The 40th Dortmund Sparkassen Chess-Meeting took place in the Dortmunder Schauspielhaus in Dortmund, Germany 13-22 July 2012. Rest day: July 18. Chief organizer: Ralf Chadt-Rausch. Players received 100 minutes for 40 moves, then 50 more minutes for the next 20 moves, then 15 more minutes for the rest of the game, with a 30-second increment from move one. Games started at 3 pm, Round 9 at 1 pm local time. ... [more]
Player: Mateusz Bartel
| page 1 of 1; 9 games
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 13 OF 14 ·
|Jul-22-12|| ||Jim Bartle: "Wrong, Bartel beat Ponomariov. It was his only win."|
My mistake, sorry.
|Jul-22-12|| ||fisayo123: Dortmund is always considered super-tournament and Bartel and Meier are more than decent players IMHO. Im not sure what Cat it is but its probably one of the strongest of the year.|
|Jul-22-12|| ||fisayo123: The only thing "preposterous" here is your ridiculous comment. <csmath>|
|Jul-22-12|| ||Peligroso Patzer: <csmath: <super-tournament> Nothing to subtract from Caruana but calling a tournament with Bartel, Gustafsson, Fridman, and Mejer a supertournament is <a little bit preposterous>. ***>|
I love the turn of phrase (“a little bit preposterous”) with its touch of the oxymoronic (along the lines of “mildly extreme”); and the point, indeed, has some merit.
Dortmund is a tournament with an elite, “super-tournament” tradition that this year, for better or worse (and, in my opinion, there are definitely aspects in which it is for the better), included a significant number of local tourists whose playing strength is a notch below the world elite.
|Jul-22-12|| ||Open Defence: if the field was only
would we call it a super tournament ?
|Jul-22-12|| ||OBIT: So, out of 45 games, 26 were drawn for a 58% draw ratio. Take out the bottom two players and there were 28 games, of which 22 were drawn for a 79% draw ratio. Yep, that's what the public likes to see.|
|Jul-22-12|| ||Peligroso Patzer: Here are the final standings from the official site (http://www.sparkassen-chess-meeting...), including tie-breaks:|
[Place] [Name] [Title] [Rating] [Country] [<Points>] [Games with Black] [Wins] [S-B Score]
1. Caruana,Fabiano GM 2775 ITA <6.0> 4 4 23.00
2. Karjakin,Sergey GM 2779 RUS <6.0> 4 3 23.00
3. Ponomariov,Ruslan GM 2726 UKR <5.5> 5 3 24.50
4. Kramnik,Vladimir GM 2799 RUS <5.5> 5 3 20.50
5. Naiditsch,Arkadij GM 2700 GER <5.5> 5 2 21.50
6. Leko,Peter GM 2730 HUN <5.5> 4 2 21.50
7. Meier,Georg GM 2644 GER <4.0> 4 1 16.00
8. Fridman,Daniel GM 2655 GER <3.5> 4 0 14.75
9. Bartel,Mateusz GM 2674 POL <2.0> 5 1 8.00
10. Gustafsson,Jan GM 2629 GER <1.5> 5 0 4.75
|Jul-22-12|| ||Marmot PFL: Ratings rise fairly steadily over time, and by modern standards an event with 40% of the players under 2700 (thus out of the top 50) is not a super-tournament. |
A 10 player super-tournament should have 5 players ranked in the top 10, and all should be in the top 25 (excepting maybe juniors with conspicuous talent).
|Jul-22-12|| ||jamesmaskell: <OBIT> That argument normally works but despite the high number of draws in this tournament, a lot of them were exciting and were played out.|
|Jul-22-12|| ||OBIT: <James>Yeh, but you can't sell the game that way. Pitcher duels in baseball are often exciting, but the average fan would rather see a game with a lot of offense. Defensive battles in football appeal to the hardcore fan, but the public finds high scoring games more appealing. Let's face it, in chess an ugly win sells the game better than a well-played draw.|
|Jul-22-12|| ||Peligroso Patzer: <jamesmaskell: <OBIT> That argument [based on the comparative rate of decisive vs. drawn games over the course of the event] normally works ***>|
Not really. Nothing should ever be assumed ipso facto about the quality or character of any game or any set of games merely because each resulted in a draw.
|Jul-22-12|| ||Jim Bartle: "Pitcher duels in baseball are often exciting, but the average fan would rather see a game with a lot of offense." |
Not necessarily, but they do want (and of course get) somebody to end up a winner.
|Jul-22-12|| ||Peligroso Patzer: <OBIT> <Jim Bartle>: FWIW, I think <OBIT> is correct that the “average” baseball fan prefers a slugfest to a pitchers’ duel (although I personally find the latter far more interesting).|
The enterprise of baseball, of course, needs to be vitally concerned with attracting as many fans as possible to generate gate receipts, etc. to offset the ridiculous payrolls. Ceteris paribus, popularity for chess would be desirable, but, for me, it is not worth the tradeoff if what is necessary to attract more chess fans is sacrificing quality of play (for example, by accelerating time controls) to generate more decisive results.
|Jul-22-12|| ||kb2ct: |
Kramnik blew it by not beating Leko.
|Jul-22-12|| ||perfidious: We may take another American favourite, football. The bottom line is that most Americans want action and a 9-7 game doesn't get the job done for them, any more than soccer would. Long ago on this site, I also mentioned that. The aesthetes can appreciate the positive points in a low-scoring football game, but I'm afraid that would be lost on the average beer-guzzling fan as he leant on his tailgate.|
|Jul-22-12|| ||OBIT: Yeah, Kramnik blew it by not beating Leko. He certainly had wins all over the place.|
Ponomariov blew it by losing to Bartel. You're tied for first with the easiest slate of games remaining of all the contenders, and then you lose with the White pieces to the guy in last place.
Leko blew it by being the stodgy old fart he has become. Take a chance once in awhile, chum.
Naiditsch blew it by not playing upon the nationalistic pride of Fridman. "We're teammates! We won an important team tournament together! Do it for Germany!"
I guess a lot of players missed opportunities to win this tournament.
|Jul-22-12|| ||perfidious: <Peligroso Patzer: ....Dortmund....included a significant number of local tourists whose playing strength is a notch below the world elite.>|
In my opinion, the characterisation as 'local tourists' is over the top-the players at the bottom of the scoretable are far from weak and would beat the spots off 'mere' 2500 players if one were, for example, to organise Dortmund on the lines of those ~2650 players and six-seven 2500s to flesh out the field. Of course the players you mention aren't quite in the leading group of world rankings, but how would anyone raise their game if not given a chance to play stronger opposition?
|Jul-22-12|| ||Eyal: <Super-tournament> is clearly a fuzzy category – the term doesn't have any "official" definition, it's evaluatively loaded, and it depends very much on personal tastes and preferences. For example, how much weight exactly does one place on the rating average of the participants, and what should be the minimum of such average to justify the use of the term? How many players of the top 5/10/20 etc. are required, or what percentage of such players out of the total (and what exactly, in this context, is the status of certain "big names" that are currently lower in the ratings than they were at their peak or, alternatively, of certain rising talents whose rating is still not so high)? Or, from the other direction, how many "weak" players are allowed and how should they be defined? For some people the tradition of the tournament in question might also play a part. Thus, any attempt at an "exact" definition of what a super-tournament is might sound right to some people, but probably also arbitrary or unconvincing to many others. |
All this doesn't mean that the use of the term is completely arbitrary, of course – I think pretty much everybody will agree that the Tal Memorial was a super-tournament and that the Dutch championship (which has just ended) wasn't; but Dortmund is more of a borderline-case.
|Jul-22-12|| ||perfidious: <Eyal> The whole concept is indeed amorphous at best and not even worth fighting over in my mind. Trying to figure out what the players do in their games is hard enough!|
|Jul-22-12|| ||Open Defence: well said <perfidious>!|
|Jul-22-12|| ||Octavia: <you can't sell the game that way> of course, the sale is most important - who cares about the quality of games?|
|Jul-22-12|| ||SetNoEscapeOn: At least Sonas' concept of "tournament class" has a clear definition: |
< I developed a formula which I am now calling the tournament "class". You look at the top ten on the rating list, at the time the tournament started, and see who is participating in the tournament. Having the #1 player earns the tournament 4 points, and having the #2 tournament earns it another 4 points. For #3 and #4, it's only 3 points per player. For #5 and #6, it's 2 points, and for #7, #8, #9, and #10, it's 1 point each. So if you just had the #1, #3, and #9 players in your tournament, the tournament would be a class 8 (that's 4+3+1). If a tournament had all ten from the top list (and possibly more) then it would get the theoretical maximum class of 22>
Using the current live rating list, this was a class 6 tournament. In contrast, Tal Memorial was class 16.
|Jul-22-12|| ||fisayo123: <Using the current live rating list, this was a class 6 tournament. In contrast, Tal Memorial was class 16.>
Give it up already. The recognized way of calculating tournament strength is Cat's. Have some respect for the participants that played here. <Eyal> has already settled this needless argument with his succinct input. Again congrats to Karjakin and Caruana as the new guard gradually replaces the old guard in tournaments <2012>|
|Jul-22-12|| ||perfidious: The Sonas concept has one readily apparent flaw: if we have a six-player double round-robin with nrs 1, 3 and 9 and the rest outside the top ten, but all 2700+, that scores eight points. On the other hand, if we were to have a single round-robin with twelve players, which included the three players above, along with another member of the top ten, then threw in say, eight ~2500 players, this event scores higher on the Sonas scale (if I understand correctly), yet is clearly weaker than the former tournament.|
|Jul-22-12|| ||WiseWizard: Where are the blitz games?|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 13 OF 14 ·
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply.
Getting your account takes less than a minute, is 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
Please observe our posting guidelines:
- No obscene, racist, sexist, profane, raunchy, or disgusting language.
- No spamming, advertising, duplicate or nonsense posts.
- No malicious personal attacks, including cyber stalking, systematic antagonism, or gratuitous name-calling of any member Iincludinfgall Admin and Owners or any of their family, friends, associates, or business interests. If you think someone is an idiot, then provide evidence that their reasoning is invalid and/or idiotic, instead of just calling them an idiot. It's a subtle but important distinction, even in political discussions.
- Nothing in violation of United States law.
- No malicious posting of or linking to personal, private, and/or negative information (aka "doxing" or "doxxing") about any member, (including all Admin and Owners) or any of their family, friends, associates, or business interests. This includes all media: text, images, video, audio, or otherwise. Such actions will result in severe sanctions for any violators.
- NO TROLLING. Admin and Owners know it when they see it, and sanctions for any trolls will be significant.
- Any off-topic posts which distract from the primary topic of discussion are subject to removal.
- The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by Moderators is expressly prohibited.
- The use of "sock puppet" accounts in an attempt to undermine any side of a debate—or to create a false impression of consensus or support—is prohibited.
- All decisions with respect to deleting posts, and any subsequent discipline, are final, and occur at the sole discretion of the Moderators, Admin, and Owners.
- Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.
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, visit the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors. All Moderator actions taken are at the sole discretion of the Admin and Owners—who will strive to act fairly and consistently at all times.
your profile |
Premium Membership |
Kibitzer's Café |
Biographer's Bistro |
new kibitzing |
Tournament Index |
Player Directory |
Notable Games |
World Chess Championships |
Opening Explorer |
Guess the Move |
Game Collections |
ChessBookie Game |
Chessgames Challenge |
privacy notice |
Copyright 2001-2019, Chessgames Services LLC