< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 81 OF 81 ·
|Dec-28-10|| ||turbo231: <anandrulez: Many european flights go via Dubai as it is an international hub and many people also go there just for shopping like Dubai shoppign festival etc . Hence he might be in Dubai for just having some fun / shopping etc ...>|
Thanks I didn't know that.
|Dec-28-10|| ||anandrulez: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burj_K...
Dubai has some important landmarks like Burj Dubai which is the tallest building in the world - so really nobody goes there for chess perhpas with few exceptions like Dubai Open ! It is a touristers paradise :)
|Dec-28-10|| ||turbo231: At its tallest point, the tower sways a total of 1.5 m (4.9 ft). One could get sea sick from the swaying at the top of that building! Over 2,700 feet high!|
I think in San Francisco after a building reaches a certain height they install a counter anti sway system so when the building sways in one direction this heavy disc is designed to move in the opposite direction thereby minimizing the amount of movement.
The article didn't mention such a system, but I suspect they have they it. And I wouldn't be surprise if they had several of them. That building is nearly twice as high as any building in the United States!
|Dec-28-10|| ||Troller: <turbo231: Well Naka has an event Jan 15-31 Tata Steel Chess what ever that is>|
That would be the obscure tournament of Wijk-ann-Zee (previously Corus or Hoogovens). Or were you merely joking, in which case you had me fooled?
|Dec-28-10|| ||HeMateMe: I used to work in the World Trade Center, before the 9/11 disaster. I was up on the 60s floors, and on a windy day you could feel the building groan, and sense some movement. |
There were temp workers who would spend a day on our floor, sense the building moving, and then tell the agency they refuse to come back to the clientele in the WTC!
|Dec-28-10|| ||Bobwhoosta: <HeHateMe>
I would love it. It must have been hard with 9/11, you lost some friends and co-workers I'd assume.
Were you still working there at the time of 9/11? What kept you out of work that day?
|Dec-28-10|| ||Bobwhoosta: Just to clarify, I would love working in a swaying building 60-stories above the earth. I wouldn't love building it, or standing on a girder at that height. I also wouldn't love being there during 9/11, nor what happened.|
Didn't think anyone would interpret me that way, just clarifying for posterity and infuenza.
|Dec-28-10|| ||HeMateMe: <Bob Chico> My last time there was about 1 1/2 years before 9/11. One of my former co workers died. The 60s floors were relatively safe in Tower 2, they were evacuated in time. But, one woman went back up to the floor to get her forgotten purse. Something happened, she never appeared again. She might have tried the elevators, and got trapped there.|
When the actual event occurred, I was on Canal street, about 1 mile above the WTC, in Manhattan. Every building below Canal street (a huge radius) was evacuated, all flights in the USA were cancelled, all planes grounded. I was living in the East Village at the time and New York state troops surrounded an area from 14th street all the way to lower Manhattan, a 4 mile x 2 mile grid. For a couple of days, I had to bring a piece of mail with me when I went out shopping, because when you returned to your area you needed to prove you lived below 14th street to get past the blockade.
a bit of overreaction, but it was nutts here for a few days.
|Dec-28-10|| ||turbo231: <Troller: That would be the obscure tournament of Wijk-ann-Zee (previously Corus or Hoogovens). Or were you merely joking, in which case you had me fooled?>|
I didn't know they changed the name of that tourney. Why don't people tell me these things?
|Dec-29-10|| ||researchj: Tata bought Corus and the tourney was part of the deal.|
|Dec-30-10|| ||turbo231: Naka's blog
I was roughly equal throughout the middlegame, but several serious inaccuracies with time pressure looming cost me dearly as I ended up in a worse endgame.
Perhaps I could have put up more resistance, but I would have probably just ended up suffering for a few more hours without the result being in doubt! Who wants to do that when you can go lose and eat some delicious Thai food at Blue Lagoon! After this loss, I was still on 2/4 and 5 points.
Naka is lazy he could have gotten a draw if he wasn't...........
probably would have loss...... that game was a DRAW!!!!!
|Dec-30-10|| ||rogge: Are you trying to win the "Most Disappointed of the Year" award?|
|Dec-30-10|| ||turbo231: Perhaps I could have put up more resistance....
That's the understatement of the....
|Dec-30-10|| ||GBKnight: Who was the benefactor behind the London Classic?
Chessbase's report on the closing dinner makes great play of GM David Norwood, who is known to be very wealthy, being on the top table, alongside Kasparov:
Any informed opinion or speculation out there?
|Dec-30-10|| ||Bobby Fiske: <<GBKnight:>GM David Norwood> is certainly a good guess.|
According to Wikipedia he has donated a lot of money to British chess lately: <...He has on a number of occasions captained, managed, or sponsored the England squad in major team events such as the Olympiad...He also made a large donation in 2001 to the British Chess Federation to assist with the development of junior chess...> source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_...
|Dec-31-10|| ||turbo231: Who wants to play chess when you can go lose and eat some delicious Thai food at Blue Lagoon.|
Sad and empty day for me, I woke up today realizing I don't have anyone to root for. None of the other players appeal to me. But all is not lost I have this thing going on with Houdini1.03, he never gives up.
|Dec-31-10|| ||Jim Bartle: "Who wants to play chess when you can go lose and eat some delicious Thai food at Blue Lagoon."|
Blue Lagoon doesn't deliver?
|Dec-31-10|| ||SetNoEscapeOn: <Blue Lagoon doesn't deliver?>|
Not the Singha.
|Dec-31-10|| ||frogbert: <The only case wherein we need to take a starting date is in a case like Carlsen's, a meteroric rise to the top. In this position it is difficult to choose something that can be verifiably called objective, so anyone who attempts to do so could be called "arbitrary", or even worse, a "cherrypicker".>|
bobwhoosta, i don't think it has to be "meteoric". in fact, i think <all> dominant (or "semi-dominant") players like karpov, kasparov, kramnik, anand etc. will get a "head start" regarding head-to-heads on nearly <all> younger (alternatively: more slowly developing) players - as long as they play them before those "new" players reach what i've referred to as their "mature level". assuming of course that the dominant players had reached _their_ mature prior to that first encounter.
i don't find meta's long list of possible "exceptions" very relevant and really see no reason to make exeptions for any of the things he mentions, as those things either a) is part of a player's "characteristic", or b) will tend to even out over time. i'm referring to this list:
<if you try setting an accurate algorithm for mature-level-start-date, One may claim that we need to remove periods when players were preparing for the WC matches and hiding their preparations, or that we need to remove periods when the player turned too old, or when he was sick (such as Ankylosing outburst for Kramnik). And should we include periods when Ivanchuk's rollercoaster is going down? after all he is not at his "usual" level there isn't he? and maybe when the rollercoaster is going up it doesn't represent a "mature Chuky" either and we should remove it as well? And what about stupid blunders in winning positions? are they representative? or taking a draw while having a clear advantage to secure a tourney (or team tourney) win? is that representative or not?>
blunders, "roller-coaster" form, strategical decisions, etc. is already part of your <general rating> and don't typically apply specifically to your head-to-head records with some specific players. maybe one could make some argument regarding a period when kramnik was verifiably ill and his overall game suffered due to it - but that's not really an issue of having reached one's mature level or not, and neither are the others things he mentions.
however, older and established top players typically get an "unnatural" head start on younger, developing players that join the elite gradually, during the period where the younger players are - exactly - developing and too far from being "established" at their "destination level" or "mature level". of course, performances continue to vary for everyone, but it wouldn't be too hard to show how the "center" of these variations moves upwards rather consistently for a while, and possibly also how the variations generally become smaller for most elite players; again, ivanchuk is somewhat of an exception here, but this is something we can tell, in retrospect - and i'm not troubled by having to produce these "improved" head-to-head stats in retrospect. iamsheaf seemed to think there was some problem with being forced to taking a retrospective perspective on this, but i don't really see the problem here.
my goal with this is simple: being able to say something more representative about the <specific> strength relationship between any two elite players based on their head-to-head encounters played after both have reached a "mature level" - i.e. one not too far from their career peaks (there will probably be several for most - i hereby declare war on the concept of the singular "career peak" ;o)
of course, when the older player (or the first one to decline notably) becomes too "weak" compared to the threshold set for reaching his/her mature level, that should also result in an end point for these comparisons.
my gut feeling regarding this other end point would be that, by example, anand is certainly not beyond that point now, neither is gelfand, and neither was kasparov when he retired, even if he probably had his <best> years behind him. karpov and korchnoi, though, should clearly be outside and past this end point by now, for any head-to-head comparisons representative of their mature, elite level. while this almost certainly took place sometimes in the late 80s for korchnoi, it might be more debatable when we should start "counting out" karpov.
|Dec-31-10|| ||frogbert: (continued)
this http://www.schachchronik.de/ratings... might be a useful reference. for instance, he was outside top 20 for the first time in april 2004 at the age of 52 (2682), he was outside top 15 for the first time in january 2001 (2679), he was 60+ points below his max rating in january 1999 (2710), 80+ points below in january 2000 (2699) - also the first time outside top 10 with july 1998 being the last time <within> top 10, and he was 100+ points below his max rating in january 2005 (2674). at which point do you feel it was time to say that karpov (for the first time) was too far away from the elite karpov that used to be?
an exact measure isn't important here, but capping anyone's career at one (or possibly both) end(s) is imho a good solution to compensate for the fact that people reach their senite at different times. i think it tells <more> about two players' head-to-head results when we remove some of the relative advantage of the "first" player; if we don't, we simply get results showing that one player was (much) better during some period of time, something we already would know from the players' historical rating data.
another approach for achieving something similar would be to calculate rating performances in games between specific players and compare that to an average of the two players' ratings at the times of the games. this would yield similar but different results, but this latter approach would compensate less for the "learning experience" of playing the established elite players during a player's climb to the top (or towards his/her personal best).
it would still be an improvement over typical "dumb" head-to-head stats without context.
|Jan-01-11|| ||Bobwhoosta: <frogbert>
I see your point, that any maturing individual would by definition have inferior results, as well as any declining elite.
Picking a start point and end point is necessary (otherwise Carlsen defaulted to Morphy in an extended and egregiously malformed analogy).
As to where one would place the cutoff on both sides, it is a complex question and a matter of Statistical Engineering. That is, taking various methods and practices, evaluating their strengths and weaknesses, and combining them in a way to increase the most strengths while reducing the most weaknesses.
I speak in such general terms because I cannot suggest a system I feel strong enough to pass the test. <Frogbert's> system seems good enough for me, and I haven't seen a better one.
|Jan-01-11|| ||Bobwhoosta: <HeMateMe>
I have spent a period of two years wondering why your name was:
<He Hate Me>
I see now I was in error!!! ;-)
|Jan-01-11|| ||HeMateMe: Well, because YOU requested...
Rod Smart (born January 9, 1977 in Lakeland, Florida) is a former professional American football player. He played college football for the Western Kentucky University Hilltoppers, and began his professional career in the short-lived XFL league, where he played running back for the Las Vegas Outlaws and was known by the nickname <"He Hate Me">. He then played briefly in the Canadian Football League (CFL) before signing with the Philadelphia Eagles of the National Football League (NFL). He then spent four seasons with the Carolina Panthers, 2002–2005, playing in Super Bowl XXXVIII. He has also been on the roster for the San Diego Chargers (in 2000) and the Oakland Raiders (in 2006) and was selected to play in the never launched All American Football League.
Its a play on this guy, who scrawled the words "He Hate Me" on his football jersey.
|Jan-01-11|| ||Jim Bartle: He Link Me:
|Mar-26-11|| ||crazybird: London chess classic 2011 is confirmed.
<The dates for the London Chess Classic 2011 have been confirmed and the tournament will be held from December 3-12 at the Olympia Conference centre in Kensington. The tournament will change format slightly with the addition of one more player, making the UK’s most prestigious tournament even stronger.
Each day, one player will have a day off and will assist the LCC commentary team both at Olympia and in the internet broadcast, making the Classic even more exciting to watch.
There will also be five days of junior coaching, a Grandmaster Open, and weekend tournaments for players of all levels. An innovation this year will be a chess festival with lectures, teaching and film screenings. The prize fund has been increased again and will be in excess of €150,000. The lineup will be announced in May.
Malcolm Pein (IM)
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 81 OF 81 ·