2012 Chess Olympiad
Reports | June 22, 2011 0:43

Carlsen wins Kings' Tournament on tie-break

Carlsen wins Kings' Tournament on tie-breakCo-leaders Magnus Carlsen and Sergey Karjakin drew their last-round game on Tuesday at the King's Tournament in Medias, Romania. It was Carlsen who finished first on tie-break, and so the Norwegian retained his Kings' title from last year. Vassily Ivanchuk finished with an excellent victory against Hikaru Nakamura while Teimour Radjabov and Liviu-Dieter Nisipeanu ended their tournament with a draw.

General info

The Kings Tournament took place June 11-21 at the Natural Gas Documentation and Information Centre in Medias, Romania. Magnus Carlsen, Vassily Ivanchuk, Sergey Karjakin, Hikaru Nakamura, Teimour Radjabov and Liviu-Dieter Nisipeanu played a double round-robin with one rest day after five rounds. The rate of play was 2 hours for 40 moves, then 1 hour for 20 moves and then 15 minutes to finish the game, with a 30-second increment after move 60. No draws were allowed before move 30.

Round 10

For 19 games Magnus Carlsen had been undefeated at the Kings' Tournament, and so the Norwegian obviously wanted to keep that status. However, he did try a bit to win that very last game against Sergey Karjakin, but without taking too much risk. In this game White seemed to have a tiny advantage after the opening, but Black's strong 20th move proved otherwise. In fact if Sergey Karjakin hadn't 'blundered Nf6+', as he said himself, he could have play on...

On his blog, Carlsen stated:

I’d like to forget my game against co-leader S.Karjakin as quickly as possible. On another off-day (the first was round 6 against Nakamura), I really missed a lot and quickly squandered my slight opening advantage. Knowing that a draw would provide the 1st prize on better tie-break and 1st place on the July 1, 2011 FIDE rating list, the result itself was fully acceptable today. Karjakin, also on 6.5 points, played very well and moves up the rating list to 4th. (...)

And so to determine the winner of the 5th Kings' Tournament, it was necessary to have a look at what the regulations said in case of a tie:

  • A greater number of wins.
  • The result of the direct mini-matches between contenders.
  • Berger.
  • (...)

Both Carlsen and Karjakin won three games, and they drew both games against each other. 'Berger' refers to the Sonneborn-Berger system or Neustadtl score, which is calculated by adding the sum of the conventional scores of the players they have defeated to half the sum of the conventional scores of those they have drawn against. The final column of the standings table (below) shows this score, and it turns out that Carlsen ended on 0.25 more.

The press conference with Karjakin and Carlsen

The press conference with Karjakin and Carlsen

Karjakin couldn't have bothered too much about this outcome, since the prize money was shared, and the Moscovite gained the much desired invitation to the Grand Slam Masters Final which will be held in September-October in Sao Paulo and Bilbao. There he will face Carlsen again, and also Vishy Anand and Hikaru Nakamura - the other two participants still have to be confirmed.

After his game Teimour Radjabov entered the press room with a big smile. The Azerbaijani had finished with his 9th draw, against Liviu-Dieter Nisipeanu, but more importantly, he had survived a problematic position. The game, which started in a rare line of the Caro-Kann, had been quite interesting, but in the final position Nisipeanu could have played on. The Romanian declared that he had missed a certain queen move, and was disappointed, but at the same time cheerful as always.

Radjabov and Nisipeanu

Radjabov and Nisipeanu looking at some funny variations

Vassily Ivanchuk entered the press room with an even bigger smile on his face. The Ukrainian, who had looked quite unhappy over the last few days and skipped a few 'daily briefings', this time didn't hesitate at all and immediately agreed to explain his fine positional victory over Hikaru Nakamura.

Ivanchuk-Nakamura

Ivanchuk-Nakamura, with the first move executed by organizer Dan Gabar

The American tweeted afterwards:

With some well timed blunders, I turned a mediocre result into an unmitigated disaster! (...)

Don't miss especially this last video with Ivanchuk below, where he explains how he was inspired to play 1.d4 and why he was thinking about Marshall, Lasker, Botvinnik and Bronstein!

And so the final standings of this event look a bit strange. Carlsen and Karjakin finished shared first on +3, while Radjabov and Nakamura finished shared third, on -1! Nisipeanu and Ivanchuk scored -2. These standings reminded tournament winner Carlsen of Linares 2001, also a six-player, double round robin (with Kasparov, Polgar, Leko, Shirov, Karpov and Grischuk) where Kasparov finished first with +5 and the other players all scored -1.

For Carlsen the next event will be Biel. Karjakin will soon be playing at the World Team Championship in Ningbo, China. Ivanchuk will be there as well, but before that the Ukrainian participates in the Greek Team Championship.

Videos

 

Games round 10 - notes by GM Dorian Rogozenco

Game viewer by ChessTempo

Kings Tournament 2011 | Schedule & results
Kings Tournament 2011 - full schedule
Kings Tournament 2011 | Round 10 (final) standings


Please note that according to the second tie-break (number of wins) the 5th place in Kings's Tournament is Ivanchuk and the 6th is Nisipeanu. Because our script for creating tables looks at SB points, the 5th and 6th places are inverted.

Karjakin

And the co-winners are... Sergey Karjakin...

Carlsen

...and Magnus Carlsen (who got the biggest trophy!)

Photos © Ionut Anisca

Link

Share |
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.

SmartChess! - Revolutionize your game

2012 Chess Olympiad

Comments

szoker's picture

0,25 is sooo close !!!

Good Job Carlsen and Karjakin, thanks for an exciting finish ;)

and congratulations Carlsen for winning this strong tournament.

The Golden Knight's picture

Carlsen has won almost every tournament he is playing in. Still some people say that he is not the best. I don´t understand that!

Janis Nisii's picture

Okay, can we say that Carslen has been a tiny little bit lucky w/o having Magnus fans freaking out? :D
Funny that he also has a lower performance than Karijakin, but due to his won hight Elo maybe this was inevitable.
Impressing performance by both the kids (or they're not kids anymore?...humm)

gg's picture

Carlsen is always lucky :-) But he was very solid throughout and it was Karjakin that faced Ivanchuk on his by far worst days. It says something about how well the top two played when solid and strong top players like Nakamura and Radjabov are so far behind them without playing particularly badly.

jussu's picture

Of course the one having higher ELO has inevitably lower performance rating with equal points in a round robin. And no, I would not use the word "kid" with anyone older than, say, 15 years; it becomes insulting at some point.

Janis Nisii's picture

I know 'kid' doesn't apply to a 20-year-old young men, and that's exactly why I've added my rethorical question. ;)
I don't think that it's always an insult though, it depends on who says it and how :)
This reminds me that I've joked about it with Karjakin himself at Melody Amber: I told him that even if he's married and even when he will have 12 children, he'll always remain a kid to me because I remember his pictures when he was a tiny little cute boy. We laughed about it and he didn't seem offended at all ;)

Lobster's picture

Of course "kid" is not an insult. They're all kids to me, as are my grown up sons.

S3's picture

Even if Carlsen and Karjakin had the same rating atm the latter would have the highest TPR, simply because Ivanchuk has/had a higher rating than Nakamura.
But TPR wasn't a tie breaker. Nor was wins with black - in that case too Karjakin would have won. I think SB is the most fair tie breaker of the three, but in the end it is all pretty arbitrary.

jussu's picture

No, in that case, they would have had exactly equal TPR.

S3's picture

d*mn, you know :(

columbo's picture

Sure ! magnus was lucky ! especially yesterday, when Ivantchuk collapsed !!!

Janis Nisii's picture

woops the word 'won' appeared in my post from outer space, sorry :)

Janis Nisii's picture

and the typo hight for high too... sorry again!

adam's picture

you may wanna consider your typesetting too ;)
btw, congrats to both magnus and sergey

Janis Nisii's picture

Yeah adam, I'll consider it when you show me your skills in Italian ;)

Csaba's picture

I still don't understand what "... got lucky" means in chess terms. I guess you can say that you're lucky if your opponent is out of shape (e.g. plays so bad that you can beat him in 22 moves), but nothing is ever so clear-cut. It is worth noting, though, that in chess there are no dice involved and you have all relevant information to the position readily available by looking at the board.

Janis Nisii's picture

Don't know if you're asking me, but since I said Magnus was lucky, I'll explain anyway: I wasn't referring to his overall performance, which in fact I've defined as 'impressive', but to his win by tie breaks. Tie breaks, in fact are in general a bit of a lottery, but in this case the *first two* (=most relevant ones) were equal and only the third one was decisive to tell them apart by a very small margin. It could have been Carlsen or Karjakin as far as merit was concerned, if the 0.25 falls by one side or another is only decided by luck, because there's absolutely nothing you can do during the tournament to play in order to win according to the third tie break method by such a small margin...it's pure luck! :) I'm not saying that he doesn't deserve it of course, I'm just saying that Karjakin deserves it exactly like him. We don't always have to break the ties, IMVHO.

Arne Moll's picture

I completely agree, Janis. If I didn't know Peter I would even say "Carlsen wins on tie-break" is a misleading title because it suggests Carlsen actually beat Karjakin in rapid or blitz to decide first place, which is not the case. He didn't do anything to win the tie-break except, well, being lucky. Still, a great performance by both youngsters! (I guess that's the appropriate word..)

gg's picture

Grischuk won Linares 2009 on tiebreak and that was the usual headline then:

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5271

gg's picture

Chessvibes had the same policy then too, by the way:

http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/grischuk-wins-linares-2009-on-tiebreak/

Guidance's picture

Both Karjakin and Carlsen knew very well before the last round that Carlsen had the better tie-break. The only difference was Carlsen beating Nakamura and Karjakin beating Ivanchuk. Even a 1-0 in Ivanchuk-Nakamura in the last round could not chance that. Hence Carlsen needed a draw to win the tournament (and 1st prize), while Karjakin needed to win with black to win overall. There is no reason to assume that the tournament situation did not affect the way the players prepared and went through with the game. Hence the term "luck" is slightly misguided.

Thorn's picture

Sorry Arne, but I completely disagree with you. Yes, he was lucky that the tie-break happened to favor him, but that does not mean that he didn't 'win on tie-break'.

He didn't win 'the tie-break match', as there was none, but he won 'on tie-break' because he beat higher-rated opponents than Karjakin (and fared worse against lower-rated ones), which is what is measured by the SB tie-break.

A tie-break can be anything, even a coin-flip. Doesn't mean you have to like it..

Arne Moll's picture

Thorn, I didn't say he didn't win on tie-break, I said that phrase suggests he won an actual tie-break match. But whatever. Both deserved to win, it's a pity only Carlsen's name will be attached to this one.

Thorn's picture

Ok, point taken. But I also don't see how the phrase would suggest that. But we can simply file that under 'different perceptions' and move on to the bigger and greater things...like chocolate cake!

Csaba's picture

No, it is not pure luck. Carlsen won the tie-break because he won against better players (he beat Nakamura) and drew against weaker players (one more draw vs Ivanchuk - I know he is not a weak player, but in this tournament he was weaker than Nakamura, at least theoretically). Now it is debateable whether actually this logic is valid (that the Berger system is based upon). I would be inclined to say that it is. Pure luck is the roulette wheel system from 1984. Berger is not pure luck.

flshstar's picture

Aren't you guys nit picking a little bit? Carlsen won according to the tournament rules of this particular tournament, period.. Should have, could have, would have? Give him his due credit and get over it. Move on till the next tournament! Congratulation to Carlsen and Karjakin.
If any of you who are whining and claimed that Carlsen was just lucky, not because of his skill for winning the tournament. Do you think any of you will win this tournanment base on luck and not skill? Get real!

Janis Nisii's picture

@fishstar: You should try and understand what people are saying, you know? Concentrate better. Me and Arne (I think) are not claiming that Carlsen didn't deserve his win, but that sometimes it would be better to have joint winners. Clearer now?
Also (in reply to other people), trying to make lots of sense out of tie breaks system (and especially combinations of those...even worse) it's a bit of a wishful thinking.

noi that van phong's picture

I think "joint winners" are more exact than "tie-break", personally my opinion is that tie-break is to play more to "break the tie" like in tennis you have to lead 2 clear point to win tie break. This is nothing to devalue Carlsen's achivement, he has been fantastic for 5 years and will be so in the future. I hope to see Karjakin to improve and challenge Carlsen very soon.

flshstar's picture

@Janiis--You were insinuating that Carlsen just got lucky because of the tie break rules favored him not because of his skill that got him in that position to begin with. Apparently, the tournament directors do not agree with your opinion that two joint winners is better than one, hence the rules and regulation was in place in case of a tie before the tournanment started and everyone there seems to understand that except you. Is everything clear to you now?

Oliver's picture

Indeed, Carlsen skillfully realized that his win against Nakamura will be worth more than Karjakin's second win against Ivanchuk. He did so as early as round one, anticipating what happened in the next two rounds:
Nakamura - Nisipeanu 1-0 (not an upset, but only a genius like Carlsen could foresee that Nisi will blunder in a drawn position)
Nisipeanu - Ivanchuk 1-0 (quite an upset, in hindsight the start of Ivanchuk's collapse).

Actually Karjakin was lucky that the organizers didn't reward Carlsen's brilliant tournament concept, but split the prize money equally between both players.

Janis Nisii's picture

@fishstar: not understanding something that has been explained accurately is already irritating, but I always accept mistunderstanding and the possibility that I could have expressed myself better.
Insisting on making up MY mind after I've explicitely and directly said that I never implied that Carslen didn't win because of his skills, like you're doing, is really a lack of politeness and intelligence on your side and it is really disturbing. Is it your 15 minutes of fame you are searching here?
The torunament regulations were perfectly clear to me, and I've never wrote a single word that showed I didn't, so, by specifying this, again, you've been even more disturbing.
Why are you underlying the fact that I have a different opinion from tournament directors? You want to win the 'Mister Obvious' contest or you think that those people are more qualified than I am hence I can't express my opinion?
Because in the second case, first I don't feel I have less qualifications, second, I live in a country where the possibility to express opinions is granted to everyone by our constitution.
Now, if you can realease your pawns off me and drop, I'd be grateful :D

flshstar's picture

@Janis Nisii-- Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Your expressed yours and I did mine. But for you to deny you implied that Carlsen was "Lucky" was a big lie! You need to read your own previous post again and try to understand it without your impulse to discredit his accomplishment,. you wrote "Carlsen was Lucky! I am not saying he did not deserved it but..." then you went on and on on why you think its a lottery. You're flip-flopping with your comment, basically you implied Carlsen was lucky! Base on your very disturbing, hostile reply and name calling. You showed your lack of intelligence and politeness also. On that note, I rest my case Just my opinion.

columbo's picture

i enjoyed this tourney VERY MUCH ! thanks

Morley's picture

Glad to see Ivanchuk play such a great game at the end. Well done!

Carlsen and Kramnik are clearly in another class, finishing 2 points ahead of the field (no one else even finished at 50%). I can't even think of a game where either player had a significantly worse position than their opponent. Well done, both of them! The next rating list is going to have quite big changes.

Thomas's picture

Is it a compliment to Karjakin that you confuse him with Kramnik?? :)

@Janis Nisii above: Yes, currently it's inevitable that Karjakin's TPR is a bit higher than Carlsen's, if both score the same number of points - this may change in the future if Karjakin overtakes Magnus on the rating list (which I personally don't rule out).

@gg: I still think that, in the second half of the tournament, Carlsen and Karjakin both faced Ivanchuk during his worst hours - the only difference being Chucky's "timing": from the start of the game vs. after the first time control. But "luck" just refers to the very minor difference in Sonneborn-Berger. I hope this doesn't translate into a big difference in prize money (which can still be equally shared, even if there is a perceived need for a sole official winner). And good IMO that it doesn't decide the Bilbao invitation: Carlsen already qualified, now it will be very strange indeed if the organizers neglect/ignore Karjakin.

Morley's picture

Yes! Sorry, I meant Karjakin!

Peter Doggers's picture

Don’t miss especially the last video with Ivanchuk (already uploaded), where he explains how he was inspired to play 1.d4 and why he was thinking about Marshall, Lasker, Botvinnik and Bronstein!

jmd85146's picture

Carlsen and Karjakin were clearly the best players in this tournament so a shared victory is a nice outcome.

arkan's picture

27 ratingpoints won, and only 26 lost! It's a miracle !

Great tournament though, Karjakin and Carlsen should play in the same tournaments more often, the rivalry willl boost them both

columbo's picture

Now you talk !!!

unknown's picture

Poor Naka: "With some well timed blunders, I turned a mediocre result into an unmitigated disaster! Time to focus on the WSOP now!".

http://twitter.com/#!/GMHikaru

Andreas's picture

Always your loyal fan Vassily....

bhabatosh's picture

what a game by Ivanchuk ! just for the books ...
Who will tell the opponent was Nakamura , he just suffocated him !

ebutaljib's picture

Message to those who followed the games on Chessbomb, specially Csaba:

ebutaljib jumped into the river :)

S3's picture

Around 13:30 in the video on Carlsen-Karjakin it's very funny to see how they react when a tactic is pointed out that they both missed.

S3's picture

Also special how Rogazenko and Karjakin talk about how he wasn't worse in any game except against Radjabov, when in fact he was a pawn down against Carlsen (although it was still a draw). Bad memory for a GM :)

But the vid with Ivanchuk is just hilarious.

Thomas's picture

Exact words matter - Rogozenko said "in no game you [Karjakin] were in danger of losing", which is probably true: Being a pawn down doesn't mean you're lost. Indeed in the Ruy Lopez black often chooses to be a pawn down to hold the nominally inferior ending comfortably and confidently - in the Schliemann (this time) or Marshall (many earlier games). The obvious difference is that Karjakin had white and the game didn't quite go according to plan or home analysis, still he wasn't in danger of losing.

Also interesting that Rogozenko said "both players won the event" and Carlsen mentioned shared first. It seems that Carlsen cares less about 0.25 Sonneborn-Berger points (could have been more at that stage if Ivanchuk hadn't beaten Nakamura later on) than some of his fans?

rogge's picture

>It seems that Carlsen cares less about 0.25 Sonneborn-Berger points (could have been more at that stage if Ivanchuk hadn’t beaten Nakamura later on) than some of his fans?

Which fans are you referring to?

Trying to be funny? It didn't work at Mig's, doesn't work here either.

Great performances by Karjakin and Carlsen. The future of chess, as we witness the decline of Kramnik and Topalov.

gg's picture

I doubt that any Carlsen fan cares, it was funny though with all the discussion also after London with many being upset about the tiebreak rules. If you compare with the discussion after Grischuk won Linares 2009 from the link I posted not a single person commented about the tiebreaks or talked about shared first then but everyone just congratulated Grischuk for the victory and no one mentioned Ivanchuk. Strictly speaking I'd count all these as shared firsts myself.

Thomas's picture

Well, I interpreted comments from you and rogge in the previous thread ("Carlsen just needs a draw to win the event") as if you did care - and it's safe to say that you're both Carlsen fans. Interesting how different webpages "deal with the situation" in their headlines:

Chessbase: "Carlsen-Karjakin draw, Carlsen wins Medias 2011" (not yet mentioning tiebreaks). In the report, they state with confidence that "Kariakin qualifies for the Grand Slam Masters Final in Sao Paulo/Bilbao".

Chessdom: "Carlsen and Karjakin share first at Grand Slam Bazna Carlsen declared winner on SB tiebreak" - later mentioning that "Karjakin most probably secured a place in the Grand Slam Final in Sao Paulo and Bilbao"

Chessmind: "Carlsen, Karjakin Draw, Tie for First" - as you already pointed out, Dennis Monokroussos writes that tiebreaks "seems silly to me [him]". At earlier occasions, Carlsen fans called him a Carlsen hater - but today it is, IMO, safe to say that his opinion doesn't depend on which players were involved.

Chessvibes is closest to Chessbase - mentioning tiebreaks in the headline, but not mentioning Karjakin.

It's all rather irrelevant as it didn't affect the Bilbao qualification (which was the case between Grischuk and Ivanchuk at Linares 2009). I still wonder if there would have been a tiebreak match if the win had been shared between two players who didn't pre-qualify (any of Karjakin, Radjabov, Ivanchuk, [Nisipeanu]). The only open question is how the prize money was split - maybe Peter Doggers knows as he's at the scene?

Pages

Your comment

By posting a comment you are agreeing to abide our Terms & Conditions

Latest articles