< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 12 OF 14 ·
|Feb-02-12|| ||parmetd: So much whining...."hou would have beaten short. Hou deserves the title more hou wah wah wah blah blah blah"
it didn't break down like that fellows. Get over it. They both had great tournament but Nigel won the title fair and square.|
|Feb-02-12|| ||HeMateMe: Congratulations to Nigel. I'm surprised anyone came out of that jumble with a one point lead. It looked like a committe finish.|
|Feb-02-12|| ||Sularus: congrats to GMs Hou and Short. =)|
|Feb-02-12|| ||HeMateMe: I don't think I understand how this tourney is structured. Did Short score a full point higher than the competition, thus leaving no reason for a tie breaker? Thats what the crosstable shows. Were there two tiers of games here, rapid and classical, with the results mixed together? |
I say throw it to the monkeys on the rock; maybe they can figure it out.
|Feb-02-12|| ||Blunderdome: Did you notice that Hou Yifan and Nigel Short played 12 games, while the others played 10? Those two were tied with 8/10 after ten classical rounds, and played a two-game tiebreak, which Nigel won with +1 =1.|
(That some players have 9 games makes the table more confusing; I believe everyone played 10 and CG is missing a few games.)
|Feb-02-12|| ||Riverbeast: <parmetd> Short won the title, but Hou still won the classical tournament on tiebreaks|
<HeHateMe> The crosstable here is a bit misleading
Hou tied for first with Short, and according to chessbase won first prize (along with 'top woman') due to her better performance in the classical phase
The blitz playoff was for the title and the cup only
Cg.com is including the blitz games in the crosstable, which somehow makes it look like Short finished a point ahead of Hou...Not true
|Feb-02-12|| ||parmetd: Nigel and Hou played two tiebreak games of 10min +5seconds inc. Nigel won the first and ceded a sympathy face saving draw to Hou in the second. All players played 10 classical games.|
|Feb-02-12|| ||Shams: <Riverbeast> If they used tiebreaks, why was there a playoff?|
|Feb-02-12|| ||Riverbeast: <Shams> The blitz playoff was for the title and the cup, as far as I understand it|
I guess Gibraltar doesn't want to declare them co-champions, and can only give the title and the cup to one person....
Maybe they decided it's more exciting to have a blitz playoff for the title, rather than use traditional tiebreaks?
If they based the title on traditional tiebreaks for the classical games, Hou would have won that as well
I'm guessing she probably doesn't care about the title and the cup too much...She had the best performance of the field, and got the lion's share of the euros :-)
|Feb-03-12|| ||HeMateMe: Thats all cool. She finished tied for first in a very nice field. Wonderful finish for a seventeen year old (unless your name is Bobby Fischer or Gary Kasparov--then its a bit routine).|
|Feb-03-12|| ||parmetd: Playoff is a form of tiebreaks|
|Feb-03-12|| ||Riverbeast: This tournament is also unique, it seems, because they awarded Hou the full first prize of 20,000 euros based on her superior tiebreaks|
That, along with the 10,000 euro 'first woman' prize, means she cashed for 30000 euros
Short got second prize, which was 12,000 euros
So Short got the title and the cup....Personally, I'd rather have the cash and the satisfaction of having the best performance
But usually they don't use performance tiebreaks to determine cash payout....At least not in US swisses
The players who tie for the same score usually get the same amount of money....Regardless of tiebreaks
So I would have assumed Short and Hou would have split first and second prize and gotten 16000 euros each....But I guess not
|Feb-03-12|| ||HeMateMe: I still don't get it--if Short and Yifan finished tied for first, and Short beats Yifan in the tie break blitz, why does she get first place prize money? Or, why isn't the same criteria used to determine the winner of the euros as for the trophy and title? |
It's like giving Tiger Woods $1M for having the best score at the US Open, but giving Phil Mickelson the trophy and title for winning the playoff round.
Only in chess can a great tournament get screwed up by the rules.
|Feb-03-12|| ||ChessXin: All the Chinese news say Short got the top prize and is the winner because he won the play off.|
I think Chessbase is wrong here.
|Feb-03-12|| ||Riverbeast: <ChessXin> You're right, it seems chessbase is wrong|
According to the official tournament site, Short won the 20,000 euro first prize
So I guess Hou won the 12,000 euro second prize, along with the 10,000 euro 'top woman' prize.....22,000 euros total
|Feb-03-12|| ||Strongest Force: 20.000 based on 2 stupid blitz games? That's super dumb. Maybe they should have the whole tournament a blitz one.|
|Feb-03-12|| ||karban: I think too that blitz match is somehow weird. Infamous Candidates 2011 comes to mind. But it was the same with Grand Slam Final last year Carlsen beat Chucky.
But what is better? In Bazna Carlsen won with Karjakin of 0.25 Sonnenborn-Berger; stupid but at least it was clear for both players before the last round.
On the other hand having tiebreak match is good way of promotion chess instead simple declaring co-winners or using others tiebrak criterions.
No ideal solution here.|
|Feb-03-12|| ||znsprdx: Only in chess can a great tournament get screwed up by the rules. SO TRUE <HeMateMe> WELL SAID |
In the same light: waiting a year for a farce of a World Championship match
|Feb-03-12|| ||alexmagnus: <Infamous Candidates 2011 comes to mind.>|
Gelfand won two of his three matches in classical games. Only vs Kamsky he went to tie-breaks.
|Feb-03-12|| ||alexmagnus: It's actually 20000 <pounds>. 24000 euro or so.|
|Feb-03-12|| ||frogbert: <In Bazna Carlsen won with Karjakin of 0.25 Sonnenborn-Berger; stupid but at least it was clear for both players before the last round>|
actually, in bazna it was clear <2 full rounds> before the end that even <if> everything went karjakin's way (in terms of tie-breaks) in the last two rounds, he could at best end up 0.25 points behind carlsen <if> they scored the same number of points.
and everything did go karjakin's way in the last two rounds, except the inconvenient bit that carlsen drew his two games, thereby securing the tournament victory. one can't rule out that carlsen would've tried harder to win one of his two last games if it weren't for the fact that <he knew> two draws would be enough to secure 1st place and an <unshared>, big first prize check.
[the regulations of the bazna tournament were such that a winner on tie-breaks got all the 1st prize money, and this was also known well in advance, of course. chess being their profession & business, it's quite understandable that huge amounts of money potentially changing hands can have an impact on the players' in-tournament decisions. whether we, the fans, like that or not.]
|Feb-03-12|| ||frogbert: <20.000 based on 2 stupid blitz games?>|
no, it was about how the 32,000 for 1st and second should be split. the difference between first and second was "only" 8,000.
and <strongest force>, i can't remember you making any similar comments when
1) nakamura won gibraltar in 2008 by beating bu in blitz tie-breaks after bu having had <much better> tie-breaks and a <much higher> tpr than nakamura in the classical part of the event, or when
2) nakamura won san sebastian 2009 by beating ponomariov in blitz tie-breaks. also there ponomariov had the better sonneborn-berger tie-breaks in the classical games. (i.e. nakamura had more wins against the tail-enders in the event.)
is there any good reason why you consider short's tie-break blitz victory over hou different from nakamura's similar tie-break wins in gibraltar 2008 and san sebastian 2009? i'm pretty sure the consequences were equally financially advantageous for nakamura in gibraltar 2008 as they were for short this year ... :o)
|Feb-03-12|| ||frogbert: <The players who tie for the same score usually get the same amount of money [in us swisses]....Regardless of tiebreaks>|
i think that's the most common approach in europe, too, riverbeast. in fact, even in most round robin events it's usual to split the money when two players are tied on points, even if they might use some tie-break criteria to declare one player the "winner".
however, it's always part of the explicit regulations and known up front how money prizes will be split, so it's not like players should enter the events unknowing of the rules at play.
|Feb-03-12|| ||Ezzy: The biggest controversy is that Polgar or Hou can enter these events with a double chance of scooping a big prize. The more women's chess progresses this will further the argument that it is pretty unfair.|
Some may ask why Polgar, who was a top seed, should be playing for £30,000 whilst other male players could only win £20,000.
Even Hou went home with more than Nigel Short.
When I was looking at the prize structure before the tournament, I thought that if Hou won an amount larger than the female £10,000 first prize, then she should only win that amount and NOT also the ladies prize. If she won less than £10,000, but was the top woman, then she could claim the £10,000 top woman prize but nothing else.
I think it rather unfair that she wins £12,000 for second place, and £10,000 for top woman.
This will be a big controversy as the strength in women's chess increases further. This result alone is starting to show how unfair it is becoming.
|Feb-03-12|| ||Maatalkko: <Ezzy> I don't think it's that much of a growing problem. This was a pretty rare event as only Hou or Polgar could conceivably have won. (And, call me sexist, but my money is that Hou and Polgar will continue to be once in a generation occurences.) But yes, I do agree that female players should only win one prize.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 12 OF 14 ·