Asking or wishing for a co-blogger (only) "on days like today" for "miserable tasks" is a bit peculiar, isn't it? Thanks for the factual report on the US match - commercial sources (chess.com and chess24) were much more lyric on So's "masterpiece", mentioning but still almost ignoring the "winning blunder" aspect of the game.
Dominguez did play the Sicilian in classical quite recently at the first Berlin Grand Prix, not turning into Najdorfs because Shirov played 2.Nc3 and Harikrishna chose 2.c3. Leeway for Ter-Sahakyan might rather be: Who analyzes or even remembers all of his Internet blitz games, on Lichess or other servers?
Amusing that Svidler and Leko were confused about the end of the Shankland game. Shankland's attempted Kc2 and his subsequent agony was clearly visible on the video, but apparently neither commentator had paid attention to the video.
Finally curiosity to maybe mild criticism: You (in your own words) "loathed" priority treatment for Crlsen, but now you single him out by always presenting his game - round 3 was the last time when it was potentially relevant for top team standings. This might be seen as contradictory?
Re: A co-blogger. Three points. First, "only" is your insertion, not what I wrote. Choosing the worst possible interpretation and then blaming me as if I had affirmed it is uncharitable at best. Second, it was primarily a rhetorical device, a way of saying that I really didn't want to report on the match. Third, some tasks are intrinsically "miserable", but in other cases it will be person-relative. If my hypothetical co-blogger was Armenian, for example, he might have taken up the task with relish.
Re: Dominguez. I said "almost always", so if you're attempting to correct me, there's nothing there to correct. But it does increase T-S's culpability for his bad prep. On the "Who analyzes or even remembers all of his Internet blitz games" question, the answer is almost certainly no one, at least no one who plays a substantial quantity of blitz. But that's a straw man. If I'm playing a strong opponent and I wind up worse with White in an opening that's part of my repertoire, I try to repair it. Moreover, when preparing for opponents I do pay attention to what they may know about my openings, and that would include paying attention to games I've got in the database. T-S didn't commit some sort of crime and doesn't need to turn in his GM title or anything ridiculous like that, but it was a culpable failure on his part, and it's likely that he spent too much time worrying about 1...e5.
Finally, we come to the very strange "curiosity"/criticism at the end of your comment. My criticism of Carlsen's treatment was not a blanket criticism, but of something very specific. I have no problem with, for instance, Norwegian TV focusing their coverage on him, or on Sesse being used for his games and not some other player's. But being on board 1 in a tournament is supposed to mean that you are the best player or team thus far, not that you're the darling of some TV station or the top team of the event host. This is not a quirky position, but what happens in 99.99+% of Swiss system events. That's how the Swiss system works - even for Carlsen in the World Rapid & Blitz and for India 1 in this event. Sticking them on board 1 is an injustice to whoever the real board 1 is.
What my complaint has to do with my preferences as a blogger is beyond me. Given finite time, energy, and interest, I'm going to focus on what I'm interested in and what grabs my attention. I have not neglected what has occurred at the top of the tournament, but I am interested in the world champion's play. He's the best player in the world, and the irrelevance of his team to the medal hunt is itself irrelevant to the intrinsic interest of Carlsen's games. But that doesn't translate into a "right" to be on board 1 - it's comparing apples and monkeys.
By the way, I asked at the start of the event for readers to let me know if there were interesting games that I had overlooked. That would be more valuable to me and most members of this blog than trying to play "gotcha". Of course, you might find playing "gotcha" a better use of your time, in which case using the "delete" and "block" buttons will be the best use of my time.
I assumed something implicit in your writing, and had something implicit in my writing (which you actually got).
I interpreted "On days like today ...." along the lines of "Generally/normally/on most days, I don't mind and actually enjoy a one-man-show" - not considering that it might be mainly a rhetorical device, my bad.
Dominguez etc.: Trust me, may point wasn't "gotcha" but "it does increase T-S's culpability for his bad prep". Even if Ter-Sahakyan assumed that Dominguez plays the Sicilian mostly in blitz, he should have spotted those two recent(!) classical games. Therefore "leeway might _rather_ be ...." . I get your point that one should look at Internet games corresponding to your own main repertoire. Else, the value of Internet games for preparation purposes is limited IMO - players can even set traps by playing something they won't play OTB, obliging opponents to increase the amount while necessarily decreasing the depth of preparation..
On Carlsen: point taken. As to other interesting games: Biased as I am as a German, one from round 7 would be Indjic-Keymer - draw after many twists, turns and material imbalances (last one queen against bishop pair). Generally a logical result though the verdict of GM S was -8 for a short fleeting moment.
Asking or wishing for a co-blogger (only) "on days like today" for "miserable tasks" is a bit peculiar, isn't it? Thanks for the factual report on the US match - commercial sources (chess.com and chess24) were much more lyric on So's "masterpiece", mentioning but still almost ignoring the "winning blunder" aspect of the game.
Dominguez did play the Sicilian in classical quite recently at the first Berlin Grand Prix, not turning into Najdorfs because Shirov played 2.Nc3 and Harikrishna chose 2.c3. Leeway for Ter-Sahakyan might rather be: Who analyzes or even remembers all of his Internet blitz games, on Lichess or other servers?
Amusing that Svidler and Leko were confused about the end of the Shankland game. Shankland's attempted Kc2 and his subsequent agony was clearly visible on the video, but apparently neither commentator had paid attention to the video.
Finally curiosity to maybe mild criticism: You (in your own words) "loathed" priority treatment for Crlsen, but now you single him out by always presenting his game - round 3 was the last time when it was potentially relevant for top team standings. This might be seen as contradictory?
Re: A co-blogger. Three points. First, "only" is your insertion, not what I wrote. Choosing the worst possible interpretation and then blaming me as if I had affirmed it is uncharitable at best. Second, it was primarily a rhetorical device, a way of saying that I really didn't want to report on the match. Third, some tasks are intrinsically "miserable", but in other cases it will be person-relative. If my hypothetical co-blogger was Armenian, for example, he might have taken up the task with relish.
Re: Dominguez. I said "almost always", so if you're attempting to correct me, there's nothing there to correct. But it does increase T-S's culpability for his bad prep. On the "Who analyzes or even remembers all of his Internet blitz games" question, the answer is almost certainly no one, at least no one who plays a substantial quantity of blitz. But that's a straw man. If I'm playing a strong opponent and I wind up worse with White in an opening that's part of my repertoire, I try to repair it. Moreover, when preparing for opponents I do pay attention to what they may know about my openings, and that would include paying attention to games I've got in the database. T-S didn't commit some sort of crime and doesn't need to turn in his GM title or anything ridiculous like that, but it was a culpable failure on his part, and it's likely that he spent too much time worrying about 1...e5.
Finally, we come to the very strange "curiosity"/criticism at the end of your comment. My criticism of Carlsen's treatment was not a blanket criticism, but of something very specific. I have no problem with, for instance, Norwegian TV focusing their coverage on him, or on Sesse being used for his games and not some other player's. But being on board 1 in a tournament is supposed to mean that you are the best player or team thus far, not that you're the darling of some TV station or the top team of the event host. This is not a quirky position, but what happens in 99.99+% of Swiss system events. That's how the Swiss system works - even for Carlsen in the World Rapid & Blitz and for India 1 in this event. Sticking them on board 1 is an injustice to whoever the real board 1 is.
What my complaint has to do with my preferences as a blogger is beyond me. Given finite time, energy, and interest, I'm going to focus on what I'm interested in and what grabs my attention. I have not neglected what has occurred at the top of the tournament, but I am interested in the world champion's play. He's the best player in the world, and the irrelevance of his team to the medal hunt is itself irrelevant to the intrinsic interest of Carlsen's games. But that doesn't translate into a "right" to be on board 1 - it's comparing apples and monkeys.
By the way, I asked at the start of the event for readers to let me know if there were interesting games that I had overlooked. That would be more valuable to me and most members of this blog than trying to play "gotcha". Of course, you might find playing "gotcha" a better use of your time, in which case using the "delete" and "block" buttons will be the best use of my time.
I assumed something implicit in your writing, and had something implicit in my writing (which you actually got).
I interpreted "On days like today ...." along the lines of "Generally/normally/on most days, I don't mind and actually enjoy a one-man-show" - not considering that it might be mainly a rhetorical device, my bad.
Dominguez etc.: Trust me, may point wasn't "gotcha" but "it does increase T-S's culpability for his bad prep". Even if Ter-Sahakyan assumed that Dominguez plays the Sicilian mostly in blitz, he should have spotted those two recent(!) classical games. Therefore "leeway might _rather_ be ...." . I get your point that one should look at Internet games corresponding to your own main repertoire. Else, the value of Internet games for preparation purposes is limited IMO - players can even set traps by playing something they won't play OTB, obliging opponents to increase the amount while necessarily decreasing the depth of preparation..
On Carlsen: point taken. As to other interesting games: Biased as I am as a German, one from round 7 would be Indjic-Keymer - draw after many twists, turns and material imbalances (last one queen against bishop pair). Generally a logical result though the verdict of GM S was -8 for a short fleeting moment.
Thanks for the Daily updates. Really enjoy reading them.