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

🏆 World Cup (2017)

  PARTICIPANTS (sorted by highest achieved rating; click on name to see player's games)
Magnus Carlsen, Fabiano Caruana, Levon Aronian, Wesley So, Maxime Vachier-Lagrave, Vladimir Kramnik, Viswanathan Anand, Hikaru Nakamura, Shakhriyar Mamedyarov, Alexander Grischuk, Anish Giri, Teimour Radjabov, Sergey Karjakin, Vassily Ivanchuk, Ding Liren, Boris Gelfand, Peter Svidler, Ruslan Ponomariov, Ian Nepomniachtchi, Pentala Harikrishna, Pavel Eljanov, Michael Adams, Evgeny Tomashevsky, Li Chao, Wei Yi, Richard Rapport, Wang Hao, David Navara, Radoslaw Wojtaszek, Yu Yangyi, Etienne Bacrot, Nikita Vitiugov, Le Quang Liem, Dmitry Andreikin, Baadur Jobava, Ernesto Inarkiev, Vladimir Fedoseev, Maxim Matlakov, Francisco Vallejo Pons, Bu Xiangzhi, Laurent Fressinet, Alexander Areshchenko, Lazaro Bruzon Batista, Ivan Cheparinov, David Howell, Alexey Dreev, Sergei Zhigalko, Alexander Motylev, Maxim Rodshtein, Liviu Dieter Nisipeanu, Jan-Krzysztof Duda, Evgeny Najer, Boris Grachev, Igor Kovalenko, Alexander Onischuk, Vidit Santosh Gujrathi, Vladislav Artemiev, Baskaran Adhiban, Yifan Hou, Bassem Amin, Aleksej Aleksandrov, David Anton Guijarro, Hrant Melkumyan, Gawain Jones, Jeffery Xiong, Varuzhan Akobian, Yuri Kuzubov, Daniel Fridman, Daniil Dubov, Martyn Kravtsiv, Kacper Piorun, Sandro Mareco, Ngoc Truongson Nguyen, Mikhael Mchedlishvili, Luka Lenic, Viktor Erdos, Sethuraman P Sethuraman, Axel Bachmann Schiavo, Emilio Cordova, Alexandr Hilario Takeda dos Santos Fier, Murtas Kazhgaleyev, Ivan Salgado Lopez, Anton Demchenko, Anton Kovalyov, Matthias Bluebaum, Jorge Cori, Johann Hjartarson, Alexey Goganov, Robert Hovhannisyan, Aleksandr Lenderman, Neuris Delgado Ramirez, Dimitrios Mastrovasilis, Levan Pantsulaia, Samuel Sevian, Mladen Palac, Benjamin Bok, Diego Flores, Julio Catalino Sadorra, Kaido Kulaots, Aryan Tari, Deep Sengupta, Vitaly Kunin, Jahongir Vakhidov, Mikhail Antipov, Murali Karthikeyan, Yusnel Bacallao Alonso, Kirill Stupak, Nana Dzagnidze, Bator Sambuev, Yuri Gonzalez Vidal, Helgi Dam Ziska, Tsegmed Batchuluun, Leandro Krysa, Al Rakib Mollah Abdullah, Essam El Gindy, Amirreza Pourramezanali, Felipe de Cresce El Debs, Mohamed Amine Haddouche, Anton Smirnov, Li Tian Yeoh, Kenneth T Solomon, Muhammad Khusenkhojaev, Guanchu Liu, Daniel J Cawdery, Changren Dai, Joshua Daniel Ruiz Castillo, Oluwafemi Balogun Chess Event Description
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:

Pairings Tree:

Wikipedia page (including results): Wikipedia article: Chess World Cup 2017

ChessBookie Action:
FIDE World Cup Semifinals: So vs Ding
FIDE World Cup Semifinals: Aronian vs Vachier-Lagrave

 page 1 of 17; games 1-25 of 411  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves YearEvent/LocaleOpening
1. Areshchenko vs A Demchenko 1-0762017World CupB51 Sicilian, Canal-Sokolsky (Rossolimo) Attack
2. Ding Liren vs M Haddouche 1-0462017World CupE60 King's Indian Defense
3. Li Tian Yeoh vs Anand 0-1662017World CupB22 Sicilian, Alapin
4. Grischuk vs E El Gindy 1-0472017World CupC24 Bishop's Opening
5. Changren Dai vs Kramnik 0-1512017World CupC95 Ruy Lopez, Closed, Breyer
6. A Bachmann vs Dreev 0-1412017World CupB13 Caro-Kann, Exchange
7. K Piorun vs Yifan Hou  ½-½402017World CupE06 Catalan, Closed, 5.Nf3
8. L Bruzon Batista vs D Anton Guijarro 1-0452017World CupC67 Ruy Lopez
9. D Dubov vs D Fridman  ½-½362017World CupE04 Catalan, Open, 5.Nf3
10. R Rapport vs E Cordova 1-0332017World CupE01 Catalan, Closed
11. S Sevian vs Nisipeanu  ½-½212017World CupC42 Petrov Defense
12. A Tari vs D Howell  ½-½292017World CupC45 Scotch Game
13. E Inarkiev vs M Mchedlishvili 1-0292017World CupB09 Pirc, Austrian Attack
14. D Sengupta vs Wang Hao  ½-½342017World CupC50 Giuoco Piano
15. Bu Xiangzhi vs D Flores 1-0232017World CupA04 Reti Opening
16. A Giri vs N Dzagnidze 1-0672017World CupA27 English, Three Knights System
17. Adams vs T Batchuluun  ½-½572017World CupC50 Giuoco Piano
18. Eljanov vs Lenderman 0-1572017World CupE32 Nimzo-Indian, Classical
19. J Cori vs G Jones 1-0972017World CupE60 King's Indian Defense
20. I Kovalenko vs M Kravtsiv 0-1712017World CupC89 Ruy Lopez, Marshall
21. F Vallejo Pons vs M Karthikeyan 1-0642017World CupE10 Queen's Pawn Game
22. Li Chao vs L Krysa  ½-½1132017World CupD25 Queen's Gambit Accepted
23. A Pourramezanali vs Yu Yangyi  ½-½712017World CupA45 Queen's Pawn Game
24. L Lenic vs Fressinet  ½-½442017World CupD52 Queen's Gambit Declined
25. Y Kuzubov vs S Zhigalko  ½-½542017World CupD32 Queen's Gambit Declined, Tarrasch
 page 1 of 17; games 1-25 of 411  PGN Download
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2)  

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 104 OF 104 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Premium Chessgames Member
  Tiggler: <beatgiant> and <AylerKupp> If you run a simulation in which all players supposedly have the same rating and an expected score of 0.5 from each game, then if you also assume that only about 2/3 of games are drawn, then after a hundred games or so for each player the rating distribution becomes a gaussian with mean equal to the original value and standard deviation of about 20. I would say that that is a good estimate of the uncertainty in any given rating. I am agreeing here with <beatgiant> about the meaning of the "error margin".
Sep-19-17  Billy Vaughan: It's true that there's no real difference between 2805 and 2806, but there comes a point at which you just need to choose a candidate, arbitrary as that one rating point may be. Or else spin that roulette wheel.
Sep-19-17  beatgiant: <Billy Vaughan> This is why some of us prefer qualification by event instead of rating. But it's more expensive to organize new events instead of reusing the by-products of existing events.
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: Hi AylerKupp,

" suspect that he [prf.Elo] used good old pencil and paper for his calculations."

Andrew Lait who did the rating for Scotland used a pencil & paper and desk calculator during the 70's-80's. He did them all by hand.

Sep-19-17  nok: <Or else spin that roulette wheel.> It's, at least, a honest way to do it. And once upon a time, they'd hold a qualifier.
Sep-19-17  devere: <nok: <Or else spin that roulette wheel.> It's, at least, a honest way to do it.>

IN 1983 Smyslov beat Hubner by a roulette spin. Needless to say as a loyal Soviet Smyslov won with red.

At the time Robert Byrne writing for the New York Times opined that a speed chess playoff would have been better than roulette. Little did he know the Pandora's box he caused to be opened when his advice was eventually adopted by FIDE. Nowadays some grandmasters take 9 move draws to get to the real contest, the speed chess.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: Spinning the roulette wheel.

Red 3 decided Smyslov - Hübner Candidates Quarterfinal (1983)


You are good at these things. What's the odds on red 3 coming up again next time FIDE spins the wheel.

Is it 36 to 1 or because we are asking for the same number (Red 3) to appear again to resolve a chess match, will it be higher.

Sep-19-17  jphamlore: <devere: Nowadays some grandmasters take 9 move draws to get to the real contest, the speed chess.> Many players including Smyslov were taking the equivalent of 9 move draws well before the era of speed chess tiebreaks.
Premium Chessgames Member
  PhilFeeley: <devere: Pandora's box> But surely any form of chess is better than deciding by roulette.
Premium Chessgames Member
  cro777: <Sally Simpson: What's the odds on red 3 coming up again next time FIDE spins the wheel. Is it 36 to 1?>

It is 36x36 (=1296) to 1.

As R.E. Shay said, "depend on the rabbit's foot if you will, but remember it didn't work for the rabbit!"

Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: If Wes loses v Ding his rating will drop and Caruana and Kramnik can feign illness and pull out of the isle of Man tournament thus planting their cute little butts in the candidates. I don't think they will, but they might. The ridiculous thing is they can.

Surely that is yet another to scrap ratings alone as a qualifier for the candidates.

Your rating if it's high enough can get you into the Gran Prix. Others have to qualify.

Your rating if it's high enough can get you into the World Cup. Others have to qualify.

You can get into the Candidates by doing well in either competitions.


Your rating if it's high enough will get you into the candidates even though you failed in both qualifying events either by not playing or getting knocked out.

And now your rating is high enough you can stop playing chess.

Clear lack of imagination on FIDE's part to use the top rated failures again as a qualifier.

If they want to use their precious rating system why don't they get the top rated 36 players who are not already in the candidates, number then 1-36 and use a roulette wheel.

If it comes up green '0' then Kasparov plays.

Sep-19-17  SugarDom: @Sally, Oh I'm sorry but you don't know how to count with your fingers.

Wesley So can lose his match with Ding Liren and still maintain the same rating.

Go figure.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: Hi Sugardom,

I peeked at the live ratings.

And currently Kramnik and Caruana are already above Wes.

I know there is something about adding all the ratings for the year and finding an average but not 100% how it works. I only know it's crooked and needs fixing.

If Wes loses the 2nd classical match will his rating not drop by a point or two. I thought that is how these things worked.

Anyway I need to take off my shoes and socks and use my toes to work out a 4 digit grade.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Tiggler: <Sally Simpson: If Wes loses v Ding his rating will drop and Caruana and Kramnik can feign illness and pull out of the isle of Man tournament thus planting their cute little butts in the candidates. I don't think they will, but they might. The ridiculous thing is they can.>

Not quite, because Wesley could in that case play a minimatch with <SugarDom>. two games = two rating points * two months. Then Kramnik has to play a minimatch with Morozevich.

Sep-19-17  SugarDom: Well, what can I say Sally?


Wes does not have to lose in the classical match, he can lose by rapid tie-breaks which are not counted in his classical rating.

Lol. Ok we're just having banter here, we're cool.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: Hi Tiggler,

Which highlights how silly it has become by using rating alone.

If Carlsen plays Kramnik at the Isle of Man and losses then cynics will say he did it on purpose to keep a bigger threat to himself out of the candidates.

Hi Sugardom,

Now have whole family gloveless and in bare feet and am working out Wes's grade.


Wait a minute that cannot be right.

Hey. I've just discovered my kids have 6 toes on each foot!

Premium Chessgames Member
  jith1207: Hi Sally, I have tried all that already. Even with pets. These creatures are not cooperative though and do not understand how precious these metrics are for the chess world. My cats only got more frustrated as they scratched and tore up all my precious calculations and notes, then the dog ate them all.
Sep-19-17  devere: <Sally Simpson: I know there is something about adding all the ratings for the year and finding an average but not 100% how it works. I only know it's crooked and needs fixing.>

It's not crooked, it is just stupid.
It means that a game you play in December 2016 is worth 12 times more for qualifying than a game you play in November 2017. It seems that this subject is some sort of strange chess IQ test, and FIDE (Fédération Incompétent des Échecs) and many posters here just can't comprehend the problem.

Sep-20-17  beatgiant: <devere>
For the record, you can put me down as failing the "game last December is worth 12 times more than game this November" IQ test, because that's not what I got when I ran the math in a scenario assuming the players continue to play a reasonable number of games every month. True, if the number of games is low, it might not be enough for ratings to return to equilibrium and thus bias toward the earlier games, but it's nothing like "12 times more".

But, judging from the last debate over this, neither of us is likely to say anything new or interesting on the question.

Maybe a more productive question would be: suppose one does want to use a composite over a period of months to smooth the short-term variability in ratings, what would you propose instead of an average?

Premium Chessgames Member
  Sokrates: <JimNorCal: Great coverage by ChessBase India. And thanks cro777, you have lots of cool info and esp from Chinese sources. Your sharing is much appreciated>

Well said, and I can only echo the praise of <cro777> who is a fountain of insight.

Premium Chessgames Member
  FSR: <cro777> The odds of a particular number coming up on a given spin of a roulette wheel are 1 in 37 (i.e. 36 to 1) if you're playing European roulette (which has a zero in addition to the 18 reds and 18 blacks), or 1 in 38 (i.e. 37 to 1) if you're playing American roulette, which has two zeros. If you bet on the number that came up on the last spin of the wheel, the fact that it did so then doesn't change the odds for this spin. See It would be another matter, of course, if you were to bet that the next <two> spins of the wheel would both be Red 3 (or whatever), or for that matter that the next spin would be (say) 6 and the one after that 17. The odds of successfully predicting two numbers in a row like that would be 1 in 37 squared or 1 in 38 squared depending on which kind of wheel you were using.
Sep-20-17  devere: <beatgiant:> A rating is itself a composite of all your past rated chess game results. If you want to use a rating to qualify people, just use the rating.

I do respect Sally Simpson's opinion that using ratings to qualify people invites many problems. I suggest a return to something like the good old days and qualify people from a 20+ round Swiss Pumpkin (the new word for Interzonal tournament with a large number of people playing). In the good old days 6 people qualified, joined by the loser of the last world championship match and the runner-up of the last candidates tournament. In the modern era only 4 or 5 might qualify, joined by other means of qualification, but even that would be a large improvement on the current situation. Imagine, people would play 20+ rounds of classical chess to qualify to play another 14 rounds of classical chess, to qualify to play a match to become the classical world chess champion. It makes sense to me, so I'm confident that FIDE (Fédération Incompétent des Échecs) will never do it.

Premium Chessgames Member
  WorstPlayerEver: <If you want to use a rating to qualify people, just use the rating.>

Because it's completely retarded, I'd drive this even further: WHY THEY HAVE A RATING ANYWAY????????

Sep-20-17  beatgiant: <devere>
As I've posted above, I agree with you and <Sally Simpson> that ratings aren't really well designed for use as a Candidates qualifier.

I can't agree with some of your mathematical claims, though.

<If you want to use a rating to qualify people, just use the rating.> But then you would have the opposite problem as the one you originally complained about: you will give excessive weight to the most recent results.

And as mentioned above, there's about a 10 rating point margin of error on either side as a player's rating fluctuates from one event to the next. You might happen to catch player A at the high end of his range and player B at the low end although they are actually equal.

<A rating is itself a composite of all your past rated chess game results.> True, but the effects of the past taper off as a player's rating converges around its "rightful" value.

Anyway, it's probably enough we agree on an overall conclusion - <using ratings to qualify people invites many problems>.

Premium Chessgames Member
  WorstPlayerEver: " will give excessive weight to the most recent results."


"A rating is itself a composite of all your past rated chess game results." As <devere> stated correctly.

Ghe this is getting ridiculous: WHO NEEDS YESTERDAY'S PLAYERS?

Nobody in the world. Exactly. To hell with 'em!

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 104)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 104 OF 104 ·  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, 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