|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 17 OF 20 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jan-29-24 | | stone free or die: Well, the prize money can easily be split equally, in fact it is: <1. If the top two or more players score the same number of points in the Tata Steel Chess Tournament
2024, a tiebreak to determine the tournament winner will be played. All players with this highest score
will participate in the tiebreak games.
<Irrespective of the outcome, the prize money will be divided
equally among all the players in the tiebreak>> From the tb rules (emphasis added): https://tatasteelchess.com/app/uplo... The question remains as to how one might equally split the first place trophy? I suppose the 2nd place trophy can be duplicated at lesser cost for the N-1 second place finishers: <2. Tiebreak games are only played to determine the tournament winner. All other players (except the
winner) in the tiebreak will share second place. As soon as there is a clear winner, other scheduled
tiebreak games will no longer be played.> (ibid)
Again, this seems to be a good pragmatic compromise by the fair-minded Dutch. |
|
| Jan-29-24 | | boz: I'm old school and can appreciate the criticisms of the tiebreaks. But you have to admit they are pretty exciting. I've made peace with the modern world and its lust for speed. |
|
| Jan-29-24 | | boz: The only player to win two games against top five finishers was Vidit. Though not among the winners he looks ready for the Candidates in Toronto. Looking forward to attending that one live! |
|
| Jan-29-24 | | tuttifrutty: This tourney was the weakest tata of them all. It was designed for the young Indians to go up the chart for they know with Magnus, Caruana, Nakamura, So, in the line up, it would have been a diferrent story. Twas a farming expedition. :) |
|
| Jan-29-24 | | csmath: Actually this is an exceptionally strong tournament, the absence of Magnus, Caruana and Nakamura is not any defect. Three Indian guys, Abdusatorov, Wei Yi, Giri, Ding, Nepo, and Firouzja are are all the guys one can count in the top 10. Young wave given a chance no doubt. A couple of weaker players is typical for Wijk. More decisive and more aggressive games than with usual suspects is also a welcome change. |
|
| Jan-29-24 | | EvanTheTerrible: The next tournament to get excited about is the Prague Masters. It's an exceptionally strong edition that highlights the most talented juniors. The full field is: Keymer
Praggnanandhaa
Vidit
Maghsoodloo
Abdusattorov
Gukesh
Rapport
Navara
Bartel
Van Nguyen
The first round is February 27th. See you all there. |
|
Jan-30-24
 | | perfidious: <csmath: Actually this is an exceptionally strong tournament, the absence of Magnus, Caruana and Nakamura is not any defect....> I completely agree, but there has been one kibitzer who insists that Carlsen 'ducked' Wijk aan Zee. Long and short of it was that Carlsen committed to other events for early this year. I am sure that, from that quarter, we shall next hear of how Carlsen also chickened out of Prague. |
|
| Jan-30-24 | | technical draw: Pragg was the only player not to lose a game. Had he converted one of his 11 draws he also would have tied for first. This reminds me of the great Tigran Petrossian who also drew a lot of games. He once said "the important thing is not to lose." Seems Pragg is following that philosophy. |
|
Jan-30-24
 | | Caparlsen: Were can I find the games of the tie-breaks? Thank you! |
|
Jan-30-24
 | | FSR: <technical draw> If the standings are correct, Pragg finished on +2 and the top finishers on +4, a full point ahead of him, not half a point. |
|
Jan-30-24
| | FSR: A respectable showing by Ju Wenjun against such a formidable field. She was rated 76 points below Max Warmerdam, the second lowest-rated player, and might have been expected to finish last by a comfortable margin rather than tying for 10th-13th. https://tatasteelchess.com/masters/... Good for her. |
|
Jan-30-24
| | FSR: Warmerdam started out great with 3.5 out of 6, but only scored half a point in the last 7 rounds. Tournaments like this are tough because there are no easy games, and if you get in a slump your next-round opponent will be eager to continue the pounding. |
|
| Jan-30-24 | | EvanTheTerrible: What makes it especially painful, <FSR>, is that he very nearly won a couple of those games, but ended up losing in time trouble. A nightmare to end the tournament, but I'm sure he'll bounce back soon. |
|
Jan-30-24
 | | Sally Simpson: Regarding the tie breaks, this event needed a sole winner because it is on the FIDE Circuit for qualification in the 2026 Candidates. This was the first event for the 2026 cycle Wei Yi picked up 24.54 points for coming first, the other three tying for first place received 14.22 pts. It may have been fairer to award all four the same number of FIDE Circuit points. Leon Mendonca the sole winner of the Tata Steele Challengers picked up 15.15pts and is currently second. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GFB2DNj... New rules for candidates include the fact that the loser in the World Championship match no longer gets an automatic seat in the candidates. They will get FIDE Circuit points depending on well they do in the match. https://www.fide.com/news/2863 |
|
| Jan-30-24 | | Lambda: Giving Wei Yi nearly double the points of the other three based on a few blitz games is totally daft. |
|
| Jan-30-24 | | goodevans: <Lambda> +1 |
|
| Jan-30-24 | | devere: <Lambda> Not as daft as making Ding World Champion based on one blitz game! |
|
| Jan-30-24 | | technical draw: <FSR> <technical draw> <If the standings are correct, Pragg finished on +2 and the top finishers on +4, a full point ahead of him, not half a point.> Yep, very true. I think I could use a little math refreshenor. |
|
| Jan-30-24 | | goodevans: <Not as daft as making Ding World Champion based on one blitz game!> Fortunately for the legitimacy of the World Championship that never happened. Ding won the last of the four scheduled rapid games. Had that been a draw like the first three then they would indeed have moved onto blitz. Even then they would have been 5 minute games instead of the ludicrous 3 minute games that were used here. |
|
| Jan-30-24 | | Lambda: <Not as daft as making Ding World Champion based on one blitz game!> I don't like that, but there is at least a sane argument for it, based on the world championship needing a winner, you can't just share points. So that it something where I "strongly disagree" rather than pronouncing it totally daft. |
|
Jan-30-24
| | Sally Simpson: They split the 1st-4th prize between money the four of them so why not the Grand Prix points. |
|
Jan-30-24
 | | Atterdag: <devere: <Lambda> Not as daft as making Ding World Champion based on one blitz game!> Terribly true! :-) But I have to admit that I have no other solution to the tie that occurred in that match. It is unfortunate that while classical time control offers the highest game quality it also enables the easiest draws. These are IMO arguments for a time format between classical and rapid, for instance 45-50 minutes each with some sort of increments. Or plain 60 minutes without increments. That would also enable two match games per day plus a match over, say 20 games. The "risk" of a tie would be close to zero with that format and the games would still have a substantial quality. |
|
| Jan-30-24 | | devere: < But I have to admit that I have no other solution to the tie that occurred in that match.> There are at least 3 other solutions:
(1) One player has draw odds, and the other one has to defeat him in classical play. This solution is very traditional in chess. The player who gets draw odds can be established in a variety of ways. (2) They keep on playing until someone wins at classical chess (Call it the Bronstein-Boleslavsky solution. ) (3) Use a roulette wheel (The Smyslov-Heubner solution.) Outcry against the use of this solution has led to the use of speed chess tie-breakers. But I think that the cure is much worse than the original problem. In fact it is in the process of destroying classical chess and the classical world championship. |
|
| Jan-31-24 | | 1300patzer: Start a playoff match at a serious time limit. Every two games, reduce the time limit. If the two players are essentially equal, the quicker will eventually win, and that seems a satisfying determination. |
|
| Jan-31-24 | | metatron2: <1300patzer: Start a playoff match at a serious time limit. Every two games, reduce the time limit. If the two players are essentially equal, the quicker will eventually win, and that seems a satisfying determination> That's basically what they do today: start the tiebreaks in rapid time controls, and and move to blitz in case the rapid part is drawn. I do agree that they could add a more "serious time limit". So they could add a section using <Atterdag>'s suggested time controls (but only for the tie breaks, not replacing the classical part as he suggested). This will make the tiebreaks longer, probably up to 2 days instead of 1 day, but I guess deciding the WC is important enough for such an extension. BTW Carlsen also mentioned the option of using similar intermediate time controls (between rapid and classical) in WC matches. ===
<devere> I don't see how your suggestion improves the current format.
draw-odds in classical time controls are almost impossible since black will have too much time to calculate and achieve the draw, and winning the WC match by winning roulette wheel is surely not better than winning it on rapid tie breaks. At least the latter option means that winner performed better in chess (even if it was classical chess). |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 17 OF 20 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
