Reports | March 12, 2009 4:57

Mamedyarov's new letter (which we didn't publish)

MamedyarovA few days ago, Shakhriyar Mamedyarov sent us a new letter in which he strengthened his accusations to Russian GM Igor Kurnosov, who according to the Azerbaijani was cheating during the Aeroflot tournament in Moscow. We decided not to publish the letter immediately, but first ask Mamedyarov some questions. So far he hasn't replied yet, while his letter can be found on several sites already.

Every now and then we'd like to discuss, well, "journalism", on this site. Should we do this? Publish that? This week there was another "situation".

When Shakhriyar Mamedyarov accused Igor Kurnosov, his opponent in round 6 of the Aeroflot Open, of cheating on February 22nd, we reacted quickly and published the news the same evening. It was a scandal that dominated the chess world in a negative way, that week, and it didn't do good for the image of chess. Still, we don't think we should have decided not to publish it.

The incident was widely discussed and the overall conclusion was that Mamedyarov shouldn't have expressed his accusations, and certainly not by sending an official protest letter to the media, for the simple reason that there wasn't any proof. One could say that the grandmaster from Azerbaijan hasn't learnt from Topalov/Danailov's mistakes in October 2006 in Elista.

And so we decided to leave the matter for what it was, hoping for Mamedyarov to come to his senses. In the meantime we also decided not to write about Igor Kurnosov's letter published on e3e5.com, in which the accused defended himself.

On March 7, 2009 we received a new email by Mamedyarov, with a new letter as an attached Word document. In this letter Mamedyarov doesn't apologize, but instead strengthens his accusations by providing more "Rybka proof". Many moves played by Kurnosov in other games at Aeroflot were also Rybka's first choice, which is very suspicious - that's the main argument in the letter.

Instead of publishing it, we decided to first ask Mamedyarov for some explanation, and some more details. Unfortunately we didn't receive a reply yet, and in the meantime the letter was translated into English and published by Chessdom, subsequently copypasted by Susan Polgar, then discussed at the Daily Dirt as well and now finally also published by Chessbase.

To provide the readers of ChessVibes the news they expect, and also the point of view of the editor-in-chief in this matter, we now publish both Mamedyarov's letter (our translation) and an excerpt of the email I sent to him:

March 7, 2009 13:38

Looking at the chess media, I've noticed that much concerning the game with GM Kurnosov in the Aeroflot Open seems unclear and I would like to bring some order in this. After the game finished, I have again analysed the games of Kurnosov until the 6th round and after that. As a result, some facts became clear.
3 Games played with black until the 6th round. Second round: Onischuk-Kurnosov. In this game Onischuk played the novelty 13.Bb2 and after this move until the end of the game, i.e. the 27th move, Kurnosov plays strong moves in the first variation of Rybka, winning in great style. Two rounds later, again with black, and again a Grunfeld Defence, the game Moiseenko-Kurnosov. Moiseenko opts for the novelty 12.Nd4 and again until the 25th move Kurnosov plays the first variations of Rybka.
But in this game he can't beat his opponent because Moiseenko plays simpeler positions and without risk. But still it seems to me that black could played for a win in the final position. Against me in the 6th round, Kurnosov again plays and wins playing the first variations of Rybka.
In all these three indicated games, very few moves were played as second variations of Rybka and the weakest moves were precisely Rybka's second variations. In both the Onischuk and my game we sacrificed a pawn, but in such positions the computer builds a good defence within a few moves, and wins due to a couter attack.
And so, in the 8th round, after attention was drawn to him from arbiters and chess fans, Kurnosov plays rather weak and loses. To me it seems a clear indication that Kurnosov used the help of a computer program, leaving the tournament hall practically after ever move, having such confidence in himself that he refuses a draw offer on move 14 with black against me, in an completely equal position.
I hope that all these details will be analysed throroughly and made public to all chess fans around the world. I have no doubt that in the future, tournament organizers will use these details, which reflect badly on the image of chess.

Kind regards,
International Grandmaster
S. Mamedyarov
07.03.09

March 8, 2009 12:52

Hi Shakhriyar,

I am very reluctant to publish your letter. The problem is that you don't offer any real proof for your statement that Kurnosov was cheating during Aeroflot. There are still many questions left to be answered. To me, these things at least have to be clear before I can publish your letter:

1) What computer did you choose? How much memory, what kind of processor, what version of Rybka? How long did the engine calculate? (This way other people will be able
to reproduce your data.)

2) Did you check the moves of Kurnosov's opponents? Does Kurnosov follow Rybka more often than they do? Can you give percentages?

3) More importantly, even if Kurnosov has been following Rybka more often than his opponents, this is no proof that he has been cheating. Most 2700 players play around 80% of Rybka's moves after the opening so perhaps he was just in great form in Moscow. Have you considered this?

Finally, the fact that he left the playing hall often is no proof either. This is the same accusation Topalov/Danailov made in Elista, and in the chess world almost everybody has condemned this behaviour.

(...)

--
Peter Doggers
Editor-in-chief,
ChessVibes

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

Peter Doggers's picture

@Tim Gluckman
Bad publicity is better than no publicity: don't agree in this case. More publicity will be good for chess in general, but sponsors will surely walk away when they hear that all we talk about is computer assistence and cheating.
Topalov-Kramnik: don't bring irrelevant stuff into this discussion. The only reason why I signalled the parrallel with Elista is because Topalov/Danailov also made accusations which they couldn't prove. This aspect was condemned by New in Chess as well, if I remember correctly.

Simmillion's picture

Though I agree with Tim Jake about the pleasures of wickedness, I disagree about the 'IK had it coming' part.

I'm not sure that IK has done nothing wrong, but as in real life cheating is only cheating after being caught.

So the Big M should stop crying and start playing.

(but t-o stay on topic- as long as he's a known GM, Chessvibes should offer him a shoulder to cry upon)

Peter Doggers's picture

When we're talking about accusations without proof, how can a comparison with Topalov/Danailov be irrelevant? Beats me.

Mike van Niel's picture

Very strange to see such a good player to become so overheated and even remain that way after several weeks. The facts seem quite straightforward. I think Igor's analysis of the game and his lettre were brilliant. Maybe Mamedyarov's rage was ignited because his (weaker) opponent decided to refuse a draw with the black pieces in a position that he thought was not better for black.

Simmillion's picture

I think even Mamedyarov deserves a place to make a fool of himself, and Chessvibes is doing the right thing.

A once famous dutch writer said: 'De meeste mensen houden hun paranoia voor de waarheid.", which translates into somethin like:
'Most people take their personal paranoia for the universal truth.' Combine this with Korchnoi's remarks about he madness degrees of chess grandmasters, and here you've got your Mamedyarov.

Against the assault of laughter nothing can stand. (M Twain)

Jalovengo's picture

Mamedyarov should be banned by FIDE from playing ever again.

NBC's picture

In comment to Mike van Niel's statement that it is

"Very strange to see such a good player to become so overheated and even remain that way after several weeks."

it is very hard to disagree. It seems to me that there are a couple of instances showing that some top players are simpky being managed very badly.

I agree that FIDE should enforce some standards on cheating, and accusations of cheating. There should also be punishments for baseless accusations like those of Topalov/Danailov and Mamedyarov. However, in the likely even that the leadership of FIDE are not going to do anything at all (they rarely do anything sensible), at least tournament organizers could enforce their own rules by not inviting players (I always failed to understand why Topalov kept getting invitations after the outrageous toilet accusations) who dont conform to common sense rules.

gogomil's picture

Sad story !! Always beats me how can people be so intelligent and brilliant and in the same time so stupid

Arne Moll's picture

@Tim Gluckman, if there was 'no such thing as bad publicity', it would mean that no careers would ever be damaged, companies ruined, reputations shattered or contracts cancelled. A very optimistic way of looking at the world indeed...

test's picture

Journalists should report the news, meaning: all the news. Give us the facts so that everybody can judge by themselves, and give your own opinion if you think that is needed.

Frits Fritschy's picture

Peter,
As looked clear to me in my first comment: I wasn't talking about accusations without proof, but about comparisons out of context. Topalov suffers in this comparison.

Theo Maassen's picture

To turn it around...

Looks like it is most important for Mamedyarov to defend his ego..

Let's look for proof and pointers to this direction... We have a lot of evidence and proof...

1)

Quote:

"he refuses a draw offer on move 14 with black against me, in an completely equal position"....

2)

Nxb2.. Crushing move suggested by Rybka..

Who has more proof???

flordiane's picture

mr peter,

had you tried analysing the game of kornosov mentioned by shakar?

had there something in common?

you can use any version of rbyka and set it on classic game mode.

yes there is no proof that korno was cheating, that's why we are gathering facts.

did you remeber that late bobby fischer demanded a sound proof room of glass wall toavoid cheating but was not grnted?

you can trace the modus operandi of a serial killer beacuse the crime was commited with something in common of bothe crimes committed.

try to put your feet on shakar's shoes.

Theo Maassen's picture

Reading the post of Igor,

Woaw..it is completely nothing..

I guess I may accuse without 'proof'...

Mamedyarov is an idiot....

Frank van Tellingen's picture

A very sensible reply Peter.

It seems as if Marmedyarov doesn't realize that without convincing proof he just looks like a very poor loser.

steven's picture

Gluckman,

You're really nothing but an average & pathetic Russophobe.
What pathetic results of Kramnik in world championships ?
His win against Kasparov ?
His second place in Mexico ?
His loss against Anand ?
Topalov may be the master of Deep Preparation, Kramnik is the better rapid player of the two + has an overall positive score against Topalov so his two rapid wins at the end (not the beginning) in Elista were hardly a surprise, not even for Topalov,
who stated that Kramnik would be the favourite in case of rapid tie-breaks.
Accusing someone of cheating in rapid : now that's really dumb.
Doping a problem in Russia : sure, but then it is also in the rest of the world, even in the Anglo-Saxon world, for instance the crushing dominance of the Brits in track cycling (Beijing 2008) made me a little bit suspicious.
My guess is that, if this "cheating scandal" wouldn't involve a russian, we wouldn't have read your ridiculous comments on this site.

Peter Doggers's picture

Oops, there we go again, the good old Topalov vs Kramnik quarrel. Guys, on-topic please.

steven's picture

Peter,

But the Gluckman-comments indicate the "cheating scandals" go further than chess : it's also about mindlessly swallowing western mainstream media messages and geopolitics.

tim gluckman's picture

Dear Pete,

I disagree with you.
Look at this way reasdres of 'Chess Vibes'!. Looking back over the dozens of tournaments that take place each year, how many can you recall. I'll bet that a statistically high percentage of what is remembered are somehow linked with "negative" incidents. At the end of 2009, Mamyedarov's allegations about the AEROFLOT tournament will linger in the mind along that company.
We don't understand our own motives for purchasing, that much is known. Hence all the sexual imagery in adverts (e.g. ice-cream).

So sponsors are almost certainly very glad for anything that makes their event stay in the mind rather than leading to almost instant oblivion.

You write "Don't bring irrelevant stuff" into the discussion. You were the one who mentioned Topalov & Elista and I'm sorry but there is another point of view. Ever heard of Russans and systematic, state-backed doping?

Tim-Jake Gluckman

Dirk Willem's picture

I am curious if chess journalists also have spoken to Igor Kurnosov, iis it known what is his point of view in this story?

Thomas's picture

@Dirk Willem: see Igor Kurnosov's letter - link provided in Peter Doggers' article. BTW, there is also an interview with joint Aeroflot winner Moiseenko on Chessbase where he commented, among other thing, on this issue. The full relevant quote is too long to copy here, but there is something funny immediately afterwards:
"I remember a curious situation I had in my practice. In the game with Peter Svidler I made 20 moves which were the first line of Fritz and … resigned. Well, back then chess programs were not as strong as they are today. "

HJVFan's picture

It strikes me that everybody starts discussing the old arguments again. I believe the topic of this post was a different one: should such unsubstantiated open letters be published on this or any site, or not? In my opinion, the new letter by Mamedyarov is not 'news', but just a bunch of pointless accusations. He shouldn't be given a forum for his personal problems so readily.

tim gluckman's picture

A BIT OF WICKEDNESS WOULD BE GOOD FOR CHESS’S IMAGE

You write:
"...that dominated the chess world in a negative way, that week, and it didn’t do good for the image of chess."
I think this statement is based on a misconception about publicity. the adage, "There is no such thing as bad publicity." holds true.
Chess suffers from an image as tame sport for lamesters. Untrue of course but such accusations of cheating add some wickedness into Caissa that it needs.
After all football is still called very misleadingly in my opinion (IMO) - "the beautiful game" despite all the vicious fouling which sometimes leads to people being permanently injured and losing their livelihood. What the beauty in that is escapes me. Not to mention hooliganism and mass deaths as in Brussels.

TOPALOV ON ELISTA BRIEFLY REVISITED
This is a huge topic but briefly:
Secondly your comments on Topalov’s reactions at Elista. ‘New in Chess' didn't condemn Topalov and gave him a lot of space. They also commented on the huge cashflows going into Russian chess (pre Credit Crunch).
In that magazine Kasparov commented very negatively on Kramnik’s self-serving attitude to the world championship.
And by the way Kramnik's pathetic results especially in World Championships make one wonder about those two rapid wins of his at the beginning of the Elista match..

Anybody who continually leaves the playing arena and goes to an unsupervised space is asking for it (as I.K. allegedly did in the Aeroflot tourney 2008). Why do they do that?

yours sincerely

Tim Jake Gluckman
Manchester

Mike's picture

This ridiculous behavior on Mamedyarov's part is getting more and more ridiculous, maybe due to lack of Fide rapid and strong intervention...One cannot accuse of cheating the good play of his "weakest" opponent just due to some "Rybka-like" moves...This is ridiculous, and offensive, mainly when followed by absolutely no proofs of any kind... Should now ALL official Fide games be supervised move-by-move by "Mr. Rybka" instead of by human arbiters?? What the hell is Mamedyarov talking about??

leigh's picture

I think GM Kurnosov should sue Mamedyarov. And FIDE should punish Mamedyarov too.
Why?
1. He has not evidence to prove GM Kurnosov cheating.
2. He publishs unresposible articals to attack other GM.
3. A common player can follow the main line that chess engine suggested.

Like me, I am very weak player. I always use Crafty to analysis my games. I find a lot of moves match the Crafty's first sugestion. Does it mean the other player can accuse me cheating?

Michel83's picture

@ leigh

Actually I find the legal question you seem to raise interesting too:

Couldn't Kurnosov sue Mamedyarov in front of a proper court (question would be in which country) ? False allegations (it was definitely not just an "opinion" of his).

sjoerd's picture

Rubbish.
Why shouldn't it be allowed to say that you think someone is cheating?
And of course it is an opinion leigh. If not, what else??
Myamedarov says "to me it seems a clear indication that Kornusov is using a computer program."
He is directly involved and gives his side of the story, so everyone can decide for himself what he thinks of it. Of course this should be allowed.

leigh's picture

@ sjoerd

Did you mean I always can tell people that sjoerd used computer if you beat me, because I always can find some moves you used match the best moves one of chess engines suggested.
You will feel happy and tell others that is an opion.

CAL|Daniel's picture

I think Raymond Keene (GM) said it best on chessgames.com Clearly if Kurnosov was cheating and was using Rybka's best moves... he wouldn't have played 16... Qd6 but Nxb2 which crushes on the spot (and is actually Rybka's first move where as Qd6 is a very very distant second).

Michel83's picture

Here's the most important comments by Mig (@ Peter If i am not allowed to quote them here for copyright or such, please just erase my post):

"His ingenious conclusion is that all of Kurnosov's moves match the computer's first choice, except when they don't. Sherlock Holmes, hang up your pipe you've met your match. That a computer agrees with the moves of the winning side in a short, sharp game is one of the most obvious things one can imagine."
.....
"His cited win over Onischuk in the second round contains several very nice moves, no doubt, but it's certainly not a game that was garnering particular attention. Once again to the specifics. If no alternative moves are given it's because they are evaluated at least a half-pawn worse."
(After this follows the proof of this by Mig giving the exact evaluation of Rybka for move 13 to 27)
.......
"As for Moiseenko-Kurnosov in r4, it was a 25-move liquidating draw of mostly captures. Not only do all of Kurnosov's moves match Rybka's first (or infinitesimally different alternatives), but all of Moiseenko's as well. Elementary, my dear Watson!
As for Kurnosov not playing his best after being accused of cheating in front of the whole world by a former top-10 player, go figure."

Frits Fritschy's picture

Peter,
There is a lot to say about Tim Gluckmans comments, but you can't accuse him of bringing irrelevant stuff into the discussion - you might be doing that yourself. Apart from that what you say ('almost everybody has condemned this behaviour') is debatable, it is not a comparable accusation. A better comparison might be the accusations against Topalov after San Luis. These may well have led to Kramnik's demand to play behind a glass wall (Kramnik's 'best move', according to Bareev) and that may have created an atmosphere leading Topalov to give tit for tat. So Topalov's accusations didn't come out of the blue, which makes quite a difference to what Mamedyarov did.
Having said this, I also must say I appreciate you didn't jump on the subject, but applied some real journalism.
By the way, Moiseenko gives an interesting view on the subject at Chessbase.

Michel83's picture

I reccomend everybody to have a look at Mig's website ("The Daily Dirt Chess Blog"). I normally don't like his writing style much, but here he is spot on.

Mig also went trough the games of Kurnosov with Rybka and eg found out that in one game that Mamedyarov mentions (and says all Kurnosov's moves where Rybka's suggestions) he simply left out that the opponent of Kurnosov also played exactly Rybka's suggestions.... :D

@ Peter

Maybe you wanna give a direct link to Mig's comment on that? I think it's really a good one.

Martas's picture

It seems like GM Mamedyarov started to do some sales job for Rybka. I'll have to buy it as well just to be able to follow this story. In the meantime I checked his game with Fritz, after 16 ... Qd6 where Kurnosov missed stronger 16 ... Nxb2 he realy makes first choices of the engine, the only thing is that all other moves are at least 0.65 weaker than what was played.
FIDE should do something about this, on the other hand some of their last decisions seems have worse impact than this.

CAL|Daniel's picture

Kudos peter for his response to Shakhriyar!

Jens Kristiansen's picture

Personally I hope Kurnusov will sue Mamedyarov for his allegations. For his own sake and for the benefit of chess and the reputation of the game.
But...as we now from Mamedyarov have some very close descriptions of this crucial game in question and what happened around it, can someone - on these matters far better informed persons than me - please hint me some answers to these questions:
1) How, tecnically speaking, could it be possible for Kurnusov during the game to receive moves generated by Rybka?
2) How much would the equipment for such a procedure cost?

Michael X Tractor's picture

Your esteemed editor -in-chief is quite right to demand concrete proof, before believing such accusations. I am sure that if one showed him concrete evidence that a world-class GM had been computer cheating, he would believe it. Evidence such as a video, for example, showing the signalling process in action. Or maybe an independent eye-witness, describing the signalling process that he witnessed, and published in a respected, mainstream European newspaper? I have no doubt that if such evidence were produced to the Peter the Great, he would unquestioningly accept it and condemn the guilty party publicly, on this wonderful and respected forum.

NBC's picture

The reason why the "good old" Topalov-Kramnik quarrel keeps coming up is exactly that FIDE failed to punish Topalov/Danailov. In that sense, its very much on-topic, whereas who is better in rapid chess is of course not relevant.

Thomas's picture

One thing is quite sure about the whole affair: it WAS Mamedyarov himself who "wanted the publicity". Didn't he ask that his letters (both of them) should be published at major chess Internet sites? And most sites followed his request ... .

I would agree that "on average" this strategy backfired - even though a few people seem to think that Kurnosov actually cheated or at least argue "if Mamedyarov makes such accusations, there must be some truth in it". Does Mamedyarov have a bad manager/PR assistant - or noone at all ?

Arne Moll's picture

@Tim, so exactly who 'wanted' the publicity in Mamedyarov's case? If it was Mamedyarov himself, it clearly backfired (as it often does, wanted or not).

Michel83's picture

@ sjoerd

In most Law systems there is Laws which prevent from "false allegations". Freedom of speech is not absolute; eg if I write in a newspaper on page one "Sjoerd is a murderer" without any proof or at least very strong suspicion and you take me to court then you are likely to win and I will have to take it back. Legally this is NOT considered "an opinion" (depending on the Law system obviously, I am talking about the one I know).

The legal question is always:
Was the stated opinion "stated as opinion" or was it "stated as fact"? If it's the first, then it's covered by freedom of speach, if it's the second, it might not be.

I agree with you that when you write that when Mamedyarov says "to me it seems he is cheating" it's rather an opinion and therefore he can say it. Another story it would have been to say "Kurnosov is cheating"- Kurnosov COULD have sued him for that.

So in the end you are right that it seems to be an opinion- but the mere question arising was definitely not "rubbish" but an interesting question having to be checked by looking at the way Mamedyarov uses his words in the letter.

But alas, politeness & respect on the Internet is another question...

Thomas's picture

To elaborate a bit on comparisons with "Elista Toiletgate" - because they are relevant after all:
Both cases were direct insults against a direct opponent, and at both occasions presumably linked to a bad match/tournament situation. IMO, this is another dimension than comparatively vague prior accusations against Topalov (which I do not endorse in any way).
Topalov/Danailov were not only 'not punished' for their behavior, but indeed rewarded with a free point in 'game 5' of the match.
On the other hand, numerous GM's signed a letter of support for Kramnik, while fellow GM's seem to remain silent now. The only exception I am aware of is Moiseenko - but not on his own initiative, only because he was directly asked in an interview.

hans dampf's picture

I completely agree to the response on Shakhriyar M.'s accusations.

This man has analytical skills in chess. However to conclude in the way he does takes more than just understanding chess. It takes serious data analysis, discussions with experts and more than 3 games.
Skills that a scientist might have. Shakhriyar M's isolated unreflected opinion is an impertinence and does harm to chess.

Those GMs blaming colleagues in public, playing psycho wars like B Fischer itself destroy chess' role in public. It is such a shame!

(An interesting question pops up: How correlate chess abilities with intelligence and social skills?)

hans dampf's picture

@Jens Kristiansen

1) How, tecnically speaking, could it be possible for Kurnusov during the game to receive moves generated by Rybka?
>through his cigarette (smoking outside!) he can receive electromagnetic waves that itself can code for information.

2) How much would the equipment for such a procedure cost?
> ask Mr. Q

:)

Michel83's picture

@ flordiane

What you are asking for has already been done.
You have an analysis with Rybka of the game(s) mentioned by Mamedyarov here on Mig's site:

http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/2009/03/mamedyarovs-puts-foot-deeper...

flordiane's picture

jens christiansen,

remeber that korno was a rusian and the game was held in russia,

some artist will visit the place where they had to perform a concert for example to set their mind the location.

in korno's case is deferent....on the 360 degrees turn.

you can go to the playing hall days before the game will be held and you can install some gadgets where you can simply collect the info. for my self i will not put the gadgets in one place but on many untracesable location. i will use also some codes that myself only understand. i ca use semaphore signal from my accomplish posing as a viewing public. or make a seating arrangmwnt code that is visible to me as a player.

if you are fond of watching detective story or movies, you can say its possible.

this is genius in cheating and you can find it in store nor you can say how much it cost.

let me share you some of my experience not in chess but my final exam in high school.

our house is just a block away from my school. a day before the exam i wen to the exam room and write all the posssible answers on the wall near to my assigned seat.

that's only a simple example how to cheat and not being caught. ........

Selim Gurcan's picture

Chess: No Rules, No Doping Control!

In chess computer assistance during game can be accepted as doping. FIDE and arbiters should be responsiple for doping control (in chess computer assistance)

In Aeroflot Mamedyarov ask for a doping control ( asking arbiters to observe suspicious behaviours of Kurnosov) The answer is "No, we cant make a doping control because there are too many players!" Kurnosov may be innocent but cant someone ask for a doping control?

Mamedyarov is the player. How do you expect him to find an evidence when he is thinking at the board? This is not a simple accusation. So you cant expect him to prove it. This is arbiters responsibility. Did they do it? No.

We say that chess is a sport but the only doping control is switching off the mobiles and running after Ivanchuk for urine. On the other hand some players can go out in every move and may have the chance to get whispered a rybka move.

You can accuse Mamedyarov now but soon we will see more people leaving the board in every move and having rybka performances.

Johny's picture

Guys, guys...

The fact that it's technically possible to cheat doesn't mean an accusation of cheating is less silly without actual positive evidence....

GuidedByVoices's picture

If Kurnosov has been cheating around with Rybka whereas Mamedyarov hasn't, then the former should be rated 2750 and the latter 2650, not the other way around. Though I think Rybka's ELO is well on top of 3000!

Even a mere chess amateur like me (2165) make many moves which are Fritz11's first choice in every single game. Hence, what can be so surprising about a young 2650 GM trained in the computer-age playing similar to Rybka in a heavily theoretical, short and forcing game? Give me a break!

Mamedyarov is in sad need of some therapy... A few ethics lessons wouldn't do harm either...

Well done ChessVibes' editors and too bad for those from Chessbase...

chess.watcher's picture

hey Peter, why does chessvibes go on stealing photos?
one day you will pay...

forest's picture

Hey Frits! IP addresses are a beautiful thing to recognise people! Actually it was you who taught us that you can only post it with permission! So as we explained you last time, we do have permission.

Pages

Latest articles