Carlsen Wins London (Again)
Magnus Carlsen entered the last round tied for first, but with the best possible pairing: White against tailender Nigel Short. Unsurprisingly, Carlsen dispatched him most efficiently. That assured Carlsen of first on tiebreaks no matter what happened with Viswanathan Anand and Luke McShane (the other co-leaders going into the round), but as they drew their games (with Vladimir Kramnik and David Howell, respectively) Carlsen finished in clear first. Finally, Hikaru Nakamura battled to bare kings against Mickey Adams, but that game too was drawn.
Final Standings:
1. Carlsen 13 (+4 -2 =1)
2-3. Anand, McShane 11 (+2 =5)
4-5. Nakamura, Kramnik 10 (+2 -1 =4)
6. Adams 8 (+1 -1 =5)
7. Howell 4 (-3 =4)
8. Short 2 (-5 =2)
Tournament site here; games later.
Reader Comments (8)
Magnus clearly benefited from the 3-1-0 scoring; perhaps he should demand that FIDE implement it in the WC matches. Then he can confidently re-enter the cycle.
I think your list is a bit too generous to Adams...
[DM: Just a bit. :) Fixed it, thanks.]
A bit of news that might have passed under your radar, Dennis: 15 year old Mad Andersen clinched the IM title in the Open section of the Classic. Needless to say, he and Danes in general are as pleased as punch!
Magnus's game against Kramnik was probably the most impressive game i've seen so far from him. Even though it was drawn. I can't believe how he kept pushing and pushing till it was drawn. Most anybody would have resigned such a position. Great fighting spirit.
Men, please ...Magnus is by FAR the best chess player in two last years. He plays any kind of position, he is disciplined.
People should not mixed things - Magnus retirement from FIDE cicle is his right. Maybe bad for chess... bud worse than FIDE? I think that no.
And as chess player... what to say about this guy?
Sorry...no hard feelings...but Magnus deserves justice....
For what it's worth, with 1-½-0 scoring Magnus still wins on tie breaks.
[DM: That's true, but think what would have happened if he had lost to Kramnik in round 6. Ignore Kramnik in that equation, and just compare Carlsen to Anand and McShane. They would have had +2 and have both beaten him, while he would have been +1...and in clear first place.]
There can't be too many examples in chess history of someone winning a 7 round tournament having started with two losses out of their first three games- that's great fighting chess.
Well done also to McShane, looks like he's truly managed to 'pull a Kamsky' & come back to top form having semi-retired for a few years.
In response to Koo (and Dennis): Of course Kramnik can't be ignored in the equation - he would be tied with Carlsen at 12 points. But the strange thing is that Carlsen would be first on tiebreak (and win 50,000 Euros vs. 25,000 for Kramnik) due to "double Bilbao rules": number of wins is the relevant tiebreak that gets priority over their direct result. Hence, +4-3 isn't just equal to, but considered better than +3=3-1 - in other words, a tie-creater then becomes a tiebreaker.