Kramnik-Demchenko Controversy

Well, what did you expect him to say? :-)

The idea that Demchenko was worried that he might win the game if he tried, and wanted to save money by avoiding that, might be questioned without it being asinine :-) Pointing out that he is 2650 and not 2550 seemed worth doing since the lower number got repeated as one reason that he should avoid trying to win.

This was the most important game Demchenko ever has played (and most likely ever will play), and to me it is a bit strange that so many suggest the ten mover as the expected outcome. Demchenko blitzed out ten moves without any thinking in an extremely timid line and offered draw. Of course one can look at the position after nine moves and suggest that Demchenko doesn't have much and that draw is a natural outcome, but he really should have felt quite bad not to even try to play such a game that he maybe never again will get the chance to play. That he blitzed into the position and afterwards said that he started to feel ill during the game is still a bit weak to me. He must have started feeling quite bad during those 30 seconds :-)

I of course think Demchenko should have played on.  The OP though seems to be arguing that Kramnik was so worried about losing this match that he actually paid Demchenko to throw it.  This strikes me as unlikely given the difference in their ratings, not to mention the fact that Kramnik is probably going to get into the Candidates based on his rating alone, so he doesn't even need to win.

"He was not at all worried he "might win" - I'm not sure where you came up with that nonsense"

I didn't, I responded to the comment that Demchenko wanted to avoid the cost of a tiebreak that would be the result of his winning the game, so by drawing quickly he could avoid that.

Not exactly the same, is it? Andreikin tried hard to win, played a long game, and then drew in a close to lost position, where Kramnik agreed to draw since that was enough for him.

10 move draw or 70 move draw almost same(without intention)

If "the Russians" only risked the title every three years, Fischer claimed to still be World Champion after 20 years, without risking it once :-)

It's important to remember that these guys don't play chess for fun or because they love the game. It's their living. Especially Demchenko, whose 30, and probably not expecting to become a top five player unless he's extremely optimistic.

After losing the first game and with the chance that he's going to get an increase in pay by winning both this Italian AND the tiebreak being very unlikely, it's not hard to see why Demchenko might take any benefit he can from a quick draw. Health or otherwise. 

I'm guessing, he being a professional, that if there was $1000 for a win and $500 for at least a 35 move draw riding on this game, he would've been at the board for 2 or 3 hours regardless of how sick he was.

and too much fighting made him to quit chess so early.

Indeed, and if Kramnik really needed help to get into the Candidates it would have looked even better to have Demchenko play a wild game and lose, then Kramnik would have improved his rating chances as well. 

Some players are thinking very much about Elo, and I wouldn't be surprised if Demchenko just wanted 2 easy points. He could have played a "real" game and be much likelier to lose than to win, or get 2 safe points. Most players are much more prone to risk things and win more, but I recall one time when Radjabov could win Tata with a win in the last round. He was black against the much higher rated Aronian, who would win the tournament with a draw. Most people expected Radjabov to play hard for the win, but it was a very quick draw. OK, Radjabov was black, but had the chance to win a top tournament, and had beaten Aronian with black in the past. Such chances are very rare, and there is very much to win.

Radjabov afterwards claimed that he had messed up his preparation and had to go for the repetition in the opening to avoid being worse, but I don't believe that was the truth for a second :-) He knew that playing hard for the win would be much more likely to lose than to win, and a safe Elo point was better. He also knew that he would get a quick draw from Aronian since that was enough for the latter. A bit boring, but how many players think, and then afterwards they come up with not feeling really well or messing up their prep, or having slept badly etc :-)

And at that, hand-picked his opponent too... 

Bobby: for the record I play a good deal of OTB events and I wouldn't consider myself low-rated, at least compared to the other players responding in this forum.  To say that Demchenko has no chance to win against Kramnik is ridiculous.  Look at Dubov, who knocked out Karjakin, or Kovalyov, who knocked out Anand.  While it's true that neither of these players had to win on demand, I don't expect a 2650 rated player to just give up without trying.  One of the reasons these players reach such high ratings is by not giving up.  People don't reach elite levels at anything by being quitters.  At this level, a single blunder could win win the game for Demchenko.  I don't agree with your point about the Italian either.  Demchenko was the one who chose the Italian; if the book line is too drawish he should have played something else.  I've played OTB and I agree that people can not feel well or have off days, but this is probably Demchenko's biggest event ever.  Players don't just go home early if it's the World Series or the Super Bowl.  You give it everything you've got.  And he'd only have to pay for another night in a hotel if he actually won.  If he tried, and lost or drew, it wouldn't cost him anything other than a few hours playing against an elite player.  For the record, I don't think this was a Russian conspiracy, especially given the Dubov-Karjakin result.  I think that Demchenko may have been employed by Kramnik and stood aside to let his boss through, which I think is a big deal and brings the decisive first game into question

Where in the world did that come from?

Macer: I've heard (but can't confirm) that Demchenko is/was employed by Kramnik as a second.  If that's true, he may have lost on purpose to let the boss go through

knighttour2 wrote:

"Look at Dubov, who knocked out Karjakin, or Kovalyov, who knocked out Anand."

At Baku Olympiad, Kovalyov scored a performance rating of 2852, so his win over Anand isn't that surprising.  He has been improving rapidly, so his rating hasn't caught up to his actual level.

Kovalyev plays regularly, and anyone who plays regularly has a rating that reflects their ability.  Some players have more of a variance in their performance (really good and really bad days) versus some who are steady, but I think the idea that a player that plays regularly is underrated is a myth

Kovalyov plays regularly against fairly low rated players.  It's a bit hard to judge how strong he is since he rarely plays in strong tournaments.

I think it's very possible he had Kramnik's hopes in mind when he agreed to the draw yesterday. I think it's also completely ridiculous that he lost intentionally. That allegation is off the deep end.

I didn't see the game at all but I'd be inclined to give the guy the benefit of the doubt simply because if it was premeditated he'd likely have not made it quite that obvious.

I do disagree slightly that an equal-ish opening position in a must win game vs a higher rated player should necessarily be a case for throwing in the towel but I assume he had his reasons, whether that being unwell or whatever.