< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 80 OF 80 ·
|Oct-06-15|| ||alexmagnus: Still, it becomes unanswered, why the KO competitions suddenly stopped being won by underdogs once they were downgraded from world championships to just candidate qualifiers.|
|Oct-06-15|| ||Shams: <alexmagnus> How could the answer be anything but "small sample size"?|
|Oct-06-15|| ||alexmagnus: <How could the answer be anything but "small sample size"?>|
Thing is, both samples are small. But while of 5 editions of KO world championships, three were won by players seed below 16 (Khalifman 36, Ponomariov 19, Kasimdzhanov 28), <no one> of the six KO world cups was won by someone seed even close to this (lowest are Kamsky 2007 and Karjakin 2015, both as 11th seeds, and both with close-to-WC past achievemnts).
|Oct-06-15|| ||Shams: Again though, you seem to want an explanation beyond it just being a statistical anomaly. Do you think there is or could be one?|
|Oct-07-15|| ||FSR: <HeMateMe: ... How does Norway "stand up to Putin," specifically? No discount ski passes for FSR officers?>|
That is unconscionable! Filthy *&$^% Norwegian bastards!
|Oct-07-15|| ||HeMateMe: What could I have been thinking?|
|Oct-07-15|| ||Dionysius1: As usual the official website has videos for every session except the very last. In this case at http://www.bakuworldcup2015.com/con... it doesnít have a video of the Blitz games. I think I can see how this happens: once the last game of the event has been played everybody goes home including the technical people. But if Iím right how unprofessional is that! Imagine the same happening in soccer or rugby recordings! As far as I was concerned the whole thing was a wonderfully presented event, but spoilt by the lack of a recording of the climactic moments. It all just left a nasty taste in my mouth: not sure I'll bother watching any more of these events.|
|Oct-07-15|| ||sonia91: <Dionysius1> The video of the last day's blitz games is here (Video>Round>Final>Day 5): http://www.bakuworldcup2015.com/con...|
|Oct-07-15|| ||Justin Flint: http://1.vgc.no/drpublish/images/ar...|
|Oct-07-15|| ||Check It Out: booby fisher and Magnus!|
|Oct-07-15|| ||plang: Not Eddie Fisher I hope|
|Oct-07-15|| ||parmetd: Svidler was not able to become the first person to win the event twice.|
|Oct-08-15|| ||wordfunph: "If every tournament was like the World Cup, I think I would be dead within 10 years."|
- Hikaru Nakamura
|Oct-09-15|| ||dumbgai: World Cup winner loses rating points in World Cup.|
|Oct-09-15|| ||alexmagnus: But not by underperformance. He lost 0.6 points, which means performing as well as expected. An underperformance would be a loss of 2.5 points or more.|
|Oct-09-15|| ||dumbgai: <as well as expected>|
Still an unusual case, then. Usually the tournament winner significantly overperforms. Svidler and Eljanov, for instance. The World Cup format is such that even a non-top-10 player can win without overperforming his rating.
|Oct-09-15|| ||Atking: <dumbgai> You have a point. Karjakin shows us that one could win World Cup without performing well. Chess is becoming a terrible sport, art and science relegated to a second or third stance. I will not be proud of that.|
|Oct-10-15|| ||Absentee: <Atking: <dumbgai> You have a point. Karjakin shows us that one could win World Cup without performing well.>|
He performed exactly as expected rating-wise in classical.
<Atking: Chess is becoming a terrible sport, art and science relegated to a second or third stance. I will not be proud of that.>
It's neither art nor science (or a sport, for that matter). But what does this have to do with how players perform?
|Oct-10-15|| ||Atking: <It's neither art nor science (or a sport, for that matter)> that is your point of view <Absentee> not mine. I like to see beautiful and logical games and not a series of drastic error to select a champion.|
As for your first remark <dumbgai> has already answered <The World Cup format is such that even a non-top-10 player can win without overperforming his rating.> a point of view I explicitly share.
|Oct-10-15|| ||alexmagnus: For art, there is chess composition. For science, there are books. Chess <game> is for competition - and competition is all about errors. Without errors you cannot win, and without wind it makes not much sense to compete. |
And there is no more beauty and logic in small errors than in big ones :-)
|Oct-10-15|| ||alexmagnus: Without wins, not without wind lol.|
|Oct-10-15|| ||epistle: wind is air and without air you can't compete because you need to breathe to compete|
|Oct-10-15|| ||Atking: <alexmagnus> One thing to say there is no perfect game and trying to win on counting an error from your opponent. To play a great game you need to build a plan by a logical approach and to transcend usual pattern be creative. "The blunders are all there on the board, waiting to be made." (For if Wind) that doesn't mean Tartakower wasn't trying to play both logically and creatively.|
|Oct-13-15|| ||Sokrates: <Atking> I fully agree with your statements and notions. I am an old romantic fellow and my love for the game was never "win at any cost". Not to depict myself in a holy glance, but I have enjoyed my glorious defeats more than my lucky wins. I stopped playing in clubs many years ago because they are packed with people who don't actually love the game but use it to get rid of their personal complexes. When I saw a young man jump of joy because his opponent - in a totally winning position - blundered a piece - and he was cheered by his pals - I decided that wasn't for me.|
|Oct-13-15|| ||moronovich: <and without wind it makes not much sense to compete.>|
"If you can not take the smell in the kitchen...",you old fart :)
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 80 OF 80 ·