|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 104 OF 104 ·
|Sep-19-17|| ||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.|
|Sep-19-17|| ||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.
|Sep-19-17|| ||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.|
|Sep-19-17|| ||PhilFeeley: <devere: Pandora's box> But surely any form of chess is better than deciding by roulette.|
|Sep-19-17|| ||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!"
|Sep-19-17|| ||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.
|Sep-19-17|| ||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.
|Sep-19-17|| ||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.
|Sep-19-17|| ||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.
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!
|Sep-19-17|| ||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?
|Sep-20-17|| ||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.
|Sep-20-17|| ||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. http://www.roulette30.com/2014/04/r... 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambl.... 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.
|Sep-20-17|| ||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>.
|Sep-20-17|| ||WorstPlayerEver: "...you 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!
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 104 OF 104 ·
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