PDA

View Full Version : Biel 2012



peter_parr
06-08-2012, 12:07 PM
Wang Hao of China won the Super Grandmaster tournament in Biel, Switzerland last Thursday on the same day that his countryman Wang Hao won a silver medal for table tennis at the London Olympics. Wang Hao scored 19 points (+6,=1,-3) and World no 1 Magnus Carlsen 18 points (+4,=6,-0) . The system encourages fighting chess. The usual scoring system would give Carlsen 7/10 and Wang Hao 6.5/10.

Carlsen,M (2837) - Wang Hao (2739) [E32] (2)
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Qc2 00 5.Nf3 b6? 6.e4 c5 7.e5 Ne8 8.d5! exd5 9.cxd5 d6 10.Bg5 f6 11.exf6 Nxf6 12.000 Bxc3 13.bxc3 Bg4 14.Re1 Bxf3 15.gxf3 Nbd7 16.Bd3 h6 17.Bf4 c4 18.Bf5 Nc5 19.Rhg1 Kh8 20.Rg6 Rf7 21.Reg1 Qf8 22.Be3 Nxd5 23.Bd4 Nf6 24.Qd2 Re8 25.Rxg7 Qxg7 26.Rxg7 Kxg7 27.Qf4 Nd3+ 28.Bxd3 cxd3 29.Kd2 Kg6 30.Kxd3 Re6 31.h4 Rfe7 32.h5+ Kf7 33.Qf5 Re5 34.Qg6+ Ke6 35.f4 10

Final scores (6 players,2756 av rating, 10 rounds, 3 points for a win,1 point for a draw):- Wang Hao (CHN 2739) 19, M.Carlsen (NOR 2837) 18, H.Nakamura (USA 2778), A.Giri (NED 2696) 16, E.Bacrot (FRA 2713) 7, V.Bologan (MDA 2732) 4

Kevin Bonham
06-08-2012, 12:20 PM
A curious thing about this tournament (because of 3-1-0) was that the winner lost both his games to the player who finished second.

Agent Smith
06-08-2012, 05:12 PM
Magnus was also the only undefeated player...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: Wang, Hao 2739 19.0 XX 00 11 11 1= 10 .. 2861 +17 (+6 -3 =1)
2: Carlsen, Magnus 2837 18.0 11 XX == == == 11 .. 2880 +5 (+4 -0 =6)
3: Nakamura, Hikaru 2778 16.0 00 == XX == 11 11 .. 2815 +5 (+4 -2 =4)
4: Giri, Anish 2696 16.0 00 == == XX 11 1. 1. 2835 +20 (+4 -2 =4)
5: Bacrot, Etienne 2713 7.0 0= == 00 00 XX =. 1. 2611 -13 (+1 -5 =4)
6: Bologan, Viktor 2732 4.0 01 00 00 0. =. XX .. 2513 -21 (+1 -6 =1)
7: Morozevich, Alexander 2770 0.0 .. .. .. 0. 0. .. XX 1705 -12 (+0 -2 =0)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Karpov has long ago made clear the stupidity of the 3-1-0 points system. Take a nine-round tournament: one who wins three games and loses six games gets the same amount of points as the one who scores nine draws. Well, one more proof with Biel 2012.
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8378

pax
10-08-2012, 12:20 AM
Karpov has long ago made clear the stupidity of the 3-1-0 points system. Take a nine-round tournament: one who wins three games and loses six games gets the same amount of points as the one who scores nine draws. Well, one more proof with Biel 2012.

The response to that is quite simple: the player who drew all his games failed to win even one of them, whereas the other player won three and played fighting chess the whole way.

Capablanca-Fan
10-08-2012, 12:00 PM
The response to that is quite simple: the player who drew all his games failed to win even one of them, whereas the other player won three and played fighting chess the whole way.
How does the last statement follow?

Capablanca-Fan
10-08-2012, 12:04 PM
The system encourages fighting chess.
Can you prove that? How do you know it doesn't encourage risky play and discourage tenacity to hold a worse position (gains only 1/3 of the total scare available rather than 1/2). Was the "winner" more fighting than Carlson?


The response to that is quite simple: the player who drew all his games failed to win even one of them, whereas the other player won three and played fighting chess the whole way.
How does the last statement follow?

Capablanca-Fan
10-08-2012, 12:06 PM
Karpov has long ago made clear the stupidity of the 3-1-0 points system. Take a nine-round tournament: one who wins three games and loses six games gets the same amount of points as the one who scores nine draws. Well, one more proof with Biel 2012.
The all-time great has much more nous than the dilettantes who propose that idiotic system.

pax
11-08-2012, 01:35 PM
How does the last statement follow?

Ok, so it doesn't follow necessarily. But it is highly likely that nine results contain more fight than nine draws.

My main point is that Karpov's example of three wins equalling nine draws is merely a good example of the whole idea of the system - that wins are rewarded more heavily to encourage players to enter double edged and difficult positions.

I wouldn't for a moment advocate 3-1-0 for all tournaments (it's far too heavily skewed to the win), but it's certainly an interesting innovation for some events.