London Rd9: Three-way playoff, Carlsen is champion
12/14/2015 – Three players finished with 5.5/9 points, leading to a very exciting three-way playoff. Due to the nature of the rules, Vachier-Lagrave and Giri first squared off, with MVL prevailing in a dramatic turnaround. He then faced Carlsen for the title. More playoff tension, but in the end Magnus Carlsen claimed both the London Classic title and the Grand Chess Tour. Express report.
Find the right combination! ChessBase 15 program + new Mega Database 2019 with 7.6 million games and more than 70,000 master analyses. Plus ChessBase Magazine (DVD + magazine) and CB Premium membership for 1 year!
The 7th London Chess Classic, England's premier tournament, takes place at its traditional venue of Kensington Olympia from Friday December 4th to Sunday December 13th. The main event, the strongest ever held in the UK, is a nine-round ten-player super tournament played at a rate of 40 moves in 2 hours, followed by the rest of the game in one hour with a 30-second increment from move 41. The overall prize fund is $300,000, with the winner getting $75,000.
When the games are running, clicking on the above link will take you to our live broadcast. It is free and open to all – as a Premium Account member you have access to the Live Book, Chat, chess engine analysis – all in your browser, on a notebook, tablet or even your smartphone. And the Let's Check function will show you what the most powerful computers in the world think of the current position, as each move is being played. Below are the four most-watched boards.
| Round 9 Sunday 13 Dec, 14.00-21.00 | ||
|
Viswanathan Anand
|
½-½
|
Anish Giri |
|
Michael Adams
|
½-½
|
Fabiano Caruana |
|
Levon Aronian
|
½-½
|
M Vachier-Lagrave |
|
Magnus Carlsen
|
1-0
|
Alexander Grischuk |
|
Hikaru Nakamura
|
½-½
|
Veselin Topalov |
Playoff
Tiebreak regulations:
Three Players: The two players placed lowest on tiebreak shall contest a two game Rapidplay match at a time limit of Game / 25 mins + 5 secs / move throughout. Lots shall be drawn to decide which player has White in the first game. If the two game Rapidplay match is drawn the players shall contest an Armageddon Game. The successful player in that game shall then play the player with the highest tiebreak in accordance with the procedure for two players specified in Regulation 6.
Match one
|
Player
|
G1
|
G2
|
G3
|
Total
|
|
M. Vachier-Lagrave
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
2.0
|
|
Anish Giri
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
1.0
|
Game one: For many, the appearance of the Berlin in game one was synonymous of groans, but Anish Giri's play as black was nearly exemplary to the very end as he made it almost look like a walk in the park. MVL eventually conceded after 43 moves, and will have a significant mountain to climb as he faces a must-win with black in game two. The stakes could not be higher: the overall winner will not only win the London Chess Classic tournament, he will win the entire Grand Chess Tour.
Game two: At the top, the players are quick to point out that if White refuses to fight, there is very little Black can do about it. Anish Giri showed how true that can be as he chose the Fianchetto line against the Gruenfeld and was content to kill any of MVL's ambitions in their tracks. The Frenchman did his best but was never able to generate any play, until late in the endgame, MVL began to see a light at the end of the tunnel. What had seemed like a done deal in favor of Anish Giri was suddenly no longer obvious, and in the mad time scramble the Frenchman pulled off his miracle.
Armageddon: Being described as the most solid player of the Grand Chess Tour is a mixed blessing as Anish Giri found out. In the Armageddon game, the young Dutch player had White, which meant a draw was effectively a loss. MVL's renowned blitz skills came to the fore as he did more than hold with black and dominated the game to reserve a seat for a showdown with the World Champion.
Match two
|
Player
|
G1
|
G2
|
G3
|
Total
|
|
Magnus Carlsen
|
1
|
½
|
|
1.5
|
|
M. Vachier-Lagrave
|
0
|
½
|
|
0.5
|
Game one: It was a strange choice by MVL, who played his pet Sicilian, but somehow went for a line that allowed a form of Maroczy bind. This was the sort of position Carlsen lives for and the ensuing middlegame seemed all in his favor as he built a huge position. Incredibly, just when it seemed only a matter of time, the World Champion began to falter at the finish line and a number of inaccuracies saw a huge advantage dissipate and the game seemed destined for a draw. Then Magnus pulled off his magic as he played one simple move that confused his opponent, and showing that even the very best can err in basic endgames, MVL lost.
Game two: It became clear fairly soon that MVL was still not recovered from his shock loss in the previous game, and a number of dubious positional moves that left grandmasters perplexed eventually led to a worse and even lost game. Magnus felt no need to push the point, content to draw, winning both the London Chess Classic and the Grand Chess Tour.
Video of round nine
Replay games of round nine and playoff (with times per move)
Standings after nine rounds
Schedule of the London Chess Classic 2015
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Live commentary on Playchess
| Day and round | English | German |
| 13.12 Sunday Round 9 | Yannick Pelletier | Oliver Reeh/Martin Breutigam |
Links
|
|
Discussion and Feedback
Join the public discussion or submit your feedback to the editors
Nakamura choking against him helped more than anything else. I believe Nakamura draws either his games with giri or Carlsen and he would have at least been in the playoff instead. Perhaps he should just avoid Carlsen from now on because the humiliation is not worth the money.
Shame on the organizing committee for having such a lousy tiebreak system . It was a joke.
One mistake by Grischuk for letting Magnus off the hook in their game, let Magnus not only win the LCC with better conditions but the GCT as well.
One mistake by Grischuk for letting Magnus off the hook in their game, let Magnus not only win the LCC with better conditions but the GCT as well.
I was pleased to see MVL do so well; both he and Giri deserve congratulations.
And, of course, so does Carlsen.
It was a good comeback for the World Champion, in that his play wasn't ridiculous this time, and he did eke out first place. But he still doesn't look much like his old (April, 2014!) self, when people were talking about how soon his rating would pass 2900. Here's hoping he heads back in that direction!
And, of course, so does Carlsen.
It was a good comeback for the World Champion, in that his play wasn't ridiculous this time, and he did eke out first place. But he still doesn't look much like his old (April, 2014!) self, when people were talking about how soon his rating would pass 2900. Here's hoping he heads back in that direction!
Some people are failing to understand that a tie-break is not supposed to be "fair." They had a fair chance to win clear first, and they didn't, they were tied. Another way to resolve who gets the trophy would be to flip coins, or draw straws. If they were flipping coins, it would also be "unfair" with 3 people tied, unless you have a 3-sided coin.
In most tournaments, prizes are based on the real games and the tiebreak is merely to determine who stands up and gets which trophy and who is listed first on the website.
In most tournaments, prizes are based on the real games and the tiebreak is merely to determine who stands up and gets which trophy and who is listed first on the website.
Thank you "DrZeiss" :
"For comparison, the real results...are: .. Which proves that the metrics the actually used to determine the...winner was clearly wrong."
Weerogue has already pointed out the obvious fatal flaws. I'd like to say that your comment's effrontery ("the real results"), pseudo-scientific language ("which proves") and hyperbole/category mistake ("was clearly wrong"), with sense of justice outraged, packed into so few words, make it really, in my view, a classic in the genre. Remarkable. Thank you.
"For comparison, the real results...are: .. Which proves that the metrics the actually used to determine the...winner was clearly wrong."
Weerogue has already pointed out the obvious fatal flaws. I'd like to say that your comment's effrontery ("the real results"), pseudo-scientific language ("which proves") and hyperbole/category mistake ("was clearly wrong"), with sense of justice outraged, packed into so few words, make it really, in my view, a classic in the genre. Remarkable. Thank you.
These rules are antisportives because Magnus was fresh whereas Maxime was stressed by 2 matches, it is scandalous!!
These rules are
Fabulous Carlsen.
Fabulous Carlsen.
http://static.sportskeeda.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/499948424-1450069400-800.jpg
this pic is quite telling. Innit ?
this pic is quite telling. Innit ?
@DrZeiss: ah, I see what you've done - just added up the board pts scored by all competitors from each event - that's quite interesting to see. Certainly Anish going unbeaten in all three events is pretty impressive (...though he is a bit of a draw-meister!)
However, this certainly doesn't prove anything regarding how correct or otherwise the way they determined the winner was. The rules were published and were the same for everyone. The fact the the GCT scoring system was based on awarding points for player's ranking in three different tournaments actually affected some player's strategy - e.g. Magnus went all-guns-blazing against Hammer in Norway to try a last-ditch attempt at improving his rank for that one tournament.
If the rules were that the winner would be based on the highest total number of board points gained, then you would have seen different strategies and potentially different results.
However, this certainly doesn't prove anything regarding how correct or otherwise the way they determined the winner was. The rules were published and were the same for everyone. The fact the the GCT scoring system was based on awarding points for player's ranking in three different tournaments actually affected some player's strategy - e.g. Magnus went all-guns-blazing against Hammer in Norway to try a last-ditch attempt at improving his rank for that one tournament.
If the rules were that the winner would be based on the highest total number of board points gained, then you would have seen different strategies and potentially different results.
Dr.Zeis: "the metrics actually used to determine the GCT 2015 winner was clearly wrong"
Not so, my good doctor. The rules were spelled out ahead of time, so they were known to all the players. It was the placement in each of the three separate tournaments that counted in the overall score, not the points in each tournament. There's perhaps no reason why the GCT could not have been set up the way you propose. It just wasn't, and it isn't "wrong". Clearly, your man didn't win. We call this kind of after-the-fact griping "sour grapes" where I come from.
Not so, my good doctor. The rules were spelled out ahead of time, so they were known to all the players. It was the placement in each of the three separate tournaments that counted in the overall score, not the points in each tournament. There's perhaps no reason why the GCT could not have been set up the way you propose. It just wasn't, and it isn't "wrong". Clearly, your man didn't win. We call this kind of after-the-fact griping "sour grapes" where I come from.
@Dr Zeiss: I think perhaps you're looking at the standings prior to the results for the London leg, as these numbers aren't correct otherwise.
@Matenstock, ChessTalk: Yeah, I thought it was strange that MVL ended up 3rd in London after he beat Giri in tiebreak.
The rules are a little strange: if there is a tie for first, then you get these rapid matches to determine the winner. As there were 3 players tied, the player with the best S-B tiebreak score (Magnus) gets a pass to the tie-break playoff final, while the other two compete in a semi-final (Giri & MVL). Magnus then won the final and won London (and when added to his other points, it meant he won the overall Grand Chess Tour.
MVL placed 3rd because the tiebreak match he played with Giri was purely to determine first place. All other places are determined by the S-B Score tiebreak criteria, and MVL's was worse than Giri's; their tiebreak match effectively had no bearing on the standings for determining 2nd/3rd.
@Matenstock, ChessTalk: Yeah, I thought it was strange that MVL ended up 3rd in London after he beat Giri in tiebreak.
The rules are a little strange: if there is a tie for first, then you get these rapid matches to determine the winner. As there were 3 players tied, the player with the best S-B tiebreak score (Magnus) gets a pass to the tie-break playoff final, while the other two compete in a semi-final (Giri & MVL). Magnus then won the final and won London (and when added to his other points, it meant he won the overall Grand Chess Tour.
MVL placed 3rd because the tiebreak match he played with Giri was purely to determine first place. All other places are determined by the S-B Score tiebreak criteria, and MVL's was worse than Giri's; their tiebreak match effectively had no bearing on the standings for determining 2nd/3rd.
Given the complexity of the GCT tie breaks, maybe ChessBase should elucidate. I know London had a clear set of rules in the event of a three way tie, thus Carlsen got to watch Giri vs MVL and play the winner. But the overall GCT tiebreaks is a bit confusing. Maybe spell it out?
I fully agree with Wodzu and snosko. The rules are very unfair for the player who is in the situation MVL was - having played two rapids and an Armaggedon in a highly stressing situation while Magnus could rest.
The mini-match between Magnus and MVL should have been postponed to the next day.
The mini-match between Magnus and MVL should have been postponed to the next day.
Hail to the King of Chess, the Great Magnus Carlsen.
all of these guys are great chessplayers. if two former world champions finished at the bottom, it just proves what a difficult tournament it was. magnus had superior tb and he earned the right to rest. let's not forget superior tb is enough to determine the winner in many tournaments and organizers don't make players play additional games.
also anish and maxim had two uneventful draws in their classical games but magnus won a tense and difficult game. so anish and maxim playing each other just made it fair for magnus.
also anish and maxim had two uneventful draws in their classical games but magnus won a tense and difficult game. so anish and maxim playing each other just made it fair for magnus.
I don't understand anything in that rules : MVL beat A. Giri, then he has lost in a final vs M. Carlsen and finally, he's third ?! Someone can just tell me more about those strange rules ?
Magnus Carlsen:
Enjoy the improved version 2.0
No waste of CPU Power!
The new excellent power saving mode was designed to keep reserves for the whole year.
The version 2.0 is environment friendly.
Enjoy the improved version 2.0
No waste of CPU Power!
The new excellent power saving mode was designed to keep reserves for the whole year.
The version 2.0 is environment friendly.
@ Aighearach everyone is entitled to their own opinions, IMO Carlsen did nothing extraordinary. It was a normal shared victory. As a WC and the highest rated player he is supposed to outplay rest of the field everytime, then that will be great.
Also he failed to win against Topalov, Anand (both in poor shape) which means that if you play patiently and with confidence you can hold your own against him. This tournament proves that there are many players who are closer to him in terms of pure playing strength which is what we want right?
Also he failed to win against Topalov, Anand (both in poor shape) which means that if you play patiently and with confidence you can hold your own against him. This tournament proves that there are many players who are closer to him in terms of pure playing strength which is what we want right?
Dr Zesis: I actually dont know why you bother with your calculations. If any sponsors finds a way for MC to win, they will always use it, regardless of the original rules...lol. And we the chess fans will always be pleased.....LOL.
Meanwhile, 'we'-the fans, have to do something about this MVL issue. What kind of twisted rules are these. You qualify for the final of a world cup but then placed behind someone who exited in the semi-finals?? Crazy sporting rules
Chessbase, kindly start a polling thing for the 2016 wild card. MVL cannot be excluded without a fight. This is injustice. We need to point fingers, name names, break sh**t,.......you know......
Meanwhile, 'we'-the fans, have to do something about this MVL issue. What kind of twisted rules are these. You qualify for the final of a world cup but then placed behind someone who exited in the semi-finals?? Crazy sporting rules
Chessbase, kindly start a polling thing for the 2016 wild card. MVL cannot be excluded without a fight. This is injustice. We need to point fingers, name names, break sh**t,.......you know......
For comparison, the real results of the GCT 2015 are:
1. Giri 16
2. Nakamura 15
3. MVL 14,5
4.-5. Aronian and Carlsen 14
6. Topalov 13,5
7. Anand 13
8. Grischuk 12,5
9. Caruana 12.
Which proves that the metrics the actually used to determine the GCT 2015 winner was clearly wrong.
1. Giri 16
2. Nakamura 15
3. MVL 14,5
4.-5. Aronian and Carlsen 14
6. Topalov 13,5
7. Anand 13
8. Grischuk 12,5
9. Caruana 12.
Which proves that the metrics the actually used to determine the GCT 2015 winner was clearly wrong.
I don't understand this, why MVL had to play another match at the same day? That is really unfair. Couldn't they move it to a next day?
Giri played well this time. +2 in such a strong tournament is an extraordinary achievement for him. Well done Giri.
Magnus-Alexander 31...Qe1+ if 32.Rf1, Rxg2 and draw and if 32. Rh2, Ng3 33. Ng4, Ne2 and black mates soon, winning MVL the tournament and the Tour?.
Having MVL to play 2 consecutive matches was really unfair. Not only he had to come back against Giri but also he had to beat a fresh Magnus. Congratulations to Magnus (great game against Hikaru) but this time my support goes to Maxime.
Having MVL to play 2 consecutive matches was really unfair. Not only he had to come back against Giri but also he had to beat a fresh Magnus. Congratulations to Magnus (great game against Hikaru) but this time my support goes to Maxime.
Winning just isn't enough for you, eh @pmiletic? He must not be your favorite, but it wasn't a popularity contest. If it was, Morozevich and Kosteniuk would be our world champions!
Of course, it was not only great but highly impressive! Carlsen sneaks in under the wire in the last rounds, and bewilders his opponent in the tiebreak! If he did it once, it would be seen by many as luck. But experience has already taught us, this is just Carlsen. A glance at the ratings list proves he's in his own class. He's just that good. A narrow path to first place is all he needs, really.
Of course, it was not only great but highly impressive! Carlsen sneaks in under the wire in the last rounds, and bewilders his opponent in the tiebreak! If he did it once, it would be seen by many as luck. But experience has already taught us, this is just Carlsen. A glance at the ratings list proves he's in his own class. He's just that good. A narrow path to first place is all he needs, really.
Congrats Magnus! Through the tournament Magnus was not in the lead but in his usual style he clinched the title in the final round. Style and nerves!! way to go Magnus
lol.. nothing great about this.. such undeserving victory..
great comeback win by carlsen!
Carlsen, what a monster!
I can't wait till Wei Yi comes along to at least give some competition.
I can't wait till Wei Yi comes along to at least give some competition.
1
