< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
|Feb-19-15|| ||transpose: I would like more information about the back-stage "discussions" that led to the Armageddon game for the tournament tie-breaker. If the sponsor(s) did change the rules without notifying the players beforehand, that would be a shame. Players deserve to know the tie break system before the tournament starts.|
|Feb-19-15|| ||LucB: <Wavy> the time control was 15+30 or 15+10 I think.|
|Feb-20-15|| ||lost in space: <<transpose:> (snip) If the sponsor(s) did change the rules without notifying the players beforehand, that would be a shame. Players deserve to know the tie break system before the tournament starts.>|
Can not agree more. For me Anand is the winner - and I am no Naka hater (more the opposite)
|Feb-20-15|| ||fgh: <schweigzwang: Nakamura didn't win the blitz, nor the classical, nor the rapid, but he "won" the whole thing. Niiiiiiiiice.>|
Nakamura won the tournament, notwithstanding the stupid "<Player 1> hasn't won any supertournament" rhetoric that people like you push. Don't like the tournament format? Cry me a river! *rolls eyes*
|Feb-20-15|| ||RookFile: It's fine. The tournament had its rules. This one will be forgotten soon enough. A couple of good games, but this wasn't exactly Zurich 1953.|
|Feb-20-15|| ||vsiva1: I have searched in ZURICH CHESS official web site, as far as I know there is no transparent information on the rules of the tournament. Since this controversy has cropped up, Now, I am asking what is the actual rule declared before the tournament. In fact Anand won both the games against Nakamura in Classical as well as Blitz version. Naka has only one win Vs Anand in Rapid before Final tie break. Therefore, in my opinion 1 tie break can't decide the Zurich Champion. After getting 2 defeats, each one in classic and Blitz Vs Anand and still become Zurich champion by only winning 2 rapids alone against him is not fair and not in line with the Concept of overall performance in all the forms in Zurich chess. This I am saying one to one analysis with Anand and Noka in the tournament. I have nothing against Naka, who is also a good player.|
|Feb-20-15|| ||BadKnight: <chancho: The organizers were absolute idiots for engaging in rule tampering on the last day of the event.
|Feb-20-15|| ||schweigzwang: <notwithstanding the stupid "<Player 1> hasn't won any supertournament" rhetoric that people like you push.>|
When have I ever pushed that? The answer is "never." And those people who have (yes, I have seen their posts)--how are they like me?
With "Niiiiiice" I was neither gloating nor complaining, but I can see how you might have chosen to interpret it in one of those ways.
|Feb-20-15|| ||fgh: <And those people who have (yes, I have seen their posts)--how are they like me?>|
You appear to be deriding Nakamura's tournament victory on the basis of his failure to win any of the sections of the tournament, just like some people dismiss some top players with the usual "he hasn't won any top tournament..." nonsense.
|Feb-20-15|| ||schweigzwang: Sorry, I'm not deriding his victory. I'm having a laugh at the irony. I'm glad he won, though it would have been ok too had he not won. I'm glad he put on 22 more ELO points this month. I don't dismiss Nakamura's accomplishments, which are substantial. Read my post again--I'm a fan.|
You seem to be looking for someone to be angry at. I'm not the right choice.
(Well ... not this time anyway.)
|Feb-20-15|| ||anandrulez: <From chess24.com <Meanwhile, Anand was completely lost in the opening against Aronian... I don't need to tell you that the former World Champion prefers not to show his weapons in rapid games and therefore suffers these mishaps from time to time.>>|
Anand emphasizes more on openings compared to other players. Perhaps its needed to survive at this level for him or you need to be like young and energetic like Carlsen with a drive to find some tricks out of otherwise normal positions. Different styles!
However I hope Anand practices more on calculating different variations OTB as that is the most crucial thing to win a game. Especially the game vs Carlsen and Levon from Grenke, he just got outcalculated.
|Feb-20-15|| ||lainulo: the no. 2 guy finished at the bottom of the list...somethings wrong with the elo rating system.|
Look at wes. He has not finished at the bottom of the cellar all his entire playing life as had magnus and fabiano or all others for that matter...yet, he trails these pretenders to the throne in terms of elo nos. Wes' worst performance was landing in 4th place countless times- that's at the bottom of the top half- not a bad performance at all.
Believe me when I say despite this last place finish, fabiano will be envited again...and again...and again...to bring the zombie back to life to feast on the living...
meanwhile, the true chess messiah is playing in ireland in a non-rated tournament...
Not all is fair in life...life is chess..hence, not all are fair in chess.
|Feb-20-15|| ||lainulo: The organizers of this tourney are all idiots. For how would you label them but the true feebleminded they are unable to sort out the weeds from the valuable crops...the gem from the useless pile of garbage.|
Next time, try to see your optician and have your eyes check and get those needed spectacles. Better still, avail of a laser surgery to remove those cataracts protruding and blocking the proper vision from your eyes.
The same applies to the recent grand prix...You are all morons by your choice of participants. Imbeciles.
|Feb-20-15|| ||kummatmebro: Anand is like spassky
Too much of a gentleman to not play the games out rgegardless of what looney crap the organizers are upto.
|Feb-20-15|| ||bennyvsfischer: grat victory there by kramnik...my favorite!!!|
|Feb-20-15|| ||bennyvsfischer: whats happening to caruana??not lots victory recently exept blitz...|
|Feb-20-15|| ||bobthebob: <After getting 2 defeats, each one in classic and Blitz Vs Anand>|
Blitz had nothing to do with the standings - only the drawing of colors - no different than a coin toss.
Anand came in third in the rapid which counted in the standings and you seem to ignore that Nakamura destroyed Anand in the rapids.
|Feb-20-15|| ||Jim Bartle: I don't understand why people think rapid or blitz results have anything to do with the FIDE rankings. They are meaningless.|
|Feb-20-15|| ||bobthebob: <Jim Bartle>
It has nothing to do with FIDE rankings.
But for this tourney, classic and rapid both determined who won the event.
Blitz had nothing to do with the standings.
|Feb-20-15|| ||SirRuthless: This event was about who got the most points. Classical was scored 2-1-0. Rapid was scored 1-(1/2)-0. At the end Nakamura and Anand had 9 points. They had a playoff (Which Anand agreed to do)Nakamura won the Armageddon game with black and won the Zurich Chess Challenge title. It's really simple.|
|Feb-20-15|| ||Jim Bartle: <It has nothing to do with FIDE rankings.
But for this tourney, classic and rapid both determined who won the event.>|
True. But there are always people, and not just the usual trolls, who bring up rapid results when discussing who are the best players in classical, give importance to rapid results.
As Shirov wrote in "Fire on Board," "Rapid games are played quickly and usually quickly forgotten."
|Feb-20-15|| ||bobthebob: <when discussing who are the best players in classical>|
I see it differently.
People bring up rapid and blitz when discussing who the best players are - not the best players just in classical...e.g. Magnus has the triple crown!
Or they mention that their skill in blitz helps them in classical when talking about why player A beat player B in a classical game when they both had less than 2 minutes for the last 10 moves before a time control.
As for Shirov's quote, the quickly forgotten is also true for many classical games. Who else remembers Yuriev, Botvinnik 1925?
|Feb-20-15|| ||RookFile: Personally, I think that rapid games are good for a few laughs, but little else.|
|Feb-22-15|| ||jsy: < I would like more information about the back-stage "discussions" that led to the Armageddon game for the tournament tie-breaker. If the sponsor(s) did change the rules without notifying the players beforehand, that would be a shame. Players deserve to know the tie break system before the tournament starts.>|
Naka actually clarified this in a post. Apparently at the end of the third round of the rapids, right before Naka defeated Anand to draw even, the organizers announce the rule change which both Naka and Anand agreed to. The organizers did not wait until the Rapid were over to make the change.
Now my "observation": Anand did not appear displeased the least bit at the awards ceremony. Hey, if he granted "permission" to change the rules, all is "good".
|Mar-04-15|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <RookFile: Personally, I think that rapid games are good for a few laughs, but little else.>|
I think that the best quick game chess players in history were Capablanca and Fischer. Yet Fischer had nothing much to say about the seriousness of quick games, and Capablanca disparaged them.
Being good at quick games usually are indicative of inherent chess talent only, but games under classical time controls are the gold standard for the interplay of all of the talent, motivation, hard work, and health of a chess player.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·