Carlsen Leads in Bilbao After Wins in Rounds 2 & 3
On traditional scoring Magnus Carlsen and Hikaru Nakamura would be tied for first in the Bilbao Masters Final after three rounds. Nakamura defeated Carlsen in round 1 and drew his next two games, while Carlsen won in rounds 2 and 3 (against Wei Yi and Sergey Karjakin, respectively) to catch him on +1. Bilbao uses 3-1-0 scoring, however, so Carlsen has 6/9 compared to Nakamura's 5. Unlike most of the events covered in the previous posts, seven rounds remain in this double round-robin, so there's plenty of time yet for things to change.
A question outside the scope of the current tournament: is there enough time for Karjakin to give Carlsen a real challenge this November? His results since qualifying for the world championship match have been decent but not for someone who looks to defeat the highest-rated player of all time, and against Carlsen today his play after the early middlegame was quite bad (have a look), and not just in comparison with his opponent's generally outstanding play. (If Karjakin doesn't shape up, the sponsors will have AGON their faces.)
Here are the round 4 pairings, with 3-1-0 scores given in parentheses (so far, all the decisive results have come in Carlsen's games):
- Carlsen (6) - So (3)
- Nakamura (5) - Giri (3)
- Wei Yi (2) - Karjakin (2)
Reader Comments (3)
[I might be too blunt but don't know how to phrase this differently:]
Karjakin had a generally (at best) mediocre 2015 but won the World Cup. Karjakin had a bad result in Wijk aan Zee this year but won the candidates. So results in events that aren't part of the WCh cycle don't necessarily mean much.
If Karjakin is harshly criticized for his play against Carlsen, should Carlsen also be harshly criticized for his play against Nakamura?
[DM: Is Carlsen the underdog in a coming world championship match with world champion Nakamura? No, x 3. Also, has Karjakin done anything in the rest of the tournament to suggest that he's the coming man? Again, no.]
Comments that something could discourage sponsors may well ... discourage sponsors - Dennis might not be influential enough, commercial websites might be. Is the idea to deprive Karjakin of his earned right for a WCh match?
[DM: I'm definitely not influential enough, but I don't believe for a moment that the big commercial websites would have any influence in this matter either. And I'm just pointing out that Karjakin isn't doing much to make anyone think he'll have a (slightly realistic) chance against Carlsen this November. But he has earned the right to the match, absolutely. As someone who stuck up for Kramnik's refusal to give Kasparov an automatic rematch unearned by a qualifying cycle, I'm not going to suggest that matters revert to the bad old days where the title was the champion's plaything. If one qualifies through a fair cycle - and Karjakin did - that person has earned a title match. Period.]
We have an entry for "Groaner" of the year ! But, nicely done, very creative.
Karjakin showed at the candidates that - realistic chance against Carlsen or not - he is a worthy challenger. Now the WCh match is looming, which might affect Karjakin more than Carlsen: For Carlsen it is one of several matches, for Karjakin it's his first and maybe only chance. Karjakin relies more on opening preparation than Carlsen - neither good nor bad, right or wrong, just a different way of playing chess. If he now "did more" to make people believe in his chances, revealing some of his preparation already, he may well improve chances to find sponsors, but hurt his chances in the actual match!?
If Carlsen should lose the WCh match (which I don't rule out), his status will be/become the same as Kasparov's after losing the title to Kramnik - not bad by any means. If Karjakin should lose, depending on the margin of loss his status will become the same as the ones of Short/Leko/Gelfand - world-top players who played one WCh match, more than what e.g. Aronian has achieved (of course other criteria matter to assess a player's place in chess history). Leko and Gelfand qualified in slightly controversial ways, Karjakin did it via what most people consider the best/fairest way to select a challenger. Leko and Gelfand were underdogs in their matches, arguably as much as Karjakin against Carlsen (and Kramnik against Kasparov), still the encounters were close.
[DM: I'm not sure what windmills you're tilting against, but I certainly haven't denied that Karjakin merited a championship match. I'm just not seeing anything from him since the Candidates that suggests he's going to do better than the rating gap and head-to-head record would lead one to believe.]