Other than that I can not add anything of substance following <Eyal>'s detailed and balanced reply to you, <ex0dus>.

On reading some of the Tal Memorial kibitzes, it's amusing to have seen the criticisms there. Had the 3-1-0 scale been used, there would no doubt have been posters screaming 'Carlsen wuz ROBBED'-as it was, there was lengthy discussion as to how lucky Carlsen was to win outright with +2.

That, however, is only important as far as it affects the players' prizes. Scoring systems have no bearing on rating changes or the games themselves, so no big deal.

I only hope FIDE don't decide to make this scoring system the default one. Their track record of unfortunate decisions taken with the misguided intention of making chess more 'entertaining'--shorter time controls, knock-out tournaments, Olympic aspirations, rapid tie-breaks in classical chess, etc.--doesn't fill me with confidence, however.

exoduz appears to see things through very coloured glasses, making all those generalizations and being heavily biased towards wang hao - much more than any hardcore carlsen fan i've seen wrt carlsen after biel.

here's my own first post on this page after the tournament was decided in wang hao's favour - and i think i qualify as a vocal carlsen fan:

<congrats to wang hao - 6 wins in 10 games is pretty awesome! and perfect given the 3-1-0 scoring in effect, of course.

wang hao and bologan gave two quite different answers to whether they fit in with the elite or not. before the tournament the official difference between the two was only 7 points. wang's 2739 turned out to be worth much more against this opposition than bologan's 2732. based on historical ratings and performance profiles, this isn't all that strange - it was rather expected.>

what did i do? i congratulated wang hao and talked about him and bologan - not a word about carlsen. my next two posts were about nakamura, who also had a good tournament (imho).

meanwhile exoduz spreads biased nonsense about the games between carlsen and wang hao both here and on wang hao's page:

<Don't worry Hao, your fans know you had those games vs Carlsen. The score says 2-0, but even Carlsen knows he got lucky in those games.>

how are we supposed to interpret this? "wang hao had those games vs carlsen" - does that mean that wang hao really "deserved" to win those two games?

the reality is that he never had a winning position in any of the games, and in the first game he was losing for the best part of the game (as clearly explained by eyal) but was offered a tiny chance to save half a point when carlsen was slightly inaccurate - but unlike carlsen who grabbed his opportunity when wang hao erred in the second game, wang hao was unable to exploit carlsen's inaccuracy and lost, quite deservedly, the first game.

wang hao would've had reason to be very happy with two draws in those games, judging by the games themselves, while 1,5-0,5 carlsen would've been closest to how chances in the two games were distributed between the players. but since carlsen seldom needs more than a little chance to turn the tables, we eventually saw 2-0 carlsen. even one win for wang hao was hardly in the cards at any time during the games, and two wins were certainly out of the question.

And yes, i'm probably a Wang Hao/China 'fanboi' as you internet detectives have probably figured out from my post history ;)

Someone needs to be his fanboi, to counter all the Carlsen ones, or just to make things interesting. Like i said, i'm sick of seeing Carlsen comments, even if they are 'fair' and balanced. There's just too much 'fair and balanced'(hello fauxnewz) Carlsen discussion. Talk about someone else(in this case the old scoring discussion, which as i said leads nowhere, imo both have their merits/place, ie i would never change a WC match or something to 3-1-0) for a change.

Would you care to give us the SCRA http://www.facebook.com/pages/Supre... of how could came out with such a decision? Else, your allegations is but a lot of hot air..I suggest you continue your trip and journey to the promise land...

<they are still pretty bad>

Your WangHao did not even manage to become China Champ...that distinction belongs to Ding Liren (in fact two years in a row)...Ding found himself in the losing end of the bargain against our very own Wesley So...in the world cup...in the Asian Blitz too... How would you expect Hao would have fared against the "immovable object" Mr. So?

Once he declared Magnus ...despite his losses, he compensates it with his greater no. of wins is better than Wesley...who while invincible and carries no defeat...has fewer wins to show.

show me even one quote where i say anything remotely similar to "carlsen should've won" (in biel) "with classical scoring in effect". try sticking to the truth once in a while, it would feel liberating i'm sure.

also it's sad to see that you failed to get the single most important point i made on the world blitz page, even if repeated many, many times: wld-stats are inferior to performance as a measure of someone's results. it's not about avoiding losses or winning the most games - it's about producing the best results overall. ratings and performances provide this info.

you seem unable to represent anybody else's point of view, tolengoy. it disqualifies from leading any discussion. and it certainly makes it impossible to have a debate with you.