|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 39 OF 48 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Oct-10-11
 | | chessgames.com:  ANNOUNCEMENT
For the final round at Bilbao we'll be featuring the game Nakamura vs Carlsen, 2011. Unlike the previous rounds, this one will be open to all Chessgames members (premium or not). Game starts tomorrow morning at 10:30am USA/Eastern time. Enjoy the show! |
 |
| Oct-10-11 | | siamesedream: Last round: Ivanchuk - Aronian, Anand - Vallejo, Nakamura - Carlsen. |
|
| Oct-10-11 | | hand banana: ok, vallejo just said that naka was complaining because arbiter allegedly nodded his head when naka asked him if he's made time control. |
|
Oct-10-11
 | | Interbond: sebagud742001
What do you mean by saying 2700 in 1990 is like 2800 now and kasparovs 2851 is like 2950 now?
Or can we say that a 2751 player is just as good as Kasparov was when he had 2851? Based on chess strenght not results. The problem is we will never know. Some people compare games played in 1990 to games played in 2011 , but thats no fair because in 1990 most all games were played with 2.5 hrs for 40 moves and then stopped, and started the next day.Today, games have a much shorter time limit. |
|
| Oct-10-11 | | panzerkampf: 1- Why are Nakamura and Pons' games incomplete, written 8 instead of 9? 2- Where can we learn the tournament performance ratings and the live fide ratings? Seems that chess.liverating.org is not being updated anymore. |
|
Oct-10-11
| | Interbond: In 2004 Carlsen forgot the clock and lost to Korchnoi before making his 40. move |
|
| Oct-10-11 | | hand banana: http://www.2700chess.com/ is updated minutes after games end |
|
| Oct-10-11 | | 17.Bxg7: I am listening in Spanish and according to Vallejo Pons this is what happened: Nakamura was about to play his move 40, but he wasn't sure what move it was, so he asked the arbiter (which is a highly experienced one) and according to the rules, he shouldn't answer that question. But Nakamura looked at the gesture of the arbiter and somehow he thought the arbiter nodded affirmatively, so he left for a break, losing in time. Afterwards, Nakamura got angry and said that the arbiter said implicitly "yes" to his question, so he considered the arbiter is the one to blame for confusing him. Vallejo also said this is not the first time Naka asks to the arbiter about being in move 40 in a game. |
|
| Oct-10-11 | | Blunderdome: Anyone know what clocks they are using? The extra time doesn't show up automatically at move 40? |
|
| Oct-10-11 | | edbermac: Someone should show Naka how to fill out a scoresheet, what a dope. |
|
Oct-10-11
 | | Marmot PFL: Nodding the head generally means yes, but not in every culture. |
|
| Oct-10-11 | | siamesedream: Spanish arbiter is not fluent in English and thought Naka asked: "Did I look like I'm 40?". Arbiter nodded 'yes'. |
|
Oct-10-11
| | Marmot PFL: What is tiebreak if the top 2 are even, traditional scoring? That would give Carlsen the edge. |
|
Oct-10-11
 | | rogge: Blitz.
<The final standings will be determined according to the following criteria:
Players will get 3 points for winning a match, 1 point for drawing and 0 points for losing.
If two players tie for first, they will play a blitz match immediately after the last round finishes. They will play two games at the rate of all the moves in 4 minutes add-on 3 seconds for each move from the first, alternating colors, which shall be decided for the first game by draw. If this match is tied, they shall play a one game Armageddon (sudden death), White will have 5 minutes and Black 4, in the case of a draw Black wins first place. This game’s colors shall be decided by draw. If more than two players tie for first, only the two first classified players according to the systems listed below shall play the match.
In case of tie for third to sixth places, the following tie-breaks will be applied:
Traditional scoring. Players get one point for each game won and 0.5 points for each game in draw.
Particular result (based on traditional scoring).
Koya system (based on traditional scoring).
Sonneborn-Berger (based on traditional scoring)> |
|
Oct-10-11
 | | HeMateMe: Three decisive games? Nice to perk up the standings a bit. |
|
| Oct-10-11 | | sebagud742001: interbond: i think a 2751 player from today is like a 2651 player from 1990 or 1995. the important thing is the elo difference between the players in the same era. for example: 1990 anand elo 2650 Kasparov elo 2740, with a difference of 90 elo points ; 2011 anand 2815 Kasparov posible 2900, then the difference is more or less the same. |
|
Oct-10-11
| | Interbond: sebagud I understand, but some people use ratings to say that 2700 player in 1990 is just as strong as a 2800 now, but thats wrong. You can't even be sure a 2700 now is just as strong as a 2600 player in 1990. because ratings measure results against other players not chess strength.
You can't compare chess ratings in 1990 with ratings in 2011 like you can with for example athletic records. That's why I say maybe a 2751 in 2011 is just as good as a 2851 player in 1990. I don't think they are ,but..... |
|
Oct-10-11
 | | visayanbraindoctor: GM Carlsen has been consistently playing the strongest chess in this tournament. Like Karpov, he never gives a millimeter of the board to his opponents and plays nearly perfect positional chess in order to keep his advantages. Once he gets the advantage, just keeps on increasing it, much to his opponents' hapless chagrin. Must be disgusting to play against such a player. I am still hoping for Chucky to win this tournament, but as everyone knows, he plays so inconsistently. Not to take anything away from Aronian's strong play, what's wrong with Anand when he plays Aronian? He never stops losing. I can just imagine the envy of other top chess players; if I can only miniaturize the World Champion! Aronian has done it two times. Here is his other miniature against Anand. Anand vs Aronian, 2009. I no longer think that Anand will win another tournament prior to his WC match with Gelfand. ("_) After that match though, Anand should try to win tournaments again. |
|
Oct-10-11
| | visayanbraindoctor: If you use Elo ratings to compare players from different eras, you'll end up with false conclusions. Does any one honestly believe that the 1971 Fischer with a mere 2780 Elo rating would get crunched by today's 2800s? Give that Fischer a computer and chess opening database, and I have no doubt he will become World Champion today in short order. So would the 1918 to 1922 Capablanca who had no Elo ratings at all. (Just my opinions of course; but based on the fact that they played very very very strong chess, hardly missed any opportunity to punish the slightest mistakes of their opponents, and almost never made errors at all; and this is precisely how computers wallop human chess players whatever their ratings are.) I believe that the Anand of 10 years ago is actually a bit stronger than today's Anand, even if today's Anand has a higher Elo rating. Chessplayers are naturally arranged in populations partitioned by geopolitical regions & time periods that have infrequent contacts with one another. Within such a population, players get to play each other more frequently, thus forming a quasi-equilibrium group wherein individual ratings would tend to equilibrate quickly; but not with outside groups. With caveats & in the proper context, FIDE/Elo ratings are simply fallible descriptors & predictors of an active player's near-past & near-future performances against other rated players, & only within the same quasi-equilibrium group. As corollaries: the best way to evaluate a player's strength is to analyze his games & not his ratings; one cannot use ratings to accurately compare the quality of play of players from the past and present, or even the same player say a decade ago and today. (Just copied this from my profile.) |
|
Oct-10-11
 | | Rolfo: <GM Carlsen has been consistently playing the strongest chess in this tournament. Like Karpov, he never gives a millimeter of the board to his opponents and plays nearly perfect positional chess in order to keep his advantages. Once he gets the advantage, just keeps on increasing it, much to his opponents' hapless chagrin. Must be disgusting to play against such a player.> Sure |
|
| Oct-10-11 | | Per: Why is Naka lost? |
|
Oct-10-11
| | Marmot PFL: <I believe that the Anand of 10 years ago is actually a bit stronger than today's Anand, even if today's Anand has a higher Elo rating.> Agree, and the same for Ivanchuk, Kramnik, and Gelfand. |
|
Oct-10-11
| | Interbond: visayanbraindoctor When comparing games from the past and present do you think it's fair to compare games with 2.5h/40, stop analyze and play next day to modern FIDE time limits? |
|
Oct-10-11
| | Interbond: Marmot PFL I do not agree. |
|
| Oct-10-11 | | kappertjes: Here I thought these old and overdone rating and 'Fischer now would so own [name]' discussions belonged on the Fischer, Kasparov and Carlsen pages. Imagine my surprise... Anyway, exciting finish tomorrow, sadly during the work-day. Really impressed by Aronian's win, upon first play that game is just strange. Something for the weekend I guess. |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 39 OF 48 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
