PDA

View Full Version : Tal Memorial



peter_parr
11-06-2013, 02:24 PM
The following article was published in the 41st year of my chess column in the Sydney Morning Herald on Monday 10th June 2013.

The Tal Memorial is played in Moscow each year since 2006 to honour the memory of the former world champion Mikhail Tal who died in 1992. The ten player field (average rating 2777 ) 12-24 June consists of the champion of Russia Dmitry Andreikin 2713 and nine of the top fourteen world rated players. World No.1 Magnus Carlsen NOR 2864, ex-world champion Vladimir Kramnik RUS 2803 and World Champion Viswanathan Anand (IND 2786) are the top 3 seeds. The event has a prize fund of $ 134,000 and $ 20,000 for the blitz

Bollard
11-06-2013, 08:08 PM
Does anyone know the URL for the English language website?

ESFC1881
11-06-2013, 08:59 PM
Does anyone know the URL for the English language website?
I don't think there is one. Russian only on the official website, but http://www.chessdom.com/category/live/ does live games and analysis

Bollard
13-06-2013, 08:32 PM
Not that I can read Russian, but it appears that the following are tonight's games:
1 Andreikin v Morozevich
2 Anand v Caruana
3 Gelfand v Karjakin
4 Carlsen v Kramnik
5 Nakamura v Mamedyarov

Tony Dowden
13-06-2013, 08:48 PM
Not that I can read Russian, but it appears that the following are tonight's games:
1 Andreikin v Morozevich
2 Anand v Caruana
3 Gelfand v Karjakin
4 Carlsen v Kramnik
5 Nakamura v Mamedyarov

Yes, that is correct. See the Live 2700 ratings site (http://www.2700chess.com/)

Kevin Bonham
13-06-2013, 09:01 PM
Poll added - closes in 48 hours.

ER
13-06-2013, 10:33 PM
Since Vassily hasn't entered I for once will barrack for the (other) favourite! So go Magnus!!! :clap:

Kevin Bonham
14-06-2013, 02:48 AM
Carlsen beat Kramnik, Caruana beat Anand with black, Mamedyarov beat Nakamura with black.

Bollard
14-06-2013, 05:13 AM
Curuana has closed to around 3 points of Kramnik on the live ratings list. We might see a change in the top 3 for the next FIDE ratings list.

Bollard
14-06-2013, 05:14 AM
Carlsen beat Kramnik, Caruana beat Anand with black, Mamedyarov beat Nakamura with black.

Decisive results for three out of five games in the first round. Good start for the tournament.

Oepty
14-06-2013, 11:14 PM
Caruana - the one that got away, so many have gone the other way.

Bollard
15-06-2013, 06:33 AM
After two rounds, fully half of the games have seen decisive results. Four out of those five have been won by black.

Saragossa
15-06-2013, 11:46 AM
Kramnik An and are on the bottom rung. Seems like again we have a large pool of poor voters on chesschat, myself included.

peter_parr
17-06-2013, 11:54 AM
The following article was published in the 41st year of my chess column in the Sydney Morning Herald on Monday 17th June 2013.

Caruana beats Carlsen
Peter Parr

Fabiano Caruana defeated world no 1 Magnus Carlsen in the third round of the Tal Memorial in Moscow. Caruana playing black gained an advantage in the middle-game but Carlsen transposed into a theoretically drawn rook and pawn endgame. Carlsen made several mistakes and Caruana won in 62 moves. 20-year-old Caruana has moved up to no 3 on the world live ratings yesterday.

H.Nakamura 2784 v S.Mamedyarov 2753 D38
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. Nc3 Bb4 5. Qa4+ Nc6 6. e3 O-O 7. Bd2 dxc4 8. Bxc4 a6 9. O-O Bd6 10. Rad1 e5 11. dxe5 Nxe5 12. Be2 Qe7 13.Ng5? Bf5! 14. e4 Bd7 15. Qc2 h6 16. Nf3 Rfe8 17. Rfe1 Rad8 18. g3? Neg4 19. h3 Nxf2 20. Kxf2 Bxh3 21. Kg1 Bxg3 22. Bf1 Bxe1 23. Rxe1 Bg4 24. Bg2 Bxf3 25. Bxf3 Qd6 26. Re2 Qg3+ 27. Bg2 Ng4 28. Nd1 Re6 29. Ne3 Rc6 30. Qb1 Qh2+ 31. Kf1 Qf4+ 0-1

Progress scores after round 3 :- F.Caruana (ITA 2774), S.Mamedyarov (AZE 2753), H.Nakamura (USA 2784), B.Gelfand (ISR 2755) 2 ; M.Carlsen (NOR 2864), World Champion V.Anand (IND 2786), D.Andreikin (RUS 2713) 1.5 ; S.Karjakin (RUS 2782), A.Morozevich (RUS 2760) 1; V.Kramnik (RUS 2803) 0.5.

Tal blitz leading results (prize fund $ 20,000) :- Nakamura 7/9, Anand 6.5, Kramnik 5.5, Gelfand, Carlsen 4.5. The world champion from 1969-1972 Boris Spassky who returned from France to live in Russia in August 2012 is the guest of honour at the Tal Memorial.

Kevin Bonham
18-06-2013, 12:29 PM
Nakamura (who was, of course, voted for by nobody after his slack GP performance recently) has beaten Caruana with black and leads on 3/4 with a loss followed by three wins! Mamedyarov and Gelfand on 2.5.

I wonder when Kramnik was last outright last after four rounds in one of these things.

ER
18-06-2013, 06:23 PM
... The world champion from 1969-1972 Boris Spassky who returned from France to live in Russia in August 2012 is the guest of honour at the Tal Memorial.

That's great news! :clap: Thanks Peter!

Kevin Bonham
19-06-2013, 01:04 AM
Carlsen - Anand

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3 O-O 5. Ne2 d5 6. a3 Be7 7. cxd5 Nxd5 8. Bd2 Nd7 9. g3 b6 10. Nxd5 exd5 11. Bg2 Bb7 12. Bb4 Nf6 13. O-O Re8 14. Rc1 c6 15. Bxe7 Rxe7 16. Re1 Qd6 17. Nf4 Bc8 18. Qa4 Rc7
19. f3 Be6 20. e4 dxe4 21. fxe4 Qd7 22. d5 cxd5 23. Qxd7 Rxd7 24. Nxe6 fxe6 25. Bh3 Kh8 26. e5 Ng8 27. Bxe6 Rdd8 28. Rc7 d4 29. Bd7 1-0

Gelfand - Morozevich. Gelfand equal leader now

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 g6 4. Nc3 Bg7 5. e4 d6 6. h3 O-O 7. Nf3 e6 8. Bd3 exd5 9. exd5 Re8+ 10. Be3 Rxe3+ 11. fxe3 Qe7 12. O-O Nbd7 13. Qd2 Ne5 14. Nxe5 Qxe5 15. Rf3 Bd7 16. Raf1 Rf8 17. Qf2 Qe7 18. Rxf6 Bxf6 19. Qxf6 Qxe3+ 20. Rf2 Qxd3 21. Qxd6 Bf5 22. Qxc5 b6 23. Qc7 Rc8 24. Qxa7 Qe3 25. d6 Qd4 26. Nb5 Qxc4 27. Qxb6 Qc1+ 28. Kh2 Re8 29. Qc7 Qd1 30. Rxf5 gxf5 31. d7 Rf8 32. Qg3+ Kh8 33. Qd6 1-0

Bollard
20-06-2013, 07:02 AM
After six rounds Gelfand remains undefeated on 4, but Nakamura gets to sole lead on 4.5.

Rest day today then the last three rounds on Friday, Saturday and Sunday.

Adamski
20-06-2013, 07:29 AM
Noteworthy for November that Carlsen beat up Anand pretty quickly. And well done to Nakamura and Gelfand on their performances so far.

Kevin Bonham
22-06-2013, 01:17 AM
Gelfand beats Nakamura and leads!

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Bg5 a6 8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 f5 11.c4 b4 12.Nc2 fxe4 13.g3 Bg7 14.Bg2 0-0 15.Bxe4 Rb8 16.b3 f5 17.Bg2 e4 18.Rb1 Qa5 19.0-0 Qxa2 20.Nde3 Qa5 21.Qxd6 Rf6 22.Qf4 Qe5 23.Qxe5 Nxe5 24.Nd5 Rf7 25.Ncxb4 a5 26.Nc2 Rfb7 27.Nce3 Nc6 28.c5 Rxb3 29.Nb6 Rxb1 30.Rxb1 Be6 31.Bf1 Bd4 32.Rb5 Kf7 33.Nec4 Kg7 34.Nd6 Kf6 35.Na4 e3 36.fxe3 Bxe3+ 37.Kg2 Bd5+ 38.Kh3 Rxb5 39.Bxb5 Ne5 40.Nc3 Bf3 41.Be2 Bxe2 42.Nd5+ Kg5 43.Nxe3 Ng4 44.Kg2 Nxe3+ 45.Kf2 Nc4 0-1

Kramnik, who must be having one of the worst tournaments of his life, has lost with white to Andreikin in round 7:

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 Bb4+ 4.Bd2 Bxd2+ 5.Qxd2 d5 6.Bg2 0-0 7.Nf3 c6 8.0-0 Nbd7 9.Rc1 Qe7 10.Qe3 dxc4 11.Rxc4 Nd5 12.Qa3 Re8 13.Qxe7 Rxe7 14.e4 N5b6 15.Rc2 e5 16.Nbd2 a5 17.a3 g6 18.Rac1 exd4 19.Nxd4 Ne5 20.f4 Rd7 21.Ne2 Ng4 22.Nf1 Rd8 23.h3 Nf6 24.Rd2 Be6 25.Kf2 Na4 26.Rcc2 Nd7 27.Ke3 Bb3 28.Rc1 Ndb6 29.Rd4 c5 30.Rxd8+ Rxd8 31.e5 Nc4+ 32.Kf3 Naxb2 33.Nc3 Nxa3 34.Ne3 b5 35.Ne4 Nd3 36.Rh1 Nc2 37.Nxc2 Bxc2 38.h4 b4 39.h5 gxh5 40.Nf6+ Kf8 41.Ke3 b3 42.Nd5 0-1

27.Ke3 is a big mistake because white is forced to deal with the threat of Nc5 and the resultant loss of time means that he cannot save the b-pawn.

Oepty
22-06-2013, 11:38 AM
What a knightmare

Adamski
22-06-2013, 01:35 PM
Go Israeli citizen Boris Gelfand!

Kevin Bonham
23-06-2013, 01:33 PM
One round to go and it's:

+3 Gelfand
+2 Carlsen
+1 Mamedyarov, Andreikin, Nakamura, Caruana
-1 Karjakin
-2 Anand
-3 Morozevich, Kramnik

Last round pairings:

Nakamura - Morozevich
Mamedyarov - Carlsen
Kramnik - Gelfand
Karjakin - Anand
Caruana - Andreikin

Kevin Bonham
23-06-2013, 08:48 PM
Kramnik-Gelfand draw. Tiebreaks if required are:

Maximum number of games played with black pieces;
Maximum number of wins
Direct encounter
Koja coefficient
Sonneborn-Berger score

If Carlsen wins he wins the tournament on tiebreak.

Kevin Bonham
23-06-2013, 11:12 PM
Carlsen drew so a great undefeated tournament victory to Gelfand, who was tipped by nobody. :lol:

peter_parr
23-06-2013, 11:19 PM
Gelfand will have a happy 45th birthday tomorrow Monday after winning the Tal Memorial.

GM Ian Rogers will have his 53rd birthday tomorrow Monday !!

Adamski
24-06-2013, 12:21 AM
Happy birthday to Boris and Ian!

ER
24-06-2013, 12:53 AM
That's it! I won't vote for none other than Vassily ever again!

Ditto Adamsky, happy birthday to both Ian and Boris!

Saragossa
24-06-2013, 01:10 AM
Gelfand, what a champion. It's funny to see on chess.com comments touting NAKA as the new WC and a real challenger to Carlsen only to have it all stop in the last three rounds. I really do feel sorry for Anand. It feels like he'll be remembered for this WC over his others, when he could have defended his title against Carlsen in 2012 and it would have been a sick match. Although I don't think it's going to be a cakewalk for Carlsen, it's not going to be the match quality Carlsen-Anand deserved to be.

Agent Smith
24-06-2013, 07:49 AM
Tough one for Kramners, who came outright last. Vishy didnt fair much better.

1: Gelfand, Boris 2755 gm 45 ISR 6.0 / 9 7w= 4b+ 3w= 8b= 9w+ 2w= 6b+ 5w= 10b= 2904 +19 (+3 -0 =6)
2: Carlsen, Magnus 2864 gm 23 NOR 5.5 / 9 10w+ 7b= 4w- 3b= 8w+ 1b= 9w= 6w+ 5b= 2847 -3 (+3 -1 =5)
3: Andreikin, Dmitry 2713 gm 23 RUS 5.0 / 9 9w= 8w= 1b= 2w= 6b= 5w= 10b+ 7w= 4b= 2827 +14 (+1 -0 =8)
4: Caruana, Fabiano 2774 gm 21 ITA 5.0 / 9 8b+ 1w- 2b+ 6w- 5b= 10w= 7b= 9b+ 3w= 2820 +6 (+3 -2 =4)
5: Mamedyarov, Shakhriyar 2753 gm 28 AZE 5.0 / 9 6b+ 9b= 10w= 7b= 4w= 3b= 8w= 1b= 2w= 2823 +9 (+1 -0 =8)
6: Nakamura, Hikaru 2784 gm 26 USA 4.5 / 9 5w- 10b+ 7w+ 4b+ 3w= 8b+ 1w- 2b- 9w- 2776 -2 (+4 -4 =1)
7: Karjakin, Sergey 2782 gm 23 RUS 4.0 / 9 1b= 2w= 6b- 5w= 10b= 9b= 4w= 3b= 8w= 2733 -6 (+0 -1 =8)
8: Anand, Viswanathan 2786 gm 44 IND 3.5 / 9 4w- 3b= 9w+ 1w= 2b- 6w- 5b= 10w= 7b= 2696 -12 (+1 -3 =5)
9: Morozevich, Alexander 2760 gm 36 RUS 3.5 / 9 3b= 5w= 8b- 10w= 1b- 7w= 2b= 4w- 6b+ 2699 -7 (+1 -3 =5)
10: Kramnik, Vladimir 2803 gm 38 RUS 3.0 / 9 2b- 6w- 5b= 9b= 7w= 4b= 3w- 8b= 1w= 2649 -19 (+0 -3 =6)

Oepty
24-06-2013, 10:28 AM
Is the third column after the names supposed to be the players age?
If so then something is wrong, Anand is not 22 or Nakamura 48 or Karjakin 49.
If not what do the numbers mean?

Blunderbus
24-06-2013, 10:34 AM
Well done Boris Gelfand. Good to see an older guy come home ahead of the "Young Guns" for a change.

Anand's performance was very ordinary for a WC.
Is he burnt out?
Is he deep in preparation for his title defence in November, which is the "big one" for him?
Is he adopting a low profile to lure Carlsen into a false sense of security that may lead to a slight easing off on his pre-match preparation?

Who knows, but no doubt there will be endless speculation that must wait till November for an answer!

peter_parr
24-06-2013, 11:54 AM
The following article was published in the 41st year of my chess column in the Sydney Morning Herald on Monday 24th June 2013.

Gelfand ahead of Carlsen
Peter Parr

Boris Gelfand the last world title challenger is half-a-point ahead of the next world title challenger Magnus Carlsen with one round left to play in the Tal Memorial tournament in Moscow. World Champion Viswanathan Anand won the rapid play-off in the 2012 title match in Moscow after the regular games against Gelfand resulted in a 6-6 tie.

Gelfand who celebrates his 45th birthday today (Monday) has scored 3 wins and 5 draws for a 2913 performance so far. World no 1 Carlsen is performing at 2859. Nakamura, Anand, Morozevich and world no 3 Kramnik have each lost three games. Dmitry Andreikin the current Russian champion and 2010 World Junior Champion is ranked last in the elite field. His undefeated performance is outstanding with one win and seven draws.

Carlsen gained an advantage from a quiet opening as Anand adopted a passive defensive strategy. Carlsen had a very strong position after 22 d5 and his active pieces decided the game. The world champion’s form in this tournament is disappointing but the five-time world champion has plenty of time to prepare against Carlsen for his twelve game title match in Chennai, India in November.

Carlsen,M (2864) - Anand,V (2786) [E46]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 0–0 5.Nge2 d5 6.a3 Be7 7.cxd5 Nxd5 8.Bd2 Nd7 9.g3 b6 10.Nxd5 exd5 11.Bg2 Bb7 12.Bb4 Nf6 13.0–0 Re8 14.Rc1 c6 15.Bxe7 Rxe7 16.Re1 Qd6 17.Nf4 Bc8 18.Qa4 Rc7 19.f3 Be6 20.e4 dxe4 21.fxe4 Qd7 ?22.d5 cxd5 23.Qxd7 Rxd7 24.Nxe6 fxe6 25.Bh3 Kh8 26.e5 Ng8 27.Bxe6 Rdd8 ? 28.Rc7 d4 29.Bd7 1–0

Morozevich sacrificed the exchange for unclear complications but Gelfand stood better and he later returned the exchange and ended the game with a neat final queen move.

Gelfand,B (2755) - Morozevich,A (2760) [A56]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 g6 4.Nc3 Bg7 5.e4 d6 6.h3 0–0 7.Nf3 e6 8.Bd3 exd5 9.exd5 Re8+ 10.Be3 Rxe3+ ? 11.fxe3 Qe7 12.0–0 Nbd7 13.Qd2 Ne5 14.Nxe5 Qxe5 15.Rf3 Bd7 16.Raf1 Rf8 17.Qf2 Qe7 18.Rxf6 Bxf6 19.Qxf6 Qxe3+ 20.Rf2 Qxd3 21.Qxd6 Bf5 22.Qxc5 b6 23.Qc7 Rc8 24.Qxa7 Qe3 25.d6 Qd4? 26.Nb5? (26. Qe7 was better) 26...Qxc4 27.Qxb6 Qc1+ 28.Kh2 Re8 29.Qc7 Qd1 30.Rxf5 gxf5 31.d7 Rf8 32.Qg3+ Kh8 33.Qd6! 1–0

Progress scores after round 8:- B.Gelfand (ISR 2755) 5.5 ; M.Carlsen (NOR 2864) 5 ; S.Mamedyarov (AZE 2753), D.Andreikin (RUS 2713), H.Nakamura (USA 2784), F.Caruana (ITA 2774) 4.5 ; S.Karjakin (RUS 2782) 3.5 ; V.Anand (IND 2786) 3 ; A.Morozevich (RUS 2760) and V.Kramnik (RUS 2803) 2.5.

Agent Smith
24-06-2013, 02:46 PM
Is the third column after the names supposed to be the players age?
If so then something is wrong, Anand is not 22 or Nakamura 48 or Karjakin 49.
If not what do the numbers mean?
Yes - they are the ages. I have edited the errata you note.

pax
24-06-2013, 05:34 PM
A worrying lack of form for Anand leading into his WC defence..

Jesper Norgaard
24-06-2013, 06:58 PM
Tough one for Kramners, who came outright last. Vishy didnt fair much better.

1: Gelfand, Boris 2755 gm 45 ISR 6.0 / 9 7w= 4b+ 3w= 8b= 9w+ 2w= 6b+ 5w= 10b= 2904 +19 (+3 -0 =6)
2: Carlsen, Magnus 2864 gm 23 NOR 5.5 / 9 10w+ 7b= 4w- 3b= 8w+ 1b= 9w= 6w+ 5b= 2847 -3 (+3 -1 =5)
3: Andreikin, Dmitry 2713 gm 23 RUS 5.0 / 9 9w= 8w= 1b= 2w= 6b= 5w= 10b+ 7w= 4b= 2827 +14 (+1 -0 =8)
4: Caruana, Fabiano 2774 gm 21 ITA 5.0 / 9 8b+ 1w- 2b+ 6w- 5b= 10w= 7b= 9b+ 3w= 2820 +6 (+3 -2 =4)
5: Mamedyarov, Shakhriyar 2753 gm 28 AZE 5.0 / 9 6b+ 9b= 10w= 7b= 4w= 3b= 8w= 1b= 2w= 2823 +9 (+1 -0 =8)
6: Nakamura, Hikaru 2784 gm 26 USA 4.5 / 9 5w- 10b+ 7w+ 4b+ 3w= 8b+ 1w- 2b- 9w- 2776 -2 (+4 -4 =1)
7: Karjakin, Sergey 2782 gm 23 RUS 4.0 / 9 1b= 2w= 6b- 5w= 10b= 9b= 4w= 3b= 8w= 2733 -6 (+0 -1 =8)
8: Anand, Viswanathan 2786 gm 44 IND 3.5 / 9 4w- 3b= 9w+ 1w= 2b- 6w- 5b= 10w= 7b= 2696 -12 (+1 -3 =5)
9: Morozevich, Alexander 2760 gm 36 RUS 3.5 / 9 3b= 5w= 8b- 10w= 1b- 7w= 2b= 4w- 6b+ 2699 -7 (+1 -3 =5)
10: Kramnik, Vladimir 2803 gm 38 RUS 3.0 / 9 2b- 6w- 5b= 9b= 7w= 4b= 3w- 8b= 1w= 2649 -19 (+0 -3 =6)
The correct final standing is
1. Gelfand 6
2. Carlsen 5½
3. Caruana 5 (Most Blacks, Most Wins)
4. Mamedyarov 5 (Most Blacks)
5. Andreikin 5
6. Nakamura 4½
7. Karjakin 4
8. Morozevich 3½ (Most Blacks)
9. Anand 3½
10. Kramnik 3

That was also the way the prizes were given, and no prizes were shared. Both chessvibes, chessbase and the tournaments own website gives this incorrectly, only Mark Crowther on The Week in Chess has it right.

I would say Andreikin and Anand payed heavily for having 5 whites, unless you think they would have made ½ point less had they had 5 blacks. In Round Robin Sonneborn-Berger is the most sensible tiebreak in my opinion, and would have ruled
... 3.Mamedyarov 4. Andreikin 5. Caruana ... 8.Morozevich 9.Anand

There were 11 black wins and 6 white wins of the decisive games, so the tournament was unusual in this respect, and makes it pretty hilarious that the first tiebreak was that it was better to have 5 blacks than 5 whites. The only contradiction to that is that Gelfand and Magnus both had 5 whites and utilized it splendidly getting more points than the competition.

The tiebreak rules are laid out quite clearly here:

http://russiachess.org/upload/iblock/b36/b361cf622515491ff44842dc07a26a74.pdf

I have some pity for Nakamura, who was leading the tournament, but lost the last 3 games. He didn't look very happy in the prizegiving. :)

Adamski
24-06-2013, 07:16 PM
Very good performance by Andreikin in this conpany.

Capablanca-Fan
25-06-2013, 01:03 AM
If Carlsen wins he wins the tournament on tiebreak.
Good thing he didn't. It's disgraceful that high-level (or indeed any) tournament winners are decided by these absurd pseudo-mathematical tricks. Of course, the most recent example is Carlsen winning the right to challenge the world champ by this means.

Kevin Bonham
25-06-2013, 01:24 AM
Good thing he didn't.

I was also pleased by this outcome. I'd personally prefer to be +3=6 than +4=4-1 any day.

Capablanca-Fan
25-06-2013, 04:15 AM
I was also pleased by this outcome. I'd personally prefer to be +3=6 than +4=4-1 any day.
Same here. I also admire Capablanca and Karpov for their very low percentage of losses.

Oepty
25-06-2013, 02:08 PM
There seems to be an assumption that more wins means playing more aggressive chess and aggressive chess is better.
I am not sure the first one is always true and I am quite doubtful the second one.
While playing aggressively might put you opponent under more pressure to find good defensive moves and may force them to make errors therefore giving more practical chances of winning. It could though be questioned whether the aggressive play was entirely justified and the best possible play in the position. It could well be that aggressive play by one player lowers the overall standard of play by both sides especially when the attacker wins.

Perhaps aggressive play is better for the tournament as a whole but not as good for the standard of chess being played.

Jesper Norgaard
25-06-2013, 03:23 PM
Good thing he didn't. It's disgraceful that high-level (or indeed any) tournament winners are decided by these absurd pseudo-mathematical tricks. Of course, the most recent example is Carlsen winning the right to challenge the world champ by this means.

I don't agree with your view on all tiebreak systems to be presudo-mathematical tricks. Not after looking into predictiveness of tiebreaks. I might have been sympathetic to your view before that, but not after seeing that many of these tiebreaks *can* predict results in chess tournaments, specifically predicting last round results based on the previous rounds results, or even previous tournaments results. Instead of calling these effects pseudo-mathematical I would call them statistical in nature. And I resent the idea that they have no relevance.

Suppose you have two participants betting in the horse races. A bets on the horses determined by a coin toss. B bets on a combination of known data like the age of the horses, their previous successes and failures, the quality of training etc. etc. B has a program to evaluate all these factors together, and determine how likely it is each participant will win. If B gets much better results consistently than A, would you call that irrelevant or a pseudo-mathematical trick? If I were to invest, I would put my money on B and not on A.

The tiebreaks like Buchholz (and variations of it), Berger, Progressive, Zermelo, Koya, Average Rating of opponents all have a much better predictiveness than coin toss, and thereby demonstrates their merit to determine the winner. With some tiebreaks like "Most Wins", "Most Blacks", "Direct Encounter" the effect is much worse. An example is using Progressive/Average Rating compared to using Most Wins/Progressive/Average Rating it is quite clear that having Most Wins as the first criteria, reduces the predictiveness considerably than being without that extra criteria. To me that points to that Most Wins is just crap as a tiebreak. It is not much better than a coin toss. That is why I am baffled of the FIDE official tiebreak for Swiss tournaments and the ICCF that uses "Most Wins" as first tiebreak. They are not even doing this after having concluded an investigation to if this actually increases the number of wins in tournaments, which must be the assumption.

I think the best way to encourage aggressive and public-friendly games is to give special prizes for that. Enforcing it by applying a political tiebreak that is not fair, having low predictiveness, looks wrong to me. It seems also to sidetrack the effort to play chess with the highest performance, and instead encourages chess players take calculated risks like in poker.

I would support to ban all use of "Direct Encounter", "Most Wins" and "Most Blacks" in serious chess tournaments quite simply because their merit is non-existing or too low to be fair tiebreaks.

I have no problems with different types of playoffs by Blitz games before or after the tournament, to be able to determine who is best of players on equal points. However, they also represent a risk of diminishing the value of the results in the tournament itself, and substituting with Blitz skill which is only marginally tested in a classical chess tournament. Also in some types of tournaments, for instance where all players get a prize like in Tal Memorial, they may sometimes be impractical. In Tal Memorial they set aside an extra day to play the Blitz tournament. In a 1-day or weekend Rapid tournament with a rather tight schedule, playoffs would be a nightmare especially because the determination by Armageddon is controversial and trying to play other Blitz games will prolong this playoff ordeal.

Capablanca-Fan
26-06-2013, 12:41 AM
I don't agree with your view on all tiebreak systems to be presudo-mathematical tricks
Of course they are. There is no good reason to prefer +1-1 to =2, as with systems that give the edge to "more wins". This comes from anti-draw prejudice by dilettantes. From your other comments, it looks like we don't disagree on this one.

The SB system arbitrarily decrees that win over a highly-placed player and loss to a lower placed player is superior to the reverse. But one could with equal merit argue that it's a more serious deficiency to lose to weaker players.

Those systems based on sum of opponents' scores in a Swiss are scientifically absurd. The reason, as I explained years ago on this forum or its predecessor, is that the higher places are more accurate than the lower ones, which have more to do with the luck of the draw. But this tiebreak uses less precise places to calibrate more precise places.


Not after looking into predictiveness of tiebreaks. I might have been sympathetic to your view before that, but not after seeing that many of these tiebreaks *can* predict results in chess tournaments, specifically predicting last round results based on the previous rounds results, or even previous tournaments results.
This overlooks the fact that the tiebreaks themselves distort the very thing they are trying to measure, rather like self-fulfilling prophecies. That is, the tie break provides more opportunities, and motivation to extend oneself to perform well in these higher tourneys.


Instead of calling these effects pseudo-mathematical I would call them statistical in nature. And I resent the idea that they have no relevance.
Really? You resent it? Bringing emotions into an objective discussion is beneath you.


The tiebreaks like Buchholz (and variations of it), Berger, Progressive, Zermelo, Koya, Average Rating of opponents all have a much better predictiveness than coin toss, and thereby demonstrates their merit to determine the winner.
These have been around longer. So I would expect the "self-fulfilling" effect would have had more chance to work out. Also, in which order should these systems be applied?

But let's face it, even a score of half a point more is not really that predictive.


With some tiebreaks like "Most Wins", "Most Blacks", "Direct Encounter" the effect is much worse. An example is using Progressive/Average Rating compared to using Most Wins/Progressive/Average Rating it is quite clear that having Most Wins as the first criteria, reduces the predictiveness considerably than being without that extra criteria. To me that points to that Most Wins is just crap as a tiebreak. It is not much better than a coin toss. That is why I am baffled of the FIDE official tiebreak for Swiss tournaments and the ICCF that uses "Most Wins" as first tiebreak. They are not even doing this after having concluded an investigation to if this actually increases the number of wins in tournaments, which must be the assumption.
One example of how FIDE is ruled by incompetents.


I think the best way to encourage aggressive and public-friendly games is to give special prizes for that. Enforcing it by applying a political tiebreak that is not fair, having low predictiveness, looks wrong to me. It seems also to sidetrack the effort to play chess with the highest performance, and instead encourages chess players take calculated risks like in poker.
Agree with that.


would support to ban all use of "Direct Encounter", "Most Wins" and "Most Blacks" in serious chess tournaments quite simply because their merit is non-existing or too low to be fair tiebreaks.
That I would agree with as well. But the merits of other systems are equally non-existent.


I have no problems with different types of playoffs by Blitz games before or after the tournament, to be able to determine who is best of players on equal points. However, they also represent a risk of diminishing the value of the results in the tournament itself, and substituting with Blitz skill which is only marginally tested in a classical chess tournament.
But Blitz surely has a better correlation with chess skill over long time limits than arbitrary tie-breaks. At least it is truly a chess skill.

Kevin Bonham
26-06-2013, 12:44 AM
One example of how FIDE is ruled by incompetents.

The real problem with the tiebreak rules is government by committee. I was at the RTRG meeting that made large changes to the tiebreak rules and it was a shambles - too many people from too many backgrounds with too much ego investment. Need a better process.

Capablanca-Fan
26-06-2013, 01:59 AM
The real problem with the tiebreak rules is government by committee. I was at the RTRG meeting that made large changes to the tiebreak rules and it was a shambles - too many people from too many backgrounds with too much ego investment. Need a better process.
But then, the rules committee seems to be far to influenced by Hurt Haysen, who has many idiosyncrasies (he was responsible for turning the habitual king capture in Blitz from winning to losing) and just bizarre ideas such as denying that checkmating ends the game in Blit (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=6929&highlight=understand+reasoning)z as well.

Kevin Bonham
26-06-2013, 10:27 AM
Gijssen had not much influence on this outcome as to influence it would have required being able to control that particular meeting, which was either impossible or beyond him.

By the way I agree with banning king capture in blitz, killjoy as it is. Better to get everyone to claim illegal move as that makes it more likely that evidence of the illegality will be preserved and able to be examined in the case of dispute.

ER
26-06-2013, 02:12 PM
... By the way I agree with banning king capture in blitz, killjoy as it is. Better to get everyone to claim illegal move as that makes it more likely that evidence of the illegality will be preserved and able to be examined in the case of dispute...

In the recent Burnie Blitz Tasmanian Open, it happened that, unintentionally, I had left my King on check for quite a no. of moves. Then I moved my King walking into another check and my opponent claimed it this time. Then we realised that my illegality consisted of quite a no. of moves.

Since I left my King on check and my opponent, not realising my irregularity, kept on playing moves other than capturing my King or claiming his win, can't he be regarded as a collaborator to the whole shambles?

:lol:

Kevin Bonham
26-06-2013, 02:20 PM
In the recent Burnie Blitz Tasmanian Open, it happened that, unintentionally, I had left my King on check for quite a no. of moves. Then I moved my King walking into another check and my opponent claimed it this time. Then we realised that my illegality consisted of quite a no. of moves.

Since I left my King on check and my opponent, not realising my irregularity, kept on playing moves other than capturing my King or claiming his win, can't he be regarded as a collaborator to the whole shambles?

:lol:

All that matters is the last move and whether the last move was legal. Anything that goes on before and isn't claimed doesn't matter. If A makes ten illegal moves in a row, unclaimed, then B makes an illegal move and A claims, A wins.

I watched that game and a couple of others where there were long strings of illegal moves.

A player doesn't have to claim illegal move; they just miss out on a free win if they do not notice it or claim in time.

antichrist
26-06-2013, 07:28 PM
All that matters is the last move and whether the last move was legal. Anything that goes on before and isn't claimed doesn't matter. If A makes ten illegal moves in a row, unclaimed, then B makes an illegal move and A claims, A wins.

I watched that game and a couple of others where there were long strings of illegal moves.

A player doesn't have to claim illegal move; they just miss out on a free win if they do not notice it or claim in time.
Well I did not believe I would come come across such a funny ridiculous situation again in my lifetime and it my mate Elliot Renzies playing dumbbell. Was his king under the weather? Was it being rebellious? An anarchist king? At least Elliot's goes towards the prizemoney

Jesper Norgaard
26-06-2013, 09:25 PM
Of course they are. There is no good reason to prefer +1-1 to =2, as with systems that give the edge to "more wins". This comes from anti-draw prejudice by dilettantes. From your other comments, it looks like we don't disagree on this one.

Yes we agree on this one. Especially we agree that anti-draw dilettantes should not be given any weight in tiebreak merit discussions.



The SB system arbitrarily decrees that win over a highly-placed player and loss to a lower placed player is superior to the reverse. But one could with equal merit argue that it's a more serious deficiency to lose to weaker players.

From an isolated standpoint looking at one players performance, I would argue that it is not a more serious deficiency to lose to a weaker player, nor to lose to a stronger player - rather they should be equal in deficiency, as in the +1-1 equal to =2 argument above. However, tiebreak is not trying to measure the players performance isolated, but the player's performance compared to all the other players' performance. In that respect winning against higher scoring players makes you deserve a better tiebreak because that tends to bring those high scoring players down to a lower score, quite possibly from a score that would be above this current player's score, down to a score that might be equal to the current player's score, and therefore meriting more than another player on that equal score, that only won against the bottom players and not against the top players, because that would have left those high-scoring players to win the tournament outright, and not bring them down to an equal score. If you don't follow the argument, I can expand on it.



Those systems based on sum of opponents' scores in a Swiss are scientifically absurd. The reason, as I explained years ago on this forum or its predecessor, is that the higher places are more accurate than the lower ones, which have more to do with the luck of the draw. But this tiebreak uses less precise places to calibrate more precise places.

This overlooks the fact that the tiebreaks themselves distort the very thing they are trying to measure, rather like self-fulfilling prophecies. That is, the tie break provides more opportunities, and motivation to extend oneself to perform well in these higher tourneys.

I respectfully disagree, especially that higher scores means more precise places. Also it is noteworthy that in the pairing of Swiss, something similar to Buchholz is used to rank the players, and "prejudice" the pairing, nonetheless the same players are often valued with a high tiebreak whether using Buchholz, SB, Progressive, Average Rating, Zermelo or whatever. So I don't think the pairing is "rigged" by the tiebreak itself.



Really? You resent it? Bringing emotions into an objective discussion is beneath you.

Yes I resent that it should be irrelevant that empirical data shows which tiebreaks are more predictive. Not all statistics are irrelevant just because we could not prove the phenomena from a mathematical or logical standpoint. If statistics show that chain-smoking and lung cancer are clearly correlated, we should not ignore it just because we can't prove that chain-smoking causes lung cancer.



These have been around longer. So I would expect the "self-fulfilling" effect would have had more chance to work out. Also, in which order should these systems be applied?

I don't agree about the "self-fulfilling" effect, but would be interested to hear if we can show statistically that it exists and has an effect on chess tournaments.
In which order should tiebreaks be applied? I think there could be other factors than predictiveness that an arbiter or an organizer could prefer or dislike a particular tiebreak, and I think they are entitled to that. The only thing I advocate is that they should be aware of the predictiveness of tiebreaks and include that in their decision which tiebreaks to apply and in which order. I don't have a particular agenda promoting tiebreaks, rather I would like to demote some of the worst ones, and argue against some illogical arguments (for instance for erasing Progressive from FIDE from a "the earth is flat" kind of prejudice).



But let's face it, even a score of half a point more is not really that predictive.

I strongly disagree, but "not really that predictive" is still better than "not predictive at all".



...
But Blitz surely has a better correlation with chess skill over long time limits than arbitrary tie-breaks. At least it is truly a chess skill.
Blitz is not a bad tiebreak, but it can be time-consuming and impractical, depending on the needs of the organizer and frankly the size of the tournament. If you have special prizes in certain scoregroups or rating groups, playoffs could become a real nightmare. I wouldn't have a problem calling Blitz a better tiebreak than any of the others, but that does not eliminate the merit of the more traditional tiebreaks.

peter_parr
01-07-2013, 10:54 AM
The following article was published in the 41st year of my chess column in the Sydney Morning Herald on Monday 1st July 2013.

Gelfand wins Tal Memorial
Peter Parr

Boris Gelfand defeated Caruana, Nakamura and Morozevich and drew his other six games to win the Tal Memorial tournament in Moscow. World no 1 Magnus Carlsen finished second but performed just below his rating. The out of form World Champion Viswanathan Anand confirmed that this would be his last event before defending his title against Carlsen in Chennai, India in November.

Caruana,F (2774) - Gelfand,B (2755) [B90] rd 2
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.f3 e5 7.Nb3 Be6 8.Be3 Be7 9.Qd2 0–0 10.0–0–0 Nbd7 11.g4 b5 12.g5 b4 13.Ne2 Ne8 14.f4 a5 15.f5 a4 16.fxe6 axb3 17.cxb3 fxe6 18.Bh3 Rxa2 19.Bxe6+ Kh8 20.Ng3 Nc7 21.Bc4 Qa8 22.Rhf1 Rxf1 23.Rxf1 Ra1+ 24.Kc2 Rxf1 25.Bxf1 d5 26.h4 d4 27.Bg1 Ne6 28.Qe2 Ndc5 29.Qc4 Nf4 30.Qf7 Qf8 31.Qc4 g6 32.Bf2? Ne2! 33.Nh1 d3+ 34.Kd1? Qf3 35.Bxc5 Qxf1+ 36.Kd2 Nf4 37.Ng3 Qg2+ 38.Kc1 Qxg3 39.Kb1 Ne2 40.Qf7 Qe1+ 41.Ka2 Nc3+ 0–1

Final scores (10 players, 9 rounds, prize fund AUS $ 140,000):- B.Gelfand (ISR 2755, performance 2905) 6 ; M.Carlsen (NOR 2864) 5.5 ; S.Mamedayarov (AZE 2753), D.Andreikin (RUS 2713) ; F.Caruana (ITA 2774) 5 ; H. Nakamura (USA 2784) 4.5 ; S. Karjakin (RUS 2782) 4 ; A. Morozevich (RUS 2760) , V.Anand (IND 2786) 3.5 ; V. Kramnik (RUS 2803) 3. Yuriy Kryvoruchko 2659 is the new Ukraine champion.