|Tata Steel Masters (2018)|
The great traditional tournament at Wijk aan Zee, Netherlands (with round 5 in Hilversum and round 10 in Groningen) 13-28 January 2018 featured Carlsen, Caruana, Giri, Hou Yifan, Jones, Karjakin, Kramnik, Mamedyarov, Matlakov, So, Svidler, Wei Yi, Adhiban and Anand. The time control was 100 minutes for the first 40 moves, 50 more minutes for move 60, then 15 more minutes till the end of the game, with 30 seconds added per move from move 1. Chief organizer: Jeroen van den Berg. Chief arbiter: Pavel Votruba.
Magnus Carlsen won for the 6th time after 9/13 and then beating Giri in the Tata Steel (Blitz Tiebreak) (2018) on 28 January.
Official site: https://web.archive.org/web/2018020...
Elo 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4
1 Carlsen 2834 * ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 1 1 9
2 Giri 2752 ½ * 1 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 1 1 9
3 Kramnik 2787 ½ 0 * ½ 1 ½ 0 1 1 ½ 1 1 1 ½ 8½
4 Mamedyarov 2804 ½ 0 ½ * ½ ½ ½ 1 1 ½ 1 ½ 1 1 8½
5 Anand 2767 ½ ½ 0 ½ * ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 1 1 ½ 1 8
6 So 2792 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ * ½ ½ 1 1 ½ ½ 1 1 8
7 Karjakin 2753 ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ * ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ 7½
8 Svidler 2768 ½ ½ 0 0 ½ ½ ½ * ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 6
9 Wei Yi 2743 ½ ½ 0 0 ½ 0 ½ ½ * 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ 5½
10 Jones 2640 0 ½ ½ ½ 0 0 ½ ½ 0 * ½ ½ 1 ½ 5
11 Caruana 2811 ½ ½ 0 0 0 ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ * ½ ½ 1 5
12 Matlakov 2718 0 0 0 ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ * ½ 1 5
13 Adhiban 2655 0 0 0 0 ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ * ½ 3½
14 Yifan Hou 2680 0 0 ½ 0 0 0 ½ 0 ½ ½ 0 0 ½ * 2½
Previous: Tata Steel Masters (2017). Next: Tata Steel Masters (2019). See also Tata Steel Challengers (2018)
| page 1 of 4; games 1-25 of 91
|1. Carlsen vs Caruana
||½-½||41||2018||Tata Steel Masters||C42 Petrov Defense|
|2. So vs Mamedyarov
||½-½||29||2018||Tata Steel Masters||B29 Sicilian, Nimzovich-Rubinstein|
|3. Svidler vs B Adhiban
|| ||½-½||33||2018||Tata Steel Masters||B12 Caro-Kann Defense|
|4. G Jones vs Karjakin
|| ||½-½||36||2018||Tata Steel Masters||C54 Giuoco Piano|
|5. Anand vs M Matlakov
||1-0||53||2018||Tata Steel Masters||C77 Ruy Lopez|
|6. Kramnik vs Wei Yi
||1-0||55||2018||Tata Steel Masters||D78 Neo-Grunfeld, 6.O-O c6|
|7. Giri vs Yifan Hou
||1-0||63||2018||Tata Steel Masters||C42 Petrov Defense|
|8. M Matlakov vs So
|| ||½-½||30||2018||Tata Steel Masters||E04 Catalan, Open, 5.Nf3|
|9. Wei Yi vs Svidler
||½-½||124||2018||Tata Steel Masters||D80 Grunfeld|
|10. Giri vs Kramnik
||1-0||35||2018||Tata Steel Masters||A13 English|
|11. B Adhiban vs Carlsen
||0-1||36||2018||Tata Steel Masters||C47 Four Knights|
|12. Caruana vs G Jones
||½-½||69||2018||Tata Steel Masters||E71 King's Indian, Makagonov System (5.h3)|
|13. Yifan Hou vs Mamedyarov
||0-1||48||2018||Tata Steel Masters||C01 French, Exchange|
|14. Karjakin vs Anand
||½-½||31||2018||Tata Steel Masters||A06 Reti Opening|
|15. Svidler vs Giri
||½-½||21||2018||Tata Steel Masters||C48 Four Knights|
|16. Carlsen vs Wei Yi
||½-½||46||2018||Tata Steel Masters||E06 Catalan, Closed, 5.Nf3|
|17. Anand vs Caruana
||1-0||42||2018||Tata Steel Masters||C42 Petrov Defense|
|18. So vs Karjakin
||½-½||46||2018||Tata Steel Masters||D38 Queen's Gambit Declined, Ragozin Variation|
|19. Mamedyarov vs M Matlakov
|| ||½-½||25||2018||Tata Steel Masters||D45 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav|
|20. Kramnik vs Yifan Hou
||½-½||32||2018||Tata Steel Masters||A18 English, Mikenas-Carls|
|21. G Jones vs B Adhiban
||1-0||55||2018||Tata Steel Masters||C07 French, Tarrasch|
|22. Caruana vs So
||½-½||48||2018||Tata Steel Masters||E46 Nimzo-Indian|
|23. Yifan Hou vs M Matlakov
||0-1||54||2018||Tata Steel Masters||C89 Ruy Lopez, Marshall|
|24. Giri vs Carlsen
||½-½||31||2018||Tata Steel Masters||C18 French, Winawer|
|25. Wei Yi vs G Jones
||1-0||48||2018||Tata Steel Masters||E71 King's Indian, Makagonov System (5.h3)|
| page 1 of 4; games 1-25 of 91
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 43 OF 51 ·
|Feb-07-18|| ||frogbert: It's good to see that I'm being included in the latest controversies, despite visiting the site once in a blue moon compared to before. And not being in any way a part of anything.|
Happy that I realized there were better things to do with my life than fighting wind mills on cg.com.
|Feb-07-18|| ||perfidious: <Absentee....I wonder if Wesley So, the real one, knows how is profile is being mismanaged....>|
I take full responsibility: after I proposed to rewrite his bio, someone else was called in and did a thorough hack job.
|Feb-07-18|| ||AylerKupp: <<tuttifrutty> Wrong... you came in third place or last place since there is no fourth place.>|
I don't think that there's an "or" involved here. The player that scored 19 points came in first place, the 18 players that scored 9.5 points tied for 2nd – 19th place, and the player that scored 0 points came in 20th place.
<Placement is what we are talking about here...so no matter how many people are ahead of Wesley, he finished tied third place with Anand.>
No, it DOES matter how many people were ahead of So. Carlsen and Giri with 9.0 points ties for 1st and 2nd place and Carlsen subsequently won the <title> in the tiebreakers. Kramnik and Mamedyarov with 8.5 points tied for 3rd and 4th place and Anand and So with 8.0 points tied for 5th and 6th place. That's just how it works, and no dictionary is needed. And, BTW, it's incorrect to say that So came in 5th place, he <tied> for 5th and 6th place with Anand.
To put it another way, the prize fund was 27,000 euros, and this is how it was allocated:
Anand and So split the 5th + 6th place prize fund, 2,000 euros + 1,000 euros or 1,500 euros each. Or do you think that So won 3,000 euros for coming in "third" place? If that's the case, how much did Carlsen, Giri , Kramnik, and Mamedyarov get?
If the placement (and therefore prize fund allocation) was done as you suggested, this is what each player would have received, in euros:
Player <Score> Place <Prize>
Carlsen <9.0> 1 <10,000>
Giri <9.0> 1 <10,000>
Kramnik <8.5> 2 <6,500>
Mamedyarov <8.5> 2 <6,500>
Anand <8.0> 3 <3,000>
So <8.0> 3 <3,000>
Karjakin <7.5> 4 <2,500>
Svidler <6.0> 5 <2,000>
Wei Yi <5.5> 6 <1,000>
Caruana <5.0> 7 <500>
Jones <5.0> 7 <500>
Matlakov <5.0> 7 <500>
Adhiban <3.5> 8 <500>
Hou Yifan <2.5> 9 <500>
A "problem" is that the total amount needed for this prize distribution is 47,000 euros. Where do you think that the extra 20,000 euros were going to come from? Did you donate it?
|Feb-07-18|| ||AylerKupp: <Fiona Macleod> In fairness to Wesley So, however, he posted his claim that he placed third and Giri first at his own page ...>|
I think that you assume too much. For one thing, the tone of the post was completely different from So's earlier posts. So is a real gentleman; he has never been one to criticize others or be rude. I therefore don't think that post originated from So but rather from someone who had access to his user account.
And whoever wrote the post is probably enjoying himself or herself immensely that the post has received so much attention. Apparently that person doesn't care about the damage done to So's reputation by a post that is borderline in violation of <chessgames.com>'s posting guidelines. Sad, very sad.
|Feb-07-18|| ||AylerKupp: <<Marmot PFL> No question that W So is the People's Choice. His page has over 10x the comments of his colleague Fabi Caruana>|
Sheer volume of comments is not a measure of a player's popularity, not if the same people keep posting the same thing over and over again in a slightly different manner. If So's page has 10 people are each posting 700 pages worth of posts, that doesn't make him the "People's Choice". It's more like ballot stuffing.
A similar situation exists in the Fischer page.
|Feb-07-18|| ||AylerKupp: <<frogbert> Happy that I realized there were better things to do with my life than fighting wind mills on cg.com.>|
Fighting windmills on <chessgames.com> is like beating your head against a wall. It feels so good when you stop. So why do you want to deny yourself that "pleasure"? :-)
|Feb-07-18|| ||frogbert: <AylerKupp> So I have to start and stop again to receive more pleasure? I think I'll pass. ;)|
|Feb-08-18|| ||perfidious: How quixotic.|
|Feb-08-18|| ||tuttifrutty: <<tuttifrutty> Wrong... you came in third place or last place since there is no fourth place.>|
<I don't think that there's an "or" involved here. The player that scored 19 points came in first place, the 18 players that scored 9.5 points tied for 2nd – 19th place, and the player that scored 0 points came in 20th place.>
He came in third place. I contend that there were only 3 placements and not 20 for 2nd place was not broken and remain to count as 1 and not 18. So ...that's the reason no one can ever explain this.
<So let me illustrate something that would prove you wrong.
Suppose there are three people in a tourney...and let me make it simple.
Player frogbert and tpstar finished tied first place...you Jimbo finished 2nd place alone...last place...for there were only 2 placement. You did not finished 3rd place for if you insist you did, well, well, well...who was the second place??? You tell me.>
So...do you see what I see??? tpstar and frogbert are considered as one. You are all confused becuase of the faulty prize distribution...which reflects the total number of players.
No...no...no...you assumed that Magnus and Giri, who are tied first were separated to place 1 and 2...Mamed and Kramnik who were tied second were separated to place 3 and 4...thus erroneously think Wesley should finished tied for places 5 and 6...when the fact remains that the score were as follows:
Magnus and Giri=9pts----------first
Mamed and Kramnik=8.5pts------Second
Wesley and Anand=8pts---------third
So therefore...the tie that bound were never broken...like a two headed siamese twin...counts as 1...more like a grilled cheese sandwich, without the other loaf of bread...it becomes a cheese pizza.
The <bogus> tie break system that was used to separate Magnus and Giri was only for the purpose of who takes the trophy. They remain tied for first...like a married couple...they were never divorced.
|Feb-08-18|| ||tuttifrutty: <AylerKupp: <<frogbert> Happy that I realized there were better things to do with my life than fighting wind mills on cg.com.>|
Fighting windmills on <chessgames.com> is like beating your head against a wall. It feels so good when you stop. So why do you want to deny yourself that "pleasure"? :-)>
Forgbert is just in a state of paranoia...a feeling that he might again be relegated to a very long time babysitting job...courtesy of the mathematician...Tiggler...:-)
|Feb-08-18|| ||tuttifrutty: Let me just echo...Go Magpus...:-)|
|Feb-08-18|| ||tuttifrutty: Wesley is correct...You all now may go apologize...Take it from me, it doesn't make you a lesser man...you all will feel well after.|
|Feb-08-18|| ||Kapmigs: <Aylerkupp..I think that you assume too much. For one thing, the tone of the post was completely different from So's earlier posts. So is a real gentleman; he has never been one to criticize others or be rude. I therefore don't think that post originated from So but rather from someone who had access to his user account.>|
Is it then also your theory, sir, that So is not also the one erasing posts and banning players in his own page, being a "gentleman" that you assume he is?
|Feb-08-18|| ||Domdaniel: <Ohio> - 'Ghostwriter', my friend, is your masterpiece. Quite brilliant. It even echoes the occasional awkwardness of the original.|
|Feb-08-18|| ||tuttifrutty: <Quite brilliant>|
Quite boring, really. It's full of assumptions or let me say a product of malfunctioning brain.
|Feb-08-18|| ||Domdaniel: <tuttifrutty> - <Magnus and Giri=9pts----------first
Mamed and Kramnik=8.5pts------Second
Wesley and Anand=8pts---------third >
This is absurd.
There are essentially two ways of ordering the results of a tournament. Various tie-break systems can be used to order all participants from first to last, so that those who finish on the same score may be separated. Alternatively, players finishing on the same score may be regarded as being tied at that score.
In practice, the latter method is usually used for cash prizes, while tie-breaks are used for titles, cups, etc.
Note that if two players finish on the same (winning) score, they would then share the prize-money, while a tie-break or play-off could determine the title. But the next player in the list of final results would place 3rd, not 2nd. And so on the rest of the way down.
|Feb-08-18|| ||Domdaniel: <tutti> Better a malfunctioning brain than one that has never functioned at all.|
|Feb-08-18|| ||tuttifrutty: <<Magnus and Giri=9pts----------first Mamed and Kramnik=8.5pts------Second
Wesley and Anand=8pts---------third >
This is absurd.>
Actually, it's a fact...but all you said was that it was absurd without explanation. Do you really think the jury will find you credible because you said so??? You tell me.
|Feb-08-18|| ||tuttifrutty: <Various tie-break systems can be used to order all participants from first to last, so that those who finish on the same score may be separated.>
There was no system implemented to break the ties except Magnus and Giri where the winner is for the trophy... but that's besides the point. The point of contention is whether Wesley finished tied 3rd place with Anand or not. You must now prove me wrong to win your case. Otherwise...the game is over.|
|Feb-08-18|| ||saffuna: <The point of contention is whether Wesley finished tied 3rd place with Anand or not. You must now prove me wrong to win your case. Otherwise...the game is over.>|
Four players scored more points than So and Anand.
|Feb-08-18|| ||perfidious: The 'game' never began. Full stop.
Let the king of West Moronicus reign in supreme moronicity.
|Feb-08-18|| ||tuttifrutty: <Four players scored more points than So and Anand.>|
So??? The number of players who scored higher than So and Anand doesn't prove anything to refute my argument. Wesley remains tied third place with Anand as I illustrated. Prove me wrong and...
|Feb-08-18|| ||Fiona Macleod: Before the tournament started, the players were informed of the rules. The rules include how the players's performance and scores will determine their final placings. If you are NOT 3rd under these predetermined and pre-announced rules, rules under which you played in, then you are not a 3rd placer.|
|Feb-08-18|| ||chancho: <“Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be indistinguishable from—self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time.” |
¯ Neal Stephenson>
|Feb-08-18|| ||tuttifrutty: <Before the tournament started, the players were informed of the rules. The rules include how the players's performance and scores will determine their final placings. If you are NOT 3rd under these predetermined and pre-announced rules, rules under which you played in, then you are not a 3rd placer.|
Are you suggesting we should put Wesley on the stand???
I object, your Honor...I may request Wesley to invoke his 5th Amendment privileges to self incrimination...
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 43 OF 51 ·
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!
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:
- No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
- No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
- No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
- Nothing in violation of United States law.
- No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
- No trolling.
- 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.
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.
Copyright 2001-2021, Chessgames Services LLC