Tata Steel R7: Dubov forfeits, Carlsen leads

by Carlos Alberto Colodro
1/23/2022 – An eventful seventh round in Wijk aan Zee saw Daniil Dubov forfeiting his game against Anish Giri after declining to wear a mask during the game as requested by the organizers — someone in the Russian’s inner circle had tested positive for Covid-19. Later on, wins by Magnus Carlsen, Jorden van Foreest and Fabiano Caruana left the world champion in the sole lead. | Photo: Jurriaan Hoefsmit

ChessBase 17 - Mega package ChessBase 17 - Mega package

ChessBase is a personal, stand-alone chess database that has become the standard throughout the world. Everyone uses ChessBase, from the World Champion to the amateur next door. It is the program of choice for anyone who loves the game and wants to know more about it.

More...

A matter of principle

One of the longest-running chess events in the world, the Tata Steel Tournament (previously known as Hoogovens and Corus) was organized every single year since 1938 — with only one exception, in 1945. The traditional event took place even in 2021, amid the pandemic. While last year only the Masters took place, this year both the Masters and Challengers are being played, with the amateur (open) tournaments cancelled on both occassions, naturally.

Of course, restrictions and sanitary measures must be in place during the pandemic. And, for the first time in the two Covid-affected events, an opponent lost by forfeit due to a disagreement regarding the rules. Daniil Dubov lost his round-7 encounter against Anish Giri after refusing to wear a mask during the game.

As the organizers informed, a member of Dubov’s inner circle tested positive for Covid-19, with the player himself testing negative to a quick-scan test — a PCR test was also performed, but the results were expected to arrive in the evening. In order to protect his opponent, the chief arbiter ordered the Russian to play wearing a face mask. Dubov refused, which led to him losing by forfeit.

A vigorous, assertive player, both on and off the board, Dubov indicated that his refusal was a matter of principle, as he told Jan Gustafsson that there was “a previous agreement that masks would not be required” during games. Dubov recently found himself in the middle of another controversy, as he faced criticism in Russia after working as Magnus Carlsen’s second at the 2021 World Championship, despite Carlsen’s rival being Russian.

Daniil Dubov

Daniil Dubov before the start of Friday’s sixth round | Photo: Lennart Ootes

Back-to-back wins for Carlsen

The first five rounds saw the world champion missing a few chances to score full points in games that would eventually end in draws. In the last two rounds, however, Carlsen has made up for lost opportunities by scoring back-to-back wins over Richard Rapport and Praggnanandhaa. These two wins have left him as the sole leader in the Masters.

Facing Pragg with black, the Norwegian had a slightly inferior position out of the opening. His teenage opponent faltered in the early middlegame though, giving Carlsen the upper hand.

 

Black is the one putting pressure on his opponent after 20...b4. The game continued 21.Na4 Nxd5, and here Pragg’s best chance according to the engines was to exchange queens with 22.Nxb6 Nxf4, entering an endgame a pawn down against the best player in the world (White will capture on e4 in the ensuing lines).

Understandably, the youngster rejected this alternative and kept the queens on the board by playing 22.Rxd5 — there followed 22...Qe6 23.Rad1

 

With the a4-knight far from the action, White will not be able to deal with Black’s coming threats — the e4-pawn is under attack, the rook will go to a8 to threaten a c4-push, the light-squared bishop might potentially be placed on the long diagonal, etcetera.

Carlsen never let go of the initiative and collected the full point before reaching the time control. The world champion will face Sam Shankland with black on Sunday.

 

Magnus Carlsen, Praggnanandhaa

Magnus Carlsen fist bumps Praggnanandhaa | Photo: Jurriaan Hoefsmit

Van Foreest and Caruana bounce back

The last two winners of the event also grabbed full points in round 7. Coincidentally, both Fabiano Caruana (tournament winner in 2020) and Jorden van Foreest (winner in 2021) came from losing on Friday. While both grandmasters have collected 3½ out of 7 points so far this year, the Dutchman has gone through more ups and downs, as he has won (and lost) three times throughout the event, while Caruana has one win and one loss to his name.

Van Foreest’s victory largely impacted the top of the standings table, as he took down former co-leader Vidit Gujrathi. The Indian faltered decisively on move 36.

 

White certainly is the one creating threats, but Black should be able to continue defending with the natural 36...Rf8. However, while in time trouble, Vidit erred with 36...Rc8, which gives way to a straightforward refutation — 37.d6 Qe6 38.Bf3 Nc5 39.Bd5 Qe5

 

The key point of the sequence is that after 40.Qxe5 fxe5, the rook infiltrates with 41.Rf7+, and 41...Kg6 is followed by 42.Rxd7 Nxd7 43.Be6

 

Vidit resigned. The whole line was almost forced, which proves that even top grandmasters blunder when the clock is dangerously ticking down.

Jorden van Foreest, Vidit Gujrathi

Jorden van Foreest took down former leader Vidit Gujrathi | Photo: Jurriaan Hoefsmit

Caruana’s victory over Jan-Krzysztof Duda came after 53 moves of a double-edged struggle in which both players missed chances to either win more quickly (Caruana) or equalize (Duda) — according to the engines, of course. It was a sharp, enjoyable chess battle from a human point of view! Caruana later confessed:

Things went wrong in the run-up to move 40 because I’m sure I had something much, much better than what I did — I don’t know exactly what, it’s all a bit of a blur now, but I’m sure that after move 40 he shouldn’t lose this position.

Go through Van Foreest and Caruana’s wins in the dynamic replayer below. You can try your own moves or check the engine’s analysis while replaying the game.

 

Round 7 results

 

Standings after round 7

 

All games - Round 7

 

Replay all the Masters’ games at Live.ChessBase.com

Nguyen in sole second place

While Arjun Erigaisi had a dominant first half of the event in the Challengers, it is still too early to relax for the Indian, as 20-year-old Czech grandmaster Thai Dai Van Nguyen is now a point behind the sole leader with six rounds to go. While Nguyen beat Marc’Andria Maurizzi on Saturday, Arjun had to work hard to hold a draw against second seed Rinat Jumabayev.

Lucas van Foreest, Jonas Buhl Bjerre, Daniel Dardha and Max Warmerdam also won in the seventh round. The latter scored his second consecutive win, as he defeated Polina Shuvalova with the black pieces. 

 

Shuvalova stubbornly defended her position an exchange down up to this point, but had to resign after 60...Kh7, as there is no effective way to deal with the threat of f6 and Rxh2. 

Max Warmerdam, Polina Shuvalova

Max Warmerdam beat Polina Shuvalova | Photo: Jurriaan Hoefsmit

Round 7 results

 

Standings after round 7

 

All games - Round 7

 

Replay all the Challengers’ games at Live.ChessBase.com

Links

Carlos Colodro is a Hispanic Philologist from Bolivia. He works as a freelance translator and writer since 2012. A lot of his work is done in chess-related texts, as the game is one of his biggest interests, along with literature and music.

Discuss

Rules for reader comments

 
 

Not registered yet? Register

arzi arzi 2/8/2022 04:39
To Lajosarpad:
The statistics. Are those correct or just misleading? Remember that number: 2060 die of influenza a year 2011? I `ll give you another link. It seems to be almost the same link you gave me.
https://www.stat.fi/til/ksyyt/2011/ksyyt_2011_2012-12-21_tau_001_fi.html

I`ll ask you a question. A man is shot by the other man to the death. How did the victim die? He got shot to the death! No, he died because he got the bullet to his brain and the heart stopped pumpping the blood. Now try to think the virus as a bullet. Patient got a virus (covid/flu) and died. Why did the patient die? Virus killed him. No, he died because he had (for eaxmple) bad astma or pneumonia and he died for the complications of that.

The link I gave above, also look at the numbers between 31-35. They are just the respiratory diseases but covid and seasonal flu affects also to other diseases like diseases of the circulatory system (27-30), tumors and cancers (4-22), almost to everything. However, the true cause of the death is not always indicated by statistics.
"How did the patient die? Becaus of virus? No, he died because of the heart failure even though he had also the virus." or "He already had recovered from the virus when he died because of the heart failure." Which was the real cause of death? Both?

Meaning of those numbers (1-4) in the link I gave above are 1. All people 2. Age 1-14 3. Age 15-64 4. Age 65-
Use google translate for names (cause of the death) if interested.
arzi arzi 2/8/2022 02:17
Lajosarpad:"However, your position is intellectually inferior to those who are purely free riders, because you are damaging your own interests when you try to discourage others from vaccination, which would protect you as well."

My position intellectually inferior? Am I purely free rider? Once more I have to tell you that vaccination does not prevent spreading of the covid. When do you understand this simple truth? I guess never. No, I don`t discourage others from vaccination. It is your statement, not mine. In fact, I recommend getting vaccinated if you are afraid of the covid or you belong to a risk group. Once again a false statement from you. Aren`t you tired of always being wrong?
arzi arzi 2/8/2022 01:48
Lajosarpad:"@arzi Laws are created based on moral principles. It is immoral to avoid wearing a mask when being potentially infected and expecting the other to be exposed to the disease if the protagonist turns out to be infected. Being potentially infected means that there are reasonable chances that the person is infected. While potentially infected I try to do my best to avoid spreading the infection, even if it's a mere cold."

The mask does not need to be used if things are handled properly. Then there is no need for morality here. You are creating moral principles in a matter in which does not need moral principles. The right way or the wrong way to do decision, there is the moral. No hysteria by writers like you would have happened if organizers done their job properly. No mistaken accusations by people with hysteric behaviour.
arzi arzi 2/8/2022 01:23
Lajosarpad:"@arzi, unfortunately the level and style of your latest comments does not match my minimal expectation from a cultured discussion, so, as a result, I write a closing statement to our discussion, but will not allocate time into reading or responding your response to it. I wish you good luck in your life."

Your level is quite low. You first blame people without having the facts you need and then you start to doubt their honesty again without any facts. I wish you luck with your "cultural" discussions. Maybe you find one.
arzi arzi 2/8/2022 01:15
Lajosarpad:"So, I do not know why you say that 2000 people die each year due to influenza in Finland."

Maybe you should find the records in finnish? I did that search in 2019 when covid was in the beginning and I wanted to compare covid to seasonal flu. I got that number then. You have given me figures on covid deaths in Finland but have you found any deaths caused by seasonal flu or other reasons? How is seasonal flu distinguished from covid death if no one performs a physical examination but assumes the patient has died of covid even though the patient has recovered from it according to patient records?

https://www.tilastokeskus.fi/til/kuol/art.html

2011:
2060 people die of influenza a year (May 30, 2011)
Sauna and frost are dangerous for intoxicated people (30.5.2011)
Liquor kills working-age people (May 30, 2011)

Lajosarpad:" The worst figure in the history of Finland in terms of common flu mortality was between 1956 - 1958, which claimed 1800 lives..."

So you have false information as proven above.
lajosarpad lajosarpad 2/8/2022 12:56
@arzi Laws are created based on moral principles. It is immoral to avoid wearing a mask when being potentially infected and expecting the other to be exposed to the disease if the protagonist turns out to be infected. Being potentially infected means that there are reasonable chances that the person is infected. While potentially infected I try to do my best to avoid spreading the infection, even if it's a mere cold.

Also, since this virus is relatively new and there are lots of open questions, I do hope that if anyone has read our discussion, his/her conclusion is that prudency is to be recommended and the experts should be listened to, instead of nonexperts, like you or me. I'm sure that your conduct was not that of a truth seeker and I really doubt your honesty. However, your or my person is not very relevant to the topic. If one does an extreme sport, then he or she faces the dangers he or she chooses. But, if someone drives too quickly with the car, then he or she endangers both himself or herself and everyone else on that road. In this pandemic we are all together and I consider it egoistic that while I wear a mask and vaccinate to avoid spreading the disease, some people are acting as free riders, accepting that I and others accept the risks of vaccination in order to protect them, but they do not do the same. However, your position is intellectually inferior to those who are purely free riders, because you are damaging your own interests when you try to discourage others from vaccination, which would protect you as well.

In my opinion you underestimate the dangers of the disease and even worse, you recommend catching the disease.
arzi arzi 2/8/2022 12:56
Lajosarpad:" I'm sure that your conduct was not that of a truth seeker and I really doubt your honesty."

That is your problem, not mine. You base your matter on your faith, not on the truth. If someone thinks differently then it is either your way or highway to hell. I don`t have any reason to lie or be an unhonest. That is your false believings and I can`t help you on that.
arzi arzi 2/8/2022 12:48
Lajosarpad:"Lajosarpad:"It doesn`t matter if the spreading is LOWER with vaccinating people IT STILL HAPPENS!"

So you acknowledge that vaccinated people are less likely to spread the infection."

I try to explain, once more, to you my meaning of this. Lower does not mean that something is less likely, in propability sense. It can mean that something is lower in quantity. Forexample with vaccinated people the amounth of the viruses in them are 2M (2M is some unknown factor) and with unvaccinated people 5M. Yes, they do have less viruses but the propability to infect the other people is still very high, maybe even 100% because people do not multiply as viruses do on the same timeline. Viruses do that much faster and with the bigger quantities. The big spreading can start from one virus only. Less viruses, slower spreading but still are spreading. So the question is not do viruses infect people or not and with which propability (0% or 100%) but who are spreading the infections and with which propability? Yes, viruses infect people and either vaccinated and unvaccinated people are spreading the infections. You do not have to be sick to spread the virus. Virus does not know if it is landing on the hand of the vaccinated man/woman/boy/girl. The virus does not know if it is transfering from one man to the other woman by sneezing or hand touching in a subway or in a pub. It just doing it. Your whole body is there to help the spreading with out you are even not knowing that. You may think you are out of viruses because you are vaccinated and your friends are in safe. You are wrong. If you want almost 100% certainty then wear a rubber suit completely with breathing mask and oxygen bottle, but that doesn’t guarantee complete safety either. At some point you are careless.
lajosarpad lajosarpad 2/8/2022 12:43
@arzi, unfortunately the level and style of your latest comments does not match my minimal expectation from a cultured discussion, so, as a result, I write a closing statement to our discussion, but will not allocate time into reading or responding your response to it. I wish you good luck in your life.

To clarify, influenza killed 800 people in Finland between 1975-1976. Since then, 250 casualties a year due to influenza was the worst figure in Finland. In 2010 nine persons died from influenza in Finland. So, I do not know why you say that 2000 people die each year due to influenza in Finland. The worst figure in the history of Finland in terms of common flu mortality was between 1956 - 1958, which claimed 1800 lives, spanning accross a two-year period, which was slightly better than the current COVID season. https://www.stat.fi/til/ksyyt/2010/ksyyt_2010_2011-12-16_kat_003_en.html

Closing statement: Our topic was that Dubov, as a potentially infected person refused to wear a mask in order to protect his opponent - Giri - from a possible infection. He pointed to his "principles" as the reason to do so. Vaccination as a topic was brought up by someone in this discussion, maybe you, but I'm not sure, nor do I care about it. I answered to it, even though it is only remotely related to our discussion. My position is that it is selfish to expect others to get exposed to our (potential) infection, while avoiding to wear a mask, regardless of what the organizers and the laws say. It is a minimal gesture of goodwilling that we try to minimalize the chance of infecting others, even if we do not consider ourselves to be in danger.
arzi arzi 2/8/2022 09:09
Lajosarpad:"They have informed before that there is no need to wear a mask.""Forgive me for the absurd parallel, but the organizers did not say that people need to go to a shelter...."

No, but they did say about using masks before the tournament. Right? There were two means to handle that possible infection. The right way and the wrong way. They were using the wrong way.

Lajosarpad:"This is about protecting the others. If you are attacked by a rabid dog, then you may be separated from everyone else against your will, violating all your rights, but the reason for that would be to protect the others..."

Yes, but analogy is wrong. Dubov was not an infected dog but a chessplayer, possible infected by the covid. Do you think that they should have shot the Dubov because of a possible rabid or a covid infection? After shooting check the result? Ouch! "OK folks, everything is fine now, although the player died by the shot but games can now continue. We share his points and winning money with all of you." Nice.
arzi arzi 2/8/2022 09:07
Lajosarpad:"@arzi "The entire tournament should have been suspended for the duration of the tests.""Agreed in principle, I'm not sure whether that was possible for the organizers."

Now we are coming to the common truth. If they were unable to handle the matter they would have had to tell the players in advance not afterwards.

Lajosarpad:""As we can now witness afterwards Dubov was ok with his negative result. He is now in Berlin."
Yes, but our current knowledge was not available at the time of the tournament in Wijk, so we cannot apply presentism (the logical fallacy that invalidates past decisions on criteria unkown at the point when the decisions were made)."

Still this is the fault of the organizers, not Dubov`s. Their decision to violate Dubov's rights could have been thwarted by considering the possible situation that then occurred. In a possible infection postpone the tournament and make three tests for all. Two negative results overpowers one positive.
arzi arzi 2/8/2022 08:28
Lajosarpad:"@arzi "Were all players who had been in contact the previous days also tested? If not, why not?"

Good questions! I assume that everyone was tested, independently of being a contact or not. Since I'm not an organizer...his possible infection is a superposition akin to Schrödinger's cat. In the ca..."

Don`t assume when making statements. Believing is not the same thing as the truth. You’re a tough guy to read and post information from Wikipedia but you don’t seem to use your own head to think. I know my Schrödinger's cat theory. Chaotic behavior underlies many natural systems, such as weather and climate. You should read your chaos theory.
arzi arzi 2/8/2022 08:07
Lajosarpad:"So, according to them it is mistaken to assume that the young and healthy had a hidden illness. It is enough to have some temporary anomaly. Yes, if you are young and healthy, you are less likely to die from omicron, but you can die. Also, if you have a hidden disease that you do not know about and do not vaccinate because of your lack of knowledge about such a condition, then you also may end up among the casualties."

YES, you can die from omicron but it is LESS LIKELY. These two last words are coming from you. You can also die from lightning even though it is less likely but you can die.

Lajosarpad:""The main point still is that the biggest group of casualties are the ones in risk group. "

True. But the fact that they are more likely to die from the disease and the fact that the majority of the casualties are from the risk group does not mean that others could not be in trouble in the case of infection."

True, but LESS LIKELY.
arzi arzi 2/8/2022 07:57
Lajosarpad:"So, if you vaccinate, the only person who faces the dangers of the vaccine is yourself. While you protect everybody else, either by not getting the infection or quickening the time of your own recovery. Why is this hard to understand?"

Vaccination does NOT prevent from the spreading of the covid. It is the fact. If unvaccinated people are at home to get better who is in danger in shopping? Not me I am at home. Now vaccinated people go to shopping with their new friend, the secret virus, and get it spreading. Who is now in danger? Why is this so difficult to understand?

Lajosarpad:""It doesn`t matter if the spreading is LOWER with vaccinating people IT STILL HAPPENS!"

So you acknowledge that vaccinated people are less likely to spread the infection."

False statement. Either you are blind or stupid? Lower does not mean LESS LIKELY in this case. That is your false statement, not mine. Don`t use YOUR words as mine. That is stupidness which everybody sees that. All your long spam is based on your own beliefs not facts. It is unnecessary to answer your other posts in the same chain because they are based on your false assumption.
arzi arzi 2/8/2022 07:24
Lajosarpad:"Swine flu was a new kind of flu. Not to be mistakenly mixed with the common flu."

So what? Can`t I write about swine flu? Mixed with the common flu? Nice excuse. I thought we also discuss about vaccinations? I guess that is your false thought, not mine.

Lajosarpad:"You speak about 235 children being diagnosed with narcolepsy due to the H1N1 vaccine. Nobody said that a vaccine cannot pose dangers."

Actually you are trying to insist that. You will rather take the new vaccination for the old common flu not knowing about the effects. Nice.

Lajosarpad:"So, you come with the number of 235 ill (not dead) children to illustrate how dangerous vaccines generally may be, yet, you completely ignore that almost 10x as many people died in Finland due to COVID."

Actually I have already written below that in Finland before the covid hysteria, an average of about 2,000 people died each year due to seasonal flu, which mainly occurred in the autumn. In two years it makes 4,000 and in three years it makes 6,000.
arzi arzi 2/8/2022 07:23
"The epistemologic difference between the two mainly consists in the fact that the scientific community and human kind has .... so far. Yet, COVID-19 was uncharted territory two years ago, so there are quite a few open questions, especially about long term effects of the virus and the vaccines."

False statement. NO ONE can predict the effects of a new vaccine even if it is the common flu. That is impossible. It is not because of the virus but the human. There are so many different variants in human dna that it is impossibe to cover all the possible variations the people have. That is your false statement, not mine.
arzi arzi 2/8/2022 06:52
Lajosarpad:"Why do you ask something that was already clarified? It is clear that someone will have antibodies if he/she gets the infection. Yet, preventing the sickness from spreading is exactly what responsible adult people want."
False statement. Vaccination does not prevent sickness from spreading. That is YOUR mistake, not mine. Ignorance is not a virtue, not even for you.

Lajosarpad:"The common flu is common. That is, we know a lot about it and about the vaccines against it. We are better informed about it than about COVID, especially in terms of long-term consequences. ---- "You seem to assume in the case of COVID or the common flu that only members of the risk group may die due to it. However, this is a simplistic and false assumption. Young and healthy people, trusting their immune system may also die due to these diseases."

False statement, again. If your young and beautiful dies on common flu he/she has NOT been healthy. That is your own false statement. He/she has had to have some hidden sickness not found before further incpections, maybe after his/her death. NO, covid is not more dangerous than common flu because even common flu can be death serious threat to certain group of people. The group doesn`t have to be the same group as the risk group in covid sickness. That is your false thought, not mine. all your nonsense is based on a false assumption. That's why you're messing with the same rubbish.
arzi arzi 2/8/2022 06:33
Lajojsarpad:""NEGATIVE RESULT. That is why he is playing in Berlin, right?"

You seem to be (deliberately?) ignoring that after all he had a positive test as well, due to which he had to leave Wijk and many days passed until he was allowed to play in Berlin. See: https://worldchess.com/news/all/dubov-tested-positive-for-covid-leaves-the-2022-tata-steel-chess/"

I have already written below that 1 positive overpowers 1 negative. This is how the Dutch authorities act in a similar situation. 2 negative overpowers 1 positive. This should not be to difficult to understand, even to you?

Lajosarpad:"Dubov has rights. Giri also have rights. What rights have higher priority? Dubov's right to play without a mask, or Giri's right not to be exposed to a possible risk of infection? I consider the latter right to be of higher relevance."

The law sets out the rights of the individual. You can’t break them if you have a way to check the correct state of things. You don't seem to be from a good old democratic USA if you don't know that? Maybe from Hungary? Do they first throw people in jail and only then check the guilt of the accused? Nice.
lajosarpad lajosarpad 2/7/2022 06:28
@arzi "The entire tournament should have been suspended for the duration of the tests."

Agreed in principle, I'm not sure whether that was possible for the organizers.

"As we can now witness afterwards Dubov was ok with his negative result. He is now in Berlin."

Yes, but our current knowledge was not available at the time of the tournament in Wijk, so we cannot apply presentism (the logical fallacy that invalidates past decisions on criteria unkown at the point when the decisions were made).

"They have informed before that there is no need to wear a mask."

Forgive me for the absurd parallel, but the organizers did not say that people need to go to a shelter. Yet, if some hurricane/tornado would have hit Wijk during the tournament, the organizers would have asked the players to go to shelters. Yet, some people may refuse that out of principles. This is the phenomenon law specialists call "Vis Major".

"It is not the fault of the refuser if the organizers have not taken into account the possible infection. It is like accusing a victim of being raped."

This is about protecting the others. If you are attacked by a rabid dog, then you may be separated from everyone else against your will, violating all your rights, but the reason for that would be to protect the others. Even if later it turns out that you are not infected. The danger in such a case is too great, so it is not a valid option to wait for the tests which confirm your rabidness and let you roam freely while you wait for the results.
lajosarpad lajosarpad 2/7/2022 06:27
@arzi "Were all players who had been in contact the previous days also tested? If not, why not?"

Good questions! I assume that everyone was tested, independently of being a contact or not. Since I'm not an organizer, I can only speak about why I think the decision about Dubov was reasonable, will do so as if I was an organizer for better readability, but, again, I'm not an organizer. Dubov was a contact, so his possible infection is a superposition akin to Schrödinger's cat. In the case of the others, we do not know about any contacts with the diseased, with the possible exception of Dubov. So, we need to find out whether Dubov is infected. How do we find this out? First, we make a quick test, which does not disprove his possible infection if it results in the negative, but, if it is a positive, then urgent drastic measures are needed. This quick test is negative, so it seems that he is not infected after all. Still, a PCR test is needed to be more confident about this. Yet, this is difficult, because there is a round to be played in the meantime. So, even though it is unprobable (due to the negative result of the quick test) that he is infected, it is not completely excluded yet, so we need to be cautious, because, if the PCR test will be positive, then we have contributed into infecting everyone else, which leads to international scandal. So, to avoid postponing the round, we ask him to wear a mask for the time being and we'll see what the PCR test's result is.

Read about Schrödinger's cat here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat
lajosarpad lajosarpad 2/7/2022 06:26
@arzi "Those young and "healthy" casualties are not actually healthy but with a very high probability belonged to the risk group."

No, experts say that even if you are healthy and young, even in that case your immune system might temporarily lower its guard for some reason (which happens for each individual) and if you get COVID at that time, then you are more likely to face dire consequences than in the case when you catch it when your immune system does not lower its guard. I hear this from every expert I've heard speaking. So, according to them it is mistaken to assume that the young and healthy had a hidden illness. It is enough to have some temporary anomaly. Yes, if you are young and healthy, you are less likely to die from omicron, but you can die. Also, if you have a hidden disease that you do not know about and do not vaccinate because of your lack of knowledge about such a condition, then you also may end up among the casualties.

"The main point still is that the biggest group of casualties are the ones in risk group. "

True. But the fact that they are more likely to die from the disease and the fact that the majority of the casualties are from the risk group does not mean that others could not be in trouble in the case of infection.
lajosarpad lajosarpad 2/7/2022 06:24
@arzi I never claimed that vaccines protect 100% against the infection, so, when you answer to this idea (something I have never said), you expose your dishonesty. My points are that if you take the vaccine:

- you will less likely contract the disease
- if you contract it, it is less likely that you will face severe consequences
- if you contract it, then it is likely that you will heal more quickly

So, if you vaccinate, the only person who faces the dangers of the vaccine is yourself. While you protect everybody else, either by not getting the infection or quickening the time of your own recovery. Why is this hard to understand?

"It doesn`t matter if the spreading is LOWER with vaccinating people IT STILL HAPPENS!"

So you acknowledge that vaccinated people are less likely to spread the infection. Which also means that if you are vaccinated, then it is less likely that you will infect others, you will spread the disease for a shorter period if vaccinated. This was the reason due to which I have made my point earlier according to which when you take the vaccine, the only person facing the danger due to that is you. While, if you take the disease, you endanger everybody around you. Which means that, if you want to reduce the chance of spreading the disease, you need to wear a mask, vaccinate, isolate, etc. The experts know much more about this than you. The majority of the experts recommend vaccination for everyone.
lajosarpad lajosarpad 2/7/2022 06:22
@arzi "How can we are better informed about a new vaccination for an old flu?"

The epistemologic difference between the two mainly consists in the fact that the scientific community and human kind has many decades of accumulated knowledge of how the common flu evolves and how vaccination should be applied against it. There is a decades-long knowledge-base about vaccine-producing against the common flu and standards that are consistently applied as well as hundreds of research papers about short-term and long-term effects of methodologies applied so far. Yet, COVID-19 was uncharted territory two years ago, so there are quite a few open questions, especially about long term effects of the virus and the vaccines.

Swine flu was a new kind of flu. Not to be mistakenly mixed with the common flu.

You speak about 235 children being diagnosed with narcolepsy due to the H1N1 vaccine. Nobody said that a vaccine cannot pose dangers. However, only in Finland (the country you seem to care about) 2095 people died from COVID and counting. So, you come with the number of 235 ill (not dead) children to illustrate how dangerous vaccines generally may be, yet, you completely ignore that almost 10x as many people died in Finland due to COVID. I should also mention that among the survivors there are people who almost (!) died, also people who have to accept that their recovery will be long and hard, others face long-term consequences of the disease. So, the worst example that you brought up about vaccines (and your example is unrelated to COVID, by the way) is far less serious than the current pandemic.
lajosarpad lajosarpad 2/7/2022 06:22
@arzi You say I have lost a battle and that I do not understand what a risk group is. This is exactly what I expect from a dishonest person in a discussion.

"You do know that getting omicron also give antibodies, right? Or do you think that antibodies will be got only by vaccination?"

Why do you ask something that was already clarified? It is clear that someone will have antibodies if he/she gets the infection. Yet, preventing the sickness from spreading is exactly what responsible adult people want.

"Still common flu causes deaths (you know in which group?). "

You seem to assume in the case of COVID or the common flu that only members of the risk group may die due to it. However, this is a simplistic and false assumption. Young and healthy people, trusting their immune system may also die due to these diseases. COVID is spreading much more quickly and causes a lot of casualties in comparison to the common flu. So, COVID is more dangerous than the common flu. You trust in the safety of omicron, but I believe that's a bad idea. Yet, I hope you will never have to find it out the hard way.
lajosarpad lajosarpad 2/7/2022 06:21
@arzi First it turned out that Dubov was in contact with someone who was infected. Second, Dubov's quick test was negative. Third, his PCR test was being evaluated during the round when he forfeited. At this point nobody knew what his PCR test result will be. So, while being possibly infected, Dubov refused to comply to the precaution the organizers asked from him. This is what I criticized. Nobody asked Dubov to wear a mask after his PCR test turned out to be negative as well. It is a stupid idea to let someone who has a considerable probability of being infected potentially infect others, just because we do not know for sure that he is infected. Fourth, he tested positive and had to leave the event. Nobody asked him to leave the event when he did not have a positive test yet.

"NEGATIVE RESULT. That is why he is playing in Berlin, right?"

You seem to be (deliberately?) ignoring that after all he had a positive test as well, due to which he had to leave Wijk and many days passed until he was allowed to play in Berlin. See: https://worldchess.com/news/all/dubov-tested-positive-for-covid-leaves-the-2022-tata-steel-chess/

Dubov has rights. Giri also have rights. What rights have higher priority? Dubov's right to play without a mask, or Giri's right not to be exposed to a possible risk of infection? I consider the latter right to be of higher relevance.
arzi arzi 2/7/2022 03:00
Why did the organizers decide to continue the tournament anyway if they had a suspicion of infection? They have informed before that there is no need to wear a mask. If someone refuses to wear the mask then it is up to the organizers to start the testings. It is not the fault of the refuser if the organizers have not taken into account the possible infection. It is like accusing a victim of being raped. The mask conflict between Giri and Dubov would not even have happened.
arzi arzi 2/7/2022 02:40
Dubov played among the other players in the previous days. Then came the mask compulsion, which Dubov refused. His game was condemned in favor of the opponent. Were all players who had been in contact the previous days also tested? If not, why not? There should have been at least three tests for everyone, as only two negative results invalidate one positive result. If not, why not? Was the tournament schedule so tight that there wouldn’t have been time for three tests? Was he the only one tested and why weren’t there at least three tests for all? I think this violates Dubov's rights. The entire tournament should have been suspended for the duration of the tests. As we can now witness afterwards Dubov was ok with his negative result. He is now in Berlin.
arzi arzi 2/7/2022 12:12
A fictional story.
On a planet called an Idiotplanet, 90% of people are sighted car lunatics and 10% are blind car lunatics. The makers of the planet are tired of the large number of car crashes. They decide to ban driving completely. One researcher, called Idiot1, examines statistics and finds that 99% of all accidents are caused by blind idiots and only one seeing idiot has been causing a crash. He tells his superiors about his finding, but the superiors and their superiors, the decision-makers, say they know things better, driving is dangerous.
Idiot1 tells to his superiors that we can vaccinate the blind car lunatics, change them to drivers who can see. Supervisors say everyone should be vaccinated to be seen, including sighted car lunatics. Idiot1 tries to explain to the big idiots that 90% of the population of the planet do not need the vaccination because they can already see. In vain. All population got the vaccination, the blind car lunatics gained their sight but 50% of the sighted car lunatics lost it. The number of accidents increased as a result and the car driving was banned for all.
The End
arzi arzi 2/7/2022 09:25
Lajosarpad:"@arzi "I take that omicron instead."
"I consider this to be an irresponsible, selfish and stupid position, akin to the chickenpox parties."

But we are not talking about chickenpox parties, are we? By the way I already have had chickenpox but not a omicron. My daughter and her two children, their grandmother got the omicron last week and they are now like before infection.

Lajosarpad:"My point is that if you do not protect yourself against the virus, then you may catch it and, while I hope that you will recover, you may die. There are young and healthy casualties as well, even though the majority of the casualties are those who are more likely to face complications for the disease."

Yes, I would be worried if I belonged to the risk group (covid), but I don`t. Your next sentence is correct but misleading. Those young and "healthy" casualties are not actually healthy but with a very high probability belonged to the risk group. No one has done the chekcing of it? You should know that if you are an expert in numbers and statistics. If you don`t know that then you don`t know about covid/omicron. You don`t have to be an expert in covid/omicron but if you know that the biggest group in danger are people in the risk group then you should also be able to "calculate" the victims of the covid/omicron. There are always small variables in the statistics that do not actually affect the whole situation. There can be a also very few "healthy" young people in a very large "unhealthy" group and vice versa. It is a different matter if one statistic talks about, forexample, 30% and another talks about 0.3% about the same thing. If spanish flu, forexample, affected mainly on young people and covid virus mainly on risk groups then it is very propably that there may be surprising losses in the unlikely group in both epidemic. The main point still is that the biggest group of casualties are the ones in risk group.
arzi arzi 2/7/2022 08:23
Lajosarpad:". Also, if you take a vaccine, the only person who faces its dangers is you. While, if you get infected, the dangers of the disease affect both you and everyone else around you. This is why I consider the refusal of vaccination selfish, as it completely ignores the dangers we may pose to others."

That sentence proves that you don`t know what you are talking about! All these previous nitpicking has been in vain. Vaccination does NOT PREVENT spreading of covid/omicron! Unvaccinated and vaccinated people spread the covid. It is the fact! Vaccinations of covid virus prevent or reduce the outbreak of a dangerous disease in a risk group person. How ever it doesn`t prevent the spreading of the virus. Your claim is false, irresponsible and selfish. It doesn`t matter if the spreading is LOWER with vaccinating people IT STILL HAPPENS! We are not talking about people but viruses. It is enough that vaccinated man/woman get her/his/ hand full of viruses in his hand in a metro. Then he/her is hugging and kissing his/her best vaccinated friend who gets the viruses and the disease continues on. It doesn`t matter if this happen slower with vaccinated people it still happens and spreads. You are living in the vacuum of ignorance.
arzi arzi 2/7/2022 07:54
Lajosarpad:" You did not say that a lesser danger is not a danger. You said that the omicron variant is not dangerous (except the risk groups)."

You have lost the battle of this conversation. Nitpicking. That whole sentence prove that you don`t even understand what I have explained to you. You do not have any idea about risk group. You don`t even know who belonge to the risk group. I tried to explain it to you but it seems now in vain.

Lajosarpad:"So it is perfectly reasonable to be cautious about possible mutations of the omicron that may suddenly turn out to be more dangerous."

Yes, and it is perfectly reasonably to be cautious about cars in trafic unless you are at home. You do know that getting omicron also give antibodies, right? Or do you think that antibodies will be got only by vaccination?

Lajosarpad:"The common flu is common. That is, we know a lot about it and about the vaccines against it. We are better informed about it than about COVID, especially in terms of long-term consequences."

Still common flu causes deaths (you know in which group?). How can we are better informed about a new vaccination for an old flu? I don`t understand your logic. Swine flu pandemic 2009–2010 and vaccinations followed by narcolepsy. As a side effect of Pandemrix, new vaccination, 235 children and adolescents developed narcolepsy in Finland. The distribution of this vaccination was suspended for some time. No one can predict the subsequent effects of a new disease or new vaccine. It's impossible! That`s why 235 children got narcolepsy, forexemple.
arzi arzi 2/7/2022 07:13
Lajosarpad:" But I do criticize irresponsible, selfish people when they say they do not play with a mask "out of principle".

I do also criticize irresponsible, selfish and ignorant people who attack first and learn only later the real truth. The truth is that Dubov has a negative result in his covid test. End of that story. NEGATIVE RESULT. That is why he is playing in Berlin, right?

Lajosarpad: "Dutch laws mandate quarantine when someone is a contact. So the organizers of Wijk could have just applied the Dutch laws and defaulted Dubov. Simple as that. "

The organizers should have been thought before the tournament what should have be done in situation like Dubov. The second test should have been mandatory. That has to be done because of the rights of Dubov. Even though there are covid epidemic in the country the rights of the individual remain valid.
lajosarpad lajosarpad 2/5/2022 03:14
@arzi "I take that omicron instead."

I consider this to be an irresponsible, selfish and stupid position, akin to the chickenpox parties.

"You still have trouble understanding the numbers and statistics."

I will say this only once, because my person is off-topic: I analyze numbers and statistics as a professional in the area. I'm not an expert about COVID, but I'm an expert about numbers and statistics, so, when you say that I don't understand numbers and statistics, you are drawing hasty conclusions, just like the conclusions you made about omicron.

My point is that if you do not protect yourself against the virus, then you may catch it and, while I hope that you will recover, you may die. There are young and healthy casualties as well, even though the majority of the casualties are those who are more likely to face complications for the disease. So, your mistake in your arguments is that while it is true that the majority of the casualties or those facing complications are naturally those people who are more likely to have difficulties, but this does not mean that no young and healthy people die from it.
lajosarpad lajosarpad 2/5/2022 03:14
@arzi Experts advise against deliberately getting the disease, see

https://time.com/6133419/should-i-try-to-get-omicron/

"If the momentary sickness (omicron) is the smaller evil than possible long-term consequences because of the vaccine then we should choose the sickness."

If we assume your assumption, then yes, but your assumption is merely an assumption. We do not know of any long-term consequences of the vaccines, nor the long-term consequences of the disease. We do know that if you are infected, then you probably get sick, with possible complications (or worse). If you take the vaccines, on the short-term you have better chances against the disease and vaccines are unlikely to kill you in the short-term. So, while the long-term consequences are unknown, we know that on the short-term vaccines are better. Additionally to that, I trust much more the vaccines designed to protect us than the virus when it comes to long-term consequences.

"Would you choose the vaccine for the common flu if you don`t know the possible long-term consequences of the vaccine?"

The common flu is common. That is, we know a lot about it and about the vaccines against it. We are better informed about it than about COVID, especially in terms of long-term consequences.
lajosarpad lajosarpad 2/5/2022 03:13
@arzi You are right when you state that vaccines might have long-term consequences. However, the dangers the vaccines represent pale in comparison with the dangers a disease represents. The vaccines were created by specialists in order to protect us, while the virus does not take our interests into account, it mutates randomly, this is why I consider the refusal of vaccination during a pandemic to be an irresponsible approach, yet, I do not question the right for refusing a vaccine. Also, if you take a vaccine, the only person who faces its dangers is you. While, if you get infected, the dangers of the disease affect both you and everyone else around you. This is why I consider the refusal of vaccination selfish, as it completely ignores the dangers we may pose to others. It is true that even the vaccinated may get infected, yet, experts say (and no, I'm not an expert in this area) that 1. you have lower chance of getting the disease if you are vaccinated, 2. You will be less likely to be severely affected by the disease if you are vaccinated and 3. You will likely get over the disease more quickly if you are vaccinated. So, if you are less likely to get the disease, then it is both your interest, your loved one's interest and the society's interest. If you get over it quickly, then you will have less opportunities to spread it.
lajosarpad lajosarpad 2/5/2022 03:13
@arzi You did not say that a lesser danger is not a danger. You said that the omicron variant is not dangerous (except the risk groups). However, as a proof to your point you brought up a quote according to which there is a lesser chance that one ends up in hospital while being infected with the omicron variant than with other variants. Since this quote was brought up as a proof, or at least as an argument, I pointed out that we have never debated whether omicron is less dangerous than the others, that's an established fact, at least according to the observations made on the short-term consequences. We agreed on this. However, even though we may conclude that omicron seems to be less dangerous than delta, that does not mean that omicron is not dangerous. Omicron and delta are both mutations. Delta is a variant that increased the dangerousness of the infection, while omicron is a variant that decreased the danger of the infection. As a result, mutations can both increase and decrease the dangers of the disease. So it is perfectly reasonable to be cautious about possible mutations of the omicron that may suddenly turn out to be more dangerous.
lajosarpad lajosarpad 2/5/2022 03:12
@arzi let me clarify the matter. We are discussing Dubov's refusal "out of principle" to wear a mask at a point when there were reasons for concerns of his possible infection. So, it seems that according to his principles he has a right to play without wearing a mask, even if he infects Giri. So, our main topic here is the mask as a protective measure which reduces the chance that a possibly infected infects someone else. My position is that the rules for the tournament should be as lenient as possible, but, if someone is a contact of a diseased person (which means a higher risk of being infected), then the given person, out of respect and care for the other human being should act responsibly. I did not recommend mandatory vaccines or the like. But I do criticize irresponsible, selfish people when they say they do not play with a mask "out of principle".

Dutch laws mandate quarantine when someone is a contact. So the organizers of Wijk could have just applied the Dutch laws and defaulted Dubov. Simple as that. Instead, they were lenient with him, asking him only to wear a mask. He refused it, because he is selfish and totally ignores the fact that Giri probably would not want to get infected and also, Dutch authorities may punish the organizers for allowing a contact to play a game. The principle of not infecting a fellow human being should be above whatever principles Dubov is referring to. And he would have not lost any money if he would wear a damn' mask. He should have done so, because a close contact to him has got the disease and only the quick test was negative, while the PCR test's result became known only after the round.
arzi arzi 2/4/2022 02:20
Lajosarpad:"So, while I do not question your freedom to decide that you will not vaccinate, I consider that to be a bad decision. Bad decisions, by default are not illegal. In the meantime, in Finland the number of deceased people has raised to 2058. Will the current decision of Finland's decision-makers going to be a success? We'll see the numbers in two weeks. I wish you all the best of luck!"

Word is free. I take that omicron instead. Actually my grandchild and daughter have got omicron. Nothing more than runny nose, cough and a slight fever. They (also me) are not in a risk group. I thought few days ago if I would go to visit them to get that virus to myself. I canceled that because of my work.

You still have trouble understanding the numbers and statistics. Those numbers don`t tell you who those people were. Those numbers don`t tell you that they belonged with a very high probability to the risk group. The risk group people, age between 80 and up, with multi organ sickness.

As I already wrote before, patient beds in hospital intensive care units have decreased by more than 30%. Also the number of covid patients relative to the treatment of other diseases has decreased.

Thanks. I have also not won the lottery. I wish you good life.
arzi arzi 2/4/2022 01:51
Lajosarpad:"I argued that being less dangerous than other variants does not mean it's not dangerous. I also argued that we do not know about this illness enough to exclude the possibility of long-term undesirable consequences. And finally, I argued that if we let this illness to spread, then we create many opportunities for it to mutate into something else."

I haven`t said that less dangerous is not dangerous. That would be stupid argument. Even common flu can be dangerous for certain group of people, those who have lost their body resistance to any virus or other germs.

About your argument of exclude the possibility of long-term undesirable consequences. That is also true in the other direction. We don`t know how the vaccination act in a long run. Does it also produce some long-term undesirable consequences? If the momentary sickness (omicron) is the smaller evil than possible long-term consequences because of the vaccine then we should choose the sickness. Would you choose the vaccine for the common flu if you don`t know the possible long-term consequences of the vaccine? I would not.

Life is constantly changing. In the world of viruses, they happen faster as mutations. You cannot prevent mutations, maybe slow down, prevent no way.
arzi arzi 2/4/2022 01:36
Lajosarpad:"So, if there is a reasonable chance that you may infect others, then, as a consequence some events (like a chess tournament) might exclude you.

Did the organizers fail to protect players? Did they suspect that some of the players was infected? Do we know why they had to start using the masks? I agree you that player should act according to the rules, but the rules must also be known in advance and not afterwards.

Lajosarpad: "The organizers at Wijk were lenient with Dubov, because at that point there was a reasonable chance that he may infect Giri. The only thing they asked him to do is to wear a mask until it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that he is not infected."

The problem in a nasty event like this is that organizers might have promised to Dubov and other players that they don`t need to use mask if they have a negative covid test result. Dubov might have come to the playing place, Wijk, with his own money. Then he heards that he has to use mask while playing. The real problem was then that the organizers have not prepared for what happened. I had the impression that Dubov’s positive covid result was only tested after his forfeited game against Giri, and not before? How could they think he was infected by covid in that case? Did Dubov get any compensations in money for his negative covid result? He could not finish the tournament.
1234Next