|World Cup (2017)|
128 of the world's strongest players meet in Tbilisi, Georgia to compete in a knockout event, starting on Sep 3rd, through to Sep 27th. Top seeds include Carlsen, So, Caruana, Kramnik, Aronian, Mamedyarov, Nakamura, Vachier-Lagrave, Anand, Ding Liren, Grischuk, Karjakin, Giri, Wei Yi, Svidler, et al.
Official Site: http://tbilisi2017.fide.com
Pairings Tree: http://tbilisi2017.fide.com/wp-cont...
Wikipedia page (including results): Wikipedia article: Chess World Cup 2017
FIDE World Cup Semifinals: So vs Ding
FIDE World Cup Semifinals: Aronian vs Vachier-Lagrave
| page 1 of 17; games 1-25 of 411
|1. Areshchenko vs A Demchenko
||1-0||76||2017||World Cup||B51 Sicilian, Canal-Sokolsky (Rossolimo) Attack|
|2. Ding Liren vs M Haddouche
||1-0||46||2017||World Cup||E60 King's Indian Defense|
|3. Li Tian Yeoh vs Anand
||0-1||66||2017||World Cup||B22 Sicilian, Alapin|
|4. Grischuk vs E El Gindy
||1-0||47||2017||World Cup||C24 Bishop's Opening|
|5. Changren Dai vs Kramnik
||0-1||51||2017||World Cup||C95 Ruy Lopez, Closed, Breyer|
|6. A Bachmann vs Dreev
||0-1||41||2017||World Cup||B13 Caro-Kann, Exchange|
|7. K Piorun vs Yifan Hou
|| ||½-½||40||2017||World Cup||E06 Catalan, Closed, 5.Nf3|
|8. L Bruzon Batista vs D Anton Guijarro
||1-0||45||2017||World Cup||C67 Ruy Lopez|
|9. D Dubov vs D Fridman
|| ||½-½||36||2017||World Cup||E04 Catalan, Open, 5.Nf3|
|10. R Rapport vs E Cordova
||1-0||33||2017||World Cup||E01 Catalan, Closed|
|11. S Sevian vs Nisipeanu
|| ||½-½||21||2017||World Cup||C42 Petrov Defense|
|12. A Tari vs D Howell
|| ||½-½||29||2017||World Cup||C45 Scotch Game|
|13. E Inarkiev vs M Mchedlishvili
||1-0||29||2017||World Cup||B09 Pirc, Austrian Attack|
|14. D Sengupta vs Wang Hao
|| ||½-½||34||2017||World Cup||C50 Giuoco Piano|
|15. Bu Xiangzhi vs D Flores
||1-0||23||2017||World Cup||A04 Reti Opening|
|16. A Giri vs N Dzagnidze
||1-0||67||2017||World Cup||A27 English, Three Knights System|
|17. Adams vs T Batchuluun
|| ||½-½||57||2017||World Cup||C50 Giuoco Piano|
|18. Eljanov vs Lenderman
||0-1||57||2017||World Cup||E32 Nimzo-Indian, Classical|
|19. J Cori vs G Jones
||1-0||97||2017||World Cup||E60 King's Indian Defense|
|20. I Kovalenko vs M Kravtsiv
||0-1||71||2017||World Cup||C89 Ruy Lopez, Marshall|
|21. F Vallejo Pons vs M Karthikeyan
||1-0||64||2017||World Cup||E10 Queen's Pawn Game|
|22. Li Chao vs L Krysa
|| ||½-½||113||2017||World Cup||D25 Queen's Gambit Accepted|
|23. A Pourramezanali vs Yu Yangyi
|| ||½-½||71||2017||World Cup||A45 Queen's Pawn Game|
|24. L Lenic vs Fressinet
|| ||½-½||44||2017||World Cup||D52 Queen's Gambit Declined|
|25. Y Kuzubov vs S Zhigalko
|| ||½-½||54||2017||World Cup||D32 Queen's Gambit Declined, Tarrasch|
| page 1 of 17; games 1-25 of 411
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 102 OF 102 ·
|Sep-19-17|| ||Pedro Fernandez: <Tabanus>! Were you lost? Where is <WinKing>? Do you know?|
My first three friends here: <MarmotPFL>, <WinKing> and <Tabanus>. After my great friend <AylerKupp>.
|Sep-19-17|| ||jith1207: <Can you imagine to organisers and sponsors faces when their prize catch was knocked out in round 3>|
Karma Kovalyov struck 'em hard for their Gypsygate on the same day in round 3.
|Sep-19-17|| ||Pedro Fernandez: Also <Kwid> and the "Gallo Pataruco" <Cro777>. BTW, this two guys will be undefeated vs any other couple in any other club, I guarantee it!|
|Sep-19-17|| ||jith1207: I could not dust off the evaluations, did Wesley So miss some significant advantage by not playing 41. Rxb3!?|
To be fair, a difficult move to discover, when the mind is set for a draw in sight. A move that might meander to a drawish result or might take more efforts and hours to get a victory. But that's how World cups are won or lost.
|Sep-19-17|| ||Domdaniel: <jphamlore> - < Aronian's amazingly creative. But he can't beat both MVL and MVL's computer in a line of the Exchange Gruenfeld that MVL specializes in.>|
True. If he gets White again he should revert to playing 1.Nf3, and avoid transposing to regular d4 openings.
|Sep-19-17|| ||Tiggler: A very interested onlooker tomorrow will be Kramnik. The result he does not want is another draw between So and Ding. If So wins then Kramnik can withdraw from Isle of Man and coast into the Candidates on rating. If So loses he can do the same unless So plays in the Isle of Man. If So and Ding draw, then he has to wait for their playoff, because if So loses that then Kramnik will need to gain 8 rating points before the November ratings list.|
|Sep-19-17|| ||Tiggler: <jith1207: I could not dust off the evaluations, did Wesley So miss some significant advantage by not playing 41. Rxb3!?>|
I'm guessing that he saw it and decided it was not enough, and the alternative was a quick draw.
|Sep-19-17|| ||BOSTER: So had already withdraw from Isle of Man. So Kramnik can go there.|
|Sep-19-17|| ||Chuckles: <Tiggler> <If So loses he can do the same unless So plays in the Isle of Man.> If So loses tomorrow, his rating goes to 2783. If he then doesn't play for the rest of the year, the total of his 12 monthly ratings is <33662>. Average: 2805.17.|
If Kramnik doesn't play for the rest of the year, the total of his 12 monthly ratings is <33663>. Average: 2805.25.
The rating qualifier creates some <very> strong incentives for players to drop out of an event or play a few extra games to try to manipulate their rating.
|Sep-19-17|| ||Boomie: <beatgiant: <Boomie>
(In response to whether you count FIDE knockout champions) <No.> |
Then doesn't that somewhat undermine your earlier statement that <No matter what the process, the best players will find a way to win it>?>
I was hoping nobody would notice. Heh.
Those KO tourneys don't count because so many top players didn't play. But it does seem that KO's offer the best chance for the underdogs.
|Sep-19-17|| ||LameJokes55: |
So Vs Ding 40...Nb3 41.Rb3 ab3 42.gf6 gf6 43.Rg7 threatens 44.Rc7. Black can't allow Rc7, since b6 pawn becomes weak. If black defends with 43...Ra7, f6 falls by force. Now, white has a pawn for exchange, marauding knight at d5, solid pawn chain and black pawns at b3 as well as c7 are constantly threatened.
Black rooks can't harass white king, since there is nice shelter on queen-side. Even exchange down, white doesn't seem to be at any risk at all. Whereas black got to work very hard to draw the game.
|Sep-19-17|| ||Tiggler: <Chuckles> Yes, and if So draws, his 12 month total will be 33677 and Kramnik would need to gain 8 points in the November list to get to 33679. If he only gains 7 points, then both will have the same total, and the tiebreaker would be who played the most rated games. I think that would be So.|
|Sep-19-17|| ||alexmagnus: <The only real surprise was Khalifman's win in 1999. Several of the world's top players didn't play in the 2004 tournament. Also, didn't Andreikin reach the finals in 2013? I wonder if alexmagnus considers him a "top player" or not.>|
Kasimdzhanov was seeded 27th in the event he won. For comparison, the lowest seed World Cup winners (Kamsky and Karjakin) were seeded 11th. And Andreikin was 23rd seed IIRC, but he was quite chanceless in the final against Kramnik.
|Sep-19-17|| ||alexmagnus: Also, Ponomariov was seeded 19th. Khalifman 36th.|
All players who were seeded 36 or lower who reached <quarterfinal> after rebrainding:
2005: Gurevich (38) and Rublevsky (39), both lost their quarterfinals (to Aronian and Bacrot respectively)
2007: none (lowest seed quarterfinalist 31)
2009: none (lowest seed quarterfinalist 22)
2011: none (lowest seed quarterfinalist 33)
2013: none (lowest seed quarterfinalist 32)
2015: none (lowest seed quarterfinalist 26)
2017: Rapport (51), lost his quarterfinal
Final seedings (winner vs loser):
2005: 3 vs 9
2007: 11 vs 5
2009: 1 vs 7
2011: 9 vs 6
2013: 3 vs 21 (not 23 as posted above)
2015: 11 vs 16
For comparison, FIDE world championship finals:
1998: 2 vs 9
1999: 36 vs 31
2000: 1 vs 4
2002: 19 vs 4
2004: 27 vs 2
|Sep-19-17|| ||WorstPlayerEver: <LameJokes55>
Totally agree. Even if So didn't spot a win, he had to play on; his opponent lie on the ropes, while he had still enough punches left to floor him.
|Sep-19-17|| ||nok: <The only real surprise was Khalifman's win in 1999.>|
Not really. Khalifman had been top 10, and a fixture of the top 20 for a decade. In Game Collection: Biel interzonal 1993, he finished ahead of Anand, Kramnik, Shirov and Ivanchuk.
Note that Kasparov called Akopian a tourist, but said Khalifman was a very strong player.
|Sep-19-17|| ||tomhau: gg good afternoon|
|Sep-19-17|| ||fisayo123: <nok> From wikipedia: Winner Khalifman was rated <44th> in the world at the time, which some compared unfavourably to PCA champion Kasparov being ranked No. 1. |
Khalifman said after the tournament, "Rating system works perfectly for players who play only in round robin closed events. I think most of them are overrated. Organizers invite same people over and over because they have the same rating and their rating stays high.
|Sep-19-17|| ||AylerKupp: <<nok> The chances of the stronger player grow slowly with the number of games, which means the difference between 12 and 24 is quite small.>|
Not quite, it depends on the number of games that are being played.. The chances of the stronger player do grow slowly with the number of games, but only if the number of games is large. If the number of games is small, the chances of the stronger player grow quickly.
|Sep-19-17|| ||AylerKupp: <<beatgiant> A rating is only a model estimated with sampling, so it makes sense to speak of an error margin. I'm not sure what that margin is, but for sure it's more than 1.0 rating point.>|
There is always an error margin but in the case of ratings calculation it is not due to sampling. The model was developed first and then verified (in a limited way) by looking at actual game results. And in the case of ratings calculation the error margin is due to the limited number of digits carried in the calculations. And the rating calculations are performed over the entire population, so there is no sampling involved.
I also don't know what the error margin is but if you are also not sure then, unless you calculate it, I don't see how you can be sure that it's more than 1.0 rating points. And, as I said, it all depends on the number of digits that you carry in the calculations.
<Does it make sense to say a person with 2802 is more worthy than 2801 to play in the Candidates?>
If you are trying to make a decision based on ratings, average or otherwise, then I would say definitely yes. Likewise for 2801.6 over 2801.5 or any number of decimal points you choose, provided that the difference are greater than whatever the margin of error is. And, since we've both admitted that we don't know what the margin of error is, we can't be sure what the cutoff is for the number of decimal places.
Also remember that that the intent of qualifying by rating is to determine which of two players will advance to the Candidates Tournament on the basis of their rating (whether that makes sense or not is a different issue) and the choice is a practical one. What would you suggest as an alternative, flipping a coin? Assuming, of course, that the coin is a fair one.
|Sep-19-17|| ||AylerKupp: <<nok> It's neither tradition nor practicality. Elo used only 3 significant digits, even though he had access to a computer from 1969.>|
What makes you think that he had access to a computer from 1969? In his book "The Rating of Chessplayers Past & Present" Elo mentions the use of computers only once, for the initial calculations of ratings for players in 1970 using the method of successive approximations. Other references were to desk calculators for calculating performance measures and ratings for USCF members using linear approximations.
I suspect that he used good old pencil and paper for his calculations, possibly supported by desk calculators, and this was the reason why the number of digits were restricted since all operations required manual entry. The following sentence might be significant:
"Should computerization of the FIDE ratings become advantageous, table 2.11 could be replaced by table 8.46 with little apparent consequence."
Table 2.11 is the familiar table 8.1b in https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.... and previous version of the FIDE rating regulations listing the P(Win or Draw) as a function of the rating differences between the players and based on the Normal distribution. Table 8.46 is the similar table but based on the Logistic SQRT(10)-based distribution. But the statement seems to indicate that no computers were used in rating calculations except the initial one, at least not as a matter of course.
I also believe that lack of access to computers is true since I started my professional career as a programmer in 1970, and I have an idea of how much computers, even mini-computers, cost then. The first affordable microcomputer with enough memory and reasonable computing power to do the necessary calculations was the Apple II, first available in 1977.
And it was not just the availability of hardware that was an issue but the availability of appropriate, user friendly software that was important as well, otherwise you would have to do all the programming yourself. And the first software application probably suitable for these types of calculation was the VisiCalc spreadsheet, first released in 1979.
<You're a loony>
No argument there.
One suggestion. If you quote from a kibitzer's post and you would like a response from that person, add their user name to the quote. This makes it easier to find the post if you are searching for your name and increases the chances that the person will find it in order to respond.
|Sep-19-17|| ||AylerKupp: <<PedroFernandez> After my great friend <AylerKupp>.>|
There is an old saying in Latin, De gustibus non est Disputandum (there is no accounting for taste). :-)
But I have often seen it expressed as De gustibus non Disputandum est. Are there any Latin –knowledgeable kibitzers out there who can resolve this?
|Sep-19-17|| ||not not: As in german, the verb stands last.
But it can be omitted - elipsis.
De gustibus non disputandum (est)
About the taste, no disscusion (to be).
|Sep-19-17|| ||not not: This gm or that one, the rating, the world cup, the candidates... But who can knock Carlsen off his perch? There is noone, it seems|
They are all fighting for right to lose vs Magnus
|Sep-19-17|| ||Domdaniel: <AylerKupp> Excuse me for disagreeing with you, but ... you're not a loony.|
I also remember 1970s computers.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 102 OF 102 ·
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