Linares R7: Ivanchuk beats Aronian, Grischuk leads at half-time

14 Responses to “Linares R7: Ivanchuk beats Aronian, Grischuk leads at half-time”

1. CAL|Daniel on February 27th, 2009 7:13 pm
   

   I feel dumb for asking but what does it mean when it keeps stating “there is no starting fee for the players this time”
2. Hatse on February 27th, 2009 7:47 pm
   

   @CAL|Daniel : it means that only the three best players can win money. Numbers 4 to 8 will have earned nothing at the end of the tournament, not even a starting fee. So there is something at stake: whoever fails to make it into the top three has wasted his time, financially speaking.
3. me on February 27th, 2009 9:48 pm
   

   Not entirely true. There are prizes for all 8 players nut just first 3.

   “there is no starting fee for the players this time” means exactly what it says. Nobody received anything for just showing up. They will be paid by their performances.
4. Thomas on February 28th, 2009 12:22 am
   

   @”me”: Do you know for sure? Where did you find this?
   I guess you are right … it would really surprise me if #8 and even #4 will earn nothing at all.
   But what it means … : Anyone’s share of the prize money depends only on his performance in this tournament (that’s obvious). Appearance fees would depend on his “market value”, presumably broadly a function of ELO rating (thus _earlier_ performances) but maybe also including other factors (negotiation skills of one’s manager?).
   So at Linares 2009, if Dominguez finishes ahead of Anand he will earn more money – but Anand could certainly claim a higher appearance fee if there was one. Depending on how the two fees are partitioned, maybe at earlier occasions someone like Anand had earned the same or even more than the winner even if he finishes last!?
5. me on February 28th, 2009 12:50 am
   

   1) 100.000‚Ǩ + 75.000‚Ǩ + 50.000‚Ǩ doesn’t add up to 314.000‚Ǩ

   2) In every top GM tournament prize money is given for all places, not just the first few.
6. CAL|Daniel on February 28th, 2009 1:52 am
   

   okay thanks guys this is what I was wondering about if they meant appearance fee or guaranteed prize money for finishing last. ’starting fee’ is a very awkward and confusing phrase! I guess it is meant appearance fee.
7. Thomas on February 28th, 2009 11:04 am
   

   I can give another example, two other names: Grischuk replaced Topalov at rather short notice. He probably wouldn’t get Topa’s appearance fee if there was one – Topalov has a higher rating (and a manager named Danailov). But in the given situation, both do (or would) get 0‚Ǩ just for showing up, and at half-time it looks as if Grischuk has at least a reasonable chance to obtain “Topalov’s prize money” (1st place).
   BTW, Dortmund does (or did?) it the other way around: no prize money, only appearance fees.
8. me on February 28th, 2009 11:49 am
   

   Yes, in last Dortmund tournament they only played for honour. They got only appearance fees. There were no prizes for 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. place.

   I find this “Dortmund method” very strange. “Linares method” makes much more sence to me, but it’s possibly preferable if you have both – some appearance fee and prize money for your performance.
9. Thomas on February 28th, 2009 1:31 pm
   

   I agree that the “Dortmund method” is strange, and I wonder what’s the rationale behind it – even if the participants did not only play for honour, but at least also for their ELO ratings … .
   I think that, at world-top level, the other extreme (”Linares method”) only works for such an established tournament. Would any newcomer (Nanjing is the most recent one) succeed in attracting a strong field if they offered “nothing but prize money”?
   Of course the situation is different for somewhat weaker players (2500-2600, maybe all the way to 2700) who presumably cannot afford refusing invitations.

   Last remark: I think the only world-top event where only honour is at stake (or not even that, depending on how seriously the players take rapid and especially blindfold games) is Melody Amber. Here the entire package is attractive – not only money, but also surroundings, wining and dining , … .
10. Andy on February 28th, 2009 4:55 pm
    

    has anyone notice the same thing as me?

    Dominguez’s games are all fighted to the end…. all of them are 50+ moves and some almost 100 nives.. check that out….
11. jurgen on February 28th, 2009 10:33 pm
    

    Aronian playing simultan tomorrow?
12. Thomas on February 28th, 2009 10:41 pm
    

    Aronian playing simultan, or maybe two games one after the other – after all, today he spent 6 1/2 hours and 93 moves on the board against Carlsen … curious to find out if the rook endgame was actually won or when/where Carlsen missed a draw.
    But – if the pairings above are correct – Ivanchuk has an extra free day tomorrow and Aronian will play Radjabov a third time on Monday.
    My preferred hypothesis is : One of the 2nd round games was Radjabov-Ivanchuk, so the 9th round should include Ivanchuk-Radjabov.
13. Mike on February 28th, 2009 11:58 pm
    

    I followed today’s game Carlsen vs. Aronian. It seems this time the semi-slav Shirov 7.g4 didn’t work against Aronian’s 7…h6. Aronian indeed played a very nice and instructive rook ending when he clearly took advantage of having one more pawn and a distant “a” passed pawn. On move 51, Aronian changed his “a” pawn for the opponent “e” pawn and won like Capablanca, because he used his centralized Rook to “cut” the White King from the scenes, and at the same time pushed ahead one powerful passed “f” pawn connected to his neighbor “g” pawn both supported by the Black King! By the last moves, if Carlsen changed the rooks, he would fell into a totally lost “h” pawn ending!! Very instructive!!
14. Mike on March 1st, 2009 12:22 am
    

    Well, watching just now to Aronian’s interview on Europe-Echecs, it seems Carlson missed a draw somewhere, but I didn’t get it…!