|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 25 OF 25 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jan-13-10 | | Refused: < VishyFan: List of Best Performers:
Shak - 2950
Vitiugov - 2939
Nakamura - 2851
Onischuk - 2809
Radja - 2808
Ganguly - 2804>
Do you happen to know the performances of Aronian, Grischuk and Morozevich. I guess Aronian and Grischuk performed solid (in the sense of achieving more or less their expected score, maybe with a draw too many (esp. Grischuk)). But Moros performance must be compared to the expectactions for a player of his quality quite horrible. I would really like to know how many rating points he dropped there. |
|
Jan-13-10
 | | swordfish: <I guess Aronian and Grischuk performed solid (in the sense of achieving more or less their expected score, maybe with a draw too many (esp. Grischuk)).> Got to hand it to Grischuk, though he had perhaps the most memorable game of the event, his king walk against Gashimov. |
|
| Jan-13-10 | | Refused: yep, but in one of the later rounds (I think it was against Egypt), Grischuk had a better position than his opponent and he made a draw.
If he wanted to, he probably could have scored more points. Anyway, what I meant with a draw to many, was Grischuk and Aronian probably performed more or less what could be expected from there rating and skill but they both probably dropped some points there. It's hard for the high rated players in such a field to maintain or improve their rating. GMs likesay Vescovi simply do not have a 2700 rating, so Vescovi (no bashing intended) needs less points to maintain his rating (of course getting the required points is far from being an easy task). |
|
| Jan-13-10 | | shalgo: <Do you happen to know the performances of Aronian, Grischuk and Morozevich.> All of the performance ratings are available at:
http://wtcc2009.tsf.org.tr/componen...
Aronian - 2789
Grischuk - 2797
Morozevich - 2516 (ouch!)
Other notable performances, good and bad:
Malakhov - 2771
Akopian - 2762
Gashimov - 2560
Petrosian - 2460
Vescovi - 2362 |
|
| Jan-13-10 | | Refused: Wow, did not expect Grischuk be around 2800 with his performance, so even an improvement. thought he was a bit too draw happy in some rounds. Aronian, hum, more or less performance=rating.
Moros performance indeed ouch.
Thank you |
|
| Jan-13-10 | | SetNoEscapeOn: According to chess.liverating.org, Moro dropped 17 points in this event. Live, he's now #27 in the world. |
|
| Jan-13-10 | | hellopolgar: <SetNoEscapeOn> moro is very unstable, even more unstable than the good old ivanchuk, so it will not surprise me if he bounces back very soon with a brilliant performance somewhere else. |
|
| Jan-13-10 | | Chessforeva: 3D for all games: http://chessforeva.appspot.com/C0_p... |
|
| Jan-13-10 | | visayanbraindoctor: <Grischuk had a better position than his opponent and he made a draw.> Grischuk just came off winning the Russian championship, and must be tired. After his unbelievable fighting King win against Gashimov, he deserves complete bed rest.(",) No one seems to have noticed, but GM Vitiugov started with a draw against Greece, a match-up that Russia lost, and then won his last 5 consecutive games! Malakhov also scored heavily. Vitiugov and Malakhov were Russia's main point men. Some one high up in the Russian government must have requested the Dubna director to temporarily loan the nuclear physicist GM to the Russian chess team.(",) Their team members, except for the out-of-form Moro, were also consistently performing well; Grischuk, Jakovenko, and Tomashevsky all were +2. |
|
Jan-13-10
 | | Gypsy: Below is the table of net Elo points gained or lost by each team. It can incidentally serve as a measure of how each team performed with respect to the total talent and match-ups at the board. (1) Russia +11
(2) USA +19
(3) India +28
(4) Azerbaijan -1
(5) Armenia -4
(6) Greece +20
(7) Israel -35
(8) Brazil -43
(9) Egypt -3
(10) Turkey +7
(The points were probably rounded off. Therefore they do not add up to zero.) |
|
| Jan-13-10 | | redwhitechess: So in World context, the current standing is :
1.Europe
2.North America
3.Asia
fair enough. good for India (China must be heartbreak now to see this result). India just won the Asian team title weeks ago, with Sasikiran and Ganguly also part of the team. Can compared to Azeri who also won their European title with the similar line up (?). |
|
| Jan-13-10 | | kurtrichards: <...good for India...> Yes. Considering that Team India has no 2700+ player in their roster landing at 3rd place in the just concluded WTC was really a feat to be proud of. Team India
Pentala Harikrishna 2672
Krisnan Sasikiran 2664
Surya Ganguly 2654
G.N.Gopal 2593
Reserve
S.Arun Prasad 2570
B. Adhiban 2486
Coach Lev Psakhis 2538
Congratulations! |
|
| Jan-13-10 | | Refused: <visayanbraindoctor: <Grischuk had a better position than his opponent and he made a draw.> Grischuk just came off winning the Russian championship, and must be tired. After his unbelievable fighting King win against Gashimov, he deserves complete bed rest.(",)> Granted.
But generally speaking I sometimes wish Grischuk had worked a bit harder on his chess career, he is such an incredible talent, if he really wanted to (or had wanted to) he could be among the top 5 or top 7 players in the world. A fine example for that he used to rely a bit too much on his pure talent was that WCC Tournament in '07. He played some games back then like he had little to none opening preparation (esp. with the black pieces). |
|
| Jan-13-10 | | kurtrichards: Why is it that Mamedyarov won the gold medal in board 4 when seven of his nine games were played in board 3? The only occasion where he played board 4 was in round 3 against Gopal. Against Onischuk in round 9, Mamedyarov played board 2. In Team Azerbaijan, the board 4 player is Rauf Mamedov and Mamedyarov is the board 3 player. I need an answer. Anyone? |
|
| Jan-13-10 | | esticles: <kurtrichards> The Azerbaijan team description is wrong; he is in fact their Board 4 player. <http://wtcc2009.tsf.org.tr/componen...; Board prizes are based on which board they are officially, not which board they play in individual games. Players must stay in the same order for each match, so each player will move up a board every time a higher board sits out. (Note that the 1st and 2nd Alternates are considered Boards 5 and 6, even though there are only 4 boards per match). |
|
| Jan-14-10 | | ahmadov: Congratulations to all the winners, both teams and individuals! |
|
| Jan-14-10 | | acirce: Feels very good to see Russia win something again. |
|
| Jan-14-10 | | ahmadov: <Gypsy: Below is the table of net Elo points gained or lost by each team.> Good statistics, <Gypsy>! I am most surprised at the figure for Brazil... |
|
| Jan-14-10 | | kurtrichards: <The Azerbaijan team description is wrong; he is in fact their Board 4 player.> Thanks <esticles>. |
|
| Jan-14-10 | | VishyFan: <Gypsy: Below is the table of net Elo points gained or lost by each team. It can incidentally serve as a measure of how each team performed with respect to the total talent and match-ups at the board.
(1) Russia +11
(2) USA +19
(3) India +28
(4) Azerbaijan -1
(5) Armenia -4
(6) Greece +20
(7) Israel -35
(8) Brazil -43
(9) Egypt -3
(10) Turkey +7
(The points were probably rounded off. Therefore they do not add up to zero.)> Wow, nice figures. This means that India was the team that stretched most towards the positive side :) |
|
| Jan-14-10 | | SetNoEscapeOn: <esticles: <kurtrichards> The Azerbaijan team description is wrong; he is in fact their Board 4 player. <http://wtcc2009.tsf.org.tr/componen...; At one point (in the Olympiads?) wasn't there a rule that said that boards must be in rating order, unless the difference is less than 50 points? I liked that rule. <Granted.
But generally speaking I sometimes wish Grischuk had worked a bit harder on his chess career, he is such an incredible talent, if he really wanted to (or had wanted to) he could be among the top 5 or top 7 players in the world.> He's actually #7 right now (live). Remember that he also won Linares last year; the moment you are waiting for might have already arrived. |
|
| Jan-14-10 | | Refused: The top 5 are atm
Anand, Aronian, Carlsen, Kramnik and Topalov (alphabetical order).
They are imho currently the real Super GMs who are WC callibre and who are capable of topping the rating list. No offense to Gelfand or others who are very strong GMs of their own, but those 5 are just outstanding.And I think from his pure talent Grischuk could've been in the same league as the top 5 by now (or at least pretty close to them). But as I mentioned above I don't think Grischuk is there atm. |
|
Jan-14-10
 | | HeMateMe: A good point by Mig Greengard:
"Russia's match score of +7 =1 -1 was complemented by 24 board points, which also led all teams. <I prefer board points over match points> for the first and have whined about the change in the Olympiad to match point scoring. Match points do emphasize the team aspect, but I always enjoyed the swings and drama created by board point scoring." It was always fun, in the last round or two, watching the strategy for accumlating board pts, when board pts determined the winner. A player with an even, drawish game would be ordered by the teams coach to go for a win, because a draw would not get a certain medal for a team. this made for some odd games near the end, some real struggles. Just realized, Naka quietly went 6/8 and won gold medal on Board one. Not too shabby, maybe he can build on that for corus. |
|
| Jan-15-10 | | Midas Touch: A sterling gold performance by Naka and Shak!
Congratulations! |
|
Oct-04-19
| | Chessdreamer: A game from round 6 presently not in the database; [Event "World Team Championship"]
[Site "Bursa TUR"]
[Date "2010.01.10"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Ganguly, Surya Shekhar"]
[Black "Malakhov, Vladimir"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[WhiteElo "2654"]
[BlackElo "2716"]
[ECO "C67"]
[EventDate "2010.01.04"]
[PlyCount "101"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.O-O Nxe4 5.d4 Be7 6.Qe2 Nd6 7.Bxc6 bxc6 8.
dxe5 Nb7 9.Nc3 O-O 10.Re1 Nc5 11.Be3 Ne6 12.Rad1 d5 13.exd6 cxd6 14.Nd4
Nxd4 15.Bxd4 Re8 16.Qf3 Bd7 17.Ne4 d5 18.Qg3 f6 19.Nd6 Bxd6 20.Qxd6 Bg4
21.Rxe8+ Qxe8 22.f3 Bf5 23.Kf2 Qd7 24.Qxd7 Bxd7 25.Bc5 Bf5 26.c3 Rb8 27.b3
Re8 28.g4 Bg6 29.Rd4 a6 30.Rb4 Bd3 31.Be3 Kf7 32.Rb6 Re6 33.h4 g6 34.Bc5
g5 35.Kg3 h6 36.Rb7+ Kg8 37.Rb8+ Kf7 38.Rf8+ Kg7 39.Rc8 Kf7 40.Rc7+ Kg8
41.Bd4 Bb1 42.f4 gxf4+ 43.Kxf4 Re4+ 44.Kg3 Bxa2 45.Rxc6 Bxb3 46.Rxa6 Bd1
47.Rxf6 Rxg4+ 48.Kh3 h5 49.Rf5 Be2 50.Rxh5 Rg3+ 51.Kxg3 1/2-1/2 |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 25 OF 25 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
