2783
GM Nakamura, H. (3) 2792— — GM Karjakin, S. (4½) 2773
GM Svidler, P. (3½) 2751— — GM Caruana, F. (4) 2807
You are thinking of the gap between Svidler and Aronian.NickFaulks wrote: Perhaps this is worthy of a new thread, but when you put these players in age order, it stands out that there are 17 players in the age range 30-34, zero in 35-39 and then eight in 40+.
Code: Select all
16 Svidler, Peter g RUS 2751 9 1976
40 Almasi, Zoltan g HUN 2707 0 1976
56 Nisipeanu, Liviu-Dieter g GER 2687 16 1976
99 Papaioannou, Ioannis g GRE 2652 10 1976
39 Najer, Evgeniy g RUS 2707 9 1977
60 Sutovsky, Emil g ISR 2683 0 1977
73 Morozevich, Alexander g RUS 2675 0 1977
69 Movsesian, Sergei g ARM 2677 0 1978
66 Leko, Peter g HUN 2678 0 1979
70 Kasimdzhanov, Rustam g UZB 2676 0 1979
71 Motylev, Alexander g RUS 2675 9 1979
47 Malakhov, Vladimir g RUS 2696 13 1980
64 Moiseenko, Alexander g UKR 2678 13 1980
54 Sasikiran, Krishnan g IND 2688 0 1981
5 Aronian, Levon g ARM 2799 9 1982
I would have thought all of these players were established GMs several years before Kirsan started his obsession with faster time controls. British players will recall Morozevich winning the final Lloyds Bank in 1994 shortly after DGTs were first introduced. Sasikiran played in the 1997 British in Hove.NickFaulks wrote: All I can think of is that their early professional careers were blighted by the almost universal application of G/90, so they never got to play properly.
These things can usually be traced back to money. Both in a positive sense (is chess, and particularly playing chess, an attractive career) and a negative sense (how attractive are the non-chess alternatives?). Although I'm surprised you can't make the dates work for computers (not necessarily in a "disadvantage" sense but just in a "game is changing and I still have a chance to get out sense") I would suggest this was the last generation for whom computer databases were an "optional extra" as juniors.Paul Cooksey wrote:Polgar is the other big name player that jumps out from a rating list from 10 years ago. But still many players born before and after the early 80s have retired fully or partially. I think Nick's observation is standing up, if not necessarily his theory to explain it.
I tried to create a theory of it being a disadvantage to be at a critical point of your career during the transition from the pre-computer to the computer age in the early 21st century. It sounded plausible, but I couldn't really make the dates work.