PDA

View Full Version : Ivanchuck's record performance at mtel masters



Shark93
13-05-2008, 09:48 AM
At the mtel masters currently taking place in Sofia, Bulgaria, there are 6 participants who have an average rating of 2720. Topalov world #3 and Aronian world #6 are both competeing but the 4th seed Ivanchuck has beaten every single player, with 3 black games and 2 whites in the first half of the round robin. Hes on 5.0/5 with a 3530 performance, which according to chessbase is a record. http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4626

Good work by Ivanchuck, its amazing he hasn't had a draw yet. Hopefully he can go for a 6th win as white against Radjabov on Wednesday after the rest day.

pax
13-05-2008, 12:50 PM
Hes on 5.0/5 with a 3530 performance,
Performance ratings for 100% or 0% performances are nonsense. Let's see what happens when he drops half a point or so..

eclectic
13-05-2008, 12:55 PM
so if he had played a fictional sixth opponent with a rating equal to the average rating of his five real opponents and had scored a draw or had "played" against himself and scored a draw what would his performance rating be in each instance?

George Xie
13-05-2008, 02:36 PM
Not even Kasparov can score 5/5 in this kind tournament! But Ivanchuk did!

Igor_Goldenberg
13-05-2008, 03:04 PM
so if he had played a fictional sixth opponent with a rating equal to the average rating of his five real opponents and had scored a draw or had "played" against himself and scored a draw what would his performance rating be in each instance?
5,5 out of six is roughly 91% which correspondence to rating difference about 360-370 (couldn't find tables on FIDE site). Average rating of the opponents is 2737 (IMHO:) ), which means the performance would be around 3100.
Pax has a calculator on his site, but I forgot the link.

In his current form if he played against himself he'd definitely won:D

Vlad
13-05-2008, 03:36 PM
In Linares 1994 Anatoly Karpov started with 6/6. Only Kasparov could take the first half a point from Karpov in the 7-th round. Karpov finished 11/13.

I find more exciting the fact that Ivanchuk's rating is currently standing around 2775. If he continues to play the way he does, he will become # 1.

Intuition
13-05-2008, 04:24 PM
In Linares 1994 Anatoly Karpov started with 6/6. Only Kasparov could take the first half a point from Karpov in the 7-th round. Karpov finished 11/13.

I find more exciting the fact that Ivanchuk's rating is currently standing around 2775. If he continues to play the way he does, he will become # 1.

yeah this is his chance...if he doesnt do it in the next couple of years it will be very unlikey he ever will

MichaelBaron
13-05-2008, 05:40 PM
Obviously luck is also a factor (e.g. first round game against Radjabov)
Overall, when comparing greatst performances from different eras , i guess we need to use chess metrics ratings rather than fide ones as Fide ratings got inflated over the years.

So how can we compare Ivanchuk's 5/5 with Fisher's 6-0 against Larsen or Karpov's score in Linares?:hmm:

In any case, i am very happy for for Vassia (by the way my Cat's name (thats the cat that was playing with Axiom) is also Vassia) :lol:

pax
13-05-2008, 06:26 PM
If we add a hypothetical draw against himself, he gets a 3156 (http://paxmans.net/performance_calc.php?score=5.5&rating1=2767&rating2=2751&rating3=2696&rating4=2763&rating5=2708&rating6=2740&submitted=Y)performance rating. There are a whole 5 games left, so it is a bit premature to be comparing him with Karpov just yet.

Kevin Bonham
13-05-2008, 08:38 PM
A similar recent performance was Topalov's 6.5/7 in the first half of San Luis 2005. Topalov went into draw mode after that since he had such a massive lead and I won't be surprised if Ivanchuk does the same in the second half of this one.

Intuition
14-05-2008, 09:20 AM
A similar recent performance was Topalov's 6.5/7 in the first half of San Luis 2005. Topalov went into draw mode after that since he had such a massive lead and I won't be surprised if Ivanchuk does the same in the second half of this one.

everyone knows he cheated to get that :wall:

Igor_Goldenberg
14-05-2008, 10:33 AM
everyone knows he cheated to get that :wall:
everyone knows he was accused of cheating.

MichaelBaron
14-05-2008, 10:59 AM
everyone knows he cheated to get that :wall:

That tournament was not Topalov's one and only good result. In fact even at this year's M-Tel masters he is playing well! Would it not be for Ivanchuk's outstanding play - 3.5/5 (+2 after 5 rounds) would give him at least share of the first :hmm:

Denis_Jessop
14-05-2008, 11:49 AM
I note that, not unexpectedly, the Sofia Rules are being used in this event. But, once again, the drafter of the rules has shown an ignornace of the difference between an "offer" and a "claim". Note also the bizarre tie-break rule third in the list.



TOURNAMENT RULES
The final standing of the players will be determined according to points. In case of sharing of places - the following criteria will be decisive for the tie-break:
A greater number of wins.
The result of the direct mini-matches between contenders.
Berger.
A greater numbers of moves played.
A tie-break match will be played in case of a tie for the first place in the tournament between the first two players in the final standing (according to points, or the additional criteria). The match will consist of two games with a time-control of 15 minutes per player + 3 seconds added for every move played. In case of a tie, another match of two blitz-games will be played with a time-control of 5 minutes per player + 3 seconds for every move played. In case of another tied result there will be played a last "sudden-death" decisive game with a time-control 6 minutes for the whole game for the White-player and 4 minutes for the whole game for Black-player. The White-player will only need a victory in this game to win the tournament, whole the Black-player will win the tournament by just not losing that final decisive game.
In case the first place might be shared by more than two players the final standing will be determined according to the criteria that have been mentioned above.
The players should not talk during the games; additionally they should not offer draws directly to their opponents. Draw-offers will be allowed only through the Chief-Arbiter in three cases: a triple-repetition of the position, a perpetual check and in theoretically drawn positions.
The Chief-Arbiter is the only authority who can acknowledge the final result of the game in these cases. He will be advised in his decisions throughout the tournament by GM Zurab Azmaiparashvili, FIDE Vice-President.

DJ

Shark93
14-05-2008, 04:14 PM
I note that, not unexpectedly, the Sofia Rules are being used in this event. But, once again, the drafter of the rules has shown an ignornace of the difference between an "offer" and a "claim". Note also the bizarre tie-break rule third in the list.




DJ

If you are talking about the 'sudden death' or 'armageddon' tiebreak, it is a very commonly used tiebreak at super GM tournaments.

eclectic
14-05-2008, 04:34 PM
If you are talking about the 'sudden death' or 'armageddon' tiebreak, it is a very commonly used tiebreak at super GM tournaments.

no, he's not talking about that and besides i think such (blitz?) tiebreaks ought to have NO PLACE WHATSOEVER in such standard time control tournaments the prize money should be split and any title awarded on countback

anyway treat this as an aside the matter is most likely covered in some other thread :hand:

Bill Gletsos
14-05-2008, 04:40 PM
If you are talking about the 'sudden death' or 'armageddon' tiebreak, it is a very commonly used tiebreak at super GM tournaments.No that is not it.
He is referring to the 3rd criteria:
A greater numbers of moves played.

Denis_Jessop
14-05-2008, 05:52 PM
No that is not it.
He is referring to the 3rd criteria:
A greater numbers of moves played.

Yes; that's right. Also, FIDE has approved tie-break rules for both Swiss and Round-robin events but they have nothing like this.

DJ

Kevin Bonham
14-05-2008, 10:37 PM
Actually "A greater number of moves played" appears to be the fourth criterion, not the third, after:


A greater number of wins.
The result of the direct mini-matches between contenders.
Berger.

but in any case it is quite possibly the most ridiculous tiebreak system I have seen adopted at any serious event, and that is saying something.

Perhaps that tiebreak explains why Bu did not resign on move 9; under this ludicrous rule a player gets tiebreak credit for playing on in a resignable position.

Ian Murray
15-05-2008, 11:29 AM
If you are talking about the 'sudden death' or 'armageddon' tiebreak, it is a very commonly used tiebreak at super GM tournaments.
The 'Sofia Rule' is the rule barring agreed draws between players other than as specified in the tournament conditions

pax
15-05-2008, 01:24 PM
No that is not it.
He is referring to the 3rd criteria:
A greater numbers of moves played.
Actually, the third criteria is Berger (which is also pretty absurd in my view).

Igor_Goldenberg
15-05-2008, 01:30 PM
Actually, the third criteria is Berger (which is also pretty absurd in my view).
Why Berger is absurd?

eclectic
15-05-2008, 01:34 PM
why wasn't the number of rest room visits included as a tie break criterion?

:eek:

Denis_Jessop
15-05-2008, 04:59 PM
why wasn't the number of rest room visits included as a tie break criterion?

:eek:

Because Kramnik isn't playing otherwise it might well have been.:D

Thanks also Pax - I miscounted and I did mean the fourth.

DJ

Kevin Bonham
18-05-2008, 11:40 PM
8/10 for Ivanchuk to win by at least a point. PR 2979 according to pax's calculator.

Capablanca-Fan
19-05-2008, 02:20 AM
Why Berger is absurd?
Probably because there is no objective reason why games counted against higher scoring opponents should have higher weight. It can be equally argued that it's a more serious defect to drop points against low scorers.

Vlad
19-05-2008, 08:44 AM
Ivanchuk is #3. He just needs one more tournament. The current updated ratings can be found below

http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~ha/toplist.php

pax
19-05-2008, 03:47 PM
8/10 for Ivanchuk to win by at least a point. PR 2979 according to pax's calculator.
A tremendous performance, but perhaps not in the league of Karpov in 1994.

eclectic
19-05-2008, 04:13 PM
Probably because there is no objective reason why games counted against higher scoring opponents should have higher weight. It can be equally argued that it's a more serious defect to drop points against low scorers.

what would happen if tiebreaks were decided by (quickly?) putting all players' games for the event in question through a number of computer programs to evaluate what errors were overlooked so that in the event of any ties preference would be given to the player or players with "better quality" games?

Capablanca-Fan
19-05-2008, 04:22 PM
A tremendous performance, but perhaps not in the league of Karpov in 1994.
Yes, Karpov's performance was even more tremendous, and sustained over a larger number of games.

Karpov at Linares 1994 (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1003311)
Compiled by MoonlitKnight


The field at Linares 1994 was one of the strongest ever, and Kasparov prior to the event commented that the winner could call himself “world champion of tournament chess”. He was to regret having said that. Karpov smashed the world elite to bits and pieces with an amazing score of 11/13 (+9 =4 -0) and a record performance rating of 2985, after having won his first 6 games and left Kasparov and Shirov 2.5 points behind. This was arguably the greatest achievement in the history of tournament chess.

pax
19-05-2008, 07:23 PM
This was arguably the greatest achievement in the history of tournament chess. [/INDENT]
I would say it's almost "unarguably" the greatest achievement in tournament chess. It's arguably the greatest achievement in chess, period.

Capablanca-Fan
19-05-2008, 08:05 PM
I would say it's almost "unarguably" the greatest achievement in tournament chess. It's arguably the greatest achievement in chess, period.
I tend to agree.

Kevin Bonham
20-05-2008, 01:06 AM
Alekhine 13/14 San Remo 1930 is sometimes mentioned but the field, lacking Capablanca for one thing, was not quite as comparatively strong.

My vote goes to Karpov at Linares 1994 as well.

Basil
20-05-2008, 01:25 AM
Alekhine 13/14 San Remo 1930 is sometimes mentioned but the field, lacking Capablanca for one thing, was not quite as comparatively strong.

My vote goes to Karpov at Linares 1994 as well.
Yes, always worth checking these things out. I think our buddies Fox & James have an opinion, I'll check it out. FWIW, IMO Capablanca in 1930 was well past his prime.

Kevin Bonham
20-05-2008, 01:32 AM
FWIW, IMO Capablanca in 1930 was well past his prime.

He was past his very best but still routinely winning tournaments, and a clear (and close) number two in the world at the time behind Alekhine.

Do you have an edition of Fox and James that is post-1994?

Basil
20-05-2008, 01:37 AM
He was past his very best but still routinely winning tournaments, and a clear (and close) number two in the world at the time behind Alekhine.

Do you have an edition of Fox and James that is post-1994?
I'll defer to your assessment of Capa. My edition is 1993.

Basil
20-05-2008, 01:50 AM
Fox & James wrote in 1993

"The two strongest tournaments held up to 1979 were undoubtedly the AVRO tournament held in Holland in 1938, consisting of the eight strongest players in the world at the time, and the 1948 World Championship tournament (The Hague & Moscow) to decide the World Championship which had fallen vacant on Alekhine's death.

The former event had an average rating of about 2658 and the latter a phenomenal 2665 (both cat 17).



1992 Reggio Emilia Anand 6/9 67% Cat 18
1938 AVRO Fine / Keres 8.5/14 61% Cat 17
1948 World Champ Botvinnik 14/20 70% Cat 17


Reviewing Jono's post #30, it appears Karpov has good claim. Fischer's 6 zipple slam dunk doesn't count as a tournament, so where are we peeps?

pax
20-05-2008, 11:46 AM
Reviewing Jono's post #30, it appears Karpov has good claim. Fischer's 6 zipple slam dunk doesn't count as a tournament, so where are we peeps?
All hail the Communist Party flunky! :clap: :clap: :clap:

Capablanca-Fan
28-05-2008, 03:14 PM
He was past his very best but still routinely winning tournaments, and a clear (and close) number two in the world at the time behind Alekhine.
Alekhine also broke the clear agreement that there was to be a return match. Instead, he played two matches against Bogolyubov, against whom Capa had a 5–0 score, and Capa had also defeated Alekhine's next opponent Euwe +2-0=8 in 1931. For a change, Wikipedia has a decent summary of Capa's play in this period, even though it was hardly his best:


After Capablanca lost the title, he won a number of strong tournaments, hoping that his showing would force Alekhine to grant him a rematch, but it was not to be. Capablanca won at Stockholm 1928 with 4/4, ahead of Erik Lundin and Gosta Stoltz. At the very strong Bad Kissingen 1928 tournament, with nine of the world's top 14 players, Capablanca placed second with 7/11 (a 2709 performance), behind Efim Bogolyubov. Capablanca won at Budapest 1928 with 7/9, with Frank Marshall one point behind. At Berlin 1928, Capablanca again triumphed over a field which had seven of the top 13, with a powerful 9/13 (a 2792 performance), 2 points ahead of runner-up Aron Nimzowitsch.

From 1929 to 1931, Capablanca maintained his exceptional standard, with seven tournaments played, resulting in five first places, one second place, and one shared second/third place. At Ramsgate 1929, Capablanca claimed first with 5/7, ahead of Akiba Rubinstein and Vera Menchik. Then at Carlsbad 1929, one of the great tournaments in chess history, with 14 of the top 17 competing, Capablanca shared second/third places with Rudolph Spielmann on 14/21 (a 2770 performance), half a point behind Aron Nimzowitsch. Capablanca dominated a middle-range field at Barcelona 1929 with 13/14, two points ahead of runner-up Savielly Tartakower. At Budapest 1929, Capablanca won with 10/13 (a 2746 performance), a point ahead of Akiba Rubinstein. Capablanca won at Hastings 1929-30 with 6/9, ahead of Milan Vidmar and Frederick Yates. At Hastings 1930-31, Capablanca finished second with 6/9, half a point behind Max Euwe. Then at New York 1931, Capablanca won with an excellent 10/11 (a 2732 performance), 1 points ahead of Isaac Kashdan. [2] Also in 1931, Capablanca defeated the outstanding Dutch player Max Euwe, who was ranked #6 in the world, according to chessmetrics.com ratings, in a match at Amsterdam by 6-4 (+2 -0 =8).