2017 King Salman World Rapid and Blitz Chess Championships, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 26-30 December 2017

[David Robertson]

A 4/4 start for Magnus today to wipe out the two point deficit and leave him as 1st or 1st= with six rounds to go.

1st alone after a quick violent take-down of Putin's fanboy. Next up before the Beak: MVL

[David Robertson]

Anyhow, never mind the silly chess. On with the politics!! Here's what Gary Kasparov has to say about Inarkievgate

TEXT STARTS
A disgraceful incident at the FIDE World Blitz Championship on Friday. Russian GM Inarkiev, in a losing position against world champion Magnus Carlsen, made an illegal move and then claimed victory when Carlsen replied because, said Inarkiev, Carlsen's move was illegal! Eventually, the arbiter decided they should continue the game from before Inarkiev's illegal move, but as you can read in the transcript below, even in the very unlikely circumstance that his illegal move was inadvertent, the Russian GM stuck to his absurd demand and was later forfeited for not playing on.

Yes, it's blitz chess, a spectacle that is often chaotic, but this isn't a pub or a park, where a hustler exploits every angle. This is a world championship, and against the world champion himself. Inarkiev should have been disqualified for such behavior. The rules of chess are simple enough, but there are also rules of decency and sportsmanship. (In that line, Carlsen's emotional reaction was excessive, if understandable under the preposterous circumstances.)

Note that this event itself already disgraced by being held in Saudi Arabia, where Israeli players were not permitted to attend and where the many women players must be covered to leave the hotel. This venue caused many top players, including defending champion Anna Muzychuk, to boycott. FIDE has already held major official events in Gadhafi's Tripoli and in Tehran, with similar discriminatory practices. By always putting short-term money ahead of everything else, the politicians bring disgrace upon chess even greater than moments like this one.
TEXT ENDS

Also a transcript of the conversation between Inarkiev and the Chief Arbiter

[Jonathan Rogers]

...
The first day of the blitz was dominated by the ageless Pia Cramling. She has a lead over the field of a full point, following a string of wins including the scalps of five GMs. It would be great ( I think so anyway ) if she could hold to take the gold medal.

I think so too. I have probably related before on this forum my game with her in the London League (!) one year.

But is Cramling still leading it now? I notice that she just lost to Marie Sebag and I haven't seen the earlier results.

[NickFaulks]

Anyhow, never mind the silly chess. On with the politics!! Here's what Gary Kasparov has to say about Inarkievgate

From the man who would never, ever try to get away with taking a move back.

[LawrenceCooper]

...
The first day of the blitz was dominated by the ageless Pia Cramling. She has a lead over the field of a full point, following a string of wins including the scalps of five GMs. It would be great ( I think so anyway ) if she could hold to take the gold medal.

I think so too. I have probably related before on this forum my game with her in the London League (!) one year.

But is Cramling still leading it now? I notice that she just lost to Marie Sebag and I haven't seen the earlier results.

She has slipped back, currently in 3rd= place 1.5 behind Dzagnidze who somehow survived, then won her game against Kulon to stay a point clear. Two rounds left to play.

[LawrenceCooper]

Magnus has turned a two point deficit at the start of today into a two point lead with one round to go. Aronian's run of 8/9 today has moved him into 2nd= place.

[Ian Thompson]

Just on the question of whether it was deliberate or not and having watched the GIF in Olimpiu Urcan's tweet it looked like Inarkiev knew exactly what he was doing and the comments below it seem to show he's got form in this regard.

It's certainly difficult to understand how Inarkiev could overlook that he was in check when the king and rook are right next to each other, which would suggest a deliberate illegal move. On the other hand, why did Carlsen not claim the illegal move? It's even more difficult to understand how Carlsen could forget that he had given check when the king and rook are right next to each other.

[Roger de Coverly]

It's even more difficult to understand how Carlsen could forget that he had given check when the king and rook are right next to each other.

As it's a sacrifice with the intent of winning back material with a discovery, perhaps he was seeing the combination as a whole instead of noting that the intermediate move was check?

[Paul Dargan]

And the MC machine rolls to victory with some ease. If he'd done Grischuk in the final round yesterday he'd have picked-up both titles. And Vishy finishes with a first and third=.

No need for Chucky to take a break from his draughts game this year for the prizegiving ...

[Nick Ivell]

The politics is (are?) so much more interesting than the chess. I was puzzled to see the political discussion described as 'pontificating', which, after all, is only 'building bridges'...

May many more bridges be built on these boards in 2018.

[Nick Ivell]

I could talk about the politics all day but can I ask a question?

It's clear that Carlsen is the best player in the world at all types of chess. Is he the best player of all time?

In my view there are two candidates: Carlsen and Kasparov. Robert James Fischer was my idol (as a player, not a person, you understand) but it's clear that chess has moved on.

To answer my question, I believe that Karparov had the edge. Not much in it, but I give the crown to Kasparov for his attacking brilliance and opening preparation.

[Brian Towers]

I don't see how you can leave Botvinnik and Alekhine out of the mix.

[Nick Ivell]

For the same reason I left Fischer out of the mix. Botvinnik and Alekhine? Great players both, but I think chess has moved on.

[NickFaulks]

The politics is (are?) so much more interesting than the chess.

I must say that I found the chess exceptionally interesting, but the politics may be of greater long term significance.

It is looking as though FIDE may have dodged a bullet here. It the end there was only one really damaging boycott, by Anna Muzychuk, who should have been defending both titles. The main reason she gave was her refusal to wear a headscarf, which is puzzling since that had been ruled out some time ago and survived only in the black propaganda of the Sutovskyites. It was notable that Irina Krush, one of the feistier players on the women's circuit who had refused to go to Iran for the World Championships for this reason, was in Riyadh.

The St Louis Chess Club, who had hoped to undermine the event by the absence of their three top players, were disappointed. With two thirds of the world's top players there, they were not missed.

The two points on which almost everyone in the chess world ( possibly excluding St Louis, Sutovsky and the ECF ) now seem to be agreed are

1. Next year's event in Riyadh will include the Israelis, who will get their visas well in advance, and
2. If they don't, it will not take place there.

I don't see how anyone can now back away from that position.

[David Robertson]

I believe that Karparov had the edge. Not much in it, but I give the crown to Kasparov for his attacking brilliance and opening preparation

And without begrudging or denying Carlsen's own variety of brilliance, so would most thoughtful players.

Kasparov played chess in a style - and was committed to playing chess in that style - that privileged dynamic structures, initiative, mobility and fighting desire over 5. d3. He was a modern incarnation of Morphy. But whereas Morphy was pre-Steinitz and more rigorous attention to defensive procedures, so Kasparov was pre-Fritz, pre-Rybka, pre-Houdini and the drum-beat of computer prep. Hence the elimination of gambits and the triumph of 5. d3. Hence the death of chess via the Berlin, and Kramnik's emasculation of Kasparov.

A word for Carlsen. I watched all his games today. He scored 9/10 in the Blitz. Apart from a trivial draw with Aronian in the last round, and rather the worse of a draw with MVL earlier in the day, he swept aside all others - including Karjakin, crushingly. But in many of those other games, he stood objectively worse, often accepting an (engine-) inferior ending. Yet his energy and precision in such positions is jaw-dropping.

So I'll offer an arguably glib and unoriginal thought as an answer: what originality and creativity Kasparov brought to the game via opening prep, has been neutered by engine analysis. Carlsen knows this; skips all that; and plays chess 'backwards', from the ending. Whereas the opening, for Kasparov, was to establish an advantage; for Carlsen, the opening is merely to avoid a disadvantage prior to the 'real' game, the [0.00] middle game, then ending.

I do like watching Carlsen go about his work. I admire him very much. But he's not why or how I want to play chess. Not nearly