< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 11 OF 12 ·
|Apr-06-11|| ||shivasuri4: <kia0708>,it was Vladimir Potkin who took the first place.Please don't follow the crosstable positions here.They are not necessarily always arranged in correct order.Judith Polgar finished third.You got Wojtaszek's placing right,though.:)|
|Apr-06-11|| ||parmetd: hammer, you probably already saw this but anyways: http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/w...|
GM Nielsen filing a complaint about the World Cup Tiebreaker spots.
|Apr-06-11|| ||vanytchouck: no Feller in the standing ?
Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah!
|Apr-06-11|| ||Snakebite: Maybe it was a mistake that Judith didn't play on for glory in the last round - after all she was on a good run. However, what do you propose we do about it? Stick some thumb screws on her for a week after the closing ceremony?|
|Apr-06-11|| ||HeMateMe: There's a lot of kinky people on this site....|
|Apr-06-11|| ||Shams: What is the argument against most wins being the first tiebreaker? Seems so obvious.|
|Apr-06-11|| ||Kinghunt: <Shams: What is the argument against most wins being the first tiebreaker? Seems so obvious.>|
It's a Swiss system, so people have faced different levels of opposition. Suppose one player lost his first three games, then won the remaining 8. Suppose another player won 6 straight games, drew four, and lost one (in that order). Number of wins as first tie breaks would favor the first player, even though during all rounds (except the very first), he had weaker opponents than the second player due to the Swiss pairing system. And I think all would agree that the second player performed much better and deserves the spot.
|Apr-06-11|| ||Bratek: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail...|
|Apr-06-11|| ||parmetd: Most wins was NOT first tiebreaker. It was a screwed up form of performance rating if you read what Hammer wrote and then I linked to additional information on chessvibes.
But yes Most wins makes zero sense as a tiebreaker as a totally unrelated tangent. One win is not better than two draws.|
|Apr-07-11|| ||Shams: <But yes Most wins makes zero sense as a tiebreaker as a totally unrelated tangent. One win is not better than two draws.>|
Well, <Kinghunt> makes a good point about Swiss Systems, but I think you're wrong, one win is better than two draws. Chess is a drawish game. Incentivizing players to go for it makes chess more exciting and more marketable.
|Apr-07-11|| ||parmetd: .5+.5=1|
|Apr-07-11|| ||Shams: <parmetd> Could you show your work next time? I'm afraid I can award only partial credit, even though you got the right answer.|
|Apr-07-11|| ||HowDoesTheHorsieMove: <I think you're wrong, one win is better than two draws.>
Yes, I agree. But is it better than a win and a loss? That is not so clear.|
|Apr-07-11|| ||Shams: Well, obviously we're comparing a win and a loss vs. two draws, otherwise there's no tie to break. This is if you weren't being facetious.|
|Apr-08-11|| ||parmetd: I showed my full work. Good thing I was the professor in the this scenario so as the student it was not your choice whether to award credit or not.|
|Apr-08-11|| ||shivasuri4: <parmetd>,I am sure you know that students can review the performance of teachers in a lot of schools too.With regard to the argument,many people would disagree with you(although I agree with you here).For example,the Bilboa organisers give 3 points for a win and a loss but just 2 points for a pair of draws.There must be a reason for that,you know.|
|Apr-08-11|| ||kia0708: pity
<Please don't follow the crosstable positions here.They are not necessarily always arranged in correct order.>
|Apr-08-11|| ||parmetd: First of all, thats a round robin NOT a swiss. Second of all, thats NOT a tiebreak it IS the scoring system. Third, many many professional players have lambasted the football scoring system as an affront to all chess stands for. The draw is a natural result. The sooner spectators get over this the better chess has for progressing as a sponsored sport internationally. Now that I've corrected all your arguments student. I shall proceed to point out that student reviews go nowhere. Often unread. usually shredded. You didn't know that? You thought they actually got read did you?|
|Apr-08-11|| ||wanabe2000: <turbo231>
Interview from Sports Express:
Question to Vladimir Potkin. "In the last round you played with the famous Judit Polgar, who could sometimes beat Kasparov and Kramnik and Ivanchuk, and other prominent players. While you were white, but in the performance of Judith acute "staroindiyka" particularly dangerous ..."
Vladimir Potkin's Reply: "I knew this, of course. Staroindiyskaya protection - Repertory debut Judit Polgar, I was ready for the fact that she can use it, and in this case would be a great fight. But Judith has chosen a more quiet and reliable protection Nimzo-Indian, making it clear that nobody's happy with it. Such a development suited me, since I had the best advanced performance. I offered a draw which Judith took without any hesitation. After the game she said she saw how well I played in this tournament, and therefore did not want to risk the dark."
|Apr-08-11|| ||Shams: What the hell are they talking about?|
|Apr-08-11|| ||HeMateMe: Bad translation, Russian to English.|
|Apr-08-11|| ||parmetd: better translation here: http://www.chessintranslation.com/2...|
|Apr-08-11|| ||turbo231: <wanabe2000: <turbo231>|
Interview from Sports Express:>
Thanks. So Judit settled for a draw to secure third place. What man in that situation would have done what she did?
|Apr-08-11|| ||HeMateMe: Someone who has bills to pay?|
|Apr-08-11|| ||turbo231: <HeMateMe: Someone who has bills to pay?>|
I thought about that, maybe she needs the money.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 11 OF 12 ·