The Sinquefield Cup - Final results / standings

by ChessBase
8/27/2018 – Live games and commentary from Saint Louis! Fabiano Caruana, Magnus Carlsen and Levon Aronian tied for first place, while Caruana also tied for fourth place in the Grand Chess Tour standings with Wesley So, forcing a playoff match to be held on Tuesday. | Graphic: Saint Louis Chess Club

The Vienna Variation - a reliable and ambitious weapon against 1.d4 The Vienna Variation - a reliable and ambitious weapon against 1.d4

The Vienna Variation is a particular and independent system of the Queen's Gambit. It arises after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 dxc4, when Black's capture on move 4 is strongly reminiscent of the Queen's Gambit Accepted.


The Sinquefield Cup has three winners

Press release

The tradition of no repeat winners in the Sinquefield Cup ended in the most unexpected fashion. At the end of the day, there were three winners! Fabiano Caruana, Magnus Carlsen and Levon Aronian tied for first place, while Caruana also tied for fourth place in the Grand Chess Tour standings with Wesley So. According to the rules, one of the players would have to be eliminated by a drawing of lots in a three-way tie, meaning that Caruana could potentially play two tiebreaks: One for the Sinquefield Cup and another for the Grand Chess Tour. The three players decided that they would rather share the title than have one of the players eliminated from participating in playoffs due to random chance.

Hikaru Nakamura, Levon Aronian and Maxime Vachier-Lagrave qualified for the Grand Chess Tour Finals, while Fabiano Caruana and Wesley So will battle it out, Tuesday, for their ticket to the finale in London.

Grand Chess Tour final standings

Grand Chess Tour final standings

Round 9 round-up

IM Lawrence Trent's round-up show is free for ChessBase Basic and Premium account holders. Sign-up for a FREE 90-day trial today! Of course, the entire ChessBase Videos library is also accessible to Premium members.

Full report on round nine...

World Champion Magnus Carlsen, as wildcard, joins nine of the world's best players for the annual Sinquefield Cup at the Saint Louis Chess Club from August 18th to 27th. This year the Grand Chess Tour is slated to hold a final for the top four players, who will face off in a mini-knockout tournament in London in December, and the Sinquefield is the last chance for players to qualify (Carlsen is ineligible). In addition to tour points the prize fund is $300,000, with $75,000 for 1st place.

Players receive 100 minutes for 40 moves then 60 minutes for the rest of the game plus a 30-second delay from move 1. In the event of a tie for first place there will be a two-game rapid mini-match (10 min + 5 sec delay) between the top two finishers (on tiebreak points), and if necessary an Armageddon game (5 vs. 4) on August 28th.

Final Sinquefield Cup standings


Round 9 games and commentary


Commentary by GM Yasser Seirawan, GM Maurice Ashley and WGM Jennifer Shahade

Round 8 round-up

IM Lawrence Trent's round-up show is free for ChessBase Basic account holders.

All daily round-up shows.

Round 1 Round-up

The first round-up is free for everyone! Subsequent daily highlight videos are accessible only to ChessBase Basic & Premium account holders.

GM Simon Williams presents the highlights of the day

The Opening Ceremony

In advance of the first round on Saturday, the players are once again welcomed at an opening ceremony at the World Chess Hall of Fame beginning at 6 pm local time (CDT) or 1:00 AM Saturday morning CEST (23:00 UT).

Live from the World Chess Hall of Fame

Ultimate Moves

The now-traditional exhibition match pits Saint Louis Chess Club founder Rex Sinquefield against his son Randy, with each player will alternating moves with a team of Grandmasters. Rex and Randy begin the game with the first five moves before being replaced by a GM from their "bench". The players continue to rotate every five moves. There will be six games in total, where each side has 5 minutes plus 5 seconds per move.

All games and commentary


After Leuven and Paris in June 2018, the Grand Chess Tour resumes in the USA with two tournaments: The Rapid & Blitz event was inaugurated in a brief ceremony at the World Chess Hall of Fame at Saint Louis last Friday. This will be followed by the Sinquefield Cup. The combined standings of all four events determine the four qualifiers who will compete at a final event to be held in London this December.

GCT standings after Rapid and Blitz

standings after STL Rapid and Blitz

Final standings - Blitz


All games and commentary - Day 5

The final two days are a blitz double round-robin, with 18 rounds of 5 minutes per game with a 3-second delay per move.


Commentary by Yasser Seirawan, Maurice Ashley and Jennifer Shahade

Rapid final standings


All games and commentary

The Saint Louis Rapid and Blitz is the third stage of the 2018 Grand Chess Tour. The 10-player tournament takes place in the Chess Club and Scholastic Center of Saint Louis from August 11th to 15th with Aronian, Caruana, Nakamura, Anand, Karjakin, MVL, So, Mamedyarov, Grischuk and wildcard Dominguez participating and a prize fund up for grabs of $150,000, including $37,500 for first place. The rapid tournament is a single round-robin with three rounds played each day for three days at a time control of 25 minutes for all moves and a 10-second delay from the first move. Rapid games count double, with 2 points for a win and 1 for a draw.


Commentary by Yasser Seirawan, Maurice Ashley and Jennifer Shahade
(Select a video from the playlist menu using the icon in the upper left)

Meet me in St. Louis

by V. Saravanan

Standings table

Combined standings of the Grand Chess Tour after Paris and Leuven

The Rapid event will be 25 minutes plus 10 seconds delay per move for each game, with a win being awarded 2 points and 1 for a draw. The Blitz event will be a 5 minutes for each game with an additional 3 second delay per move, with 1 point for a win and ½ point for a draw. The combined standing will be decided by the cumulative points scored from both the events. (Remember that the GCT uses a the time ‘delay’ instead of the time ‘addition’ — the format common all over the world — the timing mode prevalent in the USA.

All the nine players from the tour events are joined by a wildcard, the Cuban Leinier Dominguez, in the Rapid & Blitz event. The drawing of lots for the event was held in the presence of all the players except for Alexander Grischuk, who could not arrive in time due to a delayed flight.


Lenier Domingues draws his pairing number on Friday | Photo: V.Saravanan

So, Anand, Aronian

After the Paris leg of the Grand Chess Tour, Wesley So leads the table with 21 points, closely followed by Nakamura at 20 and Karjakin at 19. But with many more points up for grabs at the Sinquefield Cup which follows the Saint Louis Rapid & Blitz, the next 18 days will decide the top four of the Tour and who will proceed to London for the finals in December.

The inauguration was held in the relaxed and casual atmosphere of World Chess Hall of Fame, with Maurice Ashley’s typical banter describing the participants of the event. As he teased Levon Aronian being among the 'Gentleman Jokers in chess', Levon had his comeback with, "I hope I will be the Villain in the tournament!"

Opening ceremony

Replay the entire 50 minutes of the opening ceremony and drawing of lots

Goings on about town

Rex Sinquefield

Without a doubt, the central figure of the evening was Rex Sinquefield, who has singlehandedly turned Saint Louis into one of the best cities for chess all over the world. For the USA, he is undoubtedly the godfather for the game, his Saint Louis Chess Club playing host for about ten major events every year.

It was revealed by the Saint Louis County Executive County Executive, Steve Stenger, in his remarks that the US Championships held in March 2018 alone generated more than 1 million US$ for the local economy!

With characteristic enthusiasm and sense of history, Sinquefield had unveiled a banner at the ‘Butler Brothers’ building the previous day, commemorating the 1886 World Chess Championship that had a stop in Saint Louis.

[Rex Sinquefield | Photo: Saint Louis Chess Club /  Austin Fuller]

There are several attractions at Saint Louis apart from the event itself, the Chess Hall of Fame currently hosting the exhibitions ‘Painted Pieces: Art Chess from Purling London’ and ‘Grand Chess Tour: Art of Chess 2018’. (As the event moves on, I will hopefully be able to bring more visuals from these beautiful exhibitions).

Hungarian Chess Men

Hungarian Chess Men — an intricate metal and enamel work, from the early 20th century | Photos: V.Saravanan)

The usual high-quality team of Yasser Seirawan, Maurice Ashley and Jennifer Shahade will host the English live commentary, along with Alejandro Ramirez and Cristian Chirila at the venue, and the formidable duo of Evgeny Miroshnichenko and Peter Svidler handling newly added Russian commentary. Ashley quipped that Svidler was capable of moving over and joining the players' side of the table!

The drawing of lots determined the pairings for the first round (lot numbers in parentheses)

  1. Karjakin (1) – Aronian (10)
  2. Dominquez (2) – Vachier-Lagrave (9)
  3. Anand (3) – Nakamura (8)
  4. So (4) – Mamadyarov (7)
  5. Grischuk (5) – Caruana (6)


Reports about chess - tournaments, championships, portraits, interviews, World Championships, product launches and more.
Discussion and Feedback Join the public discussion or submit your feedback to the editors


Rules for reader comments


Not registered yet? Register

DennisBrian DennisBrian 9/21/2018 12:51
Attention!! to you all Via Global, am here to share my testimony on how I finally join the new world order of Illuminati, after I have been trying to join for over 1 years and 6 months, but scammers took money from me several times. I have been searching to join the new world order of Illuminati for so long, and i was scam many times, until last week here when I met Mr Patrick online who helped me to join the new world order of Illuminati today and i receive the sum of 3 million USD in to my bank account instantly after my initiation have been done and also I will be earning 80 thousand USD every month end, Am so happy! If you are interested to Join the new world order of illuminate today, contact Mr Patrick today instead of accepting scammers to take your money all in the name of helping you join, E-Mail him Via Or Via WhatsApp +234(0)8055329159 for your successful initiation and receiver your instant membership benefit.
dumkof dumkof 8/31/2018 09:18

As I said before, if the given scenario below, with all it's paradoxical and funny results do not disturb you, I've got nothing to add. I don't want to repeat myself and bother this forum any longer. It's obvious that numbers do not mean much to you, by saying things like "if organizers and fans are happy, why not?" :)
fgkdjlkag fgkdjlkag 8/31/2018 03:47
@dumkof, the even playing field comment was in response to your claim of unfairness. Fairness is a value judgment, so I do not know exactly what you mean by it, but I see a fair tournament as the rules being applied evenly to all players.

I did see your example below, but I do not see what it has to do with mathematics or being mathmatically incorrect. If the tournament organizers and the fans want to have 9 draws be equivalent to 3 wins, because it is more exciting for the fans, or for some other reason or reasons, and if the players agree to play under such terms, then I see nothing wrong with it, including the elo results you mentioned. AFAIK, the tournaments under the 3-1 system were rated under elo. I think you meant to say that you believe the 3-1 system and the elo results should be concordant, which I do agree is ideal, because as I mentioned below, players would have to substantially change their preparation, and the elo rating system would no longer be effective at predicting the outcome. Hence the rating system would have to be altered. But other changes, such as bonuses to winning players during a round, would also have an untoward effect to the rating system.
dumkof dumkof 8/30/2018 05:39

"@dumkof, you say that the 3-1 system is mathematically incorrect and unfair, but you have not given any basis for either of these claims"

I have already given an example below. I will expand this example including rating performances and rating changes to support my "claim" :)
Lets assume that all players in a tournament are rated 2700 Elo. Now let me give you a possible scenario after 9 rounds of play:
Player A: 9 draws. (Meaning a 2700 rating performance and no rating change)
Player B: 3 wins, 6 losses (meaning a relatively poor 2580 Elo performance and an Elo change of -30 !!)

According to the 3 point score system, both A and B get the same GCT scores (9 points each). How can a relatively poor 2580 elo performer be placed at the same place with a 2700 elo performer, only because he has more wins? Player B will drop by a massive 30 elo points, back to 2670, while player A will remain unchanged. Isn't this odd? If you still find this normal, after my scenario above, I've got nothing to tell you.

"As @Wallac pointed out, if everyone plays under (and therefore agreed to) the same rules, then it is an even playing field."

The playing field is even whatever the scoring system might be. This is not an argument! You could introduce a fantasy scoring system like 10, 3, 0 and still claim that the playing field is even. This is not the point. We are discussing the "truth" of the scoring system.
FramiS FramiS 8/30/2018 04:23
You just repeat your claim without any evidence. But please show the statistics that demonstrate that introducing the 3- 1- 0 score system has significantly reduced the drawing rate, be it made by yourself or a study by someone else.
Otherwise it is just a claim founded on a common sense concept which is often misleading.
Jacob woge Jacob woge 8/30/2018 01:35
"Regarding the elo system, there is no reason for there to be concordance with the results of a tournament and the elo rating."

In my opinion, this is a total misconception. If it does not reflect your performance, why have rating at all?

Moreover, why should the scoring system depend on whether games are rated or not?

There was, back around 1900, also a debate of draws. One solution that was tried was to award a draw a score of 1/4-1/4, and then arrange for a second game for the other half-a-point with colours reversed. So an encounter could end 3/4-1/4. Where was it, Monte Carlo 1901, 02, 04? Abandoned thereafter, possibly because of the extended schedule.

Today, the second game would have to be a rapid game, played on the same day. Tough, and probably too tough. Some drawn games are very long.
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 8/29/2018 10:39
@ fgkdjlkag : There wasn't only "a couple of tournaments", which were played with the 3 - 1 scoring system ; all in all, between the London Classic and the Chess Masters Final, I think it was more like 10 or so tournaments... In the London Classic, the draw rates were lower, but the London Classic featured each time several 2600+ GMs, so it is impossible to know if the cause of the lower draw rates was the 3 - 1 scoring system, or the presence of the 2600+ GMs.

And, furthermore, I don't really think it is necessary to have many tournaments for the players to adjust there play : top-level players encounter regularly must-win situations, and they have openings ready for these situations, so, if they thought that the 3 - 1 scoring system would have given a sufficient reward for a much more risky play, I think they would have already had the necessary openings for this. In my opinion, they CHOSE to use there regular repertoire, because, globally, they thought it wouldn't be optimal to take more risks, even with the 3 - 1 scoring system. As I said on a previous post on this page, with the 3 - 1 scoring system, in a tournament featuring only 2750+ GMs, if you lose a game, you give 3 points to a more or less direct rival - you can't do it ; it is too dangerous... so you don't change anything, and you play more or less in the same way as in tournaments using the classical scoring system...
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 8/29/2018 09:34
@ RaoulBertorello : I don't know what is exactly your opinion about the top-players, but, as for me, I don't incriminate them : chess is their profession, and I consider it normal for them to do what is the best for their career. And, for example, about Anand, I find it a real feat for him to stay at a 2750+ level at his age - he couldn't do it without adaptating his play... Furthermore, even for players who aren't particularly draw-oriented, it isn't always so easy as that to win games : cf. MVL in this tournament - 9 draws... In my opinion, the main "problems", about the top-players are that 1) they know each other inside out, so they can't really surprise each other, and that 2) at this level, the defense level is so high that it is very difficult to beat a top-player, even for another top-player.

As for me, I think it would be better to chose 2600+ players, rather than players between 2700 and 2750 : if you take, for example (...players between 2700 and 2710...) Tomashevsky, Gelfand, Eljanov, or Adams, their styles are very well-known, they have played many games against 2750+ players, and I think that, with such players, the number of draws would be much higher than with 2600+ players. In my opinion, each time 2600+ GMs are invited in a top-tournament, their games with the top-players are very interesting : either the top-players win against them (and it permit them to show a significantly different aspect of there talent - their capacity to win against lower-rated players), or, from time to time, the 2600+ GMs win against the top-players, and the games are also quite interesting. There are of course some draws, but much less, because a top-level player cannot really accept easily a draw against a 2600+ GM ; it would to bad for their rating or for the given tournament's results. So they take more risks, winning frequently, and losing sometime...
fgkdjlkag fgkdjlkag 8/29/2018 07:14
@Petrarlsen, a couple of tournaments is not enough to assess the 3-1 rule. Plus if it were done in more than a few events, @melante pointed out, it would take time for the players to adjust their play. Can you imagine how different Anand's famous opening preparation would be?

@dumkof, you say that the 3-1 system is mathematically incorrect and unfair, but you have not given any basis for either of these claims, the latter seems to be your personal opinion. As @Wallac pointed out, if everyone plays under (and therefore agreed to) the same rules, then it is an even playing field. What you think is fair clearly is not the same as what other commenters think is fair. Regarding the elo system, there is no reason for there to be concordance with the results of a tournament and the elo rating. But ideally the elo system would be modified to account for the new scoring system (@jsaldea12 mentioned), because players would change their behavior.

I like @dumkof's suggestion of giving bonus prizes to winners in each round. But also this is the same concern as @melante pointed out; if it is for a single tournament then it is hard for players to adjust their play.

I think many of the concerns would be mitigated if we went to chess960.
RaoulBertorello RaoulBertorello 8/29/2018 12:08
@Petrarlsen: I totally agree with you about letting new players in the elite tournaments, because the real problem is essentially the people that are the regulars nowaday, not the scoring rules. Anand, for example, but he is not the only one, wants to draw all the games to stay forever highest in the rating list, so that he is invited again and again in the same elite tournaments every year. I repeat, he is not the only one. These regulars make a closed club, and the organizers of the tournaments, for many reasons, keep the things this way. These reasons would deserve many comments, but it would be too long to list them all. It's been years and years this comedy is on. My proposal is to let the players who won the gold medals on the first two boards at the chess olympiads to get into the club, that is be invited by default in the biggest tournaments: the other invitations are for the usual 'regulars'. Then every two years the new gold medals from the olympiads would take the place of the old ones. If you look at the names, you see these olympians are almost always 2700+ players, and more often than so already famous ones. But this is just my proposal, any idea is good in order to break the closed club. But again, if one side of the problem is clear to everybody, the 'regulars', the other side, that nobody mentions ever, is the organizers, that have all the advantages to maintain this situation. I really don't think it's a matter of scoring system.
dumkof dumkof 8/29/2018 08:02
The winner gets the cake, when they draw they share the cake. The fundamental logic behind a true scoring system. Every other manipulated scoring system is mathematically incorrect and will lead to paradoxical results.

These top GM's are 2800 Elo players, universal players. They play what the position demands. Introducing some manipulated scoring systems won't change their playing style at all.
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 8/29/2018 03:35
@ melante :

- "Regarding the 2015 tournament, one single event has no statistical significance."

It wasn't "one single event" ; the Chess Masters Final 2016 had a 76.7 draw rate ; quite high too...

Personally, I think that the only mean to obtain lower draw rates is to select some 2600+ GMs, for high-level tournaments ; with 2600+ GMs, the playing level stays at a quite high level, but the draw level goes down quite significantly...

In a tournament where all the players are 2750+ GMs, even with the 3 - 1 scoring system, in my opinion, the players will not take much more risks, because, in such a tournament, yes, if you lose, you only lose 1 point, but you also "give" 3 points to your opponent, and this can quite well return to haunt you at the end of the tournament... For example, in the present tournament, if Caruana had lost his game against Carlsen, be it with the "classical" or the "3 - 1" scoring system, Carlsen would have been the overall winner, and Caruana would have been only 3d...

- "The point of the 3-1 scoring system is that it is more interesting to watch the games of someone who wins 3 and loses 6 than someone who draws 9."

It depends if you consider the "efficiency" of chess as a show, or if you consider the "artistic" side of chess : to see well-played games... In a top-level tournament, someone who wins 3 and loses 6 doesn't play well (for this level) - as for defense, his level (in this tournament) is more or less a catastrophe. Whereas someone who draws 9 games can play quite good-quality chess : for example, in this tournament, my global impression is that Anand play was of a very high level, even if he didn't manage to win any game...
melante melante 8/29/2018 03:01
@jacob (and others)

The point of the 3-1 scoring system is that it is more interesting to watch the games of someone who wins 3 and loses 6 than someone who draws 9. If we put audience first (and, hence, sponsors), such player should be rewarded with a higher final standing in the table.

True about the ratings change in a level field like this tournament but the Elo formulas are not set in stone. They could easily be changed to give a bonus for 100% (i.e. a win) and match the 3-1 scoring system so that the +3-6 scenario against similarly rated players doesn't lose points.

Regarding the 2015 tournament, one single event has no statistical significance. It will take time for players to change their attitude and how they prepare.
Masquer Masquer 8/29/2018 12:11
@FramiS Surely you have not followed big time soccer closely/long enough to see a difference between the soccer of 1990-92 and 1994 and beyond when the 321 scoring system took effect. It had been used in England since 1981, but was only introduced internationally after the sport reached an impasse, where nearly everyone was playing for a tie (draw) and play had become much duller. with lots of 0-0 results.
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 8/28/2018 10:15
@ jsaldea12 : In fact, in the Sinquefield Cup 2018, the draw rate was 82.2 % : lower than the Chess Masters Final 2015's draw rate (which was 83.3 %). As the Chess Masters Final 2015 used the 3 - 1 scoring system, it clearly shows that to use the 3 - 1 scoring system doesn't guarantee AT ALL a lower draw rate than the present tournament's draw rate...
Jacob woge Jacob woge 8/28/2018 06:10
"how can you be sure the player at -3, who won 3 games, will necessarily lose points?"

Who won 3 games - and lost 6. It's not just the wins that are rated.

The underlying premise is of course that players confronted are, on average, close to evenly matched. That is common practice. It is how opens work, where folks yo-yo up and down the standings, and it is how to define round robin groups: based on similar rating. In fact, it is one of the reasons for having a rating system.

Underdogs exist (8 losses and a single win may also exceed your expectancy score). But that's beside the point.

Which is, should a lesser performance score a tournament win? Should e.g. 4 wins and 3 losses beat 2 wins and 5 draws.

If so, then why not go all the way and only count wins. Draws will score you zero.

There was a suggestion along this line in football. 3p for a win, 1p for a draw - and 0p for 0-0. No goals, no points.

That was never implemented. Could make sense though.
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 8/28/2018 06:03
@ jsaldea12 : "The point of points system of 3 points for win and 1 point for draw is to force players to fight tooth and nail against one another and not to be placid with draws. The audience's eyes will be agog, will not fall asleep with dry draws. Look at present Suquefield, the lowest percentage of wins, 15% more or less) As I recommend, revise the point rate performance system.."

This is your dream, but the stark reality isn't quite like that : for example, in the Chess Masters Final 2015 (which used the 3 - 1 scoring system), the draw rate was 83.3 %. This shows quite well that it is quite possible to have high draw rates with the 3 - 1 scoring system.

Cf. for example the quite lengthy debates on this page :
dumkof dumkof 8/28/2018 02:00
Melante, you are right, but I'm talking about the Sinquefield Cup here. The rating differences among these top players is not tahat much, they are all within a 50-60 Elo range, thus a -3 score would guarantee a massive rating loss, even for the lowest rated player.
KevinC KevinC 8/28/2018 01:45
@Chris Holmes go to this web page, and click on Event Regulations and Tour Regulations for full details including prize money: grandchesstour dot org/2018-grand-chess-tour/2018-tour-regulations

It, indeed, is on their site.
melante melante 8/28/2018 01:11
And now watch this: According to the 3 point score system, A and B (having 0 and -3 scores respectively) will both have 9 points and earn similar price monies :) Hahaha! Unbelievable! What do "3 point fans" say to this? :)

Easy: how can you be sure the player at -3, who won 3 games, will necessarily lose points? If the wins are against higher rated players, he may actually gain points overall. Same for the player drawing every game: he may actually lose quite a few points even if he doesn't lose a single game.
In any case, Elo rating variations and tournament ranking are two completely different things and they don't necessarily have to be 100% correlated.
Chris Holmes Chris Holmes 8/28/2018 12:51
Why does there seem to be no list anywhere (on ChessBase or on the web) of the prizes for the 2018 Sinquefield Cup ? Everybody mentions the first prize (37,500$) & total prize fund & the prize money won on the Grand Chess Tour but even the Sinquefield website gives no list of prize amounts.
dumkof dumkof 8/28/2018 09:52
@perosianic, @FramiS, thanks for your comments. I fully agree with you.

Lets say, after 9 rounds of play,
Player A has 9 draws (Giri!)
Player B has 3 wins, 6 losses

B has obviously a bad tournament with a -3 score and terrible rating performance resulting with a massive rating drop, while A has a 0 score, resulting with almost unchanged rating.

And now watch this: According to the 3 point score system, A and B (having 0 and -3 scores respectively) will both have 9 points and earn similar price monies :) Hahaha! Unbelievable! What do "3 point fans" say to this? :)

The 3 points scoring system is only good for immature kids, who want to see more blood (A myth) on the board and consider all other drawn games as "boring". But as FramiS mentioned, the 3 point system doesn't decrease the drawing rates at all. Check FramiS's link. Top players don't care about the 3 point score system anyway. They evaluate their relative playing strengths according to Elo and the classical scoring system (1 win = 2 draw). It's sad though, that the 3 point scoring system gives a player with a minus score, the chance to earn more price money than a 0/+ score player.
jsaldea12 jsaldea12 8/28/2018 08:41
What I mean is let the players ofr same countries play against one another before playing with players of other countries.
The point of points system of 3 points for win and 1 point for draw is to force players to fight tooth and nail against one another and not to be placid with draws. The audience's eyes will be agog, will not fall asleep with dry draws. Look at present Suquefield, the lowest percentage of wins, 15% more or less) As I recommend, revise the point rate performance system..
FramiS FramiS 8/28/2018 08:27
@Masquer " Everyone has used the the +3=1-0 system in soccer for the last 25 years with great success. Before that 'draw death' was a big problem there as well, with very boring, defensive, low-scoring games. "

Where do you get your information? Contrary to popular myth nobody has clearly shown that the new rules have decreased the numbers of draws. See for example :

By the way game theory suggests that should maybe theoretically the other way round .
dumkof dumkof 8/28/2018 07:37
@jsaldea, you can not force 2 players of same country to draw, just to prevent prearranged wins/draws. That's a fachistic, barbaric non-chess solution. If the 3 point scoring system allows dirty tricks like prearranged wins/draws, then you should question the truth of the 3 point system.

@Masquer, the 3 point system in soccer is equally unjust, but it's not as visible as in chess, since there is no Elo system in team games like soccer.

The Elo system values a win and 2 draws equally. When 2 equal rated players play 10 games with each other, it doesn't matter if they draw all games or win half/lose half. Their ratings would remain unchanged. The 2 point scoring system also values a win and 2 draws equally, so they perfectly work together.

When we use the Elo system, we have to stick to the classical 2 point scoring system. Elo and 3 point scoring system do not fit together. A complete mathematical paradox these two.
Wallac Wallac 8/28/2018 04:45
Bottom line really;
Everyone is playing under the same set of rules and scoring.
That makes it an even playing field.
Petrosianic Petrosianic 8/28/2018 03:18
Don't know where you got that. There have been plenty of complaints about the 321 system. It's fundamentally unfair because it's possible for someone with an even score to beat out someone with a plus score.

Kashdan tiebreaking is infinitely fairer than 321 scoring. It does the same thing but only comes into play when the scores are tied.
Masquer Masquer 8/28/2018 02:48
@dumkof Everyone has used the the +3=1-0 system in soccer for the last 25 years with great success. Before that 'draw death' was a big problem there as well, with very boring, defensive, low-scoring games.
There have been no complaints about unfairness of this scoring system in soccer, and only praise.
jsaldea12 jsaldea12 8/28/2018 01:44
I agree, the three point system (1 win=3 draws) is the best. Simple, easy to account. About rating peformance rating? Change the performance system! Also in tournaments, let players of same country draw each others first before others.
dumkof dumkof 8/27/2018 11:51
The 3 point system (1 win = 3 draws) is mathematically incorrect. Why not 2.1 or 2.1176932 but 3? With 3, wins are ridiculously overvalued, with no mathematical basis.

Lets say, after 3 rounds of play,
Player A has 1 win and 2 losses
Player B has 3 draws.

A and B would get the same points, while A would have a significant lover rating performance than B. Isn't this unjust?

In the classical system (1 win = 2 draws) players with the same points also have similar rating performances.

More wins are already rewarded as a tiebreaker criteria, so why giving extra artificial and undeserved points to the winner, with a possibly worse tournament performance?

In sum, the classical (1 win = 2 draws) system + number of wins as tiebreaker, is the best solution.

In addition, organizers could reward the round winners with extra prize money, if "motivation and fighting spirit" is the issue.
Masquer Masquer 8/27/2018 10:58
@jsaldea12 You surely must mean three points for a win and one for a draw, or else it's just the same old system.
I agree that a win has to be rewarded more than just being equal to two draws. Otherwise, draw death becomes too convenient for these players.
jsaldea12 jsaldea12 8/27/2018 10:39
It is more exciting, lively, if players are fighting: have that rule to two points for win and 1 point for draws. The present sinquifield with Carlsen (fighting) shows players are more becoming frightened, play for draws than fight for glory: win or loss.

The game between Carlsen against So is tingingly suspenseful. How So was able to get away with draw in that incredible losing position against Carlsen, one of the greatest fighters in chess. It was a beautiful game, have audience agog all the way. It was tooth and nail game: exchanges of aggressive-defensive play.
ChessFan1234 ChessFan1234 8/26/2018 09:06
In Praise of Maurice Ashley

Nobody has written a history of chess simulcasting but when it comes about Maurice Ashley must stand out as an originator of the medium and popularizer of the game itself.

To my mind, Daniel King is the gold standard of broadcasting in chess. His breadth of knowledge combined with a subdued, tempered tone make for a play-by-play that keeps focus on the game rather than himself. That said, for all of King's talent, his core audience remains somewhat small, mostly because his solipsistic character itself is the main obstacle to showcasing his enormous talent.

Contrast King with Ashley. When you consider that most chess learning is gleaned in abject solitude and produces scrawny, introverted pimply geeks with overgrown pants that fail to keep up with puberty, it is a wonder that coupled with Ashley's knowledge of the game is a totally different side, one that is able to transmit to normal humans the love of the game and its many subtleties.

Many people, myself included, have noted that Ashley relies very heavily on computer variations. This has been corrected. Now imbued in the Sinquefield transmission are various nuggets of wisdom imparted by Ashley that make the game accessible. I enjoy his showmanship and his flair for entertainment that make for a very entertaining show.

Lately the list of interesting chess personalities is dwindling. This would be forgivable if the game were less machine-like. At the top, gone are the Moros, the Chuckys, the Shirovs. True, they did not win all the time, though their games were riveting by their sheer originality and any one of them could still crush the Top 10 in a game or two should they surface in a super-tournament.

Chief among the inaccessible styles is that of Magnus Carlsen. His win against Karjakin in Round 2 will be remembered (if at all) not for its chess finesse but by a (brute) force of will that tends to veer more toward the annoying than to the Nietzschean sense. In the end, the quickened time control allowed him to win on a blunder.

So it is that when Ashley, during the Paris rapids, suggested Carlsen's game was not "smooth," Carlsen responded by acting like a total jerk. As a fan, it was to be understood by Ashley's comments that Carlsen had won not by ingenuity or by some beautiful series of moves but, rather, by his stubbornness, obduracy, and dogged determination. A Carlsen game is a boring game. That is why Nakamura's technique, though no doubt faultier, is more interesting and fun for a viewer. By way of Ashley's innocuous comment, the WC became unhinged as he was suddenly thrown into a plane in which moving little wooden pieces are no longer the object.

Kudos to Ashley for making the game more fun. He has done more to promote the game than most people and deserves credit and respect, even from our babyish, puerile millennial world champion whose bouts of hair-trigger sensitivity when questioned differ strikingly from his hubristic self-assurance in the comfort of the "confessional" safe space.
PEB216 PEB216 8/23/2018 11:07
I very much enjoyed GM Simon Williams two videos, but the beard has to go!
jsaldea12 jsaldea12 8/23/2018 01:04
So.. best at counterplay, round 5 against Carlsen
Hamsuns Hamsuns 8/22/2018 07:56
@tigerprowl3 - visit the official website, live section - you find the pairings for all the rounds there
FramiS FramiS 8/22/2018 04:15

Here ,among other sites, are are the pairings:
tigerprowl3 tigerprowl3 8/22/2018 10:31
Would be nice to see what the pairings are for all 9 rounds. Is there a page for that? Or at least the next round pairings please?
dumkof dumkof 8/21/2018 01:22
A game without increment or delay is a catastrophe, the worst thing you can do to chess. It unnecessarily ruins the game, especially the endgame, which is the best phase that distinguishes the better player.

"Delay" is better but not perfect, since it allows some dirty "clock pressing strategies". It doesn't increase the remaining time shown on the clock. It only delays the countdown by a specified period of time. As long as this period isn't exceeded, the remaining time shown on the clock remains the same. This is kind of unjust, since playing immediately, and using the whole delay period don't make any difference. (The time shown on the clock remains unchanged). Normally and logically, playing immediately should be rewarded, with time gain, to be used later.

The "increment" solves this unjust situation above. It simply adds a specified amount of time to the remaining time, each time you press the clock. Playing fast for a few moves is rewarded, since your remaining time increases accordingly, which can be used later. No dirty "clock pressing tricks" here. In my opinion, "increment" is the most rational, moral and chess-friendly system, which should become a standard.
Rama Rama 8/21/2018 01:21
Well fortunately the real money is in appearance fees and endorsements and as long as those keep yielding riches to a professional like Anand then he will continue to play. The paucity of tournament victories definitely doesn't stop Giri from continuing to get invites from the organizers of elite tournaments.