< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 9 ·
|Aug-12-12|| ||Arcturar: Okay, yeah. That's a bit of a problem, and is the reason some people dislike DRRs. I guess the best way around that is to give the tournament favourites (Carlsen, Aronian) match-ups in roughly the same order. Or to at least make them play "patzers" during the same rounds. But in general, it's a problem inherent with the system.|
|Aug-12-12|| ||BUNA: <fisayo123> It wont be the first candidates tournament.
We know all kinds of rumors concerning the tournaments of 1948, 1950, 1953, 1962.
(Apparently the soviet bureaucracy slept in 1956 and in 1959.)|
But never did the "also-rans" pose any problem. :)
|Aug-12-12|| ||Arcturar: And I also agree with Kasparov's suggestion. Actually, another 3 player DRR or 4 player match tourney would be even better. With #1 plqying #4 and #2 playing #3 in the first match-up, let's say. But I suppose funding becomes an issue the longer and better the Candidates.|
|Aug-12-12|| ||AuN1: <Arcturar: And I also agree with Kasparov's suggestion. Actually, another 3 player DRR or 4 player match tourney would be even better. With #1 plqying #4 and #2 playing #3 in the first match-up, let's say. But I suppose funding becomes an issue the longer and better the Candidates.>|
kasparov's suggestion my arse. i've been saying the same thing for the past year.
|Aug-12-12|| ||Eyal: From an interview with Wang Hao:
<Q: Talking about the Russian League, what do you think about the current Russian Championship Superfinal?
A: Theyíve got great sponsorship. No matter what they'll get good prize money. That's probably the main reason why nobody has any driving force to fight. On the other hand, just as happens in China, all these players know each other so well that it's very difficult to play. I personally felt it was much more difficult to play in the Chinese League than the Russian League because the Chinese players just simply know me better.> (http://whychess.com/en/node/2674)
|Aug-13-12|| ||WiseWizard: May no mortal dare ever say they're the best in my presence.|
|Aug-13-12|| ||themaverick: Can someone please copy paste the link for live games (tiebreaks)|
|Aug-13-12|| ||whiteshark: <themaverick> http://www.chessdom.com/russian-sup...|
public commenting: Russian Superfinals (Tiebreak) (2012)
|Aug-13-12|| ||themaverick: thx <whiteshark>|
|Aug-13-12|| ||themaverick: After 3 rounds
1. Andreikin 2.5
2. Karjakin 2
3. Svidler 2
4. Jakovenko 2
5. Potkin 1.5
6. Alekseev 0
|Aug-13-12|| ||themaverick: After 4 rounds
1. Andreikin 3.5
2. Karjakin 2.5
3. Jakovenko 2.5
4. Svidler 2
5. Potkin 2
6. Alekseev 0.5
|Aug-13-12|| ||themaverick: Andreikin is the new russian champion !! And he is not in russian squad for the olympiad !|
|Aug-13-12|| ||Eyal: Well, Svidler was the reigning champion while they actually decided on the squad and he wasn't included either...|
|Aug-13-12|| ||Eyal: Btw, there's a separate page for the tiebreak tournament, where I suppose the games will be posted eventually: Russian Superfinals (Tiebreak) (2012).|
|Aug-13-12|| ||themaverick: oh i see..didn't notice that..thx 4 informing|
|Aug-13-12|| ||Arcturar: <kasparov's suggestion my arse. i've been saying the same thing for the past year.> Oh sorry then! AuN1's suggestion!|
The tiebreaks were pretty damn stupid what with all the embarassing, essentially prearranged draws. But Andreikin as a winner is still pretty deserved. In the main tournament, he did play with more fight than anyone else but Grischuk.
|Aug-14-12|| ||blazerdoodle: I thought I understood this, but frankly, I'm curious as to what happened.|
For example: What does this mean?
Sergey Karjakin 5/9 (+1 -0 =8)
I apologize, but I'm mixed up after reading why his name is on top.
|Aug-14-12|| ||Illogic: Not sure what you're asking, but six players tied for first on +1|
Karjakin won one game and drew eight.
|Aug-14-12|| ||blazerdoodle: Got back from vacation where there was no computers or internet, and wham, what on earth happened here, lol?|
But thanks Illogic, and I thought so, yet got confused and thought I liked the system. I know they all agreed to it and all. Sad to have to jazz it up like that. But it's a really bad system.
Well, Alekseev, Potkin, and Andreikin clearly are the winners in my system where draws and losses are given a ZERO, and that's all there is to it. I don't care how hot#$#$ one might have looked as the audience ooh'd and Ah'd over the game before it went piffle into a draw, NO ONE WON! I'm not saying I don't like Karjakin. He's a fun read, but 8 draws? 1 win? He signed on to it, so I shouldn't complain.
|Aug-14-12|| ||blazerdoodle: In that comment, I wrote "he" signed on to it, and meant "They."|
|Aug-14-12|| ||L13: <blazerdoodle>, I suggest you find a new hobby; chess clearly isn't for you if you don't think there's a difference between a draw and a loss, or are utterly incapable of enjoying non-decisive games.|
Patzers hating on draws because they can't tell the quality of a game unless one of the players resigns at the end are my biggest pet peeve in chess.
|Aug-16-12|| ||perfidious: < Conrad93: Grischuk and Karjakin are just way too above the rest of the competition.
It's like a couple of sharks among goldfish.>|
Guess those goldfish had a little go here, seeing as Karjakin went +1 and Grischuk finished even, but don't let the facts get in the way of your fantasies.
|Aug-20-12|| ||Eyal: From an interview with Andreikin (who won the Russian Superfinals (Tiebreak) (2012)):|
<I ended up in this cycle largely by accident: it was simply that Iíd promised someone in the Russian Chess Federation that Iíd play in Tyumen at the Higher League. Perhaps I wouldnít have gone if I hadnít promised. And then I accidentally qualified.
While here... Iím not going to pretend Ė I played pretty poorly, pretty boringly. I probably simply got lucky that other players also werenít in form. If next year, for instance, Morozevich is here and scores +4 itíll be difficult to win like this. On the other hand, I think yesterday [in the final round game - D Dubov vs D Andreikin, 2012 ] I was a little bit unlucky: in the final position the computer gave a good evaluation in my favour, but with seconds left I decided to take a draw.
(See Sergey Shipovís revelation [http://whychess.org/en/node/2763 ] that Andreikin could have chosen to continue playing for a win after he and Daniil Dubov had prematurely claimed a draw and discussed the game.)
I think objectively two people stood out in terms of their play and deserved first place or, at the very least, to get into the top 3 Ė Grischuk and Vitiugov. Thatís in terms of their play and their approach to this tournament. But, paradoxically, they scored a combined -1. I donít want to offend anyone, but in my view none of the others made the effort.> (http://whychess.com/en/node/2765)
|Aug-20-12|| ||blazerdoodle: I made a mistake above, I said a loss is zero? Sorry. I meant, in my systme, it is a zero for the guy who lost! PLUS for the winner is what I meant. Sorry about that gaff.|
Just playing around, but I do enjoy non decisive games. I find it fascinating to look at why a position is a drawn in many positions, and find someone like these new kids who rip positions like that apart. At my level, there are few drawn positions.
But, a pet peeve and disappointment (although not unreasonable) are simply no reason to give a score to someone who didn't earn it in hopes of rigging the game, which is exactly what this kind of scoring looks like to me.
The last tourney, the guy who won this kind of tournament was the clear winner in number of games, and I thought it was a cool system. I come back from vacation to look at this one, and the guys who won the most games are not in the tie break? It's a mistake.
Alekseev, Potkin, and Andriken clearly are the winners. They won the most games. It doesn't make since any other way. Perhaps tourneys formats every day.
|Aug-20-12|| ||blazerdoodle: Just wondering:
Mix up the format Tourney.
(time controls allowed this round)
Bullet (1 m)
Lightning (5 m)
Action (1 hr)
(time controls allowed this round)
Modern (long games/time controls)
Classcial (time control going to the 2nd day if needed.)
DAY 5 (or 6 if the last game went into time control).
Day off and go bakcwards down the list in reverse and end the toruney with speed games if no decisive game has yet been played.
Size of tourney: Repeat whole week as necessary, on the 2nd go around, have SUDDEN DEATH in all games, etc. etc.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 9 ·