|Altibox Norway (Blitz) (2018)|
This 9 round blitz event was a warm-up to Altibox Norway (2018) and also determined the pairings. The time control was 3 minutes per side plus 2 seconds increment per move. Wesley So won the event with 6/9:
Giving the Round 1 pairings Carlsen vs Caruana, Mamedyarov vs Vachier-Lagrave, Nakamura vs Ding, So vs Karjakin, and Anand vs Aronian.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 SonBe
1 So * ½ ½ 0 1 ½ 1 1 ½ 1 6
2 Nakamura ½ * ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 1 ½ 5½ 23
3 Anand ½ ½ * ½ ½ 1 0 ½ 1 1 5½ 22.75
4 Carlsen 1 ½ ½ * ½ ½ 1 ½ 0 ½ 5
5 Mamedyarov 0 ½ ½ ½ * 1 1 0 0 1 4½ 20
6 Vachier-Lagrave ½ ½ 0 ½ 0 * 1 ½ 1 ½ 4½ 19
7 Caruana 0 ½ 1 0 0 0 * 1 1 1 4½ 17.75
8 Karjakin 0 0 ½ ½ 1 ½ 0 * 1 0 3½
9 Aronian ½ 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 * ½ 3 14
10 Ding Liren 0 ½ 0 ½ 0 ½ 0 1 ½ * 3 12.5
https://www.chess.com/news/view/wes.... Live games: https://chess24.com/en/watch/live-t...
| page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 45
|1. W So vs M Vachier-Lagrave
|| ||½-½||62||2018||Altibox Norway (Blitz)||E60 King's Indian Defense|
|2. Karjakin vs M Vachier-Lagrave
|| ||½-½||29||2018||Altibox Norway (Blitz)||A01 Nimzovich-Larsen Attack|
|3. Nakamura vs Ding Liren
|| ||½-½||54||2018||Altibox Norway (Blitz)||A06 Reti Opening|
|4. Carlsen vs Caruana
||1-0||53||2018||Altibox Norway (Blitz)||E47 Nimzo-Indian, 4.e3 O-O 5.Bd3|
|5. Ding Liren vs Aronian
|| ||½-½||62||2018||Altibox Norway (Blitz)||E48 Nimzo-Indian, 4.e3 O-O 5.Bd3 d5|
|6. Caruana vs Mamedyarov
|| ||0-1||44||2018||Altibox Norway (Blitz)||B07 Pirc|
|7. M Vachier-Lagrave vs Nakamura
|| ||½-½||39||2018||Altibox Norway (Blitz)||C65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense|
|8. W So vs Karjakin
|| ||1-0||37||2018||Altibox Norway (Blitz)||C65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense|
|9. Anand vs Carlsen
|| ||½-½||29||2018||Altibox Norway (Blitz)||C65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense|
|10. Karjakin vs Mamedyarov
||1-0||31||2018||Altibox Norway (Blitz)||A49 King's Indian, Fianchetto without c4|
|11. Aronian vs Anand
||0-1||42||2018||Altibox Norway (Blitz)||C50 Giuoco Piano|
|12. Mamedyarov vs W So
||0-1||39||2018||Altibox Norway (Blitz)||A45 Queen's Pawn Game|
|13. Aronian vs Caruana
|| ||0-1||46||2018||Altibox Norway (Blitz)||B40 Sicilian|
|14. Mamedyarov vs Ding Liren
|| ||1-0||25||2018||Altibox Norway (Blitz)||A45 Queen's Pawn Game|
|15. Karjakin vs Anand
|| ||½-½||24||2018||Altibox Norway (Blitz)||A01 Nimzovich-Larsen Attack|
|16. Nakamura vs Carlsen
|| ||½-½||38||2018||Altibox Norway (Blitz)||B09 Pirc, Austrian Attack|
|17. Anand vs Nakamura
|| ||½-½||39||2018||Altibox Norway (Blitz)||C65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense|
|18. Caruana vs W So
|| ||0-1||55||2018||Altibox Norway (Blitz)||A37 English, Symmetrical|
|19. Ding Liren vs Karjakin
||1-0||33||2018||Altibox Norway (Blitz)||A07 King's Indian Attack|
|20. M Vachier-Lagrave vs Mamedyarov
||0-1||38||2018||Altibox Norway (Blitz)||B12 Caro-Kann Defense|
|21. Carlsen vs Aronian
||0-1||52||2018||Altibox Norway (Blitz)||C65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense|
|22. Anand vs Caruana
||0-1||29||2018||Altibox Norway (Blitz)||C50 Giuoco Piano|
|23. Nakamura vs W So
|| ||½-½||42||2018||Altibox Norway (Blitz)||A06 Reti Opening|
|24. Aronian vs M Vachier-Lagrave
||0-1||45||2018||Altibox Norway (Blitz)||B50 Sicilian|
|25. M Vachier-Lagrave vs Ding Liren
||½-½||62||2018||Altibox Norway (Blitz)||E48 Nimzo-Indian, 4.e3 O-O 5.Bd3 d5|
| page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 45
TIP: You can make the above ads go away by registering a free account!
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 10 ·
|Jul-14-18|| ||AylerKupp: <<Sally Simpson> Thought this might interest you and give you a laugh.> (part 2 of 2)|
The true test of any rating system is how well it predicts what the actual performance will be; i.e. how well does the predicted distribution of results based on rating differences matches the actual distribution of results as a function of rating differences. Without access to computers and without game databases this was not possible to do in 1942 and unlikely to be possible in the 1960s when the Elo system was first used to calculate USCF ratings. It might have been possible in the 1970s when Dr. Elo published his "The Rating of Chessplayers – Past & Present". In it he calculated player ratings in 5-year periods based on the results of tournaments and matches, and he compared the predicted results of 92 matches (he said 95 but only listed 92) from 1860 to 1977 with the actual results. Only in 2 out of 92 matches was the predicted result wrong, and in 5 of the 92 (he said 95) did the expected score deviate from the actual score by more than one standard deviation.
This was a not unreasonable approach but I think that today, with the availability of lots of historical data and easy access to fairly powerful and cheap computers, we could do better. We could compare the predicted distribution of game results using different probability distributions with the distribution of actual game results and see which probability distribution best matches actual results. We could also matrix consisting of <every> player who ever played a game for which results exist could be constructed and using the same iterative process used to calculate the initial ratings for a (much) smaller set of players, the ratings of <every> player could be calculated. That would answer the question once and for all whether, say, Morphy was better than Capablanca or Fischer was better than Kasparov.
But, no, I'm not going to do the latter. :-)
|Jul-14-18|| ||AylerKupp: <<chessalem> it applies to all member states of the UN- that's why my petition for inclusion.|
True, but "member states" are not the same as individuals. You cannot compare "member states" with chessplayers.
<still, equal protection is a natural right- i.e. ( vested to the human race and cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws).>
That's a philosophical discussion which is not appropriate for this page so I'm not going to bother to address it here.
<<so>, unless you are an android, every chessplayer is entitled to an equal initial rating in the rapid and blitz.>
That's a rather a large leap of faith that is not warranted by the so-called arguments that you have presented so far.
|Jul-14-18|| ||AylerKupp: <<tuttifrutty> Hi Sally Simpson, thanks for having an open mind>|
Agreeing with you does not mean that <Sally Simpson> has an open mind, although I think that he does. It merely means that, possibly as a result of insufficient information and consideration, he thinks that your comments were reasonable. A test of an open mind is whether a person can change it when presented with information that they might not have considered before. So we'll see, if he chooses to further share his opinions with us. But, unlike me, he probably does not enjoy your silliness and does not want to bother responding to them. So I wouldn't blame him if he doesn't share his opinions further.
You on the other hand, by continuing to agree with <chessalem>'s silly comments even when presented with many facts showing how his comments have no basis on reality, continue to agree with him, even though he cannot answer any of the objections that I presented against his so-called "average rating system". That's the definition of a <CLOSED> mind.
|Jul-14-18|| ||Sally Simpson: Hi Aylerkupp,
It was the letter I thought might raise a smile, the part about using a combination of astrology and a set of dice to compute players ratings.
I think everyone would be happy with that system. Maybe they could use it for tie breaks instead of blitz games.
|Jul-15-18|| ||chessalem: <"I will be back to paste some of my brilliant games to prove to you that I am not making an excuse or an alibi." (Altibox Norway (Blitz) (2018)). Almost two weeks later and, not surprisingly, we're still waiting.>|
Your wait is over. Behold my master pieces to prove as testament to the brillance of my mind and theories specially in relation to the average rating system:
|Jul-15-18|| ||chessalem: here's more:
|Jul-15-18|| ||AylerKupp: <<chesssalem> <Your wait is over. Behold my master pieces to prove as testament to the brilliance of my mind and theories specially in relation to the average rating system>|
See, that's why I justifiably call you a <FRAUD>. Nobody cares about your so-called "brilliant" games since games have nothing to do with your understanding of how the Elo system works or provide any rationale about your so-called "average rating system". No one is going to bother looking at your games since they are irrelevant..
I indicated that as a result of your laziness you tried to pass on the work of looking at a database to justify your claims unto others (Altibox Norway (Blitz) (2018) (kibitz #151)), and I told you that, as the one making the claim, <YOU> should be the one to do it, you responded (Altibox Norway (Blitz) (2018) (kibitz #163)) that "I don't have the liberty of time to do this at the moment ... I will be back to paste some of my brilliant games to prove to you that I am not making an excuse or an alibi."
Now you are implying that I said that "Almost two weeks later and not surprisingly, we're still waiting" and that this was about seeing your "brilliant" games when it was the result of asking you to do some work and provide data and evidence that your so-called "average rating system" has any merit. This childish attempt at deception are an indication that you are delusional and a <FRAUD>, and you will continue to be that until you provide valid data to substantiate your claims and refrain from further attempts at deception.
I continue to laugh at your and others are laughing too.
|Jul-16-18|| ||AylerKupp: <<Sally Simpson> It was the letter I thought might raise a smile, the part about using a combination of astrology and a set of dice to compute players ratings.>|
Sorry for the misunderstanding, that part did bring a smile. But like I said, it was more impressed than amused. Which didn't mean that I wasn't amused, just that I was even more impressed. <chessalem> would do well to look at Chess Review's system, he might learn something from it. But I doubt it. And I don't think that the system would make him happy since it doesn't make use of averages.
And, if you do have a link to the article itself, I would appreciate it. Maybe it says why they thought that (1) the winner should get a 50 point bonus for winning if the 2 players' rating was the same, (2) where they got the idea that the winner should get a rating increase of 10% of the rating difference. Maybe it <was> a combination of astrology and a set of dice! Which at least would make some sense, more than giving the same weight to each win regardless of the rating difference between the two players, and weighing each game the same without taking into account the time that had elapsed between the games.
|Jul-16-18|| ||chessalem: <you responded (Altibox Norway (Blitz) (2018) (kibitz #163)) that "I don't have the liberty of time to do this at the moment ... I will be back to paste some of my brilliant games to prove to you that I am not making an excuse or an alibi.">|
You took off some portion of my posts that to rid it off any semblance of credibility.
I now put it back to bring things in its proper order and perspective.
My exact words were:
<I remain true to my word when I say that I don't have the liberty of time to do this at the moment...perhaps you have..off to chess.com to play some chess...I will be back to paste some of my brillant games to prove to you that I am not making an excuse or an alibi.>
The part you pruned is as follows:
<perhaps you have..off to chess.com to play some chess.>
Please note that the I explained that the reason why I don't have the liberty of time to further justify my average rating system is because I will play some games at chess.com. This is what I did...and now that I offer you proof of my statement...you point it out as a deception and an attempt on my part to commit FRAUD. You have always tried to inject malice in my honest attempts to present my case. Who's the real FRAUD now?
If you look at my games, you will note a consistency in my approach. This unwavering sense of urgency is reflected in my defense of the average rating system...<tutti> ,<sally simpson> and <chessbase> all have agreed with me and seen the error of your ways. The jury has ruled and rendered a verdict in my favor and yet you played the role of judge and executioner and rejected their positions as well- your actuations is an affront to justice and fair play.
<If you look at my games, you will note a consistency in my approach.>
- uncastled king
- waiting for my opponent to castle kingside
- position my queen at C2 (when I play white) or C7 (when I play black) with an eye on the h7 or h2 squares respectively.
- a gallop of the knight to g5 (with white) or g4 (with black)to coordinate with the queen for a mating attack at h2 or h7 square.
- a pawn push to h4 (with white) or h5 (with black) anticipating that if my opponent pushes h3 or h6 and takes the knight, I will take back with the h pawn thereby opening the h file for my h rook giving it access to the h2 or h7 square further supporting my queen with a renewed attack.
- a bishop fianchetto at b2 (with white) or b7 (with black) with an eye to take out the knight at F6 (with white) or f3 (with black) to eliminate the sentry guarding the h7 or h2 square.
They are all pointed to one direction- i.e. to annihilate the opponent's king...
The same is true with my posts- they are all directed to prove my point- i.e. exposing the elo rating system as an ineffective barometer of player's performance and offering in lieu thereof, my average rating system as a much better replacement.
|Jul-16-18|| ||john barleycorn: <chessalem> kindly, come up with you calculated ratings and the rationale behind them. (to make your numbers reproducible, consistent and understandable). |
What is Wesley So's rating according to your methodology right now (classical, rapid/blitz)? Where is his spot among the top10 at the moment?
|Jul-16-18|| ||tuttifrutty: hmmm...your disappearance for 2 weeks is extra ordinary. Is that skull still numb???|
|Jul-16-18|| ||john barleycorn: oo, walang pagpapabuti para sa loko loko|
|Jul-17-18|| ||AylerKupp: <<chessalem> You took off some portion of my posts that to rid it off any semblance of credibility..>|
It's not about credibility (which you have none of), it's about <relevance>. I indicated in Altibox Norway (Blitz) (2018) (kibitz #252) that whether you are "brilliant" or not is not relevant to whether you need to provide evidence about your claim, instead of trying to pass that work off to others either because of laziness on your part, ignorance about how to do it, or concern that downloading and analyzing actual data would refute your claims.
Nobody cares <why> you took the time to play some chess games instead of doing what you needed to do to substantiate your claims. That's your business and a question of your priorities. But until you provide some justification for your claims, no one will believe you (except for <tuttifrutty>, who has as much credibility as you do). <Sally Simpson> initially agreed with you before he thought things through carefully enough. I explained things to him and suggested he probably shouldn't bother to respond. And, so far, in his wisdom he has chosen not to do so.
And I fail to see the relevance of the "consistency in your approach" or "annihilating the opponent's king" as a way to show your understanding of what rating systems should be like.
<Who's the real FRAUD now?>
<YOU> are. And you will continue to be a <FRAUD> until you provide justification for your claims instead of trying to sidestep what you need to do by providing irrelevant information that has nothing to do with the question at hand and claim that it justifies your claims.
|Jul-17-18|| ||AylerKupp: <<tutifrutty> hmmm...your disappearance for 2 weeks is extra ordinary. Is that skull still numb???>|
Perhaps he (<john barleycorn> I suspect) didn't have the liberty of time to post here because he had to take the time to play some brilliant chess games to prove that he didn't have to make excuses or alibis. That seems to be something that you understand and approve of.
|Jul-17-18|| ||john barleycorn: <AylerKupp: ...
Perhaps he (<john barleycorn> I suspect) didn't have the liberty of time to post here because he had to take the time to play some brilliant chess games to prove that he didn't have to make excuses or alibis. ...>
That's about right. AlphaZero and Leela learned it the hard way. Anxiously awaiting the Wesley So "hot chicken wings bbq" backyard challenge in Guiguinto. If the <barracuada> makes it there we will wrap him in aluminium foil and grill him too. hahaha I so fooking funny. Go Bulacan
|Jul-17-18|| ||tuttifrutty: <no one will believe you (except for <tuttifrutty>>|
Speak for yourself.
<<Sally Simpson> initially agreed with you before he thought things through carefully enough. I explained things to him and suggested he probably shouldn't bother to respond. And, so far, in his wisdom he has chosen not to do so.>
His silence doesn't mean he changed his mind. I do believe that he is a man of honor and have enough decency to commit to his testimonies and not to be persuaded by someone like you who has been caught with his hand in a cookie jar.
<<Perhaps he (<john barleycorn>
Perhaps JB told you <Let us be clear about one thing. "rating systems" are as good as the predictions they allow. Unfortunately, we are left in a fog.>
Then...your wino brain was so fogged up, not even visayandoctor can offer any help. Take your omega3...it will help you remember things you have said before.
|Jul-17-18|| ||tuttifrutty: <That seems to be something that you understand and approve of.>|
You evidently don't know chessalem as well as I do...be forewarned, you are getting set up for a total meltdown... your brain will not be able to give the correct answer for the equation then...and now...here it is.
6 divided by 2 open parenthesis 1 plus 2 close parenthesis equals what.
|Jul-17-18|| ||tuttifrutty: <Anxiously awaiting the Wesley So "hot chicken wings bbq" backyard challenge in Guiguinto. If the <barracuada> makes it there we will wrap him in aluminium foil and grill him too.>|
He will not be able to make it. Invite the sardines and Sugardom instead. LOL.
|Jul-17-18|| ||john barleycorn: <tuttifrutty: ...
Then...your wino brain was so fogged up, not even visayandoctor can offer any help. Take your omega3...it will help you remember things you have said before.>
No winos here. Just Ginebros. And no Hope only Winston.
|Jul-17-18|| ||tuttifrutty: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct...|
Makes perfect combination.
|Jul-17-18|| ||john barleycorn: yup, <tuttifrutty>. I remember when I had to change my preferences in smoking (and drinking) when at Bert Bacsal's place. hahaha so many memories|
|Jul-17-18|| ||tuttifrutty: <hahaha so many memories>|
The very least you remember them memories, unlike someone we know...who hasn't have a clue what he said yesterday...flip flopping all over the place. Some more wine please. LOL.
|Jul-18-18|| ||AylerKupp: <<tuttifrutty> His silence doesn't mean he changed his mind. >|
Of course not. And it also doesn't mean that he <didn't> change his mind. I gave him some additional information that he might not have considered earlier and I might have convinced him of the error of his original way of thinking. Or I might not have. If indeed he changed his mind I suggested that he refrain from expressing his revised opinion because it may provoke a knee-jerk reaction form you. And I don't wish that on anyone. Hopefully he'll take my advise but, if he doesn't, he's a big boy and he can take care of himself and take responsibility for his words.
And I fail to see how providing factual information means that I've been caught with my hand in a cookie jar. But, if I have, at least that's better than to have been caught with my brain in a cookie jar like you and <chessalem> have been repeatedly.
I don't bother to take Omega 3 to help me remember things I've said before. I compose my posts in Word files so I have a record of what I said, when I said it, and to whom I said it. Perhaps you should try that since it is apparent that it's <YOU> that doesn't remember what either I or you said previously. Which I suppose is better than <chessalem> who simply makes up the things that he claims I and others have said.
And, yes, I don't know <chessalem> as well as you probably do. For that I consider myself fortunate.
|Jul-19-18|| ||chessalem: < take Omega 3 to help me remember things I've said before.>|
I saw a video in youtube that remind me of you.
<I don't know <chessalem> as well >
<Which I suppose is better than <chessalem> who simply makes up the things that he claims I and others have said.>
hogwash! I never did such a thing. All my posts are supported by links for corroboration...just like my preceding post.
<I don't know <chessalem>>
I am scattered all over chessgames' pages...
Here's a video of me..
|Jul-19-18|| ||AylerKupp: <<chessalem> < take Omega 3 to help me remember things I've said before.> I saw a video in youtube that remind me of you.>|
LOL! See, that's one of the reasons why I call you a <FRAUD>. What I actually said was "I <DON'T> take Omega 3 to help me remember things I've said before". So, once again, you just make up things by deleting words and changing what others say. But perhaps you simply don't remember how to read.
You will unfortunately understand better once you get to be my age. But it seems like you're already there, given by how frequently you "forget" what you say in your posts. And unlike most of the other things you say, that's sad, not funny, so I'm sorry for that.
<hogwash! I never did such a thing. All my posts are supported by links for corroboration...just like my preceding post.>
Of course you did and you do, Constantly. That's another reason why I call you a <FRAUD>. And "denial" is not just a river in Egypt. But perhaps, once again, you forgot what you posted. This would also be funny if it wasn't so sad.
<I am scattered all over chessgames' pages...>
Oh, you're scattered all right. Unfortunately that's an English idiom which may not translate well to your native language.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 10 ·
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