< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·
|Mar-13-13|| ||nok: Really? I'll take the 18 WGM.|
|Mar-13-13|| ||notyetagm: <hellopolgar: <twinlark> so even if you play 18 WGM and perform above 2600, you don't get a GM-norm? that sounds absurd because <<<18 WGM is the equivalent of 9 GM.>>>>|
I don't know what the FIDE rule says but it seems strange to me that you could become a GM without playing *any* GMs.
To me, playing 18 WGMs is not remotely the same as playing 9 GMs.
|Mar-13-13|| ||cro777: Sveshnikov helped the USA team to outplay Russia?
"Unexpected result happened on the last board as Olga Girya, who had showed perfect result before the seventh round, unexpectedly lost to Victorija Ni." (Round 7 Report)
At the Women's World Team Championship in Astana, Sveshnikov was helping Viktorija Ni to prepare for the games.
Viktorija represented Latvia twice at the Chess Olympiad (2008, 2010) on the women's team. She recently switched her federation form Latvia to the United States. Viktorija is the spouse of GM Yury Shulman.
|Mar-13-13|| ||dx9293: <twinlark> is mistaken. The GM/IM/WGM equivalence thing is for the lower titles, but for a GM norm you need to face 1/3 GMs.|
For an IM norm you can face 1/3 IMs OR 1.5 GMs per needed IM. So in a 10 player RR, you can play 2 GMs instead of 3 IMs.
|Mar-13-13|| ||notyetagm: <dx9293: <twinlark> is mistaken. The GM/IM/WGM equivalence thing is for the lower titles, but for a GM norm you need to face 1/3 GMs.>|
That makes perfect sense: to become a GM you must play GMs!:-)
|Mar-13-13|| ||twinlark: <For a GM norm at least 1/3 with a minimum 3 of the opponents (MO) must be GMs.>|
What part of this don't some people understand?
And where's the announcement?
|Mar-13-13|| ||twinlark: <<twinlark> is mistaken. The GM/IM/WGM equivalence thing is for the lower titles, but for a GM norm you need to face 1/3 GMs.>|
btw it was hellopolgar that made the claim about GM equivalence, not I.
|Mar-13-13|| ||wych: <Beholder: <wych: It wasn't "China 2" who lost 4-0 in Israel in 2005; it was the Chinese women's team, who were rated on average more than 200 Elo points per board lower than their male compatriots. (They should not have been in the competition, but that's a different matter.)>|
Incorrect. I know the team was composed entirely of women, it's still China-1 and China-2 because the event in question did not have any kind of gender discrimination - only the open section. China was the only country to field a second team, by the way.
And yes, the second team should not have been there at all. They were there, however, with the sole purpose of throwing their match to the China-1 team, which they did.>
(1) What did I say that was "incorrect"?
China's women's team was in Israel in 2005 not as China's B team but because FIDE deemed it to be the strongest national women's team around. If they had thought another national women's team was the strongest, they would have invited that one instead. (Had that team belonged to a country other than one of the 8 open teams' countries, then no country would have fielded more than one team.)
On the other hand, had there indeed been a "China 2" in Israel, it would have been China's second string team, comprising those players not quite strong enough to be selected for the first team. Such a team would have been (a) all male & (b) far less likely to lose 0-4 to anyone. As you know, there was no such team.
(2) The event in question was organised by FIDE, & it was FIDE who decided for better or worse to invite the Chinese women's team to participate in the World Team Championship in Israel.
So are you claiming then that FIDE invited the Chinese women's team "with the sole purpose of throwing their match to the China-1 team..."?
What evidence do you have for that extraordinary claim? And why on earth would FIDE want to do such a thing?
(3) Given that you appear convinced that there was collusion between the Chinese men's & women's teams in 2005, do you think there is any less evidence of collusion between the Russian & Ukrainian women's teams in yesterday's match?
|Mar-13-13|| ||Jambow: I'm not sure if Irina got her GM norm or not but she defeated two GM's with a 2600+ elo performance. That is over a hundred points higher than the 2500 required for GM's so in my eyes she earned it if she does get a norm. |
Consider that she won against a former womens world champion as well as the current womens world champion, both of whom performed above their own rating. Irina never lost a game and this is certainly her most impressive performance to date.
I know she seems to be a hard worker who takes her game serious, so its almost as if her efforts suddenly caught up. Her game against Ushenina was fantastic the best game I reviewed of that event.
I've become a fan of Ushenina also her fighting spirit is amazing, and facial expressions that are hard to top as a bonus. ;0]
|Mar-13-13|| ||notyetagm: <Jambow: ... Her game against Ushenina was fantastic the best game I reviewed of that event.>|
Have you seen V Gunina vs Ju Wenjun, 2013?
|Mar-13-13|| ||dx9293: Sorry, <twinlark>!|
|Mar-14-13|| ||Beholder: <wych> To clarify. Yes, the all-draws result in the Russia-Ukraine match was not an accident, but a decision made by the team captains who instructed the players to draw their games. I'm not sure this qualifies as a collusion though.|
The decision made by the Chinese team captain in 2005 to throw the games in favor of one of the teams I'm quite positive does qualify as such.
|Mar-14-13|| ||Beholder: Also, to blame FIDE for a collusion between a China team and a China team is quite remarkable.|
|Mar-14-13|| ||HeMateMe: So many of the matches featured 3 draws and one decisive game. Why is a four draw match so suspect?|
|Mar-14-13|| ||HeMateMe: You know, if you removed the russian immigrants from our chess team (Krush, Anna Z) and others, I don't think we would have been able to beat Turkey. It's hard to figure out chess in the USA. We now have it as a class in many schools. There is a lot of interestin the game at grade school level. But, we don't seem to be able to produce any professionals like Joel Benjamin or Nick DeFirmian anymore.|
|Mar-14-13|| ||wych: But I didn't blame FIDE for any collusion in 2005, if there was any! Please reread what I wrote in my previous post; (point (2)).|
I mentioned FIDE only in response to the claim that YOU made in your previous post: <And yes, the second team should not have been there at all. They were there, however, with the sole purpose of throwing their match to the China-1 team, which they did>.
To which I replied, <The event in question was organised by FIDE, & it was FIDE who decided for better or worse to invite the Chinese women's team to participate in the World Team Championship in Israel.>
I was making the obvious point that it was FIDE, not the Chinese chess federation, who were responsible for the presence of the Chinese women. Having invited the 8 national open teams (based on geography &c), FIDE decided also to invite what they considered to be the strongest national women's team, who happened to be the Chinese women. Had they felt that, say, the Russian women's team were the strongest, then they would have invited them instead, in which case it would have been Russia that fielded two teams.
So let me repeat the question I asked above. <"So are you claiming then that FIDE invited the Chinese women's team "with the sole purpose of throwing their match to the China-1 team..."? What evidence do you have for that extraordinary claim? And why on earth would FIDE want to do such a thing?">
|Mar-14-13|| ||Beholder: Oh, I see your point now. Ok, so they were not invited for the sole purpose of throwing their match.|
But they did it anyway.
|Mar-14-13|| ||wych: But why are you so certain that they threw that match? Is there any objective evidence that they did so?|
For example, is there anything in the way the Chinese women played in that match that was obviously different from their approach in their 0-4 loss to the USA?
Obviously, collusion in such a context is extremely difficult, if not impossible, either to prove or to disprove. But that being the case, how can you be so adamant that there was indeed collusion? Where does your certainty come from?
FIDE were wrong to invite the Chinese women's team to Israel, & for at least two good reasons.
(1) The Chinese women were so much weaker than all the other teams, which risked distorting the overrall results.
(2) It put the two Chinese teams, when they played each other, in a difficult, highly invidious position. The Chinese men outranked their female compatriots by (IIRC) about 250 Elo points per board, so a 4-0 whitewash was on paper a perfectly normal result. However, achieving such a result risked accusations of collusion from certain quarters. So the men all had to try to win but risked being suspected of cheating if they succeeded.
As I noted above, the USA men also beat the Chinese women 4-0. Now suppose that it had been, say, the USA women's team rather than the Chinese women that FIDE had invited to Israel, & suppose therefore that it had been the USA women that the USA men beat 4-0; (a perfectly possible result). Would you in that case be so insistent that the match must have been thrown? And if not, why not?
|Mar-14-13|| ||wych: The above was in reply to
<Beholder: Oh, I see your point now. Ok, so they were not invited for the sole purpose of throwing their match.
But they did it anyway.>
|Mar-15-13|| ||Beholder: <wych> While you do make some semi-valid points, you are definitely wrong in this: <The Chinese men outranked their female compatriots by (IIRC) about 250 Elo points per board, so a 4-0 whitewash was on paper a perfectly normal result.>|
Please provide the exact ratings and calculate the expected result. I'm sure it will not be 4-0.
Anyway, yes, I agree that <collusion in such a context is extremely difficult, if not impossible, either to prove or to disprove>.
And as to that <how can you be so adamant that there was indeed collusion? Where does your certainty come from?>
How about experience? Not to mention a *proven* history of blatant Chinese cheating at sports. Like underage gymnasts with faked passports.
|Mar-15-13|| ||ZZz0mbiezZz: Beholder: How about experience? Not to mention a *proven* history of blatant Chinese cheating at sports. Like underage gymnasts with faked passports.|
big deal. everyone cheats.. russia, usa, everyone!! this argument is just silly. every team would have done the same thing
|Mar-16-13|| ||notyetagm: V Gunina vs Ju Wenjun, 2013|
GM JOEL BENJAMIN'S ICC GAME OF THE WEEK:
|Mar-16-13|| ||BUNA: <ZZz0mbiezZz:
big deal. everyone cheats.. russia, usa, everyone!! this argument is just silly. every team would have done the same thing>
At the chess olympiad in Khanty-Mansiysk in 2010 Russia1 (Kramnik, Grischuk, Svidler, Karjakin) faced Russia2 (Nepo, Alekseev, Vitiugov, Tomashevsky). The match ended 2.5 : 1.5 as only Karjakin was able to win his game.
|Mar-16-13|| ||wych: <Beholder: <wych> While you do make some semi-valid points, you are definitely wrong in this: <The Chinese men outranked their female compatriots by (IIRC) about 250 Elo points per board, so a 4-0 whitewash was on paper a perfectly normal result.>|
Please provide the exact ratings and calculate the expected result. I'm sure it will not be 4-0.>
Please note that I did NOT say that 4-0 was THE "expected result"; I said that it was A "perfectly normal result", ie one of potentially several normal results. Obviously, a "normal" result doesn't necessarily have to be THE statistically most likely result.
I'm sure you would agree that it would be absurd to be surprised (let alone suspect foul play) every time a chess match of only 4 games fails to end in what is precisely the statistically most likely result out of all the 9 results that are possible.
Anyway, as requested, I've taken the trouble to look up CG's record of the 2005 match & found the following pairings with ratings.
Bu Xiangzhi (B) 2637 vs Wang Yu (W) 2396
Ni Hua (W) 2603 vs Gong Qianyun (B) 2374
Zhou Jianchao (B) 2516 vs Yang Shen (W) 2326
Chong Liang (W) 2515 vs Hou Yifan (B) 2220
This gives an average Elo rating difference between the men & women of 239 points per board.
I recall reading somewhere that someone rated 200 points above his opponent would be expected to score 76% against that opponent over a sufficient number of games. Unfortunately I don't know the formula for calculating how much difference to that expected score an additional 39 points rating difference makes.
However, extrapolating, (assuming it's valid to extrapolate), to teams of 4 playing only one game per board, I'm going to stick my neck out & suggest that, taking account of the rating differences, a score of 3.5-0.5 would have been the most likely result statistically of the 9 results possible, followed by 3-1, & then 4-0 as the 3rd most likely result. This is a suggestion rather than a calculation &, if my reasoning is flawed, I will happily stand corrected.
Inevitably there's a subjective element in interpreting any result as "normal". That said, although I don't know the absolute percentage probability of a 4-0 result, I'm sure that, given the huge ratings gap, it was statistically unsurprising & in that sense perfectly "normal".
Indeed, I suspect that the Chinese men outperformed their Elo ratings in several of their matches against the 7 non-Chinese teams to a greater degree than they did against the Chinese women.
|Mar-16-13|| ||nok: Good post.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·