The 2016 FIDE World Blitz Championship was a 21-round Swiss open taking place in the Ali Bin Hamad Al Attiya Arena in Doha, Qatar from 29-30 December. Alexander Grischuk would attempt to defend his title, with a $200,000 prize fund and $40,000 for 1st place at stake. ... [more]
Player: Baadur Aleksandrovich Jobava
| page 1 of 1; 21 games
| page 1 of 1; 21 games
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8 OF 8 ·
|Dec-31-16|| ||1971: <Eyal: the "handicap" for Carlsen because of his higher rating wasn't as big as you seemed to think; it's meaningful only when the average ratings of opponents (not exactly TPRs, btw) are super-close, even more than what was the case in the blitz;>|
Can you explain this a little bit more? I'm not being antagonistic I genuinely want to know how this process actually works.
<and that it actually wasn't the reason why he ended up with the worse tiebreaks.>
So what was the reason he had worse tiebreaks?
Also, instead of TPR let's say OR (opponent rating).
|Dec-31-16|| ||zanzibar: Look up section 1.48 in FIDE regulations here - |
You basically take the average of all the opponent's ratings, Ra, then calculate a dp based on the performance.
E.g. if all games are won, dp saturates at 800. If you win 9/10 games then dp ~ 400, which should sound familiar.
(I.e. if you're 400 points stronger than your opponent then you should win 9/10 games).
Etc, etc. for other scores via the table.
|Dec-31-16|| ||starry2013: It would have been interesting if Karjakin had played in the online blitz matches at chess.com this year like Carlsen, then we could have seen better how he stood. I'm curious if Karjakin's new rating will hold up.|
|Dec-31-16|| ||Sokrates: <Imran Iskandar: <Being a numeric no. 1 in both rapid and blitz ....>
I'm not so sure you can say that they were, since rating lists for rapid and blitz were only introduced in January 2012.>|
I know, but I am saying it anyway :-) No, seriously, it is evidently based on my personal recollection and assessment of how the predecessors coped with all time formats, knowing well that not all formats were played as often and systematically as they are now. I am sure some of them probably would be on par with Carlsen, but hardly any of them would do better. My actual point is: You can't request more from a world champion than being no. 1 on all three formats, and that is what he has been and still is, albeit by sharing the title in the quicker formats.
|Dec-31-16|| ||WorstPlayerEver: I heard there was some tournament.. when does it start? *burps*|
|Dec-31-16|| ||Rolfo: Sokrates, good reasoning|
|Dec-31-16|| ||Monatto: Karjakin beated Carlsen in their direct game. Then Karjakin finished with more wins and less losses than Carlsen. So what he had to do to prove to be the deserving first one??? People complaining with this tiebreak system, but put it this way: Karjakin came out to be the first in all respects, even in this stupid tb system.... which then is not so stupid at all. It makes perfect sense, provided of course that the highest and the lowest opponents ratings are not taken into account in the calculation, and I would be very surprised if it were not so:it's a simple and common operation for equalizing and standardizing data in order to make comparisons... In Italy we learn this stuff in middle school.. I would be very surprised if an official sophisticated algorithm hadnt been set up like that.......|
|Dec-31-16|| ||Monatto: Sorry Carlsen had one more win, but the sense does not change|
|Dec-31-16|| ||activechess55: Congratulations to Karjakin for splendid performance! Kudos to Carlsen, too, for running neck-to-neck all the way.|
|Dec-31-16|| ||Bureaucrat: Monatto, people always complain about tiebreaks, no matter who's the winner.|
|Dec-31-16|| ||Imran Iskandar: <Sokrates> Fair enough. :)|
By the way, I can never agree on most wins breaking ties. Yes, you may be rewarding the more aggressive player, but you are also rewarding the player who lost more often.
|Dec-31-16|| ||denopac: <Imran> It's a question of taste. Do you value playing to win, or playing not to lose? Most would choose the former, since the chess tends to be more interesting.|
|Dec-31-16|| ||denopac: <1971> I think the point is: if you take a large enough sample set, like 21 games, against opponents with ratings like 2750, that works out to over 57,000 rating points in the tiebreak calculation. An extra 100 points in one of the games will only tip the balance if the ratings in the other 20 games was super close (which it was not in this case).|
|Dec-31-16|| ||Sokrates: <denopac: <Imran> It's a question of taste. Do you value playing to win, or playing not to lose? Most would choose the former, since the chess tends to be more interesting.> And with those words of wisdom - words that should be followed by all chess players - I now enter 2017. |
A Happy New Year to all posters on CG. It has been a pleasure reading your posts during 2016.
|Dec-31-16|| ||denopac: <Sokrates> Thanks very much, and Happy New Year to you as well.|
|Dec-31-16|| ||John Abraham: Congratulations to Magnus Carlsen!|
|Jan-01-17|| ||nok: Indeed; no shame in being second.|
|Jan-01-17|| ||chessalem: magnus should find time for soul searching to provide explanation for his string of unsuccessful gold hunt despite finishing tied for first.|
giri would hint on Wesley's triumphs as having divine intervention. He failed to realize that Wesley would attribute all his victories to his Father...his last words would always be ADMG:
"...Thank you all from the bottom of my heart. AMDG"
GM Wesley So
Wesley would say...without you, I am nothing.
Magnus would rather mention nothing about God.
|Jan-01-17|| ||tuttifrutty: <magnus should find time for soul searching to provide explanation for his string of unsuccessful gold hunt despite finishing tied for first.>|
I agree....just like the World championship match against Karjakin. Tied for first. Nothing more, nothing less to be precise....really.
|Jan-01-17|| ||starry2013: At least the classical title went to proper playoffs to decide. If it had gone to a tiebreak based on rating he would have lost that too.|
|Jan-02-17|| ||botvinnik64: Look: Magnus is king. I don't care if someone beats him here or there or the guy doesn't win every tourney, he's consistently (last 5 years) the top player. Maybe someone comes along in a year or two (So, Fab, Nepo, Sergei, Vlad, Vishy or MVL...), but until then, he's simply Top Dog.|
|Jan-02-17|| ||1971: <denopac> Thanks, I still don't really get it and I don't trust ideas that can't be explained simply. |
Anyway this is what happens when you have weak ass tiebreaks, @#$% that, let them fight til it's the last man standing. That's why I love the World Cup.
|Jan-05-17|| ||siamesedream: <Magnus Carlen's blog>|
<I started well with 3/3. The quality of my play was pointing in the right direction, indicating that I handled the early rounds better than in Rapid.
After a draw in round 4 I met leader Karjakin (4/4) with white and achieved a pleasant position from an innocuous opening. I somehow blundered a queen and rook fork and had to give my queen for a rook. In a normally dead lost position I managed to hang on, but eventually lost the king and queen versus king and rook ending having missed to claim a threefold repetition as some point.
The rest of the tournament I played many good games and overall I have to be very satisfied with my play.
After day 1 Karjakin and I shared the lead at 10/12, with the rest trailing by 1,5 points and more. Day 2: After a bit hesitant start, and another loss to Ivanchuk, I won round 17 and 18 and was sole leader with 14 points head of Karjakin at 13.5. Amazingly 2.5/3 in the finish was not enough. Karjakin managed to win all three and had slightly higher rating opposition overall. Losing another title on tie-break after the excellent score 16.5/21 was quite devastating.
In summary, I was clearly the biggest favorite in the Blitz, and I played reasonably well generally being able to slowly outplay my opponents. That is not always enough as one of the others may have a brilliant event. This time, Karjakin had margins on his side and turned several lost positions into victory. He also played very well throughout the event and got a partial revenge from the New York-match. Dubov took third edging out Nakamura and Grischuk on tie-break, all at 14.5 points.
Overall tying for first in both events is of course objectively a good performance, but I’m not satisfied, and I have to find better ways to improve and prepare for the 2017 World Rapid and Blitz and other fast time control events.
Thank you organizer Mohamed Al-Medaihki and all the others involved in staging this great event!
Magnus Carlsen, January 1st, 2017>
|Jan-06-17|| ||Sokrates: Thanks for this blog quotation, <siamesedream>. I think Carlsen shows great calibre, both in acknowledging Karjakin's excellent performance at the venue and being self-critical towards his own. A true champion never rests on his laurels: |
"Overall tying for first in both events is of course objectively a good performance, but Iím not satisfied, and I have to find better ways to improve and prepare for the 2017 World Rapid and Blitz and other fast time control events."
|Jan-06-17|| ||WorstPlayerEver: The indication 'blitz' sounds pretty dumb. Coincedence?|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8 OF 8 ·
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!
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
Please observe our posting guidelines:
- No obscene, racist, sexist, profane, raunchy, or disgusting language.
- No spamming, advertising, duplicate or nonsense posts.
- 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.
- Nothing in violation of United States law.
- 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.
- NO TROLLING. Admin and Owners know it when they see it, and sanctions for any trolls will be significant.
- Any off-topic posts which distract from the primary topic of discussion are subject to removal.
- The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by Moderators is expressly prohibited.
- 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.
- 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.
- Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.
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 Chessgames.com, 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.
your profile |
Premium Membership |
Kibitzer's Café |
Biographer's Bistro |
new kibitzing |
Tournament Index |
Player Directory |
Notable Games |
World Chess Championships |
Opening Explorer |
Guess the Move |
Game Collections |
ChessBookie Game |
Chessgames Challenge |
privacy notice |
Copyright 2001-2019, Chessgames Services LLC