Bilbao R1: Carlsen beats Aronian (video added!)
2 September 2008, 22.19 CET | Last modified: 15:04 | By Peter Doggers | Filed under: Reports | Tags:
Magnus Carlsen started his Grand Slam Final superbly. With the black pieces he beat Levon Aronian to gain his first three points in the standings. Radjabov-Topalov and Anand-Ivanchuk were drawn. Video added.
A very special tournament has started. The first round of the Grand Slam Final was played yesterday and this super tournament will last until September 13. Viswanathan Anand, Levon Aronian, Magnus Carlsen, Vassily Ivanchuk, Teimour Radjabov and Veselin Topalov play a double round-robin for a prize money of 400,000 Euro. In a class cube, at the Plaza Nueva, in the heart of the Old Town of Bilbao, Spain.
I must say that it was a very special experience indeed. OK, I had seen an identical “aquarium” before in Sofia, but the fact that this tournament is being held outside, out in the open, where everyone can just walk by, chat, laugh, and even scream, just a few meters from the players, that’s almost surreal.
The players were not too positive about it after their first game, mainly because of a terrible smell of paint that was inside the cube for the whole round. They were certainly affected by it, and furthermore, during the first hour the cube wasn’t completely sound-proof either. During the game Anand had mentioned to Radjabov that he could hear commentator Leontxo Garcia word for word! And since Vishy speaks Spanish fluently, that could have influenced the game…
It’s not likely that many tournaments will start using a cube like this in the street, but I must say that chess might well benefit from it. Many Bilbao citizens got introduced to the game of chess for the first time and they were clearly enjoying what was going on at the plaza. Two Dutch tourists I met, were watching the scene for hours, until the round finished.
Here’s the first video I just finished:
Let’s go to the games. Carlsen had an excellent start by beating Aronian with the black pieces. Aronian thought he had a big advantage after the opening, but his pawn sacrifice was “probably the worst way” of dealing with it, as he put it. Carlsen thought Black was doing fine after that and expected White to force a queen exchange somewhere, after which the rook ending should be drawn.
At the start, Aronian wasn’t wearing his glasses yet.
Radjabov’s opening choice was a bit of a surprise: the Scotch. After his 10.Qe4 Topalov easily proved that Black has no big problems in this position when he plays accuratly (as a few grandmasters didn’t, in previous games). Due to the Sofia rule the players had to continue much longer than normal and there wasn’t really anybody enjoying that last phase I think.
The games attracted many spectators but the players didn’t really seem influenced
The end of Anand-Ivanchuk was a bit strange. Because the Ukrainian noticed that he had only 22 seconds left on the clock, and realized that in Bilbao there’s no increment, he offered a draw in a position with a pawn up, but with still some play. Anand accepted of course, but the Sofia rule seems to say that players have to continue in such a position. However, technical advisor GM Javier Moreno, who assists the arbiter in such situations (like Azmaiparashvili at the Grand Prix tournaments), naturally declared it a draw anyway.
Anand had a lucky escape in the first round
Aronian-Carlsen 0-3
Anand-Ivanchuk 1-1
Radjabov-Topalov 1-1
Bilbao Grand Slam Final Round 1 Standings
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | ||||||
| 1 | Carlsen,M | 2775 | +762 | * | 3 | 3.0/1 | |||||
| 2 | Anand,V | 2798 | -17 | * | 1 | 1.0/1 | 0.25 | ||||
| 3 | Ivanchuk,V | 2781 | +17 | 1 | * | 1.0/1 | 0.25 | ||||
| 4 | Topalov,V | 2777 | -33 | * | 1 | 1.0/1 | 0.25 | ||||
| 5 | Radjabov,T | 2744 | +33 | 1 | * | 1.0/1 | 0.25 | ||||
| 6 | Aronian,L | 2737 | -762 | 0 | * | 0.0/1 |
Pairings Round 2
Ivanchuk - Carlsen
Topalov - Aronian
Anand - Radjabov
Links:
The 3-1-0 scoring system is truely great!!!
So it gets motivated to play for a win, and a draw doesn’t get “rewarded” that much!
Good idea! Let’s keep it in all chess events
The 3-1-0 scoring is not a good idea, and hopefully it will never happen again.
If a player wins 4 an losses 6 (4 points out of ten ) then he is equel with a player who wins 2 and draws 8 (6 points out of ten) - That should never happen and that is not fair. Any chessplayer will rathet win 2 and draw 8 then win 4 and loose 6. The 3-1-0 scoring system is not good.
Incorrect:
Player A: Wins 4, loses 6 (4/10 on normal system, 12 points on Bilbao system)
Player B: Wins 2, draws 8 (6/10 on normal system, 14 points on Bilbao system)
However…
Player C: Wins 1, draws 9 (5.5/10 on normal system, 12 points on Bilbao system)
here we go again
bilbao system only seperares players that would otherwise be equal
it’s the same as most wins tiebreaker
so Kramnik will get 10 points if he is here?
Bilbao is not the same as most wins tiebreaker. Here’s why:
Player X: 3 wins, 4 losses, 3 draws = 12 points (4.5 orthodox points)
Player Y: 1 win, 1 loss, 8 draws = 11 points (5 orthodox points)
Player X may be more exciting to watch, but Player Y really did play a bit better and should finish ahead, not behind.
“Player X may be more exciting to watch, but Player Y really did play a bit better and should finish ahead, not behind.”
Well, that depends on the value that you give to a victory. Somebody can go for the draw, without taking any risks, just trading all the pieces as soon as possible. To win you need something else that I think it’s good to be rewarded with 3 points.
Poor Leko.
Go Magnus!!! You are the best!
It is time to set Robert J. Fisher memorial !!!
This 3-1-0 scoring would be a disaster for Kramnik and Leko, but this system fits for creative players like Shirov, Morozevich etc.
Comparing chess and soccer is probably not completely viable, but the 3 point rule HAS reduced the number of draws in major soccer leagues. There is, however, the risk of collusion in round-robin events (like soccer leagues) - if players (teams) A & B agree beforehand to win one each of their mutual games they will both get 3 points without trying, whereas C & D might fight out two properly competitive draws and end with only 2 points each.
“Player X may be more exciting to watch, but Player Y really did play a bit better and should finish ahead, not behind.”
You make it sound as if there exists some Platonic, absolute way of deciding who played better, independent of the scoring system. If we count points the Bilbao way, then clearly X played better; it’s not as if the scoring system is kept a secret from the players.
I sound like a broken record (at least to myself) but I keep repeating that the only essential difference between 0-0.5-1 system and 0-1-3 system is that the latter encourages prearranged decisive games, especially in double round robin tournaments. This is, in my opinion, quite enough to never use it in any tournaments of some importance.
hey guys,
nobody is talking about the game Anand - Ivanchuk …. why the heck Anand agreed to a draw???? There was no increment so a few more moves and he would have won on time. Can someone answer me that question.
Because Anand is a great sportsman and high class individual!!!………. He knew he was in an inferior position while Chucky is pressing for a win, so he didn’t want to win a game like this.
I think Chess is very fortunate to have World Champions like Anand and Kramnik. Really looking forward to their big battle in the future!!!
@semipatz : I agree with you. Though, I do think I’d rather watch player Y; seeing a player win 3 games and then go down in flames in more games then he’s won is disgusting.
Because he’s a gentleman…
(That was an answer to pete)
And I have to say, Chess is really lucky to have Magnus!!! He never ceased to amaze me, especially in comparison with his low key style. If he keeps humble. work hard, and most importantly enjoy the game then he will carry the Chess world in the future!
I think Anand should have taken the full point. Chucky was better yes, but when you play you need to pay attention to the time as well. It is not Anand’s fault Chuky needed so much time.
Anand HAS taken a full point…
But you probably mean he should have taken the full 3 points?
Do they display the live ratings in front of the tables? I noticed this in the video: e.g. 2787 for Carlsen and 2751 for Aronian (officially it’s 2775 and 2737). That would be a novelty as well.
Nice interview with Magnus, by the way. “Apart from that I don’t have any special goals”, lol.
My best respect to Anand, and other noble guys who don’t want to turn a noble game into a dirty street fight, despite of a strong pressure of so called “chess managers”.
By the way, you can watch the games, including live Rybka analysis at:
http://chessok.com/broadcast/live.php?key=bilbao02.pgn&game=0
cheers
@Hortensius
yes, I meant the full 3 points
Anand could have tried winning on time but took the draw… so much for the new scoring system.
Other than that, I don’t think the new scoring system will have much of an impact. I don’t think we’ll see many players with 7 or more decisive games at this level. An out of form player might lose many, but losing many AND winning a bunch (which is what matters) will be even more exceptional.
With the big prize money I don’t think they even needed the new scoring system.
But if it encourages a few more decisive games than we would otherwise get I’m not against it.
“You make it sound as if there exists some Platonic, absolute way of deciding who played better, independent of the scoring system. If we count points the Bilbao way, then clearly X played better; it’s not as if the scoring system is kept a secret from the players.”
Fair enough. Your point is valid as far as it goes. But the game of chess itself has its own logic. It’s a two-player, zero-sum game in which best play results in a draw. There is no way you can justify 3-1-0 in terms of the inner logic of the game. You could just as easily argue for 3-2-0, except that would reward boringness. 2-1-0 reflects the fact that when somebody makes a bad move, his loss is his opponent’s gain. It’s not like soccer where it’s a physical game and there’s no such thing as perfect play. In chess your opponent has to err, however slightly, for you to win — or for you to save a lost position. 2-1-0 (or 1 - 1/2 - 0) preserves the symmetrical relationship between winning and losing that is in fact inherent in the nature of the game.
I know most people say that Anand is a gentlemen because he accepted the draw from Ivanchuk, but shouldn’t that not be allowed? Using your time wisely in chess is also part of the game. Accepting draws like that aren’t as “good” as before since they’re not valued at 50% of a won game, but rather 33%. I think players are probably going to start re-thinking accepting draws when their opponents are in time troubles.
Anyone agree/disagree with me?
@Me
I respect Anand for accepting the draw, but I’d rather see all tournaments use an increment. As it is, someone like Ivanchuk who gets too caught up in finding the right move to adopt sound time management, is penalised too harshly in my view. I don’t think it helps the classical game for either participant to be hugely rushed for time for many moves - the scramble to move 40 doesn’t strike me as a good thing either. Naturally it’s a player’s own fault if he doesn’t manage his time properly, but that’s not relevant: the only question is whether severe time trouble over many moves helps or hurts the game. I’d say it hurts.
@semipatz
I think you’re coming up with a few spurious arguments simply because you don’t like a 3-1-0 scoring system. You’re quite right to say that it’s no more valid than 3-2-0, but neither is it less valid than 1-1/2-0 in a single game. A 3-1-0 system does “preserves the symmetrical relationship between winning and losing”: one player winning gives 3-0, a draw gives 1-1, the other winning gives 0-3. This is all entirely symmetrical, and zero-sum.
There is no system that is inherently correct from the nature of the game - precisely because the rules of the game don’t include a scoring system.
You need to argue on a practical basis - what are the implications of each system? The potential for pre-arranged decisive games in 3-1-0 is clearly an issue, but it remains to be seen whether it’d occur in practice. The practical impact on play-style (if any), and on the frequency of short draws, also remains to be seen.
You can find 3-1-0 as distasteful as you please, but you’ll only have a real argument once the practical implications are clear. I can’t see anything wrong in trying it for a few tournaments and looking at the results. (though I’d say that using 3-1-0 for tournament scoring while using 1-1/2-0 for Elo rating is another difficulty - clearly it’d be neater to have the two coincide for each individual game).
Yes, I agree with myself.
They might start to play for time, but that’s also due to the faster time control with no increment, not just the scoring system.
Imo they are doing too much at the same time; Sofia rules, fast time control, different scoring, big prize money.
If they are concerned about the spectators and want to keep the players at the board, Sofia rules make sense, but then why the faster time control?
Is the 3-1-0 scoring system great? C’mon, be serious, its not a difference to speak of. Only 5-1-0 or “better” will “help” to force top GMs to take silly risks!
Chess is a zero sum game in individual play, as in tournaments. Every game puts a point into a tournament bulletin (1-0, 1/2-1/2, 0-1), because 1+0=1/2+1/2=0+1=1. So after the tournament, the sum of the player’s points equals to the number of games played. If the scoring system would be 1 for a win, 0 for a draw and -1 for a loss, the sum of the player’s points would be equal with 0. That pointing system would be the same as the orthodox pointing system mathematically, because one player would be on the same place at the end of the tournament, which doesn’t stand for the Bilbao system, which makes the draws less valuable, encouraging risky, incorrect play. It puts the play to a lower level.
A player wins two games and loses two games, he has 6 points, another player wins a game and draws 3 games, he has also six point. If a player won more games than the lost games’ number, then he has a better performance than a player who couldn’t manage to win more games than the number of lost games.
“Chess is a zero sum game in individual play, as in tournaments.”
Sure, but it’s *inherently* zero-sum only in individual play. That’s as far as the it’s-inherent-in-the-logic-of-the-game argument takes you. Chess tournaments simply happen to be zero-sum when the 1-1/2-0 scoring system is used - a scoring system that isn’t part of the rules of chess.
With the 3-1-0 system the tournament isn’t zero-sum, but that’s entirely by design. The aim is precisely to *avoid* the notion that all games should add the same value. The implicit assumption is that decided games add more to the tournament than draws, so should add more to the players involved (on average). Whether this assumption is correct is a different matter - it’s certainly a crude mechanism.
“It puts the play to a lower level.”
This remains to be seen. Thus far you have little evidence to back up this claim.
It’s also arguable whether the aim should be to have chess be at the highest level, where this simply means a closer approximation to perfect-scoring play. If variety, creativity, ingenuity, artistry and novelty are desirable, it’s likely that the highest level chess isn’t desirable. There’s no reason you couldn’t have a tournament ranked entirely by the artistry of the play, with a player who had lost all his games being ranked first (careless blunders after breath-taking brilliancies). The greatest obstacle to such a scoring system is the lack of crystal clear fairness, not the fact that it’d produce “lower level” chess.
“If a player won more games than the lost games’ number, then he has a better performance than a player who couldn’t manage to win more games than the number of lost games.”
That’s only true once you assume a 1-1/2-0 scoring system (or equivalent). Before you apply a scoring system, the idea of a “better” performance is not defined.
The fact that chess is zero-sum within a game is precisely why it SHOULD be zero-sum within a tournament: because it reflects the inner nature of the game.
As JC said but put more simply:
Chess being zero-sum just means nothing more than that it is not possible for both players to win the game at the same time (or for both players to lose the game). There is no win-win or lose-lose outcome possible.
But that has nothing to do with how we score the game or how much points we decide to give for winning the game. (And in the case of chess for nobody winning the game.)
Exaggerated results are given to show Bilbao scoring is not good.
It comes down to how much you want to value winning as opposed to how much you want to value not losing (drawing).
X: +3, =3, -4 (12 Bilbao points, 4.5 classical)
Y: +1, =8, -1 (11 Bilbao points, 5 classical)
Do you prefer X to win (Bilbao scoring) or do you prefer Y to win (classical scoring)?
If you prefer X to win it means you value _winning_ more, if you prefer Y to win it means you value _not losing_ more, because that’s the difference between their performances.
@semipatz
That just amounts to saying that the context of a game shouldn’t bring incentives to play differently - i.e. that any external incentives should exactly mirror in-game incentives.
Two points:
(1) Why shouldn’t the external context matter? What is wrong in using context to influence play?
(2) The external context already matters with a 1-1/2-0 system. Chess is zero-sum within the tournament with respect to the scores of players, but not with respect to the overall utility of players. Most incentives in a tournament context (prize money, qualifications, Grand Prix points…) are based on ranking, not on score.
If the aim were for things to be zero-sum in a meaningful sense, you’d need to award points/prizes on the basis of score alone. Even then the context still matters, since the utility of points to players will depend on a myriad of psychological factors. An obvious case of this is when both players want a draw - whether for ranking purposes, or purely psychological ones.
I’m not sure what you want is desirable; I’m very sure it’s impossible to achieve. Certainly a 3-1-0 system is an extra imbalance, but it’s one of many such factors. There’s no perfect symmetry to spoil - the human mind already spoilt it. It’ll be difficult to be certain of the merits of pushing the balance one way or another until we see the results (in a statistically significant number of tournaments).
JC:
“Chess tournaments simply happen to be zero-sum when the 1-1/2-0 scoring system is used - a scoring system that isn’t part of the rules of chess.”
I think it is part of the rules, because the rating system is based on it.
“With the 3-1-0 system the tournament isn’t zero-sum, but that’s entirely by design.”
The tournament should be zero sum, becausewe don’t want to see a player who played better chess (better moves) than the other finishing before him in a tournament standing.
“This remains to be seen. Thus far you have little evidence to back up this claim.”
So far i have a hypothesis: The play level gets lower with the Sofia rule, and with the Bilbao scoring system.
I. The Sofia rule:
The players have to play on in difficult, equals positions if the position is not evidently drawn, thus, they get tired by endgames which can be even boring, and in the following day they don’t play as well as they could play after agreeing to a draw and resting.
II. Bilbao scoring system:
1) Players can prearrange decisive results. For example A, B and C are playing in a tournament, and they are very good friends. They agree that A will beat B, B will beat C and C will beat A. All from the 3 players will get 3 points from two effortless games.
2) In double round robins A and B are playing. A will beat B with white, B will beat A with white, both of them get 3 points from two games without efforts.
3) A plays B, and A has a better position. A choses to play the risky lines, because a draw is not too valuable and might lose.
Compare the two systems:
A has won 20 games, drew 40 games and lost 18 games.
B has won 34 games, drew 0 games and lost 44 games.
Classical: A has 40 points, while B has 34 points
Bilbao: A has 100 points, while B has 102 points
I mean: In my opinion a win is as good as bad is losing. If we accept this, we arrive to the conclusion, that the player who won more games than lost performed better than the player who lost more games than won. This is confirmed by the classical scoring system. The Bilbao system says B played better than A by 2%, because he won more games. Okay, but generallt B played on lower level than his opposition. Why? Because he lost too many games. The Bilbao scoring system is for the crowd, not for the chess players, not for justice. It should be boycotted by all reasonable thinking GM’s.
Whatever the merits of any score system, please understand that the following just makes no sense:
“…we don’t want to see a player who played better chess (better moves) than the other finishing before him in a tournament standing.”
The “better chess” and “better moves” are *defined by* the scoring system, together with the conditions of play and game rules. Until you specify a scoring system, time controls, and indeed an opponent, the best moves are not defined.
In a given situation, certain moves will tend to score higher with 3-1-0 system, while others will score higher with a 1-1/2-0 system. Different moves will tend to score better in bullet / blitz / rapid / classical / correspondence timings. One move might be best against a player like Topalov, another against Kramnik, and still another against a computer.
In assuming some idea of objectively “better” moves/chess, you’re simply pre-supposing the 1-1/2-0 score system. After which your argument amounts to:
3-1-0 scoring is no good, since it gives different results from 1-1/2-0 scoring.
“In my opinion a win is as good as bad is losing. If we accept this…”
I certainly don’t accept that. What matters is the style and creativity of the play. A beautiful loss is preferable to a boring draw any day (just as a beautiful draw is preferable to a boring win). The scoring system is as good as the style of chess it incentivizes. The 3-1-0 system is crude in that it directly incentivizes only decided games, rather than beautiful chess, or even attacking chess.
The 3-1-0 system is no more or less fair (pre-arrangement aside) than the 1-1/2-0 system, since all players know the value of each result upfront. Of course it changes the nature of the game - as do the time controls and the opponent. The hope is that it changes it for the better by encouraging more creative play.
On the practical side (and I think it’s the practical results which count above all), it should be noted that the number of tournament participants will almost certainly influence the best strategy with 3-1-0 scoring.
For a large number of participants, almost all your opponents’ points will come from games against each other, meaning that the points you give to your opponent are almost irrelevant compared to the points you gain yourself. With a small number of participants (e.g. 6), a significant proportion of your opponents’ points might come from you, so denying your opponent points becomes relatively important.
If the aim is to encourage attacking/fighting/risk-taking chess, this tournament is one of the worst for a 3-1-0 system. It’d make much more sense to use it in a tournament with 12 or so participants.
“The Bilbao scoring system is for the crowd, not for the chess players, not for justice.”
It’s every bit as fair (pre-arrangement aside) as any other system. It’s likely to help players who strongly favour playing risky chess, hurt those who are less comfortable in double-edged positions, and make little difference to those who can adapt their style to meet different playing conditions.
Naturally it’s “for the crowd” - just as fulfilling your idea of “high level”, “better” chess by using the scoring system you like would be “for the crowd” (you are part of “the crowd”, are you not?); just as allowing short draws, to combat player fatigue in the hope of seeing more attractive chess in later rounds is “for the crowd”. It’s all for the crowd. The only question is which crowd.
Yes it’s possible to collude. It’s also possible, simpler and even more efficient to just bribe an opponent to lose. But bribing also works with the classical scoring system so if it really is a problem we should already have been experiencing it.
But as has been said, time will be the best test of the advantages/disadvantages of this system. So far we’ve had 2 decisive games out of 9.