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

🏆
TOURNAMENT STANDINGS
Tata Steel Masters Tournament

Jorden van Foreest8.5/13(+4 -0 =9)[games]
Anish Giri8.5/13(+4 -0 =9)[games]
Andrey Esipenko8/13(+4 -1 =8)[games]
Fabiano Caruana8/13(+3 -0 =10)[games]
Alireza Firouzja8/13(+4 -1 =8)[games]
Magnus Carlsen7.5/13(+3 -1 =9)[games]
Pentala Harikrishna6.5/13(+2 -2 =9)[games]
Aryan Tari6/13(+1 -2 =10)[games]
Nils Grandelius6/13(+3 -4 =6)[games]
Jan-Krzysztof Duda5.5/13(+0 -2 =11)[games]
David Anton Guijarro5/13(+0 -3 =10)[games]
Radoslaw Wojtaszek5/13(+0 -3 =10)[games]
Maxime Vachier-Lagrave5/13(+1 -4 =8)[games]
Alexander Donchenko3.5/13(+0 -6 =7)[games]
*

Chessgames.com Chess Event Description
Tata Steel Masters (2021)

The 2021 Tata Steel Masters was a 14-player single round-robin held from 16-31 January at De Moriaan in Wijk aan Zee, the Netherlands. Rest days: 20, 25 and 28 January. World Champion Magnus Carlsen was again heading the field, which included Top 10 stars Vachier-Lagrave and Caruana, as well as young stars Firouzja and Esipenko. Time control: 100 minutes for the first 40 moves, then 50 more minutes for the next 20 moves, then 15 more minutes to finish the game, with 30 seconds added per move from move 1. If a tie for first place between two players there would be two Blitz playoff games (5 min + 3 sec), and if necessary an Armageddon game (5 vs 4 min, with 3 sec added per move from move 60). If a tie between three or more players the ones to play the Blitz playoff would be decided by 1) mutual result, 2) Sonneborn-Berger score, 3) N games with black, 4) drawing of lots. Tournament director: Jeroen van den Berg. Chief arbiter: Pavel Votruba. N games played: 91 + 3 = 94.

Jorden van Foreest won with 8.5/11, after he beat Giri in the Armageddon playoff game (see Tata Steel Masters Playoff (2021)).

Age Elo 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 1 Van Foreest 21 2671 * 1 1 1 1 8 2 Giri 26 2764 * 1 1 1 1 8 3 Esipenko 18 2677 * 1 0 1 1 1 8 4 Caruana 28 2823 * 1 1 1 8 5 Firouzja 17 2749 * 0 1 1 1 1 8 6 Carlsen 30 2862 0 1 * 1 1 7 7 Harikrishna 34 2732 0 0 * 1 1 6 8 Tari 21 2625 0 0 1 * 6 9 Grandelius 27 2663 0 0 0 0 * 1 1 1 6 10 Duda 22 2743 0 0 * 5 11 Anton 25 2679 0 0 0 * 5 12 Wojtaszek 34 2705 0 0 0 * 5 13 Vachier-Lagrave 30 2784 0 0 0 0 * 1 5 14 Donchenko 22 2668 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 3

Official site: https://tatasteelchess.com/
Regulations: https://tatasteelchess.com/about/to...
Chess.com: https://www.chess.com/news/view/jor...
ChessBase: https://en.chessbase.com/post/tata-...
Chess24: https://chess24.com/en/watch/live-t...
TWIC: https://theweekinchess.com/chessnew...
FIDE: https://ratings.fide.com/tournament...

Previous: Tata Steel Masters (2020). The side events (Challengers, Qualifiers, etc.) were cancelled due to Coronavirus restrictions.

 page 1 of 4; games 1-25 of 91  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves YearEvent/LocaleOpening
1. A Giri vs A Tari 1-0472021Tata Steel MastersC65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense
2. Caruana vs J van Foreest  ½-½562021Tata Steel MastersD32 Queen's Gambit Declined, Tarrasch
3. N Grandelius vs A Donchenko 1-0472021Tata Steel MastersC50 Giuoco Piano
4. A Esipenko vs Duda  ½-½302021Tata Steel MastersC42 Petrov Defense
5. Carlsen vs A Firouzja 1-0402021Tata Steel MastersD37 Queen's Gambit Declined
6. Wojtaszek vs D Anton Guijarro  ½-½672021Tata Steel MastersE10 Queen's Pawn Game
7. Harikrishna vs Vachier-Lagrave ½-½642021Tata Steel MastersB90 Sicilian, Najdorf
8. Harikrishna vs A Esipenko  ½-½472021Tata Steel MastersB12 Caro-Kann Defense
9. J van Foreest vs A Giri  ½-½432021Tata Steel MastersC42 Petrov Defense
10. Duda vs N Grandelius 0-1402021Tata Steel MastersA30 English, Symmetrical
11. A Donchenko vs Caruana 0-1322021Tata Steel MastersD12 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav
12. Vachier-Lagrave vs A Firouzja  ½-½352021Tata Steel MastersB12 Caro-Kann Defense
13. D Anton Guijarro vs Carlsen ½-½692021Tata Steel MastersB30 Sicilian
14. A Tari vs Wojtaszek  ½-½682021Tata Steel MastersB51 Sicilian, Canal-Sokolsky (Rossolimo) Attack
15. Carlsen vs A Tari ½-½562021Tata Steel MastersD40 Queen's Gambit Declined, Semi-Tarrasch
16. A Firouzja vs D Anton Guijarro 1-0612021Tata Steel MastersD02 Queen's Pawn Game
17. A Esipenko vs Vachier-Lagrave  ½-½332021Tata Steel MastersB53 Sicilian
18. Wojtaszek vs J van Foreest  ½-½402021Tata Steel MastersD40 Queen's Gambit Declined, Semi-Tarrasch
19. Caruana vs Duda ½-½512021Tata Steel MastersC42 Petrov Defense
20. N Grandelius vs Harikrishna 0-1382021Tata Steel MastersC02 French, Advance
21. A Giri vs A Donchenko  ½-½422021Tata Steel MastersE21 Nimzo-Indian, Three Knights
22. A Tari vs A Firouzja ½-½302021Tata Steel MastersB12 Caro-Kann Defense
23. A Donchenko vs Wojtaszek ½-½502021Tata Steel MastersB90 Sicilian, Najdorf
24. Harikrishna vs Caruana  ½-½442021Tata Steel MastersC78 Ruy Lopez
25. A Esipenko vs N Grandelius ½-½442021Tata Steel MastersB92 Sicilian, Najdorf, Opocensky Variation
 page 1 of 4; games 1-25 of 91  PGN Download
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2)  

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 19 OF 19 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Feb-10-21
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sokrates: Okay, let's make a 3 volume book series with the title "We'll discuss it, but why?" by the honourable Messrs. AylerKupp and Metatron2.

Vol. I: The K-factor. What is it and why?
Vol. II: Who behaved badly and why?

Vol. III: What were we discussing and why?
with the appendix: Left for the opera? Why?

Feb-10-21
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: Vol. IV: Can we flood every single-yes every single-tournament page on the site with endless off topic conversation?
Feb-10-21
Premium Chessgames Member
  Tabanus: Why not start with for example Corus Group A (2002).
Feb-10-21
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<metatron2> Did those rules and regulations stated that the arbiter should seriously disturb a player in time trouble (or on his last move after the time control), without even stopping his clock from running while doing that ?> (part 1 of 2)

No, of course the Rules and Regulations didn't say that. Didn't you bother to read my post on Tata Steel Masters (2021) (kibitz #409) to see what the Rules and Regulations said at the time the tournament started? If you did, why are you asking this question? And if you didn't, please go back and read what I said in my post about what the pre-tournament Rules and Regulations said.

And what's this nonsense about being in time trouble that I've also heard from you and others? Here's a video (presumably from the Dutch feed since one of the commentators is Sopiko Guramishvili who, in case you didn't know, is Giri's wife) of the situation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-h....

Look at the position. At the beginning of the video it's after Firouzja has played 60.Rd2 and then it quickly advances to where Wojtaszek has played 60...Qb1 and is presumably writing down his move on his scoresheet. So, if you are in time trouble, why aren't you sitting at the table waiting to make your next move as soon as possible?

Look at the clocks. When the video starts Firouzja has 16:07 shown on his clock and Wojtaszek has 16:02. So presumably both players have had the 15 minutes for the post-60 moves added to their clock. Since when does having more than 16 mins on the clock mean that you are in time trouble?

Yes, I agree that the arbiters should have stopped both players' clocks before they asked them to move. And from what I read and seen in the video, they waited until the players had reached the time control to inform them that they had to move to another table as stipulated in the Rules and Regulations in place at the start of the tournament, although Firouzja's clock was running and it should have been stopped. That was the fault of the arbitrators for not doing that.

I would think that during the 13th and final round Firouzja would have wanted to know how the games of his competition for first place had finished. The scoring/Sonneborn-Berger (SB) status of those in contention for first place in the tournament after the 12th round were:

Caruana: Score = 7.5, SB = 42.00
Esipenko: Score = 7.0, SB = 41.75
Firouzja: Score = 7.5, SB = 42.25
Giri: Score = 8.0, SB = 46.25
Van Foreest: Score = 7.5, SB = 43.25

From this it's not hard for his team to figure out before the beginning of the last round that:

(1) If Firouzja and Caruana both won they would both finish with the same 8.5 score but Caruana would be ahead in SB score, 50.50 to 50.25. So Firouzja had to hope that Caruana did not win.

(2) If Firouzja drew and Esipenko won, both would finish with the same 8.0 score but Firouzja would be ahead in SB score, 50.25 to 49.25. So, as long as Firouzja did not lose, he would be ahead of Esipenko in terms of qualifying for the tiebreak match.

(3) Firouzja had to win and hope that Giri would do no better than a draw in order for Firouzja to score the same number of points as Giri. But if Giri drew and Firouzja won Giri would be ahead in SB points, 51.75 to his 50.00, so Firouzja had to hope that Giri lost.

(4) If Firouzja drew and Van Foreest won Van Foreest would be ahead in SB points, 52.75 to his 48.00.

If they didn't inform Firouzja of this then it's time for Firouzja to have a heart-to-heart talk with them about what their responsibilities are. But that, of course, if up to Firouzja or his manager.

Feb-10-21
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<metatron2> Did those rules and regulations stated that the arbiter should seriously disturb a player in time trouble (or on his last move after the time control), without even stopping his clock from running while doing that ?> (part 2 of 2)

So in order for Firouzja to qualify for the tiebreaker match he could have known that the following must happen:

(1) Caruana must do no better than a draw.

(2) Esipenko had to win and Firouzja had to at least draw.

(3) Giri had to lose or draw and Firouzja had to win in order to qualify for the tie breaker match,

(4) Van Foreest could do no better than a draw.

Here's a video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t16...) where the commentator says that Firouzja was only informed that he was not in contention for the first place tiebreaker even if he were to win this game. And here's yet another video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDr...) where a different commentator assumes that Firouzja learned of the tiebreak playoff situation when he went to check the results of the other games after he got up from the table following making his 60th move.

I find the commentary in the second video more persuasive. Surely Firouzja would have wanted to find out as soon as possible the results of the games between his competition as listed above. If any of their games had finished while he still had time to get up from his table he likely would have done so, but at any rate he could have (and likely would have) done so after getting up from the table following his playing his 60th move. He would have found out that:

(a) Caruana, Esipenko, and Giri drew. So Giri would outscore him in SB points even if he won.

(b) Van Foreest won so he would also would outscore him in SB points even if he won.

So when Firouzja go up from the table after his 60th move he would have found out that since Giri drew and Van Foreest won he could not qualify for the tiebreaker match. If he had won his game he could tie Giri and Van Foreest for 1st place in the tournament and they would each split the sum of the 1st through 3rd place money but the tournament title was out of his reach.

Yes, that must have been disappointing to him, but it should not have come as a surprise to him if the arbiters had told him when they told him and Wojtaszek that they had to move to a different table. His position is subjectively better; he has 2 pawns for the exchange so material is approximately even. But those 2 beautiful bishops! And White's pieces are better placed for either an attack on Black's king or winning additional material. But, FWIW, Stockfish 12 at d=48 evaluates the position as providing even chances for both sides, [0.00] after either 61.Qd3, 61.Be5, or 61.Qf4 (the move that Firouzja actually played). So a draw was the likely outcome even if Firouzja was "rattled" by the situation.

Of course, this is a theoretical result assuming best play by both sides. And in a game between two human players, particularly with a short amount of time, that's not likely to happen.

And even if Firouzja had been "rattled" by the situation, a top level player must be able to keep his emotions under control and not lash out at the arbiters, regardless of the situation. There is a mechanism for filing a protest after the game and he's familiar with that, having filed a protest against Carlsen in the 2019 World Rapid and Blitz championship, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xr.... So I don't think that there's any justifiable excuse for Firouzja's temper tantrum.

Feb-10-21
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<metatron2> You will have much better understanding of my posts, if you'll read them along with their context, instead of looking at each sentence separately (I say that since it wasn't the first time that you ignored the context..).>

Since you don't know how I read my posts, that's a big and unwarranted assumption on your part. Yes, I read every sentence of a post that I'm planning to comment on and I try to put it in the context of both that post and earlier posts in the same subject. But it seems to me that instead of responding to what I say in my comments you keep trying to avoid that by claiming that they are not made in the "context" of the complete post. Yes, they are.

"Context" seems to be one of your favorite words, and I'm not the only poster you've taken this evasive action with. See, for example:

Houdini (Computer) (kibitz #24)

Houdini (Computer) (kibitz #24)

Viswanathan Anand (kibitz #16734)

Magnus Carlsen (kibitz #60454)

Good luck following this approach to try to compensate for your inability to come up with a coherent argument against something that I or someone else said in a post.

Feb-10-21
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<metatron2> Rating floors and women only tournaments are usually mentioned as part of the mechanism that cause rating inflation, because they do something that is un-natural to system:>

Does that mean that for any rating system we all have to consider what is "natural" and "unnatural" for that system? What does that even mean? For one thing, classifying something as "natural" or "unnatural" is highly subjective and depends on the biases of the person doing the classification. What's "natural" to me might be "unnatural" to you and vice versa.

<Rating floors keep inside the rating pool, rating points that should have naturally left it >

I don't think that you understand how the Elo rating system as implemented by FIDE works. A player gets a rating and updates his rating by playing in FIDE-sanctioned tournaments against other FIDE rated players. If his opponents are not FIDE-rated because their rating becomes lower than the ratings floor as a result of poor results, then for ratings calculation purposes that opponent is treated as an unrated player. Why should those rating points have "naturally left" the ratings pool?

<I said that I <tend> think that the K-factor change had an affect on the 2400+ rated players pool.>

I'm not sure of the difference between "thinking" and "tending to think" is, but I suppose you'll say that it depends on the "context" in which it is used. And just because you "tend" to think something instead of actually thinking it, or basing it on an "intuitive feeling" does not prevent you from explaining why you think, tend to think, or have an intuitive feeling for something. Of course, if you don't want to try to explain it, feel free to ignore it.

<The thing is that black usually gives the tone about the pawn structure.>

So do you think, tend to think, or have an intuitive feeling that after one of the examples I mentioned, that after 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 or 3.e5 that Black is "giving the tone about the pawn structure'? Whatever giving the tone means to you.

<So because black usually decides about the resulting pawn structure ...>

If you're going to throw around words like "usually' in order to make a case then you should have some data to back it up. Because I for one am not going to take your word for it. Not that it matters, you can continue to think, tend to think, or have an intuitive feeling about whatever you wish to post about.

Feb-10-21
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<Sokrates> Okay, let's make a 3 volume book series with the title "We'll discuss it, but why?">

Sounds good to me. But perhaps a better name for this series might be "AylerKupp / Metatron2 on Our Great Discussions."

Feb-10-21
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<OhioChessFan> Vol. IV: Can we flood every single-yes every single-tournament page on the site with endless off topic conversation?>

And why do you think that a discussion of a situation that happened in this tournament and which might have had an impact on the final placings would be off-topic on this page?

Feb-10-21
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<Tabanus> Why not start with for example Corus Group A (2002).>

A great idea. As a minimum it would hide the discussion where no one would apparently read it.

Feb-11-21
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sokrates: <AylerKupp> Just this friendly quote for you (from Wikipedia):

<A Pyrrhic victory is a victory that inflicts such a devastating toll on the victor that it is tantamount to defeat. Winning a Pyrrhic victory takes a heavy toll that negates any true sense of achievement or damages long-term progress.>

Feb-11-21
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <Sokrates> Thanks for the friendly quote. I am familiar with the concept of a Pyrrhic victory, something that would have happened if a nuclear war was fought. Like the message in the ending of the movie 'War Games' (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mpm... "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play." And I found it particularly on-topic since the next line is "How about a nice game of chess?"

But I don't consider this discussion as a "victory" because I wasn't playing to "win". I wanted to clarify further some of my earlier comments to <metatron2>, correct some of the things he said, and correct some of the things said by others, including some chess commentators, that don't seem to hold under close scrutiny of videos of the situation.

Many people consider the situation a disgrace and complain about how poorly Firouzja was treated. But for some reason no one seems to complain about how Wojtaszek was treated since, after all, he was in the exact same situation other than not being in contention for first place in the tournament. I suppose that makes a big difference to some. Yet he behaved respectfully and didn't throw a temper tantrum like Firouzja did.

Yes, the tournament organizers made many mistakes, starting with the concepts in the pre-tournament start version of the Rules and Regulations (which were apparently modified after the tournament had started) and then the procedural mistakes of the arbitrators as they were trying to move Firouzja and Wojtaszek to another table. Oh well, hopefully the tournament organizers, in this and other tournaments, have learned from this fiasco and they will give more thought to the tiebreak procedures for other tournaments.

Feb-12-21
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sokrates: <AylerKupp> Hm. Are you familiar with the German expression "Der Ton macht die Musik"?

<But I don't consider this discussion as a "victory" because I wasn't playing to "win". I wanted to clarify further some of my earlier comments to <metatron2>, correct some of the things he said>

I understand your intention. You don't want to join a choir that unanimously salute Firouzja and condemn the organizers, when they were formally in their right to move the game & players. And you don't condone bad behavior - neither do I, but I grant some forebearance to an eager young player, who, in the heat of an important battle is being interrupted by organizers who could and should have been more tactful and creative in the execution of those rules & regulations.

You and I have gained some measure of wisdom and self-control through our days of age - we should not expect the same from a 17 year old - IMHO.

I regard you as a very intelligent man, AK, and while you have a point for your argumentation, you didn't need to set this tone towards the equally intelligent <metatron2>. You did more than just "clarify" and "correct". You spiced it heavily with sarcasm and parody, which came out as a degree of arrogancy you may not have been aware of yourself. Granted, <mt2> also used irony, but he sowed wind and harvested storm.

It's really not my business all this, but I write it anyway, since I have grown to like and respect both of you, and it hurts me to see two brilliant minds debate in a tone that easily could have been omitted.

After all, the world has bigger problems these days than the outburst of frustration by a 17 year old kid.

Feb-12-21
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: <AK the prolix> must have the taste of victory in ev'ry interaction, a tendency which was displayed for all to see as early as 1966.
Feb-12-21
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<Sokrates> You did more than just "clarify" and "correct". You spiced it heavily with sarcasm and parody, which came out as a degree of arrogancy you may not have been aware of yourself.>

True, but my sarcasm and parody only started after his attempts to sidestep discussion by repeatedly making comments like "You will have much better understanding of my posts, if you'll read them along with their context, instead of looking at each sentence separately (I say that since it wasn't the first time that you ingnored the context..)." (Tata Steel Masters (2021) (kibitz #445)) even though I previously explained to him (chessgames.com chessforum (kibitz #34992)) why I repeated a portion of any post that I was comenting on and that I always read anyone's posts in their entirely, sometimes several times.

Frankly, I consider repeating the statement that I take words out of context as a mild form of an ad hominem attack; if you can't come up with reasons why you disagree with a position that a person has, you try to demean the person as a means to reduce the credibility of his argument. So, as <metatron2> himself said (Tata Steel Masters (2021) (kibitz #417)) "There is a threshold for the level of stupidity and its resulting damage, that one can take. ... There is a point when you stop being a gentleman." Which is a shame, since if a person does not wish to continue a discussion for whatever reaason they can always refrain from responding or simply say that they must just "agree to disagree". I've said the latter many times before.

So I stopped trying to reason with <metatron2>, since I was obviously not getting anywhere. I thought that perhaps sarcasm and mockery was a more effective way of trying to get my points across. I don't know if that's arrogance or not since arrogance, like beauty, is mostly in the eye of the beholder, so I'll let the readers decide.

<but I grant some forebearance to an eager young player, who, in the heat of an important battle is being interrupted by organizers who could and should have been more tactful and creative in the execution of those rules & regulations...we should not expect the same from a 17 year old - IMHO.>

So do I and I agree. I have said the same thing several times, most recently in Tata Steel Masters (2021) (kibitz #416) where I said "Of course, both Carlsen and So [after mentioning some of their experiences with the arbiters] were mature adults and Firouzja is still only 17, so I would excuse his behavior, even though this is not the first time that he has thrown a tantrum when he disagreed [with the organizers]. I just hope that he grows up before he's stopped being invited to the top tournaments because of his unpredictable emotional behavior."

<After all, the world has bigger problems these days than the outburst of frustration by a 17 year old kid.>

I also agree, and the only thing that I would change in this statement is the insertion of the word "far" between the words "has" and "bigger".

Feb-12-21
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<perfidious> <AK the prolix> must have the taste of victory in ev'ry interaction, a tendency which was displayed for all to see as early as 1966.>

Not in every interaction, only those in which I am trying to "win". And, as I said above, this wasn't one of them.

But I had this tendency much earlier than 1966, although it was not displayed to many. I was in pre-school, maybe 4 years old (early 1950s), and had been admitted to a class even though my birthday was later than the cut-off date for that particular class. There was a bully in that class and he kept being nasty to me; pushing me, hitting me, and making derogatory comments. What was I to do? I couldn't just ignore him, he would just continue to do it. I couldn't fight him since he was older and stronger so I wouldn't stand a chance. And I couldn't go to the teacher and complain because it would just be my word against his. I recognized even then that I needed "evidence".

So I bit my arm sufficiently hard that it left red tooth marks and I went (crying, of course) to the teacher complaining that the bully had done it. The bully denied it of course but what was the teacher to do? After all, I had the "evidence". The bully then tried to claim that I had bitten myself but, given the "evidence" and my tears, no teacher would have believed that apparently ridiculous story. So the bully was punished.

He never bullied me after that. Even he at that age realized that he was in the presence of a superior intellect.

But your referring to me as "AK the prolix" is spot on. You can shorten it even more in future posts by referring to me as "AKDP".

Feb-12-21  SymphonicKnight: I don't think you can know the Sonneborn-Berger Score before the final round has been played, so all these arguments by Ayler-Kupp are misguided in that they assume knowledge that is unknowable on the part of the players before the round is concluded.
Feb-14-21  metatron2: This discussion (or the "We'll discuss it, but why?" book if you like), has become a tiresome, time consuming burden, that was also getting personal, so I actually intended to end it.

But <AK>s latest posts about how he wanted to correct my mistakes (yeah right..), was just too arrogant for me skip, and his discussions about a so-called "victory" (Pyrrhic or whatever) were also puzzling, since most of the time <AK> just asked me to clarify issues that were quite clear, or to bring more data when that wasn't really needed (and if that is the way to "win" arguments, then we can have toddlers beating experts in arguments..).

So I'm dragged by my ego for yet another (lengthy) round:

Feb-14-21  metatron2: <AK: Look at the clocks. When the video starts Firouzja has 16:07 shown on his clock and Wojtaszek has 16:02>

You quoted me saying "<seriously disturb a player in time trouble (or on his last move after the time control)>", so as you could see, I knew that the incident was on move 60.

However, the first move after the time control is still a transition-move, where players take the time to relax, to realize what was going on during the time trouble, what is going on the board now, and how they want to move on. (and before you'll start asking me if I think or tend to think that, I'll clarify that I am talking here from my own experience, and from the impression I got when talking with other chess players).

So this transition move, combined with the highly complex position they got there, the tournament situation, the fact that only 15 minutes were added and the arbiter did not even stop the clock, obviously put a lot of pressure and confusion on Firouzja, and had a strong affect on his evaluation, calculations and judgment.

<AK: see what the Rules and Regulations said at the time the tournament started?>

I don't know weather Firouzja was aware of some strange regulations they wrote and later removed from their site. It seems to me that by removing it from their site, they already realized prior to the beginning of the tournament, that it was very problematic...

From interviews with top players, I noticed that in many cases they are <not even aware> which tie break system is used in the tournament(!), so let alone some comment about a possible situation that may arise after the last round (a comment that was later removed from the website..).

So my <guess> here is that Firouzja was totally unaware of that, and that most (if not all) the rest of the players were unaware of it as well.

<AK: If any of their games had finished while he still had time to get up from his table he likely would have done so, but at any rate he could have (and likely would have)>

I don't know weather Firouzja already knew that he didn't qualify for the tie-breaks by the time the arbiter approached them.

There is a good possibility that he was totally focused on his game, and just got up to relax a bit, instead of trying to calculate whether he qualified or not.

It is also very much likely, that prior to the game, Firouzja focused on his chess preparations (in order to try and win the game), instead of calculating all possible scenarios of tie breaks (that might also damage his motivation to win that game..).

But weather he knew it or not, is not the point about this incident.

Feb-14-21  metatron2: <AK: Yes, the tournament organizers made many mistakes, starting with the concepts in the pre-tournament start version of the Rules and Regulations (which were apparently modified after the tournament had started) and then the procedural mistakes of the arbitrators as they were trying to move Firouzja and Wojtaszek to another table>

So basically we have no argument about the mistakes made by the organizers.

You just claim that Firouzja should not have thrown temper, and I think that their mistakes were bad enough to justify such temper.

Obviously this is mainly a matter of taste, but the reactions around the chess world, seems to favor my side:

- In the 3 videos that you sent (and other sources as well), commentators criticized the organizers and not Firouzja.

- The organizers (publicly) apologized to Firouzja

- Firouzja (partially) accepted their apology, but did not apologize for his behavior

===

Regarding the claim (from both you and <Sokrates>), that Firouzja reacted with temper because he is young:

Well I agree that with age, one usually becomes more composed, even though it can degrade when he gets old (grumpy old men and all that..).

But I think its more about one's character than about his age.

I would <guess> that Carlsen would have kept his cool in such incident (and would have taken serious actions afterwards), but Kasparov (regardless of his age) would have probably reacted much worse than Firouzja did, a mature Fischer would have probably been furious as well and would have never returned to Tata again, and Korchnoi (aged 50-85) would have probably thrown name-calling at them that they didn't even know that existed.

And BTW <AK>, your comparison between Firoujza and Wojtaszek is unfair because of the their different tournament situation, and also because it was Firoujza's turn (and also it was his clock that was still running).

Feb-14-21  metatron2: <AK: Good luck following this approach to try to compensate for your inability to come up with a coherent argument against something that I or someone else said in a post>

So now you resort to ad hominem attack? that's new for you (as far as I recall..)

I gave a detailed and fully coherent explanation there, as to why I told <Pedro> that the K-factor mechanism can be used to protect higher rated players, as long as it is line with the purpose of the rating system (including its K-factor of course, which is one of its mechanisms).

I only added that comment about the context as an addition to the above (since it seemed like you missed the reason I said all that about the K-factor). And you decided to attack that addition instead of my actual explanation.

====

As for your attacks on me using the "Context" word:

In the 3 links that you gave there (one link was a duplicate), I didn't even say once that the other user missed the context of my posts ("context" was mentioned there for different reasons). Maybe that's another indication that sometimes you miss the context of the text?

In any case, context is highly important in discussions, so in case I think someone missed the context, then there is a good chance that I will comment on that. But obviously I'll never do that to "compensate" for anything.

<AK: Since you don't know how I read my posts, that's a big and unwarranted assumption on your part>

I don't know that, but I can assume things based on your output. People do that all the time. They draw conclusions about people they don't know at all, based on things that those people say or write. I'm sure you do that too.

Obviously if I knew you personally, I had much better indication about things like that, but your posts is a pretty strong indication, especially since I've been reading more than a few of them for quite some time now.

I once wrote why I consider you as one of the best posters in CG:

Lindores Abbey Rapid Challenge (2020) (kibitz #296)

I still think the same today, but I also mentioned there that you have drawbacks as well, and you asked me what they were.

So now is the time to respond to that:

I do think that you tend to focus on every small detail, which is one of your biggest strengths, but sometimes it comes on the expense of noticing other considerations, or seeing the bigger picture if you like (or the "context" for that matter).

You can get angry at me for saying that, and attack me on my shortcomings, but it won't change my mind (However, I will change my mind in case I'll see a change in your posts..).

Feb-14-21  metatron2: <AK: Does that mean that for any rating system we all have to consider what is "natural" and "unnatural" for that system? What does that even mean? >

I think its quite obvious what that means. We have a formula for calculating rating change of each two players from the players pool, that play against each other.

The formula itself wasn't designed to have artificial restrictions such as: player rating can't drop below some level, or player leaving the pool when he drops below some level, or two players can't play against each other due to gender considerations, or players getting sudden rating bonus (we had that too, for women), etc.

Such artificial restrictions/additions have the potential to damage the accuracy of the rating formula (that didn't consider them in the first place).

<AK: I don't think that you understand how the Elo rating system as implemented by FIDE works>

In my comment I didn't refer specifically to fide rating. National ratings usually have rating floors that players cannot drop below them, without them leaving the player pool (or turn into unrated players).

USCF rating system for example, have rating floor between 100-150, and original life masters have rating floor of 2200 there.

Israel rating system have rating floor of 1400 in case a player passed 1400 rating at least once, and he can never lose rating in case he is still below 1400 rating.

As to fide-rating, here Sonas explains how rating-floors could affect rating inflation (that I mentioned in regard to rating floors), and why (overrated) players that join the pool temporally (and then leave it) donate rating points:

https://en.chessbase.com/post/ratin...

<AK: I'm not sure of the difference between "thinking" and "tending to think">

I think that's pretty obvious for most people, but since you seem to have a problem with that kind of terminology, then I will map it for you:

- "I think": I have a clear opinion about the subject, but I don't know that for a fact

- "I tend to think": I don't have a clear opinion about the subject just an intuition

- "I guess": I am guessing based on prior knowledge, but that is still just a guess

- "That is a fact": I know that for a fact, and its not just my opinion

- "": if I said nothing about that, then I'm pretty sure about it, based on established knowledge I have on that subject

<AK: And just because you "tend" to think something instead of actually thinking it, or basing it on an "intuitive feeling" does not prevent you from explaining why you think>

I explained my intuition there: I said that the sudden acceleration in players entering the >2400 players pool (while exit rate doesn't change), could affect the rating change there (you could have more overrated players at that point of time, because it will take them longer to leave then to enter, and extra overrated players can affect the rating distribution).

As I said, that's just an intuition, and I don't intend to investigate it any further.

The fact that you don't like (or agree) with that intuition, doesn't mean that I didn't explain it.

Feb-14-21  metatron2: <AK: So do you think, tend to think, or have an intuitive feeling that after one of the examples I mentioned, that after 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 or 3.e5 that Black is "giving the tone about the pawn structure'?>

In that specific example, white is giving the tone about the pawn structure.

In my example, the black player played the Sicilian, and I explained how many major pawn structures white can choose, and how many black can choose against the main line (the open Sicilian).

If you prefer black playing Caro-can instead, then white has the following (main) structures that black should be familiar with:

The advanced variation (that you gave here), the classical variation, the exchange variation, the panov variation, and maybe count the two-knights variation as well (although that one usually transposes to the classical or the exchange pawn structures).

So 4-5 different pawn structures. Not too difficult to master vs e4 players.

And since I didn't mention anything else, then according to the mapping I gave you in my previous post, you can assume that I am pretty sure about that.

<AK: If you're going to throw around words like "usually' in order to make a case then you should have some data to back it up>

I actually gave you enough information there, showing that black has much wider choice of pawn structures then white, with regard to the main lines.

If you have trouble counting that, then lets do a quick review:

Lets take an 1.e4 player who plays 3.d4 against the Sicilian and main lines against other openings:

Sicilian - at least 8 (the 5 I gave there+ accelerated dragon + e6 four knights + Scheveningen)

1..e5 - at least 9 (Petrov, Philidor, Roy : open, closed, Schliemann, Breyer, marshal, Berlin, without 3.. a6, and there are more..)

French + Caro Can + Pirc + Scandinavian + Alekhine - at least 10 (Even if we take just 2 main pawn structures for each one of them (most of them have more))

So that's at least 27 main lines pawn structures for 1. e4 players (and there are obviously more than that).

For black:

A Sicilian player has about 3-5 pawn structures he needs to know (as I explained there), and we saw here, that it is about the same for Caro-Can player.

If he plays Slav structures, then as I wrote there, white doesn't have too many main-lines options:

He can play: standard slav with either e3 or Ne5+g3, or to sac with 5. e4 (after 4.. dc), or he can fianchetto one or both bishops, or play the exchange slav (with Bf4 or block it with e3), he can go for London structures

That's about 7-10 major pawn structures (and if he plays caro-can against 1.e4 then he also enjoys from similar structures).

So the total is around 11-15 pawns structures with black.

You will get similar numbers if black plays Benoni structures, or Pirc+Kings indian structures, etc.

So you can see that white needs to face much more different types of pawn structures than black.

---

Now, how do we decide what is a mainline pawn structure and who gives the tone:

That's mainly comes with experience.
If you never tried to build your opening repertoire, and never helped others to build one, and if you haven't played much tournament chess and didn't interact with many chess players, then you'll have a problem doing that.

In that case you can try to:

1. Discuss this with experienced players

2. You can try to figure it out using opening databases, but its problematic. One guideline that you can have there, is whether the opening variation has a name, and how popular that name is.

For example: if you ask someone "what does this guy play against 1. e4" then: "he plays the dragon" or "the Najdorf" or "Sveshnikov" or "French Winawer", etc. is a standard response. and there is a reason for that. Because these are well known variations, with clear pawn structures.

3. You can take my word for it (even though you said that you won't).

Feb-14-21
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <SymphonicKnight> I don't think you can know the Sonneborn-Berger Score before the final round has been played>

I don't know why you think that. It's a very simple calculation and that's probably part of its appeal. You just add the score of each of the defeated opponents and half the score of the drawn opponents. See, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonne... and https://www.fide.com/component/hand... , section 12.1.2(f). The later also lists some of the other tiebreak systems used by FIDE. The only requirement for SB and other tiebreak schemes to be valid is that all the games for a round need to have been completed

As usual, I've developed a spreadsheet for keeping track of results of tournaments and among other things, it calculates the Sonneborn-Berger (SB) score for each player. And for each tournament I check my calculated SB score against published SB scores and, ever since I've fixed all the bugs in my spreadsheet (or at least the ones involving SB score calculation!), the results have been consistent.

The reason I personally like SB is that it's based on how well a player scores in the tournament in question without regards to pre-tournament ratings which don't necessarily have relevance on how the players will play in the current tournament; see Vachier-Lagrave's relatively poor performance in this event. And the SB score includes the players' results against all other players rather than using a narrower criteria such as head-to-head competition, number of total wins, total number of wins as Black, etc. It also does not rely on additional tiebreak games played at faster time controls which, IMO, have no relevance in determining the better player in a tournament played at slower time controls.

Feb-14-21
Premium Chessgames Member
  WorstPlayerEver: I really feel guilty now.. or was it 'quilty'?
Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 19)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 19 OF 19 ·  Later Kibitzing>

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
  3. No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
  6. No trolling.
  7. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.

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: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific tournament only. To discuss chess or this site in general, 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 ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!

Copyright 2001-2021, Chessgames Services LLC