Turin Olympiad 2006 r13

This is it, the final round! Board pairings are here. Live games will be here. Women's live games here.

Comments

Well, that was certainly a quick and a bit disappointing resolution of the winner. Armenia has offered draws to Hungary on all boards, and Hungary has accepted.
Posted by: KB at June 4, 2006 04:38

That's to be expected. The real fight now is for the silver and bronze medals.
Posted by: albert at June 4, 2006 04:42

The same thing has happend in the women's tournament: Ukrain has drew all three games and secured the gold medal. Congrats to the Armenian and Ukrainian teams!
Posted by: albert at June 4, 2006 04:46

Wow - convincing and impressive job from Armenia. Everyone on the team played great and it is a testimony to a small country with a strong chess past, and obviously, present.
Posted by: ararat at June 4, 2006 05:24

This is the second time a Russian men's team has failed to win an Olympiad. China's strong showing is not surprising. China nearly won the World Team Championship against Russia late last year.
Posted by: ignacio dee at June 4, 2006 06:54

Russia not only NOT won, but is down or even below 6th place...
Same with Ukraine.
Odd enough.
Posted by: Vahan at June 4, 2006 08:25

If I'm not mistaken, it appears that Israel and the USA have tied for the bronze at 33. If so, any idea how tiebreaks will go?
Posted by: blisscoach at June 4, 2006 08:31

OLYMPIAD MEN Medals:

1) Armenia, 36.0
2) China, 34.0
3) USA (Israel is tied with USA in points, but with the other criteria wins in tiebreak - hopefully I am not wrong), 33.0

Hungary got 32.5 (Curiously, the best performance
of an Hungarian male team in a Chess Olympiad in a long time and Leko refused to participate. He said that "without Judit, the Hungarian team would be screwed up anyway").

Russia, France and Ukraine got 32.0

Congratulations to the winners!
Posted by: Pascual at June 4, 2006 08:41

I forgot to mention that Spain also got 32 pts; Shirov woke up in the last two rounds ("too little, too late...")
Posted by: Pascual at June 4, 2006 08:45

Today's 3.5-0.5 win over Norway may have given the USA 2nd place! They were leading China on tie-breaks going into the final round (340.5-338.0).
Posted by: nyrfan at June 4, 2006 08:50

OLYMPIAD WOMEN Medals

1) Ukraine, 29.5 pts
2) Russia, 28 pts
3) China, 27.5 pts

In fourth place, Hungary and USA with 24.5 points
Posted by: Pascual at June 4, 2006 08:51

Dear nyrfan:

My previous posts include today's results, so that is actually the final standings. Remember that today's round started 5 hours earlier due to awards ceremony, so most games have already finished; there are few games left, but none of them involving the main teams.
Posted by: Pascual at June 4, 2006 08:54

You are right Pasqual. China won 2.5-1.5. They do finish 2nd. Sorry for the error.
Posted by: nyrfan at June 4, 2006 08:57

USA - 3rd place (TB1 - 33pts; TB2 - 392,5)
Israel - 4th place (TB1 - 33pts; TB2 - 380,5)
Posted by: Slavmonster at June 4, 2006 09:33

Yeah, USA played the stronger opposition on average, hence better tiebreaks.
Posted by: Alex Shternshain at June 4, 2006 09:57

Highest performance ratings
2837 Wang Yue
2833 Bacrot Etienne
2820 Carlsen Magnus
2798 Karjakin Sergey
2790 Bu Xiangzhi
2786 Navara David

I might have missed some
Posted by: KB at June 4, 2006 10:01

Yes, of course I did. :-P

2847 Kramnik Vladimir
2837 Wang Yue
2833 Bacrot Etienne
2820 Carlsen Magnus
2798 Karjakin Sergey
2790 Bu Xiangzhi
2786 Navara David
Posted by: KB at June 4, 2006 10:03

Congratulations to all of the winners. Very impressive runs by the gold medal winners. Has there been any explanation as to why Kramnik did not play today. Seems strange to take the last round off with the medals on the line. For someone needing to continue to improve his image, this doesn't look good to me.
Posted by: Chris Marks at June 4, 2006 10:03

No one from champ Armenia among the performance rating leaders? What about Sargissian?
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at June 4, 2006 10:33

"Has there been any explanation as to why Kramnik did not play today."

Probably because they're out of medal contention, and he would have had the Black pieces.
Posted by: Marc Shepherd at June 4, 2006 10:41

10 a.m. is way too early in the morning for Kramnik to play chess... ;-)
Posted by: Martin at June 4, 2006 10:42

As a partial answer to the previous question, Armenian top performances were close (on the high 2700's), but latest two rounds (all draws) make a influence in the fact that among the best rating performances there wasn't a player from Armenia.

However, there is something that is important to keep in mind. Rating performance or percent are not precisely the most objective ways to judge the good or bad form of a player in a team cmpetition. For example, if Sargissian or Akopian would stop playing three rounds ago, they would be the top performers of the Olympiad (and could gain more rating points for the next Elo list). However, they continue playing TO HELP THE TEAM, which is the most important contribution here. So, they played almost all rounds (Sargissian played all rounds, Akopian 12 and Aronian 11).

In contrast, by taking a look to the "top performers", Kramnik played only 9 games (and missed the most important match today), Bacrot only 8, Carlsen only 8, so they had more rest, they played less rounds, so the performance rating is an indicator of how much they did in the few games they played, not how much they contribute (or were willing to contribute) to make their team be victorious.
Posted by: Pascual at June 4, 2006 10:50

2778 Akopian
2768 Aronian
2736 Sargissian

Aronian drew his last two games, Akopian his last three and Sargissian his last four games. I'm sure they'd be higher if they hadn't opted to secure the team victory instead.
Posted by: KB at June 4, 2006 10:50

For example, a few rounds ago, Akopian (who had a performance of 2928 in his first eight games, which is more than Kramnik, Bacrot or Carlsen in the same amount and met the requirement of 60% of games) could ensure an individual medal in board 2 and Sargissian in board 5 as well. But they continue playing, at expense of some possible draws or losses that could hamper their individual standings.

On the other hand, the practice of "picking" some rounds to favour individual performances is quite common for the players who win medals in the Olympiad. And Kramnik, despite being in good form, preferred not to compromise with his team by playing more. As a consequence, his individual gaining didn't decrease but his team was deprived in key round from their best player.

Congratulations Armenia for that national pride and team chemistry!

(Curiously, the least active players from Armenian team didn't have bad results: 2.5/3, with a percentage better than Aronian, Akopian, Asrian or Sargissian!).
Posted by: Pascual at June 4, 2006 11:03

Impressive last round performance by Team USA, to take Norway 3.5-0.5 to squeeze into the medals by a hair!
Posted by: Morrowind at June 4, 2006 11:04

I'm a little disappointed by the finish... A flaw of the scoring method, is that teams can leapfrog other teams, by playing weaker opponents and scoring 3.5 or 4. In an individual open, this can't happen in such proportion.

The best example of leapfrogging is Hungary - they didn't meet the strongest opponents, except for the last round. The third place of US also was a little similar... US had to fight against the weaker Denmark (seed #25)- compared to Israel which had to fight against Russia (and vice-versa).

It would be interesting to have rating performances of the each team.
Posted by: zarghev at June 4, 2006 12:25

Any word yet on the individual prizes? (As opposed to performance ratings.)
Posted by: Icepick at June 4, 2006 12:38

Peace...

Actually, zhargev, I think that a bigger flaw in the system is that a team can lose 4(!) matches and secure the bronze because it demolishes the weaker opposition when it does meet it. China dominating the weaker teams and then losing to the strong ones does not make a convincing case for them being the second-strongest team in the world. I really think that match points should take precedent, and then cumulative points should be the first tiebreaker, because I don't see why teams should benefit from continuously losing and then sweeping against weaker teams to rack up points.

Hotep,

Maliq
Posted by: Maliq Soter at June 4, 2006 12:45

According to Magnus Carlsen (source: the norwegian online newspaper Nettavisen today) the american Gata Kamsky was so unhappy with the development of the game with Magnus today that he said the f*** word during the game. Kamsky should know that Magnus Carlsen is unbeatable these days.
Posted by: Young-Sun at June 4, 2006 12:47

The problem with match point scoring is that a good team has less opportunity to recover from a few missteps in the early rounds, and that teams are knocked out of medal contention far earlier. While some may view this as a plus, the high-seed teams certainly don't.

Also, I reiterate the problem of teams playing to assure the match win once a decisive game occurs, and the potential for wholescale draws.

Both systems have their weaknesses.
Posted by: cynical at June 4, 2006 13:42

Both Bacrot and Carlsen played all the last 8 games, so their performance was not influenced by any rest.
Posted by: Mragel at June 4, 2006 13:56

How about assuming the players on a given team are all clones and then ranking the teams on a per-team ELO rating for the tournament? So with 13 matches there are 52 matches for the clone?
Posted by: canuckian at June 4, 2006 14:01

Peace...

Cynical, I consider the fact that a team loses four matches and yet wins the silver a bigger matter of concern than that teams would play match strategy. First of all, playing for wholesale draws is not always possible, because games do not simply stand still until there is a decisive result on one board. Rather, all contests proceed at the same time, and who is to tell if he or she will be the decisive contest, or need to preserve winning chances to make up for the misstep of a teammate? No, I do not see something like this unless one game ends quickly on a blunder, and even then the teammates of the loser will not just kindly concede to draws and therefore a lost match. Second, as Susan Polgar has pointed out, aggregate point totals as the decisive determinant of standing forces teams to play their top players throughout the event rather than rest them, because simply beating a team 2.5-1.5 is not enough to assure that you will finish ahead of them. While this may provide a larger number of decisive board results, it does not solve the riddle of which is the best TEAM at the event. China, I dare say, was not the 2nd-best team at this event, having lost 4 matches. Rather, they just proved to be better at stomping weak opposition to compensate for losing when they played the real contenders. It is as though the 1996 World Series title should have gone to the Atlanta Braves rather than the New York Yankees because the Braves scored more runs in that series even though they lost more games. (The runs scored would be equivalent to points per round, and games would be the equivalent of rounds won or lost.)

Hotep,

Maliq
Posted by: Maliq Soter at June 4, 2006 14:05

Good performance from Bulgaria with 32 point sharing 6-10 place. It would have been great if Topa was around.
Posted by: PokerKing at June 4, 2006 14:54

China got silver and the US got bronze because Bu played better than Kamsky and Wang played better than Nakamura. Onischuk could not make up for that. Bu was able to hold against Bacrot and was able to beat Kamsky head to head. Wang Yue demolished weaker opponents and held against stronger ones to get 10/12. If you take a look at the performance rating of Bu and Wang you'd expect China to be up there.
Posted by: superfreaky at June 4, 2006 15:06

Best performances on the individual boards here:
http://schach.wienerzeitung.at/tnr3410.aspx?tnr=3410&art=21&lan=1&flag=30
Posted by: KB at June 4, 2006 15:30

One of the things I invented with my latest Chessmetrics formulas was the ability to calculate a "performance score" across a single event. This score represents the rating you would get if you started from scratch and only counted the games from that one event. It gives greater weight to players who play a lot (because that is more evidence of your strength) and extra credit if you face stronger opposition (because that is further evidence that you really are strong). I'm trying not to call it a performance rating anymore because people get confused by their prior notions of what "performance rating" implies. That is, if you score 3/6 against 2700-rated opponents, that's a raw performance rating of 2700, but it isn't really sufficient evidence to claim that you are 2700-strength (actually in this scenario you would get 2651).

Note that these are based on FIDE ratings, and I had to estimate the average opponents' FIDE ratings based on the rating changes provided for everyone on the official results page. Note that there is no correction for piece color in my formula because typically it evens out even in single events, but obviously Kramnik benefitted a little from having White so much. As an example of how to interpret these numbers, Kramnik (on the Russia team, with a FIDE rating of 2729) scored 6.5/9 (72%) against an average opponent rating of 2686. This is a performance score of 2763, implying that we would estimate Kramnik's strength as 2763 if we knew of no other results than his nine games in this one event.

Here are the top 30 individual men's performance scores from the Olympiad:
#1. Kramnik Vladimir (RUS 2729) Performance score of 2763: 6.5/9 (72%) vs 2686 opp
#2. Wang Yue (CHN 2598) Performance score of 2748: 10/12 (83%) vs 2569 opp
#3. Bu Xiangzhi (CHN 2640) Performance score of 2743: 8/12 (67%) vs 2669 opp
#4. Navara David (CZE 2658) Performance score of 2739: 8.5/12 (71%) vs 2637 opp
#5. Bacrot Etienne (FRA 2708) Performance score of 2737: 6/8 (75%) vs 2651 opp
#6. Akopian Vladimir (ARM 2706) Performance score of 2733: 9/12 (75%) vs 2604 opp
#7. Karjakin Sergey (UKR 2661) Performance score of 2731: 8.5/11 (77%) vs 2596 opp
#8. Carlsen Magnus (NOR 2646) Performance score of 2722: 6/8 (75%) vs 2632 opp
#9. Aronian Levon (ARM 2756) Performance score of 2721: 7/11 (64%) vs 2669 opp
#10. Bruzon Batista Lazaro (CUB 2652) Performance score of 2707: 7/11 (64%) vs 2652 opp
#11. Lautier Joel (FRA 2682) Performance score of 2707: 8/11 (73%) vs 2595 opp
#12. Radjabov Teimour (AZE 2717) Performance score of 2703: 6/9 (67%) vs 2645 opp
#13. Ivanchuk Vasyl (UKR 2731) Performance score of 2699: 8/13 (62%) vs 2644 opp
#14. Sargissian Gabriel (ARM 2612) Performance score of 2696: 10/13 (77%) vs 2540 opp
#15. Adams Michael (ENG 2720) Performance score of 2694: 8/11 (73%) vs 2579 opp
#16. Georgiev Kiril (BUL 2677) Performance score of 2692: 7/11 (64%) vs 2634 opp
#17. Onischuk Alexander (USA 2650) Performance score of 2690: 7/10 (70%) vs 2600 opp
#18. Dominguez Perez Leinier (CUB 2647) Performance score of 2683: 8/12 (67%) vs 2597 opp
#19. Nisipeanu Liviu Dieter (ROM 2695) Performance score of 2681: 6.5/9 (72%) vs 2585 opp
#20. Grischuk Alexander (RUS 2719) Performance score of 2678: 7/11 (64%) vs 2617 opp
#21. Gelfand Boris (ISR 2727) Performance score of 2676: 5/9 (56%) vs 2677 opp
#22. Agrest Evgenij (SWE 2570) Performance score of 2676: 6.5/10 (65%) vs 2613 opp
#23. Wojtaszek Radoslaw (POL 2597) Performance score of 2672: 8/10 (80%) vs 2517 opp
#24. Svidler Peter (RUS 2743) Performance score of 2671: 5/9 (56%) vs 2671 opp
#25. Gareyev Timur (UZB 2522) Performance score of 2670: 8/11 (73%) vs 2551 opp
#26. Kasimdzhanov Rustam (UZB 2673) Performance score of 2669: 5.5/10 (55%) vs 2666 opp
#27. Naiditsch Arkadij (GER 2664) Performance score of 2669: 6/10 (60%) vs 2635 opp
#28. Kamsky Gata (USA 2671) Performance score of 2668: 5.5/10 (55%) vs 2664 opp
#29. Illescas Cordoba Miguel (ESP 2608) Performance score of 2668: 7/9 (78%) vs 2536 opp
#30. Tiviakov Sergey (NED 2669) Performance score of 2667: 7/11 (64%) vs 2604 opp

And here are the placements of everyone else with a FIDE rating of 2660+
#36. Nakamura Hikaru (USA 2664) Performance score of 2657: 7/11 (64%) vs 2592 opp
#37. Morozevich Alexander (RUS 2730) Performance score of 2651: 6/9 (67%) vs 2581 opp
#40. Sasikiran Krishnan (IND 2692) Performance score of 2648: 7.5/12 (63%) vs 2582 opp
#41. Bologan Viktor (MDA 2666) Performance score of 2647: 5.5/9 (61%) vs 2609 opp
#44. Vallejo Pons Francisco (ESP 2666) Performance score of 2645: 7.5/12 (63%) vs 2579 opp
#48. Short Nigel (ENG 2677) Performance score of 2629: 8/11 (73%) vs 2502 opp
#50. Harikrishna P (IND 2680) Performance score of 2627: 8/12 (67%) vs 2531 opp
#52. Smirin Ilia (ISR 2662) Performance score of 2625: 5.5/9 (61%) vs 2582 opp
#53. Anand Viswanathan (IND 2803) Performance score of 2623: 4.5/9 (50%) vs 2645 opp
#55. Sokolov Ivan (NED 2676) Performance score of 2621: 5/11 (45%) vs 2662 opp
#61. Bareev Evgeny (RUS 2701) Performance score of 2614: 5.5/9 (61%) vs 2568 opp
#70. Shirov Alexei (ESP 2699) Performance score of 2603: 5.5/11 (50%) vs 2612 opp
#75. Elyanov Pavel (UKR 2665) Performance score of 2598: 5.5/9 (61%) vs 2548 opp
#110. Moiseyenko Alexander (UKR 2662) Performance score of 2572: 4/6 (67%) vs 2513 opp
#131. Volokytin Andrei (UKR 2660) Performance score of 2558: 3.5/7 (50%) vs 2573 opp
#251. Rublevskiy Sergey (RUS 2687) Performance score of 2486: 2/5 (40%) vs 2538 opp

And everyone else who played 5+ games on a team that finished in the top ten:
#31. Almasi Zoltan (HUN 2657) Performance score of 2664: 6.5/11 (59%) vs 2628 opp
#35. Avrukh Boris (ISR 2633) Performance score of 2658: 7.5/10 (75%) vs 2531 opp
#38. Gyimesi Zoltan (HUN 2614) Performance score of 2649: 8/12 (67%) vs 2557 opp
#49. Berkes Ferenc (HUN 2593) Performance score of 2627: 7.5/11 (68%) vs 2528 opp
#51. Delchev Aleksander (BUL 2640) Performance score of 2626: 8/12 (67%) vs 2530 opp
#59. Balogh Csaba (HUN 2576) Performance score of 2617: 7/10 (70%) vs 2511 opp
#65. Zhang Zhong (CHN 2640) Performance score of 2609: 4/8 (50%) vs 2633 opp
#68. Cheparinov Ivan (BUL 2635) Performance score of 2604: 6/11 (55%) vs 2585 opp
#72. Fressinet Laurent (FRA 2633) Performance score of 2601: 6/10 (60%) vs 2553 opp
#76. Kaidanov Gregory (USA 2603) Performance score of 2598: 5/7 (71%) vs 2508 opp
#87. Zhang Pengxiang (CHN 2623) Performance score of 2590: 4.5/8 (56%) vs 2573 opp
#92. Asrian Karen (ARM 2646) Performance score of 2587: 5/10 (50%) vs 2596 opp
#100. Ni Hua (CHN 2607) Performance score of 2581: 5.5/9 (61%) vs 2527 opp
#105. Spasov Vasil (BUL 2578) Performance score of 2578: 6/9 (67%) vs 2491 opp
#112. Huzman Alexander (ISR 2576) Performance score of 2571: 5/7 (71%) vs 2474 opp
#116. Sutovsky Emil (ISR 2628) Performance score of 2566: 5/10 (50%) vs 2571 opp
#121. San Segundo Carrillo Pablo (ESP 2525) Performance score of 2563: 5/8 (63%) vs 2504 opp
#129. Ibragimov Ildar (USA 2637) Performance score of 2558: 4/7 (57%) vs 2535 opp
#136. Vachier-Lagrave Maxime (FRA 2576) Performance score of 2554: 6/10 (60%) vs 2496 opp
#150. Arizmendi Martinez Julen (ESP 2540) Performance score of 2545: 4/7 (57%) vs 2519 opp
#156. Sokolov Andrei (FRA 2628) Performance score of 2541: 4/8 (50%) vs 2548 opp
#187. Mikhalevski Victor (ISR 2566) Performance score of 2526: 5/7 (71%) vs 2417 opp
#191. Akobian Varuzhan (USA 2575) Performance score of 2522: 4.5/7 (64%) vs 2450 opp
#204. Iotov Valentin (BUL 2432) Performance score of 2515: 4/6 (67%) vs 2439 opp
#246. Efimenko Zahar (UKR 2648) Performance score of 2488: 2.5/6 (42%) vs 2531 opp
#290. Narciso Dublan Marc (ESP 2510) Performance score of 2453: 3/5 (60%) vs 2400 opp
#330. Bauer Christian (FRA 2638) Performance score of 2423: 2/5 (40%) vs 2454 opp
Posted by: Jeff Sonas at June 4, 2006 15:31

Gabriel Sargissian and Vassily Ivanchuk are the real ironmen among the top players playing all 13 players.
Posted by: peach at June 4, 2006 16:02

Highly interesting, Jeff. Thanks!
Posted by: Charles Milton Ling at June 4, 2006 16:04

If the info at the link KB provided is correct, the Board 1 Gold Medal will go to someone whose average opponent was rated 1980.

Board 6 is even worse. A tie means that the Gold goes to a player whose average opponent strength was 1918, and the silver goes to the guy whose opponents average strength was 1788.

Board 4 is the only board where this sort of thing doesn't happen. Congrats to GM Wang Yue for his Gold Medal peformance for the Chinese team!
Posted by: Icepick at June 4, 2006 16:29

Jeff Sonas, you rock. Have you patented your chessmetrics system? I think you should. I think a modified form of it can be used across many performance activities, including basketball, horseracing, pitching in baseball, and more. If the leagues themselves are not interested in licensing your system, I'm sure many gamblers would be as it seems to give close to real-time performance ratings that can point to inefficiencies in betting markets.

You should be the Joan Rivers to Mig's Johnny Carson and be permanent guest-host for this blog.
Posted by: Stern at June 4, 2006 16:34

I was thinking maybe if Kamsky had drew Bu instead of losing to Bu, then the US would have a half point more, and China would have a half point less, making them equal in number of points. But then the US would still get 3rd because China has the better second tiebreak:

China CHN: 34.0 393.0
USA USA: 33.0 392.5
Posted by: superfreaky at June 4, 2006 16:59

Funny, I didn't even notice that my data had Board # in it. Here are the top ten "performance scores" at each board #. I consider these "performance scores" to be superior to traditional performance ratings; they certainly do far better than traditional performance ratings at predicting how players will do in their next events. That's actually what I optimized my formula for: predictive power. Thus I reward you for playing more games, or for playing stronger opponents, not because I subjectively approve of people who do that, but because that's what I objectively must do, in order to have ratings that predict the future most accurately.

Board #1:
#1. Kramnik Vladimir (RUS 2729) Performance score of 2763: 6.5/9 (72%) vs 2686 opp
#3. Bu Xiangzhi (CHN 2640) Performance score of 2743: 8/12 (67%) vs 2669 opp
#4. Navara David (CZE 2658) Performance score of 2739: 8.5/12 (71%) vs 2637 opp
#5. Bacrot Etienne (FRA 2708) Performance score of 2737: 6/8 (75%) vs 2651 opp
#8. Carlsen Magnus (NOR 2646) Performance score of 2722: 6/8 (75%) vs 2632 opp
#9. Aronian Levon (ARM 2756) Performance score of 2721: 7/11 (64%) vs 2669 opp
#10. Bruzon Batista Lazaro (CUB 2652) Performance score of 2707: 7/11 (64%) vs 2652 opp
#12. Radjabov Teimour (AZE 2717) Performance score of 2703: 6/9 (67%) vs 2645 opp
#13. Ivanchuk Vasyl (UKR 2731) Performance score of 2699: 8/13 (62%) vs 2644 opp
#15. Adams Michael (ENG 2720) Performance score of 2694: 8/11 (73%) vs 2579 opp

Board #2:
#6. Akopian Vladimir (ARM 2706) Performance score of 2733: 9/12 (75%) vs 2604 opp
#11. Lautier Joel (FRA 2682) Performance score of 2707: 8/11 (73%) vs 2595 opp
#17. Onischuk Alexander (USA 2650) Performance score of 2690: 7/10 (70%) vs 2600 opp
#18. Dominguez Perez Leinier (CUB 2647) Performance score of 2683: 8/12 (67%) vs 2597 opp
#24. Svidler Peter (RUS 2743) Performance score of 2671: 5/9 (56%) vs 2671 opp
#30. Tiviakov Sergey (NED 2669) Performance score of 2667: 7/11 (64%) vs 2604 opp
#38. Gyimesi Zoltan (HUN 2614) Performance score of 2649: 8/12 (67%) vs 2557 opp
#39. Gashimov Vugar (AZE 2659) Performance score of 2648: 7/10 (70%) vs 2549 opp
#40. Sasikiran Krishnan (IND 2692) Performance score of 2648: 7.5/12 (63%) vs 2582 opp
#44. Vallejo Pons Francisco (ESP 2666) Performance score of 2645: 7.5/12 (63%) vs 2579 opp

Board #3:
#7. Karjakin Sergey (UKR 2661) Performance score of 2731: 8.5/11 (77%) vs 2596 opp
#20. Grischuk Alexander (RUS 2719) Performance score of 2678: 7/11 (64%) vs 2617 opp
#25. Gareyev Timur (UZB 2522) Performance score of 2670: 8/11 (73%) vs 2551 opp
#29. Illescas Cordoba Miguel (ESP 2608) Performance score of 2668: 7/9 (78%) vs 2536 opp
#33. Van Wely Loek (NED 2655) Performance score of 2661: 7.5/11 (68%) vs 2568 opp
#36. Nakamura Hikaru (USA 2664) Performance score of 2657: 7/11 (64%) vs 2592 opp
#45. Leitao Rafael (BRA 2575) Performance score of 2641: 8/10 (80%) vs 2480 opp
#49. Berkes Ferenc (HUN 2593) Performance score of 2627: 7.5/11 (68%) vs 2528 opp
#50. Harikrishna P (IND 2680) Performance score of 2627: 8/12 (67%) vs 2531 opp
#51. Delchev Aleksander (BUL 2640) Performance score of 2626: 8/12 (67%) vs 2530 opp

Board #4:
#2. Wang Yue (CHN 2598) Performance score of 2748: 10/12 (83%) vs 2569 opp
#32. Laznicka Viktor (CZE 2551) Performance score of 2663: 7.5/10 (75%) vs 2537 opp
#35. Avrukh Boris (ISR 2633) Performance score of 2658: 7.5/10 (75%) vs 2531 opp
#37. Morozevich Alexander (RUS 2730) Performance score of 2651: 6/9 (67%) vs 2581 opp
#43. Gagunashvili Merab (GEO 2560) Performance score of 2647: 7.5/10 (75%) vs 2517 opp
#59. Balogh Csaba (HUN 2576) Performance score of 2617: 7/10 (70%) vs 2511 opp
#63. Zelcic Robert (CRO 2525) Performance score of 2612: 9/12 (75%) vs 2460 opp
#72. Fressinet Laurent (FRA 2633) Performance score of 2601: 6/10 (60%) vs 2553 opp
#73. Palo Davor (DEN 2546) Performance score of 2599: 7/10 (70%) vs 2489 opp
#75. Elyanov Pavel (UKR 2665) Performance score of 2598: 5.5/9 (61%) vs 2548 opp

Board 5:
#14. Sargissian Gabriel (ARM 2612) Performance score of 2696: 10/13 (77%) vs 2540 opp
#23. Wojtaszek Radoslaw (POL 2597) Performance score of 2672: 8/10 (80%) vs 2517 opp
#46. Iuldachev Saidali (UZB 2480) Performance score of 2640: 6.5/8 (81%) vs 2494 opp
#61. Bareev Evgeny (RUS 2701) Performance score of 2614: 5.5/9 (61%) vs 2568 opp
#76. Kaidanov Gregory (USA 2603) Performance score of 2598: 5/7 (71%) vs 2508 opp
#86. Gelashvili Tamaz (GEO 2576) Performance score of 2591: 5.5/8 (69%) vs 2504 opp
#89. Zhigalko Andrey (BLR 2511) Performance score of 2587: 7/10 (70%) vs 2475 opp
#97. Popovic Dusan (SCG 2496) Performance score of 2582: 9.5/13 (73%) vs 2431 opp
#100. Ni Hua (CHN 2607) Performance score of 2581: 5.5/9 (61%) vs 2527 opp
#110. Moiseyenko Alexander (UKR 2662) Performance score of 2572: 4/6 (67%) vs 2513 opp

Board 6:
#101. Graf Alexander (GER 2592) Performance score of 2580: 5.5/8 (69%) vs 2490 opp
#108. Cvek Robert (CZE 2503) Performance score of 2574: 4.5/7 (64%) vs 2517 opp
#154. Nikolaidis Ioannis (GRE 2518) Performance score of 2542: 4.5/6 (75%) vs 2431 opp
#166. L'ami Erwin (NED 2565) Performance score of 2536: 3.5/5 (70%) vs 2463 opp
#171. Lenic Luka (SLO 2466) Performance score of 2534: 4.5/7 (64%) vs 2466 opp
#178. Arutinian David (GEO 2532) Performance score of 2530: 4.5/6 (75%) vs 2415 opp
#187. Mikhalevski Victor (ISR 2566) Performance score of 2526: 5/7 (71%) vs 2417 opp
#188. Tihonov Jurij (BLR 2472) Performance score of 2525: 4/6 (67%) vs 2451 opp
#189. Quezada Perez Yuniesky (CUB 2512) Performance score of 2524: 6/9 (67%) vs 2425 opp
#191. Akobian Varuzhan (USA 2575) Performance score of 2522: 4.5/7 (64%) vs 2450 opp
Posted by: Jeff Sonas at June 4, 2006 17:11

Also congrats to 12-year-old Chinese player Hou Yifan, who got the silver medal on women's board four with a 11/13 score; and to Zhao Xue, who got the best rating performance award (2617).
Posted by: albert at June 4, 2006 17:16

Carlsen started playing on the 6th day because of his final school exams. He didn't have any rest in the olympics. I am sure that he'd play all 13 games if he was in Italy from day 1.
Posted by: Xaurus at June 4, 2006 17:45

Actually it looks like Russia was unlucky. I think the teams that start out successfully tend to face the strongest opposition overall, and that was certainly true here. Russia's average opponent rating was 2616, more than 30 points higher than China, who faced the second-toughest opposition at an average of 2585. Next were Ukraine (2580), Armenia (2574), Netherlands (2573), USA (2569), and Czech Republic (2561).

So if you sort by overall performance score, the list looks like this:

#1. Armenia: 36/52 vs. 2574 for an overall performance score of 2747
#2. Russia: 32/52 vs. 2616 for an overall performance score of 2729
#3. China: 34/52 vs. 2585 for an overall performance score of 2728
#4. USA: 33/52 vs. 2569 for an overall performance score of 2699
#5. Ukraine: 32/52 vs. 2580 for an overall performance score of 2695
#6. Israel: 33/52 vs. 2550 for an overall performance score of 2681
#7. Netherlands: 31/52 vs. 2573 for an overall performance score of 2674
#8. France: 32/52 vs. 2556 for an overall performance score of 2672
#9. Hungary: 32.5/52 vs. 2542 for an overall performance score of 2666
#10. Czech Republic: 31/52 vs. 2561 for an overall performance score of 2663
#11. Uzbekistan: 31/52 vs. 2559 for an overall performance score of 2661
#12. Spain: 32/52 vs. 2542 for an overall performance score of 2659
#13. Bulgaria: 32/52 vs. 2537 for an overall performance score of 2654
#14. Cuba: 30.5/52 vs. 2554 for an overall performance score of 2649
#15. Germany: 31/52 vs. 2540 for an overall performance score of 2643

Seems like Armenia was a very deserving winner, China and Russia deserved the other two medals, and the USA was very fortunate to sneak in with the bronze.

Also for all the talk of Vladimir Kramnik being selectively played just to have a high percentage score, I should point out that he faced, by far, the toughest average opposition of anyone in the whole Olympiad. If you have a player with questionable health who will only be at his best for a few games, and that player demonstrates an unusual preference for White in his results, I think it seems like excellent match strategy to hold him out to only play against strong opponents and especially when he has White. Here are the 25 players who faced the strongest average opposition:

#1. Kramnik Vladimir (RUS 2729) Performance score of 2763: 6.5/9 (72%) vs 2686 opp
#21. Gelfand Boris (ISR 2727) Performance score of 2676: 5/9 (56%) vs 2677 opp
#24. Svidler Peter (RUS 2743) Performance score of 2671: 5/9 (56%) vs 2671 opp
#3. Bu Xiangzhi (CHN 2640) Performance score of 2743: 8/12 (67%) vs 2669 opp
#9. Aronian Levon (ARM 2756) Performance score of 2721: 7/11 (64%) vs 2669 opp
#26. Kasimdzhanov Rustam (UZB 2673) Performance score of 2669: 5.5/10 (55%) vs 2666 opp
#28. Kamsky Gata (USA 2671) Performance score of 2668: 5.5/10 (55%) vs 2664 opp
#55. Sokolov Ivan (NED 2676) Performance score of 2621: 5/11 (45%) vs 2662 opp
#57. Nielsen Peter Heine (DEN 2646) Performance score of 2619: 5/11 (45%) vs 2660 opp
#10. Bruzon Batista Lazaro (CUB 2652) Performance score of 2707: 7/11 (64%) vs 2652 opp
#5. Bacrot Etienne (FRA 2708) Performance score of 2737: 6/8 (75%) vs 2651 opp
#12. Radjabov Teimour (AZE 2717) Performance score of 2703: 6/9 (67%) vs 2645 opp
#53. Anand Viswanathan (IND 2803) Performance score of 2623: 4.5/9 (50%) vs 2645 opp
#13. Ivanchuk Vasyl (UKR 2731) Performance score of 2699: 8/13 (62%) vs 2644 opp
#42. Jobava Baadur (GEO 2646) Performance score of 2647: 5.5/10 (55%) vs 2639 opp
#4. Navara David (CZE 2658) Performance score of 2739: 8.5/12 (71%) vs 2637 opp
#27. Naiditsch Arkadij (GER 2664) Performance score of 2669: 6/10 (60%) vs 2635 opp
#16. Georgiev Kiril (BUL 2677) Performance score of 2692: 7/11 (64%) vs 2634 opp
#65. Zhang Zhong (CHN 2640) Performance score of 2609: 4/8 (50%) vs 2633 opp
#8. Carlsen Magnus (NOR 2646) Performance score of 2722: 6/8 (75%) vs 2632 opp
#31. Almasi Zoltan (HUN 2657) Performance score of 2664: 6.5/11 (59%) vs 2628 opp
#179. Dao Thien Hai (VIE 2560) Performance score of 2529: 3.5/10 (35%) vs 2617 opp
#20. Grischuk Alexander (RUS 2719) Performance score of 2678: 7/11 (64%) vs 2617 opp
#22. Agrest Evgenij (SWE 2570) Performance score of 2676: 6.5/10 (65%) vs 2613 opp
#70. Shirov Alexei (ESP 2699) Performance score of 2603: 5.5/11 (50%) vs 2612 opp
Posted by: Jeff Sonas at June 4, 2006 17:49

Interesting stuff, JS.

Btw, any plans to bring the Chessmetrics site up to date?
Posted by: klmno at June 4, 2006 17:53

Yeah, I just need a little more free time to fit in the work. Probably sometime later this year.
Posted by: Jeff Sonas at June 4, 2006 18:03

It's amazing how much crap are established true simply by repetition with virtually nothing to back them up.

Ignoring the first two matches against the powerhouses of Latvia and Kazakhstan, Russia has held out Kramnik exactly twice, once, when he would have been black against David Navara (2658 rating, Kramnik's opponent's average is 2686) and once in the final round against Boris Gelfand, when Kramnik would have had white. Kramnik had white 5 times, against Naiditsch, Aronian, Alexandrov, Bacrot and Bruzon and black 4, against Bu, Sokolov, Ivanchuk and Kamsky. This isn't even a case of him facing tougher opposition with white than with black. The first two rounds excepting, other Board 1 GMs had anywhere from 0 to 2 games off.

So: 1. Kramnik's use of rest days was neither extraordinary nor high. 2. He was not selectively used with white, and in fact, as Board 1, could hardly have been.
Posted by: Yuriy Kleyner at June 4, 2006 18:54

I agree with Yuriy. But , still, I think that he should have played the last round as that might have made the difference between getting a team medal and not getting a team medal.
Posted by: peach at June 4, 2006 19:31

Hey Jeff, you’re the best! How about some statistics on the woman’s olympiad?
Posted by: Andy Morris-Friedman at June 4, 2006 19:48

I doubt anyone would have guessed board 3 and 4 losses. Russia was plenty stacked against a team that was much weaker on paper.
Posted by: DP at June 4, 2006 19:49

Congrats to the USA Mens team on their great final day to bring home the Bronze medal!! Yipee!
Posted by: Greg Shahade at June 4, 2006 21:03

Here is how the board rankings look for the women:

Board #1:
#1. Zhao Xue (CHN 2423) Performance score of 2590: 10/13 (77%) vs 2416 opp
#2. Zhukova Natalia (UKR 2425) Performance score of 2583: 7/9 (78%) vs 2432 opp
#4. Stefanova Antoaneta (BUL 2502) Performance score of 2542: 9/12 (75%) vs 2377 opp
#6. Hoang Thanh Trang (HUN 2487) Performance score of 2536: 9.5/13 (73%) vs 2377 opp
#7. Muzychuk Anna (SLO 2418) Performance score of 2523: 7/10 (70%) vs 2397 opp
#10. Cmilyte Viktorija (LTU 2470) Performance score of 2510: 9.5/12 (79%) vs 2312 opp
#11. Koneru Humpy (IND 2548) Performance score of 2508: 8/12 (67%) vs 2390 opp
#13. Peptan Corina Isabela (ROM 2408) Performance score of 2497: 7.5/11 (68%) vs 2372 opp
#15. Kosteniuk Alexandra (RUS 2540) Performance score of 2494: 6/10 (60%) vs 2423 opp
#16. Mkrtchian Lilit (ARM 2453) Performance score of 2491: 7.5/12 (63%) vs 2396 opp

Board #2:
#3. Kosintseva Tatiana (RUS 2489) Performance score of 2566: 9.5/12 (79%) vs 2379 opp
#8. Lahno Katerina (UKR 2468) Performance score of 2517: 7/9 (78%) vs 2351 opp
#14. Krush Irina (USA 2437) Performance score of 2496: 8/11 (73%) vs 2342 opp
#18. Danielian Elina (ARM 2422) Performance score of 2484: 8.5/12 (71%) vs 2335 opp
#22. Dzagnidze Nana (GEO 2454) Performance score of 2454: 7/10 (70%) vs 2313 opp
#23. Kachiani-Gersinska Ketino (GER 2421) Performance score of 2451: 8.5/12 (71%) vs 2296 opp
#28. Foisor Cristina Adela (ROM 2392) Performance score of 2443: 8/12 (67%) vs 2312 opp
#34. Rogule Laura (LAT 2309) Performance score of 2433: 7/11 (64%) vs 2323 opp
#35. Voiska Margarita (BUL 2314) Performance score of 2430: 6.5/10 (65%) vs 2314 opp
#38. Botsari Anna-Maria (GRE 2341) Performance score of 2418: 5.5/9 (61%) vs 2327 opp

Board #3:
#9. Yanovska-Gaponenko Inna (UKR 2430) Performance score of 2511: 7/9 (78%) vs 2343 opp
#12. Kosintseva Nadezhda (RUS 2469) Performance score of 2504: 7.5/10 (75%) vs 2344 opp
#17. Javakhishvili Lela (GEO 2410) Performance score of 2485: 8.5/11 (77%) vs 2300 opp
#26. Goletiani Rusudan (USA 2371) Performance score of 2447: 8.5/12 (71%) vs 2291 opp
#31. Sharevich Anna (BLR 2281) Performance score of 2437: 9/12 (75%) vs 2252 opp
#37. Milliet Sophie (FRA 2330) Performance score of 2419: 8.5/12 (71%) vs 2258 opp
#42. Vajda Szidonia (HUN 2403) Performance score of 2409: 5.5/9 (61%) vs 2316 opp
#57. Pokorna Regina (SVK 2338) Performance score of 2384: 7/10 (70%) vs 2228 opp
#60. Swathi Ghate (IND 2262) Performance score of 2378: 7.5/12 (63%) vs 2262 opp
#61. Shen Yang (CHN 2411) Performance score of 2377: 5/9 (56%) vs 2309 opp

Board #4:
#5. Hou Yifan (CHN 2298) Performance score of 2539: 11/13 (85%) vs 2305 opp
#20. Ushenina Anna (UKR 2397) Performance score of 2464: 7/10 (70%) vs 2325 opp
#30. Berlin Tatiana (BLR 2207) Performance score of 2438: 6/7 (86%) vs 2228 opp
#36. Kovalevskaya Ekaterina (RUS 2460) Performance score of 2429: 5/7 (71%) vs 2294 opp
#49. Arribas Robaina Maritza (CUB 2235) Performance score of 2397: 7.5/10 (75%) vs 2214 opp
#52. Fakhiridou Ekaterini (GRE 2292) Performance score of 2389: 5/7 (71%) vs 2242 opp
#62. Andriasian Siranush (ARM 2237) Performance score of 2374: 5.5/9 (61%) vs 2273 opp
#63. Majdan Joanna (POL 2297) Performance score of 2374: 6/9 (67%) vs 2240 opp
#68. Gara Anita (HUN 2367) Performance score of 2370: 4.5/7 (64%) vs 2257 opp
#71. Pham Bich Ngoc (VIE 2080) Performance score of 2367: 3.5/5 (70%) vs 2238 opp

And the team totals look like the medal order (Ukraine-Russia-China) were well-deserved. Note that some teams had games vs. unrated players so that's why the scores don't all add up. Here were the team totals:
#1. Ukraine: 28/37 vs. 2362 for an overall performance score of 2584
#2. Russia: 28/39 vs. 2366 for an overall performance score of 2562
#3. China: 27.5/39 vs. 2352 for an overall performance score of 2539
#4. Georgia: 24.5/39 vs. 2336 for an overall performance score of 2469
#5. USA: 24.5/39 vs. 2333 for an overall performance score of 2466
#6. Hungary: 24.5/39 vs. 2327 for an overall performance score of 2461
#7. Armenia: 23/38 vs. 2325 for an overall performance score of 2442
#8. India: 23/39 vs. 2326 for an overall performance score of 2432
#9. Bulgaria: 23/39 vs. 2317 for an overall performance score of 2424
#10. Slovenia: 22/37 vs. 2301 for an overall performance score of 2411
Posted by: Jeff Sonas at June 4, 2006 21:24

The true bricklayer for the Russian team was Rublevsky.
Posted by: Laj at June 4, 2006 22:30

"Congrats to the USA Mens team on their great final day to bring home the Bronze medal!! Yipee"

And no Susan Polgar type pioneer hype either.
Posted by: peach at June 4, 2006 23:05

Aside from opponents' ratings, could the times a team play on top boards reflect its strength? Only strong players win and only winners play on top boards. Here's the medal teams' showing:

Armenia: bd1=7x, bd2=1x, bd3=1x
China: bd1=2x, bd2=3x, bd3=1x
USA: bd1=0x, bd2=1x, bd3=1x

Poor Russia: bd1=6x, bd2=3x, bd3=4x

Russia seemed to be a deserving medalist....
Posted by: Morning at June 5, 2006 00:31

Congrats to the USA men, and especially to GM Onischuk for his rock solid performance for the U.S. team.
Posted by: g at June 5, 2006 01:19

BRONZE BABY!!!
Posted by: Hikaru Nakamura at June 5, 2006 01:57

On the comment,

"The true bricklayer for the Russian team was Rublevsky."

I disagree, in general the whole team with the exception of Kramnik underperformed in this Olympiad. Rublevsky had a bad moment, but precisely because of this he played only five rounds. But he is the second reserve! The weight if the team during the Olympiad lies in the four top boards and Russia had their top four players in the Olympiad. With the exception of Kramnik, all of them will lose rating points as a consecuence of their "mediocre" (thinking in their own standards) participation. Historically, they have always relied in the hig reputation of their players to win "by default". Well, in the past they could have Kasparov and Karpov in the same team and a high difference between Russia and the rest. Now, differences are much smaller now, so you need to make an extra effort and they didn't.

In the Armenian team, for example, Sargissian will gain 20 rating points (he has had an excellent year so far, remember he won the Reykiavik Open and shared first in Gibraltar!!!); Akopian 13 and Aronian 2 points (despite his very high rating). Only Asrian loses points (not too much), mainly due to a lot of draws.

I am happy for Aronian, not only for being the head of this historical achievement for his country, but also for confirming once more his presence as the new star of the game. He still has a lot to learn, but he is there, as one of the best four of five players in the world (considering Topalov, Kramnik, Anand and sometimes Ivanchuk the other ones). Hopefully, the support of his Armenian teammates (I hope Akopian could join to Aronian's team in the future) would help him and viceversa; his success could serve as a motivation for his countrymen to improve.

Congratulations to the US team and also, I praise a good performance of Cubans again. Bruzon and Dominguez are very talented, and I hope they could get a chance to participate in more tournaments and I hope Cuba could help them to get team of trainers to go to the next step. Is is quite difficult if there is no chance in your country to make a big leap if there is such a big difference between the two top players and the rest. They monopolize the Cuban national championships (they alternate National titles) and also, because of their success, this year was impossible to organize the traditional "Capablanca in Memoriam" this year; because in order to put them they need to bring strong foreign players to compete with them (like Ivanchuk and Jobava last year, otherwise, they could even compromise their rating points in home event by facing very weak opposition), but this is too expensive in a country like Cuba and this year is wasn't possible to do it.
Posted by: Pascual at June 5, 2006 02:16

"barnrumpa" my fanny...you showed 'em Mr. Nakamura. Wear that medal with pride. Here's a double shot salute to your whole team. I hope you all got good and plastered or at least have pleasant chess dreams for weeks while you rest up.
Posted by: whiskeyrebel at June 5, 2006 02:49

Thank you Jeff for the per team results.

However could you double check it: the "average rating opposition" are surprising low (USA or Russia have only played about 5 players below 2400, yet average opposition is below 2400) - also Hungary is in while France is not in the top 10. Are you using FIDE ratings?
Posted by: zarghev at June 5, 2006 03:21

the USA team did great! Amazing we get the bronze!
Posted by: cotdt at June 5, 2006 04:28

zarghev -

The latest set of numbers was for the women; the previous sets were for the men. Did you understand that?
Posted by: Jeff Sonas at June 5, 2006 04:44

Hey guys, where can the GM and IM norms be found?
Posted by: paolosmash at June 5, 2006 06:37

Jeff - sorry my bad, I missed the first set of numbers
thank you so much !
Posted by: zarghev at June 5, 2006 06:45

As I already said, Armenian and Jewish genetic superiority is proven again. 1st and 4th place, for those two tiny nations.

And all this is said not even taking in account all the jewish and armenian players from other teams...
Posted by: Ruslan at June 5, 2006 08:19

Hallo, anyone knows where to find the GM and IM norms scored in Turin? Thanks!
Posted by: paolosmash at June 5, 2006 08:20

And by the way, Kramnik has the best rating performance of the tournament. Hey guys, I agree that I'm a troll. I agree that I'm an idiot. I agree that I'm funny. But even as a troll, all my predictions finally aren't too bad...

I've said that Armenian blood and Jewish blood were the best ones. You can see the result.

I've been the first one (if not the only one) on this site to say that Kramnik would beat Topalov. Ok, it's not done yet, but now everybody must at least recognize that with a 2850 performance, with 0 defeats, Kramnik does not looks like a victim any more in the umcoming match...

Last idea about Kramnik, he has played 9 games, and nobody has proven able to reach a dangerous position against him. Which does not proves yet that he's back to his best level, but is a clear sign that his illness is gone.

My predictions for 2006-2007 ?
- Western countries will leave FIDE.
- Kramnik will defeat Topalov (+2 for Kramnik). Kramnik will reach 2800 again.
- About Radjabov Kramnik : tied match, title kept by Kramnik.
- Jeff Sonas will be responsible for ratings in the brand new world chess federation.
- Kamsky will cross again the 2700 bareer, and will be back in the top 10.

All this will hapen before xmas 2007. Cut, paste, and let's talk about it in a while, ok?
Posted by: Ruslan at June 5, 2006 08:40

And all this is said not even taking in account all the jewish and armenian players from other teams...

That's because Jews under Kaginosky murdered all the intelligent Russians, Poles, Lithuanians, etc. Who said knocking off the competition doesn't work?
Posted by: Der Strudel at June 5, 2006 08:43

There's a partial list of achieved norms on the last page of the official bulletin, which you can download here:
http://www.fide.com/news/download/turin/turinmoves_12.pdf

Only updated up to 10 rounds it seems. I don't know where to find a complete list.
Posted by: KB at June 5, 2006 08:45

The current system is more than fair - teams that decimate their opponents should be rewarded. Just winning one on one matches allows for all kinds of annoying, drawish strategies simply because you want to get a victory on the sole board where you might have an advantage.

Moreover, the current system has been in place for a long time and it was known that these were the rules teams would play by. Sour grapes after the fact isn't good sportsmanship.
Posted by: Laj at June 5, 2006 08:59

If you look at the final result, USA is a 300 million people country. China is one billion and a half. Hungary is 10 millions, Russia 160 millions, France and Ukraine 60 millions ... and the winner, Armenia, has 2 million habitants.

So what's Armenia?

14% of the world champions,
10% of the active player rated above 2700,
5% of the players rated above 2600,
1,7% of the (almost) 1000 active GMs,
0.03% of mankind (2 millions out of 6500).

Of course, most of you won't agree with those "genetic" things. So here am I, coming with another idiot question :

How is it possible that 17 GMs and 22 IMs in armenia end up in 2 players above 2700 and 6 players above 2600, that Armenia's best player is Nr3 in the world (not even talking about KasparIAN) and that 60 GMs and 187 IMs in Germany produce 0 players above 2700, 3 above 2600, with best player being 83th world player ? (not taking in account Naiditsch, Jussupow and Khenkin who are obviously not from german origines)

Here is my question about genes, chess, and talent.
Posted by: Ruslan at June 5, 2006 09:33

Please Ruslan let´s avoid "genetic" themes, they were already mishandled by a few mythomanes in the past...
Posted by: paolosmash at June 5, 2006 09:46

Regarding to debate between the merits of the scoring system. Given the deficiencies that have been pointed out with respect to the use of the accumulated game points system (as is used in the FIDE Chess Olympiad), and a proposed match point system (based on achieving overall match victories, even if by only a minimal margin), doesn't it make sense to employ a hybrid system, which would ameliorate the less desireable ramifications of each "pure" system?

I would recommend a scoring system which would give a team 2 points for winning a match, and 1 point for drawing a match. Additionally, a team would also be awarded all of the game points that it earns in a particular match.

Thus, in a match where Team A beat Team B by a score of 2.5-1.5, Team A would receive 4.5 points (2 + 2.5), while Team B would earn 1.5 points.

If a Team scores a 4-0 sweep, they would get 6 points for that match, while their feeble opposition would get nothing.

Here is the range of scoring possibilities:

Winner Loser
(Gamepoints in parentheses
----------------------------------

(4.0) = 6 (0) =0
(3.5) = 5.5 (0.5) =0.5
(3.0) = 5.0 (1.0) =1.0
(2.5) = 4.5 (1.5) =1.5

And in case of a Drawn match, each team would receive:

3 points (1 point for the draw , plus the 2 game points)

I respectfully disagree with Sonas' opinion that the Chinese and the Russians deserved to win medals in the Men's Olympiad.

The fact that China and Russia achieved high overall performance scores only points out the limitations on relying upon statistics to determine qualitative aspects about the merits of a competitor's performance. China may have had a high performance score (and several of their players achieved high performance rating for the event). However, this is to expected when the Chines were able to achieve massive scores against relatively weaker teams. I think it is correct to discount significance of such statistically impressive feats, if one is trying to make a determination about which teams actually merited medals.

Note that according to "TB3" ("3rd" [actually 2nd] Tie-Break), which is based on a match point system of 2 poitns for a match win, 1 point for a drawn match, and 0 points for a match loss, China only earns 17 points; Russia just gets 16.

If you total up China's 34 game points,with their 17 match points, that would give them 51 points.

Armenia, which dominated, has 23 match points and 36 game points, so they have a total of 59.

The USA would end up with 54 points under this system: 33 + 21

Israel: 54 (33 + 21) Although they would be ranked under the USA, with additional tie-breaks

Hungary: 50.5 (32.5 + 18)

Russia: 48 (32 + 16)

France: 51 (32 + 19)

Ukraine: 50 (32 + 18)

Bulgaria: 48 (32 + 16)

Spain: 50 (32 + 18)

Czech Republic: 49 (31 + 18)

Overall, this seems about right.

Israel, and especially the USA, played consistently well throughout the event. They didn't achieve many blow out victories (until the last round). However, both Israel and the USA only lost 1 match. Moreover, they managed to WIN 9 matches each, which is more than either China (8) or Russia (7). Aside from Armenia, the only other teams to win 9 matches were Gergia and Norway...

Scanning the results, it is interesting to observe that there is a full point gap between
# 10 placed (on tiebreak) Spain, with 32 points, and # 11 placed Czech Republic, with just 31 points.

Men's Final Standings

Rk. SNo Team Team Games + = - TB1 TB2 TB3
1 3 Armenia ARM 13 10 3 0 36.0 397.0 23
2 12 China CHN 13 8 1 4 34.0 393.0 17
3 7 USA USA 13 9 3 1 33.0 392.5 21
4 6 Israel ISR 13 9 3 1 33.0 380.5 21
5 16 Hungary HUN 13 7 4 2 32.5 386.5 18
6 1 Russia RUS 13 7 2 4 32.0 410.5 16
7 5 France FRA 13 7 5 1 32.0 396.0 19
8 4 Ukraine UKR 13 8 2 3 32.0 390.5 18
9 10 Bulgaria BUL 13 7 2 4 32.0 385.0 16
10 11 Spain ESP 13 7 4 2 32.0 377.5 18
11 20 Czech Republic CZE 13 7 4 2 31.0 399.0 18
Posted by: DOug at June 5, 2006 09:58

ERMENKOV! After a rough start, giving up a los and a draw in his first 6 games, GM Evgenij Ermenkov (2462), buckled down, and won his final 4 games. His 8.5/10 was good enough to earn the Silver Medal for 1st Board. Ermenkov's will still lose rating points though: His Performance Rating was just 2345.

In the Men's Olympiad, players from Muslim countries swept all 3 medal for 1st Board, AND all 3 medals for 5th Board (1st Reserve), plus the Silver and Bronze for 6th Board.

FIDE has been perhaps TOO successful in emulating the ways that the United Nations functions!

Board 1
Rk. Name Rtg Team % Games RtgAvg Pts. Rp
1 Gillani Tanveer Mohyuddin 2279 Pakistan 87.5 8 1980 7.0 2316
2 GM Ermenkov Evgenij 2462 Palestine 85.0 10 2049 8.5 2345
3 GM Hamdouchi Hichem 2559 Morocco 75.0 10 2474 7.5 2667
4 GM Bacrot Etienne 2708 France 75.0 8 2640 6.0 2833
5 GM Carlsen Magnus 2646 Norway 75.0 8 2627 6.0 2820

Board 2
Rk. Name Rtg Team % Games RtgAvg Pts. Rp
1 IM Oms Pallise Josep 2496 Andorra 81.8 11 2337 9.0 2599
2 Dew Brian 2147 Hong Kong 77.8 9 2049 7.0 2269
3 IM Iturrizaga Eduardo 2232 Venezuela 77.3 11 2397 8.5 2608
4 GM Akopian Vladimir 2706 Armenia 75.0 12 2585 9.0 2778
5 IM Mahmood Ahmad Lodhi 2355 Pakistan 75.0 8 2198 6.0 2391

Board 3
Rk. Name Rtg Team % Games RtgAvg Pts. Rp
1 Larrea Manuel 2278 Uruguay 87.5 8 2105 7.0 2441
2 GM Leitao Rafael 2575 Brazil 80.0 10 2471 8.0 2711
3 GM Illescas Cordoba Miguel 2608 Spain 77.8 9 2534 7.0 2754
4 GM Karjakin Sergey 2661 Ukraine 77.3 11 2587 8.5 2798
5 GM Gareyev Timur 2522 Uzbekistan 72.7 11 2541 8.0 2716
Board 4
Rk. Name Rtg Team % Games RtgAvg Pts. Rp
1 GM Wang Yue 2598 China 83.3 12 2564 10.0 2837
2 GM Zelcic Robert 2525 Croatia 75.0 12 2427 9.0 2620
3 GM Avrukh Boris 2633 Israel 75.0 10 2519 7.5 2712
4 GM Laznicka Viktor 2551 Czech Republic 75.0 10 2518 7.5 2711
5 GM Gagunashvili Merab 2560 Georgia 75.0 10 2508 7.5 2701
6 IM Liiva Riho 2411 Estonia 75.0 10 2394 7.5 2587

Board 5
Rk. Name Rtg Team % Games RtgAvg Pts. Rp
1 FM Al-Qudaimi Basheer 2396 Yemen 100.0 7 2183 7.0 2627
2 Karim Amer 2260 Pakistan 93.8 8 2042 7.5 2486
3 Laith Ali 2179 Iraq 92.9 7 2082 6.5 2504
4 Yee Soon Wei 2288 Brunei Darussalam 92.9 7 1856 6.5 2278
5 IM Wohl Aleksandar 2432 Australia 87.5 8 2313 7.0 2649

Board 6
Rk. Name Rtg Team % Games RtgAvg Pts. Rp
1 Phiri Richmond 0 Zambia 92.9 7 1916 6.5 2338
2 Pg Mohd Omar Ak Hirawan 2335 Brunei Darussalam 92.9 7 1788 6.5 2210
3 Haidary Hameedullah 0 Afghanistan 83.3 9 1914 7.5 2187
4 Ho Cheng Fai 2023 Macau 80.0 10 1880 8.0 2120
5 Kawuma Moses 2205 Uganda 75.0 10 1778 7.5 1971
Posted by: DOug at June 5, 2006 10:24

One should not be afraid to dig into the issue Ruslan has brought up. I think there's not much going on in Armenia to distract players from chess, while Germany fe had been living towards the World Cup soccer for the past eight years..
Posted by: Peter at June 5, 2006 10:29

Board Prizes for Women:

Congratulations to WIM Zsiltzova-Lisenko of the IBCA for winning the Gold medal on Board 1

Irina Krush achieved a fine score of 8.0/11 on Board 2 for the USA.

Fiona Steil-Antoni, o Luxembourg rated just 1968, played at a Master Performance rate to win the Board 2 Gold Medal.

Board 2 seemed to provide good opportunities to players from smaller countries: The winner of the Men's Board # 2 Gold Medal was from even tinier Andorra: IM Oms Pallise (who played "real" chess, achieving a Performance Rating of 2599!)

Women players from Muslim countries also achieved a fine medal haul:

An Iraqi won Silver on Board # 1

A Emirati (UAE) won the Gold Medal on Board # 3 (with a Performance Rating of 1971)

A Libyan won the Bronze Medal on 4th Board (Reserve); a Yemeni women finished just behind, in clear 4th. They had Performance ratings of 1851 and 1831, respectively.

Board 1
Rk. Name Rtg Team % Games RtgAvg Pts. Rp
1 WIM Zsiltzova-Lisenko Lubov 2263 IBCA 90.0 10 2006 9.0 2372
2 WIM H. Mohammed Eman 2118 Iraq 87.5 8 1902 7.0 2238
3 WIM Sanchez Sarai 2176 Venezuela 81.8 11 2217 9.0 2479
4 IM Cmilyte Viktorija 2470 Lithuania 79.2 12 2300 9.5 2530
5 WGM Zhao Xue 2423 China 76.9 13 2406 10.0 2617

Board 2
Rk. Name Rtg Team % Games RtgAvg Pts. Rp
1 Steil-Antoni Fiona 1968 Luxembourg 83.3 12 1953 10.0 2226
2 IM Lahno Katerina 2468 Ukraine 80.0 10 2258 8.0 2498
3 IM Kosintseva Tatiana 2489 Russia 79.2 12 2368 9.5 2598
4 WIM Bashkite Viktoria 2205 Estonia 77.3 11 2157 8.5 2368
5 IM Krush Irina 2437 USA 72.7 11 2337 8.0 2512

Board 3
Rk. Name Rtg Team % Games RtgAvg Pts. Rp
1 WFM Saleh Nora Mohd 1925 UAE 87.5 8 1635 7.0 1971
2 IM Yanovska-Gaponenko Inna 2430 Ukraine 77.8 9 2311 7.0 2531
3 IM Javakhishvili Lela 2410 Georgia 77.3 11 2283 8.5 2494
4 WIM Sharevich Anna 2281 Belarus 75.0 12 2239 9.0 2432
5 IM Kosintseva Nadezhda 2469 Russia 75.0 10 2328 7.5 2521

Board 4
Rk. Name Rtg Team % Games RtgAvg Pts. Rp
1 WIM Berlin Tatiana 2207 Belarus 87.5 8 2141 7.0 2477
2 WFM Hou Yifan 2298 China 84.6 13 2300 11.0 2596
3 Mawadda Rahal 1601 Libya 81.3 8 1600 6.5 1851
4 Abdulsalam Nadhmia 0 Yemen 78.6 7 1601 5.5 1831
5 WGM Benderac Ana 2293 Serbia & Montenegro 77.3 11 2108 8.5 2319

Posted by: DOug at June 5, 2006 10:43

A regional league in which I used to play, used a scoring system very similar to the one outlined by Doug. I agree it's a good compromise between personal and team points.
Posted by: Alex Shternshain at June 5, 2006 11:01

Whiskeyrebel--

For his fine performance cut Barnrumpamura some slack--but not too much.
Posted by: greg koster at June 5, 2006 11:19

Is Ermenkov really playing for Palestine?

And who's the Armenian world champion who isn't Petrosian? I thought Gazza came from what is now Azerbaijan. Didn't he come from Baku and isn't that in Azerbaijan?
Posted by: rdh at June 5, 2006 11:53

From Baku but born to an Armenian mother.
Posted by: acirce at June 5, 2006 12:25

Gazza was born in Azerbaijan, but by ethnicity he's half-Armenian (the other half is Jewish). I guess that makes 1.5 Armenian world champions, not 2.
Posted by: Alex Shternshain at June 5, 2006 12:42

Doug, your proposed system might be interesting, but you can'use it to infer results from a competition in which another system was used, since then, pairings would have been different, and teams which receive a better final standing would have been opposed to tougher opposition, so I don't think it's directly comparable.
One thing that should definitely not be used, but it is, is using match points and for the tiebreak board points. That may be good in a round-robin, but definitely not in a swiss. In case of 2 teams tied, it's clear that the one facing weaker opposition is more likelyto have a better tiebreak, just the opposite of what we're aiming at. In spite of that it is used for example in European team championships.
Posted by: chessplayer at June 5, 2006 12:45

Peace...

There is really no purpose to debating with Ruslan. He is a bigot who uses ghost logic to support his claims, even though all evidence screams that there is no such thing as a racial intelligence gap, only various group achievement gaps. The guy doesn't even understand genetics well in the least if he thinks that Jews share a unique gene pool that sets them apart from others in their regions or elsewhere. There is no such thing as "Jewish blood" any more than there is such a thing as "Christian blood", "Muslim blood", Hindu blood", etc., so ignore his bigotry and idiocy. The guy wants to take social science back to a bygone era of ignorance, and we should be loathe to entertain his fantasies toward this end.

Hotep,

Maliq
Posted by: Maliq Soter at June 5, 2006 12:51

Maliq,
I'm not going to support any kind of racism or bigotry - I completely agree that generalized statements about races are inappropriate. However, there *is* such a thing as "Jewish blood". See this article for details on the Ashkenazi Jews: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi

Some quotes from the article:

"Ashkenazi Jews, also known as Ashkenazic Jews or Ashkenazim, are Jews descended from the medieval Jewish communities of the Rhineland." (i.e. there is a common "bloodline")

"Ashkenazi Jews accounted for (at their highest) 92% of the world's Jews in 1931 and today make up approximately 80% of Jews worldwide." (i.e. most Jews do share this common gene pool)

And for the reason Ruslan would probably make such assertions as he does:
"Ashkenazi Jews have a noted history of achievement. Though only 0.25% of the world population, Jewish scientists make up 28% of Nobel prize winners in physics, chemistry, medicine, and economics, and have accounted for more than half of world chess champions."

However, to use this information to claim that "Jewish blood" makes one smarter or better at chess is to make an incorrect leap of logic. For example, I would argue and it's probably true that increased emphasis placed on intellectual success in the culture of these people probably accounts for a larger degree of the successes of this group of people in these areas than does genetics.
Posted by: Nick at June 5, 2006 13:29

It's all interesting stuff... statistics and all. But it is a strange system where the 1st ARM does not play the 3rd USA ... the team with the toughest overall opposition RUS (410.5) finishes 6th ...England finishes 19th without playing anyone in the top 20 ....Australia's stellar finish pushes them up into 29th by crushing the Faroe Island & Peru.
One more round (did it not used to be 14?) and it could all be different. Hey, they all knew the number of rounds beforehand but it seems whatever number causes an arbitary end.. add on ARM-USA, CHN-ISR and HUN-RUS and who knows.
Posted by: Paul at June 5, 2006 13:38

Peace...

Nick, I am well aware of the Ashkenazi; I am also aware that the Ashkenazi do not have a gene pool that is unique to other populations that were located in the Rhineland. In addition, a) there is no common ground on who is Ashkenazi, and b) there is no reason why this gene pool (which, again, is not unique to only Ashkenazi) should dominate one's genetic makeup more than the other various geneological influences that connect Jews to the global gene pool. These very arguments for genetic influence on group intelligence have been forwarded time and time again, and each time have met with resounding refutation (most recently in the debunking of Hernnstein and Murray's 1994 book, "The Bell Curve").

Hotep,

Maliq
Posted by: Maliq Soter at June 5, 2006 13:53

Nick: Why can't it be both? Is it not possible that certain cultures place increased emphasis on intellectual success because the members of those cultures are more likely to be genetically predisposed to intellectual success?

Are Kenyans good at running because of genetic aptitude or because their culture places emphasis on running?
Posted by: Alex Shternshain at June 5, 2006 13:59

I can see where this pairings discussion is going ... next Olympiad will be a round robin.

Lookit, it's a Swiss and not so terribly unreasonable to say that the team with the most points after 13 rounds is the winner. If you've ever played in a Swiss, you know you're subject to the vagaries of the pairing system. Not perfect, but still a pretty good basis for a competition. The teams that win are the ones that make the most of their opportunities. The inequities of the pairing system even out over time, generally*, so come back in two years if you didn't like your result.

*See Stoppard's Rosencrantz & Guildenstern for the exception
Posted by: Derek at June 5, 2006 14:36

Peace...

Alex, there is no group that is genetically opposed to learning. We are ALL students of existence from the moment that we are born. It is highly dubious to claim that one collective simply succeeds because this particular racial or ethnic group is genetically programmed to pursue intellectual stimulation, while another group is not. There exists way too much within-group variance for us to claim that between-group variance is the result of group-specific genetic factors. Furthermore, genetic makeup does not lend itself to adoption of culture; social context does. No group is going to hold uniform cultural values regardless of time and place unless it has interacted with others who have held those cultural values. This is to say that members of Group A, if thrown into a new society as orphaned infants, will not develop cultural norms of their parents' societies unless they are exposed to them in the new society. On a more grand scale, this is why blacks in the United States whose ancestry hails from southwestern Africa nevertheless find some societal customs and norms of those areas unique at best and objectionable at worst. Therefore, to summarize, no, there is no evidence that genetic composition is responsible for cultural values, and actually evidence to the contrary.

Hotep,

Maliq
Posted by: Maliq Soter at June 5, 2006 15:03

Pascual,

Look at some of the people that Rublevsky lost to. Yes, the whole Russian team underperformed, but some of Rublevsky's losses, given that he is the Russian champion, were simply perplexing.

Laj.
Posted by: Laj at June 5, 2006 16:45

"Lookit, it's a Swiss and not so terribly unreasonable to say that the team with the most points after 13 rounds is the winner."

It is not a really a swiss because you can easily leapfrog. That's what happened with Hungary. Score 4 and reach the top, and get higher than all the top teams, because they can score reasonably 2 or 2.5 against other strong opponents.

In a swiss, if you draw your game, a lower ranked player will not get higher ranked than you - at best it will be equal. So it makes sense lower ranked player plays another lower ranked player.
In the Olympiad, if you draw a match with another team, a lower team can perfectly leapfrog you, by just beating a lower team: then why didn't you get the chance to play the lower team instead?
Posted by: zarghev at June 5, 2006 17:11

it all cancels out or something. if stomping on lower rateds is easy then the US would have put its foot down. so stomping on lower rateds is not easy. if stomping on higher rateds is easy then china would have stomped on higher rateds. so stomping on higher rateds is not easy. china had a strong boards 1 and 4. us had a strong boards 2 and 3. 1 and 4 wins because 1 is important it's the leader spot.
Posted by: superfreaky at June 5, 2006 18:08

So a lot of you are discusing my posts, and as usual nobody answers to the basic questions :

Armenia -->
39 titled players
2 players above 2700
4 players above 2600

Israel -->
77 titled players
1 player above 2700
3 players above 2600

Germany -->
247 titled players
0 player above 2700
3 players above 2600

There are 18 players rated above 2700. 4 are jewish or armenian.

Kenyan people run faster because thousands of years of running have modified their genes. Jewish and Armenian people think better because thousands of years of religion, philosophy and art practise have made their brains, memory, calculating abilities, and artistic abilities simply better.

I am armenian, I was able to read in russian when I was a little bit less than 3, and in french as well at 3 and a half. So was my father. Another armenian friend told me that at 2 y.o. he took a book, told her mother that he could read, his mother answered "yeah yeah my son", and he started to spell the big letters on the first page of the book. Most children start reading at age 5, 6 or 7, sometimes with problems.

Of course, today's theories tend to say that there is no genetic difference, because such evolution theories have proven terribly dangerous in the past. But again, this changes very little to the fact that there are genetic differences, that some ethnic groups, civilizations, races, call them the way you want are more efficient in certain tasks than other groups.
Posted by: Ruslan at June 5, 2006 20:32

... therefore, Armenian success at the Olympiads is just normal : it's quite easy to win with such superior genes. Jewish and Armenian people should be simply not allowed to play at chess : this game is way to easy for them. They are genetic cheaters.
Posted by: Ruslan at June 5, 2006 20:36

"*See Stoppard's Rosencrantz & Guildenstern for the exception"

lol. "Heads. Heads. Heads. Heads."
Posted by: jonas at June 5, 2006 20:46

Ruslan,

Nobody is arguing the basic point that there is a CORRELATION between ethnicity and ability in certain areas. People of certain ethnic backgrounds exhibit, on the average, better chess skills... or better skills at winning Nobel prizes.

What yet remains to be proven is the CAUSALITY. A simple example where corellation exists but causality does not: Basketball players are on the average taller than non-basketball players. However, playing basketball does not cause one to become taller.

So, there is no need to recite the number of chessplayers/GMs/Champions that each nation has. We agree on the correlation -- we'd have to be insane not to. What remains yet-unproven are the following two points:

a. That in this case, we can go from correlation to causality.
b. That this causality is of genetic nature.

That's what needs to be discussed, and not further 'proof' of correlation (which is proven anyway) followed by unfounded logical leaps to causality.
Posted by: Alex Shternshain at June 5, 2006 21:48

Hikaru,

Incredible performance!! You absolutely have to annotate that crazy game against Grischuk for Mig in Black Belt, and the following tactical mess against Sutovsky. I thought you gone in both games. Absolutely incredible competitiveness against two of the top players in the world.

-John Anagnost
Posted by: John Anagnost at June 5, 2006 23:32

Hey Ruslan, aren't ARONian and AKOPian Jewish? Aren't you taking credit for Jewish accomplishments?
Posted by: Der Strudel at June 5, 2006 23:43

Greetings!

Has anyone computed whether Magnus Carlsen will reach 2700 on June 30th? Assuming he will not have a disaster in the few remaining days of the rating cycle.
Posted by: Lukasz Pruski at June 5, 2006 23:50

I think we can all agree that playing basketball doesn't make you tall, any more than playing chess makes you Armenian.

The question is, does being tall make you a better basketball player, and does being Armenian make you a better chess player?
Posted by: John Coleman at June 5, 2006 23:55

Back-of-the-envelope expected rating calculations: Magnus Carlsen will go to about 2770, Sergey Karjakin to about 2780
Posted by: Alex Shternshain at June 6, 2006 00:01

Sorry, that's 2670 and 2680 respectively.
Posted by: Alex Shternshain at June 6, 2006 00:01

Religion, art, culture, society, and whatever else can not make one's genes better, Ruslan. That is Lysenkoism. However, breeding with people who have smarter genes does increase chance of having smarter children.

There are also strong environmental factors:

From 50s to midway through 90s I would say over 90 percent of world title contenders were Russian (Soviet). Now the percentage is slipping. And if you think it's because of migration, show me the wave of young emigre geniuses on the rise.
There are many Armenians worldwide. If it's all about genetics, why has every single Armenian GM I can think of come from USSR?
Posted by: Yuriy Kleyner at June 6, 2006 00:04

I heard that the Chinese team has won the "Nona Gaprindashvili" prize for the best combined men and women's score. Previous prizes had gone to Russia.
Posted by: albert at June 6, 2006 00:54

Maliq:

Most studies show that Jews are smarter than others. For example, they won 30% of the Nobel prizes yet they represent less than 0.2% of the world population. Muslims, on the other hand, represent a much larger section of the world population, and have won practically no Nobel prizes.

If you have numbers that contradict those above, feel free to post them, otherwise stick to what you know, however little.

Chess Auditor
Posted by: Chess Auditor at June 6, 2006 00:56

Thanks, Alex, for the computation of approximate Carlsen's rating (2670). I believe Carlsen is 15 years and 7 months old (correct me if I am wrong - being a mathematician I often have problems with subtraction). According to Jeff Sonas' fabulous site, Kasparov was 2670 at the exact same age, Ponomariov was 2665, and Fischer 2664.
Posted by: Lukasz Pruski at June 6, 2006 01:18

Lucasz,
you are not comparing apples to apples here. For Carlsen, you used the FIDE rating (predicted by me, no guarantee of correctness given), and for the others you used the Chessmetrics rating - which is a different animal.
I wonder how would Carlsen's Chessmetric rating measure up against the great ones - we need to wait for Jeff Sonas to update the site for that.
Posted by: Alex Shternshain at June 6, 2006 01:48

I know, I know, just give me a few months to get my act together... Anyway, a modern FIDE rating should be pretty comparable in magnitude to a Chessmetrics rating; it's the older FIDE ratings that would diverge. So Carlsen's Chessmetrics rating at this age would probably be about the same.
Posted by: Jeff Sonas at June 6, 2006 01:54

According to Norwegian sites, the new FIDE rating is approx. 2676. I don't know if he is to play any tournaments before Biel.
Posted by: 2roll at June 6, 2006 03:35

The fisticuff between Aronian and Gormally:

Apparently Gormally was sent home because some goldbricking layabouting thugish armenian chess playing ruffians jumped Gormally in retaliation for smacking Aronian to the floor.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2212233,00.html
Posted by: superfreaky at June 6, 2006 03:42

Interesting. I guess that explains why ChessBase was so excited about Arianne Caoili...
Posted by: albert at June 6, 2006 04:46

Haha. I hope the hit to the head doesn't drop Aronian's IQ...
Posted by: Der Strudel at June 6, 2006 05:33

I bet Tal took a stiffer wallop to the noggin in Cuba and he survived. As far as the Armenian "ruffians" retaliating..to me it's a sign of strong devotion to the TEAM. I'd value team mates who would watch my back. Of course there's a lot we don't know..how big is Gormally? I've got to admit the thought of Aronian boogeying on a dance floor in energetic fashion makes my lip curl up into a good natured grin. GO MAN, GO! There should be a thread here for anecdotes involving fisticuffs between chess masters. It happens way more often than scholastic chess oriented mags ( such as "chess life") would admit.
Posted by: whiskeyrebel at June 6, 2006 06:23

Magnus Carlsen now has an unofficial FIDE rating of 2676 - and that should put him in the FIDE Top 30 list :)
Posted by: Burnster at June 6, 2006 06:43

Isn't Akobian of Armenian descent? Or was he a GM before he left for the US?

Way I've heard it, it wasn't only Armenian players who got involved.

Arianne Caoili a 'child prodigy'?? I don't think so, not at chess anyway. 'Ambitions to be a professional singer' sounds more like it. Big Brother surely beckons.
Posted by: rdh at June 6, 2006 06:47

Fisticuffs Caoili

I cannot helped but noticed that Keene mentioned only an apology tendered by Beadsworth. There was no mention of any apology by Gormally.
Posted by: apologist at June 6, 2006 07:03

I would really like to hear Kasparov's and Kramnik's opinions on this very important episode that happened in our chess community.
On a positive side, now people know who Danny Gormally is.
Posted by: penguin_with_visor at June 6, 2006 07:24

Arianne Caoili is "the Anna Kournikova of the chess world"? Why did I not know this? Man it's hard to keep up!

Oh wait...maybe they left out "self-described".
Posted by: jonas at June 6, 2006 07:50

Ruslan: "... therefore, Armenian success at the Olympiads is just normal : it's quite easy to win with such superior genes."

Of course. But then your logic fails to explain why there is no Armenian in the top 100/top 200 following lists:
- http://fmjd.org/rating/query.php?listof=100&landvan=world&listabc=a&select2=rating
(on the other hand Netherlands fare well with 33% players there, and Africa does better than in chess with 10% of the players).
- http://www.goweb.cz/progor/ladder.html
(more 95% of them are Asian).

Maybe is it just that your logic has a huge gaping flaw... despite your self-proclamed genetically acquired superior intellect, somehow, you failed to see this giant flaw. Hmm... I'm afraid you made yourself something of a laughting stock. Thank you for the excellent entertainment.
Posted by: zarghev at June 6, 2006 07:57

Ruslan: "... therefore, Armenian success at the Olympiads is just normal : it's quite easy to win with such superior genes."

Perhaps, is it just that your logic might have a huge gaping flaw... despite your self-proclamed genetically acquired superior intellect, somehow, you failed to see this giant flaw. Hmm... I'm afraid you made yourself something of a laughting stock. Thank you for the excellent entertainment.
Posted by: zarghev at June 6, 2006 08:04

Ruslan: In Germany, there are opportunities to do something with your life and lead a respectable, working existence outside of chess. Chess is a crapshoot no matter where you go.

In Israel and Armenia, opportunities are harder to find. Hence people tend to concentrate on professionalism in odd places like chess, and thereby make GM.
Posted by: gmc at June 6, 2006 08:18

I've read the article, and the follow up article, in the paper Time today :). Interesting reading. The Ozzie girl made page three.

Gormally isn't that 'big', but you still wouldn't want to mess with him. When I was researching my chess novel (which you are all too cheap to buy LOL) I remember seeing him in a chess tournament in Blackpool. He was wearing a t-shirt with 'Av it' on it :).
Posted by: Mark Howitt at June 6, 2006 08:27

Peace...

Chess Auditor, please stick to what you know, however little. Studies have NEVER proven one group of people to be smarter than another. As I have said earlier, what studies HAVE indicated is that achievement gaps exist, and all you have highlighted is just such an achievement gap. It just so happens that I focus extensively on social stratification, education, and interactions of the two, so you are in my territory here. Yes, there are studies that claim that one group or another is intellectually superior, and, as I have stated already, those studies have met with resounding refutation. Among other titles, there is "Inequality by Design: Cracking the Bell Curve Myth", by Claude Fischer, et al. (1996).

Please, why forward claims based on Nobel prizes, which are so clearly determined not solely by intelligence, but by the interactions of intelligence, resources, and good fortune? Is brilliance alone going to land one a Nobel Prize, or are there not literally thousands of dollars poured into the research that eventually wins these awards? Are there not selection committees rather than automatons, so that receipt of these awards is purely subjective? Are Nobel Prizes not awarded for research that is considered to make the greatest contribution to humanity rather than to the individual whose findings are strongest? My goodness, your logic has more holes in it than swiss cheese. Indeed, I strain to withhold laughter at someone using numbers of Nobel Prize winners as a proxy for group intelligence and providing useless statistics as support. (Nobel Prizes are rare regardless of which race or ethnicity an individual hails from!)

Hotep,

Maliq
Posted by: Maliq Soter at June 6, 2006 09:25

Hmmm ... that's what I love! It ALWAYS works. No matter how idiot my arguments are, there is no force on earth that can stop an ethnic oriented troll. Thanx Chess Auditor, you're my trollther !!
Posted by: Ruslan at June 6, 2006 10:41

Good points, Maliq.

I guess I should drop my habit of waving the number of Nobels won by alumni of my high school in my wife's face whenever she lambastes me for using the pretentious (to her mind) term, "Stuyvesantian."
(She: "Why is a 'Stuyvesantian' any better than a 'Teaneckian'? Plenty of kids from Teaneck H.S. went to Ivy League colleges, became MDs, scientists, etc."
(Me: "Oh yeah? Well, how many 'Teaneckians' won the Nobel Prize?" That always shuts her up.)

The reference to Claude Fischer in your comment also brings a very weird sort of deja vu, a remote connection to a could-have-been riff on Gormally-Aronian from my own personal history (ancient history). Back in grad school in the late 70s I had a bit of a crush on one of my profs -- who if my now-dim memory doesn't fail me, later ended up married to .... Claude Fischer.
Posted by: flyonthewall at June 6, 2006 10:45

Peace...

Ah, flyonthewall, you are a Stuyvesantian! I am a Bronx Sciencite myself, and this school has also boasted of its Nobel Prize winners ad nauseum for decades. It was never lost on me, however, that the school was advertising itself as a place where intelligent minds could have access to the resources and opportunities which would springboard such an elite trajectory, which is why I am immediately skeptical of number of Nobel laureates as a proxy for group intelligence. More likely, it is a proxy for group opportunity which people of high intelligence can take advantage of if they choose to apply their intellect in a given subset of fields. I doubt that Teaneck HS had the resources of a Bronx Science or Stuyvesant HS, and as clearly intellectually talented as students in NYC's specialized high schools are, I also highly doubt that they would accomplish as much without being afforded the additional advantage of resources.

Hotep,

Maliq
Posted by: Maliq Soter at June 6, 2006 11:02

Are any of you trying to disprove that Jews have not proven themselves to be the best at every art and science imaginable? What preposterous little fellows you are!
Posted by: Chess Auditor at June 6, 2006 11:47

Chess Auditor,

It is quite clear both that you hold bigoted views and that you have no understanding of the arena in which this debate is being held. You cannot swim in these waters. Kindly excuse yourself if you have nothing meaningful to say. You have made idiotic statements many times before, but now you are proving yourself to be an imbecile in addition to a troll. Go back under your bridge and leave true chess fans alone.

Maliq
Posted by: Maliq Soter at June 6, 2006 12:10

Chess Auditor,

You're my deserving alter ego. I guess that I can leave you alone with the thread now, you're doing even better than me...
Posted by: Ruslan at June 6, 2006 13:09

Anyone notice how Gormally, at 30, is *still* living at home with his parents? =P

As for Caoili...piffle. Kournikova, before she cashed in on non-tennis pursuits, was at least ranked in the top 10 of the WTA based on tournament results. While she never won a tournament, that kind of sustained consistency is something Caoili can't exactly claim. She's lower than 2200 FIDE, after all--she can't even claim to be in the top 100 of women chess players...
Posted by: cynical at June 6, 2006 13:31

In fairness to Ms. Caoili, I don't think she described herself as the Kournikova of chess. I think that tag was supplied by the writer(s) of the article to sensationalize the incident a bit for their non-chess playing readers. Facts have seldom stopped Mr. Keene from telling a story his way. Not a commendable trait.
Posted by: D.J. Andrews at June 6, 2006 14:29

My impression is it's a huge insult to be compared with Kournikova. She may have been ranked in the top 10 of women's tennis, yet I don't think she was ever taken seriously as a top-level tennis competitor; the buzz on her was she was all glamour and no substance. So, for instance, I believe that Kosteniuk -- who obviously doesn't shy away from marketing her own glamour -- nevertheless protests when people try to stick her with the "Kournikova of chess" label, because she also wants to be (and deserves to be) taken seriously as a chess player.
Posted by: flyonthewall at June 6, 2006 14:38

Kournikova was respected and successful player for a few seasons. And all that buzz on her was a real value for whole WTA tour. Her impact on women tennis reminds me of Fischer in US.
Posted by: marc at June 6, 2006 15:30

About the only way Miss Caoili is similar to Miss Kournikova is they are both very attractive and both get a lot of attention because of it. I went to Miss Caoili's page. She seems down to earth and for her chess is not even the sole primary interest. She is just a kid who happens to play very good chess. Kournikova was an overrated glam vixen.
Posted by: Yuriy Kleyner at June 6, 2006 15:44

Just came back from vacation and it's strange to be reading all this about Miss Caoili. I think too many people have too much time on their hands. I agree with Yuriy on this one. Cut the kid some slack, she's only 19, let her enjoy it.
Posted by: chesstraveler at June 6, 2006 17:26

GMC, regarding your comments about lack of opportunity in Armenia and Israel. I don’t know about the current economic situation in Armenia, but Israel certainly has a stronger economy then Germany especially as regards to the Ashkenazim community. Israel has a European standard of living despite being dragged down by 20% Arabs, many haredim orthodox, and some but not all Sephardim. Israel has the second most high-tech companies outside the US. Israel 2005 GDP growth was 4.7% despite the anti-fada, and is increasing to 6.6% in first quarter of 2006. Warren Buffet has just expressed his confidence in the Israeli economy by buying 80% of Iscar for 4 billion dollars, his first ever acquisition outside the US. Israeli economy is certainly superior to German 2% growth rates and 10%+ unemployment. All this despite the antifada and recession that followed for 3-4 years after it started. I blame the Israeli government for not starting on the wall as soon as the violence began. With the wall almost complete suicide attack is down and investment and tourism is once again flowing.

By the way, chess players in Israel are almost all part of the 90's wave of Soviet immigration of which I am also a part. Although chess has traditionally been played by Jews, top players have mostly been Russian Jews for many years now.

The argument that Jews and Armenians are genetically superior is most likely false. I can only say that with Jewish family there is a strong emphasize on education and also culturally. In Israel there is always emphasize that we must try to be the best intellectually especially among the Ashkenazim, so this success in the arts and sciences is only hard work and not genetics. Ashkenazim have mixed much since the middle ages and no real direct genetic heritage exists. If you don’t believe me come to Tel Aviv and see for yourself, you'll find hot Jewish girl of all different colors and creeds there.
Posted by: epsilon erdani at June 6, 2006 17:52

Thanks,

you just reminded me why I was so happy when I left Israel...
Posted by: Albrecht von der Lieth at June 6, 2006 18:56

That whole Aronian-Gormally scene had me in stitches. I can just imagine what was going through Gormally's head--- imagine you are already feeling horrible because you are playing at 300 points below your elo rating on 3rd board for a mediocre team (probably been drinking real heavily). Just then, you spot a girl with whom you have had at least some sort of something with Aronian, a hyper-talented, younger, funnier, better looking(?)guy, who is playing first board for the winning team. And they're... dancing(!). Seems innocent enough, but guys like Aronian don't dance for fun... and she seems into it. Snap. You can't bear it any more. Ok I am done, but why is this stuff so irresistible? You know you shouldn't care, but... these are the days of our lives.
Posted by: DP at June 6, 2006 19:17

Peace...

I must say, at the risk of revealing my own biases, that I find it disturbing that a 30-year-old man who lives with his parents is assaulting a 23-year-old over a 19-year-old. Damn it, Gormally, she is more Lev's speed, not yours! Worry about moving out of your parents' home above all else!

Hotep,

Maliq
Posted by: Maliq Soter at June 6, 2006 19:43

In the late-round pictorial reports, Aronian is seen sporting a beard (designer stubble, actually). Was this because his jaw was broken and he couldn't shave?

Also, isn't Aronian married?
Posted by: H L M at June 6, 2006 19:43

"The England team's management was informed of the incident and held an impromptu meeting. By 11am the next day, it had apologised to the Armenian team leader, who also happens to be the country's defence minister."

According to unconfirmed reports, Armenia's blue-water navy has been set in motion towards the British Isles and is expected to arrive by September if the winds blow just right...
Posted by: H L M at June 6, 2006 19:49

Actually, that was in the works before I left and yet the incident happened the day after.
Posted by: DP at June 6, 2006 19:50

I was referencing the beard.
Posted by: DP at June 6, 2006 19:51

At least one thing : you cannot say that Aronian is not better looking, since his genetic heritage is so valuable. Aronian is armenian, hence simply beautiful.
"guys like Aronian don't dance for fun" : any regular human knows that nobody, apart from gays, would be stupid enough to dance for fun. Dancing is a stupid activity intended to display your body skills in order to procreate. It's a love parade.
Posted by: Ruslan at June 6, 2006 20:00

For once I can agree with Ruslan about Armenian superiority. Not in chess, or intellect -- but in physical beauty (both sexes). They and Brazilians have something special, that no other group has.
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at June 6, 2006 20:09

About the Gormally case, why do chess players feel so urgently attracted by the few almost-normal-looking not-too-patzer female chess players? Why are 2 GM competing so hard to bring home a patzer?
I can't understand all the mails I can read about Almira Skripchenko on french threads... she's so ordinary, I wouldn't even turn my eyes in the street, but in a tournament hall all those big-glasses masturbating GMs are ... hell, just mad? Of course for them it's a rare chance to procreate. Not any woman would accept a big-glasses masturbating never-at-home most-of-the-times-pennyless GM at home. Better if she's a chess player so that she can display some understanding... ah ah !!!
Posted by: Ruslan at June 6, 2006 20:13

Arianne Caoili, Almira Skripchenko and Xu Yuhua tryed to cast together for Charlie's angels, but hopefully they didn't get the roles.
Posted by: Ruslan at June 6, 2006 20:19

Ruslan,

You speak with a lot of authority for one who doesn't know a damn thing about the social world. Please, enough of your bigotry!

Maliq
Posted by: Maliq Soter at June 6, 2006 20:28

Just on priciple alone, if I agreed with Ruslan on something...I wouldn't.
Posted by: chesstraveler at June 6, 2006 21:16

well I sort of read it all. except for some of the racist stuff which i skipped over.

for awhile I was so surprised that Rusalan's little game was being ignored. I was so proud of everyone.

then my hero Maliq came in with the most intelligent comments to disprove Ruslan and the boards exploded.

May I say to Maliq. for people like Ruslan who just wants to be the center of attention and will say anything to be there. it is best to ignore them. even the best proof as you presented only played into his hands and Ruslan won the day as everyone had to comment on his rediculous propositions about genetics.

May we all take the pledge here to ignore trolls. and Ruslan revels in calling himself a troll just to get people riled up.

If we can keep our comments to chess then hopefully the trolls will find message boards other places in the universe of the internet and they will go there.

before leaving I will say a few remarks to get everyone excited. I remember seeing a scientific program on tv where they were showing that the Aborigines of Australia had super high intelligence in certain areas but did not score well on standard iq tests which conveniently westerners do not want to measure in themselves.

Everyone knows I am the smartest person in the world and I am not going to have any more kids so intelligence will end with my death. hahaha.
Posted by: tommy at June 6, 2006 21:27

Pistachio...

Ruslan, just realize that your social musings have no power behind them, because Ohio State remains a great university whether you think so or not, it is not a giant cow-pat infested state college diploma mill in the back of Hicksville by any manner of means. Your views on Armenians reminds me of those who wish to ban draw offers because they have a personal aversion to them. Again, never did I speak to the silencing of your voice; I did speak to the apparent overvalue that you place on your own backward pawns.

Horsestuff,

Maldemer
Posted by: maldemer at June 6, 2006 21:43

Albrecht, what do you mean leave, were you living in Israel or just vacationing? If the former, why were you living here?
Posted by: epsilon e at June 6, 2006 22:53

Hmm... the first curse I recall ever reading in a "Maliq Soter" post, and the same post incidentally does not begin with "Peace" or end with "Hotep".

Very subtle, Ruslan or whomever.

-m
Posted by: m at June 6, 2006 23:06

Let's keep a running count of Maliq assertions of expertise on matters social!

C'mon, it'll be fun!
Posted by: macuga at June 6, 2006 23:09

Gays dancing for fun, masturbating over miss Skripchenko and relative intellectual merits of assorted races and their causes. This thread has gotten really stupid. And it's all an Armenian's fault.
Posted by: Yuriy Kleyner at June 6, 2006 23:16

A picture of the love triangle:

http://www.dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,20281,19392740-5001022,00.html

This soap opera is dumb but the alternative is some else's fishing trip.
Posted by: superfreaky at June 7, 2006 00:36

Peace...

Macuga, you miss the point; I am not all-knowing with regard to all matters social, but I AM knowledgeable about where to locate information, how to interpret it, etc. I also do happen to know a bit about these things, but never have I claimed to know all. I DO claim, rightly, to know more about it than Ruslan does, and also to be able to both provide empirical evidence to support my positions and to note the clear flaws in evidence forwarded by others when they exist.

Maldemer, I am not quite sure how to interpret your reference to my university; it appears that you are making fun of Ohio State, and yet you follow by concurring with my perspective. Rather than respond without clear understanding of what your intended meaning is, I shall await clarification.

Hotep,

Maliq
Posted by: Maliq Soter at June 7, 2006 01:30

I can make fun of Ohio State. My alma mater trounced yours at the Horshoe. In"Vince"able. We are the champions...of the world!
Posted by: superfreaky at June 7, 2006 02:46

Pistachio...

Ruslan, the mere fact that one argues from a sincere opinion is not cause to see this position as viable or even credible. Rather, there is the additional requirement that one use some form of sociological assumption to buoy the argument, or else it is not an argument at all. No, I have no concern for whether one argues from a sincere position, but rather care only for whether one argues from a sociological position. Many a man has had great conviction in ideas that have led to his downfall at the hands of the high priests of 21st century American sociology, delusional exponents of inter-group equality as they proudly remain.

Horsestuff,

Maldemer
Posted by: maldemer at June 7, 2006 03:18

Maliq, just give it a rest and stop receiving each post like a sucking chest wound. The posters are winding you up like an old alarm clock, and it doesn't help that you're a know-all windbag to begin with. So what if Ohio State sucks? Maybe it's the only place that would award you tenure, so don't let it bum out your hotep.
Posted by: Clubfoot at June 7, 2006 03:25

Peace...

First, Clubfoot, Ohio State houses one of the top sociology departments in the country, and the university overall is one of the top research universities. Second, at no point have I EVER claimed to know it all; I know what I know, and I acknowledge what I do not. Never have I comprehended this intellectual insecurity that causes people to begrudge others for being able to speak from an informed standpoint on an issue; so highly valued is ignorance on this board, and people would rather ramble on with foolishness than consider actual empirical evidence. Finally, I am a grad student and have never once claimed to be otherwise.

Maldemer, if you feel that it makes sense to champion the cause of a bigot troll, then enjoy that territory. Basically, you are saying "Don't consider your bigotry to be misguided just because it has been proven to be mindless drivel; as long as you believe in it sincerely, then all is well!" Regardless of how you perceive social science (which is not limited to sociology, BTW), siding with bigots should not be the answer.

Superfreaky, the Longhorns did not trounce the Buckeyes; they won a classic game on the shoulders of a great college football player. I was at the game that night, and it was incredible; Vince took our best hit, got back up, and delivered like the champion that he is. Your Longhorns are deserving national champions, and we are looking forward to the rematch this fall in Austin.

Hotep,

Maliq
Posted by: Maliq Soter at June 7, 2006 03:44

Epsilon erdani,
you forgot to mention how many billions of dollars US pumps each year into your paradise on earth...
Posted by: marc at June 7, 2006 04:09

Marc, the US aid to Israel is primarily military in nature. US gives Israel credits to buy US military equipment from US companies. So basically most US aid to Israel is US gov giving money to US defence contracters. The US almost only gives Israel non-military aid when Israel withdraws from territory. Like after the Gaza withdrawal US funded large part of the costs.

Anyway, the Israeli economy is a major success despite Israeli's location and need for for huge defence budgets as percentage of GDP. If Israel did not have to deal with its geo-political problems its economy would be far better then it is even now.

Also US gives similar large amounts of money also primarily defence oriented to Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan and they do not have nearly the same success as Israel has despite having to fight more wars and having to increase its population by 8 times in 50 years mainly through immigration.

No, with all the external and internal problems Israel has it is a miracal that it is doing so very well, the last 10 years have been very good outside the anti-fada years and this is because of the economic reforms and reduced socialism initiated by Netanyahu.

So in summation US aid(primarily military) has helped, and we are thankful, but this is not the main reason for the success of Israel. Instead infusions of educated immigrants, strong domestic emphasize on creativity and education, and lately sound government economic policy has been the main reason for success.
Posted by: epsilon e at June 7, 2006 05:10

Actually, 1.8 billion USD military aid and 1.2 bln economic aid - this is about 2% of Israel GDP! Every year. And there are other forms of aid - loan guarantees etc.
Dont get me wrong, Im not against it, I just think you cant ignore these facts talking about your country's economic success.
Posted by: marc at June 7, 2006 06:00

It is curious how Levon Aronian is involved in a history as someone interested in an Australian female player and some reports make the gossip of a "Love triangle" (and reinforcing the the bad image of all chess players as sore losers who are so unable to get along with women that are desperate for any chess girl that appears as their only choice...). I found curious which people wrote those stereotyped stories for online newspapers ... good press is important to show a different image of chess to people.

To say something closer to the truth for illustration of kibitzers, let say the following: According to colleagues, GM Daniel Gormally have had some sort of email interchange with Ms. Caoili. She was even in England and a picture of her with Mr Gormally and other England friend appears in Caoili's webpage.

------------------------

The incident in the mentioned party suggests that Mr. Gormally a interest in her that is not reciprocal and "looks" (at this point this is my guess) more the typical history of the guy that has a crush in some girl that sees him just as a friend, but he hasn't have this clear. Mr Aronian was just a random person who danced with Caoili without having any interest in her just as part of the party, but Mr Gormally in a act of insecurity saw Aronian as a "threat" instead of realizing the truth on why Ms. Caoili would refuse to dance with a friend. After the incident, Mr Gormally decided to return home (that was voluntary, not forced for the British Team decision).
----------------------

This is not the first time Mr Gormally has been attached to incorrect behavior and he is known among his colleagues for having a troubled personality. Nigel Short in his weekly Guardian column (curiously not published online), wrote BEFORE the incident, among other things on the English Team performance, quotes the following:

"Danny is clearly wrestling with demons of his own. When the entire hall rose for a minute's silence as a mark of respect for the victims of the Indonesian earthquake, England's fourth board remained slouched in his chair. Suffice it to say that he lost miserably. While everyone can be excused the occasional poor result, bad form combined with bad attitude is less easily forgiven..."

I wish GM Gormally gets better in his personal situations. Meanwhile, at the end Mr Aronian can laugh on being involuntary linked in such a personal situation and has a funny story to tell his friends in the future (if he wish, he can "degenerate" the tale as bad reporters did).
Posted by: Pascual at June 7, 2006 08:25

On the comments on "Jewish, Armenian, genetic superiority in several activities as chess", this is my opinion:

I believe the success of inhabitants of small countries like Israel or Armenia in chess (in Israel's case, also in science), cannot explained in terms of genetics. I think this happens by cultural reasons and environment. For example, in the US there is a lot of highly talented people in science and also people who has a special talent for chess, but explanation for the small proportion of American born people who choose science or chess as a career lie in external (cultural, social) reasons. In every country, similar situations happen that make a lot people abandon or not pursuing careers in which they could be successful, because of local opportunities, social prejudices or culture. Even, in some cases, people wouldn't be aware of the existence of some areas they didn't have the opportunity to know, because they lived in a society that didn't not cultivate them.
Posted by: Pascul at June 7, 2006 08:44

Marc, okay I see that I was somewhat ignorant in my claims about economic aid to Israel. After educating myself I see that your figure is accurate for US aid during the 90's. I also noticed the the US has now begun to decrease its economic aid while mantaining or increasing military aid. For instance I see that in 2003 the US has given Israel 2.1 billion in military aid and 600 million in economic aid approx. This is a good site.
http://worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/israel050602.html

However I would like to mention that Israel must also spend 8 percent of its GDP on the military due to geo-political problems. The average European state with similar overall GDP spends between 2-2.5% Now it is true that government spending can help boost an economy, however the taxes that Israelis must pay, coupled with the amount of the money spent in foreign markets negates any benifit. Again there is no doubt that US aid has been extremely helpful, I am simply saying that had Israel existed in another region without problems, its economy would have been even stronger without any substantial aid. The costs of the conflict way heavy on Israeli's economy just as they do on the Palestinian economy.
Posted by: epsilon e at June 7, 2006 12:51

Pascual, I alsready mentioned that Israel had no great success in chess before the immigration of 1+ million Russion Jews into the country. I believe that every member of the team is Soviet born. It seems to me that both Israel and Armenia simply have benefited from the Soviet chess infastructure, although Armenia probably does have a great love for the game, and will continue to produce strong players.

Furthermore I doubt it can be said that there is any confirmed link between becoming a grandmaster and intelligience. Many exellent coaches and players including Victor Korchnoi and Mark Dvoretsky have stated that anyone of average intelligence can become a grandmaster with enough hard work and direction.
Posted by: epsilon e at June 7, 2006 13:00

Tommy,

Why do you say that I have to be revealed as a troll, since I've said myself, openly, some posts ago that ... :

"Hmm that's what I love, it always works !!! No matter how idiots my arguments are, there is no force on earth that can stop an ethnic oriented troll"

Yuriy ... you made me laugh. I love the conclusions that you draw.

And finally : why the hell can't I play starting trolls? On the whole, threads are funnier, and it's very interesting to study human behavior...
Posted by: Ruslan at June 7, 2006 15:48

Now, it's just about who's been serious and who's just joking. Armenia is amongst the poorest countries in the world, the jews and armenian have both suffered from hate, genocide... is it such a great proof of genetic superiority ?

Despite of any negative comments, I've made the thread much funnier. Yuriy Kleyner's last comment, or maldemer fooling Mr I Know Everything, all this was really sooo nice to read !!!
Posted by: Ruslan at June 7, 2006 16:01

A search for "chess"

http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?p=chess&fr=FP-tab-news-t-t400&ei=UTF-8&x=wrt

yields websites involving fights:

Lennox Lewis got KO'd by 4 chess players.
Levon Aronian got punched by Gormally.

Who said chess isn't violent?
Posted by: superfreaky at June 7, 2006 18:01

Ruslan: "Despite of any negative comments, I've made the thread much funnier."

Beautiful self-congratulations. Don't forget to buy yourself a medal, in order to reward yourself for your extraordinary accomplishments. Of course, engrave the sentence "I am so much more intelligent than the unwashed masses, it's almost unbelievable" on it. Don't be shy to wear it in public, at any possible opportunity. And while you are at it, join MENSA.
Posted by: zarghev at June 7, 2006 18:21

Ruslan,

Why pretend to be an idiot? There's already an oversupply of those, and they're not all that entertaining.

Why not pretend to be an intelligent, well-informed, and thoughtful poster?
Posted by: greg koster at June 7, 2006 18:45

Ruslan lumps Armenians in with Jews, even though the latter are so much superior to Armenians. Where are the peer-reviewed IQ studies showing Armenians have a high IQ? Anyway, Aronian is Jewish, not Armenian, and it's probably the same for Akopian.
Posted by: Der Strudel at June 7, 2006 18:53

what I wanted to say is that Ruslan himself reveals himself as a troll. Ruslan says he is a troll.

I am trying to say ignore all trolls no matter what.

Anyway, the Gormally incident has a simple explanation. Gormally was drunk. You can not play good chess if you get drunk partying all night and then start your game hung over the next day.

Gormally was drunk. everyone says he was drinking. Gormally himself says when he woke up the next morning and realized what he had done.

to me that is another admission that he was drunk.

I dont personally see any sense in spending thousands of dollars to send a team to an international sports event so the players can get drunk between games. if it was my money I would be furious that they were drinking all the time. the British are known to drink between rounds and their performance was dismal.

I simply would not send the team next time. not until the captains can keep the team sober.

I ask everyone. How many of the english chess players are known heavy drinkers. and Gormally was drunk.

Arianna did not want to dance with him because he was drunk. That is my bet. good for her. Arianna. you dont need a drunk for a boyfriend.
Posted by: tommy at June 7, 2006 21:19

come on Tommy, you know good and well that alcohol is an important part of many players training table. Gormally is obviously a "rum rookie" who gives serious adult drinkers who can handle it a bad name. Have you ever been to the hotel bar of a big national swiss event at night? You'll find quite a few of the titled players peacefully restoring themselves for the next day. Gormally is clearly a lovesick loser..a crybaby. He should accept alcohol consumption mentoring from his ex-team mate Nigel Short who is a worldclass jolly, happy drunk.
Posted by: whiskeyrebel at June 7, 2006 22:17

1) Ruslan and whiskeyrebel are not the same person.

2) The whole UK is drunk every evening. So who's gonna be the drunkyard over there who'll have the moral authority to ask his chess team to be sober?

3) A lot of russian GMs drink more vodka than water.

4) Drinking, joking, playing on words, f---ing, eating, driving fast, punching some heads when necessary is part of the funny things you can do in life. On the other hand, you can be a well informed, intelligent and thoughtful poster.
Posted by: Ruslan at June 8, 2006 02:51

The tone of tommy's post is offensive. And it's misleading.

1) Yes Danny may have been drunk, and that was most probably a factor (not an excuse), but Danny is not a big drinker usually. And certainly he is not a "drunk". That is offensive. Also it was a rest day the next day.

2) "spending thousands of dollars to send a team to a chess tournament"?! Adams and Short were only able to participate because of a contribution from a private individual (David Norwood). The ECF spending thousands of dollars on a chess, right...

3) How many of the English chess players are "known heavy drnkers"? Define a "heavy drinker". No more, or no less, than the UK population.

Let's look at the three English players that were badly off form (Gormally, Conquest and Speelman).
NONE of them drink heavily. In fact the three that were on form (Adams, Short and Pert) are known to like a drink on occasion...

And I'm sure Ms Caoili is capable of making her own decisions re. her boyfriends.
Posted by: sa at June 8, 2006 04:24

"you cannot play good chess while being drunk" ... again, I know a bunch of russian GMs who are perfectly able to win a tournament with a medium alcoohol ratio much higher than 1g/liter of blood on the whole tournament period. In fact, just empty a bottle of whisky in Kramnik's mouth and chances are that he'll jump from Karpov style to a la Tal attacks...
Posted by: Ruslan at June 8, 2006 06:22

No Comments to the last 3 posters who are just trying to be the center of attention. actually it is the same person trying 3 times as hard. Maybe he is getting lonely from being ignored.
Posted by: tommy at June 8, 2006 08:24

If England, or some other country, are looking for a sober person to send to the next Olympiad who won't embarrass them by getting into the tabloids -- as an alternative to the boring old conventional idea of sending your country's best chess players -- I hereby offer my services.

My fee is negotiable. I am willing to sign a contract that specifies I won't drink a drop of alcohol from 24 hours before the start of round 1, until 30 minutes after the end of my final game representing the team.

Since the next Olympiad has been awarded to Khantiy-Mansiysk, Siberia, it might be necessary for whatever country agrees to sponsor me, to fly in a supply of some potable, non-alcoholic beverage (in case vodka is the only liquid that is available within 10 miles of the playing site).

For a modest surcharge to my fee, I will also sign a contract provision obligating me to refrain from any contact with female members of any Olympiad team, either during or between rounds, and for a (reasonable) period preceding the Olympiad.
Posted by: flyonthewall at June 8, 2006 11:59

You seem to be American... and too old!

Howell should be in the next Olympiad and maybe the European Championship. And he's too young to drink. Legally.

Imagine the headlines if he did succumb though.

"Chess prodigy hits the bottle"

All publicity good publicty!?
Posted by: Mark Howitt at June 8, 2006 15:37

Mark, I just looked at your site and am interested in corresponding with you about the pros and cons of self-publishing a chess book. Please email me at jacobs310@optonline.net.
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at June 8, 2006 16:49

Tommy,

"to the three last posters who are trying to be the center of the attention" : Just try to find a thread with 189 posts in the daily dirt.

"Maybe he is getting lonely from being ignored" :
First point : you have a funny way to ignore me.
Second idea : again, 189 posts in this thread show that "ignored" is not the most precise description of how things did happen.
Posted by: Ruslan at June 8, 2006 20:12

Who needs Kramnik-Topalov when you've got tommy-Ruslan?
Posted by: greg koster at June 9, 2006 00:14

AMEN!
Posted by: chesstraveler at June 9, 2006 10:34

PS: Chesstraveler, that was so... final. Just by posting, I feared that I would attract lightning. Which is why this is a PS, and your AMEN should end the thread. One can always hope.
Posted by: autolycus at June 10, 2006 03:50

Some quick facts.

Aronian is half Jewish, half Armenian. Akopian is Armenian.

Strong Armenian performance in chess has nothing to do with genes. I think it has more to do with the traditional Armenian social environment.
Posted by: Armen at June 13, 2006 15:20

2 Comments

Jantzen | March 8, 2008 2:21 AM

In reply to Aronian's nationality. Our sources say that he is Albanian by origin, however, he is a citizen of Republic of Armenia.

Brennan34Tami | December 30, 2011 1:40 AM

Every time I work on my essays, I get a positive experience. Nevertheless, students who Buy an essay paper get the same marks.

Categories:

2 Comments

Twitter Updates

About this Entry

Turin Olympiad 2006 r13

Categories:

2 Comments

Twitter Updates

Archives

About this Entry