Reports | April 23, 2008 15:45

[lang_nl]Terug naar af: ronde 2[/lang_nl][lang_en]Back to start: round 2[/lang_en]

[lang_nl]En zo is er alweer een dag voorbijgevlogen. Veel gebeurd, veel geleerd, en van gedachten veranderd. Ik zal toch mijn rondeverslagen ook hier publiceren, opdat nog meer mensen zullen lezen waar ik in Bakoe mee bezig ben.[/lang_nl][lang_en]And before we know it, another day has passed. Much has happened, much I learnt, and changed my mind. I'll publish my round reports here as well anyway, so that even more peope will read what I'm writing in Baku.[/lang_en]


[lang_nl]Op de tweede dag verliep het allemaal wat soepeler gelukkig. Hieronder mijn rondeverslag voor de toernooiwebsite; ik ga nog uitzoeken hoe ik precies de video's kan invoegen.

Een goede tweede ronde met drie beslissingen en toch is er geen speler meer over met een honderdprocentscore. Adams, Inarkiev en Radjabov wonnen gisteren en nu staan Kamsky, Adams, Radjabov en Grischuk bovenaan met 1,5 uit 2. Cheparinov is de enige speler met twee nederlagen.

grischuk-karjakinGrischuk-Karjakin begon veelbelovend, met weer een Pxf7-offer in de Anti-Moskou, maar eindigde plotseling in eeuwig schaak. Grischuk had het gevoel dat hij een voetbalwedstrijd aan het spelen was "met twee of misschien wel drie spelers met een rode kaart", om te beschrijving hoe gehandicapt hij zich voelde door minder goed voorbereid te zijn dan zijn tegenstander. Hij zag de mogelijkheid om door te spelen met Pe4, met of zonder schaakje, maar hij zag 'geen reden om niet te verwachten dat mijn tegenstander perfect verder zou spelen'.

Tijdens de persconferentie na afloop was er een discussie met FIDE officials Geoffrey Borg en Zurab Azmaiparashvili, die aangaven dat het geen zin had om anti-remisemaatregelen en een technisch adviseur te hebben als spelers zetten vermijden waarmee je verder kunt spelen in de partij maar in plaats daarvan voor eeuwig schaak kiezen. Grischuk achtte dit "bullshit" en vond dat hij met een snelle remise met wit wel genoeg gestraft was voor het feit dat hij zich minder goed had voorbereid.

inarkiev-mamedyarovDe eerste beslissing in de ronde viel in Inarkiev-Mamedyarov, waarin de Rus een erg solide opstelling koos met wit tegen de Pirc van de Azeri. Solide betekent ook niet al te gevaarlijk, en zwart stond prima na 11?¢‚Ǩ¬¶Pxe4! en 14?¢‚Ǩ¬¶Df6!. Maar 16?¢‚Ǩ¬¶Rf4 was veel te riskant (16?¢‚Ǩ¬¶Txe1+ 17.Txe7 Ld7 leidt tot remise). "Ik wilde op winst spelen," zei Mamedyarov na afloop. Maar na de uitstekende zet 17.c3! moest zwart een kwaliteit inleveren en zo werd hij het slachtoffer van zijn eigen ambities. Een sterke partij van Inarkiev, dat wel.

svidler-carlsenSvidler-Carlsen was een interessante remise waarin wit een zeldzame variant van het Open Spaans koos. "Ik ging ervan uit dat Magnus zich wel goed zou hebben voorbereid op de variant die ik onlangs tegen Sutovsky heb gespeeld," zei Svidler. Zijn zijvariant pakte goed uit want wit had lange tijd een plusje, gaf Carlsen toe op de persconferentie. Maar Svidler kon geen manier vinden om c2-c3 en Lb3-c2 ergens in te passen, wat hij cruciaal achtte voor tastbaar voordeel.

19?¢‚Ǩ¬¶c5 was sterk want op 20.axb5 komt 20?¢‚Ǩ¬¶c4!. "En na 26.Td8+ Kh7 raakte ik enthousiast over 27.T1d6, maar ik zag niks na 27?¢‚Ǩ¬¶Df5 28.g4 Tc1+ 29.Kg2 Db1" (Svidler). Reagered op de remisediscussie zeiden beide spelers een voorstander te zijn van de Sofia-regel. Svidler benadrukte wel dat het niet bedacht is om remises te voorkomen, maar om snelle remises te voorkomen.

adams-cheparinovNa deze partij kwam er weer een tevreden gezicht de perskamer binnenlopen. Het was Mickey Adams die zojuist Ivan Cheparinov had verslagen in een fraaie, positionele partij - in typische Mickey Adams-stijl mogen we wel zeggen. Hij had het gevoel dat hij steeds iets beter stond maar wist niet zeker waar zwart het fout had gedaan.

Volgens Cheparinov zelf was het de zet 28?¢‚Ǩ¬¶Pb4. Adams voegde daaraan toe dat hij daar 28?¢‚Ǩ¬¶De5 had verwacht. Een serie sterke zetten (30.Df6!, 31.e5!) leidde tot een erg goed toreneindspel dat hij snel tot winst omzette.

wangyue-gashimovDe partij Wang Yue-Gashimov was een nogal ingewikkelde Moderne Benoni. In de eerste helft van de partij kreeg de Chinese speler wat activiteit op beide vleugels met de zetten 14?¢‚Ǩ¬¶g5, 20?¢‚Ǩ¬¶h5 en 26?¢‚Ǩ¬¶b5, maar de grootmeester uit Azerbeidjan reageerde goed met 26.b4! en 30.g4!. De pionnenstructuur werd nogal statisch en dat legde de partij een beetje lam. Snel daarna was het remise en beide spelers waren redelijk tevreden.

kamsky-navaraEen sterk staaltje verdedigen liet David Navara zien, die met twee halfjes met zwart is begonnen - prima natuurlijk. In zijn ontmoeting met Gata Kamsky stond hij steeds iets minder maar hij wist het te houden. Of, zoals hij het zelf zei, "Ik slaagde erin niets weg te blunderen vandaag." Kamsky wist tijdens de persconferentie niet precies waarmee hij meer winstkansen had kunnen verkrijgen. "Ik dacht dat het paardeindspel heel vervelend zou zijn voor zwart." Maar ook daar reageerde Navara heel goed en alle pogingen van Kamsky om zijn tegenstander in de war te brengen waren vergeefs.

bacrot-radjabovDe langste partij van de dag, Bacrot-Radjabov, begon met een theoretische discussie in de Sveshnikov. De nieuwe zet 18.Pc3 veranderde het oordeel van deze variant niet, die zegt dat zwart geen problemen heeft.

Bacrot was duidelijk ontevreden over zijn spel: "Ik speelde erg slecht in de opening en probeerde daarna alleen maar te overleven." Met 22.Pd5 besloot hij een pion te offeren omdat de ongelijke lopers misschien extra remisekansen zouden opleveren. Maar beide spelers vonden dat 27.Lf1 daarna niet goed was, waarna wit echt in groot gevaar kwam. Toch had zwart ook na een andere zet (bijv. 27.Ta3) een eenvoudig doch sterk plan gehad in Ld8-b6-c5 en Db6. Hoewel Radjabov vond dat hij de technische fase beter had kunnen spelen was hij dik tevreden natuurlijk.

radjabov
Teimour Radjabov, wint van Etienne Bacrot

kamsky-navara
David Navara, een goede verdediger

wangyue
Wang Yue, een goede verdediger van China's trots

carlsen
Magnus Carlsen, first seed

Links:

[/lang_nl][lang_en]On the second day everything went smoother, luckily. Here's the round report; I will try to embed the videos as soon as possible.

A good second round saw three decisive games, and still there's no player left with a hundred percent score. Adams, Inarkiev and Radjabov won their games today and now Kamsky, Adams, Radjabov and Grischuk are leading with 1.5/2. Cheparinov is the only player with 0/2.

grischuk-karjakinGrischuk-Karjakin started promising, with another Nxf7 sacrifice in the Anti-Moscow Variation, but then suddenly ended in a perpetual. Grischuk felt like playing a football match "with two or maybe even three players with a red card", to describe the handicap he felt of being less well prepared than his opponent. He saw the possibility to continue with Ne4, with or without check, but he "saw no reason not to expect his opponent to play perfectly".

At the press conference there was discussion with FIDE officials Geoffrey Borg and Zurab Azmaiparashvili, who argued that there's no point in having anti-draw measures and even a technical advisor present at the tournament, when players avoid moves that continue the fight but instead go for perpetual. Grischuk didn't agree and argued he was punished enough for having prepared worse, with a quick draw with White.

inarkiev-mamedyarovThe first decisive game of the round was Inarkiev-Mamedyarov, in which the Russian chose a very solid set-up with White against the Azeri's Pirc Defence. Solid means not too dangerous, and Black was doing all right after 11?¢‚Ǩ¬¶Nxe4! and 14?¢‚Ǩ¬¶Qf6!. But 16?¢‚Ǩ¬¶Rf4 was far too risky, where 16?¢‚Ǩ¬¶Rxe1+ 17.Rxe7 Bd7 would have been equal. "I wanted to play for a win," Mamedyarov said afterwards. But after the excellent move 17.c3! Black loses an exchange, and so he became a victim of his ambitions. A strong game by Inarkiev, however.

svidler-carlsenSvidler-Carlsen was an interesting draw, in which White chose a rare line against Black's Open Ruy Lopez. "I expected Magnus to be well prepared against the line I played against Sutovsky recently," Svidler said. His line worked out well, because White had a slight edge for quite a while, which Carlsen admitted at the press conference. However, Svidler couldn't find a way to get in c2-c3 and Bb3-c2 somewhere, which he considered crucial for getting a tangible advantage.

19?¢‚Ǩ¬¶c5 was strong because after 20.axb5 Black first plays 20?¢‚Ǩ¬¶c4!. "After 26.Rd8+ Kh7 I got excited about 27.R1d6, but after 27?¢‚Ǩ¬¶Qf5 28.g4 Rc1+ 29.Kg2 Qb1 I couldn't find anything." Commenting on the draw discussion, both players said they like the Sofia rule. But Svidler emphasized that it's not invented to prevent draws, but to prevent quick draws.

adams-cheparinovAfter this game, another happy face came into the press room. It was Mickey Adams who had just beaten Ivan Cheparinov in a fine, positional game ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú in fine Mickey Adams style we could say! He felt he had a slight edge all the time, but wasn't sure where Black went wrong.

According to Cheparinov himself, who happens to be on minus two now, it was the move 28?¢‚Ǩ¬¶Nb4. Adams added that he had expected 28?¢‚Ǩ¬¶Qe5 there. A series of strong moves (30.Qf6!, 31.e5!) led to a very good rook ending that was soon coverted to victory.

wangyue-gashimovThe game Wang Yue-Gashimov was a rather difficult Modern Benoni. In the first half of the game, the Azeri GM got some activity on both flanks with the moves 14?¢‚Ǩ¬¶g5, 20?¢‚Ǩ¬¶h5 and 26?¢‚Ǩ¬¶b5, but the Chinese player responded well with 26.b4! and 30.g4!. The pawn structure became fixed, which had a paralyzing effect on the game. A draw was reached soon afterwards. Both players were quite satisfied about their play.

kamsky-navaraA great example of chess defence was given by David Navara, who now has scored two half points out of his first two Black games ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú an excellent start. In his encounter with Gata Kamsky he was slightly worse throughout the game, but managed to save himself. Or, as he put it, "I managed not to blunder anything today." Kamsky was a bit puzzled during the press conference, and wasn't sure where he could have gained more chances for a win. "I thought the knight ending would be very unpleasant for Black." But even there Navara reacted very well, and all of Kamsky's efforts to confuse his opponent in the endgame were fruitless.

bacrot-radjabovThe longest game of the day, Bacrot-Radjabov, started with a theoretical discussion in the Sveshnikov Sicilian. The new move 18.Nc3 did not change the verdict of this line, which says Black has no problems.

Bacrot clearly wasn't satisfied about his play: "I played very badly in the opening and then just tried to survive." With 22.Nd5 he decided to sacrifice a point, because the opposite-coloured bishops would perhaps give some drawing chances. But then both players agreed that 27.Bf1 is a bad move, after White is in real danger. Still, also after a different move (e.g. 27.Ra3), Black would have had an easy but dangerous plan with Bb6-c5 and Qb6. Although Radjabov thought he could have played the technical phase a bit better, he was satisfied of course.

radjabov
Teimour Radjabov, beating Etienne Bacrot

kamsky-navara
David Navara, a good defender

wangyue
Wang Yue, a good defender of Chinese pride

carlsen
Magnus Carlsen, first seed

Links:

[/lang_en]

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

Janis Nisii's picture

@Tilde
"And I do think that?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s a general problem with chess journalism [...] in order to get and keep access, the journalists avoid all tough questions."

I would push it even further and say this is a general problem with journalism. It's true in every sport and in every field (politics and economics, for example.)
How can a journalist do a good job if he/she doesn?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t have access to information? And, on the other hand, how can a journalist be independent if, in order to get and keep access to information, he/she has to avoid thorny questions and can?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t express opinions against the people/organizations/powers that can grant that access? And not just that. Journalists suffer from many other restraints, for example publishers?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ guidelines (how can you express your independent voice if you don?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t get published/paid?), pleasing the general public (how can you be somebody who counts if the only readers you have are your mom, dad and cousin?)
I?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢m afraid we?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢re off topic here, and the topic is a bit complex, but of course there are ways out of these vicious circles and the journalistic world expressed figures who developed an authoritative voice that granted them independence from those restraints.
Peter and Macauley could well be on their way to get to that goal, who knows? In the meanwhile, I would wait and see what Macauley has to say about it on Watson?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s Chess Talk.

P. Naekel's picture

Wikipedia: "Journalism is the discipline of gathering, writing and reporting news [...]."

You can't do the exact same work and call it non-journalistic afterwards. It's like a doctor who sells placebos in his spare time and excuses this with "not doing it as a doctor". It's simply against the ethics of your profession. Expecially if you are using the same channels to communicate your work. Put it on a special "sponsored by xyz" page or tag it with "infomercial" or something like that. Otherwise IT IS bad journalism.

Clifford's picture

Leontxo Garcia asked quite a few hard questions about short draws at the Mexico World Championship - it doesn't seem to have affected his access or commentary opportunites.
Chess tournament organisers frequently offer perks to journalists and they tend to expect something in return. Presumably if Danailov does not like what you write about him then no free accommodation at the Mtel tournament for you.
Some tournaments, like Amber and Baku, go one better by actually employing some journalists. So Peter knows that is he asks the players in Nice whether they feel like clowns performing for a rich patron rather than serious chessplayers, he knows he may not be invited back for the job the following year. But since Peter makes it quite clear in his reports who employs him, no reasonable observer can complain if he chooses not to offend anyone.
The press agency AP has a policy that their journalists cannot accept hospitality from the organisers of an event they are covering. Whether chess journalists can afford to maintain such principles is a question perhaps only people such as Macauley and Peter can answer.

Steve Giddins's picture

MR GEOFFREY BORG - AN APOLOGY

I have received news from a third party that I owe Mr Borg an apology for my previous posting. I wrote that "he has ZERO credibility, when he is prepared to employ such a person [as Azmai]". I am now informed that Mr Borg did not employ Azmai at the tournament in Baku, but the latter's involvement was in fact imposed on Mr Borg by FIDE.

I can only apologise unreservedly to Mr Borg for this error on my part. What I should have said, of course, is that he has ZERO credibility, when he is prepared to enter into commercial arrangements with an organisation like FIDE, knowing full well that this is likely to involve dealing with the likes of Azmaiparashvili

My source also informs me that Mr Borg declared me to be "persona non grata" at future FIDE events. I have not had this confirmed by Mr Borg, so I only have the third party's word for this. However, if it is true, I should like to thank Mr Borg for this signal honour. I esteem it a great compliment to be declared persona non grata by such a fine, upstanding body of men as FIDE / Global Chess.

All that is needed now, to make my happiness complete, is for Mr Gerry Walsh and his colleagues at the Egregious Chess Federation to take a similar step in relation to ECF events. I would then feel able to retire gracefully from the chess world, serene in the knowledge that I had achieved everything a man of integrity could hope to achieve in this small, but perfectly-formed, area of the world.

Macauley Peterson's picture

Wow! Great thread!

@ Molto Tildes: You're right, and I concede the point. To pay appropriate homage to Colbert, I should have asked, "Amber Melody, bad tournament, or the worst tournament?" Unfortunately, that wouldn't have been understood by the players either (or the Association Max Euwe!) Maybe it was just a dumb idea. It happens. I thought it was funny at the time. Interesting that only Ivanchuk got the joke, no?!

And I missed the Wiki ~~~~ thing, though I've had to do the same on occasion. My bad.

@ P. Naekel

Again, it's not that I disagree, just that I'd say journalism is not my "profession" (at least not yet) in the same way that medicine is a doctors. Doctors need medical degrees. Journalists don't necessarily need to go to J-school. Doctors sometimes hock brand-name drugs because Big Pharma sent them samples. Chess quasi-journalists sometimes throw out soft-ball questions to get a player smiling for the camera. I'm not sure it rises to the level of an ethics question, but I know it's something to be cognizant about, and I appreciate any and all thoughtful critiques of my work.

Cheers!

-Macauley

Ines's picture

@ Steve Giddins

AMEN, MY BROTHER!!! You just got yourself a very big fan here.

@ Euwe

Sorry but, are you new in this? Because I am, and even I know that FIDE belongs to a group of people leadered by Mr. Ilyumzhinov, who are certainly not "the chess players of the world". Otherwise, to put an example, the substitutes of the players who refused playing in the Grand Prix would have been the first in the reserve list, and not those that Ilyumzhinov chose at will from the list, as it actually happened. THAT is not a federation at the service of chess players, in my opinion.

Euwe's picture

Why is this Grischuk game so bad? I don't see it. It's his game, his risk, his decision. If somebody wants to play on in that position, let him try to play Karjakin and see what happens. It's such nonsense. It's an important tournament, let's please give the players some credit for the professional choices they're making. And if FIDE or Azmai doesn't approve of it, maybe they should find a different sport.

~~~~'s picture

The Grischuk situation is bad, of course.

Why? In that position taking a perpetual was probably White's best option, so that's what he did. I support Sofia rules, but a repetition is a repetition is a repetition, and I see no fundamental difference between this one and the perpetual at the end of Karjakin-Navara. Should Navara have avoided that?

Azmaiparashvili can be ignored; he is, after all, a dunderhead.

Surely these fearless journalists could not have been influenced by the fact that they were there at the invitation of ?¢‚Ǩ¬¶er, Global Chess?

Yeah, that's a bit of a problem. At the end of the tournament will they - like that journalist who was invited by the Amber tournament - ask the players "Baku Grand Prix - a great tournament, or: the greatest tournament"?

peter's picture

Wow... wait a minute, Steve. Being invited by Global Chess means that I'm actually working for them and being paid to do the job of creating the best possible tournament website, together with my media team colleagues. This means I'm not in fact a journalist here. I can write for ChessVibes in my (limited) spare time of course, but that's a different thing.

Jorn's picture

Quote: "the Chinese player got some activity on both flanks with the moves 14?¢‚Ǩ¬¶g5, 20?¢‚Ǩ¬¶h5 and 26?¢‚Ǩ¬¶b5, but the Azeri GM responded well with 26.b4! and 30.g4!."

Wang yue was white and Gashimov was black.

Macauley Peterson's picture

Dear ~~~~, (or may I call you just "tilde," for short? Thanks.) ;)

Dear Tilde,

As the aforementioned "that journalist" at Amber, let me say that you have an excellent point. But, hey, why not to make it openly rather than cowardl...err...anonymously? We don't bite. (At least *I* don't -- I can't speak for my Amber partner Peter...)

You're referring to "The Closing" video.

I won't argue that it was a journalistic question, but as Peter mentions, although we sometimes work in a journalistic vein, we weren't there as journalists. Moreover, it's worth pointing out that I was actually asking that particular "great or greatest question" as a nod to the inimitable Stephen Colbert, who asks similar questions to many of his guests. Obviously, you're not a fan.

I work for ICC. Am I a journalist? Maybe. I could argue both sides. I'm actually planning to discuss this quasi-journalism on an upcoming Chess Talk with John Watson. Feel free tune in and send me feedback.

And who knows, maybe even try graduating to a respectable (or at least pronounceable) pseudonym next time!

-Macauley

Eiae's picture

If a perpetual is the best continuation for somebody, then that is what he should do. I do not see the logic behind demanding players to play inferior chess just to keep the game going. If they do not like the rule on perpetual, they should change it. They have the right to have their views on it, of course, just bad timing to express them during the tournament, in my opinion.

The Giddins comments are hilarious as always, get a grip.

~~~~'s picture

correction: "where my name does not show up"

Marvol's picture

I've already raved about this farce on chessgames dot com, won't repeat that here entirely.
My main point is that 'dunderhead' has can talk easy, with his chess engines running telling him that playing on was reasonable for Grischuk. For all Grischuk knows there's a novelty lurking right after the obvious safe moves have been played - or earlier. Sitting behind the board, taking the perpetual is the best choice, obviously.

Another point made at chessgames dot com was that, if enforced strictly, this rule could lead to funny situations.
Player to arbiter and 'dunderhead': "I'm taking a perpetual, I think I'm lost"
'Dunderhead': "No, you're not lost, so you're not allowed to do that. You must play on"
Player: "I'm not lost? Thanks for that info. I'll play on then."
Makes you wonder what the opponent would think of the arbiter giving advise to players :).

This anti-draw thing is turning into a witch-hunt.

Euwe's picture

Steve, even IF you had insulted mr. Borg, why would you then become a 'persona non grata' at FIDE events? Who decides this? FIDE belongs to the chess players of the world, not to mr. Borg to to mr. Ilyumzhinov or to anyone.

peter's picture

Although I'm trying to make ChessVibes my job (as from December 1st I quit my "real" job), and in this sense it's my profession, I don't feel like I'm a real journalist (yet), I think I'm more like a reporter/blogger at the moment. Perhaps I'll develop myself into a real chess journalist at some point, who knows.

In any case, here in Baku , just like in Nice, I'm simply working for the tournament organizers and trying to keep up ChessVibes while I'm "at work". I might be writing more mildly than I would have at home, yes, but I guess the ChessVibes audience just has to accept that. In return for getting those "deals" (sometimes a discount on a hotel room, as in Linares, and sometimes all expenses covered plus fee, as here in Baku) and being possibly less objective, the audience gets some nice on-the-sport material in return.

In short, to answer Clifford's "question": if I would maintain such principles, financially speaking it would be simply impossible to travel abroad so much for ChessVibes. Again, perhaps this will change in the future. Sponsoring, advertisement, anyone? :-)

~~~~'s picture

(P.S.: To be fair to Azmaiparashvili, he didn't take any short draws in Strumica 1995)

Steve Giddins's picture

The Grischuk situation is bad, of course. But how can FIDE and Global Chess expect to be taken seriously, when they employ Azmaiparashvili in a position of authority in such matters? Geoffrey Borg can fulminate all he wants, but he has ZERO credibility, when he is prepared to employ such a person. According to Yuri Vasiliev, on Playchess, Saint Azmai claimed that "if a professional makes a mistake, he must play on and accept the consequences". Just like he did against Malakhov, in the European Championship a few years ago, perhaps?

And how come none of the journalists there made this point? Why didn't anybody ask Azmai or Borg what they would think if Grischuk had followed the Azmai example, and taken back his mistaken sacrifice Nxf7? Surely these fearless journalists could not have been influenced by the fact that they were there at the invitation of ...er, Global Chess?

"A plague on all their houses", as the Bard said.

sjoerd's picture

I think it's unfair to suggest that these journalists are not free to ask questions they want- I certainly believe that is not the case...But it would be nice if one of them would ask mr. Borg and especially Azmaiparishvili the questions steve giddins suggested! Why is a person like Azma the one to talk about such things!?

~~~~'s picture

Hi Macauley, thanks for your comments.

I am well aware that the great/greatest thing came from the Colbert report, but there its effect is not exactly the same. The question "George Bush, great president or the greatest president?" is funny because the people who have to answer it think the guy's an idiot, or at least want to dissociate from him.

(Maybe an equivalent would be to ask Danailov if Kramnik was a great World Champion - or the greatest. Now that'd be a video I would watch.)

But at Amber, it was different. An interviewer who was invited by the organization asks players who get paid good money to play there how fantastic the tournament is. I watched several of your videos from Nice and I generally liked them, but, sorry, at that point I turned it off, it was getting a little too cozy.

(And I do think that's a general problem with chess journalism, including, for example, the interviews in New in Chess; in order to get and keep access, the journalists avoid all tough questions. I understand that plane tickets to Baku do not grow on trees and I know that if somebody interviews Azmaiparashvili it's dangerous to question his authority on ethics - you might be headbutted - but working for Global Chess/FIDE is not going to make coverage more independent, and I think that's a shame.)

As for the tildes: it's a wikipedia thing. On wikipedia I was asked over and over to sign all my comments with four tildes, after which indeed my full real name appeared. I took that habit to other sites, where my name does show up, but I don't think pseudonymity detracts from my point.

Cheers,
D.

RossA's picture

~~~~~ should apologize to Macauley.

Janis Nisii's picture

@Ross:
Excuse me, I see no reasons for ~~~~~ to apologize. Maybe I don't get your point, probably there are details behind all this that I don't know, but I think no one should apologize for having expressed his/her opinion.
In this case it's Macauley who openly called him/her a coward and said his/her nick was not respectable (!!). So, if there is someone who has to apologize, that would be him. Posting comments anonimously, in fact, is one of the typical features of the HTTP and NNTP world since many years now, and I'm pretty sure all of us used this possibility. If a site doesn't want people to post anonimously, the owner can enforce a registration or simply disable the comments feature.
So, as far as I can see from here, Tilde was just using the appropriate space in the appropriate way, expressing an appropriate comment. Did you notice that Macauley basically agreed with that comment? He just said the question was meant to be ironical, and Tilde replied that - in his/her opinion - the sarcasm/irony didn't come out very well, given the circumstances (I would add that not even the players got it.)

Euwe's picture

I must admit I find tilde's point about the tongue-in-cheek tone of voice of the Colbert Report quote very convincing. It seems Macauley didn't get the true point of the Colbert quote - not a big problem, but not something to ignore either.

It's surely OK to paraphrase some famous journalism quote - but then to make a serious argument about objectivity of it, the context should be kept in mind as well. And this was not the case here. 1-0 for Tilde.

Latest articles