|Ding Liren - Gelfand (2015)|
Played in Wenzhou, China 16-19 July 2015.
| page 1 of 1; 4 games
TIP: You can make the above ads go away by registering a free account!
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Jul-21-15|| ||dumbgai: There's also the advantage of playing at home for Ding. Not just China, but his home city of Wenzhou.|
|Jul-21-15|| ||AzingaBonzer: <dumbgai>
So are you saying there's some sort of psychological advantage? It's not like there's some actual "home court advantage" in chess like there is in basketball, for example.
|Jul-21-15|| ||dumbgai: There are several factors that could make a difference. Maybe Gelfand had traveled all the way to China only shortly before the match began, and was jet lagged? I know from personal experience that I feel miserable during the first few days when traveling to another continent.|
Wenzhou, located in the southeastern part of China, has a hot a humid climate. Perhaps Ding was more accustomed to it than Gelfand, who is originally from Belarus. Ding probably had family and friends there to support him too, so there's the psychological factor that you mentioned. I know I'd be in a better mood if I was with my family, compared to if I traveled all alone to a foreign country.
This is all speculation, of course. It's quite plausible that Ding is simply the better player right now.
|Jul-21-15|| ||Whitemouse: ...as always the younger player is the better. In my opinon if this match had even ten games, perhaps the score would be 8-2. At 20 or 21 talented players will still be progressing. Like Kasparov in his first match against Karpov.|
|Jul-21-15|| ||perfidious: <Whitemouse: ...as always the younger player is the better....>|
Are you, perchance, familiar with such matches as Euwe - Alekhine World Championship Rematch (1937) or Tal - Botvinnik World Championship Return Match (1961)? The older player did not come off too badly in those!
|Jul-21-15|| ||dumbgai: Or Kasparov - Short World Championship Match (1993), Kasparov - Anand World Championship Match (1995), Karpov - Kamsky FIDE World Championship (1996), etc.|
|Jul-21-15|| ||metatron2: Well perfidious & dumbgai, in your examples the older winners were also the significantly stronger player in their match (apart from the Tal-Botvinik match maybe), and Whitemouse did say that they should have invited an older player but with higher rating to compensate for his age..|
It is undeniable that younger players have more energy than older players, and the age difference here: 22 yo vs 47 yo is very significant without doubt.
If the pure chess level of the two was about equal, then I'd say that without doubt Ding is was the clear favorite. However, Ding is pretty new in the mid 2700 level, while Gelfand was top 3 player back in the early 90s.. So I'd say that Gelfand probably still has better knowledge and understanding in openings, endgames, etc. in 2-3 yrs if Ding stays at mid-2700 (or improves), then that gap won't be significant anymore.
In any case, if I had to estimate who is stronger today, I'd still go for Ding here, since I don't think that Gelfand's understanding advantage compensates enough for the energy differences. 47 is quite an age, he would have retired long ago in case we were talking about physical sports instead of chess, and top level chess requires high energy levels as well, without it, players tend to do much more mistakes, think less clearly, etc.
|Jul-21-15|| ||dumbgai: <in your examples the older winners were also the significantly stronger player in their match>|
Yes, that's the whole point. A stronger old player will beat a weaker young player, just as a stronger young player will beat a weaker old player. It's about ability, not age.
|Jul-21-15|| ||dumbgai: Now, whether age is inherently a strength...that's a different issue.|
|Jul-21-15|| ||metatron2: <Yes, that's the whole point. A stronger old player will beat a weaker young player>|
What kind of point is that? of course that a 75 yo player rated 2400 would beat a young 1700 player.
The argument here was that their chess level is about equal, but Ding had the age advantage and hence it was a mismatch. As I said, I don't think that was exactly the case, since Gelfand probably still has better understanding, but not enough to compensate for the age difference.
|Jul-21-15|| ||kellmano: <metatron2: <Yes, that's the whole point. A stronger old player will beat a weaker young player>
What kind of point is that? of course that a 75 yo player rated 2400 would beat a young 1700 player.|
The argument here was that their chess level is about equal, but Ding had the age advantage and hence it was a mismatch>
you what? they were at the same level but one had an advantage and so won? You must have a strange (and unquantifiable) definition of 'chess level'
|Jul-21-15|| ||metatron2: Try to concentrate pls <kellmano>, I said that "the argument here was", not that I think that.|
Here is a post that probably started the debate:
<Whitemouse: <fisayo123> I mean with equal elos and the age gap. Gelfand actually weaker than Ding Liren. They should have invited old player but higher rating to compensate the age...>
|Jul-21-15|| ||kellmano: <metatron> if you say that someone's point is not reasonable because the argument is X in response to that someone, I think it's reasonable for another to assume that you are supporting that position. Just say 'I think their argument was X' and in the future this won't happen.|
<whitemouse> does seem to be suggesting what I was responding to in that excerpt you gave. To say an older player loses to a younger one not because they are worse, but because they are older involves a necessary commitment to being able to measure how good someone is at chess other than their moves. Change 'is' to 'was' and no-one will object to such arguments. Well, perhaps some will, but not me as it's clearly entering the realm of subjectivity.
|Jul-21-15|| ||metatron2: <kellmano: <metatron> if you say that someone's point is not reasonable because the argument is X in response to that someone, I think it's reasonable for another to assume that you are supporting that position.>|
Since things are not always black and white, it is better just to read a few posts back instead of jumping to conclusions, before joining a discussion.
I didn't say that dumbgai's point is "not reasonable" (on the contrary, I said that it was trivial), just that it was not relevant to Whitemouse' argument.
I agreed with Whitemouse that age is a serious factor in chess, but did not support his claim that Gelfand and Ding has the same chess level (not including Ding's age advantage), since currently they have the same rating, because: (a) rating represents performance considering <all> the factors, <including> the age, (b) rating should be measured over time, and (c) at a given moment, it is difficult to compare players which level is not stable, i.e. a very young player who is probably still improving with a player who's age indicates that he probably started to decline (even if not significantly yet).
Of course pure chess understanding is not quantifiable, and even if there were some complex tests that could give indications, Gelfand and Ding didn't take them.. I just said that if I had to <estimate> I'd say that at the moment Gelfand probably has better chess understanding than Ding.
There is nothing special about this estimation. It is well known that over time, you get more knowledge and experience, but your energy levels, calculation power, memory, etc. declines.
There is no way to quantify it, but we all know that at some point, the decline in "raw strength" surpasses the knowledge and experience compensation (unfortunately..).
|Jul-21-15|| ||perfidious: <metatron2: Well perfidious & dumbgai, in your examples the older winners were also the significantly stronger player in their match (apart from the Tal-Botvinik match maybe)....>|
How do you propose to prove this point in the examples I offered?
You state in a subsequent post that <Since things are not always black and white....>, yet in the very next sentence/paragraph come up with <I didn't say that dumbgai's point is "not reasonable" (on the contrary, I said that it was trivial), just that it was not relevant to Whitemouse' argument.>
So, as determined by you, the arbiter of what may (or may not) be entered into evidence, you propose to blatantly use evidence which undermines views you do not wish to entertain and trumpet forth that which coincides with your predetermined conclusion?
This is not, in any sense of the word, reasoned debate: it is a style of argument which belongs over at the Rogoff page, whence it would fit in right well with certain posters' tendencious maunderings.
|Jul-21-15|| ||plang: It seems like every time Gelfand loses a game he is written off - not sure why.|
He has bounced back plenty of times - would be surprised if he doesn't again.
A 3-1 result in a 4 game match is hardly a big deal. It is quite possible that Gelfand took risks in the last game attempting to even the match.
Congratulations to Ding Liren for winning but I am not going to overreact.
|Jul-21-15|| ||perfidious: To paraphrase Earl Weaver's comment on the 1975 Orioles late in the season: Gelfand has crawled out of more coffins than Bela Lugosi.|
|Jul-21-15|| ||metatron2: <perfidious> not sure I understood your claims there, but I think that my points were pretty clear:|
Do you disagree that:
Kasparov was better than Short and Anand at the time of their matches, or that Karpov was stronger than Kamsky, or that Alekhine was stronger than Euwe?
We are talking about the greatest players of all time there vs not (in 95 Anand wasn't considered among the greatest, and obviously not close to Kasparov's strength).
You disagree that player's raw strength declines with age until a point that it surpasses their experience and understanding advantage?
If you don't disagree with the above, then we have no argument here.
The rest that I wrote about was (as I said), my estimation to Gelfand/Ding relative strengths. Nothing more than an opinion.
|Jul-21-15|| ||plang: <The argument here was that their chess level is about equal, but Ding had the age advantage and hence it was a mismatch.>|
I would argue that Gelfand's rating is so high partly because of all the knowledge he has and Ding Lirens rating is high partly because of his youth and energy. Unless you feel that one is over-rated or the other is under-rated then they should be evenly matched.
|Jul-21-15|| ||Everett: Gelfand has proved that one can be more generous with points the older one gets. Good on him!|
|Jul-21-15|| ||dumbgai: I just read the Chessbase report on this match that said Gelfand requested a rest day following game 2, but was denied. So maybe he was suffering from illness or fatigue, which contributed to him losing games 3 and 4. Or maybe he simply wanted an extra day to prepare. We'll never know.|
|Jul-21-15|| ||Everett: Too much MSG!|
|Jul-21-15|| ||plang: Madison Square Garden?!|
|Jul-22-15|| ||metatron2: <plang: I would argue that Gelfand's rating is so high partly because of all the knowledge he has and Ding Lirens rating is high partly because of his youth and energy>|
Well, that was one of my arguments as well, here: <.. because: (a) rating represents performance considering <all> the factors, <including> the age, (b) ..>, against Whitemouse' rating assumption.
<plang: Unless you feel that one is over-rated or the other is under-rated>
I explained why I felt that that was the case here, while stating that it wasn't an established evaluation, just my feeling of course..
|Jul-23-15|| ||Everett: <Jul-21-15 Everett: Too much MSG!|
member plang: Madison Square Garden?!>
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply.
Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous,
and 100% free--plus, it
entitles you to features otherwise unavailable.
Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should
Please observe our posting guidelines:
- No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
- No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
- No personal attacks against other members.
- Nothing in violation of United States law.
- No posting personal information of members.
See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.
NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page.
This forum is for this specific tournament and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or
this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.|
your profile |
Premium Membership |
Kibitzer's Café |
Biographer's Bistro |
new kibitzing |
Tournament Index |
Player Directory |
Notable Games |
World Chess Championships |
Opening Explorer |
Guess the Move |
Game Collections |
ChessBookie Game |
Chessgames Challenge |
privacy notice |
Copyright 2001-2018, Chessgames Services LLC