|FIDE Grand Prix Mallorca (2017)|
Played in Palma de Mallorca, Spain 16-25 November 2017. Official site: https://worldchess.com/events/europ.... Crosstable: http://chess-results.com/tnr307271.... Jakovenko edged out Aronian on tie-break after both scored 5.5/9 and 155 Grand Prix points.
Palma (Pal) was the last of the four 2017 Grand Prix events. The others were: FIDE Grand Prix Sharjah (2017) (Sha), FIDE Grand Prix Moscow (2017) (Mos), and FIDE Grand Prix Geneva (2017) (Gen). Each player collected Grand Prix points from three of four events, with the two best overall advancing to the Candidates tournament next year. Total number of Grand Prix points (GPP):
Mamedyarov and Grischuk qualified for the World Championship Candidates (2018). Ding Liren and Aronian had already qualified from World Cup (2017).
Sha Mos Gen Pal GPP
1 Mamedyarov 140 140 60 -- 340
2 Grischuk 140 71.4 125 -- 336.4
3 Radjabov -- 71.4 170 71.4 312.8
4 Ding Liren 70 170 -- 71.4 311.4
5 Jakovenko 70 -- 11 155 236
6 Vachier-Lagrave 140 71.4 -- 20 231.4
7 Nakamura 70 71.4 -- 71.4 212.8
8 Svidler -- 71.4 60 71.4 202.8
9 Nepomniachtchi 70 3 125 -- 198
10 Aronian 7 -- 11 155 173
11 Harikrishna -- 20 60 71.4 151.4
12 Giri -- 71.4 60 6 137.4
13 Adams 70 3 60 -- 133
14 Rapport 25 -- 2.5 71.4 98.9
15 Tomashevsky 3 20 -- 71.4 94.4
16 Li Chao 25 -- 60 6 91
17 Yifan Hou 7 71.4 2.5 -- 80.9
18 Riazantsev 1 -- 60 3 64
19 Eljanov 25 -- 11 20 56
20 Vallejo Pons 25 7 -- 6 38
21 Gelfand -- 20 11 1.5 32.5
22 Inarkiev -- 1 4 20 25
23 Hammer 3 7 -- 1.5 11.5
24 Salem Saleh 3 3 1 -- 7
Palma decided the last two spots in the 8-player Candidates tournament. The other players are Aronian, Ding Liren, Sergey Karjakin (qualified as loser of the last WC match), Fabiano Caruana and Wesley So (qualified by average rating in 2017), and Vladimir Kramnik (the wild card picked by Agon/FIDE). The reserves will be Radjabov (3rd in Grand Prix) and Vachier-Lagrave (based on rating).
| page 1 of 4; games 1-25 of 81
| page 1 of 4; games 1-25 of 81
TIP: You can make the above ads go away by registering a free account!
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 16 OF 16 ·
|Nov-28-17|| ||Qindarka: Indian openings are named after Bannerjee Moheschunder who played many games with Cochrane back in the 1800s. He often played what were then very unconventional opening moves.|
|Nov-29-17|| ||Sokrates: Thanks, <Quindarka>, what an interesting piece of information! Never heard about BM before.|
|Nov-29-17|| ||moronovich: I thought the "Indian" openings came from Tartakower !? But I may be wrong.|
But I may emphazise that it was NOT Hermann Göring who invented the Göring gambit.
The Scotch was about a telegraph match.
|Nov-29-17|| ||Tabanus: Bonnerjee Mohishunder|
|Nov-29-17|| ||AylerKupp: <<beatgiant> The condition we are looking for is <a worthy candidate>>|
And how would you define <a worthy candidate> in an objective way? Keep in mind that chess is a non-deterministic game; a player that has a great year winning every tournament in sight may collapse the following year when the Candidates Tournament is held and vice versa. And likewise for the WCC match; all that it really determines (if indeed it does that given the relatively low number of games) is who is the better player <at that period of time>.
Perhaps an answer can be found in the FIDE ratings. The ratings differences predict the likelihood that one player will defeat another player in a match according to their rating difference. So, <if a sufficient number of games is played to make the results statistically significant>, then the rating difference between the defending champion and the contenders might serve to identify the "worthiest" candidates.
Example: Carlsen is currently (Nov-2017 FIDE rating list) rated at 2837 and Aronian, the player with the second highest rating, is rated at 2801. The 36-point rating difference translates to a probability of 0.55 of Carlsen winning the match and a probability of 0.45 of Aronian winning the match. So I would say that Aronian could be considered a "worthy" candidate.
In contrast, Maxime-Lagrave's current rating is 2796 so the 41-point rating difference translates to a probability of 0.56 that Carlsen would win the match and a probability of 0.44 that Maxime-Lagrave would win the match. So I would also say that Maxime-Lagrave could be considered a "worthy" candidate.
Of the players that have qualified for the 2018 Candidates Tournament (Aronian, Caruana, Ding Liren, Grischuk, Karjakin, Kramnik, Mamedyarov, and So, in alphabetical order) the player with the lowest current rating is Karjakin at 2760. The 77-point rating difference translates to a probability of 0.61 that Carlsen would win the match and a probability of 0.39 that Karjakin would win the match. I would have been tempted to say that a probability of less than 0.40 that the challenger would win the WCC match would disqualify him from being a "worthy" candidate but we all know how unexpectedly (to most of us) Karjakin performed against Carlsen in the last WCC match.
So perhaps there is no good way to objectively determine who is a "worthy" candidate and who isn't, particularly with a relatively short WCC match.
|Nov-29-17|| ||AylerKupp: <<Sokrates> Btw, has anyone ever written an article about opening names?>|
I don't know if this qualifies as an article so let's just call it an extensive post: Fischer vs Smyslov, 1965.
Warning!!! Proceed at your own risk. <perfidious>'s remark after my post is right on the money. :-)
|Nov-29-17|| ||beatgiant: <AylerKupp>
I've said this before, but I really prefer events-based criteria to statistics-based criteria, so that any strong and ambitious player at the start of the cycle has a clear set of milestones on the path. Not something vague like <play a bunch of chess and see how the ratings shake out>.
Moreover, if I did want to predict <which player has the best chance of winning a title match against Carlsen>, I don't think I would choose FIDE rating as the sole feature in my model.
But experience shows the other kibitzers are bored with such kind of detailed technical discussions, so I'll shut up now.
|Nov-29-17|| ||Sokrates: Thanks, <AylerKupp> for the link to your fresh and vivid post. An enlightening pleasure, thanks.|
|Nov-29-17|| ||moronovich: Yes,a fine post <Aylerkupp> !|
But I would still like to know
e.g why it is called
the Sicilian "defence".And the Dutch.
|Nov-29-17|| ||beatgiant: <moronovich>
No idea about the Dutch, but wikipedia has an explanation about the Sicilian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicil...
|Nov-29-17|| ||WannaBe: Dutch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch...|
Another one of many openings named after the place of 'invention'...
Here is a list, if anyone's interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...
|Nov-29-17|| ||AzingaBonzer: <beatgiant>So you propose that, because the existing statistical model we have is flawed, we should use *no* model instead.|
This does not strike me as a particularly wise thing to do.
|Nov-29-17|| ||beatgiant: <AzubgaBonzer>
<So you propose that, because the existing statistical model we have is flawed, we should use *no* model instead.>|
Please read it again more carefully.
<I don't think I would choose FIDE rating as the sole feature in my model.>
That means I <would> use a model (the opposite of how you interpreted above). But FIDE rating would not be its sole feature.
And that's only <if> I wanted to use it to predict the best challenger, in the context of a discussion where another kibitzer proposed using only ratings as a selection criterion.
|Nov-30-17|| ||moronovich: Thanks <beatgiant> and <WannaBe> !|
|Nov-30-17|| ||AylerKupp: <<beatgiant> I've said this before, but I really prefer events-based criteria to statistics-based criteria>|
Well, sure, but what would you call a set of events-based criteria other than statistics? Chess results are notoriously non-deterministic, in any given game any player can defeat any other player regardless of their rating difference. All that statistics do is give you an indication of what the probabilities are for a given result, but there is no certainty, particularly if the number of games involved is relatively small. For instance, of those who qualified for the Candidates Tournament the one who played the most games in 2017 was Aronian (115) and the ones who played the least games were Kramnik and Karjakin (both 44), so any statistics derived from these numbers of games will have a large level of uncertainty.
And I think that there are many flaws with FIDE's rating model, including the improper use of the Normal Distribution, not taking draws or color into consideration, and – well, I could go on and on. Still, would you rather go against the odds rather than with the odds, even if the odds are suspect?
But please don't shut up. I'm certainly not bored with such kind of detailed technical discussions but, if you prefer, we can continue them in my forum.
|Nov-30-17|| ||AylerKupp: <<moronovich> But I would still like to know e.g. why it is called the Sicilian "defence" and the Dutch.>|
I think that that's a 2-part question, why is it called "Sicilian" (or "Dutch" or whatever) and why is it called "defence" (or "defense" depending on your place of residence. Since I live in the colonies, I’ll stick with "defense" – deal with it :-) ). I'll give you my opinion of the second part.
Since White has the first move, it is considered the aggressor or attacker, so Black is the one that, for the most part, is considered to be the one defending. So it would be natural to refer to any opening where Black makes the characteristic move(s) of that opening as "defense".
Now it gets interesting. Apparently a Black response is called a "defense" if the characteristic move(s) are made sufficiently early in the game. That's obvious for openings like the Sicilian (1.e4 c5), the French (1.e4 e6), the Caro-Kann (1.e4 c6), and perhaps a little less obvious for openings like the Grunfeld (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g7 3.Nc3 d5) or the Open Defense to the Ruy Lopez (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Nxe4). But as the characteristic move is delayed more and more, it starts being called a "variation" rather than a "defense". I don't what the move delay threshold is since it seems to vary from opening to opening and from variation to variation.
And I have no idea why some openings/defenses are named after places and some are named after people. Worse, the same opening/defense is named after a place in some countries and after a person in others; the Spanish/Ruy Lopez and Volga/Benko gambit come to mind.
Then whether the word "defense" is used sometimes depends on how "violent" Black's response to White's opening moves is. Thus we have the Falkbeer countergambit (1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5) and the Albin countergambit (1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5). In extremely violent cases the word "counterattack" seems to be used as in the Traxler Counterattack (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5). Which, to makes matters worse, used to be called the Wilkes-Barre "variation" of the Two Knights "defense". Go figure.
Now, the last paragraph is just a shameless plug to encourage readers to join the current Thematic Game which features the Traxler Countergambit, with the current position shown in the home page, with White to move. It promises to be a wild game and, with computers not allowed, we are all dependent on our gray matter to select our moves.
Should you decide to join the game you will be assigned to a team at random. The one downside is that if you're assigned to Team Black, you will have to put up with my long-winded posts. But Team Black currently has more members than Team White, so I suspect that the odds are in your favor in terms of avoiding being assigned to Team Black.
|Dec-01-17|| ||beatgiant: <AylerKupp>
<Well, sure, but what would you call a set of events-based criteria other than statistics?>
To clarify, by events-based criteria, I mean a fixed set of qualifying tournaments and matches known in advance. For example, the old Zonal/Interzonal/Candidates system. In other words, "events" in the "sporting event" sense of the word and not "probability event."
As for discussions about the mathematical technicalities, I agree we should take it to your forum, and I'll probably do so in the future if time permits.
|Dec-01-17|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <beatgiant: the old Zonal/Interzonal/Candidates system.>|
I also happen to think this is the best system.
|Dec-01-17|| ||Howard: Yes, I liked the interzonal/Candidates system, too, but a key drawback was that it resulted in a WC match just...once every three years! That was rather ridiculous in my view.|
A reform that was suggested at least a few times back in the day, was to include the WC himself in the final, say, eight candidates. The winner of the Candidates would thus become the WC champion. That would clip about a year off the Candidates method, as far as WC matches.
|Dec-01-17|| ||beatgiant: <Howard>
To clarify, I only said I favor a fixed set of events over a statistics-based system. I never said anything about the exact former 3-year cycle.
Secocnd, I don't see why Zonal/Interzonal/Candidates/Championship needs to take 3 years. Players probably need 6 months to prepare for a championship and 3 months to prepare for a Candidates event, but I see no reason why Zonals and Interzonals need a lot of lead time. You could have Zonals and Interzonals in the first year of the cycle, and Candidates and Championship in the second year.
Third, if it did come down to a scheduling issue, I'd much rather select the right candidate to have the best quality championship every three years versus a lower quality championship every two years.
Finally, the idea of a championship tournament instead of match has been discussed here ad infinitum and there are some serious objections. I really don't see making that major change only to save time in the cycle when it's not even clear that time is the main constraint anyway. I think the much bigger constraint is financial sponsorship.
|Dec-02-17|| ||Howard: Why it can take SIX months to prepare for a WC match is beyond me, but then I'm not a professional player.|
For the record, in 1984 the two players (K and K) had less than six months to prepare because the Kasparov-Smyslov match ended less than six months before the K-K one began. Kasparov protested the lack of preparation time, but FIDE "brushed aside" his complaint (as one book put it).
|Dec-02-17|| ||beatgiant: <Howard>
Four events with 6 months between each event would take exactly 2 years. And of course it's not only the players who need lead time, but also the organizers and host sites.
I think the big problem is the interzonal. Many of the zones don't have enough big-name superstars, so it might be hard to interest the sponsors.
So instead we end up with the World Cup, which adds an element of excitement via the knock-out format, but at the cost of making it less predictable that the best players will be selected.
|Dec-03-17|| ||Howard: You did bring up one good point I'd forgotten about---the fact that in the interzonals, you have a lot of players (such as from Africa or SE Asia) who don't have a chance IN HELL of ever qualifying for the Candidates. Why they're invited to play anyway, has always been a mystery.|
|Dec-03-17|| ||beatgiant: <Howard>
There does have to be a qualification path for any player anywhere in the world.
But in this year's World Cup, there were three players rated under 2400, from zones 2.3 (Central America/Caribbean), 4.3 (southern Africa) and 4.4 (western Africa). There were lots of players rated under 2600, and not all of them came from Zonals. There were various other qualifications like Junior champion, continental champion, organizer's and president's nominees.
Some zones have much fewer FIDE rated players than others. One fix would be to batch up some of the smaller zones for qualification purposes (e.g. combine zones 4.1, 4.2, 4.3. 4.4 into an Africa-wide megazone).
And if we must have nominees, one fix would be to add a minimum rating requirement.
What's lacking is any serious political will to tackle these issues.
|Dec-03-17|| ||schweigzwang: You only tackle it if you think it is a problem. If you can get votes from a large number of grateful areas who are not contributing strong players but are happy to be included, you don't cut those areas out or combine them.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 16 OF 16 ·
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 |
Notable Games |
World Chess Championships |
Opening Explorer |
Guess the Move |
Game Collections |
ChessBookie Game |
Chessgames Challenge |
privacy notice |
Copyright 2001-2018, Chessgames Services LLC