Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

Cairns Cup Tournament

Valentina Gunina7/9(+5 -0 =4)[games]
Alexandra Kosteniuk6.5/9(+4 -0 =5)[games]
Irina Krush5.5/9(+4 -2 =3)[games]
Nana Dzagnidze5/9(+3 -2 =4)[games]
Dronavalli Harika4.5/9(+1 -1 =7)[games]
Zhansaya Abdumalik4.5/9(+3 -3 =3)[games]
Anna Zatonskih3.5/9(+2 -4 =3)[games]
Bela Khotenashvili3/9(+2 -5 =2)[games]
Marie Sebag3/9(+1 -4 =4)[games]
Elisabeth Paehtz2.5/9(+0 -4 =5)[games]
* Chess Event Description
Cairns Cup (2019)

The 1st Cairns Cup was a 10-player round-robin tournament held from 6-15 February 2019 in the Saint Louis Chess Club, Missouri USA. Rest day: 11 February. The players got 90 minutes for the first 40 moves, followed by 30 more minutes till the end of the game, with a 30-second increment starting from move 1. No draw offers were allowed before move 30. The top three finishers would receive $40,000, $30,000, and $20,000, respectively. Chief organizer: Tony D Rich. Chief arbiter: Carol Jarecki.

Valentina Gunina won clear first with 7/9.

Elo 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 Gunina 2501 * ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ 1 1 1 1 7 2 Kosteniuk 2532 ½ * ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 1 1 6½ 3 Krush 2435 ½ ½ * 1 1 1 1 0 0 ½ 5½ 4 Dzagnidze 2513 0 ½ 0 * ½ ½ 1 1 1 ½ 5 5 Harika 2471 ½ ½ 0 ½ * 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ 4½ 6 Abdumalik 2468 ½ 0 0 ½ 0 * 1 1 ½ 1 4½ 7 Zatonskih 2428 0 ½ 0 0 ½ 0 * 1 1 ½ 3½ 8 Khotenashvili 2491 0 0 1 0 ½ 0 0 * ½ 1 3 9 Sebag 2476 0 0 1 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ * ½ 3 10 Paehtz 2466 0 0 ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ 0 ½ * 2½

Official site:

Next: Cairns Cup (2020)

 page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 45  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves YearEvent/LocaleOpening
1. N Dzagnidze vs I Krush 0-1692019Cairns CupA37 English, Symmetrical
2. E Paehtz vs Kosteniuk 0-1362019Cairns CupA62 Benoni, Fianchetto Variation
3. A Zatonskih vs Z Abdumalik 0-1362019Cairns CupD84 Grunfeld, Grunfeld Gambit Accepted
4. V Gunina vs B Khotenashvili 1-0482019Cairns CupC78 Ruy Lopez
5. D Harika vs M Sebag  ½-½452019Cairns CupB51 Sicilian, Canal-Sokolsky (Rossolimo) Attack
6. I Krush vs V Gunina ½-½682019Cairns CupA07 King's Indian Attack
7. Kosteniuk vs A Zatonskih ½-½412019Cairns CupC42 Petrov Defense
8. M Sebag vs Z Abdumalik ½-½372019Cairns CupC84 Ruy Lopez, Closed
9. D Harika vs N Dzagnidze  ½-½332019Cairns CupD20 Queen's Gambit Accepted
10. B Khotenashvili vs E Paehtz 1-0552019Cairns CupA12 English with b3
11. A Zatonskih vs B Khotenashvili 1-0522019Cairns CupA56 Benoni Defense
12. N Dzagnidze vs M Sebag 1-0702019Cairns CupB51 Sicilian, Canal-Sokolsky (Rossolimo) Attack
13. E Paehtz vs I Krush  ½-½252019Cairns CupB67 Sicilian, Richter-Rauzer Attack, 7...a6 Defense, 8...Bd7
14. V Gunina vs D Harika  ½-½312019Cairns CupC42 Petrov Defense
15. Z Abdumalik vs Kosteniuk 0-1382019Cairns CupC78 Ruy Lopez
16. M Sebag vs Kosteniuk 0-1472019Cairns CupC47 Four Knights
17. I Krush vs A Zatonskih 1-0592019Cairns CupD31 Queen's Gambit Declined
18. N Dzagnidze vs V Gunina 0-1512019Cairns CupB11 Caro-Kann, Two Knights, 3...Bg4
19. B Khotenashvili vs Z Abdumalik 0-1522019Cairns CupA45 Queen's Pawn Game
20. D Harika vs E Paehtz  ½-½312019Cairns CupE73 King's Indian
21. E Paehtz vs N Dzagnidze  ½-½412019Cairns CupB90 Sicilian, Najdorf
22. A Zatonskih vs D Harika  ½-½492019Cairns CupD31 Queen's Gambit Declined
23. V Gunina vs M Sebag 1-0302019Cairns CupB90 Sicilian, Najdorf
24. Kosteniuk vs B Khotenashvili 1-0542019Cairns CupD94 Grunfeld
25. Z Abdumalik vs I Krush 0-1452019Cairns CupB13 Caro-Kann, Exchange
 page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 45  PGN Download
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2)  

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Feb-15-19  PhilFeeley: I wouldn't have predicted Paehtz to be last.
Feb-15-19  parmetd: I think MVL and Svidler.
Feb-16-19  Olavi: <Everett: <Most world champions were brilliant annotators - Alekhine, Euwe, Botvinnik, Karpov, Kasparov, Kramnik and Anand come to my mind - but others rarely made the effort. To BE a chess genius and be able to transform it in a communicative way doesn't seem to be the same.> Karpov was never considered to be a great annotator.>

Karpov's first games collection, up to 1977, is an excellent book IMO. Mednis even put it (together with Chess at the Top 1979-1984) above Kasparov's The Test of Time - for the reader who wants to improve his/her own chess. There is more wisdom, even if he wasn't too scrupulous with his variations

Feb-16-19  morfishine: IMO <Anand> is a very entertaining, funny and self deprecating commentator when going over his own games in post mortem. I wonder how he'd do annotating other's games? I imagine quite well
Premium Chessgames Member
  HeMateMe: Thanks Rex S for another great tournament!
Premium Chessgames Member
  Everett: Anand discussed the latest WC match. Think it’s on YouTube
Premium Chessgames Member
  HeMateMe: what about <Breaking Through> written by the three Polgar sisters. I assume they annotate their own games--is this book worth a look?
Feb-16-19  Sokrates: Hi, <HeMateMe>, Just FYI, those who subscribe to NiC got a Christmas present: Charles Hertain "Strike Like Judit! - The Winning Tactics of Chess Legend Judit Polgar". A great 256 pages book with an abundance of highlights by this Wonder Woman of chess. As I mentioned, Judit's column in NiC proves that she's a brilliant annotator and analyst.
Premium Chessgames Member
  HeMateMe: ah, I'll look for that one, thanks. A shame she's retired from chess. I think like Kasparov, Polgar decided when she had peaked it was time to bow out.
Feb-17-19  Sally Simpson: ***

"Who do people think are the really good (written) annotators working today?"

Nigel Short has a popular following over at N.I.C. and now he has stopped writing for his own words:

"A fear that my elevation to FIDE VP would constrain my independence, was the reason given."

Some say they are going to cancel their sub or write a protest to the editor.


Feb-17-19  Sally Simpson: ***

Following on the theme of the week. I've just been catching up on my Edward Winter.

C.N. 11215 "‘The greatest annotator who ever lived"

It's a shout for Paul Keres.

"‘Keres is profound, analytically sound, most readable and instructive....."


Feb-17-19  Sokrates: <Sally Simpson> Ouch, bad news. I liked reading Short's witty and eloquent musings in NiC. We know he is always very subjective and biased, but he always fights with his visor open, and his viewpoints are refreshing and to the point.

I also understand the disposition by the NiC, though. Integrety is paramount, and Short's position HAS changed, even if it would make no difference to his writings.

Feb-17-19  Sally Simpson: ***

Hi Socrates,

I too think Nigel would have been perfectly able to change hats when writing his piece but the next least bit of controversy would have invited the po-faces to add "..if this is the views of FIDE then it's a poor reflection etc..etc.."

Not that I agree in anyway with NIC but this is possibly their stance. As another tweeter put it, they would rather give us computer analysis of a Carlsen 100 move ending than rock the boat.


Staying with the theme, also from Edward Winter C.N. 11226 and a note from Jan Timman, we are now onto the worst writer:

"Bjelica was known as a gutter journalist who wrote books that were full of printing errors and plagiarisms."

Feb-17-19  LameJokes:

Chess engine gives annotation during live games on chessbase. The annotation is so good, it's hard to tell that no human is involved. Although I don't know which engine is used.

Can we rate annotation of different engines as we do with humans? Well, it's possible.

First let all the engines give their annotations.

This raises possibility, engines could occupy pride of place in the commentary box. Of course, they won't give human analysis. Only computer ones.

Feb-18-19  Sokrates: <This raises possibility, engines could occupy pride of place in the commentary box. Of course, they won't give human analysis. Only computer ones.>

And they are as exiting as tables of logarithms! :-)

Premium Chessgames Member
  moronovich: <This raises possibility, engines could occupy pride of place in the commentary box. Of course, they won't give human analysis. Only computer ones.>

I would prefer the episode from "Send him
on a banana boat" with D.Trump.

Premium Chessgames Member
  ChessHigherCat: I think good commentators like Seirawan are much more helpful than ongoing SF analysis, or at least they're more entertaining, because a computer can never understand what's difficult for humans to grasp or what's "counter-intuitive" or "surprising"and react emotionally . Only a human expert can do that.
Premium Chessgames Member
  HeMateMe: I like both human and 'bot analysis, and then have the humans dissect and speak on what the bots have determined.
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<LameJokes> Chess engine gives annotation during live games on ChessBase. The annotation is so good, it's hard to tell that no human is involved.>

I don't think that it's the engine (e.g. Fritz 16) making the annotations but the Playchess module available from ChessBase. At least that's what it looked like from this article:

I looked at earlier ChessBase annotation articles such as the video provided as part of and the remainder of that post as well as other earlier articles and I got the impression that in earlier versions the annotations were done by hand by a human. Sure, the computer can help a lot by digging into its database and coming up with previously played games using the same sequence of moves, the won-draw-loss statistics from each position in the game, and an engine's evaluation of the position after each move. From the latter it can also come up with reasonable alternatives variations to the moves actually played.

But the "annotations" are not being done by the engines, they are being done by the Playchess module using, in part, information provided by an engine. So it wouldn't be possible to rate the "annotations" provided by different engines, just by the Playchess module. And, since different engines will provide different position evaluations and even different evaluations each time they evaluate a given position, it would be really hard to determine which "annotation" is best.

But that's just an opinion of how I think it works. If anyone knows better, I would certainly enjoy and appreciate an education on the subject.

Feb-19-19  LameJokes: <This raises possibility, engines could occupy pride of place in the commentary box. Of course, they won't give human analysis. Only computer ones.>

Of course, engines wouldn't sit alongside human commentators.

Human commentators tell us, they don't look into engine analysis while commentating. I believe them.

Therefore, we would need separate boxes for either of them.

Feb-19-19  LameJokes:

<AylerKupp:> Yeah. It may not be engine. What I meant was some kind of machine be it engine, computer, program or whatever.

Thanks for the links and your inputs. I always read your articles about computers, engines, statistics and everything else with great interest.

Feb-19-19  BOSTER: <AylerKupp>.If your Q. is:can modern engines, including artificial, annotate? I'd say Yes.
Feb-19-19  BOSTER: To understand how computer can annotate we have to answer what do analysis mean, and the possibility computer to explain chess ideas.No doubt that computer can talking about feeling the pos, and what the weather in your city.
Feb-20-19  BOSTER: <In TchessPro just click on the moved, when list pops up look at the bottom left on the screen and you will see "Annotatins">.
Feb-20-19  BOSTER: Should be "Annotations".
Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 5)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·  Later Kibitzing>

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
  3. No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
  6. No trolling.
  7. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.
  8. Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

Blow the Whistle

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.

NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific tournament only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!

Copyright 2001-2023, Chessgames Services LLC