|Altibox Norway (2017)|
Altibox Norway Chess 2017 will took place in Stavanger from June 5-17. With an average rating just shy of 2800, this was one of the strongest tournaments in recent memory. The winner, by a full point, was Levon Aronian who finished on 6/9.
A preliminary blitz event Altibox Norway (Blitz) (2017) took place June 4th, with World Champion Magnus Carlsen winning by two whole points.
Players: Carlsen, So, Caruana, Kramnik, Vachier-Lagrave, Nakamura, Anand, Aronian, Karjakin, and Giri.
Time Control: Start with 100 min; add 50 minutes at move 40; add 15 minutes and 30s/move at move 60.
Tiebreak protocol: (A) Sonneborn-Berger points (B) Most wins (C) Most wins with black (D) Drawing of lots.
Live games: http://live.norwaychess.com
Official site: http://norwaychess.no/en/2017-2/
| page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 45
| page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 45
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 31 OF 31 ·
|Jun-18-17|| ||AylerKupp: <<alex magnus> I for one use the traditional formula of Arpad Elo himself and not the FIDE tables when calculating the TPR>|
Hmmm, where did you get that formula, I've never seen it before. No criticism, merely curiosity. In his book, "The Rating of Chessplayers, Past and Present" first published in 1978, Dr. Elo indicates that the "performance rating" is calculated the same way that FIDE uses, namely
Rp = Rc + D(P) where
Rp = The performance rating
Rc = The average rating of the player's opponents
D(P) = he difference based on the percentage score which is obtained from the curve or table.
I take the latter to mean a table like Table 8.1a in https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.... which converts a fractional score (points scored / games played) into a rating difference. And he then caveats it by indicating that the same formula can be used for <ratings calculation> on a <periodic basis> which makes no sense for a TPR since a TPR calculation is by definition, applicable to a single tournament. So Dr. Elo uses different terminology than what is being used today; who knows what he was actually referring to?
For ratings calculations I personally use an expanded table based on the normal distribution with standard deviation = 2000/7 with rating differences ranging from -1000 to +1000 so that each rating difference has a unique scoring probability. This requires that each scoring probability be calculated to 5 significant digits. The advantage is that for ratings calculations no searching is needed, the table can be indexed directly from the rating difference. For TPR calculations the conversion from fractional score is then the reverse, which unfortunately does require searching since the fractional score may not correspond exactly to any of the D(P)'s.
Then again, Dr. Elo first came up with his system in 1960 and, since the book was published in 1978, a lot of water might have gone under the bridge. For example, in his book he says that he used a standard deviation = 200 to correspond to the accepted class interval but, if you do this, you don't get the values used in FIDE's Table 8.1b that FIDE uses to calculate player ratings. So I use SD = 2000/7 (thanks, <Tiggler>!)just like FIDE apparently does.
Finally, a TPR is a theoretical calculations which can't be checked by actual measurements. All we know is what a player's expected score in a tournament was based on his and his opponents' pre-tournament rating, and his actual score. Then the issue is how to convert that scoring percentage to some number in the range of pre-tournament ratings that, as a necessary but not sufficient condition, shows a positive difference between the player's TPR and his pre-tournament rating if the player did well in the tournament and a negative difference between the player's TPR and his pre-tournament rating if the player did not do well in the tournament. And there are many ways of doing that. Who's to say what's "right" since there is no way to measure the calculations' accuracy?
|Jun-18-17|| ||AylerKupp: <alexmagnus> Updated TPR Differences (part 1 of 2)|
My previous post was already long (as usual) but I wanted to update my earlier post and show how your formula compares to the other formulas I listed. The first 3 columns are as before and the last column is the TPR calculation using your formula:
After round 7:
Anand, Viswanathan <2743> <2737> <2724> <2748>
Aronian, Levon <2958> <2969> <3037> <2957>
Carlsen, Magnus <2691> <2682> <2646> <2691>
Caruana, Fabiano <2750> <2744> <2745> <2746>
Giri, Anish <2849> <2845> <2952> <2850>
Karjakin, Sergei <2744> <2738> <2712> <2749>
Kramnik, Vladimir <2851> <2857> <2878> <2846>
Nakamura, Hikaru <2899> <2910> <2872> <2901>
So, Wesley <2797> <2797> <2791> <2796>
Vachier-Lagrave, Maxime <2693> <2684> <2731> <2695>
After round 8:
Anand, Viswanathan <2749> <2744> <2738> <2754>
Aronian, Levon <2935> <2946> <2988> <2935>
Carlsen, Magnus <2749> <2744> <2735> <2749>
Caruana, Fabiano <2752> <2747> <2748> <2752>
Giri, Anish <2843> <2849> <2929> <2844>
Karjakin, Sergei <2707> <2699> <2657> <2710>
Kramnik, Vladimir <2799> <2799> <2804> <2796>
Nakamura, Hikaru <2888> <2897> <2859> <2888>
So, Wesley <2796> <2796> <2791> <2796>
Vachier-Lagrave, Maxime <2754> <2749> <2804> <2753>
|Jun-18-17|| ||AylerKupp: <alexmagnus> Updated TPR Differences (part 2 of 2)|
As you can see, your calculations and mine agree to within 5 rating points. So we are either both reasonably right or both reasonably wrong, and the differences might be entirely due to rounding errors and/or the number of significant digits we each use in our calculations. As I indicated above, I round all my calculations to 5 significant digits, although I'm not sure if this is right.
As far as your formula failing when a player either wins or loses all his games, I've heard that before, most commonly in respect to Fischer's 11-0 score in the 1963-1964 US Championship. And I could never understand that since none of the formulas I was familiar with exhibited that behavior. But now I have one. :-) With FIDE's formula a perfect score results in a player's TPR being 800 points higher than their pre-tournament rating, and a zero score results in a player's TPR being 800 points lower than their pre-tournament rating. It may be that your formula and FIDE's/my formula diverge greatly as the rating differences and/or the scoring percentage tends to zero or perfection, but I won't bother to consider that now since in practice that seldom if ever happen at the top level.
|Jun-18-17|| ||ChessHigherCat: <tpstar: Tolush-Flohr (Kiev, 1944)> Thanks Tony, great research and deciphering/reconstruction!|
|Jun-18-17|| ||tuttifrutty: <As you can see, your calculations and mine agree to within 5 rating points. So we are either both reasonably right or both reasonably wrong, and the differences might be entirely due to rounding errors and/or the number of significant digits we each use in our calculations. As I indicated above, I round all my calculations to 5 significant digits, although I'm not sure if this is right.>|
Two mathematician can't get it right??? Come on...please get your act together. There's no room for error...or your spacecraft will blow up during take off...
My bet is alexmagnus got it right...he has been doing it for life...no question about that.
Well, well, well...will the mumbo jumbo continue? We'll wait and see.
|Jun-18-17|| ||tuttifrutty: Hmmmm....
Giri's previous coach was GM Tukmakov--- results...all draws.
Wesley's coach at this moment is GM Tukmakov...results...all draws.
Coincidence??? You tell me.
|Jun-18-17|| ||AylerKupp: <<tuttifrutty> Well, well, well...will the mumbo jumbo continue? We'll wait and see.> |
Yes, the mumbo jumbo will continue as long as I wish it to continue. And there is nothing you can do about it. So there is no need for you to wait and see., unless you have nothing better to do. And you clearly don't.
And, BTW, there is no right or wrong. But you obviously didn't understand that either.
|Jun-19-17|| ||perfidious: When <Glenn> wishes such mumbo-jumbo to carry on, he has no trouble subjecting all and sundry to it, as he has done in various guises across the years.|
Iggydumb is the antidote for that.
|Jun-19-17|| ||Sokrates: Also my thanks to <tpstar> for this little pearl of a combination. Unfortunately undetected by Flohr himself, but nevertheless beautiful.|
|Jun-19-17|| ||Rama: I estimate TPR by asking: What rating would neither gain nor lose points with my given result? The formula 16(W-L) 4% (R*-R) can then be solved for R*, the rating which balances the equation. (That is the USCF formula as I remember it from the 80's)|
|Jun-19-17|| ||activechess55: Aronian has been terrific form this year. His play reminded his fans of the Aronian of the old. One of the trademarks of his play is the lusty finishing which was in ample evidence during this event. Congrats Aronian!|
He was among the leaders, in early phases, in the candidates for the past few cycles. Unfortunately, towards the end he ran out of steam. I don't think, he is a choker. Could be exhaustion issues. Considering that candidates happens to be a long event, it wouldn't be a surprise at all.
Whatever may the reason, I do wish Aronian qualifies as challenger. If he continues his fine form into the 2018's, a keen tussle for world title would be on cards.
|Jun-19-17|| ||john barleycorn: <activechess55: ... Could be exhaustion issues. Considering that candidates happens to be a long event, it wouldn't be a surprise at all. ...>|
It is a long event for every participant.
|Jun-19-17|| ||AylerKupp: <<Rama> The formula 16(W-L) 4% (R*-R) can then be solved for R*, the rating which balances the equation.>|
Thanks, I did know this one which I recognized after solving for R*. This is the (somewhat) well known "algorithm of 400" which is used by some organizations and was probably used by the USCF in the 1980s. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_r.... It can be expressed as:
* If you win a game, your TPR will be the opponent's rating + 400
* If you lose a game, your TPR will be the opponent's rating - 400
* If you draw a game, your TPR will be the opponent's rating.
This equates to:
R* = RA + 400(W – L) / N, where:
R* = Performance rating
RA = Average of opponents ratings
W = Number of wins
L = Number of losses
N = Number of games played
In your formula I think that it should be –4%(R*-R) instead of 4%(R*-R) (because that makes it come out right), and 16(W-L) should be divided by N. Other than that, your memory is pretty good!
And for comparison, here is how "my" method (1st column) compares with yours (2nd column) and the difference (3rd column) after round 8:
Anand, Viswanathan <2749> <2748> <+1>
Aronian, Levon <2935> <2948> <-13>
Carlsen, Magnus <2749> <2743> <+6>
Caruana, Fabiano <2752> <2746> <+6>
Giri, Anish <2843> <2850> <-7>
Karjakin, Sergei <2707> <2699> <+8>
Kramnik, Vladimir <2799> <2796> <+3>
Nakamura, Hikaru <2888> <2899> <-11>
So, Wesley <2796> <2796> <0>
Vachier-Lagrave, Maxime <2754> <2747> <+7>
Pretty close. And, again, since TPR is a hypothetical number, there is no way determine which value, if any, is the correct value since it can't be measured.
|Jun-19-17|| ||AylerKupp: <<john barleycorn> It is a long event for every participant>|
Yes it a long event with a lot of stress given the importance of the outcome. But remember that in the past the Candidates Tournament was often twice or near twice the current number of 14 games. And in those days they had adjournments instead of continuing to play with increments, although I wouldn't know which is more grueling, adjournments (with help) on their days off or continuing to play until the game is over. And today's prize fund is so much larger than in the past so I'm sure that increases the stress in today's tournament.
|Jun-19-17|| ||john barleycorn: <AylerKupp: <<john barleycorn> It is a long event for every participant>|
Yes it a long event ...>
<AylerKupp> I was referring to <activechess55> making it look like it was a long event only for one player to explain a certain outcome:-)
|Jun-19-17|| ||BOSTER: <John barleycorn>:< It's a long event for every participant>.
Time increment was invented by Fischer because chess world has problem with mechanical clock.
But now, when we have digital clock, increment gives an advantage to players who are better in blitz even when we play classical games.
So, I'd say that increment should be forbidden.|
|Jun-19-17|| ||nok: Increment makes sense for the last session, or you could lose queen endings on time.|
|Jun-19-17|| ||crwynn: Aronian's victory must be among the more impressive tournament performances in the game's history. To come in ahead of the world champion, his predecessor and at least 2 serious title contenders, a full point ahead of a field with absolutely no weak spots...that is amazing.|
|Jun-19-17|| ||crwynn: According to this site anyway, the lowest-rated of Aronian's 9 opponents was Sergey Karjakin at 2781 - what a fish amirite?|
|Jun-20-17|| ||AylerKupp: <<crwynn> According to this site anyway, the lowest-rated of Aronian's 9 opponents was Sergey Karjakin at 2781.>|
Yes, you are right. And according to this and other sites the lowest rated opponent of each of the players in this tournament was also Karjakin. Coincidence? I think not. But I could be wrong.
And, of course, this "fish" recently competed for the WCC title after winning the Candidates tournament, and held the defending world champion to a draw in the classical time control portion of the match. If this is a "fish", then I would love to be able to swim with the fishes. Alas, when I try, I sink like a stone. So sad.
|Jun-20-17|| ||activechess55: |
<john barleycorn: It is a long event for every participant.>
Sorry, if I gave the impression that it’s a long event for Aronian only. My original intention was to suggest brain fatigue as a possible cause. So that I could offer some (unsolicited) advice to avoid the same!
How does one avoid brain fatigue?
1. By improving oxygenation: Poor oxygenation is one of the causes. Poor oxygenation is in turn caused by deficit of salts like zinc and iron or Vitamin B12/B6. This problem can be addressed by loading the diet with these supplements.
2. By ensuring adequate blood sugar levels.
3. By ensuring adequate stimulation: Of course, this cause is dismissed, out of hands, for a chess player. Modern chess exercises brain to such an extent that inadequate stimulation is ruled out altogether.
I was about to offer above-mentioned prescription. But I stopped short! First, I realized that I am an ordinary kibitzer and him a super-GM! I realized, moreover, that he won two super-GM events in recent times!
After reading my latest post, one might say, I offered the advice anyway!
The status of super-GM doesn’t make a chess player immune from unsolicited advice, however. Considering his tournament standing, Karjakin could get unsolicited advice. In fact, he might get a bagful of them. And poor Karjakin is in no position to protest. My heart goes out to him.
(Note: Above article is meant as a joke. Not to be taken seriously.)
|Jun-20-17|| ||Absentee: <activechess55:
How does one avoid brain fatigue?>
4. Don't be jet-lagged.
|Jun-20-17|| ||BOSTER: <crwynn>:<Aronian's victory must be
among the more impressive tour performannce>. I don't want to undermine Aronian's great performance, but I don't think that this tour as a whole
represents a step forward in the development of chess creativity like
St.Petersburg 1914, or Zurich 1953.|
|Jun-20-17|| ||not not: These guys should play each other every month, the last one being replaced by next one on rating list. Or perhaps every two months. It would make chess GREAT AGAIN!|
|Jun-20-17|| ||BOSTER: < activechess55> :<I stopped short>.
How dare you <stop short> with ordinary kibitzer.
You stole this move from Frank Costanza (Seinfeld).|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 31 OF 31 ·
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 |
World Chess Championships |
Opening Explorer |
Guess the Move |
Game Collections |
ChessBookie Game |
Chessgames Challenge |
privacy notice |
Copyright 2001-2017, Chessgames Services LLC