Carlsen increases lead in London
14 December 2009, 15.23 CET | By Peter Doggers | Filed under: Reports | Tags:
In round 5 of the London Chess Classic Magnus Carlsen increased in the standings by beating Ni Hua with the black pieces while his closest rival Vladimir Kramnik was held to a draw by David Howell. Luke McShane beat Hikaru Nakamura with Black and the all-English encounter between Adams and Short was drawn.
The London Chess Classic takes place December 8th till 15th in Kensington, Londen. Venue is the Auditorium of the Olympiad Conference Centre. The time control is 2 hours for 40 moves, then 1 hour for 20 moves and then 15 minutes plus 30 seconds increment to finish the games. Magnus Carlsen, Vladimir Kramnik, Hikaru Nakamura, Nigel Short, Michael Adams, Ni Hua, Luke McShane and David Howell play.
Round 5 by John Saunders
There were two decisive games in an exciting round at the London Chess Classic today. Magnus Carlsen stretched his lead to three points over Vladimir Kramnik, while Luke McShane won again to move into third place.
Before moving onto a blow-by-blow account of round five, let’s clear up a couple of errors from round four. One was in the original issue of the press release, where we tried to tell you that Short-Ni Hua was the round four best game winner. I hope neither of those gentlemen nipped out to spend their 500 euros (each) on Christmas presents on the strength of this comment because it was wrong.
The best game winners of round four were Carlsen and Nakamura (shared). The other error was by the aforementioned Carlsen and (to a lesser extent) Nakamura. At yesterday’s press conference Carlsen told the audience that he regretted playing 32 Qe2 and wished he had played 32 Re2. Nakamura backed him up and the opinion was related to a packed commentary room. Nobody present spotted that 32 Re2 had a huge flaw and would have lost instantly (we’re assuming that, at the chessboard, Hikaru would have found what he missed during commentary), but all our computers found it instantly (you can find it mentioned in yesterday’s game annotations).
After his game today, and before commenting on his round five, Magnus Carlsen came to the commentary room and delivered rather a delightful little speech, owning up to the unsoundness of the line he advocated at yesterday’s commentary session and advising us against taking anything he said in his post-round comments as gospel. It went down very well with the audience. Magnus has remarkable poise for a young man of tender years and he’s made a big hit with the London chess audience. You’ll remember that Big Vlad had some problems getting into the country; I’m rather hoping that Britain’s over-zealous passport authorities will take similar action when Magnus tries to get out of Britain after the tournament. We’d like to keep him.
In today’s round, Carlsen was soon out of the ‘book’ (as he admitted afterwards) and the watching grandmasters were not too convinced about the safety of his position for the first part of the game. It is possible that Ni Hua could have made more of some early attacking chances but the Norwegian soon consolidated and, slowly but surely, outplayed his opponent. The game seemed to hinge on a couple of judgement calls; in particular, compare and contrast the trajectory of the two kings in the final phase of the game.
Today you can follow IM Merijn van Delft’s live commentary of the 6th round in London and the tiebreak of the World Cup final between Gelfand and Ponomariov. We’re covering the World Cup and the London Chess Classic for free; starting from 2010 our live commentary will be subscription-based. You’ll find more info here.
Games round 5
Game viewer by ChessTempo
Videos
London Chess Classic 2009 | Pairings & results
London Chess Classic 2009 | Standings (’football system’)
London Chess Classic 2009 | Standings (regular system)
A British trio: Englishmen Adams and Short going through their game, with Scottish GM Jonathan Rowson as the host of the commentary
Watching and waiting: Magnus Carlsen and Ni Hua (and Ian Rogers)
Some technical problems at the start - L-R IM Lawrence Trent, Frederic Friedel, Magnus Carlsen, Ni Hua, GM Stephen Gordon and IM Malcolm Pein...
...and then finally the entertaining post-mortem slash commentary by the players
Links
 ShareThis
|  Print
|
Give the Chess Oscar to Carlsen already!!
I second that
Kramnik and Aronian are worthy candidates for it too. It’s the whole year, not just last 4 months, you know.
But I’m sure Carlsen will get it – the most hype is around him.
@muadhib
I`d like to see you explain why they are better candidates than Carlsen…… World Blitz, Nanjing and probably London. Most important of all; he is now the official #1 in the rankings with a 2800+ rating as the youngest ever…..
Whø would deserve it more this year i wonder……. Hit me….
Kramnik:
Melody Amber – 2nd place
Azerbaijan vs. World – highest score
Dortmund – won
Zuerich – won
Tal Memorial – won
Wold Blitz Championship – 4th place
London – 1st or 2nd place
Aronian:
Wijk aan Zee – 2nd place
Linares – 7th place
Melody Amber – won
GP Nalchik – won
France vs. Armenia – 2nd highest score
Chess 960 WC – 2nd place
GP Jermuk – 2nd place
Bilbao – won
Tal Memorial – 4th place
Wold Blitz Championship – 11th place
Carlsen:
Gjovik – 2nd place
Wijk aan Zee – 5th place
Linares – 3rd place
Melody Amber – 4th place
Sofia – 2nd place
Dortmund – 3rd place
Nanjing – won
Tal Memorial – 3rd place
Wold Blitz Championship – won
Oslo – 2nd
London – 1st or 2nd place
Best results in 2009 were achieved by Kramnik!
You can see almost all of the above mentioned results here:
http://cid-ea385817c877cd86.skydrive.live.com/play.aspx/chess%20history/Tournaments/2009%20Gjovik.png?ref=2
Thanks, Muadhib, for compiling these results.
If Carlsen will win in London (as he probably will), I would vote or him; otherwise, the Oscar should go to Kramnik. _If_ Kramnik will win in London then he will have won all three classical tournaments where he participated, _always ahead of Carlsen_ – makes it really questionalble to give the Oscar to Carlsen, doesn’t it? Aronian certainly is a worthy candidate but not this year; the second half of the year has been just dominated by C and K.
@Muadhib. Thanks for making a case for Kramnik like that.
Still, I think the year clearly belongs to the current #1 rated player in the world. If he wins todays game he has achieved the following this year:
-Youngest ever chess world champion (Blitz).
-Second highest rated player in history (ahead of Topalov, needs a win today for this).
-Rated #1 in the world – as the youngest player ever.
-The extreme performance in Naijing is more than a tourney win and should count more than a win from Kramnik where Magnus was a close second. A rating of 3002 was spectacular.
I think the prize should go to Carlsen for these reasons. I think Kramnik is a great second, but nevertheless a clear second.
Age doesn’t have anything to do with Chess Oscar. Chess Oscar is about best performance throughout the 2009, and this is clearly Kramnik (specially if he wins London too – then there can’t be any doubt). But even so there can’t be any doubt. Carlsen is great only from Nanjing. 3/4 of the year 2009 he was not a “winning player”. Kramnik on the other hand has been winning practically everything up until World Blitz.
Good comments Muadhib!
But I think the Oscar will be delt out for achievements rather than just tourney results this year. And because of that I think Spektator makes a great argument here….. It`s all in the way you look at it though…. but I def vote for Carlsen!
Great only from…? I disagree. Linares is something COMPLETELY different than some of the FEW tourneys K has played this year. His Schedule was much tougher than Kramnik’s, he ended the year with three great tourney wins, the highest rating and the youngest WC ever. To still now make the case for Kramnik seems silly IMHO.
Carlsen won nothing before Nanjing. Easy schedule for Kramnik? Better take a look on his opponents. Besides he finished the tournament ahead of Carlsen more times than Carlsen did ahead of him.
What is this youngest WC ever talk? First of all Blitz World Championship is really not that important and prestigious in chess world, and second, Ponomariov was younger when he became FIDE World Champion. And title of FIDE World Champion is more valuable than title of World Blitz champion.
Fine, Carlsen is your choice, but please be more objective when giving values for other players. I don’t really like Kramnik (never did), but the way I see it he performed better than anyone else THROUGHOUT the year 2009. One should look for the whole year 2009, not just the last period.
At the very least, Tal Memorial wasn’t at all easy (and stronger than Linares) … and Kramnik won it – at least the main event, I am one of those who value classical time controls higher than blitz.
A case can also be made for Aronian: After all, he 1) dominated the Grand Prix, 2) won Bilbao (still the tournament of tournament winners), 3) [overlooked or forgotten by Muadhib] won the Mainz rapid event which – until this year – seemed to be “owned” by Anand.
I think the Oscar medal winners are obvious, the order of gold-silver-bronze may be debatable. More controversial IMO: who would be the runners-up (#s 4-10)? Should Nakamura be one of them? I would say objectively spoken not, but there is a “hype factor” … .
Muadhib,
I respect your choice for Kramnik and he has indeed had a great year albeit a rather inactive one. However to say that Kramnik outperformed Carlsen in 2009 is just silly. Kramnik started in 2009 with a rating of 2759 and will have a rating of 2787-2788 by the end of this year. Carlsen started at 2776 and will end the year at 2809-2810. So not only is Carlsens rating much higher than Kramniks, he also managed to gain more rating points in 2009. This on top of the fact that Carlsen has been much more active and has had less time than kramnik to prepare for all of his games. To me this means only one thing. Namely, Carlsen outperformed Kramnik in 2009.
“Carlsen won nothing before Nanjing.”
You seem to imply that it is of crucial importance that one performes well during the different seasons. For the year 2009 Carlsen ended as the strongest player, gained more ELO than Kramnik and won 3 tournaments including a WC. You can keep criticizing him for not being dominant earlier in the year, but it wont matter. He finished ahead of Kramnik for tyhe year of 2009. Well ahead.
“Easy schedule for Kramnik? Better take a look on his opponents. Besides he finished the tournament ahead of Carlsen more times than Carlsen did ahead of him.”
Noone EVER wrote easy schedule. You must not get carried away with something not written.
Here you seem to imply that it is not about playing strength, not about games played against eachother, but relative position in tournies both participated in. That is a very strange and selective criteria for an Oscar IMO. Mind you 13 vs 13 1/5 (!!!!) in melody Amber. A close second in Tal. You are getting nowhere with this silly logic.
“Ponomariov was younger when he became FIDE World Champion. And title of FIDE World Champion is more valuable than title of World Blitz champion.”
Widely not considered a valid championship. Kasparov is almost unanimously considered the youngest ever WC in classical chess.
“Fine, Carlsen is your choice, but please be more objective when giving values for other players.”
I have been and I am. It is you who promote selective criteria like: “Number of relatively higher finishes in same tourney”. You also claim I said K had an EASY schedule. Not true.
“I don’t really like Kramnik (never did), but the way I see it he performed better than anyone else THROUGHOUT the year 2009. One should look for the whole year 2009, not just the last period.”
You again seem to think that the year in total is not important. Your reasoning for picking K is based on strange and very selective criteria: performed well during sprig and fall, had high finishes with the world #1 finishing behind more times than the other way around etc.
BTW. Carlsen not performing well during the start of 2009 is also a very biased statement.
Half a point(!) behind Kramnik in melody amber. Half-point behind Shirov in Mtel. Your statement that he performed well only the fall of 2009 is flawed and based on your bias towards Kramnik.
Strongest player of 2009, highest rated player of 2009, WC blitz of 2009 and 3rd highest rating ever belongs to Magnus. And so does the Oscar; wait and see.
@Repsaccer
You bring in a cruicial point.
The realtively higher sample size of games played by Magnus over Kramnik in 2009 make his (larger) gains in strength even more valid than Kramniks overall gains for 2009.
Please take a look here:
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?pid=210852#pid210852
When you look at Kramnik’s tables most of the times you will find him on top, and if he isn’t you will find him in 2nd place. Only once you have to look further below (to 4th place)
When you look at Carlsen’s tables (before Nanjing) you constantly have to look further below to find him. Only afterwards he was a winning player.
And this is what matters to me. I wonder if your position would be the same if Carlsen would start the year 2009 the way he has ended it, and then had the results he achieved before Nanjing. I somehow don’t think you would be so strongly for Carlsen then.
P.S.: I already said that Carlsen will most likely win the Oscar (although I still think that he shouldn’t).
“Please take a look here:
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?pid=210852#pid210852
When you look at Kramnik’s tables most of the times you will find him on top, and if he isn’t you will find him in 2nd place. Only once you have to look further below (to 4th place)
When you look at Carlsen’s tables (before Nanjing) you constantly have to look further below to find him. Only afterwards he was a winning player.”
Your problem is that you are relying on a set of data (7 tourneys) and the relative positioning in these, when the true data (ELO and sample size) is right there and much more reliable mathematically to estimate the achivement.
You also forget that Magnus has about 60%(!!!) more tourneys than K. This allows for him to have a larger spread of his results. K on the other hand could be criticized for having a too small sample of games. You nevertheless place blind faith in evaluating the “stability” which is HARDER bc of the much smaller sample.
SO: Why not go directly to the mathematically most reliable source? The gain in ELO and total ELO +(!!) 3 tourney wins, a feather in his cap (Blitz WC), and the world’s number 1 rated player.
“And this is what matters to me. I wonder if your position would be the same if Carlsen would start the year 2009 the way he has ended it, and then had the results he achieved before Nanjing. I somehow don’t think you would be so strongly for Carlsen then.”
Why not! Like before: gain in ELO and total ELO +(!!) 3 tourney wins, a feather in his cap (Blitz WC), and the world’s number 1 rated player.
“P.S.: I already said that Carlsen will most likely win the Oscar (although I still think that he shouldn’t).”
Yes. This is because some people continue arguing, using strange data, that the world is flat. The rest of us know it isn’t and the Oscar will of course go to MC.
Since you are talking ELO…
If we only take classical games then:
Carlsen scored 61% against 2738 rated opposition making a performance of 2816 (73 games)
Kramnik scored 65% against 2733 rated opposition making a performance of 2841 (26 games)
In classical tournaments Kramnik finished ahead of Carlsen twice (in Dortmund and Tal Memorial), while Carlsen finished ahead of Kramnik once (in London)
When taking all tournaments into account Kramnik finished ahead of Carlsen 3 times, Carlsen finished ahead of Kramnik twice. When Carlsen was ahead of Kramnik, Kramnik was always right behind him, when Kramnik was ahead of Carlsen there was always one player between them.
And we can go on like this all day.
When I look on those tables I see Kramnik in front, and you don’t. Just leave it at that.
Only classical games count on the rating. ELO calculations, both of ELO growth and total ELO are already made. Are you implying that FIDE suddenly started to include blitz in the ratings? I dont get it.
“In classical tournaments Kramnik finished ahead of Carlsen twice (in Dortmund and Tal Memorial), while Carlsen finished ahead of Kramnik once (in London)
When taking all tournaments into account Kramnik finished ahead of Carlsen 3 times, Carlsen finished ahead of Kramnik twice. ”
“when Kramnik was ahead of Carlsen there was always one player between them.”
First off you use the word ALWAYS talking about a puny sample of three tourneys. This speaks volumes about your bias. Secondly you say “between”, hiding the fact that Magnus was second in Tal. Well done. And then: How about, when Magnus won in Moscow he was more points ahead of Kramnik than Kramnik ever has been ahead of Magnus or any other second OR third? Or: Magnus won in Naijing 2.5 points ahead of Topalov (higher rated than K), something K has NEVER done?
“And we can go on like this all day.”
Sad but true.
When I look on those tables I see Kramnik in front, and you don’t. Just leave it at that.
He is not even ranked 2nd in the world. You obsess about three small tourneys out of 11! played by Magnus, and you draw false conclusions that are in line with your personal views. Disgusting when you use the word “always”. So revealing.
How about the following “true” statement: Half the time Magnus beats K in tourneys K is more than 5(!) points behind.
First, no need to quote everything because I know perfectly well what I wrote.
They played more games in blitz tournament than in all other tournaments combined and now you want to make a case that Carlsen was so many point ahead of Kramnik in that tournament???
But just leaver it. I don’t see any sence to discuss about this any further.
Funny, after Topalov won in San Louis and many startted to talk about his greatness, I played it down and said “let’s wait and see”. I was of course imediatelly proclaimed as con-Topalov. When before Topalov-Kramnik match I said that I consider Ttopalov as a legitimate champion, i was of course imediatelly accused of being pro-Topalov and con-Kramnik. After Anand won in Mexico, and I said I see no reason why Kramnik should be entitled to a “rematch” and many still considered Kramnik as legitimate champion, I was again proclaimed con-Kramnik. When I said that Carlsen’s loss to Nakamura in blitz tournament doesn’t mean Nakamura is better than Carlsen, I got accused of being against Nakamura and pro-Carlsen. Funny now I’m accused of being pro-Kramnik and against Carlsen. People you need to make up your minds
Muadhib,
If you want to talk ELO you need to be compare Kramniks last 73 games to Carlsens 73 this year. I’m 100% sure i know who performed better. Or are you suggesting it’s better to have one win against a 2800 player in one year and no losses than having a 90% win record in 100 games against the same 2800 player? If you think the previous, maybe you should invent your own style chess prize with you as the only judge since i don’t think many people will see it your way.
From the Rybka forum quoted above:
“Kramnik played 3 rated tournaments (Dortmund, Tal Memorial, London) and Carlsen 7 (Wijk aan Zee, Linares, M-Tel, Dortmund, Nanjing, Tal Memorial, London).”
This makes me lean towards Carlsen. Also this is he year that Carlsen has “arrived” and established himself as the top dog (not just based on rating).
“First, no need to quote everything because I know perfectly well what I wrote.”
OK. Not everything then.
“They played more games in blitz tournament than in all other tournaments combined and now you want to make a case that Carlsen was so many point ahead of Kramnik in that tournament???”
Not the point. You made a formulation like a general rule stating that K “always” won with Carlsen always more than one behind based on three tourneys you picked out. I then made a similar and equally silly statement to prove how reults can be manipulated.
Funny how you suddenly picked up interest in number of games and statistical relevant info. That is all covered in the ELO argument btw.
“I was again proclaimed con-Kramnik. When I said that Carlsen’s loss to Nakamura in blitz tournament doesn’t mean Nakamura is better than Carlsen, I got accused of being against Nakamura and pro-Carlsen. Funny now I’m accused of being pro-Kramnik and against Carlsen. People you need to make up your minds ”
Maybe you are frequently misunderstood due to your misunderstanding of general principles for assessing player strength/accomplishments?
Look into that…
It wasn’t me who started talking about ELO. And if we are talking about ELO than we can’t take blitz, rapid and blindfold, can we
We can only talk about classical and this is what I did. And now you say I manuipulated data.
Make up your mind.
Muadhib
If you don’t want to spin the data towards an outcome you want, maybe you can at least answer these:
Who played stronger over the last 73 games?
What is better? Going 1-0 against 2800 in a whole year or going 90-10 against 2800 in the same year?
“Who played stronger over the last 73 games?”
Most likely Carlsen. But Chess Oscar is only being rewarded for year 2009.
“What is better? Going 1-0 against 2800 in a whole year or going 90-10 against 2800 in the same year?”
2nd.
But why don’t you ask Rothschild and his “mathematically reliable source” the same question
What does mathematics say? 
“Who played stronger over the last 73 games?”
Most likely Carlsen. But Chess Oscar is only being rewarded for year 2009.
“What is better? Going 1-0 against 2800 in a whole year or going 90-10 against 2800 in the same year?”
2nd.
But why don’t you ask Rothschild and his “mathematically reliable source” the same question What does mathematics say?
____________
I say you’re neglecting the fact that one had the biggest INcrease in ELO and one has the bigger, in fact the biggEST, ELO in the world.
As for the Blitz not being included in ELO: One is world champ 2009 scoring 8-0 against the top four(!!!) and one is not.
The end.