chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

TOURNAMENT STANDINGS
Altibox Norway Tournament

Levon Aronian6/9(+3 -0 =6)[games]
Hikaru Nakamura5/9(+2 -1 =6)[games]
Vladimir Kramnik5/9(+3 -2 =4)[games]
Anish Giri4.5/9(+2 -2 =5)[games]
Wesley So4.5/9(+0 -0 =9)[games]
Fabiano Caruana4.5/9(+1 -1 =7)[games]
Maxime Vachier-Lagrave4/9(+1 -2 =6)[games]
Viswanathan Anand4/9(+1 -2 =6)[games]
Magnus Carlsen4/9(+1 -2 =6)[games]
Sergey Karjakin3.5/9(+0 -2 =7)[games]

Chessgames.com Chess Event Description
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  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves YearEvent/LocaleOpening
1. M Vachier-Lagrave vs Anand ½-½442017Altibox NorwayB12 Caro-Kann Defense
2. Carlsen vs W So ½-½632017Altibox NorwayC50 Giuoco Piano
3. Nakamura vs A Giri 1-0672017Altibox NorwayD80 Grunfeld
4. Kramnik vs Karjakin ½-½442017Altibox NorwayC50 Giuoco Piano
5. Aronian vs Caruana ½-½582017Altibox NorwayD27 Queen's Gambit Accepted, Classical
6. W So vs M Vachier-Lagrave ½-½432017Altibox NorwayE60 King's Indian Defense
7. Caruana vs Carlsen ½-½422017Altibox NorwayC84 Ruy Lopez, Closed
8. A Giri vs Karjakin ½-½762017Altibox NorwayD37 Queen's Gambit Declined
9. Nakamura vs Aronian ½-½602017Altibox NorwayD38 Queen's Gambit Declined, Ragozin Variation
10. Anand vs Kramnik 0-1602017Altibox NorwayC78 Ruy Lopez
11. Aronian vs A Giri ½-½532017Altibox NorwayD38 Queen's Gambit Declined, Ragozin Variation
12. Karjakin vs Anand ½-½332017Altibox NorwayC67 Ruy Lopez
13. M Vachier-Lagrave vs Caruana ½-½512017Altibox NorwayC42 Petrov Defense
14. Kramnik vs W So ½-½712017Altibox NorwayC53 Giuoco Piano
15. Carlsen vs Nakamura ½-½402017Altibox NorwayB90 Sicilian, Najdorf
16. Nakamura vs M Vachier-Lagrave 1-0332017Altibox NorwayB90 Sicilian, Najdorf
17. W So vs Karjakin ½-½712017Altibox NorwayC50 Giuoco Piano
18. Kramnik vs Nakamura ½-½492017Altibox NorwayB50 Sicilian
19. A Giri vs Anand 1-0332017Altibox NorwayA21 English
20. Aronian vs Carlsen 1-0352017Altibox NorwayD45 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav
21. Caruana vs Kramnik ½-½532017Altibox NorwayC65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense
22. M Vachier-Lagrave vs Aronian  ½-½382017Altibox NorwayC89 Ruy Lopez, Marshall
23. Carlsen vs A Giri ½-½412017Altibox NorwayC50 Giuoco Piano
24. Anand vs W So ½-½332017Altibox NorwayC50 Giuoco Piano
25. Karjakin vs Caruana ½-½732017Altibox NorwayC42 Petrov Defense
 page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 45  PGN Download
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2)  
 

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 31 OF 31 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Jun-18-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  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
Premium Chessgames Member
  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
Premium Chessgames Member
  ChessHigherCat: <tpstar: Tolush-Flohr (Kiev, 1944)> Thanks Tony, great research and deciphering/reconstruction!
Jun-18-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  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
Premium Chessgames Member
  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
Premium Chessgames Member
  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
Premium Chessgames Member
  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
Premium Chessgames Member
  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
Premium Chessgames Member
  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
Premium Chessgames Member
  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
Premium Chessgames Member
  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
Premium Chessgames Member
  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).
Jun-23-17  morfishine: F <BarleyCorn>

*****

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 31)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 31 OF 31 ·  Later Kibitzing>
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 login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No posting personal information of members.
Blow the Whistle 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.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!


home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | advertising | contact us
Copyright 2001-2017, Chessgames Services LLC