Petrosian Memorial, Round 3: Grischuk 3-0, 6-0 From His Previous Tournament
It wasn't all that long ago that winning streaks were matters of historical interest when considering the super-grandmaster level; suddenly they are in danger of becoming commonplace. Fabiano Caruana's 7-0 start to the Sinquefield earned him deserved notoriety, and now Alexander Grischuk is following in his footsteps. With another impressive (though imperfect) win, this time over Alexander Morozevich, Grischuk leads the Tigran Petrosian Memorial by a full point with a 3-0 score. (Pointless link here.) Moreover, this is his sixth consecutive win in conjunction with his previous event; the Baku Grand Prix several weeks ago, which he concluded with wins over Caruana(!), Rustam Kasimdzhanov and Leinier Dominguez Perez. (I've uploaded the games of his streak here.)
His rating is now 2807, and while he's still some distance behind Magnus Carlsen his recent surge, along with that of Caruana, Veselin Topalov (back to 2800) and Viswanathan Anand as well suggests that the peleton may be starting to close on Carlsen. I think this is good for chess whether they reel Carlsen in or not: if they do, it's good to have drama at the top; if they don't, it will hopefully be because Carlsen has pushed his game to a whole new level.
Back to this tournament. The other three games were drawn. Levon Aronian made Ding Liren sweat it out for a long time in the Symmetrical Gruenfeld, while Vladimir Kramnik had good chances against Peter Leko, but good defense held out in both cases. The last game, between Ernesto Inarkiev and Boris Gelfand, was also a Symmetrical Gruenfeld, but it never got too far out of balance before the players split the point.
Friday is a rest day, and play will resume on Saturday (when no one will be watching) with these pairings:
- Kramnik (2) - Gelfand (1)
- Morozevich (1) - Inarkiev (.5)
- Ding Liren (1.5) - Grischuk (3)
- Leko (1.5) - Aronian (1.5)
Reader Comments (2)
...earned him deserved notoriety? What did he do - bribe the opponents?
[DM: I have to plead confusion about this word, "notoriety". Googling it conveys the negative meaning that was probably its original sense. But then look here: http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/notoriety - it's more ambiguous. Going forward I'll probably avoid using the word in this context and may yet edit this post, lest anyone get the wrong idea about Caruana. But for now, I am simply confused!]
[DM again: More confusion: http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2011/10/notoriety.html suggests that it was initially and etymologically value-neutral, though it emphasizes its predominantly negative cast nowadays. On the other hand, looking here (http://wordsmith.org/board/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=188153) and elsewhere suggests that if it is an error to use "notoriety" as a rough synonym for "fame", it's a widespread one even in news writing.]
Ah the wonders of English. Of course notoriety is the noun of the adjective notorious, which is even more associated with bad things. Most common usage for both is negative, despite the neutral roots. But there’s a nuance that means it’s not always ‘bad’ and it certainly isn’t always a straight swap for ‘infamy’. For example:
‘Carlsen is notorious for grinding down opponents in end games’ = he’s unstoppable and brilliant.
But I’d say it’s a stretch in modern usage to gain notoriety for a tournament streak – unless there’s some quality/nuance to convey:
‘Caruana has rightly gained notoriety for his merciless starts to tournaments’ = he plays to win from the get go.
[DM: I think I know what you're getting at, but I'm not sure you quite nailed it. Here's my stab at it: notoriety can be used in the positive (or at least non-negative) way when it conveys not a singular achievement but a reputation or a habit, a consistent achievement - something that's not a one-off. Maybe so, but I think it has been used in other contexts: e.g. "So-and-so first gained notoriety for his performance and such-and-such event." Perhaps I'm wrong. At any rate, my ascription of Caruana's notoriety, real or only so-called, is meant in a good way!]