FIDE Grand Prix Final - Games and results

De Gaulle, qui citait Nietzsche :
"Rien ne vaut rien. Rien n'arrive jamais, pourtant tout peut arriver, mais ce n'est pas pertinent."

Great fighting games by Nakamura and Aronian, thanks.

@klklkl
Aronian is a truly great player of course...but he always comes up small when it matters most.

@PhishMaster
Agree it's best to defeat Naka in regulation. Only Carlsen can consistently defeat him at fast time controls.

@chessgod0, or simply, Nakamura is just the better player in rapid. He thinks SO quickly.

I always feel like anyone playing this type of match against Nakamura MUST try to win it in regulation.

Le patriotisme, c'est aimer son pays. Le nationalisme, c'est détester celui des autres.
Charles de Gaulle

"How long have I been preparing for this game? My whole life."
Grischuk about a game with Mamedyarov.

@chessgodo There's no shame in losing to Nakamura in a quicker format. I think you forget what Aronian has already shown in his career

Wow...another whiff by Aronian. Guy is brilliant but simply cannot handle the pressure. Reminds me of Ivanchuk, really.

"How long have I been preparing for this game? My whole life."
Grischuk about a game with Mamedyarov.

@Michael Jones Shirov has shown exceptional, great chance in the 90's and 00's, so, prior to the tournament I would have not written him off, but given the bad result he had, his chances are significantly reduced now.

@Michael Jones I agree. There are rules in place. They should be respected for the time being. If someone does not like the rules, then there are legitimate ways to let FIDE know about it and about proposed alternatives. This is why it's strange to me that Carlsen would like to pick his opponent and that he speaks about forfeiting if some other person would be the challenger. I do hope that anyone ends up to be the challenger, the world champion will play a match with him and both sides will do their best.

It's also worth bearing in mind that the Grand Swiss and Grand Prix are tournaments in themselves, not existing solely as part of the WC qualification process. Sure, someone like Oparin, Bacrot or Shirov stands next to no chance of even qualifying for the Candidates, never mind of beating Carlsen if they get that far, but they have still earned the right to play in the GP tournaments and compete for the prize money available just as they would in any other tournament. I doubt there would ever be a situation in which we could find 24 players to compete in a GP series, every one of whom would stand a realistic chance in a match against the reigning world champion.

Both are great players and would have their chances. In the case of Nakamura though there is a history of defeats against Carlsen. Yet, Aronian has some pleasant memories, for example beating the then teenager future world champion in a match to qualify to the 2007 world championship in Mexico city, yet, the facts that the win was achieved in a tiebreak, Carlsen was a teenager and Aronian ended up as shared 6th with Morozevich cast some shadown on that.

The comments that X shouldn't be playing because he's past his best/wouldn't stand a chance against Carlsen, or Y should be because he's been a member of the elite for years/deserves a(nother) chance, are frankly silly. There's a fixed structure for qualifying for the Grand Prix and thence (or otherwise) for the Candidates, and aside from cases where the awarding of a wild card adds some subjectivity to the process, the players in this tournament (and those already qualified) are there thanks to their performances in the relevant previous tournament(s).

Rankings in any sport are necessarily based on prior results, and although those are generally a reasonably good predictor of future ones, they aren't 100% accurate: sometimes a lower-ranked player or team will beat a higher one. In other sports, there aren't usually any complaints when that happens - it's accepted as part of the game. To take an example, women's tennis has been highly unpredictable for the last few years, with several complete outsiders winning major tournaments. No-one claims that they aren't worthy winners because their ranking before the tournament didn't suggest that they were likely to win. Yet in chess, when a lower-ranked player finishes high enough in the Grand Swiss either to qualify for the Candidates directly or at least for the Grand Prix, or knocks a higher-ranked player out of the World Cup, fans complain that this is somehow unfair/undeserved/the system is a lottery. Chess, like any sport, sometimes produces unexpected results. The qualification process is not designed to ensure that the Candidates should always be played between numbers 2-9 in the rankings, nor should it be. If someone outside those places qualifies at the expense of someone in them, that's tough - it's the way things sometimes work out.

So there are three legs to this tournament and only 2 players will advance to the Candidates? And it's possible that not even one of these titans will advance?

Ding will definitely not qualify this time, now that he is also absent from the coming GP event.

A chess flag is like a baseball team; players can be from all over and still be "Detroit's team."

Let's face it, both are no match for Magnus Carlsen. Aronian has had his chance but couldn't get through the candidates, he was in his prime 10 years ago.. Nakamura never qualified for the candidates. Even when he does, he will give entertaining games, but at the end of the day he is no real match for Magnus. Only Firouzja, Caruana, Ding, So or Giri might have a chance facing Magnus in a match. Bbut Ding, So and Giri might not even qualify for the candidates.

Great first game.

"Preparing? Of course I've been preparing. Since 10am in the morning. I think I've said this before, there are 24 hours in a day. That means with 24 hours in a day you can do a lot of preparation. Plain and simple." -- Hikaru Nakamura, while streaming on the rest day. Right before playing some blitz.
Rumor was that Levon was watching the stream, so perhaps he wasted just as much time on it!

People who complained that Naka was only playing online every day, and therefore "rusty," will hopefully reassess their concept of what being "rusty" would be caused be. Would be it be caused by the internet, or by not playing chess? Would a person who competes every day be a likely candidate for "rust?"

And to people who thought his streaming takes up so much time he wouldn't be able to prepare, did you know he was streaming about his results during the tournament? It takes up less time than watching a soccer game, something many players have talked about doing.

Nationalism is just a word that justifies people’s cruelty to each other. Like a chess battle in which players have taken off their silk gloves and use whatever means, even illegal, to reach their ultimate goal.

Frits Fritschy:"Even when a clear troll and a clear lunatic write something, as I tried to point out to you in the Dubov/covid discussion."

Ahhh, what a great discussion. I didn’t know about a lunatic troll in the Dubov/covid case, but this is the awesome conversation! Like a bunch of crazy people arguing over who is the craziest. I have to fetch my popcorns.

That was a fighting draw!

Lajos, a little restraint wouldn't do any harm. If people still want to discuss for the umptiest time whether the top players in the USA are American, fine with me, one could call it chess-related. But extensively discussing nationalism, or covid, or Islamic terror, is not something for a chess website. It obscures the comments of people who like to talk about chess subjects. You may sometimes be provoked to react, but that is because you let yourself be provoked. Even when a clear troll and a clear lunatic write something, as I tried to point out to you in the Dubov/covid discussion.
So the next time Leavenfish makes a general remark about nationalism, please just tell him that has nothing to do with chess. Or just let it be. And that's what I'm going to do after this comment.

Leavenfish has made a case for the multicultural society. Hungarians tried that and as a direct result lost 66% of their country because Western Europe decided so after WWI. Also, maybe native Americans have a different opinion about the multicultural society, maybe they were better off without the European colonisers. Also, if I look at the glorious U.S.A., I see that multiculturalism is not working. I see racist tensions and the dangers of a second civil war there. If I look at Western Europe, I see that it is not what it used to be, I see Islamic terror attacks, I see potential civil wars there as well. Wherever multiculturalism is present, cross-cultural tensions may appear. It is a risk that multicultural societies have to cope with, so I'm not really agreeing with the idea that the native population should be replaced by immigration. While I do accept that Leavenfish is proud about his nation of immigrants (while he tells us that nationalism is obsolete), I do not really understand why does he not accept that I would not like to try that at home.

Some people are complaining that we discuss non-chess matters. However WillScarlett and myself only answered to a proposition according to which nationalism is obsolete. I would never question the right of people to express their opinion and if they believed bashing nationalism is appropriate here, then I believe responding to it here is also appropriate.

To clarify some misunderstandings, let's define nationalism again: it is the ideology that seeks to advance the interests of a nation. This does not automatically mean that the given nation is of higher objective value than others, nobody thins that here as far as I know. It just means that one is loyal to his/her nation, finds value in it and is ready to protect it against any forces or ideas that seek to abolish it. Similarly, I am loyal to my family, but I would not say that my family is any better objectively than other families. The idea that Leavenfish and Mamack1 confound nationalism with is chauvinism. However, here nobody argued that his/her nation is more valuable than others. I'm Hungarian and I would bet that WillScarlett is not, maybe he is a monsenior of the French nation. I do not consider myself to be above him just because of my nationality. I also do not think that my nation would be any better than his on objective terms. But I recognize that my nation is mine and I need to be loyal to my nation, while I respect other nations. I'm sure that he is loyal to his and I deeply respect that as well.

@WillScarlett - the chess world thanks you. You are trapped inside a cauldron of 'concepts'...no one really wants to hear about.
Now...back to the chess!!

Neiksans and Nilssen make a good commentary team for us amateurs. She makes observations and poses questions from an amateur's perspective and he provides his GM responses. Sort of like in the Boris Gulko 3 vol. series of books.

KrushonIrina :
There are 3 GP events to decide on the 2 Candidates places. Each of the 24 selected players plays in 2. 8 possibles are not even playing in Berlin. Playing in the Final at Berlin (the 1st of the 3) is no guarantee of a place in the Candidates.

For the sake of both Keith Homeyard and Heavygeardiver (among others) please note that I am perfectly willing to be muted, suspended, censored, banned, silenced, exiled, "canceled" if it would make their experience here more fulfilling and tranquil, and therefore enhance their lives.
I am happy to fall on my sword to accommodate them and indirectly underwrite the woke inquisitors of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, et al who all have been gracious enough to commandeer and control public discourse.
In the meantime, consider reading only what you wish. That used to work .

Mamack1 believes his definition of nationalism is "better than [those found] anywhere else 'just because' ". In other words, his interpretation is based on subjectivity and sentiment - rather mythic than demonstrable. Nationalism isn't even an ideology necessarily. If a Frenchman has loyalty and devotion to the country of France, is proud of its history, culture, and language, reasonable people who are not French have no basis for complaint. If France occupies Algeria and Vietnam then yes, there is cause for condemnation. But those conquests stem more from imperialism and militarism than nationalism per se - not to mention greed for power and loot. The worst fault of such bellicose and ill-motivated actions is that they violate and desecrate the nationalism of the victim states and their peoples.
As an illustration, compare and contrast the nationalism of, say, Norway and Israel. Ask Palestinians if there's a difference.

Everybody out of the pool!! This is CHESS only time children!! Now get back in there and Lets play CHESS!!!
Jeesh!

Perhaps ChessBase might consider having a moderator/administrator to ensure posts remain on the chess.

Oh, and patriotism and nationalism are very much not the same thing at all. Patriotism is being proud about what is actually good about your country/group - in other words, to at least a significant degree reality based. Nationalism is believing your country is better than anywhere else "just because"; in other words, based on myth.

Ah right, "globalist clique". You sound nice.

@KoI I agree, both would be great to have in the candidates, vying for first. All due respect, but I don’t quite see Dominguez or Rapport in that position. Either might get clobbered by Carlsen, or self—clobber Nepo style ... with today’s shortened matches getting in the first blow is all—important. Whichever way it goes, getting to challenge will get you in the History Book of Chess. Where the list of Challengers, thise who nearly made it, is not much longer than the list of Champions. If at all.

You continued to show your true colors...and that is your right. Look, lots of things are or are largely 'obsolete', but still exist. I don't see anyone saying Nationalism does NOT or will NOT exist anymore than. Think of the camera. Most people use their cell phones instead of the traditional camera which is therefore considered ‘obsolete’.
One should always define their terms to avoid this kind of squabbling. If you take the doctrine and it’s increasingly popular meaning that one’s national interest and culture are ‘superior’ to others, then problems (even wars…) follow. When you contrast it with multiculturalism – multiple cultures coexisting on fair and good terms in a single country you see why I say the world is undeniably moving in that direction – the USA being the great (and largely successful) experiment in that. Yes, politicians will always seek their wedge issues (god/gays/guns, for example) and now often fall back to “nationalism" as their wedge issue with all they seek to associate with it in order to tickle the heartstrings of the electorate; but the human race IS evolving away from 'nationalist thinking' thanks to an interconnectedness which is ever increasing.

I do not see the point of this section! It is mostly taken over by people with too much time on their hands ranting on about politics. The same guys every time. Boring,stick to chess!

It's flattering and gratifying to have someone as articulate, informed, reasonable, and rational as lajosarpad agree with me. His elaborations on my position are to the point and quite welcome. On the other hand, I see no need to disparage and discredit ( much less insult ) those who do not share my views. They are perhaps enthralled with the erroneous notion that any and all change must perforce be for the better. It may be hard to resist falling for the self-image of being one of the elect who are the vanguard of progress and the abettors of inevitable perfection. Chronic Marxists revel in the delusion that they are (were?) on the right side of some pre-ordained yet godless history. This opium dream entertains the fantasy that once the family, the nation, religion, and outmoded culture are eliminated all will be as perfect as the Party decrees - with total and enforced immunity from question and doubt. Until, of course, the Party "withers away". Don't hold your breath.

Levon and Naka both playing like beasts. Glad to see them in the Candidates. Should be a good final.