”The second London Chess Classic, one of this year’s major chess events, finished Wednesday. But many chess players may ask: Who actually won the all-grandmaster tournament?
Magnus Carlsen doesn’t have to worry. According to the rules set up by the London organizers, the 20-year-old grandmaster from Norway finished first and will collect 50,000 Euros for his efforts. He benefited from the soccer scoring system – 3 points for a win, 1 point for a draw and no points for a loss – favoring players who fight and win. ”
”Carlsen scored 13 points, two points ahead of the world champion Vishy Anand of India and Luke McShane of England. It was a great recovery by Magnus who started with two loses in the first three games.
But ask the traditionalists, who for several centuries counted one point for a win and a half point for a draw, and they will tell you that in the year 2010 three players shared first place in London: McShane, Anand and Carlsen.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lubomir-kavalek/chess-carlsen-wins-london_b_796973.html
Tie Breaks: In order of priority. 1. Number of games with Black. 2. Number of games won with Black. 3. Number of games won. 4. Ranking based on the games between the tied players only. Carlsen won the tournament by virtue of beating the tail enders more convincingly than either McShane or Anand did.
Personally, I think that too much has been made of this question. As a competitive type of person and one who accepts that there is no perfect way to break ties unless you are willing to have play-off games, I am of the opinion that we just have to accept that if the players agree to play in the first place, knowing in advance the tie-break rules, then it is just too bad if they lose out because of the fine print! Ofcourse, I haven’t heard any of the players complaining…
I think the tournament was interesting, but much too short to have any real sporting importance. There are so few world class chess events in England these days and this has lead to some in the press to ordain the London Chess Classic with some regal status that it does not deserve, in my opinion. It is nice to see that some sort of grand chess tradition is being resuscitated in England, and Malcom Pein (the chief organizer) must be congratulated for his dedication and efforts for twice in as many years to bring a handful of world class players to play in London.
More pertinent, by my way of thinking, is what this tournament does for the image of chess in England and beyond. Naturally I am talking about the general lack of corporate sponsorship and media-interest that our little game must put up with. Has the London Classic advanced the cause of professional chess and improved its status in the eyes of corporate directors?
The reason I ask this is because of how we have all just seemed to have accepted that it is not at all unusual to have sponsors for the London Classic that prefer to remain anonymous! Seriously. Do you know of any other sport that is sponsored anonymously? I don’t…and I suspect that you would never see a similar situation because today professional sport recognize minimum standards of transparency at the sponsorship level. The tobacco and alcohol industries–for example– have suffered because of new ethics in sponsorship.
According to the few press clippings that actually mention the sponsorship in question, a group of London investors is involved. I congratulate them! But of course, if I were to ever run into any of them then I would love to ask why all the secrecy. Sponsorship is not philanthropy, it needs to be a mutually beneficial business partnership.
And if infact the people behind the money at the London Classic are just good intentioned, generous philanthropists (which I suspect is the case), then we should drop the word ‘sponsorship’ from the London Classic whenever the press is around.
Here is a CNN report about chess and sport, with Kasparov and others, that was done during the final days of the London Classic. Enjoy!