< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
|Oct-21-16|| ||keypusher: <capafischer1: He mate me I guess you don't simply understand 25 points higher in fide with tons more experience is hard to overcome. Remember fide points not USCF points which can fluctuate greatly. Simply put, Nigel is the stronger player.>|
<You CASUALLY left out tons of experience like beating legends like Karpov in a match and even qualifying to challenge Kasparov???>
It's funny when people forget what they just wrote. capafish, don't you imagine short was outrated by more than 25 points when he beat Karpov? Who also had tons more experience?
|Oct-21-16|| ||HeMateMe: Short's a great player, but everyone gets older and loses some zip off of their fastball. In recent years he's lost to 2650 players in medium strength events. It's not a great stretch that Hou could win, though it doesn't seem like that is happening here, in this match. Nigel is in top form and Hou Yifan can't get traction.|
|Oct-21-16|| ||sudoplatov: A pretty short match.|
|Oct-21-16|| ||capafischer1: when Short beat Karpov, he was at the absolute peak of his rating and Karpov had fallen somewhat until his rating rose again when Karpov won the 1994 Linares. Plus, think of all that experience Short has had playing several matches. Right now Hou yifan is not even in top 100. Her last rating is 2649 and after these 2 losses she is around 2644 max. Nigel is 2678.5 live rating.|
|Oct-22-16|| ||Lambda: <capafischer1> When one player is rated 25 points ahead of another, it is not guaranteed that the first player will have beaten Karpov in a match. There are in fact only two people in history who have beaten Karpov in an important match, that's what makes it so impressive a feat. It just happens that one of them is in this particular example.|
|Oct-22-16|| ||Chessinfinite: 6 games is bare minimum for any kind of a 'match' imo, ideal minimum games would be 8, but then 6 games is ok. (and 16 for WCC final is great, but who cares? )|
|Oct-22-16|| ||Absentee: <capafischer1: 25 points isn't much???>|
A difference of 25 points is next to meaningless. It only indicates an expected score of 54%. If the results strictly followed the projections, the match would have to go on for dozens of games before you could see any margin in the score.
|Oct-22-16|| ||capafischer1: This is 25 FIDE points. Not uscf. The k factor is different. It is much harder to gain points in FIDE. The same player can have over 100 points higher in uscf but his FIDE points are 100 points lower|
|Oct-22-16|| ||Absentee: Yeah, FIDE ratings. That's a 54%.|
|Oct-23-16|| ||Conrad93: <Their ratings are about the same, should be close. It would be no disaster to lose to a peer, be it a man or woman.>|
Their ratings are the same, but Short is still much stronger just due to his experience. He has fought much stronger opposition over a longer period of time.
|Oct-23-16|| ||HeMateMe: <Their ratings are the same, but Short is still much stronger just due to his experience. He has fought much stronger opposition over a longer period of time.>|
where is the logic in that? If such experience has tangible value then it would *already* be reflected in Short's rating. Thus we have his present rating, very close to Hou's, and Nigel produced one more victory in six games.
If they had played 16 games, who's to say what would have happened?
|Oct-25-16|| ||diagonal: Nigel Short: <a substantial exchange of e-mails in the middle of the night, trying to ensure that the FIDE Rating Regulations were upheld ("Article 6.5 "Where a match is over a specific number of games, those played after one player has won shall not be rated.") affected my wiring adversely.>|
That means: <Nigel Short managed to win 3.5-2.5 after losing the final round. But he did not lose any rating for his loss — according to the FIDE regulations, any games in a match played after a player has already won/taken an unsurmountable lead will not be rated.> (ChessBase report, scroll down: https://en.chessbase.com/post/hooge...)
|Oct-25-16|| ||HeMateMe: That's odd. Why even play the last game then? FIDE needs an over-haul. Their Board needs to be hauled out back and shot.|
|Oct-25-16|| ||Absentee: This match was held more for show than anything else. There was nothing at stake. But Short sure seems to care about those 3 points!|
|Oct-25-16|| ||RookFile: So why didn't he play the French Defense? He used that pawn formation in multiple games, his opponent hadn't shown yet how to make a dent in it.|
|Oct-25-16|| ||technical win: So much for theory!|
|Oct-26-16|| ||diagonal: <Why even play the last game then?> Exactly! |
If it's an exhibition match (eg. as Kasparov vs. Short, or Kasparov vs. Habu, etc.), it's possible not to register the whole shebang for the FIDE Elo rating list in advance.
Hou, in current October ranking marginally behind the notoriuos Top-100 barrier, loses now 8.5 points instead of only 3.2 from that match, Short "save" 5.3 points, conversely.
FIDE shows no indication why the sixth game is not rated..
https://ratings.fide.com/individual... (Hou Yifan)
|Oct-26-16|| ||diagonal: FIDE lottery: they do apply this odd rule arbitrarily (only on request).|
I just checked a Navara match (traditional Cez Trophy in 2014), versus Nakamura, four games in classical chess:
Navara lost the first, the second, and the fourth game, the third was a draw; sounds brutal, it wasn't that easy otb, anyway, after three games, Nakamura was already winner of the match, regardless the outcome of the fourth and final game.
Despite that fact and contrary their own ruling, FIDE rated it.
https://ratings.fide.com/individual... (Nakamura register)
https://ratings.fide.com/individual... (Navara, scroll down)
|Oct-26-16|| ||Absentee: <diagonal: FIDE lottery: they do apply this odd rule arbitrarily (only on request).>|
Then it's not arbitrary, it's on request.
|Oct-26-16|| ||diagonal: <Absentee> correct, sorry!|
Still, imho the rule is bizarre - and its handling, too.
|Oct-28-16|| ||Chessinfinite: Wow, the last game win by Hou seems to be a good one, so good that it made Nigel deal with its after effects with FIDE.|
|Oct-29-16|| ||Everett: <HeMateMe: above, it reads like guys were saying "Beat her because she's a GURL!" I mean, really...>|
It seems the only reason a 2649 is an interesting draw is because she is a young "gurl," so I guess it works both ways.
|Oct-29-16|| ||HeMateMe: Isn't that about Nigel's rating too, these days?|
|Nov-03-16|| ||Everett: Nigel will always be a draw because of what he's done, which is well-documented, not because of a particular chromosome.|
|Nov-04-16|| ||perfidious: <Everett: Nigel will always be a draw because of what he's done, which is well-documented, not because of a particular chromosome.>|
There was a time when Short's great talent, combined with his extreme youth, was what attracted so much attention to his corner, but his accomplishments over a long career are indeed what bring him renown.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·