June 13, 2014 20:09

Sergey Karjakin Repeats as Norway Chess Winner

When he was playing against Anish Giri he didn't expect to finish with 3.0/3, but he did. Sergey Karjakin defeated Fabiano Caruana in the final round in Stavanger to clinch victory yet again at the Norway Chess tournament. Like Karjakin, Magnus Carlsen finished on the same number of points as last year after beating his compatriot Simen Agdestein while Vladimir Kramnik finished on 9th place as he lost to Alexander Grischuk.

Oops, he did it again! Sergey Karjakin won the Norway Chess tournament for the second year in a row, somewhat unexpectedly because of a slow start but deservedly as his main rivals made too many “unforced errors”, as Peter Svidler described it. Karjakin finished on the same number of points as last year, 6.0/9, and so did runner-up Magnus Carlsen: 5.5/9. Alexander Grischuk cemented his world #3 position with an excellent third place in a tournament which he described as “clearly the strongest 10-player tournament ever held.” For Vladimir Kramnik, who finished in 9th place, the tournament was one to quickly forget.

Simen Agdestein and his second Evgeny Romanov arriving for the final round

The first game to end in the final round was Giri vs Svidler, and it was not much of a game: right out of the opening the players repeated the moves. “When you have a nice position without counterplay it's not always that you don't lose!” said Giri, referring to his unfortunate loss against Karjakin. “I don't have any excuses, I am just making up one. I didn't know I wasn't in the mood to fight but somehow I wasn't,” added the Dutch number one.

PGN string

Topalov and Aronian also split the point, but there things could have gone differently. The Bulgarian finished on a decent 4.5/9 after a bad start (“It looked totally terrible. Not only the way I was losing my games but I was also blundering.”), but that could have been plus one if he had been a bit more alert. Both players missed an idea for White on move 24 that was connected to a knight going from e3 to c2. Backward knight moves can easily be missed!

PGN string

Aronian explained that he hadn't been in great shape during the tournament. “Generally I was playing badly. I was not feeling 100%. I just had a nose operation and I'm still recovering. The Olympiad is a place where I'm going to have my revenge!”

Then Kramnik went down against his compatriot Grischuk, who seemed under pressure in a Grünfeld and got into time trouble. “Maybe that was what made him go astray,” said Grischuk because as so often, his level didn't really go down with just a few minutes on the clock. Instead, it was Kramnik who started making mistakes. Grischuk: “Better lucky than good!”

PGN string

And so the tournament got to see an exciting finish with Karjakin defending his half-point lead over Carlsen. The Russian GM was expected to draw his game with Caruana, while Carlsen was building up a nice advantage against Agdestein.

However, the 47-year-old was by no means going to help his compatriot; in fact he was putting up a good defense. Only just before the time control Agdestein started to make a few small errors.

PGN string

“I don't think I played particularly well, not too disastrous either but I never got going and obviously I missed my chance yesterday,” said Carlsen.

If Karjakin would draw his game, the tournament would be decided in a blitz playoff. The organizers had already put up a chess set in a separate room, but it wasn't necessary. Caruana made a big mistake on move 32 and got into a lost position. It took a while, but eventually Karjakin converted the full point to clinch his second victory in Norway.

PGN string


“Especially when I was playing Anish I didn't think I would finish with plus three!” said Karjakin, who didn't bring a second to the tournament. His regular second, GM Alexander Motylev, was playing a tournament himself.

“I was doing it alone, which is quite unusual for me. My wife was helping me and my manager was supporting me. That was my team basically. Last year I also came only with her. She is my best second!

During one of the interviews, Karjakin was asked the typical question what he would do with his 100,000 Euro first prize. He said “I don't know,” but his wife Galiya, who was standing closeby, said “I know!” 

The players at the closing ceremony | Photo © Chess.com

Norway Chess 2014 | Pairings & Results

Round 1 03.06.14 15:30 CET   Round 2 04.06.14 15:30 CET
Aronian ½-½ Agdestein   Aronian 1-0 Karjakin
Karjakin ½-½ Topalov   Kramnik ½-½ Carlsen
Grischuk 0-1 Caruana   Caruana 1-0 Svidler
Carlsen ½-½ Giri   Topalov 0-1 Grischuk
Svidler ½-½ Kramnik   Agdestein ½-½ Giri
Round 3 05.06.14 15:30 CET   Round 4 07.06.14 15:30 CET
Karjakin ½-½ Agdestein   Aronian ½-½ Svidler
Grischuk 1-0 Aronian   Karjakin 1-0 Grischuk
Svidler ½-½ Topalov   Caruana ½-½ Giri
Carlsen ½-½ Caruana   Topalov ½-½ Carlsen
Giri 0-1 Kramnik   Agdestein ½-½ Kramnik
Round 5 08.06.14 15:30 CET   Round 6 09.06.14 15:30 CET
Grischuk ½-½ Agdestein   Aronian ½-½ Giri
Svidler ½-½ Karjakin   Karjakin ½-½ Carlsen
Carlsen 1-0 Aronian   Grischuk ½-½ Svidler
Giri 1-0 Topalov   Topalov 1-0 Kramnik
Kramnik 1-0  Caruana   Agdestein ½-½ Caruana
Round 7 10.06.14 15:30 CET   Round 8 12.06.14 15:30 CET
Svidler ½-½ Agdestein   Aronian ½-½ Caruana
Carlsen ½-½ Grischuk   Karjakin 1-0 Kramnik
Giri 0-1 Karjakin   Grischuk ½-½ Giri
Kramnik ½-½ Aronian   Svidler ½-½ Carlsen
Caruana ½-½ Topalov   Agdestein 0-1 Topalov
Round 9 13.06.14 14:30 CET        
Carlsen 1-0 Agdestein        
Giri ½-½ Svidler        
Kramnik 0-1 Grischuk        
Caruana 0-1 Karjakin        
Topalov ½-½ Aronian        

Norway Chess 2014 | Final Standings

# Name Rtg Perf 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 Pts SB
1 Karjakin,Sergey 2771 2894 phpfCo1l0.png ½ 1 1 ½ 0 ½ 1 1 ½ 6.0/9  
2 Carlsen,Magnus 2881 2841 ½ phpfCo1l0.png ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ 1 5.5/9  
3 Grischuk,Alexander 2792 2810 0 ½ phpfCo1l0.png 0 1 1 ½ ½ 1 ½ 5.0/9  
4 Caruana,Fabiano 2791 2772 0 ½ 1 phpfCo1l0.png ½ ½ 1 ½ 0 ½ 4.5/9 19.75
5 Topalov,Veselin 2772 2774 ½ ½ 0 ½ phpfCo1l0.png ½ ½ 0 1 1 4.5/9 19.50
6 Aronian,Levon 2815 2731 1 0 0 ½ ½ phpfCo1l0.png ½ ½ ½ ½ 4.0/9 18.25
7 Svidler,Peter 2753 2738 ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ phpfCo1l0.png ½ ½ ½ 4.0/9 18.25
8 Giri,Anish 2752 2738 0 ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ phpfCo1l0.png 0 ½ 4.0/9 17.75
9 Kramnik,Vladimir 2783 2735 0 ½ 0 1 0 ½ ½ 1 phpfCo1l0.png ½ 4.0/9 17.00
10 Agdestein,Simen 2628 2711 ½ 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ phpfCo1l0.png 3.5/9  

The Norway Chess tournament runs 2-13 June in the Stavanger region. All photos courtesy of the official website | Games via TWIC phpfCo1l0.png


Share |
Peter Doggers's picture
Author: Peter Doggers


Frits Fritschy's picture

Nice show, Anon, but ehhh... what about the Der Spiegel quote "... after losing a game, he goes into the forest at night and howls at the moon to drive out the demons"? Picture proof please...

Anon's picture

Well, you're lucky. They did a whole movie on that. It's called "Twilight"...

Frits Fritschy's picture

I always suspected Grischuk as a lover of virgin blood, but Ivanchuk? At his worst a very lonely werewolf.

Anonymous's picture

Thomas, since you mention it again: from my view it is not decisive if players are forced by contract to attend public post game analysis in events like this. Kramnik was the only player not facing questions and debates after losses in this tournament.

This is just lousy bad behavior towards the other players (if they miss him much there or not), towards the tournament organisators (who try to raise public attention for their tournament and chess) and towards chess enthusiasts following the games and getting interesting comments from every other player, after wins just like after losses.

From my view this is immature (or even childish), and I see no excuse making much sense for that - not even too much to debate, frankly.

s3's picture

I'm happy he won but karjakin has played much better in the past imo. I get the impression that he has become thougher mentally, especially when he is forced to fight, and now he even wins when out of form by sheer determination.
Chesswise I found this tournament a tiny bit dissapointing, most players played below their level and there were too many blunders. F.i. svidler-carlsen where whites opening play was ridiculous and black had strange tactical oversights, even if tactics arent his forte. Karjakin won two games after losing the exchange.

matu's picture

It is clear that Simen gave away the game-allowing himself to get mated. Good thing that Magnus did not win the event. Karjakin is entertaining.

Septimus's picture

That is absurd. Put down the crack pipe dude.

matu's picture

anything can happen. especially at high level.

Seamus O Shitey's picture

Gandalf was missing

Anonymous's picture

Carlsen was the only one without a loss and if he had converted his winning position vs Svidler (like many would except too) he would've tied Karjakin.

Just goes to show that even not playing at his optimal level he still manages 2800+ performances consistently and that is usually enough to win/tie-1st or finish 2nd, almost 1st. He is the most regular player and that's why he's top ELO.

And I agree that Caruana, Kramnik and Aronian didn't really played at their best too.

Grischuk had a great 2nd half after a rollercoaster 1st. Almost 2800!!

Good tournament by Adgestein. Even if he finished last, he was just behind 0.5 points from 4 top professional players. His play was incredibly solid.

Karjakin defends his title in great fashion.

Great tournament!

Anonymous's picture


s3's picture

Well, you could also say Karjakin winning (again!) just goes to show that he can finish above all even not playing his optimal level. For whatever it's worth. And keep in mind that Carlsen won his last game against the brother of his manager, against his former coach and bussiness associate when 100.000 euro was at stake..not to mention his lost position against Aronian-who also performed below par. If he hadn't won those games he would have been 4rth or worse. If if if...anyway it was a nice tourney.

Anil Philip's picture

If Anand was second when he was world champion, Carlsen fanboys like Kasparov might have critisised Anand by telling that world champion is not able to win a tournament. Can we apply same criteria here.?

Alcoholics anonymous's picture

"If Anand was second when he was world champion, Carlsen fanboys like Kasparov might have critisised Anand by telling that world champion is not able to win a tournament. Can we apply same criteria here.?"

Nobody expects anything clever or civil from you, and your post above shows why. Not only are your grammar, use of punctuation and logic atrocious, but you also misrepresented the criticisms of Anand's results from 2007 till 2013. Anand was the target of criticism for winning almost no (top) tournaments during his reign, whereas since November 2013 Carlsen has won two classical tournaments by a full point, and finished clear second in the third one, half a point behind Karjakin. In addition to that, he has won two blitz tournaments and had one sub-par result (in the rapid tournament that was the third and final part of the 2014 Zurich Chess Challenge).

Anonymous's picture

For Anand second place was huge success, that was his best result in top tournaments six years in a row before Candidates. One second place for Carlsen and he is target for endless abuse :)

Anonymous's picture

Without regard of the result this tournament proves it once more: Carlsen adds zero to chess, no contribution whatsoever but dull games and even duller interviews, I thought it was bad a champion like Kasparov, but Carlsen is much worst. At least Kasparov's games had fireworks, but who needs Carlsen's anemic games? Oh yeah, zombie fanboys.

Anonymous's picture

Do you enjoy talking to yourself, 's3', 'S3', ...'?' 'Laughing Nimzowitsch', 'Mother Russia', (how many times as 'Anonymous'?) or whatever nick you're using hoping to confuse other posters here? Do you enjoy leaving the impression that 50 % of the chess fans in this forum feel hatred towards Carlsen and pride for Kramnik? But you and all of us know your sick attitude is a minority opinion - around 5% maybe. Bear in mind your own permanent confusion isn't going to feel any better just because the CV forum settings allow you to play this silly game. I don't see why a healthy gown up "chess fan" would do this, let alone the time you're burning. Pathetic.

Anonymous's picture

Right s3, Carlsen's games are way beyond your level of understanding. Alright, his chess appears dull to you. Thanks again for your contribution, but the sad truth was known already. I recommend listening to more of Kramnik's post-mortems, or just switch on the tv and watch some nice football games.

Anonymous's picture

It's more than 20 years since Kramnik was this far behind #1, just over 100 points atm.

Anonymous's picture

IIRC he also was never world #1 himself (even when he temporarily held the world title) and, unique in modern chess history, he also never qualified for the right to challenge the world champion in a title match. Once being champion, probably because he rightfully feared to lose and in order to extend his reign, he avoided rematches at all cost where he should have co-operated. Now at Norway Chess he's not even following the binding rules he must have accepted before the tournament like every participant, as he seems to believe an artist like himself can simply stay away from his after game interviews when he doesn't feel like attending because he lost. Just a few points in a long list.

Anonymous's picture

Blablabla. Barking dogs lying and envious of a great player and person.

Anonymous's picture

LOL.... ahhh yes, I bet you're one of his true connoisseurs. Alright then ;-)

Anonymous's picture

Great person?

Anonymous's picture

Don't blame him, age is taking its toll.

Kitty hawk's picture

Yes, he was number 1 on two separate occasions. All title holders hold the title temporarily and Kramnik did so for seven years.Do you make these noises because they sound good?

Anonymous's picture

Only title holder since the 1930s to be given a title match he didn't qualify for, and that after losing to the guy that should have been given the match.

Anonymous's picture

Out of all the many, many rating lists over the last 20+ years, Kramnik has held 1= position in two of them. Pathetic.

Kramnik only held the title that long because he avoided Kasparov. When after four long years, he finally defended the title, it was against second-line Leko. Even then he only drew by winning the last game.

Alcoholics anonymous's picture

"Out of all the many, many rating lists over the last 20+ years, Kramnik has held 1= position in two of them. Pathetic."

I agree, being shared first in the world is pathetic. Or maybe you're just that.

Anonymous's picture

Having been shared first in the world is pathetic only and especially if compared to his aloof mannerism. Unlike the impression he likes to give, he was by far not as dominant a world champion as many others before and after him. Obviously he cares a lot more about winning or losing than he likes to pretend - and a lot more than everybody else. If a former world champion isn't man enough to attend an obligatory post game interview like everyone else having lost a game, how would you call that?

Thomas Richter's picture

As to the state of the chess world championship in the 1990s and until 2006, it was in disarray with two parallel WCh titles - certainly not Kramnik's fault, Kasparov and Short were responsible for this situation. Yes, Shirov was 'robbed' of a WCh match against Kasparov (and selecting just two players for a qualifying match was already random). Whether Kramnik played a role in this is at least unclear - and I can't help thinking that the same people who align with Shirov considered Gelfand and now Anand "unworthy" WCh challengers, using the same type of arguments that were then brought up against Shirov.

Then in 2002, there was a qualifier with the strongest players willing to participate, and Leko prevailed. Kasparov refused to participate, Anand and probably Ponomariov (FIDE KO champion) felt committed to the FIDE cycle, everyone else from the top10 was there. Would an automatic rematch Kramnik-Kasparov have been fairer, depriving all others of their chance?

I don't see the link between "Kramnik was #1= only twice" and "it was wrong to skip post-game interviews" - by itself a legitimate opinion. Does this mean that Anand and Topalov, both clear #1 in more than two rating lists, would have been excused?

observer's picture

"Then in 2002, there was a qualifier with the strongest players willing to participate...Kasparov refused to participate".

Thomas is attempting here to perpetrate the myth that Kramnik was blameless in this affair.
Kramnik (along with Kasparov) condemned the knockout format before he won the Title in 2000. Then what is the first thing he does? Insists on a knockout Qualifier!! Knowing full well that Kasparov would refuse to participate under this format.
Um, hello, if this is not an attempt to avoid Kasparov, what is?

s3's picture

Bs. You can't blame Kramnik for not staging the perfect qualifier with limited funds. The format was meant to enable many top players to participate, two 4 person drr tournaments to qualify and then two 4 game minimatches with possible extensions and a final match. It was not comparable to the mentioned knockout format, nor was there some contractual obligation so your story makes no sense. Kasparov would have had excellent chances but he overplayed his hand in off board politics this time.
Kramnik making sure that many GMs got a shot at the title was a great improvement and after that he was involved in reuniting the two titles. Gj!

P.s. Kramnik never took back moves, nor did he whine about wch privileges only to profit of them later on.

Anonymous's picture

The format enabled eight hand picked opponents to participate, one of them being Lutz. None of the strongest players, i.e. Anand or Kasparov, wanted to play, and neither did Ivanchuk.

observer's picture

As usual, s3 blindly rushes into his arguments without getting his facts straight.
"then two 4 game minimatches..and a final match"
Wrong. The original proposal (the one that Kasparov rejected) was semi-finals of 2 games and a final of 4 games. Looks a lot comparable to the previous knockouts to me.
[Kramnik, under public pressure, eventually agreed to extend the semi-finals to 4 games, but it was far too late by then.]

There were far better possible formats with the available funds to achieve what Kramnik claimed his objectives were. Many were suggested at the time, but though under great public pressure, Kramnik refused to budge. There can only be one conclusion.

"nor did he whine about wch privileges only to profit of them later on".
Riiiiight. Guess I'm imagining that he got a free "rematch" with Anand in 2008, then. There was nothing like this written into the agreement for the reunification Kramnik-Topalov match in 2006. But having got the title in Elista, Kramnik did a big whine about having to play in Mexico 2007 and blackmailed FIDE (because of the Elista scandal) into giving him a free match if he did not win Mexico.

Viking's picture

I think that Anand benefitted from the 2008 match although Mexico 2007 made him champion it still needed someone to beat Kramnik in a match for them to be indisputably World Champion.

observer's picture

Kramnik himself acknowledged that Anand was World Champion after Mexico 2007.
He had also agreed when signing up for the Topalov reunification match that the winner of Mexico 2007 was to be World Champion (without a "rematch"!)
A tournament World Champion had a precedent - Botvinnik in 1948. There was not the slightest dispute that he was World Champion.
Nor was there by anybody significant that Anand was after Mexico 2007.

It was intended that the next World Championship was going to be a match anyway, so it was not necessary to give Kramnik a free match to achieve a match World Champion.

Giving Kramnik this free match was completely illegal.
And people such as Thomas claim Ilyumzhinov is a lesser evil than Kasparov?? What a joke.

Anonymous's picture

"Giving Kramnik this free match was completely illegal"

At the very least it made a joke of the whole reunification thing. First Kramnik refused to play Topalov inside FIDE, and wanted a private match. When Topalov refused to break away from FIDE to support Kramnik's private title, Kramnik had to agree to the agreed rules and play within FIDE. This made the match a reunification match, against Kramnik's wishes, since he wanted to keep control of the private title. Since he had no credibility left he had to agree that the winner of Elista 2006 must play the WC 2007, without any privileges. AFTER winning against Topalov Kramnik negotiated with FIDE so he got another free title match after the 2007 WC. Anand was of course very upset about this, and spoke about how it was ridiculous how many privileges Kramnik were given all the time.

Anonymous's picture

What should be remembered is that Kramnik in the Elista contract 2006 agreed that the Mexico 2007 winner would be unconditional World Champion, no ifs and buts. After winning in Elista Kramnik had a chat with Kirsan and suddenly declared that he ONLY would recognize the Mexico winner as World Champion if he was given a free title match after Mexico. Now if that isn't hypocrisy I don't know what is :)

Thomas Richter's picture

Beautifully selective facts ... :

"A tournament World Champion had a precedent - Botvinnik in 1948. There was not the slightest dispute that he was World Champion." Yes, everyone agreed that Alekhine had lost his title without losing a match - he had died in the meantime, hence there was a specific reason to interrupt the tradition of WCh matches.

"Nor was there by anybody significant that Anand was after Mexico 2007." - with observer deciding who is 'significant'?! Viking's point above is legitimate, and may have been shared by a few "significant" people (established chess journalists, fellow GMs).

The story on what happened before and after the Elista match is incomplete, and rumors diverge on who negotiated behind the scenes for privileges:

- The loser of the Elista match was excluded from the Mexico WCh tournament (according to rumors that I remember, a proposition by team Topalov who were very confident that Topalov would win the match).

- The Mexico winner had to 'validate' his title in a match: If Kramnik had won Mexico, there would have been a rematch against Topalov. Anand won in Mexico fair and square, but Kramnik may well have preferred a friendly atmosphere match against Anand over another grudge match against Topalov.

- Then Topalov got a shortcut to another WCh match, with just one qualifier against Kamsky where he was heavy favorite. Semi-final and final were both held in Bulgaria, with the organizers being anything but neutral.

There is, at least potentially, "a lot of Danailov" in all this. Kasparov seems on friendly terms with Danailov, both wanting less Russian influence within FIDE. Whether there is "too much Russian influence" is another story - fact, fiction or somewhere in between?! I concede that more privileges for Topalov seems pretty unlikely by now, but (while I cannot come up with something specific), there may be future situations where Carlsen could get privileges from his buddy Kasparov.

observer's picture

Botvinnik thing - Thomas, so what? Kramnik signed that Elista agreement recognising that winner of Mexico was to be undisputed World Champion without a "rematch". Then refuses to abide by it when he's in a position to twist Kirsan's arm.

That the loser of Elista was excluded from Mexico was an absurdity, but what's this got to do with the discussion? A red herring by you to distract attention from the discussion because you don't have an argument.

Kramnik to play Topalov again if he won Mexico: This was part of what was hammered out AFTER Elista. Again, what's this got to do with the point of the discussion? [which was s3's claim that Kramnik never did any whining or trying to claim unearned rematch privileges] Again, a red herring by you designed to distract.

"significant": FIDE plus all top players directly involved. "Journalists" like you don't count.

Topalov later got a shortcut: Again, what's this got to do with it? More distraction by you.
But another example of Ilyumzhinov favouring certain players at his whim. But he is the "lesser evil", yeah, right.

"there may be future situations where Carlsen could get privileges from his buddy Kasparov". Very unlikely; but Ilyumzhinov has already done this sort of thing many times over (as I demonstrated to you in the other thread, which discussion you then promptly abandoned), yet he is the "lesser evil". What a joke.

Thomas Richter's picture

Nobody knows what exactly happened behind the scenes, who 'negotiated' and when. You claim to know everything and to be always right - but you aren't the Pope, and I am not catholic.

As to what happened after Elista, it's very plausible that Topalov/Danailov played a major role - insisting that the tournament WCh title should be validated in a match (because Topalov deprived himself of the right to play in Mexico), followed by a construction to give Topalov another quick shot at the title. Quite ironic if Kramnik gets blamed for things achieved by Danailov ... . Kramnik could have declined to play the WCh match, who would abandon such an opportunity? Likewise, before his match against Kasparov Kramnik didn't say "I am the worthy challenger (never mind the match against Shirov)", others came up with such remarks. Others may have included Kasparov who didn't want to play a potentially one-sided match for less prize money.

Kasparov may have underestimated Kramnik, but Kramnik kept an even score against him throughout their joint careers - so a rematch wouldn't necessarily have been won by Kasparov, let alone a walkover.

"Botvinnik thing - so what?" If you don't realize that this 'interregnum period' (death of a sitting world champion) was special and unique in chess history, I can't help it.

"significant": FIDE plus all top players directly involved. "Journalists" like you don't count." FIDE did schedule the Anand-Kramnik WCh match - so while Anand was official WCh after Mexico, the title had to be validated as specified by FIDE. As to journalists, I obviously don't mean myself. First, I wasn't a chess writer at all back then, second I don't claim to be an "opinion-maker" like those writing for major websites or print media. But if course it's easy on planet observer: All significant people agreed, because all who disagreed are insignificant.

P.S.: Sometimes I abandon threads because everything has been said (at least once), or because a new thread has popped up.

Anonymous's picture

What happened is quote obvious, no point repeating it, you would never admit it is the truth anyway but keep coming up with hypothetical situations where Carlsen gets privileges from his buddy Kasparov.

Thomas Richter's picture

What might have happened if Danailov had been FIDE president during the Elista WCh match? Another story is that he would have held the match in Bulgaria, ensuring hostile conditions for Kramnik.

What might happen if Carlsen faces/creates a similar situation, and Kasparov is FIDE president? There is not demonstrable current conflict of interest, but there are potential future conflicts of interest.

observer's picture

@ Thomas:

"Nobody knows what exactly happened behind the scenes". Neither do juries in court cases. They have to decide on weight of evidence. On weight of evidence, Kramnik is definitely guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Topalov/Danailov may well have done things behind the scenes after Elista. So what? Why can't you stick to the topic of discussion? Which is that Kramnik whined and got an unearned rematch privilege. Do you deny this? Yes or no?

Towards the end of 1998, Kramnik said that Kasparov should play Shirov. So that's another example of Kramnik hypocrisy.

Of course Kramnik wouldn't have been a walkover for Kasparov if they'd played another match. But Kramnik never gave us a chance to find out what the result would have been, did he?

Botvinnik thing. This was to show that having a tournament World Champion had a precedent - a point you seemed to have missed. 1948 could have been decided by a series of matches, with the winner of the final one being World Champion.

"so while Anand was official WCh after Mexico, the title had to be validated as specified by FIDE". What on earth are you on about? This was all from the dirty dealing AFTER Elista, breaking the Unification Match agreement.

Abandoned thread: No, the discussion was in full swing in a thread that had no similar topic following. Not everything had been said at all. You abandoned the discussion because you had no answer.

spoofer's picture

"Which is that Kramnik whined and got an unearned rematch privilege."
Wrong. It was whining about (!)privileges. An expert whiner like you should know the difference. Kramnik first won the title. And negotiating is different from public whining.

"Towards the end of 1998, Kramnik said that Kasparov should play Shirov. So that's another example of Kramnik hypocrisy.".

No. An expert hypocrite like you should know better. Not Kramniks fault if Shirov and Kasparov can't make a deal.

"Of course Kramnik wouldn't have been a walkover for Kasparov if they'd played another match. But Kramnik never gave us a chance to find out what the result would have been, did he?"
Wrong. Kasparov chose not to try to qualify.
Now stop making a fool of yourself.

observer's picture

@ spoofer = s3 (again):

"And negotiating is different from public whining". So Kramnik "negotiated" that Anand should have to play a Title defense he shouldn't have had to. What a nice guy.

"Now stop making a fool of yourself". There is no need for me to start because you have already just given a perfect example of what making a fool of oneself is.

Thomas Richter's picture

"juries in court cases ... have to decide on weight of evidence" Yes, but at least in an ideal world, they should be unbiased, include all evidence and then make up their mind. You consider Kramnik guilty and then come up with selective evidence to support your case - you act like a lawyer, not like a proper jury member.

"Why can't you stick to the topic of discussion? [You decide what's the topic of discussion, and how narrow it should stay!?] Which is that Kramnik whined and got an unearned rematch privilege. Do you deny this? Yes or no?" That's a trick question. I am not aware of any evidence that Kramnik 'whined'. As to "unearned rematch privilege": is there also an "earned rematch privilege"? Apparently so, as Kasparov should have gotten an automatic rematch from your point of view. For Kramnik-Anand, "reMATCH" is technically wrong - the point is whether a WCh should ultimately be determined in a match, here opinions diverge loose from the players involved.

"Towards the end of 1998, Kramnik said that Kasparov should play Shirov. So that's another example of Kramnik hypocrisy." That sentence is rather an example of observer hypocrisy? If Kramnik had said that Kasparov should NOT play Shirov, you would also call him a hypocrite - and then I would fully agree with you. Is there any evidence that Kramnik played any role in failed financial negotiations for a Kasparov-Shirov match? There seemed to be offers, which didn't satisfy Kasparov and/or Shirov.

What then happened is roughly comparable to this: You apply for a job, get interviewed, and finish second in the selection procedure. Then negotiations with candidate #1 fail, and you are offered the (dream) job. Should you decline the offer, knowing that then the position will remain unfilled?

I understand Shirov's bitterness, and also that he blamed "everyone": Kasparov, Rentero (who apparently said that he would organize the WCh match) and Kramnik - to the point of not shaking hands with him for some years (as I witnessed myself as a spectator in Wijk aan Zee). He might still be wrong to blame Kramnik, and maybe should in part blame himself (if he did decline an offer because it wasn't good enough).

observer's picture

@ Thomas:

And what evidence do you have that the "rematch" clause was included in the Unification match agreement? I'd be really interested to see this. If it was, it was (and to this day still is...) kept extremely quiet indeed.

Well, you should stick within reasonable parameters of the topic, and what you say should have at least some relevance. You go off on complete tangents with no relevance at all. Deliberately, one suspects.

"Kasparov should have gotten an automatic rematch from your point of view". You are getting very close to lying here and are certainly putting words in my mouth. I have always maintained (and have said so on several occasions) that Kasparov had no right to an automatic rematch. I have always said there should have been a sane qualifier, and given that there was one, Kasparov should play in it. But when Kramnik insists on a really stupid one that is so obviously designed to be unacceptable to Kasparov, what is Kasparov supposed to do?

They were going back to a match system for the WCh anyway. So why was Kramnik given a free match instead of having to qualify for it?

Shirov thing: your "job offer" explanation is not unreasonable. But there must be more to it than that. Shirov's hatred towards Kramnik was even more intense than against Kasparov, and much longer lasting. Shirov is not a nutcase (like Salov), so there must be something more to it than the "it was basically out of Kramnik's control" explanation you give. Otherwise, why wasn't all Shirov's hatred directed at Kasparov?

Anonymous's picture

Give it up observer. You're being obnoxious.

observer's picture

Pretending you're someone else is far more obnoxious, s3.


Latest articles