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

🏆 Biel Chess Festival (2012)

Player: Viktor Antonovich Bologan

 page 1 of 1; 8 games  PGN Download 
Game  ResultMoves YearEvent/LocaleOpening
1. Bologan vs Nakamura 0-1812012Biel Chess FestivalD20 Queen's Gambit Accepted
2. Wang Hao vs Bologan 1-0472012Biel Chess FestivalA58 Benko Gambit
3. A Giri vs Bologan 1-0922012Biel Chess FestivalE60 King's Indian Defense
4. Bologan vs Carlsen 0-1402012Biel Chess FestivalB30 Sicilian
5. Bologan vs Bacrot ½-½352012Biel Chess FestivalE70 King's Indian
6. Carlsen vs Bologan 1-0402012Biel Chess FestivalA59 Benko Gambit
7. Bologan vs Wang Hao 1-0492012Biel Chess FestivalB90 Sicilian, Najdorf
8. Nakamura vs Bologan 1-0582012Biel Chess FestivalA59 Benko Gambit
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2) | Bologan wins | Bologan loses  

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 38 OF 39 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: Either scoring syatem is bound to come under attack from different factions, depending on such pertinent considerations as the phases of the moon.

On reading some of the Tal Memorial kibitzes, it's amusing to have seen the criticisms there. Had the 3-1-0 scale been used, there would no doubt have been posters screaming 'Carlsen wuz ROBBED'-as it was, there was lengthy discussion as to how lucky Carlsen was to win outright with +2.

There's no pleasing everyone, and some are downright impossible, come to that.

Aug-04-12  kia0708: Perfidious, you can post as many as you want such messages and they will change nothing. (BTW, I agree with most of what you just said)
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: <kia0708> True enough, but I'm not one to let little things like that stand in the way.
Aug-04-12  L13: I've never liked the 3-1-0 system and this tournament only reinforced my dislike. Carlsen would have been a far more deserving tournament winner.

That, however, is only important as far as it affects the players' prizes. Scoring systems have no bearing on rating changes or the games themselves, so no big deal.

I only hope FIDE don't decide to make this scoring system the default one. Their track record of unfortunate decisions taken with the misguided intention of making chess more 'entertaining'--shorter time controls, knock-out tournaments, Olympic aspirations, rapid tie-breaks in classical chess, etc.--doesn't fill me with confidence, however.

(For the record, chess will never be entertaining and accessible to the average sports enthusiast in the way FIDE are hoping for, so their efforts can only succeed in lowering the quality of the chess on display, without really attracting any new fans. The 3-1-0 scoring system has the same result, in fact.)

Aug-04-12  frogbert: <i don't see anyone congratulating or even talking about Wang Hao, or the other players>

exoduz appears to see things through very coloured glasses, making all those generalizations and being heavily biased towards wang hao - much more than any hardcore carlsen fan i've seen wrt carlsen after biel.

here's my own first post on this page after the tournament was decided in wang hao's favour - and i think i qualify as a vocal carlsen fan:

<congrats to wang hao - 6 wins in 10 games is pretty awesome! and perfect given the 3-1-0 scoring in effect, of course.

wang hao and bologan gave two quite different answers to whether they fit in with the elite or not. before the tournament the official difference between the two was only 7 points. wang's 2739 turned out to be worth much more against this opposition than bologan's 2732. based on historical ratings and performance profiles, this isn't all that strange - it was rather expected.>

what did i do? i congratulated wang hao and talked about him and bologan - not a word about carlsen. my next two posts were about nakamura, who also had a good tournament (imho).

meanwhile exoduz spreads biased nonsense about the games between carlsen and wang hao both here and on wang hao's page:

<Don't worry Hao, your fans know you had those games vs Carlsen. The score says 2-0, but even Carlsen knows he got lucky in those games.>

how are we supposed to interpret this? "wang hao had those games vs carlsen" - does that mean that wang hao really "deserved" to win those two games?

the reality is that he never had a winning position in any of the games, and in the first game he was losing for the best part of the game (as clearly explained by eyal) but was offered a tiny chance to save half a point when carlsen was slightly inaccurate - but unlike carlsen who grabbed his opportunity when wang hao erred in the second game, wang hao was unable to exploit carlsen's inaccuracy and lost, quite deservedly, the first game.

wang hao would've had reason to be very happy with two draws in those games, judging by the games themselves, while 1,5-0,5 carlsen would've been closest to how chances in the two games were distributed between the players. but since carlsen seldom needs more than a little chance to turn the tables, we eventually saw 2-0 carlsen. even one win for wang hao was hardly in the cards at any time during the games, and two wins were certainly out of the question.

see if you're able to apply a tiny little bit of the objectivity you require of others. it would be a good start, exoduz. and like bureaucrat pointed out, those derogatory generalizations about "carlsen fanboys" are quite unasked for.

Aug-04-12  JimmyRockHound: Chess fanboys? What is that all about?
Aug-04-12  ex0duz: You guys get hung up over terminology too much, 'fanboys' is used very loosely here, and with a " " always, but i use ' ' instead.

And yes, i'm probably a Wang Hao/China 'fanboi' as you internet detectives have probably figured out from my post history ;)

Someone needs to be his fanboi, to counter all the Carlsen ones, or just to make things interesting. Like i said, i'm sick of seeing Carlsen comments, even if they are 'fair' and balanced. There's just too much 'fair and balanced'(hello fauxnewz) Carlsen discussion. Talk about someone else(in this case the old scoring discussion, which as i said leads nowhere, imo both have their merits/place, ie i would never change a WC match or something to 3-1-0) for a change.

You guys put a lot of time in your posts, so i apologize for 'trolling' or being 'spirited' and speaking half truths or not being objective in my posts in order to change/generate the discussion.

Aug-04-12  tolengoy: <ex0duz: while Carlsens fanboys aren't as bad as say, Wesley So's>

Would you care to give us the SCRA of how could came out with such a decision? Else, your allegations is but a lot of hot air..I suggest you continue your trip and journey to the promise land...

<they are still pretty bad>

You are referring to the Carlsen's which case I would tend to agree...they have the habit of turning white to gray and vice versa to suit their needs...

Aug-04-12  tolengoy: < exodus: so i apologize for 'trolling' > and you called as Wesley So's fanboys bad...get to your knees and apologize too..Moses...else were gonna send the pharoah out to get you...
Aug-04-12  tolengoy: <And yes, i'm probably a Wang Hao/China 'fanboi'>

Your WangHao did not even manage to become China Champ...that distinction belongs to Ding Liren (in fact two years in a row)...Ding found himself in the losing end of the bargain against our very own Wesley the world the Asian Blitz too... How would you expect Hao would have fared against the "immovable object" Mr. So?

Ready to apologize?

Aug-04-12  tolengoy: Beware of the chameleon <frogbert>.

Once he declared Magnus ...despite his losses, he compensates it with his greater no. of wins is better than Wesley...who while invincible and carries no defeat...has fewer wins to show.

In Biel.....Hao has winning more games...he has 6..Magnus only 4...He now tells a different story...Magnus should have won...he is still the best..never mind his fewer wins...the scoring system is to blame for this atrocity.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Sokrates: <ex0duz: [...] And yes, i'm probably a Wang Hao/China 'fanboi' as you internet detectives have probably figured out from my post history ;)> If all contributions from China were that hilarious, I say: keep posting! There is much charm in your defense of Hao, although I think it's hard to find anyone who attacks him. Yes, Carlsen gets much attention. Have you thought about why? Because he has the highest rating in the world? Because he hardly ever looses? Because he plays stellar chess now and then? Because he won both games against Hao?

Hao did an excellent job in Biel, and his achievement is highly respectable. That, however, doesn't diminish the greatness of Carlsen by a iota.

Aug-04-12  tolengoy: Too much hype about this Biel tourney. It's just another closed invitational tourney...A main event it has turned to be...than the sideshow it was meant to be...A collection of pampered goldfish on display....
Aug-04-12  tolengoy: <That, however, doesn't diminish the greatness of Carlsen by a iota.>

Magnus horrific loss and early elimination in the blitz edition of this event surely diminished his greatness....not only by an iota but by 50 mega tons of TNT..

Aug-04-12  frogbert: tolengoy, you're not telling the truth, for the nth time.

show me even one quote where i say anything remotely similar to "carlsen should've won" (in biel) "with classical scoring in effect". try sticking to the truth once in a while, it would feel liberating i'm sure.

also it's sad to see that you failed to get the single most important point i made on the world blitz page, even if repeated many, many times: wld-stats are inferior to performance as a measure of someone's results. it's not about avoiding losses or winning the most games - it's about producing the best results overall. ratings and performances provide this info.

you seem unable to represent anybody else's point of view, tolengoy. it disqualifies from leading any discussion. and it certainly makes it impossible to have a debate with you.

welcome back when you are ready. for the time being you're wasting everyone's time.

Aug-04-12  ex0duz: lol, this is why we can't have nice things(and why i mainly lurk). People take it too seriously(@tolenguy). Or perhaps it's a language/culture barrier with Wesley So fanbois
Aug-04-12  Alien Math: Is not <a language/culture barrier>
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: It's wilful stupidity with a touch of malice as a spritzer.
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sokrates: <tolengoy: <That, however, doesn't diminish the greatness of Carlsen by a iota.> Magnus horrific loss and early elimination in the blitz edition of this event surely diminished his greatness....not only by an iota but by 50 mega tons of TNT..> Another hilarious post. Please stop, I can hardly breathe. "50 tons of TNT" - wow, that's a powerful metaphor - can't compete here - you win by force!
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: In the aftermath of losing to that 2700+ donk Bacrot in the blitz, Carlsen might as well fold his tent. His career is done. Winning the WC and beating all comers won't be enough to overcome the stigma.
Aug-04-12  Absentee: Great, now the filipino trolls are going to crap all over this page too.
Aug-04-12  Rolfo: <Great, now the filipino trolls are going to crap all over this page too.>

They may have their opinions, their imaginary and colored way of describing their thinking. But alas they also have distorted facts, misunderstandings and some belittling.

Aug-04-12  frogbert: <Oddly enough, here he seems to be rated 2742, But here they say that his rating is actually 2747 ...>

meta, more scary in my opinon: the ittf-ranking site says that <zhang jike> is rated <2921!> jikes ... carlsen can go home now. ;o)

Aug-04-12  tahdah: <and his achievement is highly respectable. That, however, doesn't diminish the greatness of Carlsen by a iota.>

I disagree, Carlsen is way way rated above than anybody else. Once upon a time, someone said that 50 elo points does not make any difference in playing strength. That statement is not true nor correct as evidenced in this toynament, it was a product of a wild imagination, someone who can't separate facts from fictions. It is now a fact that Carlsen was below his godly standard. He should have won Biel uncontested contrary to just landing neath Hao. In fact, Carlsen should have won 10 games. No questions asked.

That diminishes his greatness (which is yet to be attained)even with the help of the circus organizers.

Aug-04-12  frogbert: according to the rating system - which is the basis of *all* the players' ratings - carlsen scored more than half a point <above> his expected score, based on the difference between his rating and his opponents' ratings. he had a tpr of 2879, clearly above his own rating and the highest in the tournament.

relatively though, wang hao overperformed even more. carlsen only plays his own games, and he certainly delivered according to expectations. imo wang hao's win was actually *more* due to his bigger overperformance than the scoring system in effect.

we can't really be too bothered that some peanut brains don't have a clue about neither ratings nor performances. nor very much else, it seems. anyway, when one doesn't understand even the basics regarding ratings - and shows no intent of wanting to learn anything - then one disqualifies oneself from having any opinion at all wrt rating-related matters. in this case that's entirely fine.

rejoin the debate when you've educated yourself, tahdah. until then you're simply noise.

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 39)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 38 OF 39 ·  Later Kibitzing>
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, is totally anonymous, and 100% free—plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, profane, raunchy, or disgusting language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate or nonsense posts.
  3. No malicious personal attacks, including cyber stalking, systematic antagonism, or gratuitous name-calling of any member Iincludinfgall Admin and Owners or any of their family, friends, associates, or business interests. If you think someone is an idiot, then provide evidence that their reasoning is invalid and/or idiotic, instead of just calling them an idiot. It's a subtle but important distinction, even in political discussions.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No malicious posting of or linking to personal, private, and/or negative information (aka "doxing" or "doxxing") about any member, (including all Admin and Owners) or any of their family, friends, associates, or business interests. This includes all media: text, images, video, audio, or otherwise. Such actions will result in severe sanctions for any violators.
  6. NO TROLLING. Admin and Owners know it when they see it, and sanctions for any trolls will be significant.
  7. Any off-topic posts which distract from the primary topic of discussion are subject to removal.
  8. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by Moderators is expressly prohibited.
  9. The use of "sock puppet" accounts in an attempt to undermine any side of a debate—or to create a false impression of consensus or support—is prohibited.
  10. All decisions with respect to deleting posts, and any subsequent discipline, are final, and occur at the sole discretion of the Moderators, Admin, and Owners.
  11. 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: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific tournament and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of, its employees, or sponsors. All Moderator actions taken are at the sole discretion of the Admin and Owners—who will strive to act fairly and consistently at all times.
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!

home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | contact us

Copyright 2001-2019, Chessgames Services LLC