|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 13 OF 13 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Feb-18-13
 | | morfishine: I don't know what I'm going to do with myself: No Live Broadcasts for the time being :( |
 |
Feb-18-13
 | | Sem: Double round robin - robin, robin, I keep seeing a bird. How long has this been the technical term? Some years ago everybody in jazz started talking about a 'double bass' - what nonsense, it was always a bass. Our linguistic dexterity is dwindling per generation, but fortunately the language gets blown up like a balloon. |
|
Feb-18-13
 | | OhioChessFan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoRb... |
|
Feb-18-13
 | | LucB: <Jason Frost>, <HeMateMe>, <himadri> Those are all "excellent" ideas.. This serves me right for wanting to initiate a discussion on this site! (Remember the robot in 'Lost in Space'?? ... "Danger, danger"!!) :D |
|
| Feb-18-13 | | Dionysius1: Hi <Sem>. I read somewhere that the "double" means the instrument is designed an octave lower than its (non-doubled) counterpart. In Organ terms, it refers to a set of pipes which are literally double the normal length, hence sounding an octave lower. Still raises the question of what the non-doubled counterpart would be (one of the violin family I suppose). I don't know about "round robin though - I bet it's a corruption: can't have much to do with the sweet but very aggressive bird! |
|
Feb-18-13
 | | lost in space: Danger, danger! |
|
Feb-18-13
| | LucB: Ha ha! Yeah, that guy! |
|
Feb-18-13
| | lost in space: With the 3 points for the win, half a point for a draw and 0 points for a loss we would have the following result: Anand: 12,5
Caruana: 12,0
Naiditsch: 10
Meier: 9
Adams: 7
Fridman: 3,5
Having in mind how active Naiditsch played, this counting system would make more sense to reward brave chess and to reduce the percentage of draws. |
|
Feb-18-13
| | LucB: Only half for a draw? Not 1? |
|
Feb-18-13
 | | anandrulez: This tourney was good but Anand is playing players with much less rating hence outplaying in the opening is pretty evident . Need to see how he plays Kramnik Aronian Carlsen also the other 2750 club . Anyway good to see some sparks from Vishy .Kudos for playing aggressive chess keep them coming . |
|
Feb-18-13
| | lost in space: Let's have a look to 3 for a win and 1 for a draw, <LucB> Anand: 16
Caruana: 15
Meier: 12
Naiditsch: 11
Adams: 11
Fridman: 7
Maybe you are right, this is better than 1/2 for a draw. |
|
Feb-18-13
| | LucB: <Maybe you are right, this is better than 1/2 for a draw.> Well, I'm not sure whether I'm right or wrong; my comment was to point out the fact that the scoring that tries to encourage "brave chess" is 3-1-0 rather than 3-1/2-0.. One way or the other, I prefer 1-1/2-0 and no draw offers before move 40 myself. Actually, what I REALLY like is this:
Anand vs Topalov, 2005
and this:
Topalov vs Anand, 2005
Look at the picture that accompanies this last game... wow! |
|
Feb-19-13
| | lost in space: Fully respect your view. Fighting draws are much more interesting than easy wins. Nevertheless: In Soccer the system of counting was changed a few years ago to 3-1-0 (before it was 1-1/2-0) with the result that soccer teams nowadays ate much interested in wining a game instead of defending the draw. So I prefer the 3-1-0 system. My first post with only half a point for draws and 3 points for a win was a mistake of mine, somehow mixing the 2 systems. Silly me. |
|
| Feb-19-13 | | lolchair: <LucB: One way or the other, I prefer 1-1/2-0 and no draw offers before move 40 myself.> I get the no draw offer part but why do you prefer the 1-1/2-0 system? It's the same as 1/2-1/2 / 1-0, right? |
|
Feb-19-13
| | LucB: LucB: <It's the same as 1/2-1/2 / 1-0, right?>
Yes, when I write 1-1/2-0 I mean 1 point for a win, 1/2 point for a draw and nothing for a loss. Sorry for the confusion; I'm not sure if there's a standard way of writing this out. <lost in space>
I agree with you that 3-1-0 accomplishes what it intended on doing (i.e. reducing the number of draws), but for me what would matter most (if I were the boss of this joint, which I am obviously not!), would be to eliminate "GM draws", and not necessarily draws themselves ... I LIKE draws! There's nothing wrong with them if they're played out. The patzer that I am wants to be educated! Play the darned thing out and show me it's a draw ... This format in GRENKE seemed to accomplish this for me. I dunno; maybe I should just learn my endgames! :D
Now the problem I have with 3-1-0 is that it values a decisive game more than one that is drawn, even if it is hard-fought, and to me that's unfair. However I believe that a short, agreed-to draw should be worth less than anything else ... but then how do you decide what is worthy and not? ... 'don't have an answer.. |
|
| Feb-19-13 | | MTuraga: < LucB: I LIKE draws! There's nothing wrong with them if they're played out. The patzer that I am wants to be educated! Play the darned thing out and show me it's a draw ... This format in GRENKE seemed to accomplish this for me.
I dunno; maybe I should just learn my endgames! :D> The needs of patzers are different from professional GMs who earn their living playing 500 – 1000 games every year which is an average of around 2 games/day at least. They can assess a position as drawn much earlier than the public and so do not like to waste time and energy in continuing the game and hence agree for draws. They conserve their energies for the next game. When looked at from this view point a draw seems very logical. Anand Topalov match at Sophia was governed by a no draw condition and the ultimate result was 7 draws and 5 decisive games. Many of us watching those games live, pitied the players for being forced to play on until a draw was shown on the board. We have to remember the wise sayings of Steinitz, “You cannot win a game if both players play equally well. A game is won only when one player makes more mistakes than his/her opponent” and Capablanca, “When the technique is learnt by all the strong players then chess will become dull and full of draws. That will be the ultimate demise of chess.” So we have to accept draws as valid as the knowledge of chess becomes widespread and most GMs play well against each other. The solution to keep chess interesting is to arrange tournaments where the players are of differing strengths, then we can see some sparkling sacrifices and interesting games where the public will become more thrilled. Otherwise it becomes like Rybka vs Houdini games…… |
|
Feb-19-13
 | | beenthere240: It was nice for Caruana to give Fridman a draw and salvage his feelings. The mark of a gentleman. Cost him first place, true, but still a noble gesture. |
|
Feb-19-13
| | LucB: <Mturaga> I hear you; like I said maybe I should just learn my endgames and that would be that! |
|
| Feb-19-13 | | dvpjal: It is not important that how best player you are but how you are playing now is counted. Hence discussing on the who is best player it will be better to observe who is playing best now? Who is utilizing its 100% energy. knowledge and skill.
Thanks
chessstrategyguide.com |
|
| Feb-22-13 | | Jason Frost: <LucB>
To quantify my sarcasm a bit. I wasn't trying to dissuade discussion on the merits of the 3-1-0 system or the 40> move rule. I just don't think the best way to go about it is with something like <I like system A> or <System B is a farce...> posts. Everyone likes long exciting games and hates short draws. The question is what achieves that and doesn't simultaneously go to the extreme of making game too long or diverting too much from chess as we know it. And to me it seems like you can't really do that without providing analysis or citing past studies of the 3-1-0 scoring system and other similar measures. |
|
| Feb-22-13 | | Jason Frost: Congrats to Anand on the nice comeback win. A bit surprised people are still favoring Kramnik over him in the Zurich chess challenge, given that Kramnik will most likely be hiding his opening prep. |
|
Feb-28-13
| | Jambow: Interesting posts, Vishy is still a top player and was no doubt a worthy champ, FIDE really seems lost and I hope Anands legacy doesn't suffer. I don't think Anand or anyone else has to requalify through the candidates, he did that when he defended his title OTB. I think Anand is one of the most respectable champs in recent history, but not a Fischer, Kasparov or even Karpov as far as domination goes. When I think Champ I think Carlsen now as everything but championship matches aside he has surpassed Anand at his peak. He should be able to approach FIDE and say look my record is so superior It is obvious I'm already qualified and everybody knows it. If Anand won his own champion title would be exaulted, if not we would have our new exiting champ in Magnus. |
|
Mar-05-13
 | | SetNoEscapeOn: <MTuraga>
<Anand Topalov match at Sophia was governed by a no draw condition and the ultimate result was 7 draws and 5 decisive games. Many of us watching those games live, pitied the players for being forced to play on until a draw was shown on the board.> Kramnik-Topalov had no such condition and slightly more blood was shed, on average (6 draws and 5 decisive games). Kramnik Anand only slightly less so... 8 draws and 4 decisive games (probably would have been 7 and 5 if Kramnik had played on in game 12). Which games in Sofia made you feel sorry for the players for "being forced to play on? I know they never complained themselves. |
|
Mar-05-13
 | | parmetd: There was one rook endgame that was so trivial even Topalov complained about having to play it after. That is the only game that comes from my memory (and frankly, I just remember it being Sofia... so it could have even been Mtel). |
|
Mar-07-13
| | Sem: <Dionysius1>, thanks for your kind answer. On an organ I can imagine a double bass as explained by you. But the string instrument remains a problem. Or would 'double' indicate it is no bass guitar, i.e. that it also has a resounding back?
So the robin is very aggressive, ho, ho, LOL. Imagine a round robin with Keres, Tal, Geller and Fischer. That would have been something! |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 13 OF 13 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
