Sinquefield Cup

[JustinHorton]

Mike Klein's report observes that Caruana would overtake Carlsen in the live ratings were he to win their game tonight. The gap is down to seven points (and would have narrowed more had Carlsen lost last night).

[Nick Burrows]

That would be psychologically massive.

[Mick Norris]

Benko gambit type thing from Carlsen

That 9. .. Bf5 has been played before by World Champions, Kasparov, Anand and Topalov. An interesting idea that you intend to retake on a6 with the Knight.


1. Nf3 Nf6 2. g3 g6 3. Bg2 Bg7 4. c4 O-O 5. d4 d6 6. O-O c5 7. d5 b5 8. cxb5 a6 9. bxa6 Bf5 10. Nfd2 Nxa6 11. Nc3 Nb4 *

Chess Mind analysis mentions all 3 played and beat Predrag Nikolic in rapid chess, with both Anand & Topalov reaching rook and g pawn v rook

[David Sedgwick]

Draw agreed/forced by repetition. If they don't repeat they have to "ask the arbiter", who I don't think is entitled to digital assistance to assist the decision as to whether the position is convincingly drawn

Technically he is entitled to such assistance.

[Richard Bates]

Draw agreed/forced by repetition. If they don't repeat they have to "ask the arbiter", who I don't think is entitled to digital assistance to assist the decision as to whether the position is convincingly drawn

Technically he is entitled to such assistance.

Seems to me there's a fairly fundamental flaw in such a system. If both players are convinced a position is a dead draw, much better to arrange a repetition. Insisting on a third party opinion before the draw is agreed raises the prospect that the third party is aware of something that the players aren't, even more so if allowed computer assistance. So if that third party insists the game continues that itself could be seen as external assistance to the players and cause them to find continuations or play moves that they might otherwise have rejected.

It's a bit similar to why close associates of players shouldn't be allowed in close proximity during games - the simple fact that those associates might have access to knowledge of the state of the game not available to the players and be able to communicate that to them through eg. facial expressions could in itself influence continuations that a player might follow (eg. a player might be tempted down a complicated but difficult to assess in advance if given external assurance that they're doing well at a moment in time). Bit like the yoghurt controversy in 1978.

[JustinHorton]

Fans of curious rook's pawn moves might like 16 h3 in Mamedyarov v Vachier-Lagrave

rn1r2k1/p4pbp/1p2p1p1/2p5/b2PP3/2PBBN1P/P4PP1/1RR3K1

[Ian Thompson]

Draw agreed/forced by repetition. If they don't repeat they have to "ask the arbiter", who I don't think is entitled to digital assistance to assist the decision as to whether the position is convincingly drawn

Technically he is entitled to such assistance.

But if he needs it that would suggest it's not a clearly drawn position to the average spectator.

[David Sedgwick]

Draw agreed/forced by repetition. If they don't repeat they have to "ask the arbiter", who I don't think is entitled to digital assistance to assist the decision as to whether the position is convincingly drawn

Technically he is entitled to such assistance.

Seems to me there's a fairly fundamental flaw in such a system. If both players are convinced a position is a dead draw, much better to arrange a repetition. Insisting on a third party opinion before the draw is agreed raises the prospect that the third party is aware of something that the players aren't, even more so if allowed computer assistance. So if that third party insists the game continues that itself could be seen as external assistance to the players and cause them to find continuations or play moves that they might otherwise have rejected.

It's a bit similar to why close associates of players shouldn't be allowed in close proximity during games - the simple fact that those associates might have access to knowledge of the state of the game not available to the players and be able to communicate that to them through eg. facial expressions could in itself influence continuations that a player might follow (eg. a player might be tempted down a complicated but difficult to assess in advance if given external assurance that they're doing well at a moment in time). Bit like the yoghurt controversy in 1978.

Thank you for your typically thoughtful contribution.

One think which I can say for certain is that the Regulation will be reconsidered for 2019.

[Kevin Thurlow]

" If they don't repeat they have to "ask the arbiter", who I don't think is entitled to digital assistance to assist the decision as to whether the position is convincingly drawn "

You really need an arbiter who is expert in endings, a sort of Stewart Reuben Fine.

Most arbiters are going to struggle to tell GMs convincingly they are or are not drawing.

[LawrenceCooper]

Anand-Grischuk ended in an uneventful draw.

[David Robertson]

Anand-Grischuk ended in an uneventful draw

They've all ended in uneventful draws. Except Carlsen-Caruana where Carlsen has been doing his best to botch a [+1.72] advantage (albeit in zeitnot). Now at move 41, he'll need to start again [+0.27] - though I'm not sure he hasn't completely lost the thread. Looks drawn to me. But what do I know - I'm not an arbiter

Heh, drawn in 41 as I was typing

[David Sedgwick]

Looks drawn to me. But what do I know - I'm not an arbiter.

If you had been, you would have known that Caruana could have claimed a draw on move 41, but didn't. and you could have verified the claim which Carlsen then made.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

They've all ended in uneventful draws. Except Carlsen-Caruana where Carlsen has been doing his best to botch a [+1.72] advantage (albeit in zeitnot)

Carlsen definitely missed chances. What he said in the confession booth was interesting.

It also took me far too long to work out what was going on after 26.f5. Caruana retreated his rook on h6 to h7, and I stupidly stared at the screen trying to work out why he couldn't have taken the pawn on h5. It was such a bad move that the online chess engines didn't include it in their top four (or however many lines they were displaying) lines of analysis, so I had to try and work it out myself (not having an engine on the computer I connect to the internet with). It can take a while to work it out sometimes...

r4bk1/ppp1npp1/3p3r/5P1P/8/2PP4/PP5N/1KB3RR

Black to move (White has just played 26.f5). What does White do after 26...Rxh5. I was distracted by analysing the response 27.f6 which is not the best move.

What I took ages to see was a really lovely little tactic.

Try and solve it first before scrolling down.

<SPOILER>

<SPOILER>

<SPOILER>

<SPOILER>

<SPOILER>

<SPOILER>

<SPOILER>

<SPOILER>

<SPOILER>

<SPOILER>

Answer: 26.f5 Rxh5 27.Ng4 Rxh1 28.Nf6+ Kh8 29.Rxh1#

After 27.Ng4, try and move the Black rook on h5 anywhere - all moves lose (including protecting the rook with 27...g6). A lovely tactical blow there. Easy to see once you have seen it, but difficult to spot if you are not alert to that sort of possibility.

[JustinHorton]

If you had been, you would have known that Caruana could have claimed a draw on move 41, but didn't

According to Caruana in the interview here (about 2:18) he simply didn't see that the repetition had occurred, which is interesting.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

With two rounds to go, I'm wondering what the permutations are for who qualifies for the Grand Chess Tour (GCT) Finals? With two rounds left of the Sinquefield Cup and things very tight at the top (Caruana half a point ahead of a group of four and two others a point further back), are the possible qualification scenarios any clearer?