|Gibraltar Masters (2019)|
The 17th Gibraltar Masters took place in the Caleta Hotel, Gibraltar from 22-31 January. The 10-round, 250-player open saw stars such as Aronian, MVL, Nakamura and So compete for a £25,000 first prize, while the women's top prize of £15,000 again attracted many of the world's best female players. Players received 100 minutes for 40 moves, followed by 50 minutes for 20 moves, then 15 minutes until the end of the game, with a 30-second increment from move one. A tie for first place would be settled in a speed chess playoff. The Gibraltar Chess Festival also featured four separate amateur tournaments. Tournament director: Stuart C Conquest. Chief arbiter: Laurent Freyd.
Vladislav Artemiev won the Masters event with 8.5/10.
Official site: https://www.gibchess.com/news/vladi...
Previous: Tradewise Gibraltar (2018). Next: Gibraltar Masters (2020)
| page 1 of 48; games 1-25 of 1,199
|1. K Kiik vs M Vachier-Lagrave
|| ||0-1||60||2019||Gibraltar Masters||A04 Reti Opening|
|2. Aronian vs I K Sukandar
||1-0||31||2019||Gibraltar Masters||A20 English|
|3. J C Pigott vs W So
||0-1||42||2019||Gibraltar Masters||A29 English, Four Knights, Kingside Fianchetto|
|4. Yu Yangyi vs A Erenberg
|| ||½-½||40||2019||Gibraltar Masters||C95 Ruy Lopez, Closed, Breyer|
|5. V Blesic vs Nakamura
||½-½||41||2019||Gibraltar Masters||D02 Queen's Pawn Game|
|6. Navara vs E Shachar
|| ||1-0||42||2019||Gibraltar Masters||C03 French, Tarrasch|
|7. S Vega Gutierrez vs Naiditsch
|| ||0-1||36||2019||Gibraltar Masters||C50 Giuoco Piano|
|8. Vitiugov vs Y Shvayger
|| ||1-0||45||2019||Gibraltar Masters||B23 Sicilian, Closed|
|9. T Seeman vs Le Quang Liem
|| ||0-1||35||2019||Gibraltar Masters||A07 King's Indian Attack|
|10. Ivanchuk vs P Guichard
||1-0||41||2019||Gibraltar Masters||A42 Modern Defense, Averbakh System|
|11. E Hedman vs V Artemiev
||0-1||31||2019||Gibraltar Masters||D85 Grunfeld|
|12. Adams vs N Zhukova
|| ||1-0||30||2019||Gibraltar Masters||A13 English|
|13. Nadar Anand vs M Matlakov
||½-½||41||2019||Gibraltar Masters||B90 Sicilian, Najdorf|
|14. I Cheparinov vs K Arakhamia-Grant
|| ||1-0||38||2019||Gibraltar Masters||D02 Queen's Pawn Game|
|15. P Lombaers vs G Jones
|| ||0-1||25||2019||Gibraltar Masters||A10 English|
|16. I Saric vs N Krishna Teja
|| ||1-0||57||2019||Gibraltar Masters||B18 Caro-Kann, Classical|
|17. S P Rahul vs B Adhiban
|| ||0-1||39||2019||Gibraltar Masters||A42 Modern Defense, Averbakh System|
|18. D Howell vs T Galinsky
|| ||1-0||38||2019||Gibraltar Masters||C05 French, Tarrasch|
|19. G Quillan vs N Grandelius
||0-1||38||2019||Gibraltar Masters||B14 Caro-Kann, Panov-Botvinnik Attack|
|20. Eljanov vs G Lane
||1-0||36||2019||Gibraltar Masters||A89 Dutch, Leningrad, Main Variation with Nc6|
|21. S Hoolt vs S P Sethuraman
|| ||0-1||37||2019||Gibraltar Masters||B31 Sicilian, Rossolimo Variation|
|22. H Melkumyan vs D Belenkaya
|| ||1-0||116||2019||Gibraltar Masters||B13 Caro-Kann, Exchange|
|23. M Gavilan Diaz vs Short
||0-1||43||2019||Gibraltar Masters||C95 Ruy Lopez, Closed, Breyer|
|24. V Akobian vs D Taboas Rodriguez
|| ||1-0||49||2019||Gibraltar Masters||E61 King's Indian|
|25. A C Taylor vs R Edouard
|| ||0-1||51||2019||Gibraltar Masters||B31 Sicilian, Rossolimo Variation|
| page 1 of 48; games 1-25 of 1,199
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8 OF 8 ·
|Feb-04-19|| ||tuttifrutty: <However, if that infamous Rogoff page (which I have never visited) should become the model of discussions here at Chessgames, I for one will definitely take my leave.>|
Never visited??? Tell it to the marines.
|Feb-04-19|| ||tuttifrutty: < <Like a drill bit, I keep repeating a circular motion so I can penetrate your skull to reach your pea size brain.>|
Well, you got that right about the circular motion. You still keep repeating yourself without adding anything new, beginning to get close to violating <chessgames.com> posting guideline #2. You've even repeated your comment about my pea-sized brain which I think that I already appropriately answered in Altibox Norway (2018) (kibitz #537).>
It seems like you are not listening. I asked you a simple question...in your own words, the meaning of <tied>. It appears that you have a problem using the dictionary to clarify the meaning of a word. If left unanswered then we know you are just blowing hot air...
|Feb-04-19|| ||AylerKupp: <<Sokrates> A sensible democratic discussion requires a certain level of seriousness and honesty.>|
True, but that's the first time I've heard anyone say that they think that this site necessarily fostered sensibility, seriousness, and honesty. This site's Help page is a Socratic-like (a convenient pun) dialogue which answers two relevant questions about <chessgames.com>:
<What is Chessgames.com?>
"Chessgames.com is an online database of chess games. Our easy interface allows you to search a vast library of historic chess games for educational and entertainment purposes. It is an excellent tool for intermediate and advanced players, and even the novice will find much value in seeing how the world's best players play the game."
<Who is Chessgames.com?>
"Chessgames.com <is> the kibitzers. Without them, we'd just be an online chess database."
So I believe that they want to encourage kibitzers to visit the site and participate in it. And to that extent they encourage discussion and expression of opinion subject only to adherence to <chessgames.com>'s posting guidelines, which I believe to be reasonable.
But there is no mention in the <chessgames.com> posting guidelines that the posts be serious or honest, nor that they be factual or truthful. I wish it were not so, but it is. If the site was moderated and posts submitted but not actually posted until their contents were verified then we would have a better site overall, but much fewer kibitzers and posts. Which I don't believe was the intent of the original site developers when they were trying to start and expand the site.
<A sensible democratic discussion requires a certain level of seriousness and honesty. If it just becomes a sewer for all kinds of crap (like it has become commonplace on many Facebook forums) then all decent people will leave eventually - resulting in the end of that "democratic" discussion. There has to be a certain level, either as a consensus between the participants or set by the owners.>
If you have not visited the Kenneth S Rogoff page I suggest that you do, if only to see what I'm talking about. I don't know how this page evolved to be a dumping ground for all sorts of non chess-related opinions, nor do I know why Mr. Rogoff's page became that dumping ground. And in no way does the page often constitute "a sensible democratic discussion", often degenerating into name calling in spite of <chessgames.com>'s posting guidelines.
But I do think that it serves a purpose in providing a means for "discussion" (I use the term loosely) of all sorts of non chess-related opinions that would otherwise spill over into other pages. So that, in my opinion, is a small price to pay.
And, yes, I agree with you. If this "sewer for all kinds of crap" significantly overflows into other pages, then "all decent people will leave eventually", however you define "decent people".
<So no, we should not "tolerate" every horrendous statement & behavior, and no, this is not the price we should be "pay" for having a constructive democratical discussion.>
That is a slippery slope. For every "horrendous statement & behavior" as considered by some people there are others that consider them "enlightened , truthful, and fair". And who determines whether a particular statement is one or the other? I would suggest that the <chessgames.com> administrators are the ones to do it even if they are biased to some extend. After all, they are the ones entrusted with upholding of the ideas behind this site. If those that object to what is posted under those guidelines don't like it, they are welcome to leave the site and/or have their posting privileges (and they <are> privileges) revoked.
So while we shouldn't tolerate <every> horrendous statement and behavior, tolerating <some> that we consider to be that is the price we have to pay for the right of freedom of speech, although as has been shown over and over again this and other so-called rights are not absolute and hence there must be a way to determine what does and does not fall under this "right".
|Feb-04-19|| ||AylerKupp: <<jith1207> Congrats <Aylerkupp> on waking up the sleeping monster.>|
You're welcome (Note: Practicing my sarcasm, nothing more). But I would not call him a "monster". It reminds me of the old Persian (I think) saying (there are many variations):
He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool. Shun him.
He who knows not, and knows that he knows not is simple. Teach him.
He who knows, and knows not that he knows, is asleep. Wake him.
He who knows, and knows that he knows is wise. Follow him.
I'll let you decide which category <tuttifrutty> falls in.
|Feb-04-19|| ||john barleycorn: <the meaning of <tied>>|
I know the meaning of <tired> and that is what all this bs here makes me. And <tired> is directly proportional to the product <"length of post" x "frequency of post">. no valium needed
|Feb-04-19|| ||AylerKupp: <<john barleycorn> is the distinguishing feature when players have the same score. And having a tiebreaker there are still ties i.e. 14/15 Adams/Alekseenko (in alphabetical order). Wesley So is "untied" 11th in the field.>|
Thanks for the link but do you know how TB1 is calculated? From <zanzibar>'s post above (Gibraltar Masters (2019) (kibitz #152), look at the figure) it seems that it's just the TPR (and the column heading of "Perf" seems to give it away), given a higher rank to the player who, for a given score, performed better, in descending order. But that seems to logical to me, given that this was a FIDE-sanctioned tournament (more sarcasm; it's hard to know when to stop!) But do you know how TB1 was really calculated?
|Feb-04-19|| ||john barleycorn: <Sargon: <Sokrates: [...]|
A sensible democratic discussion requires a certain level of seriousness and honesty. If it just becomes a sewer for all kinds of crap (like it has become commonplace on many Facebook forums) then all decent people will leave eventually - resulting in the end of that "democratic" discussion. There has to be a certain level, either as a consensus between the participants or set by the owners.
So no, we should not "tolerate" every horrendous statement & behavior, and no, this is not the price we should be "pay" for having a constructive democratical discussion.>
okie dokie. we have "discussions", "democratic discussions", "sensible democratic discussions", and "constructive democratical discussions". Are we still "discussing"?
<There has to be a certain level, either as a consensus between the participants or set by the owners.>
"certain level" of what? of being rational? of being sophisticated? What have we seen so far here on CG? Especially by the recent "management" of this site?
|Feb-04-19|| ||AylerKupp: <<zanzibar> Z-version - stubified and fully correctly>|
Thanks for the link. If you or anyone else is interested, you can see the full Ranking Crosstable in http://chess-results.com/tnr377792..... It seems to answer some of the questions in the recent discussions:
1. There <does> appear to be a tie break system in Swiss tournaments, at least in this one. Sorry <alexmagnus> but FIDE seems to have found a way to implement reasonable tie breaks in a Swiss tournament, even though the players had different opponents.
2. I was in error (Gasp!), the 2019 Gibraltar Masters prize fund (there are additional prizes) was 100,500 <pounds>, not <euros>. That makes it even more impressive, given today's conversion rate of £ 1 = € 1.14. So the £ 100,500 prize fund at today's conversion rate comes out to $ 130,650 given today's conversion rate of £ 1 = $ 1.3.
3. Per the full Ranking Crosstable there were 252 players entered in the 2019 Gibraltar Masters tournament but 2 withdrew and were given the score of 0.0/10. Of the remaining 250 players the lowest score was 1.5/10. This means that, if you follow <tuttifrutty>'s so-called "logic" <every player> received at least £ 1,000 since that was the score of the 15th prize winner. If you then allocate the money to each player according to their score the total prize fund increases from £ 100,500 to £ 1,013,500 (€ 1,155,390 or $ 1,317,550).
Quite an exercise in generosity from the organizers! And it reminds me of the treatment of participants in a game between youngsters; everyone who plays gets a prize!
|Feb-04-19|| ||john barleycorn: <AylerKupp: ... But do you know how TB1 was really calculated?> |
No, I don't and it is not relevant here. It is the <performance> rating and it doesn't matter which scenario you look at. Le ad Lalith performed better than So in both scenarios. Give or take an Elo point the 2 ways of calculating are pretty close.
|Feb-04-19|| ||AylerKupp: <<tutifrutty> It seems like you are not listening. I asked you a simple question...in your own words, the meaning of <tied>. It appears that you have a problem using the dictionary to clarify the meaning of a word. If left unanswered then we know you are just blowing hot air...>|
Oh yes, I am listening and I do understand you. I just don't agree with you. It seems common for those who make statements no matter how silly they are is that when they find that someone disagrees with them that it must be a case of that person not "listening" or "understanding" them. Seldom do they consider the obvious possibility that they are simply wrong.
And I have no problem in using a dictionary, I was probably using one before you were born. <Your> problem is that you are interpreting the definition of "tied", because it suits you, in the narrow context of equal scores. But that is not the way that "tied" has been traditionally interpreted in the context of chess tournaments which, after all is what we're <really> talking about. An equally valid (and in my opinion more practical interpretation in the context of chess) is that of prize money allocation.
Tournament prize money is typically allocated on the basis of placement based on the score achieved <assuming> that each place is occupied by a single player. When 2 or more players achieve the same score they split the prize allocated to that score and the score just below it. If 3 or more players achieve the same score they split the prize allocated to that score and the 2 scores just below it, etc. In the second case the player(s) with the next lower score are allocated the prize money that takes into account the next lower placement. So in this tournament, given that Vitiugov, Howell, and Guijarro achieved the same 7.5/10 points behind Artemiev's 8.5/10 points (and 1st place) and Karthikeyan's 8.0/10 points (and 2nd place), they split 3rd – 5th place. Anyone that achieved scores of 7.0/10 points finished in either 6th place or a tie for 6th-Nth place depending on how many players scored 7.0/10 points. And they split the 6th – Nth place prize money. If, like your comments on Olympic placement, you consider this bogus, too bad, that's the way it is. Deal with it.
My post above indicates what the prize money would have needed to be expanded to if each of the 250 players had received an award based on their place as calculated by the score that they achieved from £ 100,500 to £ 1,013,500. Is this reasonable and likely? You tell me.
BTW, have you asked GM So how much he earned for this participation in this tournament? If left unanswered we'll all know that you are just blowing hot air. Then again, we knew that already.
But I have another suggestion. Instead of asking GM so how much he earned (which I indicated was a personal question and likely not to be answered), why don't you send a letter to the 2019 Tradewise Gibraltar organizers? Post it in non-personal terms such as "Would you settle a bet with one of my friends? How much prize money did the players scoring 7.5/10 points receive? And how much prize money did the players scoring 7.0/10 points receive?" Hopefully that will give you an objective answer from an unbiased source.
Failing to answer this question, i.e. allocation of prize money (which you have still refrained from attempting to answer) will, of course, indicate that you are the one who is just blowing hot air.
|Feb-04-19|| ||Sokrates: <AylerKupp>
Heavy fatigue is overwhelming me while sliding down your slippery slope showered by your cascade of words, which are beyond my grasp and comprehension.
Drained of all hope of finding common grounds with you, I rest my case and shall make great efforts to stay clear in future.
I can't think of anything more tiresome for our good fellow members here than becoming involuntarily bystanders to endless repetitions of unshakable positions.
|Feb-04-19|| ||OhioChessFan: I think those who wish <AK> to stop have made their position clear. I think <AK> has made his position clear.|
|Feb-04-19|| ||john barleycorn: <OhioChessFan> all is clear, now. :-)|
|Feb-04-19|| ||bubuli55: Sometimes folks just have the need to keep GYRATING their position, like Elvis. :)|
|Feb-04-19|| ||john barleycorn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBT...
<I believe in the man in the sky
I believe with his help I'll get by
My footsteps may falter
My eyes may grow dim
But he's my Gibraltar
I'm trusting in him>
|Feb-04-19|| ||ndg2: After his loss against Naka, Murali Karthikeyan had a remarkable 5/5 out of the last five games including a victory against MVL.|
|Feb-04-19|| ||gokusano: <<<Keyser Soze: <gokusano: It's sad to know that fourth placer will not receive the prize for fourth place. Charge Gibraltar chess! They should be guilty for this..>
Why? because Wesley the Fourth went on 4th place again?|
Oh, ok. I agree.>>>
I am pissed Wesley the fourth did not fight for his rightful prize, the fourth prize. Why did Gibraltar chess allowed fourth prize be shared by those tied at third? Where is justice in this? Was justice served by the over lengthy posts of <AK>?
|Feb-05-19|| ||tuttifrutty: <He who knows, and knows that he knows is wise. Follow him.>|
|Feb-05-19|| ||Sokrates: Top 20, live ratings Feb 5, 2019:
1 Carlsen 2845.0
2 Caruana 2828.0
3 Ding Liren 2812.0
4 Giri 2797.0
5 Mamedyarov 2790.0
6 Anand 2779.0
7 Vachier-Lagrave 2775.5
8 Nepomniachtchi 2771.0
9 Grischuk 2771.0
10 So 2762.4
11 Aronian 2761.5
12 Yu Yangyi 2761.0
13 Radjabov 2756.0
14 Kramnik 2753.0
15 Karjakin 2753.0
16 Nakamura 2745.6
17 Navara 2745.0
18 Topalov 2740.0
19 Rapport 2738.0
20 Svidler 2737.0
Anand seems to be in favor of place no. 6. IIRC he also had that place the years before he faced Carlsen. Quite impressive consistancy. I wonder for how long Kramnik will keep his place after retirement. The placement of Ding Liren seems to prove that you can get a long way with draws and no defeats.
|Feb-05-19|| ||Clemens Scheitz: Being that is already 2019, we think no one will surpass these as the two best quotes of the decade:|
"I surround myself with the very best people, and I'm a very stable genius" D.Trump
"He who knows, and know that he knows is wise. Follow him..That's me! " Tuttifrutty
|Feb-05-19|| ||AylerKupp: <Clemens Scheitz> I don't know, Rudi Giuliani's "Truth is not truth" ranks up there with the very best.|
|Feb-05-19|| ||zanzibar: <AK> <I don't know, Rudi Giuliani's "Truth is not truth" ranks up there with the very best.>|
Ain't that the truth!
|Feb-05-19|| ||saffuna: <Ain't that the truth!>|
No, it ain't.
|Feb-06-19|| ||Tabanus: <chessgames.com: We've made painstaking corrections to the standings to compensate for those players who had one or more rounds in which they were not paired. In such cases, the player is awarded 1/2 point, as if they played a game that resulted in a draw.>|
I see this post only today. CG, please, it's better to count the + = - scores* in Chess-Results rather than just "add" 1/2 points. You won't find wrong game results (of which I found 4) that way, and there were also <unplayed wins> and unplayed losses. If you just award 1/2 points at least just add to the number of drawn games and leave the others untouched. Or let me do this ;)
*1 point for 1 or + or +1 or -1 symbol, 1/2 point for 1/2 or -1/2, and 0 point for 0 or - or -0.
|Feb-14-19|| ||zanzibar: <Tab> left out the double forfeit case.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8 OF 8 ·
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 2001-2020, Chessgames Services LLC