Gelfand Leads the Alekhine Memorial With One Round to Go

It isn't over yet, though. Boris Gelfand just survived against Vladimir Kramnik today, and thereby finished round 8 in clear first at the Alekhine Memorial with five points. He had been tied with Maxime Vachier-Lagrave, but the latter lost to Nikita Vitiugov and finally fell out of first. Vachier-Lagrave is only half a point behind Gelfand, and so are the members of the "A-Team": Michael Adams, Levon Aronian and Viswanathan Anand. (That's what I take to be the current tiebreak order; no implicit ranking should be inferred!) Two players, Vitiugov and and Laurent Fressinet, are a further half a point back with four points apiece, but they are shut out of the race for first, as the final round clash between Gelfand and Anand guarantees that someone will finish the tournament with at least five and a half points.

A few words about the two main games before giving the full final round pairings. First, in Vachier-Lagrave vs. Vitiugov White didn't obtain an advantage out of the opening, but he wasn't in any trouble either until 31.Bd1?, unnecessarily giving away a pawn. Simply 31.Qd1 or 31.Qe2 would have maintained equal chances. Even then it wasn't over, and although Vitiugov kept making progress bit by bit the advantage grew to decisive proportions only after 42.Bf1?, allowing 42...f3. (Maybe White should lose after better moves in the long run, but after 42.Bf1 the "run" was likely to be short.) By the time of 47.Bxb7 White was clearly lost, but the move chosen forced White to resign just two moves later, faced with the choice of mate in one or the loss of the queen.

As for Kramnik-Gelfand, one of Kramnik's chronic besetting sins (a failure to win won positions) struck again. He played well in the opening, inducing Gelfand to sac the exchange for a pawn. Gelfand's position was incredibly solid, but no problem: Kramnik started to grind and grind and grind, and after more than six hours of play he finally had his chance. He had made steady progress during the second time control (from moves 41-60), and in the third and final time control he at last had his chance after 63...Rxa5? 64.Rh8 would have won Gelfand's knight and the game along with it. (64.Rh8 Rc5 65.Rh5+ Nf5 66.Rg6 and there is no defense to Rgg5 followed if necessary by Kg4, or if 64...Ra3 then 65.Rh6! finishes the job, as Black either leaves the knight and loses it or moves it but allows 66.Rh5 [either mate in one or two, depending on where the knight moves] or 66.Rb/he6#, in case of 65...Nf5.)

Kramnik played Rh8 several moves later, and as the players grew short on time he continued to have chances, though none as clear as 64.Rh8. His 72nd move was inaccurate though (72.Kg4 kept some hope alive), but it was based on his hallucinatory 73rd move. Indeed, if it weren't for 73...Rxe3 Gelfand could resign, but of course it was there. With his last pawn gone, the position was simply drawn, and a slightly bewildered Kramnik acceded to the draw.

Final Round Pairings (with player scores in parentheses):

• Svidler (2.5) - Fressinet (4)
• Gelfand (5) - Anand (4.5)
• Adams (4.5) - Kramnik (3.5)
• Vitiugov (4) - Ding Liren (3)
• Aronian (4.5) - Vachier-Lagrave (4.5)

Topalov On Top At Zug; Zugs Up In The New Rating List

He's baaaaack! Veselin Topalov closed out the Grand Prix tournament in Zug, Switzerland in emphatic fashion, Actually, that may overstate things a bit. He won today (in what was the only decisive game of the round) almost in self-defense against Sergey Karjakin. Topalov needed only a draw to clinch clear first (a loss combined with a win by Hikaru Nakamura would leave them tied for first), but Karjakin got ambitious after coming out of the opening with an edge. He was justified in that ambition, but on this occasion his reach exceeded his grasp, and he was soon punished. Thus Topalov finished with a very impressive +5 score (and a 2929 TPR), gained 22 rating points and jumped up to #4 on the brand new rating list, not too far below the 2800 barrier he had traversed in the mid '00s.

Even more good news for Topalov is that he leads in the overall Grand Prix standings. He has played in two of the three Grand Prix events held so far, and in addition to his clear first in Zug he tied for first (with Boris Gelfand and Shakhriyar Mamedyarov in the other, in London last year). There will be three more such tournaments in the current series, with each player participating in four of them. The overall winner and runner-up will receive automatic berths into the next Candidates' event, so while plenty of time remains his chances are looking extremely good at the moment. Of course, if he keeps playing like this, he may manage to qualify by rating even if somehow two players manage to squeak past him by the end of the series.

Final Standings:

1. Topalov 8 (out of 11)
2. Nakamura 6.5
3-4. Ponomariov, Caruana 6
5-6. Kamsky, Morozevich 5.5
7-9. Giri, Leko, Karjakin 5
10-12. Radjabov, Mamedyarov, Kasimdzhanov 4.5

Zug Grand Prix, Rounds 9 & 10: Lots Of Action; Topalov Leads

I'm a bit too tired to offer a substantive report on the goings-on at the FIDE Grand Prix in Zug, Switzerland; so I'll confine myself to "just the facts" comments and a few links. The last two rounds have been something of a bloodbath with three decisive games (of six) in round nine and four of six in round 10. This is at least partially due to a pretty fair number of blunders.

The most important decisive games in round 9 were Kamsky-Caruana (a well-played win for Caruana [send him back!] in a Closed Ruy and Nakamura-Morozevich (in which Morozevich self-destructed, going from much better to worse to dead lost and resigning in a game of just 34 moves; that was his third consecutive loss). After the round Topalov (who drew with Mamedyarov) still led, but by just half a point over Caruana; Ponomariov, Karjakin and Nakamura were a further half a point behind. (For further, fuller reports on the round there are plenty of options including the official site and TWIC.)

So what pairing headlined the tenth round? Caruana-Topalov, naturally. The played a Byrne Attack Najdorf that saw Topalov eschew the eponymous Topalov Variation (8...h5) with one featuring an eventual ...a5. That's not the most common approach in the Byrne Attack, and the players agreed afterwards that White had some advantage. (Though they seemed to differ about how large the advantage one - Caruana seemed more sanguine.) Topalov played the second half of the game much more accurately and incisively than Caruana, however, and managed to grind out the full point. He thus increased his lead over the field, but only to a full point rather than a point and a half. That's because Nakamura won his second straight game, and even more quickly than in round 9. Nakamura defeated Mamedyarov in just 22 moves. (There is some feeling that Mamedyarov may have resigned prematurely, but his position was clearly inferior in any case.)

Standings After Round 10:

1. Topalov 7
2. Nakamura 6
3-4. Ponomariov, Caruana 5.5
5-7. Kamsky, Karjakin, Morozevich 5
8-9. Giri, Leko 4.5
10-12. Radjabov, Mamedyarov, Kasimdzhanov 4

Final Round Pairings:

• Leko - Kasimdzhanov
• Kamsky - Giri
• Topalov - Karjakin
• Nakamura - Caruana
• Radjabov - Mamedyarov
• Ponomariov - Morozevich

Alekhine Memorial, Rounds 6 and 7

The 2013 Alekhine Memorial finished the Paris portion last Thursday, and recommenced yesterday in St. Petersburg, Russia. Maxime Vachier-Lagrave started round 6 half a point ahead of Michael Adams, Levon Aronian, Laurent Fressinet and Boris Gelfand; and that's just how he finished the round as all five games were drawn. Four of the games were pretty uneventful, but the action and pathos in the Aronian-Adams clash made up for it.

After 26 moves the position was approximately equal but imbalanced, and would have remained so after 26.Qd3 followed by 27.Ne3. Instead, Aronian was attracted by 26.Nxh6+, but this was an outright error, and soon he was completely lost. Practical chances remained though, as Adams' king was somewhat exposed and time was running short before the time control, and after Aronian's 37.g4 the Englishman had one last hurdle to clear. The cleanest solution would have been 37...Kf7, when 38.Qxf5 Rxh2+! leads to large material gains or a quick mate, while 38.gxf5 Qb2 39.h4 (39.Qg2 is "best" but pointless, as Black trades queens and rooks and will enjoy an effortless conversion) 39...Ne4 40.Qg4 Nf2+ and game over.

Unfortunately for Adams, who would have caught up with Vachier-Lagrave with a win, he fell for Aronian's trick by playing 37...fxg4?(?), and after 38.Rxf6+ Qxf6 39.Re1+ Kf7 40.Qd5+ Kf8 41.Re5! it was too late; the position was drawn. Adams went for the best try: 41...Rxh2+ 42.Kxh2 Qxf4+, but after Aronian's accurate 43.Kg1! (43.Kg2?! Qf3+ 44.Qxf3+ gxf3+ [check!] 45.Kxf3 and now Black can prevent Re6 with 45...Kf7 or 45...Rg6. It's still a draw, but Black can press a bit more than in the game.) 43...Qg3+ 44.Kf1 Qf3+ 45.Qxf3+ gxf3 46.Re6! the worst was over and Aronian held.

Vachier-Lagrave still leads after round 7, holding a draw with Black today against Adams, but he is no longer the sole leader. With a complicated win over Ding Liren, Gelfand has pulled into a tie for first with two rounds to go. The Chinese player seemed to be doing well out of the opening, an Averbakh King's Indian, but (citing Judit Polgar's commentary) he got into deep trouble with the combination of 26...c4, 31...f6 (31...g5!?) and 35...Kh8 (35...Qe5 was her suggestion and, for that matter, the move I was considering while watching the game. I haven't checked any of this with engines though, so while you're welcome to note improvements please avoid casting aspersions - this is just a quick summary and not a detailed analysis). Gelfand might have made things easier on himself in converting his advantage (another plausible-looking Polgar suggestion: 43.Bd1, aiming to create mating threats after [an eventual] Bc2), but all the same, he managed to reel in the full point.

Viswanathan Anand exchanged places with Fressinet by defeating him in a complicated game. Early on Fressinet seemed to be doing very well, but a crazy tactical skirmish led to an ending with both sides having a queen and rook and several passed pawns in front of their kings (which had castled on opposite flanks). Anand's pawns were faster, and Fressinet could only stop (or slow) them by allowing White's pieces to acquire dominating posts. Faced with mate or the loss of a full rook, Fressinet resigned, and the champ closed to within half a point of the leaders.

Standings After Round 7 (of 9):

1-2. Gelfand, Vachier-Lagrave 4.5
3-5. The A-Team (Adams, Anand, Aronian) 4
6. Fressinet 3.5
7-8. Vitiugov, Kramnik 3
9. Ding Liren 2.5
10. Svidler 2

Round 8 Pairings:

• Fressinet - Aronian
• Vachier-Lagrave - Vitiugov
• Ding Liren - Adams
• Kramnik - Gelfand
• Anand - Svidler

Gareev To Attempt A 33-Board Blindfold Simul

And that's just a warmup; U.S. GM Timur Gareev intends to go for a 64-board blindfold simul by the end of the year! That would be a world record, but 33 boards is already hugely impressive in its own right. This will take place tomorrow at the Chess Club and Scholastic Center of St. Louis.

More info here.

Magnus Carlsen on the Charlie Rose Show

Have a look.

(HT: Brian Karen)

Zug, Alekhine Memorial Updates

Saturday is a rest day for the participants in the FIDE Grand Prix tournament in Zug (we're between playing days there, so is this a zwischenzug?), while the players at the Alekhine Memorial have Friday and Saturday off as their tournament moves from Paris, France to St. Petersburg, Russia.  Let's take the opportunity then for a quick scoreboard update:

Zug: After eight rounds of 11, the standings are as follows:

1. Topalov 5.5
2. Ponomariov 5
3-4. Caruana, Karjakin 4.5
5-7. Kamsky, Morozevich, Nakamura 4
8-10. Giri, Leko, Mamedyarov 3.5
11-12. Kasimdzhanov, Radjabov 3

Two quick comments about ratings. After his loss to Viswanathan Anand in the 2010 World Championship match, Veselin Topalov's play and his rating took a bit of a nosedive, and his results right after a fairly long break weren't especially good either, as I recall. Lately though, he has been playing very well again, and he has worked his way back up to #4 in the world. Going in the opposite direction is Teimour Radjabov, who entered the Candidates' as the world's #4 player. He finished last there and his tied for last here, and has lost a staggering 46 rating points between the two events. (A note to readers only familiar with USCF or ICC ratings: FIDE ratings, especially for top players, are far more stable. Losing a game to a peer doesn't cost 16 points or so, but only around five points. So if you want to "translate" his last month into USCF "language", imagine your rating going down 150 points or so. Yikes!)

Round 9 Pairings (Sunday):

• Giri - Kasimdzhanov
• Leko - Karjakin
• Kamsky - Caruana
• Topalov - Mamedyarov
• Nakamura - Morozevich
• Radjabov - Ponomariov

Alekhine Memorial:

Here the standings are a bit of a shock. The leader is not world champion Viswanathan Anand, nor is it world #2 Levon Aronian. Vladimir Kramnik started with an impressive win in round 1, but since then it has been a bit of a nightmare for the ex-champion. One won't find the leader in the ranks of near-champions, whether of the absolute sort (Boris Gelfand) or the FIDE variety (Michael Adams). No, the leader after the French segment, five rounds into this nine-round tournament, is Maxime Vachier-Lagrave! Can he keep his lead to the end of the tournament? I doubt it, but with only Aronian left on his schedule among the super-big guns, he might not be as big an underdog as one might otherwise suspect.

Standings After Round 5:

1. Vachier-Lagrave 3.5
2-5. Adams, Aronian, Fressinet, Gelfand 3
6. Anand 2.5
7-9. Kramnik, Vitiugov, Ding Liren 2
10. Svidler 1

You might be surprised to see Fressinet up there, but he earned it by butchering Kramnik in round 5 - with Black, no less. Among the leader's games, Vachier-Lagrave's win over Ding Liren (which certainly involved home prep, as he acknowledged in his post-game comments) was a positional classic in which he managed to keep Black's king's bishop and king's rook out of the game from start to finish. (In this it was an interesting reversed echo of a famous win of his against Morozevich from Biel 2009. There it was Vachier-Lagrave whose rook was frozen for a long time, but in that game he finally managed to disentangle everything and pull out the win, despite having been lost early on. Another echo of Vachier-Lagrave's win over Ding Liren pertained to the concluding mating attack, which somehow reminded me of Kramnik's win over Topalov from their blindfold game in the 2003 Melody Amber tournament.)

Speaking of Kramnik and tournament leader Vachier-Lagrave, their game in round 3 had some surprising moments. Kramnik seemed on his way to a typical smooth win: a strong opening idea led to enduring pressure and then an extra pawn. But then a funny thing happened on the way to the textbook victory, and it happened, as Dr. Tarrasch intimated long ago, in a rook endgame. Where exactly, I'll leave to you to discover; my interest right now is in pointing out where it didn't happen.

Here's the position after 38...Kd5. Kramnik continued 39.Rb1, which allowed Black to get in 39...h5 right away. White has two possible winning strategies here in general. One is to use zugzwang to force Black back. For instance, if Black's rook retreats, White may push b4-b5, and if Black continues with ...Kc5 White's idea is to follow up with e3-e4, and after everything is traded White's king will devour Black's kingside. The other idea is to play e4 with check; that is, while Black's king is still on d5 (and White's pawn is still on b4). After ...fxe4+ Ke3 White will meet a "pass" move with Rd2+ followed by Rd4 and taking the e-pawn.

For the first strategy to succeed, White must put Black in zugzwang, and that will only happen once Black's h-pawn has gone to h5. For the other strategy, however, there's no reason for White to wait, and there may be good reason for him to hurry. Which strategy would you choose? What should Kramnik do?

In the game, Kramnik played 39.Rb1, opting for the first strategy. After 39...h5 40.Rb2 Rb6 the consistent move would be 41.b5, but by this point he realized that after 41...Kc5 42.e4 Rxb5! 43.Rxb5+ Kxb5 White isn't winning. Strange, but true! Here's a variation to illustrate the basic point: 44.exf5 Kc6! 45.f6 Kd7! 46.Ke4 Ke6 47.f7 Kxf7 48.Kf5 and now 48...h4! 49.Kxg4 hxg3 leads to an elementary draw.

Perhaps Kramnik lacked the time to calculate that variation before the time control, though my recollection was that he had a fair amount of time left. By now he understood that it didn't work and reverted to the second plan: 41.Rb1 Rb5 42.Rb2 Rb6 43.e4+ fxe4 44.Ke3, but here Vachier-Lagrave obtained sufficient counterplay to hold the balance with 44...h4! 45.gxh4 g3.

But what if Kramnik had gone for e4+ immediately, while Black's pawn was still on h7? Dutch chess legend Jan Timman was doing the English-language commentary for the tournament website, and proclaimed that the idea won, and Mark Crowther cites him approvingly. Specifically, Crowther (citing Timman) claims that from the diagrammed position the variation 39.e4+ fxe4+ 40.Ke3 h5 41.Rd2+ Ke6 42.Rd4 results in a winning position for White. Quoth Crowther: "It's hard to understand why Kramnik didn't do this."

Well, I can think of two reasons why he didn't. The first is that he probably believed he had calculated the variation 39.Rb1 h5 40.Rb2 Rb6 41.b5 out to a win, which reminds me of a joke I heard a couple of decades ago from a comedy tape called something like "How to be a Jewish Mother". One of the "techniques" went like this:

Step 1: Buy your son two sweaters.

Step 2: When he wears one of them, ask "What's the matter, don't you like the other sweater I bought you?"

As Crowther seems to recognize that Kramnik didn't realize until it was too late that 41.b5 (in the 39.Rb1 line) didn't win, I'm not sure what he expected him to do - especially as there's no way for Kramnik to wear both sweaters.

Now for reason #2: the Timman/Crowther line doesn't win! Timman was a really great player for many years and is still a very good grandmaster, but his online commentary was more him having a fun time with his friend Dirk Jan ten Geuzendam than an exercise in hardcore analysis, and he wasn't using an engine. This was a case where Ronald Reagan's slightly oxymoronic adage "trust, but verify" should have been employed: Timman is a legend, but the computer will give you the truth about such a position. (Not that Timman or even Crowther couldn't have worked things out with a bit of elbow grease.) Or to go another way with the trust angle, would it make more sense to trust the computer-less analysis of a fully motivated, fully concentrated Kramnik (rating: 2800+) or that of a very relaxed, informal Timman (rating: 2576)?

Let's get down to business: after 39.e4+ fxe4+ 40.Ke3 h5 41.Rd2+ Ke6 42.Rd4 White is not winning, because 42...h4! draws. The idea is to undermine the f-pawn, and the ensuing Black counterplay will let him hold the balance. White has plenty of options, but to at least give the most obvious one we have 43.Rxe4+ Kf5 44.gxh4 g3 45.Kf3 (45.Rc4 Kg4) 45...g2 46.Re1 Rxb4 with an elementary draw, as Black will win White's f-pawn. (You can replay these lines and a little more besides, here. [Using the software I don't want to. Sometimes a guy has to pick his battles.])

Finally, before sending this post into the world and myself to the land of Nod, here are the pairings for Sunday's round 6 games:

• Vachier-Lagrave - Gelfand
• Aronian - Adams
• Fressinet - Vitiugov
• Kramnik - Anand
• Ding Liren - Svidler

A Thought On The Nielsen Interview

One quotation from the Peter Heine Nielsen interview especially caught my attention:

It seems indeed that the days of big novelties are over...

You may recall the recent news of Garry Kasparov's offering to work with Magnus Carlsen in the latter's forthcoming world championship tilt with Viswanathan Anand. In my post on the subject (and in the comments section too) I suggested that Kasparov's excellence in opening preparation could be a real boon to Carlsen. One commentator objected that when Kasparov strode across the chess world like a colossus, opening preparation was about finding "killing novelties", but that this was no longer the case.

I disagreed there, and with great respect to grandmaster Nielsen, I'll disagree with him as well. (Or at least I think I will. There is a way of interpreting what he said that might make everyone happy. More on that below - though it too recapitulates something I wrote in the comments section of the Kasparov-helping-Carlsen post.) In fact, not only do I disagree, but I disagree in a state of perplexity, as Anand not only was but continues to be a player who shows "big", "killing" novelties on a regular basis. It was with such novelties that he won his match against Vladimir Kramnik, and in case that or some other examples are dismissed as being too long ago, how can we forget his brilliant massacre of Levon Aronian in Wijk aan Zee earlier this year? At a certain point Anand needed to reconstruct his analysis and then overcome a final tactical hurdle, but the fundamental work was simply preparation - glorious, huge, murderous preparation.

Nor is it only Anand among top players whose preparation is concrete, deep, and highly ambitious. One of the most remarkable games played this year was Sergey Karjakin's win in Zug over Shakhriyar Mamedyarov, featuring the absolutely stunning novelty 16.Nxh6+. Sacrifices of that sort aren't so remarkable when White gets a second pawn for the piece and has half his army in front of the black king, but nothing of the sort occurs in this game. White gets just one pawn and some of the slowest-looking compensation you've ever seen associated with a sac of this sort. And yet it is sound and was most certainly preparation.

There have been some other games from the ongoing super-tournaments featuring similarly deep preparation. Perhaps in those games the novelties weren't "killing" because both players had done their homework equally well, but this had nothing to do with players going for a "low-theory" approach aiming for nothing more than a playable position.

So I respectfully disagree with Nielsen's remark (as well as the similar comment to my earlier post). But there is perhaps a way of splitting the difference. As long as there are diligent chess players, there will be big novelties, and while some of them will be neutralized by their equally diligent opponents some will show forth in all their intellectual and aesthetic splendor. It's consistent with acknowledging this to also think that an increasing percentage of the chess world will bow out of that hunt, preferring instead to find positions where one must simply play, and cannot just draw (or win) by successfully recalling and demonstrating their homework. I'm not really sure that this is right, or at least that the shift represents a sea change rather than a slight tendency headed by players like Carlsen, but it could be. Nielsen is a player who works in that rarified air, and it's very reasonable to think that he would be alert and sensitive to such trends.

To some extent, I expect the world championship this fall to be a battle between those two visions. If Anand can impose opening problems where concrete computer preparation is practically necessary to stay alive with Black or to have any hopes of an advantage with White, then I think he'll have excellent chances to retain his title if he's in good playing form. On the other hand, if Carlsen can impose this "new" chess on Anand, where big novelties play no role and one must simply solve smaller but non-standard problems at the board, then I think he's a serious favorite.

A Short Interview With Peter Heine Nielsen

Regular readers of this blog will be familiar with Jaideep Unudurti, who not only offers comments here on a regular basis, but is sometimes a featured part of the blog posts themselves. (You might remember his recent adventure playing blitz with Viswanathan Anand, for example.) This is true of this post as well, as we have here an interview with Peter Heine Nielsen, to appear in the May issue of Man's Magazine. Nielsen is a strong Danish grandmaster who worked for many years as one of Anand's seconds, but who recently helped Magnus Carlsen in the Candidates' tournament. Here, with thanks to Jaideep, is the interview (or at least parts of it - I'm not sure if there will be more when it's officially released):

This is the first WC you'll be sitting out after a long time, will you miss the excitement?

I would expect so! but the main difference will more be social actually. We are used to spending really a lot of time together in the team, and thats somehow a more drastic change.

You've seen Carlsen from his formative years, in broad terms how would you characterize him as a chess player?

He is an extremely strong practical player. in London he used all the chances he got, and that was the main difference to his competitors.  He is 22, and still not fully developed, so hard to attribute him a specific style yet.

Where do you see the battleground, what type of positions would Magnus like to see on the board, and vice versa, for Anand?

I actually think both players are so all-round, that what they really care about is the quality of their position. Maybe Magnus prefers longer technical games, and Vishy more dynamic positions, but they would both happily take a position in their opponents so-called terrain, if their position is objectively better.

Magnus has his own distinctive low-on-theory approach, is this the wave of the future?

It seems indeed that the days of big novelties are over, and that fits Magnus style well. If this is the future? Well maybe this match will tell!

Kasparov has stated his interest in assisting Carlsen. Will this be a key factor or has too much water flowed under the bridge? 

I really think the main battlefield by far will be the actual play, and that preparations, advisers etc. is secondary. Kasparov and Carlsen has worked together on several occasions, with both ups and downs. Kasparov's match experience might actually only be matched by Vishy's, and of course Magnus could greatly benefit from such advice. On the other hand one often has to find ones own individual approach to such a challenge as a WC-match. I think the chess-world can look forward to a very interesting match indeed!

Update on the Blogger

The plan had been for back surgery tomorrow, but after much thought and discussion and to-ing and fro-ing I went with a directed steroid injection today. We'll see how that goes, and if it doesn't work as well as I hope the surgery option will still be on the table (along with the person having the surgery). This should offer some relief soon, but I'm nevertheless going to take a little time off and not try to keep up on here with the goings-on in Zug and Paris.

(An aside: I'm calling a moratorium on the "FIDE champions" topic. As I'm not arguing that the FIDE champions' lineage has the significance of the historic line from Kasparov to Kramnik, the significance of the debate brings the trivia level of an already suspiciously fluffy topic to impressively microscopic heights. If I'm going to spend time blogging, which I quite probably shouldn't at this point, I'd rather do it on something pleasant and mutually edifying.)