< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 12 ·
|Apr-03-11|| ||paulalbert: On rating system, I was just making a reference to the constant discussion, a lot unofficial , e.g. here and on Chessbase, of the need for improvements and suggestions of how to do it, a lot of it rather technical mathematical discussions. I am not aware that there are any specific proposals right now at the FIDE level. It's not something I follow closely, although others do and seem to place a lot of importance on it, e.g., the unofficial real time ratings list that has been created. It's interesting discussion, but I'm more interested in actual games and results. I agree one of the issues is the difference between rating head to head matches, round robin tournaments, and swiss tournaments where strategies to win or place well can be different and certainly affected by financial risk/reward issues. A persistent issue as well has always been whether results as white and black should be adjusted somehow in ratings. Like fan discussions in any sport, it's interesting, but some take it too seriously, and the vicious heated arguments we sometimes see on Chessgames on certain topics seems silly to me.|
|Apr-03-11|| ||LIFE Master AJ: Good post, Paul. (aj)|
|Apr-03-11|| ||paulalbert: Hi, AJ. Glad to hear that someone actually reads my very occasional posts.|
|Apr-03-11|| ||shivasuri4: <paulalbert>,I am sure you have many readers ,like me(for example).I too am one of the believers that ratings need to be adjusted for colour.We sometimes have results and prize money distribution distorted just because someone had an extra white.In recent years,it has seemed to me that Anand,for example,has often got one white less at the Tata/Corus events.|
Also,it seems a bit odd to me that you insist on typing your name at the end of short posts,You could do that for long ones as that you would mean people would know who's posting.Of course,this is just a suggestion and not an order by any means.
|Apr-03-11|| ||turbo231: I finally found out who the winner is, Vladimir Potkin.|
|Apr-03-11|| ||dotsamoht: The final crosstable, since <CG> cannot seem to update the results of all the games.|
|Apr-03-11|| ||dotsamoht: Last round pairings and results.
|Apr-03-11|| ||dotsamoht: It seems Korobov knocked Nepo out of the top 23 by beating him in the final round.|
|Apr-03-11|| ||dotsamoht: Caruana finished 103rd after losing to Postny in Round 9. Sad result for the young man, but he should be able to shake it off and move on.|
|Apr-03-11|| ||paulalbert: <shivasuri4> Frankly I hadn't even thought about in effect signing my name at the end of a post here, but there is a reason for why I got into the habit. Because paulalbert is a common user and email name in many places, I frequently also have to use my middle initial m. I realized that I had to start signing emails because people were responding to me as Mr. Malbert. Also, it emphasizes that my user name is not a pseudonym; since as a matter of personal policy I never use pseudonyms for any purpose.|
|Apr-03-11|| ||shivasuri4: Oh,alright then.|
|Apr-03-11|| ||shivasuri4: Nepomniatchi finished 48th.Hopefully,he will get into the world cup with his rating.|
|Apr-03-11|| ||parmetd: Thanks for the explanation on the World Cup Qualification Hammer! I was reading that the players were confused but no one was explaining to the public why. That is a very strange way for determining qualifiers... is it what they used last time as well?|
|Apr-03-11|| ||esticles: <Ezzy> thanks for the corrections. For some reason the webpage gave me the impression that they weren't doing the standard prizes by "group" -- I'm glad I was wrong!|
|Apr-04-11|| ||gmhammer: @parmetd
This is the first time tiebreaks has been used to determine qualifiers. Previously, there was an extra day with rapid games to decide the top 23 (or similarly, depending on number of qualifying spots)
ECU will have to admit their mistake and fix it before next year's event.
|Apr-04-11|| ||turbo231: Does anyone know how it was determined that Vladimir Potkin won this tourney? The Official site is no help.|
|Apr-04-11|| ||gmhammer: 6.2 Tie-breaking in individual competitions.
The order of players that finish with the same number of points shall be determined by application of the following tie-breaking procedures in sequence, proceeding from (a) to (b) to (c) to (d) the extent required:
(a) Performance Rating
(b) Median-Buchholz 1, the highest number wins;
(c) Buchholz, the highest number wins;
(d) Number of wins, the highest number wins.
In case of (a) the highest and the lowest rated opponent will be deleted and the maximum rating difference of two players shall be 400 points.
In the case of unplayed games for the calculation of (a), (b) and (c) the current FIDE Tournament Rules shall be applied.
|Apr-04-11|| ||turbo231: <gmhammer> thanks, if Judit wanted to win this tourney she must have miscalculated the tie breaker system when she agreed to a twelve move draw. Or was she just too tired to play any more?|
|Apr-04-11|| ||twinlark: I don't understand the logic of penalising a player for their best win. Sounds like a tiebreaker designed by an inebriated committee. A straightforward performance rating taking into account all games, with the 400 point formula to raise lowly rated opponents to the same equivalence, makes a lot more sense.|
|Apr-05-11|| ||kingfu: Instead of a "tie breaker system" , why not play a game of Chess? Why did we come here anyway?|
In this tournament, The French Defense was 12 wins, 16 losses and 22 draws.
|Apr-05-11|| ||twinlark: The traditional playoffs certainly sounds better.|
|Apr-05-11|| ||LIFE Master AJ: Potkin won, (tb) four or five players tied for first.|
|Apr-05-11|| ||LIFE Master AJ: http://www.chessbase.com/eventlist.... European Championship|
last one - gives final results
|Apr-06-11|| ||turbo231: 113,700 € for the winner is good money. Judit made a big mistake.|
|Apr-06-11|| ||kia0708: Wojtaszek (Poland) is undefeated and on 2nd place, pretty good result I think|
I'm happy with Judith Polgar taking the first place.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 12 ·