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

🏆
TOURNAMENT STANDINGS
US Championship (Women) Tournament

Nazi Paikidze8/11(+5 -0 =6)[games]
Annie Wang8/11(+6 -1 =4)[games]
Irina Krush7/11(+5 -2 =4)[games]
Anna Vitalyevna Zatonskih6.5/11(+3 -1 =7)[games]
Jennifer R Yu6.5/11(+5 -3 =3)[games]
Tatev Abrahamyan5.5/11(+3 -3 =5)[games]
Sabina-Francesca Foisor5/11(+2 -3 =6)[games]
Anna Sharevich4.5/11(+3 -5 =3)[games]
Akshita Gorti4.5/11(+2 -4 =5)[games]
Maggie Feng4.5/11(+3 -5 =3)[games]
Rusudan Goletiani3.5/11(+2 -6 =3)[games]
Dorsa Derakhshani2.5/11(+0 -6 =5)[games]
*

Chessgames.com Chess Event Description
US Championship (Women) (2018)

The 2018 US Women's Championship took place in St. Louis, Missouri from April 18th to April 29th. Nazi Paikidze won by defeating 15-year-old Annie Wang in the Armageddon game of the US Championship (Women, Tiebreaks) (2018).

Official site: http://www.uschesschamps.com/. Crosstable:

Elo 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 1 IM Paikidze 2352 * 1 1 1 1 1 8 2 FM Wang 2321 * 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 8 3 GM Krush 2422 0 * 1 1 0 1 1 1 7 =4 IM Zatonskih 2444 0 * 1 1 1 6 =4 FM Yu 2367 0 0 0 * 1 1 1 1 1 6 6 WGM Abrahamyan 2366 0 0 * 1 1 0 1 5 7 WGM Foisor 2308 0 1 0 * 0 1 5 =8 WGM Sharevich 2281 0 0 1 0 1 * 1 0 0 4 =8 FM Gorti 2252 0 0 0 0 * 1 1 4 =8 FM Feng 2243 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 * 1 4 11 IM Goletiani 2306 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 * 1 3 12 IM Derakhshani 2306 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 2

Previous edition: US Championship (Women) (2017). See also US Championship (2018).

 page 1 of 3; games 1-25 of 66  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves YearEvent/LocaleOpening
1. R Goletiani vs A Zatonskih  ½-½502018US Championship (Women)A13 English
2. Akshita Gorti vs I Krush ½-½702018US Championship (Women)A13 English
3. Jennifer Yu vs N Paikidze 0-1302018US Championship (Women)B07 Pirc
4. T Abrahamyan vs S Foisor  ½-½292018US Championship (Women)B18 Caro-Kann, Classical
5. A Wang vs Maggie Feng  1-0702018US Championship (Women)E00 Queen's Pawn Game
6. D Derakhshani vs A Sharevich  ½-½302018US Championship (Women)B12 Caro-Kann Defense
7. Maggie Feng vs A Sharevich 1-0742018US Championship (Women)A07 King's Indian Attack
8. I Krush vs D Derakhshani 1-0672018US Championship (Women)A05 Reti Opening
9. A Zatonskih vs Jennifer Yu  1-0472018US Championship (Women)D11 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav
10. S Foisor vs R Goletiani  ½-½442018US Championship (Women)A90 Dutch
11. A Wang vs T Abrahamyan  ½-½382018US Championship (Women)E32 Nimzo-Indian, Classical
12. N Paikidze vs Akshita Gorti  ½-½442018US Championship (Women)D31 Queen's Gambit Declined
13. Akshita Gorti vs A Zatonskih  ½-½672018US Championship (Women)A13 English
14. Jennifer Yu vs S Foisor 1-0722018US Championship (Women)B10 Caro-Kann
15. D Derakhshani vs N Paikidze 0-1672018US Championship (Women)B07 Pirc
16. R Goletiani vs A Wang  0-1552018US Championship (Women)A13 English
17. T Abrahamyan vs Maggie Feng  0-1362018US Championship (Women)C03 French, Tarrasch
18. A Sharevich vs I Krush 1-0422018US Championship (Women)D02 Queen's Pawn Game
19. A Wang vs Jennifer Yu 1-01072018US Championship (Women)A52 Budapest Gambit
20. A Zatonskih vs D Derakhshani  1-0552018US Championship (Women)D94 Grunfeld
21. Maggie Feng vs I Krush 0-1542018US Championship (Women)B51 Sicilian, Canal-Sokolsky (Rossolimo) Attack
22. T Abrahamyan vs R Goletiani 1-0302018US Championship (Women)B43 Sicilian, Kan, 5.Nc3
23. S Foisor vs Akshita Gorti 1-0332018US Championship (Women)D31 Queen's Gambit Declined
24. N Paikidze vs A Sharevich 1-0272018US Championship (Women)B11 Caro-Kann, Two Knights, 3...Bg4
25. A Sharevich vs A Zatonskih  ½-½1122018US Championship (Women)D02 Queen's Pawn Game
 page 1 of 3; games 1-25 of 66  PGN Download
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2)  


TIP: You can make the above ads go away by registering a free account!

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 5 OF 6 ·  Later Kibitzing>
May-05-18  UncleBent: <AylerKupp -- What I don't think is proper is for ChessBase to refer to them as the "May 2018 FIDE Ratings" since they are not. That's just a misrepresentation on ChessBase's part>

It's no more of a mis-representation when they call the winner of the US Presdential election the "President elect," the day after the election is held in early November, when, in fact, he is not OFFICIALLY the President- elect until the Electoral College meets on or around Dec. 19.

What is more to the point, I was trying to make, way back when... is that promising young chess players, like Annie Wang, Jennifer Yu, Carissa Yip, Akshita Gorti, etc, have great potential, but also are capable of showing great volatility in their rating performances. Annie Wang first played in the US Women's Ch back in 2015, but, then failed to qualify in 2016 and 2017, but had an amazing huge rating gain (218 points!) when she won the World U16 Girls last fall. And in the space of the last 45 days, she dropped over 40 points in a RR event, then gained over 50 in St. Louis. Carissa Yip, the youngest of the quartet, at 14, also stagnated (with some rating regression in 2017), but has rebounded this year, having re-tooled her game.

The reality is that we have, at least, 4 girls, still in their mid-teens, who have a realistic chance of becoming FIDE IM's before they graduate from High School. And a chance to pursue GM norms while in college. Contrast this to the great Irina Krush who did not become a GM until she was almost 30 years old (and with the assistance of the Samford Fellowship.)

May-05-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<UncleBent> It's no more of a mis-representation when they call the winner of the US Presdential election the "President elect," the day after the election is held in early November>

Yes, they are both misrepresentations. So, what's your point? That one misrepresentation justifies another? Well, if that's what you want to believe, so be it.

I think that we've strayed away from the (what I thought) was a simple statement; that the Top 100 rating lists in https://en.chessbase.com/post/may-f... has nothing to do with the FIDE May 2018 rating list, even though it bills itself as that. But, if you want to think that it does, that's OK with me.

And I don't see any discussion on your part about the volatility in rating performances of promising young chess players. Of course there's volatility. As I explained to <Richard Taylor> and <Dionysius1> above, the fact that they are young means that a higher K-factor is used to calculate their updated ratings, so it's natural to expect a higher volatility, whether they are girls or boys under 18. But if you want to discuss this, that's also fine. Maybe you can find others to discuss it with, I certainly don't care to bother discussing something so obvious to anyone that understands the mechanics of the FIDE rating system.

May-05-18  UncleBent: <Yes, they are both misrepresentations. So, what's your point? That one misrepresentation justifies another? Well, if that's what you want to believe, s>o be it.>

My point is that they are not mis-representatins of reality. For better or worse, Trump was President elect on 11/9/16 and Sam Shankland is now rated over 2700, and etc. If you want to imagine that certain events are not real until they are "official," so be it, but don't think you can drag others down into the abyss. Best to just argue with yourelf.

May-06-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <UncleBent> I learned a long time ago not to argue with myself because, regardless of the outcome of the argument, I would lose.

And I never said that events are not real until they are "official". I even said that there is, or can be, a difference between "real" and "official". "Official" is whatever the organization that is responsible for generating those results says, whether that organization is FIDE or the US Electoral College. In the case of the US Electoral College their vote makes the "real" results of the previous US Presidential election "official". In the case of FIDE ratings there can be a lag between the publication of ratings in FIDE's rating list as a result of FIDE's procedures for calculating and publishing ratings and the dates that tournaments that affect the ratings calculations end. I see no contradiction between "real" and "official" in either case.

The only thing I consider "real" is that for ChessBase to label their published ratings as the "May 2018 FIDE Ratings" in https://en.chessbase.com/post/may-f... is a misrepresentation because, if you compare ChessBase's "May 2018 FIDE Ratings" with FIDE's May 2018 ratings published on April 30, 2018, they are not the same. Had ChessBase called their ratings "ChessBase May 2018 Ratings" or simply "May 2018 Ratings" I would have no problem with that, whether the ratings were "real" or not. It's their explicit association of FIDE with these ratings that I object to. Other organizations (or individuals) can publish their own rating calculations whenever they want, but they are certainly not FIDE's if they are different than FIDE's. Live chess ratings are published and updated several times daily in https://2700chess.com/ but they make no pretense of calling these "May 6, 2018 07:32 GMT FIDE Ratings" or something like that. If they did, then that would be a misrepresentation on their part.

And I certainly don't have any intention or desire to drag anyone into an abyss. I find that people are quite capable of dragging themselves into an abyss of their choosing without any assistance from me.

To think that all this discussion started because I asked you to educate me on what FIDE rating cards were, something that you have not been willing or able to do. Perhaps you recognize that they are not "official" either and should not be labeled as such?

May-07-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Richard Taylor: <Ayler Kupp> Thanks for that re the ratings and the K factor. My rating went up 150 points one year partly due to that factor I think. I think they "compensated" in this way for losing to rapidly improving players (a lot did) and also for my wins.

Not that ratings matter much to me now.

I can see that it is logical the K factor would be less for higher rated players.

I've often thought that some system whereby say a strong rated (and good) player loses to a weaker (poss. improving) player should give a bias so that the strong player (say a GM in an open tournament) doesn't lose so many rating points while the winner gains in the normal way.

Normally this isn't a problem as mostly the high rated players win but sometimes they lose unexpectedly so it might be more or an incentive to play in open tournaments. Still others would argue that all have to face the music so to speak...

May-07-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Richard Taylor: <Dionysius1: Hi <Richard> If I get you right, I think there is or used to be an adjustment mid season for games against juniors. Often juniors gain huge numbers of points in a single season, so their annual rating often isn't realistic. I think the ECF recognizes that in some way.>

Yes I had played a lot of junior players from say 2005 to 2010. In 2010 my rating went up a lot. I was also doing well against seniors.

But the junior players' rating was quite low. They were playing almost 200 points or more above the rating they had. I used to only think of the NZ ratings as the idea of getting FIDE ratings seemed somehow irrelevant. Mostly I look at my local rating. The FIDE rating is lower partly as I haven't played so many outside NZ. Although more and more tournaments herea are FIDE rated.

But I remember thinking it was "unfair" that I had to struggle to win sometimes quite interesting and complex games or get taken down by players who were soon close to the best on our rating list.

But such is life, all is fair in love and chess!

May-07-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<Richard Taylor> I've often thought that some system whereby say a strong rated (and good) player loses to a weaker (poss. improving) player should give a bias so that the strong player (say a GM in an open tournament) doesn't lose so many rating points while the winner gains in the normal way. >

There already is such a system and it's called the Rule of 400 in FIDE-rated games. If the difference in the player's rating is greater than 400, the difference between the players' ratings for the purpose of ratings update is limited to 400. That way, if the higher rated player loses or draws, his/her ratings drop as though the rating difference was only 400 and not the actual rating difference. Likewise, the lower rated player's rating gain in case of a win or loss is restricted by calculating the rating change on the basis of a 400-point ratings difference and not the actual rating point difference.

Originally this was the Rule of 350 and was proposed by Anand. It went into effect in April 2006 and was replaced by the Rule of 400 in July 2009.

In my opinion this is a ridiculous rule. If the much higher rated player doesn't want to lose a large number of rating points by losing or drawing against a much lower rated player, the solution is simple just win the game! After all, you are expected to do so. If for some reason you lose or draw, too bad. The player then has the compensation that their now much-lower rating is artificially low and they should soon return to their previous rating level by winning or drawing against future (now) higher-rated opponents, and gaining more rating points than they would normally gain. So any high loss of rating points, if indeed the loss to a much lower-rated player was an aberration, is only temporary.

May-07-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Count Wedgemore: <AylerKupp: In my opinion this is a ridiculous rule.>

No, you're wrong on this one. Removing the 400-rule would deter very strong players from playing in Open tournaments. Already we see that many of the top players stay away from Opens in fear of losing rating points. Without the 400-rule, they would potentially risk losing even more points, which would deter them even further.

<If the much higher rated player doesn't want to lose a large number of rating points by losing or drawing against a much lower rated player, the solution is simple just win the game!>

I think you yourself realize that this is a very weak, if not downright silly argument to make. You're better than this, <AylerKupp>.

May-08-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<Count Wedgemore> Removing the 400-rule would deter very strong players from playing in Open tournaments. Already we see that many of the top players stay away from Opens in fear of losing rating points. Without the 400-rule, they would potentially risk losing even more points, which would deter them even further.>

Yeah, that's the reason usually given for the Rule of 400. So let's assume that Player A is rated at 2700 and Player B is rated at 1900 and the meet in the first round of an Open tournament. The 800 point rating difference (actually, 735) is the largest rating difference covered by the FIDE rating calculation tables. While we certainly expect Player A to defeat Player B, how many rating points would Player A lose if instead of winning, he loses?

From FIDE Table 8.1b in https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.... Player A's scoring probability, PD, is 1.00. Can't get any more certain of a win than that! But he loses anyway (which perhaps tells you something about FIDE's Table 8.1b), so his score for this game, S, is 0.0. If we assume that Player A has played more than 30 rated games in his chess career, then his K-factor, K, is 10. Player A's rating change is given by (from section 8.5 in the link above):

RC = K*(S PD) = 10*(0.0 1.00) = -10 points. That's the <MOST> rating points any player can lose after playing one game.

Now let's assume that Player A, instead of playing Player B on the first round, plays Player C who is rated 2300, so their rating differential is 400 points. This is the same as playing Player B with the Rule of 400 in effect. Again, Player A, though again heavily expected to win, also loses. In this case from FIDE Table 8.1b Player A's scoring probability, PD, is 0.92. So Player A's rating change is given by:

RC = K*(S PD) = 10*(0.0 0.92) = -9.2 points ~ 9 points if we round it.

Therefore the difference between Player A losing to a player rated 800 points below him <without> the Rule of 400 being in effect and Player A losing to a player rated 800 points below him <with> the Rule of 400 in effect is, at most, <1.2> rating points if we don't round the rating change, <1> rating point if we do..

So, to use your words, if this is the reason for the Rule of 400, "this is a very weak, if not downright silly argument to make". And I would think that Player A, after achieving a rating of 2700, would be better than this.

May-08-18  WorstPlayerEver: I'm with <AylerKupp> on this one. If very strong players don't want to lose too many points against weaker players, they better jump in a canal with a weight around their neck.

Or play draughts... because.. because.. a stronger player is stronger for a reason. So the odds of a weaker player get more against them. While the odds they win a a game against a very strong player are already against them.

In practice it means that a 2600+ player just draws against 2450+ players and beats the weakies. They just roam at these open tournaments to predate on the weakies.

That's one of the many reasons no one comes to watch all these lame buggers.

May-08-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: The rule of350/400 made sense when the opponents' ratings were averaged out. But with game by game calculations as they are in effect now they are not only mathematically unjustified but also useless for the intended purpose.

Players who protest the abolishing of the rule most are GMs rated around 2600. Wish somebody went out to them and show how silly it is, on <AK>'s example

May-08-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: By the way, it's 0.8 points, not 1.2.
May-08-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Richard Taylor: <AylerKupp: <<Richard Taylor> I've often thought that some system whereby say a strong rated (and good) player loses to a weaker (poss. improving) player should give a bias so that the strong player (say a GM in an open tournament) doesn't lose so many rating points while the winner gains in the normal way. > There already is such a system and it's called the Rule of 400 in FIDE-rated games. If the difference in the player's rating is greater than 400, the difference between the players' ratings for the purpose of ratings update is limited to 400. That way, if the higher rated player loses or draws, his/her ratings drop as though the rating difference was only 400 and not the...>

I was thinking such a rule or similar might protect high rated GMs in certain kinds of tournaments. But I feel that the lower rated player should gain. There is a factor that sometimes it is a kind of luck. Of course chess involves luck and chance (far more than people realise). But I can see it would have a value.

It reminds me, I am not sure if it is true, but someone said that if say, I, my rating is very low, won every game in say the US Open (very unlikely as I am thousands of miles away from it!) and I beat a string of GMs without cheating (although I am partial to cheating if it is done subtly, so if I was I wouldn't win every game! I would slowly make my way up...of course I need a perfect udetectable system and one that is plausible); that aside aside, if I won without cheating, nothing detected, then I gain the rating points (or perhaps the probability is too low also so it might be discounted, I know there have been cases where cheating has been suspected where no one has been actully proven to: the point here is for the surprise winner is that they COULD do it, as probability theory allows it); but (also) if a GM lost EVERY game in a low rated tournament...say it was Carlsen playing in the NZ Champs (very unlikely but he might play in the Open one day) then I think he doesn't lose any points as the probability is so low...

Also a probability of 1 is surely always only theoretical like (or as) an infinitesimal probability of 0.0000000000 (many zeroes to a 1) would be equally rare although possible. I suppose their certainty is a provisional one. Of course it will seem to be proven. Interesting how chess and games can involve so much complexity and maths etc.

I wonder if one day a complex computer evaluation will "map" all games so that we actually do away with wins and losses. Draws I like. Draws are beautiful. They show that the players have reached theoretical perfection, almost. But complex wins and losses and dynamic surges are good also. So if a player played a great game but blundered in my system the (very very wise kind and intelligent) computer (not necessarily a mamsy pamsy Liberal Computer that might upset Big Pawn or someone though!) would print out a report and evaluation of the game. Added to that the player would have to annotate his or her game showing they understood a lot of the plans and tactics. So instead of a only a win or losss or draw there would be a parallel points system awarding players for their progress in the game...

So even though a win would still be a win a kind of Grand Prix idea of accumulated "skill and chess knowledge points" and "ingenuity" as well as "errors" and "bad plans" etc would compensate for blunders. And indeed a very close fought complex game would not only be just 1-0 but each would get about the same points in the parallel system...

Of course it is all theoretical and will probably not ever happen as such in normal chess if that can be defined... [I know they have games where everyone openly uses computers that is an interesting idea and happening also although I usually wait until those are finished, the huge strings of analysis are fearfully tedious to look at)...

Of course a player who was wiped out for bad play would get very few points but would get computer assistance and analysis of their game. And commendation for good ideas however small they might seem to better players...

Something like that.

May-08-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<alexmagnus> By the way, it's 0.8 points, not 1.2.>

Ha, ha, ha. Of course. It was late at night and I'm somewhat dyslexic so I mentally subtracted 9.2 from 10 and got 1.2. Next time I'll use a calculator.

And, BTW, the effect of the Rule of 4000 is in practice much less than that. After all, how often will a 2700-rated player lose to a 1900-player? If he were to lose 1 out of 10 times (probably much less than that, but I wanted a percentage that I could calculate in my head, and you put additional doubt about that in my mind), then on the average he would lose an additional 0.08 rating points (did I calculate that right?) every time he played a player with an 800-point rating differential 10 times.

Of course, <Count Wedgemore> has a point. Whether the loss of an additional 0.8 rating points as a result of losing a game to a 2700-rated player with an 800-point (or more) advantage over his opponent if the Rule of 400 was not in effect is significant is only a matter of opinion. I say it's silly and <Count Wedgemore> <may> think it's not. But neither of our opinions matter, it's only the opinion of 2700-rated players that matters. That extra 0.8 rating points might be important to them.

May-08-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<alexmagnus> The rule of 350/400 made sense when the opponents' ratings were averaged out. But with game by game calculations as they are in effect now they are not only mathematically unjustified but also useless for the intended purpose.>

Actually, when calculating a player's rating change at the end of the tournament, it makes no difference whether his opponents' ratings are averaged out or whether they are calculated game by game (provided they are not rounded), the end result is the same. When I started doing my ratings calculations I was surprised by that, but this is the result of FIDE's (and Dr. Elo before that) assumption that Black is as likely to win as White. Which is true if you are rating a "large" number of games since the number of times a player has White will be approximately the same as the number of times that player has Black, so the probability distribution of their expected result based on the rating differentials is symmetric.

But that's not the case if the player plays an odd number of games in a tournament (which is what usually happens since, to avoid giving byes, tournaments usually have an even number of players) and it's certainly not the case for a single game. So, since FIDE's official formula calls for calculating the rating gain (loss) after each game and then adding them before taking the difference between that and the player's actual tournament score, it would be more precise to take the typical higher winning percentage for White over Black (around 55% vs. 45%) when calculating the rating change. But this difference is probably not significant, even in extreme cases when a player wins all his games with Black and loses all his games with White.

There are other imprecisions in FIDE's rating change calculations but don't get me started. And, given that at the end the player's new rating is rounded to the nearest integer, I'm not sure that these imprecisions are significant or even if they make any different in the player's newly calculated rating.

May-08-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<Richard Taylor> Also a probability of 1 is surely always only theoretical like (or as) an infinitesimal probability of 0.0000000000 (many zeroes to a 1) would be equally rare although possible.>

The reason that the scoring probability in FIDE's tables are 1.0 is that they round them to 2 significant digits. This made sense during the 1960s and 1970s when Dr. Elo first made his calculations since he probably didn't have access to a computer so he did them with the aid of, at best, a mechanical calculator. And he made other simplifying assumptions as well.

But, of course, you're right, he probability of a player winning OR drawing (which is what the FIDE scoring probability table indicates) will only be "exactly" 0.00000... at the limit when the number of games approaches infinity and the rating differential approaches -infinity. And that is not a practical proposition as far as calculating rating changes! :-)

If this were done today, with access to cheap and fairly powerful personal computers with equally powerful software, I suspect that the ratings would be (or at least could be) calculated more precisely. For example, I calculated the probabilities of a player winning or drawing from a range of a ± 1000 rating differential at one rating point intervals, a total of 2001 probabilities. I do my calculations using Excel which carries its calculations using 17 digits of precision, and six digits are necessary to ensure that each probability value is unique for each possible rating differential in that ± 1000 rating differential range. I only round to an integer at the final step when calculating the player's new rating following the end of a tournament. The extra precision in the calculations may or may not be significant, but they never hurt.

With only 2 digits of precision FIDE's Table 8.1b indicates a p(W or D) = 1 whenever the rating differential exceeds +735. So, for a +735 point rating advantage, a player's p(Win or Draw) ~ 0.995320 (to 6 digits), very close but not quite equal to 1. Which means that, on the average, a player with a +735 rating advantage will lose or draw once every 1 / (1-p(W or D)), or approximately once every 214 games. For a +400 point rating advantage the p(Win or Draw) ~ 0.921350 so the player will lose or draw approximately a perhaps surprisingly high once every 13 games. And for a +350 point rating advantage as the original Rule of 350 specified the p(Win or Draw) ~ 0.892038 so the player will lose or draw approximately an even more surprisingly high once every 9 games.

So Anand or whoever did the calculations was perhaps rightly concerned about the odds of losing or drawing a game against a much lower rated player, but I think that they overestimated the difference in the number of rating points that would have been lost as a result whether the Rule of 350 or the Rule of 400 was being imposed or not.

And I'm sure that <alexmagnus> will (and I encourage him to!) check my calculations!

May-08-18  nok: with AylerKupp and Dick Taylor in full swing, this might just be the boringest page ever. Try to read it, I dare you.
May-09-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <nok> If you think that this might be the boringest page ever, why are you reading it? And, more to the point, why are you bothering to post on it? Don't you have better things to do with your time?
May-09-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Dionysius1: Hi <AylerKupp>. I'm thinking of the case of a junior who in his first year of playing becomes much stronger than his grading, evidenced by winning the offhand games he plays against very strong members of his club. If he's beating the lowest board opponents in league games which are submitted to ECF and is also beating strong players on casual nights which aren't, then yes, I would say his rating is unrealistic - it doesn't represent his true strength.
May-09-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <Dionysius1> Yes, the rating of a rapidly improving player, regardless of age, will typically be unrealistically low if there is a substantial delay between the time the games are played and the ratings are calculated. I suspect that this is a bigger problem with ECF ratings since they are only updated every six months and the FIDE/USCF ratings are updated monthly. In the case of FIDE ratingst here is an approximate 1 in 30.3 chance that there will be two month lag in reflecting new ratings if the only tournament a player plays in ends on the day after the cutoff date for the FIDE ratings update. This is what happened in this year's US Championship and US Women's Championships.

FIDE initially updated their rating list yearly and somewhat haphazardly until 1978 when they started updating it every 6 months, in January and July. They began updating it quarterly in October, 2000 and monthly in Jan 2013 (I think). I don't remember how often the USCF was updating their rating list in the 1960s when I was active in chess, but I remember how eagerly we waited its publication to check our new ratings. I doubt that they updated it more often than quarterly, since in those days they still did it manually.

Speaking of unrealistic ratings for juniors, imagine the surprise of Fischer's opponents in the late 1950s when all of a sudden at age 11 he "just got good".

May-09-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  morfishine: No number can ever represent any chess player's "true strength"

Nothing definitive can ever be arrived at, so why all the bother over ill-defined numbers?

Please, don't answer that, the conversation will go on for infinity

*****

May-10-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Dionysius1: But that would be all right - you wouldn't have to join in! Actually, for me it's probably run its course. Thanks <AyerKupp>
May-10-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Richard Taylor: <AylerKupp: <<Richard Taylor> Also a probability of 1 is surely always only theoretical like (or as) an infinitesimal probability of 0.0000000000 (many zeroes to a 1) would be equally rare although possible.> The reason that the scoring probability in FIDE's tables are 1.0 is that they round them to 2 significant digits. This made sense during the 1960s and 1970s when Dr. Elo first made his calculations since he probably didn't have access to a computer so he did them with the aid of, at best, a mechanical calculator. And he made oth...>

I did read this. I see what Ayler is saying. He clearly loves mathematics. I once did some stat maths for Telecom Engineering although I never really used it as I was mainly a 'hands on' tech...that said it has some interest.

Thanks Ayler in any case. It seems that in the main a GM such as Anand etc has no or should have no concerns overall...

But I am interested in 'The Philosophy of Chess' (actually I saw a book called something like that in my local library but I was working randomly through the Dewey System selecting books from which I take random samples...my interest was not in the content but the style or texture of the book etc.

But in the process I found that almost everything I encountered, even on subjects I thought I hated, had interesting sides...

In the 900s some fascinating biographies and the 500s etc some sometimes bizarre science books but I went through every aspect, including romance and of course chess. But chess turned up under mathematics and philosophy.

The book by the mathematician who solved pi to some ridiculous number was actually quite a beautiful book. He talked about snow flakes, how he helped some poor woman to learn mathematics more easily, about Gould the biologist and his realisation that a Doctor's 'death sentence' could be taken as a probability of 1/2 and how he thus evaded cancer, somehow ignoring his doctor's prognosis; how Tolstoy was interested in calculus and it affected the complexity of War and Peace; the complex-random nature of 'Hopscotch' by Cortazar and also of the (potentially infinite narratives implied in Nabokov's 'Lolita' because of his use of discrete index cards to compose his book. And of course Nabokov was a chess player and composed chess problems. And the number of possible move in chess were discussed. But this was only one of the many interesting books I 'sampled' last year.

Who could be bored by me?

May-10-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Richard Taylor: Yes, of course, you cant define a chess player by a number. You can never really have a "greatest chessplayer". It is always ultimately subjective.
May-10-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Richard Taylor: <nok: with AylerKupp and Dick Taylor in full swing, this might just be the boringest page ever. Try to read it, I dare you.>

But I wont knock you nok! I agree that some of this stuff is a bit tedious and can be. I was never good at mathematics and altho I played chess for years I still didn't really understand all the rules. In a game I have never claimed a draw by the rules, all I do is keep repeating moves and then put my hand out for the draw or mutter something. I avoid most of these things about rating and who is winning what.

I keep some interest but I am not playing chess at the present so my interest is in chess in general. I mean games, why some moves are better and so on. Despite playing for years I still have no idea why some games are won or indeed lost. I mean the philosophy and psychology of chess and how games transform...something like that.

But even playing in tournaments I often didn't look at the result game by game and just used to play. I also rarely studied any openings. Then urged on by a friend I started studying them a bit more systematically when I was 60 or so...I did study a few openings in 1978 but not intensely. And as for ratings and rules I just used to follow instructions although I know the basic things I suppose.

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 6)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 5 OF 6 ·  Later Kibitzing>
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, is 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, profane, raunchy, or disgusting language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate or nonsense posts.
  3. No malicious personal attacks, including cyber stalking, systematic antagonism, or gratuitous name-calling of any member Iincludinfgall Admin and Owners or any of their family, friends, associates, or business interests. If you think someone is an idiot, then provide evidence that their reasoning is invalid and/or idiotic, instead of just calling them an idiot. It's a subtle but important distinction, even in political discussions.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No malicious posting of or linking to personal, private, and/or negative information (aka "doxing" or "doxxing") about any member, (including all Admin and Owners) or any of their family, friends, associates, or business interests. This includes all media: text, images, video, audio, or otherwise. Such actions will result in severe sanctions for any violators.
  6. NO TROLLING. Admin and Owners know it when they see it, and sanctions for any trolls will be significant.
  7. Any off-topic posts which distract from the primary topic of discussion are subject to removal.
  8. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by Moderators is expressly prohibited.
  9. The use of "sock puppet" accounts in an attempt to undermine any side of a debate—or to create a false impression of consensus or support—is prohibited.
  10. All decisions with respect to deleting posts, and any subsequent discipline, are final, and occur at the sole discretion of the Moderators, Admin, and Owners.
  11. Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a Moderator.

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, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors. All Moderator actions taken are at the sole discretion of the Admin and Owners—who will strive to act fairly and consistently at all times.
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 | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | contact us
Copyright 2001-2019, Chessgames Services LLC