The Norwegian Super Tournament!

Tie-breaks: SB first, then wins, then black wins. If they'd used that tie-break in London, it would be Kramnik playing Anand in November.

I agree. I'm having a convo about that same topic in another thread.

One can't just conclude that all other things would have been equal if one changes the tiebreak rules afterwards. One should also take into consideration that the players adjust their play to the actual rules, as was obvious from the last rounds of the Candidates. If Linares used SB Topalov would have won it in 2005 instead of Kasparov, but as it was Kasparov knew he had won the tournament already before the last round was played.

Apart from that the frequently posted info about the tiebreak rules in Stavanger is just plain wrong, this is how it actually is:

In case more players tie for first with an equal number of points a blitz match will decide who wins the tournament. The blitz match will consist of 2 games with 4 minutes + 2 seconds (per move) per player.

If it´s still tied an Armageddon game will decide the outcome. In the Armageddon game the player with the white pieces will have 5 minutes + 2 seconds (per move) while the player with black pieces will have 4 minutes + 2 seconds. If the game ends as a draw Black wins.

http://norwaychess.com/en/tie-break-rules/

Anand wants to win games and tournaments like everyone else and it is by winning the players show their class. Of course the actual results also mirror the level of the players, just like in the days of Kasparov and Karpov.

Sorry, but you don't really have any clue what Anand wants. I know because I read it in an interview he gave. He is more concerned about "not losing". He believes this is part of his responsibility as WC.

In what way would it be more "responsible" to score worse results than to score better results if one could? Anand loses quite a lot, so if his aim is not to lose he isn't particularly successful. Since October he has lost to Carlsen, Adams (twice), Wang Hao (twice), Caruana and Nakamura. That's seven losses in eight months. The last five years Kasparov was active he lost in all four games, and naturally he always tried his best to score as good results as possible.

Anand lost today to Wang Hao as Black. 

Nakamura absolutely crushed Hammer, who scored only one win and one draw in the entire tournament. 

Carlsen drew his game, and as I'm writing this, Topalov and Karjakin appear to be heading toward a draw, but Topalov still has some things he can try. 

Things we have learned from this tournament:

• Karjakin isn't a bad player!
• Wang Hao has beaten whoever will be world champion in 2014.
• Nakamura is for real.
• A 2600-rated GM is a fish compared to the best players in the world. (One win and one draw in the entire tournament for Jon Ludwig Hammer)
• Carlsen and Anand both have a lot of work to do before November.
• Topalov's win in Zug did not mean he's ready to fight for top honors in elite tournaments just yet. 

You are "imagining" what he wants. Not what he has stated that he wants. He said that he would rather draw as WC than lose.

Yes, as all other players he naturally prefers drawing to losing.

aww!! i was hoping for karkajin to lose ( for blitz tiebreaks ) but he's currently at a +1.04 advantage

KARJAKIN!!! Champion in Norway...

is it over?

yup... karjakin wins

good for him

You've really twisted the meaning. What is it that you don't comprehend? As WC, he's not like any other player. He's not going to take risks to win tournaments because winning tournaments isn't as important to him as defending his title.

Can you give us a direct quote? I have heard that he doesn't want to show his opening preperation so much as WC. I think Anand would just play any position on its merits as all grand masters do. The logical fallacy in your argument is that drawing doesn't lose you rating points perse. There is no reason why a player with 10 draws would lose more rating piints than a player with 5 wins and 5 losses.

For me, the biggest takeaway is that Carlsen is more beatable than was generally thought.  I tend to think Kramnik was correct when he so stated a little while ago.  Carlsen has lost, I believe, 3 games of classical chess since 2011 -- all occurring within the last two months.  Meanwhile, he has struggled even when winning or holding draws (by his own admission; I wouldn't profess to reach such conclusions myself). 

Does this suggest that, with the aid of powerul engines, Carlsen is now being "reigned in" to some extent? Or has his form simply dropped since Wijk an zee.  In any event, it seems entirely possible that Kasparov-like dominance isn't achievable in the engine era.  Certainly Anand will put that conjecture to the test, presumably as never before in history.

Isn't it a little bit scary though that we talk about how badly Carlsen has been playing and he came second in this tournament. He finished ahead of Aronian and Anand and we all thought he was poor.

Carlsen did lose twice in classical chess last year - once to Karjakin and once to Caruana.

Yes, counting from Nanjing 2010 Carlsen's performances have been 2901, 2815, 2815, 2853, 2833, 2842, 2849, 2875, 2830, 2848, 2878, 2876, 2994, 2930, 2850, 2834. That's amazingly consistent on a high level in every event three years in a row, and this wasn't bad either.

Carlsen had won four tournaments in a row, but that sequence just had to end some day, and it did now (with a margin of 0.5 point). But compare his results to those of any other top player the last 40-50 years and see how many that produced 16 results in a row where their performance was higher than the rating of any other player in the world at the time.