|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jul-09-07 | | Dr.Lecter: Ivanchuk's really going fast up, without the world championship to worry about |
|
| Jul-09-07 | | chessmoron: This is of course a rapid tournament. It is just too bad that Chuck lost the chance to play in the Candidates when he lost to Ivan Cheparinov in the 2nd Round of 2005 FIDE Cup. 2007 FIDE Cup is next and I do hope it's not deja vu for Chucky this time around. |
|
| Jul-09-07 | | notyetagm: <chessmoron: ... 2007 FIDE Cup is next and I do hope it's not deja vu for Chucky this time around.> The 2005 FIDE World Cup was basically a lottery, with one loss eliminating you for all intents and purposes. This time around, however, I do not believe that the format will be so unkind to someone who loses a single game. So we won't be stuck with Malakhov and Gurevich instead of Ivanchuk and Mamedyarov. |
|
| Jul-09-07 | | notyetagm: Game Of The Tournament: Gelfand vs Shirov, 2007 |
|
| Jul-09-07 | | chessmoron: <The 2005 FIDE World Cup was basically a lottery, with one loss eliminating you for all intents and purposes.> Not exactly. There's 2 classical games and Chucky drew 1 and lost one. If he drew the classical match, there's 2 rapid games. And if that drew, blitz. And drew again, Armageddon. |
|
| Jul-09-07 | | acirce: Will people stop calling chess events "lotteries" when they are based on actual play? It's plain silly. If you lost one of the long games, you could still reach tiebreaks by winning the other. And if you didn't, it's your own fault, not "bad luck". |
|
Jul-09-07
 | | SwitchingQuylthulg: There is such a thing as a player's probability to win, which immediately turns it into mathematics, not chess. In a 2-game knockout format it's not necessarily the best player who wins; in fact if it is, it can be considered a big surprise. People like a format where there's a good chance the best player actually wins. |
|
| Jul-09-07 | | drawocoward: <here is such a thing as a player's probability to win, which immediately turns it into mathematic> Actually it turns it more into statistics, which is kind of a big difference. |
|
| Jul-09-07 | | NimzoKing: <chessmoron: <The 2005 FIDE World Cup was basically a lottery, with one loss eliminating you for all intents and purposes.> Not exactly. There's 2 classical games and Chucky drew 1 and lost one. If he drew the classical match, there's 2 rapid games. And if that drew, blitz. And drew again, Armageddon.> Whats armageddon in chess |
|
Jul-09-07
 | | alexmagnus: <drawcoward> Statistics is a part of mathematics.And, actually, the probability that the stronger player wins a 2-game-match, is quite big. With 100 Elo-points difference, the chances in one single game are 64:36 in favour of the stronger player (i.e., the probability that the weaker player wins or draws, is 36%). In a two games match, the weaker player must at least draw both games to go into tiebreaks. The probability for it is 0,36*0,36=0,1296. I.e., the weaker player reaches tiebreakes or wins in classical only with 13% chance. I wouldn't call it too high. |
|
| Jul-09-07 | | acirce: <SwitchingQuylthulg> Was that a response to me or just a general reflection? I agree with everything apart from <..turns it into mathematics, not chess.> Even in a ridiculously short match, even at shortened FIDE time controls or rapid, you won't lose unless you actually play worse than your opponent. |
|
Jul-09-07
| | alexmagnus: Huh, some bad maths from me... Forgot the drawing probability:) |
|
Jul-09-07
| | SwitchingQuylthulg: <alexmagnus> There's a <<<<very>>>> big error in your calculations. 64:36 does not mean that the weaker player wins or draws 36% of the time but that weaker player scores 36%; in other words, he's winning percentage + (drawing percentage/2) is 36%. The probability that he *at least* draws depends on the draw ratio and could be as high as 70%. I.e. the weaker player reaches tiebreaks half the time. Also, you forgot that he didn't have to at least draw both games; winning one and losing one is also OK, putting the percentage yet higher. Also, even if the difference between the players was so huge that the better player actually won 87% of the time, he'd have to win a lot of such matches to be a champion. His odds of winning seven such matches in a row (luckily the last matches are a bit longer, but it makes no big difference) are only 37%. |
|
Jul-09-07
| | SwitchingQuylthulg: <acirce: Was that a response to me or just a general reflection?> Mainly a general reflection to you, if you know what I mean. <I agree with everything apart from <..turns it into mathematics, not chess.> Even in a ridiculously short match, even at shortened FIDE time controls or rapid, you won't lose unless you actually play worse than your opponent.> From a mathematical point of view, playing worse is just another number which has a certain statistical possibility. If, say, Kasparov would blunder a queen against me, he wouldn't do it because he's a bad player but because even Kasparov does it sometimes, however rarely. |
|
Jul-09-07
| | alexmagnus: <SwitchingQuythulg> However, if Kasparov blunders a Queen against you, he may not resign:) BTW have you noticed that GMs practically never blunder against amateurs? In GM vs. GM games, one can make a huge collection of silly blunders, but it takes enormous effort to find a GM vs. amateur game where GM blundered.... |
|
Jul-09-07
| | SwitchingQuylthulg: <alexmagnus> I guess it's because amateurs don't give them so many problems to deal with. In the same way good amateurs can actually play quite well against other amateurs but make silly blunders against GMs. It's easier to play well in an easy position. Still, GMs blunder even in easy positions, even if extremely rarely. I think I'd win Kasparov if he blundered a Q against me. (That is, unless I would counterblunder my own queen, which is quite possible.) Of course, there would still be the other game, which he'd surely win, and then he'd smash me to bits in the tiebreak... |
|
| Jul-09-07 | | Aspirador: Piv Denny was the nickname of a guy we met one night in a down-and-out bar in Lagos, Nigeria. His real name was Denny Piverling though. |
|
Jul-09-07
| | alexmagnus: <Aspirador>LOL.The actual meaning of "Pivednny" is "the Southern" in Ukrainian. |
|
| Jul-09-07 | | s4life: <acirce: Will people stop calling chess events "lotteries" when they are based on actual play? It's plain silly. If you lost one of the long games, you could still reach tiebreaks by winning the other. And if you didn't, it's your own fault, not "bad luck".> It was a lottery in hinsight, for whatever reasons... Kasim and Kalifman world champions? come on.... |
|
| Jul-09-07 | | unsound: <acirce> didn't say the knockout was the best way of deciding a World Champion (he's said quite the opposite before, I believe). He just pointed out that it's not a pure "lottery" either. Which it isn't; Kasim etc. had to beat lots of players at one speed or another, and did so, which counts for something, even if it didn't mean they proved they were the best in the field. I don't get what's so hard about that. |
|
Jul-09-07
 | | keypusher: Check out the picture of the "bear midriff" in Chessbase's account of this event; the bears are quite fetching in Odessa. http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail... |
|
| Jul-09-07 | | cornflake: it looks like Chucky is back. |
|
| Jul-09-07 | | notyetagm: <cornflake: it looks like Chucky is back.> Go Chucky!
|
|
| Jul-10-07 | | Knight13: Good.... |
|
| Jul-10-07 | | kingsindian2006: this tourney seems like alot of fighting chess.. and few draws... fun to see.... |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
