< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 116 OF 128 ·
|Dec-11-09|| ||SetNoEscapeOn: <Jim Bartle: In World Cup games in the past it happened very explicitly, when a tie in a first-round game benefited both teams.>|
That, and worse:
<Group B was essentially a battle between Argentina and Brazil, and it was resolved in controversial circumstances. In the first round of group games, Brazil beat Peru 3-0 while Argentina saw Poland off by a score of 2-0. Brazil and Argentina then played out a tense and violent goalless draw, so both teams went into the last round of matches with three points. Argentina had an advantage that their match against Peru kicked off several hours after Brazil's match with Poland. Brazil won their match 3-1, so Argentina could know that they had to beat Peru by four clear goals to go through to the final. Argentina managed it with what some saw as a suspicious degree of ease. Trailing 2-0 at half-time, Peru simply collapsed in the second half, and Argentina eventually won 6-0. Rumours suggested that Peru might have been bribed to lose the game (especially because the Peruvian goalkeeper, Ramón Quiroga, was born in Argentina); but nothing could be proved, and Argentina met the Netherlands in the final.>
|Dec-11-09|| ||Jim Bartle: Oh, I remember that game too well. Rumors have always been that Argentinian President General Galtieri (?) called up Peruvian President General Morales Bermudez and told him if Argentina didn't win the whole thing, he would be thrown out of office in a coup. And Morales went along with it.|
Peru (which had a very good team) hit the post once and blew a couple easy chances in the first half, adding to the suspicions.
The system was at fault. Playing a round-robin among four teams, rather than a knockout, to determine one team to advance to the final, was just asking for trouble.
|Dec-11-09|| ||siamesedream: Ponomariov: "So far the final match is boring":
|Dec-11-09|| ||ajile: <siamesedream: Ponomariov: "So far the final match is boring": |
And I wonder who's fault that is.
|Dec-11-09|| ||zatara: what's up with the spectators there?|
|Dec-11-09|| ||beenthere240: Thanks for the interview link. So Boris offered the draw. Kevin Spraggett said that he preferred black but for no particular reason. I wonder if the draw offer was a ploy intended to suggest that he was afraid of black's chances and goading him to make an attack that might be refutable. Because white sure didn't have much.|
|Dec-11-09|| ||SetNoEscapeOn: <The system was at fault. Playing a round-robin among four teams, rather than a knockout, to determine one team to advance to the final, was just asking for trouble.>|
Exactly. I can understand why they wanted to try it, but the cure was much worse than the disease.
In the press conference, Gelfand said
<The London tournament is not bad. But only two chess players from top thirty take part in it. If you ask me what tournament is more interesting: World Cup or London tournament, the question is obvious: with all due respect for London.>
Well, I suppose it depends on what one is looking for. For instance, one might observe that of the top five players in the world, two are playing in London; how many took part in the world cup? In any case, at this point both tournaments have the exact same number of top 30 participants.
|Dec-11-09|| ||Jim Bartle: "In any case, at this point both tournaments have the exact same number of top 30 participants."|
A valid point!
|Dec-11-09|| ||Fusilli: <Jim Bartle> and <SetNoEscapeOn>, I posted something for you guys on my chessforum, re: 1978 Soccer World Cup in Argentina.|
|Dec-11-09|| ||frogbert: <But only two chess players from top thirty take part in it. >|
is this some cunning slight towards nakamura? ;o)
|Dec-11-09|| ||frogbert: btw, if ponomariov would win the final 2,5-1,5 he will finish the wcc in 10th place on the live ratinglist. that's a first in a while. :o)|
|Dec-11-09|| ||SetNoEscapeOn: <frogbert: <But only two chess players from top thirty take part in it. >
is this some cunning slight towards nakamura? ;o)>|
Yeah, that's right. So 3 in London, 2 in the world cup.
Not that counting how many players there are in the top 30 (or 5) tells me how "interesting" an event is. For myself, the mere fact that I will finally get to see Nakamura play guys at the <very highest> level in classical makes London extremely interesting. I also take the interest level of the individual games into account. At the moment, one event is far out pacing the other in that respect.
|Dec-11-09|| ||Fincher: <Rolfo: They are very open to how they feel, daily matters, perspective of life.. I remember Pono's loss to Aronian 4 y ago. Gelfand appears to me to be a Kramnik solidly type of player. Difficult to beat. Anything can happen, I still feel a quiet wish that Pono could make it.>|
me to rolfo!.. Ponomario was one of my favourite players befor Magnus
|Dec-11-09|| ||returnoftheking: But only two chess players from top thirty take part in it
<is this some cunning slight towards nakamura?>
|Dec-11-09|| ||returnoftheking: Fincher, why <was> ? Didn't he perform well enough to deserve your favoritism any longer ?|
|Dec-11-09|| ||HeMateMe: Does FIDE really take 20% of the prize money here, so only 80% goes to the players? I thought their cut was only 10%, but I'm hearing its 20%. 20 percent seems too high. Maybe Kasparov was correct in taking the title outside of the grasp of FIDE.|
|Dec-11-09|| ||returnoftheking: Maybe not.|
|Dec-11-09|| ||talisman: <soccer> some quote i never forgot. you take a 5th grader, who has never done anything. put him on the basketball court...he looks stupid. Put him on the tennis court...he looks stupid. Put him on the baseball field...he looks stupid. Put him on the soccer field...He blends right in...ball comes to him?...he kicks it.|
|Dec-12-09|| ||kurtrichards: I know of a 5th grader who was given a chessboard as a christmas gift by his father...he became a grandmaster at the age of 14!|
|Dec-12-09|| ||Mateo: Ponomariov-Gelfand is on the way. They are following Euwe-Botvinnik, AVRO 1938.|
|Dec-12-09|| ||Mateo: 9.Bg3 seems to be a novelty. Euwe played 9.Bd2 and eventually won.|
|Dec-12-09|| ||nescio: Ponomariov - Gelfand after 8...Nd5
click for larger view
<Mateo: 9.Bg3 seems to be a novelty. Euwe played 9.Bd2 and eventually won.>
He won because Botvinnik blundered an exchange on the 16th in an equal position: Euwe vs Botvinnik, 1938
Euwe recommended 9.Nxd5 afterwards, but Ponomariov doesn't agree.
|Dec-12-09|| ||Mateo: Neither GM Aveslukov: <Trading on d5 probably gives nothing more than equal play. Now black can think about Nb4 and c5, or play 0-0 first and then after 10. e4 consider Nb4 again or Nxc3 11. bxc3 with a slightly unusual (Bg3, Be6) but very interesting Gruenfeld position.>|
|Dec-12-09|| ||Mateo: The point of 10...Qa5 is that after the direct 10...c5!? 11.Qb5+ is possible. So 10...Qa5 first was a more solid choice.|
|Dec-12-09|| ||nescio: Of course. After 70 years the judgment of the grandmasters about a position may have changed considerably.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 116 OF 128 ·