I'll have to pull data from prior World Cups (and are there any other good sources out there of high level two game mini-matches that could meaningfully expand the data set, where it would be safe to assume that players cared as much, and would use the same mini-match strategies?) Also, I should probably get ratings put on.

It would be interesting (with a large enough sample size) to see how far below one's expected score the results are when one goes all-out. In other words, how much ELO does one effectively sacrifice off of their practical playing strength, in order to attempt to win against an opponent trying their hardest to draw?

Edit: Not including ratings really messes up the meaning of these already small samples. In particular, the 19 times that black won game one include TEN instances from the first round of a 2700+ beating someone <2600. Including Caruana, Grischuk, and Nakamura beating non-GMs.

Wow, Caruana has got really lucky against Malakhov in play-off and now also thanks to Granda's early error.

Kamsky's win against Mamedyarov was amazing though, I hope he advances.

Is this clock right in Mamedyarov/Kamsky? With 14 moves played, Mamed has 1 hour 20 minutes left, and Kamsky has 7 minutes 25 seconds left??? That kind of a time differential pretty much has to be a guaranteed 1-0, doesn't it? Especially with Houdini also giving Mamedyarov a half pawn edge?

seems like it is right.

And yeah, Kamsky will have a pretty tough time trying to hold this.

The time keeps ticking on Kamsky, but since my last post all seven moves that he's played have been Houdini's first choice, while Mamedyarov's choices have not been, and now it's Kamsky with about a half pawn edge in the evaluation... as his clock ticks down below four minutes...

Well, obv I have no idea what's going on at that level of play, but it seems to me that just keeping the position very complex should give Mamedyarov good practical chances.

Will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Mamedyarov certainly achieved the complications, but so far Kamsky seems to be navigating them quite cleanly. If he manages to work his way through this maze of a position under this kind of time pressure and hold the draw it would arguably be a more brilliant game than even his masterpiece from yesterday was.

Edit: And it looks like maybe he's found a perpetual?

naka

This Korobov interview is amazing.

Cliff's?

Korobov's interview, not Cliff's interview.

Yuk yuk yuk. Here, I'll rephrase my request as a full sentence: "Can someone please provide Cliff's Notes of the content of Korobov's interview?"

Hahahaha sorry (not really )

Yea it was good, I heard parts of it. No cliffs sorry It can be found on livestream
edit: looked it up http://new.livestream.com/cisha/wcc2013 Round 4, Game 2 - Part 3 starts at around 28:20

Somehow he held that crazy, bad position with very little time. Kamsky is a man on a mission right now!

How can Kamsky be the same man who found all the incredible resources today and yet have his behind handed to him in a king's gambit earlier in the tourney with the same time control?

Clearly the king's gambit is just theoretically won and even Kamsky can't overcome that. Or... something???

Lots of great games in this tournament...enjoying randomly catching up with the ones mentioned in this thread.

Ivanchuck is a balla in his windbreaker slamming out the variations in the live stream. I like him stopping by

Andreikin beat Karjakin with the Torre. Yes.

Lots of Grunfeld games in this event.

Ivanchuk did guest commentary and now Nakamura! This is great

Radjabov is about to be eliminated from contention for the 2014 Candidates Tournament, unless Karjakin can pull a rabbit out of his hat here.

and now we get both of them.

Ha glad to see Maxine win. Boris was so dismissive of all his moves in his interview of the classical stage. Bye Bye Boris

I predict a Tomashevsky win now, despite pessimism by Trent&Polgar. Who did they say will be the new commentators? Nigel and someone?