Reports | October 02, 2011 1:44

Masters Final R5: leader Ivanchuk loses to Carlsen, Nakamura beats Vallejo

Masters Final R5: leader Ivanchuk loses to Carlsen, Nakamura beats Vallejo

Vassily Ivanchuk lost his first game at the Masters Final on Saturday. The Ukrainian was defeated by Magnus Carlsen but still leads the tournament at half-time with 10/5. Hikaru Nakamura, who beat Vallejo in round 5, is now clear second with 7 points. The game between Vishy Anand and Levon Aronian ended in a draw.

Event 4th Grand Slam Masters Final  | PGN via TWIC
Dates September 25th - October 11th, 2011
Location Sao Paulo, Brazil & Bilbao, Spain
System 6-player double round robin
Players Carlsen, Anand, Aronian, Ivanchuk, Nakamura, Vallejo
Time control 90 minutes for the first 40 moves plus 60 minutes to finish the game, with 10 seconds increment per move from move number 41
Prizes Undisclosed
Notes Players are not allowed to agree to a draw without the arbiter’s permission. In case both players request it to him, the arbiter will make his decision after consulting with the technical assistant. The football scoring system is used: 3 points for a win, 1 point for a draw and 0 for a loss.

Round 5

By now we start to feel sorry for Paco Vallejo. OK, the Spaniard might be too weak for this field, and only entered the tournament after Sergei Karjakin and Vladimir Kramnik declined invitations, but he's a fine player and on a good day he's a dangerous opponent to anyone. He proved this on Saturday with arguably the most creative chess shown in Sao Paulo thus far.

The Spaniard managed to come up with no less than three piece sacrifices in his game against Hikaru Nakamura! It was one knight retreat on move 29 that spoilt everything and then it was his opponent's turn to give a knight, take over the initiative and win a great game.

PGN string

Nakamura in a tweet:

A very tricky game against Vallejo, but I ended up on top. Now off to Bilbao for the second half of the tournament. I'm going to miss Brazil

Beating tournament leader Vassily Ivanchuk, Magnus Carlsen made sure that the second leg in Bilbao will be very exciting. Against 1.e4 the Norwegian chose the French Defence, an opening he had only played once before in a serious tournament game. That was in January 2010 in Wijk aan Zee, when he beat Sergey Karjakin with it, and he was again successful with it in the last round played in Sao Paulo.

PGN string

Afterwards Carlsen tweeted:

Beat Ivanchuk today, now anything is possible in Bilbao! Not a great game by any means, but I could not care less about that right now.

Vishy Anand and Levon Aronian drew a Ruy Lopez, Anti-Marshall. It's interesting to see that thus far the World Champion stuck to his old, favourite first move: 1.e4. He met the Ruy Lopez three times.

PGN string

And so the first, Brazilian half of the tournament is over. Indeed anything is possible in Bilbao, with Ivanchuk leading, followed by Nakamura who is 'only' three points behind, followed by Anand, Aronian and Carlsen who have one point less. The players have an early morning flight to Spain on Sunday so that they'll have a few days to get over a possible jet lag. The next round is scheduled for Thursday. (ChessVibes will join the tournament on Saturday for on-the-spot reports of the last three rounds!)

Grand Slam Masters Final 2011 | Schedule & results

Round 1 26.09.11 20:00 CET   Round 6 06.10.11 16:00 CET
Nakamura ½-½ Ivanchuk   Ivanchuk - Nakamura
Anand ½-½ Carlsen   Carlsen - Anand
Aronian 1-0 Vallejo   Vallejo - Aronian
Round 2 27.09.11 20:00 CET   Round 7 07.10.11 16:00 CET
Ivanchuk 1-0 Vallejo   Vallejo - Ivanchuk
Carlsen ½-½ Aronian   Aronian - Carlsen
Nakamura ½-½ Anand   Anand - Nakamura
Round 3 28.09.11 20:00 CET   Round 8 08.10.11 16:00 CET
Anand 0-1 Ivanchuk   Ivanchuk - Anand
Aronian ½-½ Nakamura   Nakamura - Aronian
Vallejo 1-0 Carlsen   Carlsen - Vallejo
Round 4 30.09.11 20:00 CET   Round 9 10.10.11 16:00 CET
Aronian 0-1 Ivanchuk   Carlsen - Ivanchuk
Vallejo 0-1 Anand   Vallejo - Nakamura
Carlsen ½-½ Nakamura   Aronian - Anand
Round 5 01.10.11 20:00 CET   Round 10 11.10.11 16:00 CET
Ivanchuk 0-1 Carlsen   Ivanchuk - Aronian
Nakamura 1-0 Vallejo   Anand - Vallejo
Anand ½-½ Aronian   Nakamura - Carlsen

Grand Slam Masters Final 2011 | Round 5 Standings (football)

1  Vassily Ivanchuk 10
2  Hikaru Nakamura 7
3-5  Levon Aronian, Vishy Anand, Magnus Carlsen 6
6  Francisco Vallejo 3

Grand Slam Masters Final 2011 | Round 5 Standings (classical)

 

Peter Doggers's picture
Author: Peter Doggers

Founder and editor-in-chief of ChessVibes.com, Peter is responsible for most of the chess news and tournament reports. Often visiting top events, he also provides photos and videos for the site. He's a 1.e4 player himself, likes Thai food and the Stones.

Chess.com

Comments

ebutaljib's picture

ELO inflation causes that the average rating of a tournament goes higher and higher each year. This tournament has an insane average rating of 2780. Is this the highest in history? The answer is YES and NO, depending how you look at this. For fun I compiled a list of the "World record" breaking tournaments since the beginning of the rating lists in 1971.
We know that it is easier to have a higher average rating if the tournament has less than a handfull of players than if it has dozen of them. So I made three categories:
1. Tournaments with 4 players or more (absolute category)
2. Tournaments with 6 players or more
3. Tournaments with 8 players or more

Note that I ignored tournaments with only 3 players (yes there are few of them). The only such relevant tournament is 1973 Portoroz (playoff for a place in Candidates matches) which would have been the record holder for 8 years if included on the list.

It's also interesting to see who the winners of those tournaments were. Would you expect that players like Eugenio Torre or Valery Salov could once claim to have won the tournament with the hihgest average rating?

So here is the list of the "World record" holders with its average rating and number of players in parentheses.

4 players or more:
1971 Wijk aan Zee - 2531 (16)
1971 Moscow - 2582 (18)
1975 Milan - 2599 (12)
1976 Manila 2601 (4)
1979 Montreal - 2622 (10)
1981 Johanessburg - 2628 (4)
1986 Brussels - 2635 (6)
1988 Amsterdam (Euwe Memorial) - 2657 (4)
1988 Amsterdam (Optiebeurs) - 2673 (4)
1991/92 Reggio Emilia - 2676 (10)
1993 Linares - 2676 (14)
1994 Linares - 2685 (14)
1994 Amsterdam - 2697 (4)
1994 Novgorod - 2717 (6)
1996 Las Palmas - 2756 (6)
1998 Frankfurt - 2781 (4)
2010 Bilbao - 2788 (4)
2011 Moscow (Botvinnik Memorial) - 2809 (4)

6 players or more:
1971 Wijk aan Zee - 2531 (16)
1971 Moscow - 2582 (18)
1975 Milan - 2599 (12)
1979 Montreal - 2622 (10)
1982 Turin - 2627 (7)
1986 Bugojno - 2627 (8)
1986 Brussels - 2635 (6)
1989 Linares - 2628 (11)
1989 Skelleftea - 2631 (16)
1990 Tilburg - 2643 (8)
1990/91 Reggio Emilia - 2644 (7)
1991 Linares - 2658 (14)
1991 Tilburg - 2665 (8)
1991/92 Reggio Emilia - 2676 (10)
1993 Linares - 2676 (14)
1994 Linares - 2685 (14)
1994 Novgorod - 2717 (6)
1996 Las Palmas - 2756 (6)
2000 Frankfurt - 2767 (6)
2008 Bilbao - 2768 (6)
2011 Amber - 2770 (12)
2011 Bilbao - 2780 (6)

8 players or more:
1971 Wijk aan Zee - 2531 (16)
1971 Moscow - 2582 (18)
1975 Milan - 2599 (12)
1979 Montreal - 2622 (10)
1986 Bugojno - 2627 (8)
1989 Linares - 2628 (11)
1989 Skelleftea - 2631 (16)
1990 Tilburg - 2643 (8)
1991 Linares - 2658 (14)
1991 Tilburg - 2665 (8)
1991/92 Reggio Emilia - 2676 (10)
1993 Linares - 2676 (14)
1994 Linares - 2685 (14)
1994 Buenos Aires - 2693 (8)
1996 Dos Hermanas - 2714 (10)
1999 Linares - 2733 (8)
2005 San Luis (FIDE WC) - 2738 (8)
2007 Morelia/Linares - 2745 (8)
2007 Mexico (WC) - 2751 (8)
2008 Morelia/Linares - 2755 (8)
2009 Amber - 2758 (12)
2009 Moscow (Tal Memorial)- 2763 (10)
2011 Amber - 2770 (12)

Bert de Bruut's picture

An interesting list. Perhaps you should consider a different break up, like tournaments of 4-6 players, 8-12 players and of 14 and more players.

brabo's picture

I also want to remind you at the recent study from Regan/Hayworth
http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/papers/pdf/ReHa11c.pdf.
I had hoped chessvibes would do an intensive review of the study on the site but probably the material is too complicated to do (at least in a short timeframe as the work has been published already more than 4 months ago).

Jaideepblue's picture

Once again the problem of having rabbits in these shark tanks rears its (toothy?) head. Let's say this was a 5round tournament - Vallejo has completely skewed the result by not doing what he was "supposed" to - i.e lose to Carlsen. When will organizers learn ?!

ebutaljib's picture

You are talking nonsense. A player of his rating is "expected" to score 2/5 (traditional scoring) not 0/5.

Johnny's picture

Actually, Carlsen is the one who "skewed" the result by playing a real howler of a move. You can't blame Carlsen's blunder on the tournament format. Blunders are part of chess. Having the presence of mind and consistency not to blunder is a good quality for a top grandmaster.

Septimus's picture

Interesting list but I disagree with the conclusion, i.e rating inflation. To me inflation has a negative connotation, which is not the case here. These days with the advent of strong computers, preparation has reached a very high level. The fact that you see many 2700+ players just means that they are good. I have no doubt that an Anand or a Kramnik would fare better against the old masters.

ebutaljib's picture

Do you really think that Korchnoi in 2003 (aged 72) was equaly good than Korchnoi in 1972 (aged 41)?

Anonymous's picture

Of course not...Korchnoi the Elder was way better (and way grumpier) than Korchnoi the Younger

ebutaljib's picture
chessdrummer's picture

Not sure how you made that assessment. He was a World Championship candidate and one of the Soviet Union's top players.

theeagle1's picture

of course he wasn't. but standards get higher all the time, there is much more strength in depth now than there was even 20 years ago.

ebutaljib's picture

Well his July 1972 rating was 2640 and His January 2003 rating was 2642. So if there is no inflation of ratings then Korchnoi 1972 and Korchnoi 2003 were equally strong.

redivivo's picture

Korchnoi is the most extreme example one can pick since he isn't like anyone else. In 1971 and 1973 he was 2670, and today Sargissian, who won against Svidler yesterday and has played well in many Olympiads, is 2658. Maybe Sargissian would be almost the same level as Korchnoi 1971/73 considering how much chess has improved in these decades.

ebutaljib's picture

OK. Was Robert Huebner in July 2005 equally strong (or even stronger!) than in his hey days in late 1970's/early 1980's?

Or is this a bad example also?

redivivo's picture

The level of top chess is much higher today. Hübner was 2640 in 1981, Gustafsson in 2632 today, maybe it wouldn't be such an easy win for Hübner.

KingTal's picture

I think that the level of chess is higher today too, but not in proportion with the ratings, what ebultajib means is that for example Huebner today plays worse than Huebner in past(his prime), because he is old now and his playing strength decreased by the time, but the ratingnumber of him is the same today as in the past... you see now?

redivivo's picture

Well, what about Gelfand then? He was 2700 twenty years ago and is in the 2740s now. I think he plays better now than in 1991 but maybe he doesn't, it's hard to evaluate. My guess is that Gelfand 2011 would beat Gelfand 1991 in a match, but I'm far from sure about it.

KingTal's picture

Gelfand is not old pal ...

KingTal's picture

forgot...and we can´t be sure if he had already his prome yet, it maybe was in 1991 or maybe in 2007 or maybe now... he still has it, but Huebner, Korchnoi or Beliavsky are sure past their happy hours..

redivivo's picture

Definitively, but it's something that is hard to measure. If there's been 50 points inflation in 20 years Gelfand played better chess in 1991 than he does today. Maybe he did. It's hard to prove how much weaker the 2624 rated Korchnoi that won Biel 2001 ahead of Svidler, Grischuk and Gelfand was than the 2695 rated Korchnoi of 1979. I guess the difference ought to have been bigger than those 71 points but just how much the "real" difference in playing strength was is an interesting subject to speculate about.

brabo's picture

I don't see why at age of 57 one should play worse than at age 20 or 30. Robert Huebner was in 2005, 58 years old. 30 years of extra chessexperience certainly counts for something. Besides you seem to forget that in the history there have been worldchampions older than 50 years old: Steinitz, Lasker, Alekhine and Botvinnik.

Yes, Robert did have a much higher worldranking (e.g.5th place in the 70s and 80s but that has little or nothing to do with his skills but more with the fact that there weren't so many stronger players as today.

ebutaljib's picture

You can delete Lasker and Alekhine from that list. Yes techically they were World champions at the age of 50, but based on a match when they were in their (early) 40's. Lasker was 41 when he won his last World championship and Alekhine was 45 when he won his last World championship.

On the other hand Botvinnik really was 50 when he won his last World championship, and Steinitz was 56 when he won his last World championship.

Septimus's picture

Ridiculous comparison. How can you equate a guy in his prime with himself after 30 years? Seriously dude...

ebutaljib's picture

Is this a reply to my post about Korchnoi's rating?

If it is, please what I wrote and on what side of the "is there a rating inflation" argument I am.

ebutaljib's picture

...please READ what I wrote...

sab's picture

The more there are players, the more the ELO will grow. Why ? Because there is more opportunities for the best to win against the weaks.

Chess is more and more popularized, thus there is more newbies than before in this game than it was by the past. So, many good players will increase their rating by playing against a growing field weaker than their one. The same process is reproduced in each level of the scale of the rating. That is why the ELO keep growing, because the number of new players keep growing. It would be more harder to see such a progression if the number of chess players in the world remained the same.

About strength's players, it's sure that with computer's analyses and huge databases knowledge the depth of the preparation has increased. But what would be the result of a match between the past and the actual legends, assuming the past legends are still young and have access to computer's analyses and databases ?

"If I have seen farther than others, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants". (Isaac Newton)

mdamien's picture

Over time, play gets better: opening strategies are refined, faulty attacks are refuted, computer engines provide stronger and stronger sparring and error checking. It is a mistake, though, to consider a rise in ratings over time a consequence of better play. Ratings do not measure the quality of play, but the relative results against other players in the rating pool.

sab's picture

The more there are players, the more the ELO will grow. Why ? Because there is more opportunities for the best to win against the weaks.

Chess is more and more popularized, thus there is more newbies than before in this game than it was by the past. So, many good players will increase their rating by playing against a growing field weaker than their one. The same process is reproduced in each level of the scale of the rating. That is why the ELO keep growing, because the number of new players keep growing. It would be more harder to see such a progression if the number of chess players in the world remained the same.

About strength's players, it's sure that with computer's analyses and huge databases knowledge the depth of the preparation has increased. But what would be the result of a match between the past and the actual legends, assuming the past legends are still young and have access to computer's analyses and databases ?

"If I have seen farther than others, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants". (Isaac Newton)

Anonymous's picture

Of course Newton didn't believe this idiotic statement (he was a brilliant person after all), but he just didn't want to come across as arrogant and selfish if he told what he really thought (sort of being politically correct by trying to come across as humble). So many other people have stood on the shoulders of "giants" before Newton but couldn't see further from their nose. It takes a genious for innovations to be made, let alone the authoritative "giants" of the past many times do more harm than good by discouraging innovative thought(eg strict adherence to aristotle's thoughts during antiquity/middle ages)

mdamien's picture

Well said, sab.

Carl Lumma's picture

Recent work shows there has been very little (essentially no) ratings inflation:

http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/Talks/IntrinsicRatings.pdf

-Carl

Mirlo's picture

For anyone interested in ratings inflation something that may be worth looking at for comparison purposes or interest is the ECF grading system. In England a different grade system is used where ECF x 8 + 650 = FIDE (of course top players have an actual fide too). Interestingly a couple of years ago they decided that over the past 10 years or so the ecf grades had 'stretched' or deflated for most players. Using a formula there was a ratings adjustment which meant most players gained about 20 points where the very top players lost a few.

There's more info here on it: http://grading.bcfservices.org.uk/newgrades.php

It remains to be seen if those extra points that were given will even themselves back out again.

Zeblakob's picture

Everyone lost to some one.

Anonymous's picture

except nakamura

BlunderSuck's picture

When Zeblak talk, you have to read between the lines otherwise you're doom...

Chess Fan.'s picture

Carlsen defeating Chucky. Showing whey he is "Carlsen" the Wunderkid!
Things starting to get exciting. Now it is the World Champion with black pieces (his strong suit) against the current World Number 1. Significance wise, very important game of the tournament.

PP (NL)'s picture

Strange discussion about the historical ratings. There is no link to the actual quality of chess. It just says something about a players' relative strength compared with other players in the same time. And there is inflation because of the system. There is a fault in it.

jhoravi's picture

Before, chess rating was about pure strength. Now, insane opening memorization counts. Karpov BTW didn't jump into the bandwagon and the effect is clear.

Latest articles