PDA

View Full Version : 7 Altibox Norway Chess with Carlsen and six other top-10 players



Capablanca-Fan
09-06-2019, 04:09 AM
The 7th edition of Altibox Norway Chess is a 10-player round-robin featuring World Champion Magnus Carlsen and six more of the world's Top 10 players. It takes place from 3-15 June in the Clarion Energy Hotel and Stavanger Concert Hall in Stavanger. Classical games are worth 2 points for a win, but in case of a draw players get half a point and play an Armageddon game for the remaining point.

Games at Chess24 (https://chess24.com/en/watch/live-tournaments/altibox-norway-chess-2019).

MichaelBaron
09-06-2019, 12:18 PM
Magnus is leading despite not winning a couple of very promising positions against Anand and Mamedyarov.

pax
17-06-2019, 05:34 PM
Another tournament, another win. It's an amazing transformation since the WC six months ago. I thought that maybe the era of MC's dominance was over, and he might even retire. A 40 point rise in 6 months is incredible at this level.

Capablanca-Fan
21-06-2019, 02:25 AM
Exactly so. Carlsen seems to have taken his chess to a new level. He credits AlphaZero for inspiration, calling it one of his heroes (https://www.chess.com/news/view/carlsen-wins-2019-altibox-norway-chess).

ElevatorEscapee
22-06-2019, 12:38 AM
I can'd deny that Carlen's dominance is Kasparov-esque, but what are people's thoughts on the scoring experiment?

Had traditional scoring been applied with no Armageddon games, Ding Liren would have tied for first.

To me it seems a similar story to the 12 game draw yawnfest that was last year's World Championship where neither player took too many risks as they both knew there was the back-up quickplay option in a tie.

Carlsenseems to consider himself a better "fast" player than his opponents (not without reason and backing it up!). Therefore he can deliberately play the classical games cautiously, avoiding too many risks, knowing he has a back-up option if it's a draw. Then he backs his talent in at the faster game.

There's nothing wrong with this - he is just using the scoring format strategically.

However, I cannot help but feel that there is a detrement to this in that potentially fantastic classic time limit games are denied to us because some players will try to game the scoring system. The stronger fast players prefering the crap-shoot of an Armageddon game, rather than testing new ideas in the classical games.

Will mutually agreed draws followed by Armageddon games played today, replete with blunders due to time pressure, be adorning collections of chess books in the future?

Is this really an improvement on the number of "Grandmaster Draws", which may have been the alternative?

Or will people look back in history, and say that this point in time was the death of chess as an old fashioned competitive game, and its rise as "sports entertainment". (I give you the World Chessling Federation... and if you don't like it, let's get ready to grumble!) ;)

Capablanca-Fan
22-06-2019, 04:18 AM
I can'd deny that Carlen's dominance is Kasparov-esque, but what are people's thoughts on the scoring experiment?

Had traditional scoring been applied with no Armageddon games, Ding Liren would have tied for first.

To me it seems a similar story to the 12 game draw yawnfest that was last year's World Championship where neither player took too many risks as they both knew there was the back-up quickplay option in a tie.

Carlsen seems to consider himself a better "fast" player than his opponents (not without reason and backing it up!). Therefore he can deliberately play the classical games cautiously, avoiding too many risks, knowing he has a back-up option if it's a draw. Then he backs his talent in at the faster game.

There's nothing wrong with this - he is just using the scoring format strategically.

However, I cannot help but feel that there is a detrement to this in that potentially fantastic classic time limit games are denied to us because some players will try to game the scoring system. The stronger fast players prefering the crap-shoot of an Armageddon game, rather than testing new ideas in the classical games.

Will mutually agreed draws followed by Armageddon games played today, replete with blunders due to time pressure, be adorning collections of chess books in the future?

Is this really an improvement on the number of "Grandmaster Draws", which may have been the alternative?

Or will people look back in history, and say that this point in time was the death of chess as an old fashioned competitive game, and its rise as "sports entertainment". (I give you the World Chessling Federation... and if you don't like it, let's get ready to grumble!) ;)

I agree with you about the scoring. As you say, it might have incentivized the speed-chess whizzes to be more cautious. However, I can't recall any GM draws.

It's hard to say whether Ding would have tied if it had been the (preferable) classical-only format, because Carlsen's incentives would have changed.

Ian Rout
23-06-2019, 04:26 PM
This isn't entirely original. At Monte Carlo 1901 drawn games scored a quarter-point each with another game played for the other half-point. The difference was that the replay might also be drawn in which case the score ended at 0.5-0.5.

I'm not sure what the point of tie-breaking games at Norway was, though the impossibility of individual "matches" being split evenly is suggestive. Of course playing a tie-break doesn't change the fact that the result of the first game was in fact a draw on the board; only the accounting is different. You could equally well toss a coin or have a beer-drinking race for the other point.

It's not obvious why there would be any greater incentive to play for a win in normal time than in a standard round-robin; if anything less seeing that you save a lot of energy by heading quickly to Armageddon. The exception might be in the last round where there's a possibility of being overtaken by a close chaser if you both draw, though on that reasoning there might also be finishes with a great incentive to avoid a loss. However we didn't get to see that scenario (a close finish) played out.