< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 4 ·
|Aug-09-11|| ||bartonlaos: <parmetd:
4) Only rds 7-9 were fide rated>
It looks as if <frogbert> et al, have rated all rounds. Tough luck for Nakamura's 4-day schedule:
|Aug-09-11|| ||Blunderdome: No, they only rated the last three rounds. Ten of Naka's games are from Dortmund. You can see game-by-game here:|
The 8-digit string tells you what day the game was played, e.g. today's date is 20110809. You can see that Naka only has rated games on Aug. 6 & 7. The other recent games are from Dortmund.
|Aug-09-11|| ||frogbert: for those playing the 4-day schedule, only 7-9 were fide-rated. for van wely and others playing the 6-day schedule all 9 rounds were fide-rated. naka played 6 rapid games...|
|Aug-09-11|| ||bartonlaos: <Blunderdome - only 3 games rated>|
I see. Remarkably, the error from Chess-evolution Live ratings gives a similar change in rating as <frogbert>'s site:
<Chess Evolution Live Ratings: Nakamura
1. Fernandez, Daniel 2401 = <-4> 112th Annual US Open [Orlando]
2. Juac, Majur 2185 1 <+0.8> 112th Annual US Open [Orlando]
3. Gulamali, Kazim 2367 1 <+0.8> 112th Annual US Open [Orlando]
4. Goldin, Alexander 2561 1 <+2.3> 112th Annual US Open [Orlando]
5. Esserman, Marc 2453 = <-3.7> 112th Annual US Open [Orlando]
6. Sundararajan, Kidambi 2491 1 <+1.6> 112th Annual US Open [Orlando]
7. Lenderman, Aleksandr 2525 = <-3> 112th Annual US Open [Orlando] >
|Aug-09-11|| ||bartonlaos: <frogbert> Thanks for the clarification.|
|Aug-09-11|| ||hellopolgar: the thing is, Naka is not a machine, so maybe what he achieved is statistically 57%. but we also have to take into account that players tend to lose their steam very very fast when they go on a winning streak, so every win becomes "harder" as the streak grows. and we also have to take into account that Naka hasn't played rapid chess in a while. last but not least, before he played those 14 rapid games, he had to finish his last game in the open and he was most likely tired. so i am willing to bet that, if we find 100 players of equal strength to naka, and let them play the exact opponents for 14 games, not 57, but less than 50 will manage to score 14-0, but i guess it's kind of pointless.|
|Aug-09-11|| ||frogbert: <the error from Chess-evolution Live ratings gives a similar change in rating>|
the newcomers are struggling a bit, eh? :o)
in fact, 2700chess.com also went wrong and first rated naka's games starting with round 4. they didn't fix their error before i sent an email explaining that only the 3 last rounds should be rated for nakamura. interestingly, it was quickly fixed after my notice - but i didn't even get a reply ... :oP
|Aug-10-11|| ||parmetd: there is no way Esserman had a 2600 performance in this event. He didn't even play enough high rated players for this to be possible.|
|Aug-10-11|| ||Kinghunt: <parmetd> To the contrary, it was strong enough. He scored 2/4 against four GMs: Nakamura (2770), Ramirez (2592), Lenderman (2525), and van Wely (2683). He then scored 5/5 against non-GMs: Mike Webb (1871 USCF), Michael Fitch (2028 USCF), Lorena Zapeda (2175 USCF), Robert Perez (2384 USCF / 2210 FIDE), and Jim Dean (2336/ 2272 FIDE). That's a 2643 performance against the GMs, and a perfect score against everyone else. As for exact GM norm calculation...|
Keep in mind that for a GM norm, the lowest rated opponent's rating is considered to be 2200 (though a maximum of one rating is changed). If you make that change on one player's rating, use the FIDE ratings on all players with them, and the UCSF ratings for the rest, his average opponent rating was 2384. +5 in 9 rounds against 2384 opposition is a 2606 performance. So, yes, the performance was good enough, it's just that a lot of other requirements weren't met.
|Aug-10-11|| ||parmetd: Incorrect, the lowest rated opponent is considered *2100*|
|Aug-10-11|| ||Kinghunt: <parmetd: Incorrect, the lowest rated opponent is considered *2100*>|
I suggest you look at the FIDE title handbook (which you can find here: http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.h...), section 1.46c, where it clearly states the following:
<For the purposes of norms, the minimum rating (adjusted rating floor) for the opponents shall be as follows:
|Aug-10-11|| ||frogbert: kinghunt, the only problem might be that not all of naka's opponents are fide-rated. they have to be <fide>-rated <prior> to the event in order to count towards the number of players/rounds needed and the tpr.|
otherwise you're right wrt the 2100/2200 question, of course.
|Aug-10-11|| ||frogbert: <it was quickly fixed after my notice - but i didn't even get a reply ...>|
maybe someone's reading this! today i got a belated, earnest "thank you" via email. i was also informed that the correction was twittered, mentioning me as the source. so i must apologise for thinking that no credit was given - i must admit that i don't follow 2700chess.com's tweets. :o)
|Aug-10-11|| ||parmetd: Re: 2100, ah they changed it! My apologies. I must admit I can't be bothered to follow all the rule changes fide institutes.|
And yes Michael Fitch is *not* fide rated. Also he only had 2 foreign players (Zapeda and Van Wely).
Re: frogbert, we were talking about eseerman not naka ;)
|Aug-10-11|| ||frogbert: i looked up fide-ratings:
mike k webb (1954): 1966
michael fitz (1981): not rated
lorena zapeda: not rated
<If you make that change on one player's rating, use the FIDE ratings on all players with them, and the USCF ratings for the rest>
nope, fide-unrated players are calculated differently - but they do count, with certain limitations (so i was wrong saying they don't count at all).
first, in a 9 round event <a maximum of 2 players can be fide-unrated>. (see paragraph/tables in 1.49). because webb has a fide-rating, this is ok. however consider this:
<Unrated opponents not covered by 1.46c shall be considered to be rated at the rating floor level. See FIDE rating regulations for the current level of the floor.>
hence, assuming that we can choose to let an unrated player count as 2200, the 3 players mentioned above will be counted as
1200 (rating floor)
in addition to
ra = 2269, score = 7/9 (78%), tpr = 2489 (for norm purposes)
this also follows (indirectly) from paragraph 1.48a:
<1.48a The minimum average ratings Ra of the opponents are as follows:
GM 2380, WGM 2180, IM 2230, WIM 2030.>
in other words, it was (another) im norm, technically speaking.
|Aug-10-11|| ||frogbert: <we were talking about eseerman not naka ;)>|
i know, it was just a silly fingerfehler. :o)
|Aug-10-11|| ||frogbert: <michael fitz (1981): not rated >|
sorry, michael fitch. i did look up fitch, not fitz btw!
|Aug-10-11|| ||parmetd: very interesting frogbert, thank you for posting that!|
|Aug-10-11|| ||bartonlaos: Is this common - the creation of an arbitrary rating for a non-FIDE player - and has anyone investigated whether it affects rating inflation? I'm thinking of Loek who competes in these island opens, smashing the locals while bumping his rating up to 2700chess, etc.|
|Aug-10-11|| ||frogbert: also note 1.44a btw:
<1.44a A maximum of 3/5 of the opponents may come from the applicant’s federation and a maximum of 2/3 of the opponents from one federation.>
3/5 of 9, rounding downwards (as specified in 1.44) is 5, while 7 of eseerman's opponents represent the us federation. it also violates the 2/3 of opponents from one federation (7 is more than 6).
the only exceptions to this requirement are mentioned in 1.43 a-e, where the only that might apply is
<Swiss System tournaments in which the competitors include at least 20 FIDE Rated players, not from the host federation, from at least 3 federations, at least 10 of whom hold GM, IM, WGM or WIM titles. Otherwise 1.44 applies.>
i guess there were enough fide-rated players from enough foreign federations, but i didn't check if there was enough title holders. let's see...
i found only 9 fide-titled foreign players, but i noticed why i didn't find zapeda - her name is zepeda!
so she's fide-rated, with a fide-rating of 2187. hence the corrected list of ratings are:
2200 (unrated, "gm-norm rule")
ra = 2378, score 78%, tpr = 2598
hence, just 3 points shy of the required 2601 tpr. however, if my count of foreign title-holders were right, it still doesn't matter.
|Aug-10-11|| ||frogbert: < I'm thinking of Loek who competes in these island opens, smashing the locals while bumping his rating up to 2700chess>|
bartonlaos, unrated players are completely irrelevant for loek's (or any gm's) events - people don't <get> these ratings they are <technically assigned> for the norm calculations, they are only used for norm tpr calculations.
if you play a fide-unrated player, it doesn't count towards your fide-rating at all. under special circumstances it can count towards a fide-norm.
|Aug-10-11|| ||parmetd: there was definitely not 20 foreign players in the US Open.|
|Aug-10-11|| ||frogbert: these are the foreign, relevant title holders i found:|
GM Kacheishvili, Gior GEO
GM Zapata, Alonso COL
GM Sundararajan, Kidambi IND
GM Van Wely, Loek NED
GM Hansen, Lars Bo DEN
GM Sadorra, Julio C PHI
IM Battaglini, Gabriel FRA
WIM Zepeda, Lorena Marisela ESA
i.e. only 8 foreign title holders (i erroneously counted a wfm first time around).
the count might be wrong, as i noticed a couple of norwegian players (without titles) listed under us states. whether this applies to some of the title holders too, is beyond me. but unless such players exist in the line-up, esserman also faced too many us players and too few foreign in order to make a norm, <no matter his tpr> or fulfilling other norm requirements.
|Aug-10-11|| ||frogbert: <there was definitely not 20 foreign players in the US Open>|
don't be too sure of that, parmetd. aryan tari (ny) and johan salomon (al) are both norwegian and members of the norwegian federation.
|Aug-10-11|| ||frogbert: but the short summary of the esserman norm question is rather clear: according to the rules in the handbook, it was not a gm norm.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 4 ·