| GCT Croatia (2019) |
|
The Croatia GCT was a 12-player classical all-play-all tournament taking place from 26 June to 8 July 2019 in the Novinarski Dom in Zagreb, Croatia as the 2nd stage of the 2019 Grand Chess Tour. Magnus Carlsen and the regular tour players competed for a prize fund of $325,000, with $90,000 for first place. Players received 130 minutes for the entire game, with a 30-second delay from move one. In case of a tie for first, rapid and, if necessary, blitz playoffs would be held on 8 July. The event was organised in partnership with Chess Club e4 from Zagreb. (1) Tournament director: Zlatko Klaric. Magnus Carlsen won with 8/11 and collected 20 Grand Chess Tour points (GP): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 GP
1 Carlsen 2875 * ˝ ˝ ˝ 1 1 1 ˝ 1 ˝ ˝ 1 8 20
2 So 2754 ˝ * ˝ ˝ ˝ ˝ 1 ˝ ˝ ˝ 1 1 7 15
=3 Caruana 2819 ˝ ˝ * ˝ ˝ 0 ˝ ˝ 1 ˝ ˝ 1 6 11
=3 Aronian 2752 ˝ ˝ ˝ * ˝ ˝ ˝ 1 ˝ ˝ ˝ ˝ 6 11
=5 Giri 2779 0 ˝ ˝ ˝ * 1 0 ˝ ˝ ˝ 1 ˝ 5˝ 7
=5 Nepomniachtchi 2775 0 ˝ 1 ˝ 0 * 0 ˝ ˝ 1 1 ˝ 5˝ 7
=5 Ding Liren 2805 0 0 ˝ ˝ 1 1 * ˝ ˝ ˝ ˝ ˝ 5˝ 7
8 Karjakin 2748 ˝ ˝ ˝ 0 ˝ ˝ ˝ * ˝ ˝ ˝ ˝ 5 5
=9 Vachier-Lagrave 2779 0 ˝ 0 ˝ ˝ ˝ ˝ ˝ * ˝ ˝ ˝ 4˝ 3
=9 Anand 2767 ˝ ˝ ˝ ˝ ˝ 0 ˝ ˝ ˝ * 0 ˝ 4˝ 3
=9 Mamedyarov 2774 ˝ 0 ˝ ˝ 0 0 ˝ ˝ ˝ 1 * ˝ 4˝ 3
12 Nakamura 2754 0 0 0 ˝ ˝ ˝ ˝ ˝ ˝ ˝ ˝ * 4 1
Category: XXII (2782). Chief arbiter: Nenad DoricOfficial site: https://grandchesstour.org/2019-gra...
Chess-Results: https://chess-results.com/tnr448344...
Chess.com: https://www.chess.com/news/view/201...
ChessBase: https://en.chessbase.com/post/zagre...
TWIC: https://theweekinchess.com/chessnew... Previous (and first) GCT event 2019: Grand Chess Tour Cote d’Ivoire (Rapid & Blitz) (2019). Next: GCT Paris Rapid & Blitz (2019) (1) chess24 https://chess24.com/en/watch/live-t...
|
|
| page 1 of 3; games 1-25 of 66 |
     |
 |
|
| page 1 of 3; games 1-25 of 66 |
|
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 20 OF 20 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Jul-09-19
 | | Sokrates: What I can detect from viewing the trophy globe is that the designer has made a very free interpretation of Geography. The Mediterranean Sea seems to eat half of France, and India has become a miniscule peninsula. But admittedly, very few trophies have become designer icons because of their beauty. Only the Bafta award comes to my mind. |
|
Jul-09-19
 | | PawnSac: < AylerKupp: What https://2700chess.com/ says is interesting but irrelevant, > well, AK, i hear you, but many don't share that opinion. Both are "official" ratings. Not authoritative, but accurate reports. < it's only what FIDE publishes ...that's official. > Yes, only FIDE publishes the "official" FIDE rating, BUT... 2700Chess reports the FIDE rating along with their own LIVE ratings. < And FIDE rounds a player's rating to the nearest integer so a 2882.2 rating (which is what I assume you meant to say) > He meant to say 2889.2 . That is MC's all time high <LIVE> rating. < And how did you find out what https://2700chess.com/ considered Carlsen's all-time highest rating to be? I couldn't figure out how to do that by looking at the site.devere: Listed on the lower right of their main web page > "Highest Ever Ratings 2700Chess.com " is the highest <LIVE> rating list. The published FIDE rating is a FINAL rating calculated after all games submitted for the month. It's an AVERAGE rating.
Hypothetically... If there is a tourney that runs from the 5th - 18th of the month, and MC started the tourney with 2868, had 6 wins then 4 draws, after the 6th win (say.. on the 12th) his rating could be 2886, but then if he loses 10 pts for the draws, it would settle down to 2876 by the END of the tourney, and if he plays no other games FIDE will report the 2876, whereas after the 6th his HIGH LIVE rating would be reported as 2886 by 2700Chess. 2700Chess gives daily game by game live ratings. So technically BOTH methods of rating could be claimed as "official" and FIDE would not dispute the intermediate rating reported by 2700Chess. In the end of it AK, the live rating is just another way of viewing
a "performance" rating during a tourney. |
|
Jul-09-19
| | PawnSac: < Sokrates: The minimum requirement of a valid number should at least be that it is taken after the last game in an event. > That would be a 4th type of rating report:
1. The official FIDE final monthly average
2. The LIVE game by game rating report (2700chess) 3. The PERFORMANCE rating (dynamic success vs competition), and.. 4. The LIVE rating report at end of a tourney (the Sokrates report) Hey, you could become famous! LOL
< What matters is the beauty of the games played by the world champion this year. It has been mind-blowing to witness the many great victories against his immensely strong competitors/opponents. > You get a big 10-4 from me on that one! At the end of the day, the bottom line is the beauty of chess! |
|
Jul-09-19
| | Sokrates: LOL - The Sokrates Report - thanks <PawnSac>, for this unexpected gleam of fame. :-) |
|
| Jul-09-19 | | Steve.Patzer: They removed Nepo’s name from the tournament in Riga. |
|
Jul-09-19
 | | AylerKupp: <<devere> Listed on the lower right of their main web page> Well, duh. An example of over thinking on my part. Not remembering that table in the lower right I assumed that I could find Carlsen's highest live rating in Carlsen's page (https://2700chess.com/players/carlsen> with a label such as "Live Rating Peak". |
|
Jul-09-19
| | AylerKupp: <<PawnSac> well, AK, i hear you, but many don't share that opinion. Both are "official" ratings. Not authoritative, but accurate reports.> I suppose we have different definition of "official". As far as I, and I suspect many others, are concerned, we consider FIDE the "official" world wide chess organization whose duties, among others, is calculating and publishing "official" player ratings. But if you and many others think differently, that's up to you. And it's nice that 2700Chess reports the players' FIDE rating along their own Live rating, but that's about all it is – nice. <The published FIDE rating is a FINAL rating calculated after all games submitted for the month. It's an AVERAGE rating> FYI FIDE has definite rules as to which games should be included in a particular month's rating list, and it depends on when the tournament ends. See https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.... section 7.13. And I personally would not consider it an average in the traditional sense because its calculation requires outside the range of the values being considered, but that's just me. <So technically BOTH methods of rating could be claimed as "official" and FIDE would not dispute the intermediate rating reported by 2700Chess.> Sure, anyone can claim that their rating calculations are "official", but that doesn't make them so. FIDE makes the same simplifying assumptions that Dr. Elo made when he originally developed his rating system to make the ratings easier to calculate for those tournament directors that did not have access to computers; most of them in the 1970s. I can calculate updated ratings that are more precise mathematically than FIDE's and claim that they are "official", but they aren't. I doubt that FIDE would bother to dispute the intermediate ratings reported by 2700Chess just like they wouldn't bother to dispute my ratings calculations. Why would they? As long as neither of us claim that these are the "official" FIDE ratings FIDE should have no trouble with us. <In the end of it AK, the live rating is just another way of viewing a "performance" rating during a tourney.> I would suggest that you don't use the term "performance rating" in an attempt to view a player's performance during a tournament since the term "performance rating" has a specific meaning and formulas for calculating it. And, other than the player's pre-tournament rating, it does not rely on the player's opponents' ratings. But, again, that's up to you. |
|
| Jul-10-19 | | Pedro Fernandez: So that <AylerKupp>, FIDE is using the ROUND Function? I mean, ROUND(2882.4) = ROUND(2881.5) = 2882. Is it so? Greetings. |
|
Jul-10-19
 | | perfidious: <AK> never got the memo: what <prawnsnack> sez, goes. Full stop. It don't matter what that there FIDAY are talking about, come to ratings: they are mere intellectual saplings in the giant shadow of <prawnsnack>, aka He Who Knows All. |
|
Jul-10-19
 | | virginmind: Congratulations, absolutely great! |
|
Jul-10-19
| | AylerKupp: <perfidious> There is no right or wrong here. Much of what PawnSac discussed is a matter of opinion and he is entitled to his opinion just as much as I am entitled to mine. I just, in my usual long-winded way, expressed what my opinion is and why. |
|
Jul-10-19
| | AylerKupp: <<Pedro Fernandez> FIDE is using the ROUND Function?> I don't know whether they are using the ROUND function as in Excel, but that's what they say they do in https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.... when determining the rating change for a rated player: 8.57 The Rating Change is rounded to the nearest whole number. 0.5 is rounded up (whether the change is positive or negative ). II think they meant that 0.5 is rounded away from zero if the change is positive, not "up" if the rating change is -6.5 and rounding "up" (literally) makes it -6, but I think that's what they do. And it could be important to remember that they calculate the rating change first, round it, and then add it to the player's rating. So if the player's pre-tournament rating was 2740 and the rating change was -6.5, then they round the -6.5 to -7 (which is what the ROUND function in Excel does) so the player's new rating would be 2740 – 7 = 2733. If they were to add the rating change to the player's pre-tournament rating first and then round it, we would get 2740 – 6.5 = 2733.5 which, when rounded, becomes 2734. And if the player is in contention to qualify for the Candidates Tournament by rating, that extra rating point might make the difference between the player qualifying or not. It would be "fun" to find out what happens if this situation were ever to happen. :-) |
|
Jul-10-19
| | perfidious: <AK>, as I noted: <prawnsnack> likes to express his views as though they are holy writ. I do not suffer fools gladly and do not propose to tolerate his horsebleep. |
|
| Jul-10-19 | | Pedro Fernandez: I see my dear <AylerKupp>. The issue is about the negative fraction -0.5 as it is in the halfway between the integers 0 and -1. So, are we rounding up just the change ∆ or the rating R? There the dilemma. |
|
Jul-10-19
| | AylerKupp: <perfidious> You, of course, are also entitled to your opinion. Personally I didn't think that <PawnSac> was particularly insufferable, and, if he was, certainly no more than I usually am. I suppose it's a matter of perception. Speaking of perception, here are 3 statements I once saw that illustrate differences in perception: "I am firm."
"You are stubborn."
"He is pig-headed."
Truer words were never spoken. :-) |
|
Jul-10-19
| | AylerKupp: <<Pedro Fernandez> The issue is about the negative fraction -0.5 as it is in the halfway between the integers 0 and -1.> Well, the positive fraction +0.5 is also halfway between 0 and +1 but that is not a problem because the rating change is added to the player's pre-tournament rating which is always positive and much larger than the rating change, so rounding up is not a problem. Rounding up always introduces a bias since if the fraction is ± 0.5 it is usually rounded away from zero. If one wanted to remove the bias on the average, then if the fraction is ± 0.5 one could calculate a random number between 0 and 1 and, if the random number is < 0.5 round down and if it is >= 0.5 round up. This still introduces a bias but, if the random number is exactly = 0.5 then just continue to generate random numbers until one of them is <> 0.5 and round up/down accordingly. That, of course, is a lot of extra work to try to be ultra precise with such an imprecise process as calculating ratings. It's just not worth the extra effort. And, if a player in contention for qualifying for the Candidates Tournament via rating loses out to a rounding operation, my advice to him/her would be "Next WCC cycle, play better and you won't have to bother with rounding." :-) |
|
Jul-10-19
| | AylerKupp: <<Pedro Fernandez> Hey <AylerKupp>, have you proved ``Brave'' navigator? (the browser). > No, I have not. I Googled it because, as you know, I have an old 32-bit computer and not much of the new software runs on it. What I found out is that it collects your browsing data to supposedly "improve" their algorithms for processing your browsing history. They also have a mandatory update policy (which means that today's version that supports my 32-bit computer may not exist tomorrow and there is nothing that you will be able to do about it) and they have proposed a "pay as you surf" version of the browser at a later date. So, no thanks, even if it supports Windows XP (today) I'm staying away from this software. |
|
Jul-10-19
| | perfidious: <AK>...'I am firm'. 'He is stubborn'.
'You are pig-headed'.
Lovely; I have been in on all three at one time or another. |
|
| Jul-10-19 | | parmetd: My favorite is being all three at once. |
|
| Jul-11-19 | | Pedro Fernandez: Hi <AylerKupp>, I installed Brave, not proved yet, but I agree you are fine with any "conventional" browser, that you feel more comfortable, period. About the rating I think if, for instance, a guy/girl possesses a previous 2000 rating, say, and in order to calculate his/her new rating experimenting a change of +4.5, say, then the new rating should be 2005, but if the change is -4.5 then the new rating should be 1995 and not 1996 (but -4>-4.5!). On the former way is as working out our checking account. |
|
Jul-11-19
| | AylerKupp: <Pedro Fernandez> Yes, that's how it should be calculated, +4.5 should round to +5 and -4.5 should round to -5. But the way FIDE wrote its regulations does not make that clear. Which is surprising since everyone knows (except perhaps FIDE) that if are going to round the results of a series of calculations it is more precise to do all the intermediate calculations using the maximum precision possible and wait until the very end to do the rounding. So ROUND(Previous Rating, Rating Change) is more precise than Previous Rating + ROUND(Rating Change). And then there is no need to worry about positive and negative rating changes. |
|
Jul-11-19
| | perfidious: That apparently simple logic--and I am no mathematician--is apparently beyond the ken of some. Speaking of pig-headed.... |
|
Jul-12-19
| | Sokrates: Yes, <AylerKupp> explained this perfectly: <...it is more precise to do all the intermediate calculations using the maximum precision possible and wait until the very end to do the rounding.> leaving nothing more to be said about that issue. |
|
| Jul-12-19 | | Pulo y Gata: The magnificence of Carlsen's victory here is further made more awe-inspiring by the fact that the second placer only got there because of tsamba |
|
Jul-18-19
| | Sokrates: Hi, <Pulu y Gata> I have googled <tsamba> - apparently some stock food made of grain. Makes your statement a mystery. Please explain! |
|
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 20 OF 20 ·
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:
- 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. |
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
|
Kibitzing
