< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 18 OF 20 ·
|Mar-24-10|| ||James Bowman: Frog 12 games is a small data set yet to discard it entirely seems to have the emotional component you acuse others of, it will no doubt become more meaningful as the two play more games but its not meaningless now.|
Note before any emotions are invoked I'm not saying Nakamura is better than Carlsen, at least at standard time controls, blitz yes my money is on Nakamura.
Comparing Carlsens tournement results against players he has played much more frequently is also a bit out of touch, a better guage is how do they compare at similiar experience levels against that same opposition.
Frankly I think Carlsens achievements are steller and I picked him a long ways out before he entered the top 100.
I think Nakamura would have faired far better at Amber than Dominguez, Smeets or Pominarov especially in the rapid games where he is in his element. I would not have been totally surprised to see him win the rapid section, but would have been to see him finish below 50%. We have virtually nothing to use as a gage for blindfold so to find out would have been fun.
I hope Nakamura gets and accepts invites to these type of tournements, I think the top players would much rather play some others that get invites to the top than Nakamura. If Nakamura does not get invited to the top blitz tournament there will be a certain stench about it.
I cheer for Carlsen and hope he wins over all at Amber and becomes world champion to boot, I hope as a fan of his and also Nakamura's that we can get a large data set of games between two very exciting players and Nakamura doing well takes nothing away Carlsen who I think will stil continue to improve as scary as that is for the rest of the field. Get em Magnus
|Mar-25-10|| ||James Bowman: BTW Frog it's interesting to note you claim that the data set of Nak vs. Carlsen is statistically insignificant because it's based on just 12 games and so that Nakamura's edge in that match up doesn't matter.|
Compare that to your comments on Nakamura's page where you use a data set of 8 games Nak vs. Svidler and an even smaller 6 games Nak vs. Gelfand to conclude that Nakamura has difficulty against those two opponents. I actually think he does need to study his games against those opponents to find the disparity but that's not the point.
The point is you disregarded a larger data set in Naks favor as insignificant claiming its too small and yet draw conclusions from a data set half as large against him in the case of Gelfand and 66% as large for Svidler? Maybe the same emotional component is more wide spread than we wish to believe.
Keep in mind I actually agree with your assesments to a large degree even if your personal bias shows through in your statements.
I find myself able to be more objective when I first recognize that I previously wasn't as objective as I initially thought I was, but that takes a setting aside of pride.
PS my money is still on Carlsen ;o]
|Mar-25-10|| ||siamesedream: <Magnus Carlsen`s Blog>|
>>Amber and blindfold and rapid, round 10
2-0 against Ponomariov, what a great day! As white in the rapid game [probably he meant "blindfold" - correction by "copy-paste"], everything went quite smoothly. From a relatively quiet opening I eventually got a somewhat better position with my bishop pair. My opponent then decided to open up the kingside, which turned out to be a double-edged sword, to say the least. Soon all my pieces were concentrated on the kingside, and when I started my counterattack, the game was essentially over already. A rook down, he resigned on move 41. The rapid game was a completely different story. After he surprised me in the opening, I got some problems, and I had to sacrifice a pawn. I eventually got reasonable compensation, even after the queens had been swapped off. After the knights were swapped, and just one rook and four pawn were remaining on each side, everything was headed for a draw. However, now, for the first time in the game I had a very slight advantage, so I decided to play on for a few moves at least. A few moves later I managed to saddle him with a weak pawn, and it became clear the though the position was still a clear draw, white would definitely have to suffer for a while. Unable to cope with the new circumstances, my opponent did not defend in the best way, and eventually lost a pawn. He could still have made a draw with precise play, but down to a few seconds on the clock he went wrong, and let his king be cut off from his last remaining pawn. Then, I was absolutely sure I would win, as I could just follow a game of mine from 2006, where I had won the exact same endgame. I soon won his last pawn, and with it, the game. Ivanchuk and Kramnik made two draws, with Ivanchuk pushing in first game (with serious winnings chances along the way) and Kramnik pushing in the second. This means that I am now the sole leader, with 13.5/20. Ivanchuk has 13/20, while Kramnik in third has 12/20. Tomorrow I am facing Alexander Grischuk. The Russian champion has, despite an unecessary loss today, done very well in the blindfold section, and is leading with 7/10. As I am clear second with 6.5/10, tomorrow will decide the winner in that section. For the record, his rapid play his been far less impressive, and with 4.5/10 he is two points behind in the combined, a lead I do not intend to give away too easily :) Magnus Carlsen, Nice, March 24th 2010
|Mar-25-10|| ||siamesedream: Last rounds will start <2 hours earlier>: 12:30, 14:00; 15:45; 17:15.|
|Mar-25-10|| ||frogbert: <12 games is a small data set yet to discard it entirely>|
bowman, it's not 12 games, it's two games to me. i personally only care about the two classical games after 2005.
blitz and rapid are not part of the players' ratings and have little impact on their careers as professional chess players. games from 2005 when carlsen was rated 2528 is neither very relevant.
|Mar-25-10|| ||The Rocket: "I am amazed that Carlsen won this endgame against Ponomariov"|
Me too but not for the same reasons:)
|Mar-25-10|| ||frogbert: <Frog it's interesting to note you claim that the data set of Nak vs. Carlsen is statistically insignificant because it's based on just 12 games and so that Nakamura's edge in that match up doesn't matter.|
Compare that to your comments on Nakamura's page where you use a data set of 8 games Nak vs. Svidler and an even smaller 6 games Nak vs. Gelfand to conclude that Nakamura has difficulty against those two opponents.>
again, it's because
a) my main interest is classical games
b) 5 blitz games doesn't even count as much as 1 classical imo
c) games from when carlsen was 14 and rated 2500-something are completely irrelevant
what does that leave us with?
1 rapid from 2008
2 rapids from 2009
5 blitz games from 2009
1 classical from december 2009
1 classical from january 2010
at best this translates to 4 classical games, with a <very slight edge> to nakamura - but still it's completely insignificant, ref. my post about carlsen vs leko & wang yue. [when people were talking about the "problems" carlsen had with wang yue, i said that problem was entirely constructed, too, btw.]
3-2 in blitz games means nothing imo - you can put it down as another classical draw if you really insist.
leading 2-1 in rapids (two draws and a win) is also statistically utterly insignificant - and even more so since the area of interest remains their strength in classical chess.
if there had been some clear tendency in the shorter time controls over notably more games, i would've considered giving it some weight, but the fact is that 5 blitz games and 3 rapid games are <nothing> - and a diff of 1 win with an odd number of total games, is that really something you consider to be meaningful? seriously, bowman?
regarding what i said on the nakamura page, my main message was that nakamura didn't really have significant records against <any> elite players. but i do hope you see the difference between gelfand vs naka and carlsen vs naka: after gelfand's first 5 games with nakamura, nakamura had achieved 1 single draw, with 4 wins for gelfand: 2-0 in rapids and 2,5-0,5 in classical encounters. the svidler score has been even more lop-sided.
but all these "records" are really too short. nakamura vs carlsen doesn't even exist in my terms, and you certainly can't draw anything even resembling conclusions from 2 classical, 3 rapid and 5 blitz games - as long there isn't a very, very clear tendency - which there isn't. when the internal record between two players is so small, the players' total results against <all opponents> clearly is a much better measure of their internal strength relationship. it's essentially no evidence versus a lot of evidence.
it certainly isn't only some of you nakamura fans that i think blow insignificant internal records out of proportions - imo far too many chess fans seem to stare blindly on single parameters when trying to compare players.
|Mar-25-10|| ||frogbert: < I would not have been totally surprised to see him win the rapid section>|
i would've been. :o)
|Mar-25-10|| ||Troller: <Bowman> <I hope Nakamura gets and accepts invites to these type of tournements, I think the top players would much rather play some others that get invites to the top than Nakamura. If Nakamura does not get invited to the top blitz tournament there will be a certain stench about it.>|
I guess it would be a bit awkward to invite Nakamura this year, seeing as he finished last in the qualification event. Caruana, Stellwagen & Yifan Hou all had better scores than Nakamura in that event (as did Smeets, the winner, obviously). Of course, Naka would in all probability fare better than any of these in Amber, but still it's a bit awkward.
|Mar-25-10|| ||turbo231: As far as Naka vs Carlsen the future will tell the tale.|
|Mar-25-10|| ||turbo231: Gashimov vs Svidler; Weird game, 46 moves, no rooks, both have all their bishops and knights! I've never seen anything like it.|
|Mar-25-10|| ||turbo231: Excuse me for my ignorance, is the first game that they play blindfold or rapid? I think the first game is blindfold but I'm not sure.|
|Mar-25-10|| ||Robin01: First the blindfold games and then the rapid games.|
|Mar-25-10|| ||turbo231: < Robin01 >
Thank you. That 100 move game yesterday of Carlsen's with its complicated end game, does anyone believe Carlsen could have played it that well blindfolded. For some reason I have my doubts. Ponomariov couldn't play it well with his eyes open!
|Mar-25-10|| ||Agent Bouncy: The 2 classical games and the 4-game rapids match between Carlsen and Nakamura are not significant for frogbert because Carlsen didn't win.|
|Mar-25-10|| ||Atking: Strange Svidler Gashimov game was today opening A Santasiere's folly reversed !|
|Mar-25-10|| ||turbo231: Does anyone known if Naka can play blindfold chess, I'm curious. If I had to guess I would say yes, because he has tremendous talents. As for myself I can't see the board with my eyes open, and I'm not blind!|
|Mar-25-10|| ||turbo231: < Agent Bouncy : The two classical games and the 4-game rapids match between Carlsen and Naka are not significant for frogbert because Carlsen didn't win >|
You just made a brilliant point. I bet Frogbert is crying in his beer right now because Carlsen just lost his blindfold game against Grischuk.
|Mar-25-10|| ||bharatiy: Ivanchuk has it easy now. he will win this one. Whether Carlsen can join him is to be seen.|
|Mar-25-10|| ||bharatiy: nice game by Ivanchuk. Mig's angel will get more feathers. Nice beating of petroff which has become kind of regular lately.|
|Mar-25-10|| ||Mr. Bojangles: Ivanchuk is on his way to winning the Rapid section and Amber.|
|Mar-25-10|| ||Mr. Bojangles: And Carjack is gonna take Kramnik down.|
|Mar-25-10|| ||Mr. Bojangles: Yes Kramnik can resign now. What a poor play. Unsound, risky wild play|
|Mar-25-10|| ||siamesedream: Congratulations to Ivanchuk for winning Amber 2010.|
|Mar-25-10|| ||The Rocket: Not such a bad tournament after all for Sergey beating both Kramnik and Carlsen in the rapids.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 18 OF 20 ·