|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 118 OF 122 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jan-30-11 | | kamalakanta: ...and Giri is only 16 years old! Quite a bright future.... |
 |
| Jan-30-11 | | Dredge Rivers: U-S-A!!! U-S-A!!! U-S-A!!!
Nakamura!!! Nakamura!!! Nakamura!!!
<Now, can we get a second American for next year's tournament?> |
|
| Jan-30-11 | | frogbert: and you know my rule of thumb, maybe: ratings shouldn't be directly compared more than about 5 years apart. they become gradually more meaningless as means of comparison as we approach 10 years. after 10 years ratings shouldn't be compared at all. same goes for performances, of course.
i think it suffices to say that carlsen or aronian never has scored 9/13 in wijk - and this year's event was certainly not any weaker than previous events they have played. [carlsen's highest performance of 3000+ from nanjing 2009 isn't considered the best tournament result ever either, for similar reasons...] |
|
| Jan-30-11 | | frogbert: <Now, can we get a second American for next year's tournament?> why? |
|
Jan-30-11
 | | plang: <In 1999 we know Kasparov won Kasparov 10/13 RP 2878
Anand 9.5/13 RP 2844
This year
Nakamura 9/13 RP 2879
Anand 8.5/13 RP 2844>
I should learn to just shut up but I find these comparisons frustrating. Comparing rating performances from 12 years apart is simply inappropriate - ratings were not designed to be used this way. |
|
Jan-30-11
| | plang: <Now, can we get a second American for next year's tournament?> That makes about as much senses as a second Indian, Norwegian or Armenian. |
|
| Jan-30-11 | | shach matov: Naka has positively surprised this tourney. I predicted after round 4 (or 5) the final results
#1 anand
2 naka
3 carlsen
4 aronian
5 kramnik
which resulted in negative comments by some (we'll not mention any names). the only slight surprise was naka, eventhough to me it seemed that he will take at least #2. |
|
| Jan-30-11 | | frogbert: <but I find these comparisons frustrating> let's keep educating people about how ratings should be used. no matter how frustrating. :o) |
|
| Jan-30-11 | | Il Palazzo: <Plang> It's not a comparison. It just shows that numbers played a bad joke on Anand after 12 years, it's a curiosity. |
|
| Jan-30-11 | | frogbert: il palazzo, the numbers are funny, i agree. to many it will look like a comparison, though. and some people are bound to misunderstand it. but that's no big deal either. if you understand that those numbers aren't directly comparable, it's good for you. even if you think the reaon for lack of comparability is "inflation" - because that's not the main reason the numbers shouldn't be compared; they would've been unsuited for comparison even with an estimated systemic inflation of zero. i might try to add some articles about it on my site one fine day. when i've got nothing better to do. |
|
| Jan-30-11 | | k.khalil: This was my first tornament where I was spending hours everyday analysing the games. When's the next big tornament please? |
|
| Jan-30-11 | | Indiachess: Anand might not have won the tourney. But his performance is very good. He did not lose a match. That Grishchuk match could have won. Or in other words, if Naka had failed in one more match, Vishy would have crowned. Just bashing, we mortals. Anand is at his best now, at 42. His ELO ratings are at its peak. No one is really capable of beating him. When we mortals argue, he is playing magnificent chess. Viva, Anand. |
|
Jan-30-11
 | | notyetagm: Naka! Naka! Naka!
:-) |
|
Jan-30-11
| | notyetagm: <Indiachess: Anand might not have won the tourney. But his performance is very good. He did not lose a match. That Grishchuk match could have won. Or in other words, if Naka had failed in one more match, Vishy would have crowned. Just bashing, we mortals. Anand is at his best now, at 42. His ELO ratings are at its peak. No one is really capable of beating him. When we mortals argue, he is playing magnificent chess. Viva, Anand.> Yes, I have a hard time seeing who is going to take Anand's crown. |
|
| Jan-30-11 | | Blunderdome: Any word on this year's Linares? |
|
| Jan-30-11 | | Everett: Anand has been in the top 3 since when... 1996? That makes 15 years of amazingly consistent and stellar results. Impressive. |
|
| Jan-30-11 | | ounos: Congrats to Nakamura. But, as tournament dynamics go, one should also count that he playing opponents who faced Carlsen in the previous round (which is a bit surprizing, I would expect more random-looking pairings, so that such canonical patterns wouldn't emerge). |
|
| Jan-30-11 | | me to play: Of course it is far too early...but just for fun this is the field I would like to see in next years "A" group Nakamura
Carlsen
Anand
Aronian
Kramnik
Karjakin
Nepomniachtchi
Vachier-Lagrave
Hou
Mamedyarov
McShane
Navara
Giri
L'ami |
|
| Jan-30-11 | | pulsar: Congrats to Nakamura. His play here was both creative and solid. And this must be one of the most exciting tourneys in recent times. |
|
Jan-30-11
 | | Check It Out: <Il Palazzo: Just a little curiosity> I believe this set up explained the post clearly, which I found amusing. What is surprising is the amount of controversy that sprang out of it. It was merely a coincidence, not worthy of a rebuke and a lecture on ratings. |
|
Jan-30-11
 | | AgentRgent: <ounos: Congrats to Nakamura. But, as tournament dynamics go, one should also count that he playing opponents who faced Carlsen in the previous round > LOL So Carlsen even gets credit for Nakamura's wins? ;-) |
|
| Jan-30-11 | | vanytchouck: We're very impress by the field of Wijk Aan Zee 2011, but in fact no matter what the indicator is, it's not really above WAZ 2008 (for instance). The flashing thing about WAZ 2011 is of course the three 2800 players club wich make it "unique" and scary. But the average of 2008 was 2742.3 whereas the 2011 edition has an average of 2739.9. It's obviously not a crushing difference but the fact that a more recent tournament has a lower average althought the three 2800s is quite remarkable. 1) If you compare the average with the maximum possible (the average of the 14 first elo): In January 2008 it was 2757.2 ;
In January 2011 it's 2770.1
So seen through percentages, in 2008 it was around 99.46 % of the maximum score and in 2011, 98.91 %. As Alex Magnus has pointed in another topic, this can be show through the simplier difference. In 2008 => 2757.2 - 2742.3 = 14.9 pts elo below the perfect score. In 2011 => 2770.1 - 2739.9 = 30.2 pts elo below the perfect score. 2) Now if you look at the average of the ranking, you have : In 2008 =>(#1; #2; #3; #6; #8; #9; #10; #11; #12 ; #13; #15.5; #22; #27; #35) wich gives an average of 12.5 In 2011 => (#1; #2; #3; #4; #7; #10; #11.5; #15.5; #17; #24; #31; #52; #81.5; #138) wich gives an average of 28.4 This difference is still signifiant even if the lowest elo are eliminated (10.7 vs 20). This reminds me of Linares 1994 which is often seen as the greatest of the Linares. In fact it's only the Karpov's unreal performance wich gives it this special aura (the field was stronger but any stronger than in 1991 or 1993). |
|
| Jan-30-11 | | KKDEREK: This was the best Wijk aan Zee (A) group in years IMO..Perfect tourney by Naka, some masterpieces from Carlsen and Kramnik..Some huge upsets. New faces like Giri e Nepo coming strong.. Long time I didn't have some much fun in a chess tournament. |
|
Jan-30-11
| | notyetagm: <AgentRgent: <ounos: Congrats to Nakamura. But, as tournament dynamics go, one should also count that he playing opponents who faced Carlsen in the previous round > LOL So Carlsen even gets credit for Nakamura's wins? ;-)> Yes, Carlsen "softened them up" for Nakamura.
You have to be a real Carlsen fanboy to believe that. :-) |
|
| Jan-30-11 | | AuN1: <ounos: Congrats to Nakamura. But, as tournament dynamics go, one should also count that he playing opponents who faced Carlsen in the previous round (which is a bit surprizing, I would expect more random-looking pairings, so that such canonical patterns wouldn't emerge).> they said the same thing about karpov with respect to kasparov in linares '94. |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 118 OF 122 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
