112th US Open (2011) (games of Henry L Terrie)

112th US Open (2011)

page 1 of 1; 2 games

Game Result Moves Year Event/Locale Opening
1. G Ewing vs H Terrie 1-0 52 2011 112th US Open A34 English, Symmetrical

2. H Terrie vs A Antler 1-0 36 2011 112th US Open A42 Modern Defense, Averbakh System

REFINE SEARCH: White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2) | Terrie wins | Terrie loses

< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 4 · Later Kibitzing>
Aug-07-11		ganso: so does anybody know what happens now? blitz playoff?

Aug-07-11		dx9293: Ok, so the winners of the US Open are: GMs Hikaru Nakamura, Alex Lenderman, Alonso Zapata, Tamaz Gelashvili, Giorgi Kacheishvili, Alejandro Ramirez...and it looks like Timur Gareyev will join them since he appears to be winning against Dmitry Gurevich.

Aug-07-11		dx9293: <ganso> I don't believe the US Open uses a blitz playoff...at least they have not done so in the past.

Aug-07-11		dx9293: Gareyev does win, so he joins the 7-way tie.

Aug-07-11		dx9293: Each winner will get around $2,000.

Aug-07-11		HeMateMe: What about Loek Van Wely? as A Tata invitee, one would think he would place at or near the top in this event.

Aug-07-11		bartonlaos: Loek at rank 32. http://www.alchess.com/chess/11/uso... Hikaru with 14/14 in the Blitz: http://main.uschess.org/msa/XtblMai...

Aug-07-11		Kinghunt: <Hikaru with 14/14 in the Blitz> While I'm not saying Nakamura isn't good at blitz, take a look at the field. There was literally nobody else there above expert strength.

Aug-08-11		perfidious: <Kinghunt> Your statement is untrue-note that there are a few masters, though I agree that for a player of Naka's calibre, in this field, anything other than 14-0 would be a shock.

Aug-08-11		parmetd: US Open has always done tiebreaks for title and us champs spot but money is always split. Lenderman beat Ramirez in the Armageddon game for the title and us champ spot. (5+5 vs 3+5&draw). Wooo Lenderman! An excellent result for Alex.

Aug-08-11		Rolfo: What about Nakamura? Did he place well?

Aug-08-11		Kinghunt: Whoops, I was just looking at the quick ratings of his opponents. Correction: there was nobody there within 350 rating points of him.

Aug-08-11		chezzy: There is not a complete list of the games played... It shows Nakamura only played 6 games (?) scoring 7.5...

Aug-08-11		chezzy: How were the pairings determined ?

Aug-08-11		chezzy: Ok, pairings according to the Swiss system, as explained in wikipedia...

Aug-08-11		hellopolgar: 1, it's incorrect to say that anything below 14-0 would be a "shock". 14-0 is still very impressive. how impressive? all his opponents must be playing for a draw against him, so let's say they have a (very rough estimate, remember these are Masters rated as high as 2284) 15% drawing/winning chance each, this 15% includes: 1, home cooked lines that the lower rated player is very familiar with 2, mistake by Naka 3,three fold repeat etc anything that would lead to a draw 4, cellphone ring, time expire etc anything would lead to Naka's loss. the chance to do 14-0, to win 14 without a single draw or a single loss, is actually only 10%. 2, why is Lenderman the clear winner?

Aug-08-11		laskersteinitz: This tournament has been rated by the USCF, see the crosstable here: http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain...

Aug-08-11		laskersteinitz: Do you know if Marc Esserman got a GM norm out of this?

Aug-08-11		Kinghunt: <let's say they have a (very rough estimate, remember these are Masters rated as high as 2284) 15% drawing/winning chance each> No. Just no. 2284 is 500 points below Nakamura, and there's no way someone rated 500 points below can be expected to score in 15% of their encounters. The rule of 400 gives them a 0% chance of scoring anything. That's just a rough rule of thumb though, so let's look at the exact elo prediction: the expected score of Nakamura's strongest opponent was 1/(1+10^(500/400)) = 5%. There are virtually no draws in blitz, so scoring 6% of the time is all you can reasonably assume. In the last 8 rounds, Nakamura had a 61% chance of scoring 8/8 based on rating alone (and the first 6 were against such weak opposition I wouldn't want to even bother with it). Given the strength of his opposition (or lack thereof), a perfect sweep by Nakamura was more likely than not.

Aug-08-11		Kinghunt: <laskersteinitz: Do you know if Marc Esserman got a GM norm out of this?> I can't be certain, but I believe so. He scored 5/5 against non-grandmasters, who had an average rating of 2133. He also scored 2/4 against grandmasters from three different countries with an average rating of 2643. Given that this is above the required 2600 performance for a norm and he had a perfect score in the rest of his games, I think it should count. But there may be some obscure regulation I don't know about that will invalidate it.

Aug-08-11		Kinghunt: In particular, I'm worried that while the performance was good enough, there may have been too many players from the US and not enough from other countries to count for a norm.

Aug-08-11		Blunderdome: <The rule of 400 gives them a 0% chance of scoring anything.> Huh? I don't think that's what the rule of 400 is. My calculator says Nakamura's expected score against someone rated 2284 is .94.

Aug-08-11		parmetd: Esserman couldn't have scored a norm for at least 3 reasons 1) Not enough foreign players 2) Not a good enough performance 3) Not all his opponents were fide rated 4) Only rds 7-9 were fide rated 5) Not a fide accepted norm timecontrol and there is probably at least a dozen other reasons i'm not aware of.

Aug-08-11		Kinghunt: <My calculator says Nakamura's expected score against someone rated 2284 is .94> Yes, that is roughly what I calculated in my previous post, but you seem to have a slight error, as his expected score is closer to 0.95 (whether due to improper rounding or bad data, I don't know). 2284 is a post-event quick rating of one of his opponents, so I'll assume you want to work with post event ratings. I'll also assume 50% of the points scored by the underdog are from draws (which is ridiculously high, but just for the sake of argument). We can work this out one person at a time. Opponent number one: Marcus Robinson Post event rating: 1792 Nakamura's rating advantage: 993 points Nakamura's expected score: 99.67% Percent chance of a result other than Nakamura winning: 0.5% Opponent number two: Sam Silberman Post event rating: 1926 Nakamura's rating advantage: 859 points Nakamura's expected score: 99.29% Percent chance of a result other than Nakamura winning: 1.1% Opponent number three: Alan Casden Post event rating: 2035 Nakamura's rating advantage: 750 points Nakamura's expected score: 98.68% Percent chance of a result other than Nakamura winning: 2.0% Opponent number four: Mark Ritter Post event rating: 2294 Nakamura's rating advantage: 491 points Nakamura's expected score: 94.41% Percent chance of a result other than Nakamura winning: 8.4% Opponent number five: Daniel Fernandez Post event rating: 2284 Nakamura's rating advantage: 501 points Nakamura's expected score: 94.70% Percent chance of a result other than Nakamura winning: 7.9% Opponent number six: Robert Perez Post event rating: 2206 Nakamura's rating advantage: 579 points Nakamura's expected score: 94.41% Percent chance of a result other than Nakamura winning: 3.4% Opponent number seven: Michael Vilenchuk Post event rating: 2152 Nakamura's rating advantage: 633 points Nakamura's expected score: 97.45% Percent chance of a result other than Nakamura winning: 3.8% He played each of these opponents twice, so overall, the chance of him scoring 14-0 is 57%. And if you make the more assumption that the draw rate is minimal in blitz, you find a 65% chance of him scoring 14-0. Given that some draws will occur when the underdog scores points, the true probability is probably somewhere in the middle, around 60%. Whatever you want to call it, it's definitely over 50%, meaning Nakamura was more likely than not to go 14-0. His score, while aesthetically pleasing, was simply what was expected.

Aug-08-11		Kinghunt: <parmetd> I'm certain that his performance was good enough, or would have been, if his opponents with only USCF ratings had equal FIDE ratings. But I can't argue with any of your other points. A great performance, but it simply won't give a norm.

Jump to page # (enter # from 1 to 4)
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 4 · Later Kibitzing>

NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!

If you already have an account, you should login now.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
No personal attacks against other users.
Nothing in violation of United States law.

See something which violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific tournament and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.

Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!