Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Alekhine Memorial Opening Ceremony

  • SonofPearl
  • on 20-04-13 07:43.

phpz7uQdL.jpegThe Alekhine Memorial will take place from 21 April - 1 May. The excellent line-up includes world champion Vishy Anand, world #2 Lev Aronian, and world #3 Vladimir Kramnik.

The tournament is a 10-player single round robin competition, with the first half held in the Louvre in Paris and the second half in the Russian State Museum in St. Petersburg.

The tournament opens with a concert by Russian pianist Nikolai Lugansky. The distinguished pianist has selected a programme for the Alekhine Memorial by Russian composer Sergei Rachmaninoff.  Live coverage of the opening ceremony (including the draw for pairings and the concert) can be watched here on 20 April at 16:00 UTC.

The official site (in English!) can be found here.

.

The Alekhine Memorial line-up

Name Fed Elo Rank
Levon Aronian ARM 2809 2
Vladimir Kramnik RUS 2801 3
Vishy Anand IND 2783 6
Peter Svidler RUS 2747 14
Boris Gelfand ISR 2739 18
Michael Adams ENG 2727 22
Maxime Vachier-Lagrave FRA 2722 26
Nikita Vitiugov  RUS 2712 28
Ding Liren CHN 2707 34
Laurent Fressinet FRA 2706 36

.

The time control is 100 minutes for 40 moves, then 50 minutes for the next 20 moves, then 15 minutes to a finish with a 30 second increment from the start.  No draw offers are allowed until after 40 moves have been played.  The prize fund is €100,000 with €30,000 for first place.

All rounds start at 14:00 local time (12:00 UTC when in Paris, 10:00 UTC when in St. Petersburg), except the last round which is 1 hour earlier.

.

The schedule of events

20 April 2013 Paris Opening Ceremony
21 April 2013 Paris Round 1
22 April 2013 Paris Round 2
23 April 2013 Paris Round 3
24 April 2013 Paris Round 4
25 April 2013 Paris Round 5
26 April 2013 St. Petersburg Welcome Reception
27 April 2013 St. Petersburg Children's Events
28 April 2013 St. Petersburg Round 6
29 April 2013 St. Petersburg Round 7
30 April 2013 St. Petersburg Round 8
01 May 2013 St. Petersburg Round 9 & Prizegiving

.

The Louvre Museum with its famous Pyramid

phpGs3u7K.jpeg

.

4589 x gelezen 45 commentaren
5 stemmen

Reacties


  • 15 maanden geleden

    Marcokim

    @7Beaufeet7... this debate is getting old, lets get back to chess.

  • 15 maanden geleden

    _valentin_

    Marcokim:  Wonderfully said in the last paragraph!

  • 15 maanden geleden

    Marcokim

    @7Beaufeet7... its not fine it just is. As for shortening your life, if someone offered you 40million dollars for a 30% chance of reducing your life by 8yrs, most will take it. After all many drink and smoke without the  financial benefits. Most of us work slave jobs spending 50hrs a week in some office cubicle (nothing healthy about that... Its not good for your heart your back and definitely not your happiness).

    You shout from your high horse yet the average Joe takes greater risks for much less. Testosterone boosting "may" increase chances of some cancers according to some research. So is more than 2glasses of wine a week, so is more than 2 sodas a week, so is a burger and fries every day, so are oral contraceptives taken longer than 3years...

    My point is not to make a moral judgement, thats too subjective, my point is to state the facts and hopefully we can all learn more about our society and its values and indeed about ourselves.

  • 15 maanden geleden

    _valentin_

    Marcokim:  Your argumentation makes a lot of sense.  I've heard about that too; quite possibly it's true -- because the incentives are so well aligned for everyone (except the unsuspecting athletes, whose health gets ruined in the process of ingesting drugs on a regular basis, but they likely don't know it or hope it's not true).

  • 15 maanden geleden

    Marcokim

    @7Beaufeet7... well whether the sports are fraudulent or not is not the point, the point is that the modern audience wants to see super human athleticism and that why they pay the big bucks. Sports doping is a very advanced science and specialist doctors make lots of money giving controlled dope and then administering masking agents to beat the system.

    Gone are the days when some jock would thrust a dirty syringe in some dark toilet somewhere, now with good money you can get top scienctific doping including regular monitoring in top scientific labs... the anti-doping system has no chance against such sophisitication...

    That way the sports heroes are supremely athletic, the fans are happy, big money sponsors are happy, and the sports associations are able to cover their a$$es. Thats how its done, its the money silly, its the freaken doe.

    Can we get back to discussing chess.

  • 15 maanden geleden

    _valentin_

    Still, "we should be talking about chess, not baseball" -- in chess, performance-enhancing drugs are (it appears) less common -- unless we count performance-enhancing computer engines under the drug category. Wink

  • 15 maanden geleden

    Marcokim

    @7Beaufeet7... if you removed PED (performance enhancing drugs) from sports you would have to erase all records from professional sports for at least 30yrs (1980 - 2013), and the modern telvised sports would be a lot less athletic and probably not sellable to a modern audience. Modern sports is enhanced because the modern television viewer needs that level of artificial performance to keep interested.

    In other words the fake sports world is a reflection of our fake expectations and values.

    We should however be talking about chess not baseball.

  • 15 maanden geleden

    akazakev

    "Akazakev you misunderstood my point. I did not say that Americans would "line up in droves" to watch a chess match if the chess games went 2 hours longer-- I merely pointed out the obvious weakness that chess has in terms of why it is not more popular among the American public , because the games are usually not played to an absolute conclusion on the board whether the game is drawn or a win. No statistical analysis is needed to prove that obvious fact. Americans like a definitive ending to a sports event ( although chess is a game not a sport)."

    --So, you use a sports analogy, agree that the analogy does not work because chess is not a sport, and then claim that your assertion is so obviously correct that no numbers are needed to back it up.

    "My point was absolutely correct and very well- stated."

    --It is well-stated, just poorly proven. Following the later discussion, it seems that you are actually calling for more fighting chess (when you cite Anand-Gelfand match as an example). That is a much more serious argument, though I disagree with you on that as well. As chess fans, we like excitement (similar to sports fans who look for excitement in sports). Simply because you sometimes do not find the excitement that you were looking for does not mean that you should radically change the rules of the game. Last year's baseball World Series was one of the least exciting (at least to me) in recent memory. But that does not mean that I should start proposing silly changes to baseball

  • 15 maanden geleden

    masteriain

    7beaufeet7:

    I must agree with Valentin.

    There comes a point in a game where it is an obvious win or draw ... playing it out is pointless and boring.  Making people play out games like this will not increase the popularity of chess.

    that said ... GM's do seem to agree to draws a bit early for my understanding.  They may just fear a loss in a critical point of a tournament and don't want to take a chance.  They also do resign before and intermediate player (like myself) can fully see the endgame coming ... they know if it is lost before we can figure it out.

    It can be fun to play it out of read some comments on the position from an advanced player.

    I run into this with games against my girlfriend ... she does not always see a lost game until it is very obvious.  It is just the level she is playing at .... she needs to see the endgame coming very clearly.  When she does finally see the lost endgame, she always resigns (as she should) for the very same reason GM's resign ... the game is lost & it becomes boring.

    I do like the London Tournament's rules of 3 points for a win and 1 point for a draw ... makes the GM's take a second thought before letting it go to a drawish position.  They will TRY TO WIN !!

  • 15 maanden geleden

    lbtr74aao

    go french player Smile

  • 15 maanden geleden

    Marcokim

    The idea that the game needs more regulation to avoid draws is rediculous. Draws are a measure of equal competence at GM level and 99.99% of sub-2200 chess players wouldn't understand most GM draws. Many draws are because the position is too uncertain for both players... ie. they don't know how to play a winning line... which is great for the game... shows the game is still alive.

    That said the only way chess becomes more popular is when more kids start playing chess. There are already 600,000 registered chess players in the US, thats a good start. Even a 1200 player would appreciate a draw if he/she understands the positional dynamics of the game, so more games need GM annotation and commentary.

  • 15 maanden geleden

    _valentin_

    7Beaufeet7:  How inspiring would it be to watch two bored players, yawning, play out a Queen and King vs. King endgame to its definitive conclusion?  At some point this starts to insult the intellect -- everyone who knows about chess knows how this is going to inevitably end (and the rest of the people don't know and don't care because they can't appreciate it), so what's the thrill of watching the remainder of it rather than switching to another channel where there's more thrill to feed on?
    (I am somewhat exaggerating the couch potato stereotype here, but only somewhat...)

    For the sport analogy, how interesting is it to watch a soccer game where the result is 7-0 and there's 20 minutes left?  It can be interesting, actually, because you ask yourself, "Can they make it 10-0?"  There is no equivalent to this drama in chess, if you're playing a Queen and King vs. King endgame, it can't suddenly turn into Queen and Rook and King vs. King -- it's bound to be what it already is, just completed.
    So in the soccer sports analogy, it would be equivalent to watching out that 7-0 game fully knowing that it'll end 7-0 and that you'll have wasted half an hour of your life watching the players move about the field with no motivation left any more.

  • 15 maanden geleden

    pawnturnsking

    @ Twobit....if you searching Morozevich find in following link...so far leading with other 2 guys in Zug Grand prix

    http://www.chess.com/news/zug-2013-fide-grand-prix-round-3-4151

  • 15 maanden geleden

    restinpeace

    strong lineup however 2 strong masters were missing (carlsen and nakamura). if not kramnik, aronian will win this with ease. 

  • 15 maanden geleden

    akazakev

    7Beaufeet7, do you have the numbers that back up your theory? Because I really struggle picturing American fans lining up in droves, eager to see extra 2 hours of a chess game the result of which has been determined a long time ago

  • 15 maanden geleden

    BMeck

    nebunulpecal... When a postition is repeated three times it is a rule that it is a draw. It is not considered a draw offer.

  • 15 maanden geleden

    nebunulpecal

    Any artificial rule that attempts to prevent players from agreeing to a draw is stupid. I'm tired of people saying that they don't like draws, as if they have the necessary skills and knowledge to appreciate a draw between grandmasters. Are really that many people who can understand without help from another super-GM what is going on in a draw between, say, Aronian and Kramnik?!

    And what happens if the players repeat the position three times before move 40? Will one of them be asked not to play the move that repeats the position?!...

  • 15 maanden geleden

    MKCIMICMAN2

    ananga1 why would not like the 40 move draw rule? The mass public who are not chess people don't like draws happennning and that is keeping more money from coming into the game or sport. Companies have said they want a winner or loser not a tie. Players need to play for wins, that is why Carlsen  is playing for the championship and not someone else. Even past World champions have said that draws in match play should not be counted. Fischer had the right idea on this many yeares ago.

  • 15 maanden geleden

    LaskerFan

    The 40+ draw rule is needed to avoid too many draws. Especially as the 2nd and 3rd seeded are "drawmasters" Wink

  • 15 maanden geleden

    TheMagicianPaul

    One of the must watch tournaments of the year.

Terug naar boven

Je reactie plaatsen: