|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Feb-07-10 | | ROADDOG: Congrats to the 3 who share 1st.
There were alot of great games in the last few rounds. Good fighting chess. It would be nice if they would someday be posted on this page. |
 |
| Feb-07-10 | | Ezzy: <wordfunph: GMs Quang Liem, Bareev and Inarkiev tied for 1st.> <ROADDOG: Congrats to the 3 who share 1st.> I personally have nothing against Mr Chernyshov, so I will also congratulate him on his joint first (of 4) position :-) |
|
| Feb-07-10 | | ROADDOG: < Ezzy:>< <<I>> personally have nothing against Mr Chernyshov, so I will also congratulate him on his joint first (of 4) position :-) Yes, of course. ;) |
|
Feb-07-10
 | | Caissanist: Chernyshov won the exchange agains Le, then immediately agreed to a draw. This seems strange, but perhaps if you feed the position to a bot it's a forced draw. Here is the score of the game: Chernyshov Konstantin - Le Quang Liem [E51]
Int'l Chess Festival Moscow Open 2010 Moscow/Russia (9), 07.02.2010
[Robot 3]
1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e6 3.d4 Bb4 4.Bd2 d5 5.Nf3 0-0 6.e3 b6 7.Rc1 Be7 8.Bd3 c5 9.cxd5 exd5 10.0-0 Nbd7 11.dxc5 bxc5 12.e4 d4 13.Na4 Bb7 14.Re1 Re8 15.e5 Nd5 16.b3 N5b6 17.Nb2 Nf8 18.Bb5 Nbd7 19.Nc4 Qb8 20.Ba4 Bd5 21.Bf4 Rd8 22.Ng5 Ng6 23.Qg4 Ndf8 24.Bg3 Qc8 25.Qxc8 Raxc8 26.Ne4 h5 27.h3 h4 28.Bh2 Ne6 29.Ncd6 Rc7 30.Ne8 Rb7 31.N8d6 Rc7 32.Ne8 Rcc8 33.N8d6 Bxd6 34.exd6 Ngf8 35.Bb5 f5 36.d7 Nxd7 37.Nd6 Rb8 38.Bc4 Bxc4 39.Nxc4 Kf7 40.Bxb8 Rxb8 ½-½ and the final position:
click for larger view
wKg1,Nc4,Rc1,e1,Pa2,b3,f2,g2,h3/bKf7,Nd7,e6,Rb8,-
Pa7,c5,d4,f5,g7,h4 |
|
| Feb-07-10 | | eternaloptimist: well, i noticed that volkov lost on his birthday. that's too bad. although, inarkiev had to win to tie for 1st place so u can't blame him for not agreeing to a draw w/ him. |
|
| Feb-07-10 | | Chessforeva: 3D replay of games: http://chessforeva.appspot.com/C0_p... |
|
| Feb-07-10 | | wanabe2000: A great day for Georgia placing top two in the Womens' Section. 1 WIM Paikidze Nazi w GEO 2278 7,5
2 IM Melia Salome w GEO 2431 7,5
3 WGM Kovanova Baira w RUS 2384 7,0
Nazi places first on tie break. 7 wins against 6 wins for Salome. |
|
Feb-07-10
 | | notyetagm: <wanabe2000: A great day for Georgia placing top two in the Womens' Section. 1 WIM Paikidze <<<Nazi>>> w GEO 2278 7,5
2 IM Melia Salome w GEO 2431 7,5
3 WGM Kovanova Baira w RUS 2384 7,0
<<<Nazi>>> places first on tie break. 7 wins against 6 wins for Salome.> Must not be fun to have that name as a child. |
|
| Feb-07-10 | | chessmoron: Unbelievable!! Zhao Xue, 1st before last round, choked in the end. |
|
| Feb-08-10 | | indianchessupdates: Konstantin Chernyshov, Evgeny Bareev, Le Quang Liem and Ernesto Inarkiev all finished on 7/9 to tie for 1st place. With better tie-break score Chernyshov won the title. Indian hope Krishnan Sasikiran finished 5th with 6.5/9 after drawing Evgeny Bareev in the last round. For more on Indian Players
http://indianchessupdates.blogspot.... |
|
Feb-08-10
 | | whiteshark: Congrats to the winners! |
|
Feb-08-10
 | | Chnebelgrind: here is a game Chernyshov played at the age of 2 years
K Chernyshov vs A Lesiak, 1969 |
|
Feb-08-10
 | | wordfunph: <Ezzy: <wordfunph: GMs Quang Liem, Bareev and Inarkiev tied for 1st.> <ROADDOG: Congrats to the 3 who share 1st.> I personally have nothing against Mr Chernyshov, so I will also congratulate him on his joint first (of 4) position :-)> my apology...i missed GM Konstantin Chernyshov who was the Champion on tie-break.. http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail...
congrats GM Chernyshov! |
|
| Feb-08-10 | | Ezzy: Funny ol' business this tiebreak thing. Some would argue that Inarkiev with the highest TPR 2803 should win on tiebreak. I agree with the Gibralter rules to determine an outright champion where a blitz playoff is used. It only takes an extra hour or so, and is better to resolve the outcome by playing CHESS instead of some wierd mathematical formula which players have no control over. |
|
| Feb-08-10 | | unsound: I don't know that "most wins" (the reason Chernyshov won) is really all that weird a mathematical formula. And in Gibraltar, didn't they use a slightly more abstruse formula to figure out who plays in the playoffs? Frankly I don't know why you can't just have joint winners, and forget any form of tiebreak. |
|
| Feb-08-10 | | Ezzy: <unsound: I don't know that "most wins" (the reason Chernyshov won) is really all that weird a mathematical formula.> I suppose one could argue that if you have more wins than your opponent, then it also means you have more losses (If the scores are tied). Doesn't seem to make any sense. Similar to Sonnenborn-Berger which favours beating the higher finishers in the tournament But means losing to the lower placed finishers. So why is beating the higher placed finishers better than losing to the lower placed finishers. None of it really makes that much sense. <....And in Gibraltar, didn't they use a slightly more abstruse formula to figure out who plays in the playoffs?> Yes, because of a multi-way tie they used TPR to select the final 4 for a playoff. I don't particulaly agree with this, but what else to do if there are many people tied at the top. Usually only 2 or 3 finish at the top which makes life simpler. Well I suppose 3 still makes it complicated :-) <Frankly I don't know why you can't just have joint winners, and forget any form of tiebreak.> I suppose so, but it's all about having a single champions name on the trophy. Sponsors put in a lot of money to these events, and it doesn't look very appealing for the game when you announce the champions and have 6 people walk on stage to collect their first prize. I tend to agree. It's much better PR for the sponsors to name a single winner for the tournament. In general I totally agree with your point of forgetting the tiebreak, but I also agree with the sponsors who put up a lot money for the tournament and want to see an exciting finish with 1 winner to add to the roll of honour instead of 5 or 6 players. |
|
| Feb-08-10 | | blazerdoodle: The winners should sit down for an extra week and play each other. Can't do that? Don't have a tourney then and claim you have a winner. It means nothing. |
|
Feb-09-10
 | | PhilFeeley: <I suppose one could argue that if you have more wins than your opponent, then it also means you have more losses > I don't see the logic of this. Why does it mean you have more losses? If they're tied it could be because of draws. Chernyshov had one loss on his way to the top (one reason why he seemed to come out of nowhere - he wasn't struggling in the top group until the last rounds). The others drew their way there. Chernyshov did beat the top seed, whereas others in the top group merely drew with him. I guess in chess, unlike most other sports, there will be ties for first place a lot more. In golf, they play a play off. In hockey now they have an extra period and a shoot-out. In tennis, they play till someone wins by two games. I agree that there should be a play-off in chess rather than a mathematical tie-break, but it's difficult when they've been there for so many days. An extra one may be a hardship. But if they make it blitz, then perhaps they can play it on the same day, like in Gibraltar. |
|
| Feb-09-10 | | ruelas007: whoa still 45 games, i wonder why? |
|
Feb-10-10
 | | Tabanus: Moscow Open 2010 final standings:
http://www.moscowchessopen.ru/a/tab...
http://www.chess-results.com/tnr299... |
|
| Feb-11-10 | | blazerdoodle: A perfect example of why draws shouldn't count. |
|
| Feb-12-10 | | Don Cossacks: <chessgames.com>Only four games on GM Chernyshov? |
|
Feb-12-10
 | | jamesmaskell: <Don Cossacks> TWIC only has 4 of his games. Clearly they had problems in the start with getting all the games keyed in. Got better towards the end but all the same... |
|
Feb-12-10
| | whiteshark: 267 games ow, but women's game bustle within. :) |
|
| Feb-13-10 | | blazerdoodle: It's bizarre, the stupid way they set this tourney up. |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Moscow Open (2010)
