2016 London Chess Classic: Round 5

The London Chess Classic is the final leg of the 2016 Grand Chess Tour. Join GMs Yasser Seirawan, Alejandro Ramirez, Maurice Ashley, and IM Tania Sachdev for the move-by-move in this round robin event.



  1. Here's how you juice the World Chess Championship without perverting it:Hold the rapid playoff FIRST. That means you ensure getting in what many consider the most exciting form of chess, and you put it up front, just when all the hype and excitement are peaking. In addition, it means that in the event of a tie after 11 games (assuming we stick w/ the current format of 12 Classical games), the 12th game (unlike in Karjakin-Carlsen) is of critical importance. It also means one player goes into the 12 game match down a point. He cannot simply play for draws. This gives an edge to every Classical game.Hold the rapid portion of the match first, at the very start. That's how you put the emphasis back on the Classical games and avoid so many of the drawbacks to the current format.

  2. Chess is so lucky to have exceptional guys like Yasser and Maurice.

  3. really? disable chat? you really want chess to remain backwaters don't ya..

  4. lol, you morons got the chat disabled? Bwahahahaha. Way to go champs.

  5. one time a long time ago, tania had nothing to say. this is where the black hole in the milky way galaxy came from.

  6. Fascinating to see both players doing a 30-minute post mortem.. awesome.

  7. I would much rather see Alejandro and Maurice do the commentary.

  8. word to organizers or runners of the stream. Go and watch video game chats… Stream chat is part of the reason people watch live stream, it's fkn hilarious and it's what makes it fun. Especially the boring parts.

  9. that woman is very sympathetic, and she seems to be competent as well

  10. are you lonely? lol chat dont mean shit im just here to see the games

  11. tanya love ur dressing sense u look great

  12. While i enjoy these broadcasts the conversation on women in chess is at best misguided. 1:01:00 — Tanya says Hou Yifan would fit right in here, but of course she would not. Her current rating, 2649, is 100 points lower than the lowest rated player in this event. She would be struggling to pick up a oouple of draws. –The key point, though, is why are women receiving special treatment? Why do women players get their own Grand Prix, for example, when those women are far weaker than the top 100 male players?

    Women are not discriminated against in chess. Far from it. In fact, the contrary is evidently, obviously the case. Take the broadcaster, here. whose work on this tournament I enjoy. Even so, Tanya is the 1,622nd best active player in the world. Her FIDE rating is 2419. She is on this broadcast, being featured, being paid, adding to her resume, because she's a woman. That's the reason she's here. If we were gender blind, going on talent, their would be 1576 male players better at chess (and 43 women) and therefore 1576 male chess players with more of the essential skill this job requires.

    I do understand that the moment anyone suggests women should not receive special treatment people instantly get enraged, but that notwithstanding when you have something like a Women's Grand Prix you're arranging a special series of tournaments for women who, as chess players, are far, far weaker than the male chess players who have worked no less hard but have the misfortunate in this respect to simply be the wrong gender.

    By the 1:06:30 mark, Hou Yifan has been mentioned a half dozen times. Yet there are something like 90 male chess players with higher ratings, and are frankly better at chess than she is. Why are those chess players not given comparable treatment? Why, if as Tanya suggests Hou Yifan is seeded into a Grand Chess Tour event, is she being given access to significant prizes and appearance money just because of her gender? Hou Yifan has in no way been discriminated against. In fact, simply because of her gender she has been accorded a much, much higher status than a male chess player of comparable ability.

    Yet here the announcers are yet again discussing the ostensible need to give her yet more special treatment, special access, money, prizes, and status.

    Why? And why do you not see the simple bigotry of this?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.