< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 23 OF 23 ·
|Feb-11-06|| ||Xaurus: <Chesstosterone> Thank you for the correction.|
|Feb-11-06|| ||Giraf: Pono - Valejo Pons :
Koya system 4.5 2.5
Berger 25.75 24.75
So Pono takes 1-st place.
|Feb-11-06|| ||VishyFan: Rating changes from Cuernavaca YM
_______ _________ _________ _______ _____
Ponomariov, Ruslan(2723) +07.6
Volokitin, Andrei(2665) -04.8
Karjakin, Sergey(2660) -13.8
Bruzon, Lazaro(2650) +02.3
Vallejo Pons, Fransisco(2650) +17.3
Nakamura, Hikaru(2644) +13.1
Dominguez, Lenier(2638) +09.1
Cheparinov, Ivan(2625) -04.3
Felgaer, Ruben(2607) -26.8
Leon Hoyos, Manuel(2428) +00.3
ohhhhh! what a leveller chess is, Karjakin gained 15.9 ELO from Corus and here he loses 13.8 of them........, biggest gainers are Pons and Naka.. and the biggest loser is Felgaer by finishing last.......
|Feb-11-06|| ||sapfy: <VishyFan> Exactly what formula do you use to arrive at these numbers?|
|Feb-11-06|| ||iron maiden: <sapfly>, look here: http://www.fide.com/ratings/calcula...|
|Feb-11-06|| ||sapfy: <iron maiden> I'm well aware of that calculator. I don't think it's very accurate.|
From what I understand, the formula for calculating rating change is (actual score - expected score) * k. This calculation is to be done on a game-by-game basis (after a suggestion to FIDE by Anand) and then added together.
Using this method I get 18.68 gain for Karjakin in Corus and a 14.04 loss in Cuernavaca. VishyFan's numbers are different, especially with regard to Corus, so I'm wondering who of us is wrong.
|Feb-12-06|| ||BIDMONFA: Cuernavaca Young Masters (2006)|
Photos Champions - Francisco Vallejo and Ruslan Ponomariov
|Feb-12-06|| ||sapfy: I should also mention the formula used for finding your expected score against an opponent: 1/(1+10^((opponents rating - your rating)/400))|
|Feb-12-06|| ||CowardlyKnight: I'm speechless. This tournament should forever be known as "the Ukrainian disaster".|
|Feb-12-06|| ||suenteus po 147: Very interesting tournament. The "veteran" youngsters Ponomariov and Vallejo-Pons performed well in line with their slightly greater experience. It was cool to see Nakamura out perform Karjakin again :)|
|Feb-12-06|| ||VishyFan: <sapfy><iron maiden> I do my own calculations using Excel sheet to arrive at the final Game By Game rating changes......, I calculate the rating change for each game and then add them up...|
I do not use any FIDE calculator, I think they still haven't updated them to use the Game By Game change concept.....
|Feb-12-06|| ||sapfy: Ok, turns out I failed to include two of Karjakin's games in my calculation for Corus. Any discrepancy beyond that is probably due to a difference of precision (I do no rounding). I use Gnumeric under Linux.|
|Feb-12-06|| ||KingG: Shocking performance from Karjakin, but perhaps to be expected after his great performance at Corus, as it probably took a lot out of him. I don't really think it's a good idea to play two high level tournaments in quick succession like this, especially considering this tournament had M-Tel rules.|
|Feb-12-06|| ||csmath: I deliberately followed his game in Mexico just to see what kind of chess we can expect from him in the future and he was simply awful. Perhaps he is tired but I think it is more than that. I don't think he is that good as it is usually noted. |
In Corus he played a very nice game against Bacrot, the rest was OK, certainly successful for his age. He has been quite inconsistent but I guess that will improve or at least he will be more careful about the schedule. What will not improve is his lack of energy. He seemed to have been tired in the last couple of rounds in Corus as well. For a 16-year-old this is rather strange.
|Feb-12-06|| ||veigaman: Karjakin has problem when he is out of the theory!. Players as nakamura, vallejo, pono, carlsen are much more creative than him. In corus when he lost the first game with anand he said he had forgotten the move played in a similar game between vallejo and leko which it makes me think he lascks of originality!|
|Feb-12-06|| ||iron maiden: After Corus ended I thought Karjakin had used up all his stuff there, so I didn't expect him to perform very well in Mexico. But it did come as a bit of a shock to see him finish -2. He was faring all right at first, recording three draws and a win in the first four rounds, but after the rest day he just collapsed.|
Nakamura's showing, on the other hand, had an impressive effect on me. It's interesting that out of the nine games he played, he only lost rating points in one of them, his defeat by Dominguez. All his other games were either wins, or draws against a higher-rated opponent.
|Feb-12-06|| ||csmath: <Karjakin has problem when he is out of the theory!. Players as nakamura, vallejo, pono, carlsen are much more creative than him.>|
My impression is the same. I would not say that these others are a lot more creative but they are more creative, in my view. I would always prefer Carlsen to Karjakin because of uncompromising attitude which is what a player at this age ought to have like the great champions of the past. Pono is a proven fighter though in Mexico he was also more experienced than the rest. Naka is a "knucklehead" in the good sense. Vallejo is a bit of surprise though we all recognize he has improved quite a bit and matured with Linares participation.
|Feb-12-06|| ||veigaman: I agree with you mr csmath!|
|Feb-12-06|| ||KingG: Comparisons between Karjakin and Carlsen's styles are a little unfair. Karjakin has been playing the very best players in the world for several years already, and he is only 16. Carlsen has only very rarely faced any 2700+ players in classical time controls. It could be that Carlsen's style might not work so well against the best players, but we'll have to wait for Corus 2007 to find out. Alternatively, it could be that facing such high-level opposition from such a young age was detrimental to Karjakin's development as a chess player. |
I think it's too early to tell, although i do agree that Karjakin's chess is a little too 'mature' for a 16 year old. I think overall, some people are too harsh on him though. He's still very young, and already unbelievably strong, no matter what people say about his style.
|Feb-14-06|| ||percyblakeney: Mig on tiebreak confusion in Cuernavaca:
|Feb-14-06|| ||sisyphus: After the power failure in the penultimate round, Raśl Ocampo on Notichess ( www.notichess.com/columnis/oca044.htm ) reported that some spectators speculated that Ponomariov consulted a computer during the break. (I translate loosely from the Spanish.) |
Apparently this suspicion was raised by the fact that Pono left for the hotel after the blackout a number of minutes before Felgaer. Felgaer, however, rejected the notion contemptuously; Pono (who had a better position at the break) smiled and said he'd play a new game.
|Feb-14-06|| ||s4life: <It could be that Carlsen's style might not work so well against the best players, but we'll have to wait for Corus 2007 to find out>|
I agree with this... let him play Corus A next year, and after that we'll see what's he up to.
There are many examples of players with awesome attacking/tactical skills that didn't accomodate well to 2700+ level. i.e., Moro, J Polgar come to my mind, or just recently Mamedyarov, i.e., he completely dominated and produced awesome chess in the last WJC... then you see his dry performance in Corus, with no wins and wonder if it's the same player.
If Carlsen would've been winning @ +3 Aeroflot - a much harder feat than Corus B imho -(like the french kid V-L is doing right now), I wouldn't be surprised if half of the people in this site would be declaring him as Kasparov's successor (if they aren't already), and quite frankly I don't understand that.
|Feb-14-06|| ||Jim Bartle: In the history of chess, have the great players just sort of progressed steadily (or rapidly) to the top, or do they have leaps upward followed by plateaus or even dips in their early careers?|
I ask because people here seem to assume that because Carlsen and Karjakin have been improving rapidly, that they will naturally continue upward consistently.
Actually I guess it's Carlsen that's been shooting upward, while Karjakin has hit a plateau at the moment. Which I can't imagine is anything for him to worry about in the long term.
My guess is that most of the great players did not make steady progress from their mid-teens, but had ups, downs and "levels."
|Feb-14-06|| ||whatthefat: <Jim Bartle>
It's a question I've wondered about too. I guess a detailed study of chessmetrics would be a good starting point (as would FIDE ratings), to see if a 'standard' profile (or set of profiles) appears. Unfortunately, this will only allow you to track down to a rating ~2000, so earlier development can't be seen. It'd still be interesting though. Might give it a shot if I get some spare time.
|Feb-14-06|| ||Jim Bartle: I asked because I remember the baseball analyst Bill James studying weak teams which had improved significantly from one season to the next. He found that, contrary to the beliefs of most fans and sportswriters, that the following year or two most of these teams did NOT continue to win more games, but leveled off and then either took another step upward or fell back. In other words, a team which improved 20 games in one year would not be expected to improve by 10 or 20 more the following year.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 23 OF 23 ·