< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
|Mar-25-18|| ||PhilFeeley: It's good to see Bologan back in it, even though he doesn't make the list here yet.|
|Mar-25-18|| ||PhilFeeley: <Tell me... how many times did Karpov face Fischer when they were top players???> Fischer was a one off. These days, any 2600 can beat a 2700.|
|Mar-26-18|| ||Appaz: <alexmagnus: The expected score of 2600 against 2700 is the same as 1600 against 1700 (only that the 2600 and 2700 will have a higher draw rate).>|
So <not> the same score then?
You could as well said that all players, no matter rating difference, will have the same expected score - it's just the number of games that varies.
|Mar-26-18|| ||WorstPlayerEver: <alexmagnus>
Yeah, because Aronian plays against 2450 players in the Candidates... he did lose only 20 points... ★le sigh★
|Mar-26-18|| ||alexmagnus: <So <not> the same score then?>|
Same score, different distribution of decisive games. The expected score is in both cases 6.5-3.5 for the higher rated player. But while the 1700 against the 1600 with realize it as +6 -3 =1, the 2700 against 2600 will more likely play it +3 -0 =7.
|Mar-26-18|| ||alexmagnus: By the way, this also shows why <WPE>'s "never beat a 2600" remark means nothing. A 2700 is more likely to draw against a 2600 than to beat him - without violating any rating laws. Occasionally he will lose too (after all, there are many ways for the 2600 to score those 3.5 points).|
|Mar-26-18|| ||alexmagnus: If you are unbeatable, your opponent must be rated ~200+ points lower than you for you to be more likely to win than to draw.|
|Mar-26-18|| ||frogbert: Also, two of the 2500-players Ivanchuk beat, were only rated 150 points below him. And he's had two draws against 2600-players rated 100 points below.|
Anyway, if this event would've been typical for Ivanchuk, he would've been rated below 2650 within a year. The rating system works pretty well. In order to improve your rating, you must perform above it. If you perform below it, your rating goes down.
Increasing the K (which basically is what <wpe> suggests) only makes the system more volatile and ratings less reliable as a measure of strength.
|Mar-26-18|| ||keypusher: <alexmagnus> <frogbert> Thanks.|
<wpe> If you actually want to say something, maybe try jotting down your ideas first? A coherent post would be nice. If it wasn't for Frogbert I would never have grasped what you were trying to say.
|Mar-26-18|| ||aporia: Does anyone know what happens with the Portuguese players who missed round 1 due to travel complications? Ferreira currently has 6 points with two rounds to go, but he acquired them all in eight rounds instead of nine.|
|Mar-26-18|| ||waustad: I said at the beginning I was hoping that Andreas Diermair would manage to get his final GM norm, and he may. He has a tpr of 2581, but his first round opponent was rated about 2000, so it would be higher for norm purposes. With 1.5/2 in the last rounds, he'll be there. If he wins next round, the last round won't matter, though he's black against GM Mikhail Kobalia, 2599. Playing 6 GMs so far, he is +2 =2 -2.|
|Mar-26-18|| ||waustad: After reading the official Austrian chess blog, it seems that Diermair already got a 9 game norm, but one of his earlier norms was a 7 game norm, so he needs an 11 game norm for the title. Perhaps even 2 draws will do it, depending on the ratings of his opponents.|
|Mar-27-18|| ||alexmagnus: The "bad" Ivanchuk is actually above his rating now). Which once more illustrates that his previous performance was not that bad - it cannot be too bad if it can be fixed literally with two games.|
|Mar-27-18|| ||Olavi: Or else it illustrates that Ivanchuk's rating is too low, i.e. his performance over a longer period of time has been bad, considering who he is.|
|Mar-27-18|| ||PhilFeeley: Huge traffic jam for the last round: 8 with 7.5/10.|
Who will win? Is there a play-off, if necessary?
|Mar-27-18|| ||et1: Ivanchuk's "too low" rating is still number 31 in the world at 49. 99.99999 percent of chess players would love to do anything similar.|
|Mar-27-18|| ||PhilFeeley: Interesting trivia: The World Champion is from Norway, yet there's no one from Norway in this tournament. It's not like they don't have players who could be there.|
|Mar-28-18|| ||siamesedream: Conratulations to <GM Ivan Saric> for winning the title!|
|Mar-28-18|| ||whiteshark: Conratulations to Ivan Saric for winning <European Individual Chess Championship> this time!|
|Mar-28-18|| ||PhilFeeley: Some top boards managed to sneak back into contention, only to be outsmarted by Ivan Saric. Well done, sir!|
|Mar-28-18|| ||csmath: Difficult technical win against Navarra in the last round. Very instructive ending and well played.|
|Mar-28-18|| ||GlennOliver: Strange but true.
Despite the Swiss format, Ivan Saric, the winner, played only one of the seven players who finished joint-second on 8/11, and he lost that one game.
|Mar-30-18|| ||Tabanus: Correction report: two players each under two different names, and three obviously wrong game results (slips sent). Not so bad. |
And Chess-Results has Khazar Babazada vs S Ter-Sahakyan, 2018 <0-1>
|Mar-31-18|| ||gomila: "Despite the Swiss format, Ivan Saric, the winner, played only one of the seven players who finished joint-second on 8/11, and he lost that one game."|
He played two out of top three rated players on the tournament. Also he had a rating performance of 2796. What is your point?
|Apr-30-18|| ||GlennOliver: gomila,
If you are Mr Saric, or a friend of his, then no offence is intended.
Mr Saric clearly had a very good tournament, playing some fine chess, and was not responsible for the players against whom he was (and was not) drawn to play.
My point is that a Swiss tournament runs under rules intended to ensure that each competitor plays opponents with a similar running score.
So I found it surprising that Mr Saric had only been drawn to play one of the seven players with the most similar running score (8/11).
In fact, now I look further, Mr Saric was also only drawn to play a couple of the twenty-four players with the next most similar running score (7.5/11).
So the Swiss rules seem to have created an anomaly in this case.
But once again, congratulations to Mr Saric on an excellent performance.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·