It's +14.6 so far from the US Championship, plus +16.6 from the mid-March Dallas event. So his live rating is now 2562.2.

Didn't that mid-March event give him a published rating of 2548 on the April list? If he's +14.6 so far in this event, that should put his live rating at 2562.6?

After Tata Steel I observed that he'd gained 130 elo in 13 months (through the February rating list), and that if he could maintain that 10/month pace for 11 more months he'd break the record for highest U15 rating ever (currently held by Wei Yi).

He's already got the +30 he needed to maintain that pace through the May list. If he plays as strong in the second half of the US Championship maybe he can add another 10 points and cover himself through June!

Exactly, thanks for the correction! I got confused by the fact that the US championship crosstable lists March ratings (2531 for Sam), on which the rating change calculation will be based.

First I saw of Sevian was that video of him beating curtains. He was like 10 but I guess I just saw the video a year or so ago. Then I heard he became a GM already and was like wow. That's seriously impressive. I suppose his ceiling is >Magnus at this point, right?

Nice Marshall Attack by Onischuk vs So today.

I have Sevian's live rating as up to 2565.8 after today's draw. He is 14.29 years old as of today.

I am not any sort of authority on this, but I honestly think it's not even close. I watched a lot of Carlsen when he was that age (some of that live, in the tournament halls) and even then you could get a sense that you were watching a one-of-a-kind player. He was as good dynamically as Sevian is, but on top of that he consistently showcased a very deep understanding of the game. You could see that he was instilling fear to his opponents and like half of the time he seemed borderline bored while playing, it just came so easy to him. It was very clear that this guy was going to be top10, it was just a matter of time. I don't get the same feeling when watching Sevian. Of course, he is fantastically good for his age, but it's not the same kinda good as Carlsen was, at least in my opinion. At the moment, the maximum I see him achieving is low 2700, but even then I am not sure, since the competition over there is ridiculous...

'Ceiling' should be defined more quantitatively. The statement "Samuel Sevian will achieve a rating of ___ in ___% of possible futures" can vary wildly in its optimism of Sevian's future depending on the filled-in percentage, holding the rating constant (and high, ldo).

I'd bet on him becoming Magnus* in 1 out of 1,000 futures. Likewise, I'd fist-pump bet on him to reach 2750 with 9:1 odds in my favor.


*lol, his rating, not his actual physical being.

That's interesting. I really have no idea as I can't watch games from either and really know much at all.

So it sounds like ratings projections are much less stable than I had thought (in other words, 2 prodigies can reach a high rating by the same age but from there one could highly outperform the other, even given similar effort). It seems like improvement in chess isn't as linear as it is dozens of "a-ha" moments where you plateau then reach a new high, rinse, repeat until you basically peak. Much like golf.

Isn't Sevian's progress comparable (and slightly better) than Nakamura's?

I have read that players are becoming much stronger at younger ages but they are also peaking out faster as well.

Intriguing claim, but I'm not intuitively convinced. I'd have to see a deeper analysis. Any recollection where you read it? My first question would probably be about how (or whether) they adjusted for rating inflation.

By the way, it's probably also time for us to be talking more about Ray Robson. For all the talk about the two top ten players in the field, it's Robson not So who's tied with Nakamura for first. Probably a 12-13% chance that Robson actually wins the whole thing at this point. Also his live rating is up over 2675, and he's climbed to 65th in the world.

I guess he's not classified as a junior any more, so it's less exciting than Sevian's prodigal rise... but it's not like Robson is old enough to legally drink yet so like I said, we should probably be talking about him a bit more itt.

With the availability/propensity of chess matches and chess learning tools these days and kids being able to play dozens of games a day, even on their phones, I could easily see a correlation with them both becoming stronger (than prior generations) at a younger age, as well as peaking out at a younger age (than prior generations).

More trials means the cream rises quicker, doesn't it?

I don't see how it's any different from the poker boom making 18 year old kids internet millionaires who had never even played the game by age 17. Whereas the Old Guard was old guys like Doyle and Chip who figured it all out by playing slow ass 1-table live hands over decades.

Very interesting Benoni from Nakamura today. His g5, Qf6, Bh6 idea looked pretty unorthodox.

Wesley So forfeited game against Var Akobian! 2015 U.S. Men's and Women's Chess Championships for taking notes

Someone posted this on the chess.com chat for the game:

"like 'lose virginity at age 27'"

Indeed, I'd regard it a defeat if I forfeited my virginity before I hit 28. (I have only a couple of months of withstanding the societal pressure left until that moment )

Saw this on twitter:

Could anyone explain why taking notes outside the scoresheet is deemed such a grave offence in FIDE tourneys, even if they're with analysis of the current position? Why is it cheating?

This doesn't pardon Wesley, who had been warned twice, but the rule itself seems ridiculous.

I'm going to guess it has to do with distracting your opponent. As in, some issues were coming up where players complained their opponents were taking a bunch of "secret notes" and it was distracting.

I dno, the rule seems very silly, I'm having a hard time figuring out how to take advantage of it in any real way. That being said, it seems So has done this for years (probably b/c he thinks the rule is stupid) and finally didn't get away with it.

Kind of a lose-lose-lose all the way around tbh.

It used to be OK to write your move down before actually playing it so you could look again at the proposed move and change your mind. That irritated some players so the rule came into being as "no notes".

Probably it is superstition or some OCD-ish habit, which seem to be quite common among chess players. For example, I always underline the time control move even if it is already clearly marked on the scoresheet. Something just feels wrong if I don't.

Anyway, there are rules. Mark it zero, next game.

Wait, you don't see the problem with writing out variations of analysis during a game? Of course that would be cheating.

This has already set off a firestorm of debate everywhere , but let's be thankful of one thing - that So was not in contention to win the tournament. That would make it far uglier.

I don't believe this used to be a rule. Ain't nobody writing out variations, that would get caught so easily. Silly rule is pretty clearly silly. If someone is actually distracted by someone else doodling or whatever and loses because of that then they deserve to lose.

Btw, I once played a tournament game against a guy who chewed the entire game and spit it out into this sports cup that he then had on the table in an area where I could see what he spit out. That is an example of something distracting. Doodling or writing a move down and then changing it on the scoresheet is not.