With two rounds to play in the MTel supertournament, Carlsen and Shirov are tied for the lead a half-point ahead of Topalov. Carlsen handed Dominguez his first loss in the 7th to join Shirov on +2 and all three games were drawn in the 8th round. Topalov has white against Ivanchuk tomorrow and conveniently enough the two leaders meet in the final round on Saturday, Shirov with white against Carlsen. Topalov has black against Wang Yue in the final round.
Whaddya think, can Topalov do it again? Before Ivanchuk steamrolled the field last year (yes, the same guy who is playing like fertilizer right now) Topalov had patented comebacks at MTel. But beating the Great Wall of Wang in the final round with black will be a tall order even if he beats Ivanchuk tomorrow. I'm rooting for Shirov, as I was before the tournament started. He's due for a big win and for more elite invitations. And with so many players bombing out of the top ten lately, he has a nice warm spot back there waiting for him on the next list. Ivanchuk may be dropping out of the top 30 the way he's going. Incredible. He doesn't need just a rest or a vacation, he needs one of those Keith Richards blood replacement procedures. He's set to lose 44 points right now, on one list! From scraping 2800 to below 2700 in less than a year.
Tiebreaks are number of wins (favoring Topalov), then head-to-head, then Berger, then number of moves (!). A three way tie on +2 is one of the most likely results but let's hope for some blood in the water in the final rounds. MTel has usually been good about that.
"Tiebreaks are ... then number of moves (!)."
Imagine if this really becomes relevant in the last round ... . Could a player tell his opponent "no, you are not allowed to resign yet, let's play on for 10 more moves first!"? ,:)
Good-ol' Keith! He's still rocking on the Telecaster so although it's a myth, perhaps Chuky should go for it anyway...
"Tiebreaks are number of wins (favoring Topalov), then head-to-head, then Berger, then number of moves (!)."
I thought you were joking, but no, it's in the tournament regulations:
"A greater number of wins.
The result of the direct mini-matches between contenders.
Berger.
A greater numbers of moves played."
This partly explains the reason for a farcical game that went on and on.
In tomorrow's matchups -- Dominguez-Perez vs. Shirov, Topalov vs. Ivanchuk, and Carlsen vs. Wang Yue -- I'm sure Topalov will try his best and succeed in defeating Ivanchuk. Shirov will also try to pose as many problems to Dominguez-Perez, but the Cuban has been playing very solidly as White throughout the tournament; I think their game will result in a draw. Wang Yue will have to play very solidly tomorrow against Carlsen who will play his customary positionally aggressive game; I think Carlsen's will to win will prove stronger than Wang Yue's stubborn defensiveness with a win for Carlsen.
As much as I want Shirov to win this tournament -- he deserves his rightful placement in the top 10 -- I think the standings after tomorrow's round will be Carlsen at the top followed by Shirov and Topalov tied 1/2-point behind.
Jim -
Good analysis. I think Shirov beats Dominguez Perez.
"Good-ol' Keith! He's still rocking on the Telecaster so although it's a myth..."
It's no myth. KR underwent a hemodialysis treatment at a Swiss clinic on two occasions in the early 1970s. And yeah, he's still rockin' the Tele for the lamest band in the history of rock and roll. Good or bad, most bands don't last five years, but the Stones have sucked for 28 years after being more or less cool for 17 years before that. Jaggerassic Park. Ivanchuk's got a long way to go before his chess drops to that sub-basement of suckitude.
I must respectfully disagree with Jim's analysis.
"I'm sure Topalov will try his best..."
--After staying up all night watching "Bulgarian Idol" reruns an over-confident Topalov will oversleep and miss the entire round.
"Shirov will also try to pose as many problems to Dominguez-Perez..."
--Shirov will definitely try to pose problems for Dominguez; at critical moments humming the Cuban national anthem ("Row, row, row your boat.")
"Carlsen's will to win will prove stronger than Wang Yue's stubborn defensiveness..."
--Wang has been secretly working on his stubborn defensiveness: listening to an endless loop of Churchill declaiming "never, never, never give up," getting down on the floor and pretending he's a mule, holding his breath until he gets his way. Wang's stubborn defensiveness will prevail.
Topalov on the tiebreak system in Linares that gave Kasparov the trophy in 2005: "It's a stupid system. You might as well count the number of times that we went to the toilet." (New In Chess 2005/3)
I think "number of moves" is just about equally stupid so it's a pity that Sofia never followed up on Topalov's excellent suggestion especially after the experience the Bulgarian "technical experts" garnered in Elista.
What do you think?
acirce wrote:
> ...
> What do you think?
I think that the number of moves is the 4th tiebreak in Sofia, and therefore pretty much irrelevant.
In Linares, on the other hand, the number of black wins was the 1st tiebreak.
Based on the experience the Bulgarians have, using the number of visits to the toilet as a tiebreak wouldn't be a good idea. Now, for certain Russian players, who seem to find their inspiration in the loo, it would work quite well.
I actually think "greatest number of moves" could be a worthwhile tie-breaker, especially if modified slightly to "greatest number of moves in the shortest game, followed by second shortest game, etc." I think we have a part-solution to the short draw problem right here.
@Ashish - there's a glimmer of logic to greater sum of moves played in draws as a tie break factor if a tournament is played under normal circumstances. Then, it would reward players who fought longer.
But under Sofia Rules, draws occur only at exhaustion. and greater number of moves played overall (rather than in draws only) seems utterly senseless.
Unless of course, organisers wish to see mate demonstrated in every endgame.
Wasn't there an Iranian or a Turk (?) who suggested precisely this - ban resignation and play till mate -in Chessbase as an anti-draw measure?
"greatest number of moves in the shortest game ..."
Hmmm, what would Shirov think about this? His _win_ against Ivanchuk in the first round took 24 moves ... .
@Clubfoot As always it makes no sense to argue with a believer.
The number of moves debate is exaggerated, I think there are no situations from the past where this actually would have decided an event, since it's the last tiebreaker of many. Probably just a PR thing, at least nothing that ever would affect the event.
If you are going to count number of moves as a tiebreak, you clearly can't include games that you won.
The way it could work is that it takes the average number of moves of games that you drew/lost, but even then it's a bit suspect because it gives players incentive to pretty much shuffle the pieces back and forth forever in hopelessly drawn positions in order to increase this tiebreak.
I think that the only way this rule becomes even semi-reasonable, is that if the players in question have the same number of losses, then the number of moves in those losses are calculated.
I thought of sending an email to Chessbase in a related article, but honestly I refuse to participate in their non-commentable site. They had this big discussion about how you shouldn't be able to resign etc etc, blah blah and how this perhaps would be good for chess. IMO the only way to naturally achieve this result of encouraging players to play on in hopeless positions, is to create a very serious tiebreak that has to do with number of moves in your losses. Perhaps even tweak the rating system so that you lose fewer points if you last longer, thus creating many interesting combinations late in the game that would read something like: "White to move and survive for 8 moves and save 1 elo point".
Whether this is a good idea or not is beside the point, but counting only losses is the only fair way of doing this type of tiebreak IMO, and if you are a fan of the not being able to resign concept, then creating a rule like this makes sense.
# of moves in draws and wins is completely absurd, especially wins because it punishes you for winning quickly and accurately! Regardless of whether FIDE is trying to prove a point or whether it's unlikely to occur, I think it's a disgraceful and poorly thought out rule, that has virtually no logic behind it whatsoever, and should be an embarassment to whomever thought of it. Sure have some crazy rules if you want, I know I have plenty of them in the USCL, but to have one that can so easily punish people for winning quickly and for playing well is really insane. Did anyone really not think of these glaring, gigantic loopholes that fast wins are penalized and that it's in the player's interests to shuffle aimlessly for 100 moves in some bishops of opposite color endgame?
Also it's not really that unlikely to occur, at least considering the absurdity of the rule,...number of wins and head to head can very easily be tied, so if just the other tiebreaker is even, then we are going to this abomination of a tiebreak that actually punishes accurate play in some occasions. The rule is so dumb that I think it should only be allowed if the chance of such a tie is in the area of 1000-1 or greater, and even then I find it highly offensive. If a prize/title ends up being decided because one player won in 20 moves, while the other took 60, then there's a serious problem.
Quote attributed to Mick Jagger in his younger days:
(written down by a Triceratops, so authenticity not 100%)-"If I'm playing "Satisfaction" at 45 I'll kill myself".
"If a prize/title ends up being decided because one player won in 20 moves, while the other took 60, then there's a serious problem."
I absolutely agree - but I hope that they would at least split the prize money equally in such a situation. On the other hand, MTel has only one qualifying spot for Bilbao ... .
BTW, a faster win does not always, or necessarily, reflect more accurate play. It could also simply be due to a blunder by the other player, so the question could be rephrased as "Should any given player be punished for his opponent's blunder?". And of course it then matters if, and for how long, the opponent plays on in a totally lost position.
And ironically, this rule seems to favor players such as Kramnik (who often win in lengthy endgames) vs. Topalov or Shirov (who rather go for a faster mating attack kill). [A somewhat simplified picture, and for MTel it doesn't matter because they don't invite Kramnik and/or he wouldn't accept the invitation]
Oh my god, Ivanchuk is barely above 2700 in the live rating list.
Off with his head!
Carlsen - Wang = Slav 4...a6
Dominguez Perez - Shirov = Spanish
Topalov - Ivanchuk = Spanish
Nothing much happening now. They have just about concluded their opening dances.
Topalov is gradually improving his position against Ivanchuk. He has the 2 bishops and Ivanchuk has a weak d6 pawn. The other two games look equal to me.
"@Clubfoot As always it makes no sense to argue with a believer."
A believer in the truth, you mean? Then I agree with you that it makes no sense to fight. I have zero belief in the current greatness of the band. But if the person who underwent the treatment has acknowledged the truth to at least two different biographers, plus confirmed it later to writers inquiring after the veracity of what is published, then I believe it.
And it means that you, Mr Peter Doggers, have difficulty looking facts squarely in the face. Not my problem.
CC: reporters were tossing that great quote in Jagger's face for a few years in the 80s, around the time of the Steel Wheelchairs tour. He deserved it, too.
Carlsen - Wang is pretty much a draw, but they might as well run up a few dozen or so more useless moves for tiebreak purposes. Only Carlsen could win, but it is extremely improbable.
Dominguez Perez - Shirov is nothing, but why is Shirov wasting so much time?
Topalov - Ivanchuk. I thought Topalov could just casually increase his small advantage, but instead, he's gone stupid or something and put most of his pieces on the back rank. If he keeps on doing that, Ivanchuk will win, if he's good enough, but he probably won't. Ivanchuk even has 20 more minutes than Topalov.
Ivanchuk also has two bishops, for a total of four. And, with five moves to go until time control, Topalov has 17 minutes left vs. 36 for Ivanchuk. What's wrong with Chucky today?
If Dominguez now plays 31.f4, he loses. If not, Shirov may play -f4 himself. And for the time being, this board has three bishops.
Now it's down to four bishops, on all boards combined. Your turn, Luke !
Wang went crazy and handed a win to Carlsen.
Ivanchuk has been slopping around and let Topalov get on top. Still a bit difficult for Topalov to convert, but he can do it. This would drop Ivanchuk below 2700.
Dominguez Perez - Shirov is still equal and has been since the opening.
Well, Ivanchuk also went crazy, in addition to Wang. Easy win for Topalov coming up. In fact, the best thing for Ivanchuk to do is to resign.
What did Wang play????????? Really don't get that. And surely Topalov is winning?? Nice play by him methinks, rather than Chuky imploding.
Greg Shahade,
If the head-to-head, number of wins and Berger are all equal, then I would say that any additional tiebreak is as meaningless as a coin toss.
If you ask me, only the head to head score should be used as a tiebreak in double round robin tournaments. It is understandable that organizers want to encourage more interesting/eventful play, but imho the end tournament ranking should be based only on the strength of the performance and not on the attractiveness of the play. The (only?) objective criterion for the former is the number of points earned.
Interesting to see Ivanchuk play on long after the result was apparent. At least he didn't force Topalov to prove he could mate with K+Q.
My God! Ivanchuk is below 2700? Down from 2790?
Ivanchuk loses again - whats odd is he doesn't seem to play for a draw. We also got the unedifying spectacle of him playing on for 10 moves after he should have resigned (following Ne5+) moving his king randomly presumably trying to flag Topalov and get a draw. Why stop when Topalov was a Queen up? Or did Ivanchuk lose on time. Anyway the guy needs a break.
Nice.
Ivanchuk not only lost, he embarrassed himself by playing on in a dead lost beginner's position. If Topalov ends up winning on the silly move count tiebreak, Ivanchuk should be ashamed of himself, if that is possible.
Yes, very nice Jim. What do you see for tomorrow?
Some bits and pieces ... :
1) Yes, Ivanchuk is now below 2700 (on the live rating list). But chesshire cat (9:18AM), you are far too harsh on him - according to Ukrainian and FIDE law, the punishment for first-time offenders is merely losing a finger! (This neglects the fact that Chucky was briefly down to 2699 in January 2003).
2) Maybe Ivanchuk played on for a few redundant moves to improve Topalov's tiebreak (or rather to point out how ridiculous that rule is)? It won't be decisive, though: After tomorrow's last round, there will either be a clear winner, or Topalov takes first based on number of wins - thanks to losing his mini-match if he ties with Carlsen for first ,:) . BTW: Who would then get the Bilbao spot? Topalov is already qualified.
3) @Greg Shahade and sab: I agree. Generally there is nothing wrong with shared first - and if there is a need for a clear winner I still prefer rapid, blitz or even Armaggedon games (not that this is ideal ...).
4) Finally, if the games against Ivanchuk wouldn't count at all, Carlsen would already be the tournament winner. He merely drew his games against Chucky and scored 5/7 against the other players. Both Topalov and Shirov fully exploited Chucky's bad form and had 50% against the rest ... .
"Finally, if the games against Ivanchuk wouldn't count at all, Carlsen would already be the tournament winner. He merely drew his games against Chucky and scored 5/7 against the other players. Both Topalov and Shirov fully exploited Chucky's bad form and had 50% against the rest ..." (Thomas)
Perhaps Carlsen showed a bit of pity.
Did Ivanchuk show up at the post-game interview?
The pictures on the Mtel site show Carlsen and Wang discussing their game, and Dominguez Perez and Shirov discussing their game. Then there is a picture of Topalov discussing his game, but no Ivanchuk can be seen.
Maybe Mr Ivanchuck played on cos he was in complete bloody shock. Maybe it was a symbolic way of expressing his emotions. Or maybe he did it expressly to annoy you, Luke. At any rate he doesn't need admonishments from patzers with bloated opinions of themselves.
Clubfoot: I bet you will still attend the Zimmerframe Tour, if only to see Jagger pooping his pants and STILL picking up chicks.
"Perhaps Carlsen showed a bit of pity."
This is a joke, isn't it? Looking at the games, it seems that Carlsen also tried to beat Ivanchuk, which leaves two possibilities:
1) Carlsen was unlucky to play Ivanchuk on two of his relatively better days.
2) Shirov and Topalov have a sharper style and more of a killer instinct.
Actually, this may be the case for their black wins. For their white wins, they may say in chorus "How come we copy Kramnik"!? ,:) . Of course, at least Shirov is also known for his smooth endgame technique.
He is sure embarrased for your comments on his loses .
I have to say that i try not to check this site during the games , your comments and predictions are anoying in a level perhaps only thomas can reach.
If he wins, I can give him credit for winning, like I do for everyone else. The problem is, he can't win, so I can't give him credit.
Don't forget (like you apparently have) that I've said you don't have to read my comments. I read yours because they are so funny and sad.
I do hope that Ivanchuk wins tomorrow. Does that make you hot and happy? No? Too bad.
I think Wang, Ivanchuk, and Dominguez Perez have had the spotlight on them for a long time and have flopped. Time for them to exit stage left or get the hook. The tournament organizers will take care of that last part by leaving them off their invitation lists.
Don't worry Manu, Luke just isn't very bright. He's a bandwagon rider who knows next to nothing about chess. Topalov played a beautiful game today, but Luke is only interested in getting our attention at any cost, so he stomps on easy targets. He's not naively well-intentioned like Thomas, who responds "thoughtfully" to every single poster while failing to recognize irony and wit. Luke's just a mediocrity with the volume turned up full blast, grazing among dozens for a dime.
Anyway, Shirov-Carlsen tomorrow....will be interesting to see what the Retard's engine has to say about that.
By the way, the number-of-wins tiebreak is not in effect when deciding for first place:
"A tie-break match will be played in case of a tie for the first place in the tournament between the first two players in the final standing (according to points, or the additional criteria). The match will consist of two games with a time-control of 15 minutes per player + 3 seconds added for every move played. In case of a tie, another match of two blitz-games will be played with a time-control of 5 minutes per player + 3 seconds for every move played. In case of another tied result – there will be played a last "sudden-death" decisive game with a time-control 6 minutes for the whole game for the White-player and 4 minutes for the whole game for Black-player. The White-player will only need a victory in this game to win the tournament, whole the Black-player will win the tournament by just not losing that final decisive game."
Well, to be precise, it IS in effect if three or more players tie for first, in deciding who gets to play the rapid games... but a three-way tie for first is impossible at this point, anyway.
Very perceptive , i stand corrected.
Luke knows how to use a chess engine (that's about it, though), and if his posts have irony and wit, indeed I fail to recognize it.
Anyway: Dominguez and Wang Yue have been "in the spotlight" (supertournaments) for a year or less, maybe that's a long time on planet Luke? At MTel, Dominguez performed 'as expected' (according to his rating), not that bad at the end of the day. As far as Wang is concerned, I regret a bit that he 'blocks' other Chinese players from getting top invitations - so I am pleased to see that London invited Ni Hua (posted in the US Ch thread).
And Ivanchuk - he had his ups and downs. So far, 2009 had three downs (Corus, GP Nalchik, MTel) but also one up (shared first in Linares, which seems ages ago but is not). He will play two more strong tournaments (Romania and Biel) this year. And if he "confirms" his new sub-2700 ELO, maybe he won't receive invitations to the very strongest tournaments where rating is far more important than anything else. But with his status and reputation, I guess he will still be very welcome at strong "B tournaments" - for example the recently finished Bosna tournament (not in the spotlights because there were stronger events in parallel).
"He's not naively well-intentioned like Thomas, who responds "thoughtfully" to every single poster while failing to recognize irony and wit."
To be fair, Thomas' parody of Luke's riveting analysis was rather good. But Luke seems impervious to reason, humour, direct insults and probably a nuclear holocaust. Unless he's just auditioning for the special role of Chessbase commentator to tournaments organised by Danailov...
Tomorrow's games:
Shirov - Carlsen
Wang - Topalov
Ivanchuk - Dominguez Perez
My prediction: Black wins all 3 games.
Enough with the Ivanchuk comments -- give the guy a break.
He plays to win, right?
And most "fans" want to see guys play to win, right?
Well, if you play to win...sometimes you lose! And sometimes you lose alot!
So knock it off :)
Also, this silly business of the "live rating list" is absurd.
First, chess ability doesn't ebb and flow quickly -- it takes years. So the idea that Ivanchuck loses 5 games and suddenly he's out of the elite is nonsense. If he was on a 25-game losing streak, then on game 26...he's still Ivanchuck. See the point about how chess ability doesn't decline rapidly.
Second, worrying about ratings game by game turns the rating system into a gambling system. Any token-based system (and rating points are tokens) can generate gambling-like behaviors. You can "throw good tokens after bad" in all token systems.
Worst thing USCF/FIDE ever did was speed up production/calculation of ratings -- players just don't change that rapidly (except very young ones).
Ratings are not accurate to the nth degree -- remember when FIDE recognized this and posted ratings to within 5 points, not 1 point? At least that generated lists with 5 and 10 players all "tied" -- because in fact they are equivalent players.
No nonsensical distinctions like "if I gain 2 points I move up 5 spots and join the elite" or such rubbish.
Ratings matter over (long periods of) time. Over short periods, they do not show much. Ratings track results, not any inherent ability factor. We *assume* it is the inherent ability factor that causes the results, but that's a theory -- nothing in the rating system makes it necessarily so. You can run a rating system for coin flips and have a top (lucky) coin at the top of the list, too.
So Ivanchuk is having a poor result. Average it out with his next 6 events and then see if things change much.
Looks like I made the right call on today's game (though I was hoping Shirov would prove me wrong and win).
Tomorrow's games are tougher to predict. I read somewhere that Carlsen needs a win to assure himself of 1st place. I think Carlsen's play tomorrow will reveal what kind of player he wants to be -- a practical GM satisfied with his tournament or a GM wanting to prove his superiority a la Fischer. This could be a difficult psychological choice for Magnus, especially since he knows Topalov will be playing aggressively vs. his victim of today, a now shaken Wang.
Ivanchuk vs Dominguez-Perez will find a way to end their game by an early repetition -- neither player has anything to prove and I'm sure Chucky wants to be finished with this tournament.
In Wang vs Topalov, I expect Topalov to come crashing through with a win over Wang. After his game today with Carlsen, Wang probably won't be getting much sleep tonight and will be in no mood for holding back the flood gates Topalov will surely raise. Carlsen probably expects a Topalov victory as well, which brings us to his game tomorrow as Black vs. Shirov.
In Shirov vs. Carlsen, I expect Carlsen, being the young confident genius he is, to attempt to prove his superiority and assure 1st place. Throughout the tournament, Shirov has shown that he's playing very sound chess and very ready to exploit any chance given to him. Tomorrow, I think Carlsen will over-reach and provide Shirov with a victory. Okay, I admit to being biased, but it would be fantastic to see Shirov re-establish himself as one of the best players in the world.
well said.
"Ratings track results, not any inherent ability factor. We *assume* it is the inherent ability factor that causes the results, but that's a theory -- nothing in the rating system makes it necessarily so. You can run a rating system for coin flips and have a top (lucky) coin at the top of the list, too." (Chesspride)
My theory is that if everything else is equal, a player with more ability will be the better player and will have better results than a player with less ability...and the better player who wins more games will have a better rating.
Nice , chesspride .
Chesspride is obviously right, the live ratings thing is complete insanity. Of course it's entertaining to look at for the fans, but it has so little meaning behind it that it's almost unbelievable.
Also Ivanchuk will be back. Some of the most fun and entertaining players are often also the most inconsistent. He was overrated at 2800, and he will be underrated at under 2700. When you play a billion games per year this stuff is going to happen.
I would be delighted if Shirov wins tomorrow , nothing against Carlsen but it would be great if the kid waits a little more before doing the Fisher thing.
Great call on today's games, Jim! As for the last round, I predict Wang's solid chess offering no chances to Topalov, and Carlsen closely watching the action, equalising and then trying to force a draw in his own game, preferring clear tournament victory over any legacy thing.
The only decisive game of the round giving Chucky his only win in this tournament.
Warning: this is a long post, but its got content. A viable option is to skip and keep your mouth shut. :o)
@ chesspride:
"
First, chess ability doesn't ebb and flow quickly -- it takes years. So the idea that Ivanchuck loses 5 games and suddenly he's out of the elite is nonsense. If he was on a 25-game losing streak, then on game 26...he's still Ivanchuck. See the point about how chess ability doesn't decline rapidly.
Second, worrying about ratings game by game turns the rating system into a gambling system. Any token-based system (and rating points are tokens) can generate gambling-like behaviors. You can "throw good tokens after bad" in all token systems.
Worst thing USCF/FIDE ever did was speed up production/calculation of ratings -- players just don't change that rapidly (except very young ones).
Ratings are not accurate to the nth degree -- remember when FIDE recognized this and posted ratings to within 5 points, not 1 point? At least that generated lists with 5 and 10 players all "tied" -- because in fact they are equivalent players.
No nonsensical distinctions like "if I gain 2 points I move up 5 spots and join the elite" or such rubbish.
Ratings matter over (long periods of) time. Over short periods, they do not show much. Ratings track results, not any inherent ability factor. We *assume* it is the inherent ability factor that causes the results, but that's a theory -- nothing in the rating system makes it necessarily so. You can run a rating system for coin flips and have a top (lucky) coin at the top of the list, too.
"
It might surprise someone, but I agree to all of the above. Actually, when you say that when ratings were rounded to the nearest 5 points it made more sense, because 7-8 players tied at the same number then are equivalent, I'd go even further myself:
In single games, I think differences of 20-40 points are more or less insignificant. Hence, when multiple people on this blog have stated that "Topalov is clearly ahead" lately, not in terms of rating (only), but as significantly better player than the rest, I've totally disagreed.
The ratings AND the Live Top List track RESULTS on a day to day basis. When Topalov went from 2770-ish to 2812 lately, it was due to a string of very strong results. When Ivanchuk now has dropped from 2791 to 2690-ish in much less than a year, it's due to a string of very, very weak results (for someone like Ivanchuk).
The idea that ESTABLISHED super-gms in their 30s like Ivanchuk and Topalov suddenly have an enlightenment or lose half their chess knowledge and capabilities during the course of some months, is obviously ridiculous.
"this silly business of the "live rating list" is absurd."
"the live ratings thing is complete insanity. Of course it's entertaining to look at for the fans, but it has so little meaning behind it that it's almost unbelievable." (Greg Shahade)
The Live Top List is produced by doing the exact same calculations as FIDE eventually will do. There is *no fundamental difference* between a single Live Top List and an official FIDE list except for one important thing, that the FIDE list is official and will be used for later calculations.
The FIDE lists are "random" snapshots of the ever changing rating motion, the Live Top Lists are similar snapshots - you just get more of them.
My claim is that people don't interprete ratings any worse now than before I started publishing live ratings. If anything, the live ratings have DEMONSTRATED that people think about rating numbers in very confused ways - but the confusion hasn't grown worse, it has just became more visible.
If anything, the ever changing picture of the top 20 standings could be used to getting a clearer picture of the reality - for instance, who's top 10 or not in an official rating list is PURE NONSENSE - some games ago two different players were in, and two others were out, for instance. Same goes about the number 1 spot, too - if it's been changing repeatedly before FIDE "randomly" said FREEZE!
Consider top 5 in the October 2008 list:
1 Topalov, Veselin g BUL 2791 10
2 Morozevich, Alexander g RUS 2787 9
3 Ivanchuk, Vassily g UKR 2786 50
4 Carlsen, Magnus g NOR 2786 31
5 Anand, Viswanathan g IND 2783 10
Now, in official FIDE terms and for dozens of commentators too, this makes Topalov "World Number One" - something people make stats about, the elite players consider very important and prestigeous and so on.
This is in my opinion as much NONSENSE as anything else. In fact, just previous to the official October 2008 list, all the 5 players above had been number one at some brief moment in time - making a fuzz about the player that happens to win the "lottery" of being in the number one spot simply at the brief moment in time someone says "NOW we sample World Number one", THAT's the silly thing.
In summary: don't blame the Live Top List for people's incomplete understanding of ratings - if anything, this is HIGHLIGHTED by the service of always having updated ratings, it's not CREATED by it. Seeing how the ratings always are changing, could in fact cause enlightenment - this "oh, no - don't show people how it really works, they become so confused" isn't a view I share.
My goal is to create understanding - not the opposite. The Live Top List has a feature almost ready for launch called "Performance Profiles", which tell more about how the top players perform, depending on opposition. I'm also planning to add a measure of SPREAD to the live ratings, so that for instance Ivanchuk's rating would be supplemented with information that its got a relatively big uncertainty pertaining to it, plus a measure of "average" level.
As long as people read the one-dimensional, non-attributed rating numbers without thinking or understanding, the calculation and update frequency should remain rather irrelevant. And IMHO the problems this lack of understanding creates INCREASES _inversely_ proportionally to the frequency of list publications, not proportionally, ref. the October 2008 list and the notion of being "World Number One".
Lastly, my view is that MORE knowledge is generally not harmful.
PS! If the decision of doubling the K had already been in effect, Ivanchuk would've been losing 95,6 points at the moment, with a "live rating" of 2650,4 ... Food for thought?
Shirov is 3 pawns ahead, but Carlsen is attacking.
Wang and Topalov is about even, but maybe Topalov has better chances.
Ivanchuk about equal with Dominguez Perez, who is ridiculously behind on his clock.
"MORE knowledge is generally not harmful."
An anti-social element. He must be eliminated for the public good.
Well, it looks like Carlsen, while trying to avoid anything Shirov had cooked up vs. his pet Dragon, fell into some Shirov preparation in the Sveshnikov, a variation Shirov has plenty of experience with. According to Rybka, Shirov has about a pawn's worth of advantage after Carlsen's 18...Rg8.
Wang seems to have gotten over his loss yesterday and is doing battle with Topalov, which looks fairly even after Topalov's 24...Qxf7.
And Ivanchuk may even be working up some advantage after 18...f5 by Dominguez-Perez, probably pondering the complexities of 19.b4.
Wang-Topalov drawn by perpetual check, so now all depends on Shirov-Carlsen. Here Shirov is already thinking for more than 20 minutes after 18.-Rg8, so this doesn't look like home preparation!?
And Ivanchuk did play 19.b4.
Something must be wrong with Shirov. He can't seem to decide what to do. He's afraid of Carlsen. Fearful players generally don't win. If I had Carlsen's position, I'd play 25...e3 and watch Shirov fall apart.
Ivanchuk - Dominguez Perez is a dead draw opposite bishop + rook ending. Forget about it; they are just killing time until they can shake hands.
"If I had Carlsen's position, I'd play 25...e3 and watch Shirov fall apart."
Can you back this up with analysis? Chessdom live coverage gave "25... e3 26.g3 Qd6 27.Rd1 (27.Bxf7 Rg7 28.Bc4 exf2+ 29.Kxf2 d3 30.Ne3 Bf4) 27... exf2+ 28.Kxf2 and the initiative comes to a stop.)"
And maybe Ivanchuk-Dominguez is, at least, not such an easy draw for black. Did you notice the rooks on the board?
Re: Frogbert's comments on live ratings:
I don't think you add clarity to a situation by popularizing a method or service (i.e. live ratings) that lead people to exactly the wrong conclusions.
An analogy: I know that people should drink more fruit juices and eat more healthy foods. But they tend not to do so. Therefore, I will open a chain of fast food restaurants where people can drink soda and eat unhealthy foods...thus demonstrating the reality of the situation.
Unhelpful :)
However, I appreciate your post.
IMHO it is up to the ratings providers to do so in a healthy/constructive manner...not necessarily what sells or what people "want" -- as many times the consumer base has no idea what it "wants" and will consume what is provided (if what is provided ends up being popular...as *popular* is a bit of a chicken/egg situation depending on promotion).
Ironically, I find it is the lower-rated/weaker players who clamor for instant rating feedback, as it tends to remove the element of *improvement* from their calculations. As in "oh, my rating is up 20 pts, I must be getting better" rather than through real improvement in quality of play.
Also, players tend to stop or freeze play at rating peaks...so anything that artificially tells them that they have "made it" is unhelpful. We have instances of that locally where long-time 1900s finally get over 2000 and then stop play -- literally on the day.
"He's afraid of Carlsen. Fearful players generally don't win.If I had Carlsen's position, I'd play 25...e3 and watch Shirov fall apart."
Scintillating analysis, deep psychological insight and a philosophical mind of genius. This blog has become a much richer experience.
GM Shirov sometimes comments on this blog. Why don't you offer him your services as second/ psychological trainer?
Oh no, Magnus fail!
1-0. He must have overcome his terror.
Right on chesshire...
HEY, why did Carlsen resign the game when he had a chance to "watch Shirov fall apart"? Didn't he know there was prize money on the line??
Probably Shirov was not afraid, but just took his time. In any case, in the meantime Carlsen resigned ("insufficient" compensation for being four pawns down ...).
So Bilbao will feature (reverse alphabetic order for the sake of argument): Topalov, Shirov, Karjakin, Grischuk. Who would have predicted any, let alone all of the last three names?
The other news (posted at Chessvibes earlier today): That's it, just four players, no additional wildcard invitations.
A magnificent game by Shirov, and I'm sure he's full of smiles right about now.
Why do people feel Shirov would "fall apart"? He was calling the shots in this game from start to finish. Besides, his overall tournament performance does not give any indication that he was "afraid" at any time.
Carlsen resigned because his position was dead lost and there was no real counterplay available for him to distract Shirov.
Most moves is a rediculous tiebreak. In an obviously drawn game two players can bang out 50 meaningless moves just to pad their number.
Most moves in the shortest game is problematical because because if you crush a player in 18 moves you basically get penalized.
I know what to do. Mig, can you put all ironic quotes in flashing caps please. Red if possible.
Thanks!
I agree, very nice game by Shirov. He made Carlsen look like a baby.
"Ivanchuk - Dominguez Perez is a dead draw opposite bishop + rook ending." (Luke)
To which Thomas replied: "Did you notice the rooks on the board?" (Thomas)
Notice that I said the magic word "rook". In addition to other weaknesses, you can't read? Go away.
So it IS possible to talk out of both sides of your mouth!
Er... no. He didn't. Please stop it.
Gosh chesshire cat is apparently a very poisonous kitty, he can't really stand Luke comments. Why? does the kitty feels insulted in his little chess world? Live and let live Sir.
For Christ sake, he was so pathetically happy when Shirov rightfully won his game and exposed Luke's expectations.
He's full of irony, he says (note: irony, the trademark of a damaged person).
That's an inventive definition of irony, Kronos. But if you just take a moment to look at the Mtel threads, the true origin of the poison will be revealed. Luke should retire from the Chessninja community and think about doing something with his life. His "let's insult the grownups" technique has run its course.
Congratulations Alexei Shirov, 2009 Mtel champion. And welcome back!
Ahem. Well, kronos, if you are preaching that people should "live and let live", and that "irony is the trademark of a damaged person" perhaps you should not append an ironic insult?
"does the kitty feels insulted in his little chess world?"
Just to be consistent, y'know.
Yes this was my fault - but, as always, it is easier to find and point out 'weaknesses' of other people than thinking about, realizing or even admitting one's own weaknesses.
In any case, the ending may still be drawn, but - with Dominguez about to lose a second pawn - it is not DEAD drawn. And Ivanchuk's chances to return on the live rating list (>=2700) remain at least for the time being.
Ivanchuk is making the most of his slim chances. The problem is that he could go 2 pawns up but still not be able to win in an opposite bishop + rook ending. He even has the wrong color bishop for trying to promote his h-pawn. Still, it's worth a try.
Very well, my bad. However it's not good to attack posters like Luke. Even if you don't like his analysis he's trying to do his best. Good day.
Fine with me. I suppose the sick people will start spitting now.
Ivanchuk has some remote chances of winning this.
"trying to do his best"
I respectfully disagree with that, as will you, one day, I think. You seem to be selective in your post-reading. Ciao.
I actually agree with Kronos that Luke is "trying to do his best" - indeed he may succeed (HIS best).
That being said, I hope that Ivanchuk ends up winning the ending - for two reasons: 1) Ivanchuk would deserve it, 2) is anyone's guess. And while I am generally not a fan of Chessdom, their live analysis praises 41.f4+ and states that Ivanchuk is now heading to a victory - but "precision is required in the technical ending".
Congratulations to Shirov! Very nice to see him winning a tournament this strong again.
That means the Bilbao field will consist of Topalov, Karjakin, Grischuk and Shirov. Not quite the same as last year, but not bad.
I think Dominguez Perez is doing everything wrong against Ivanchuk. He's allowed his King to be cut off by Ivanchuk's rook. He's probably going to lose his last pawn soon. I don't get it.
Maybe all (or most) endings with opposite-colored bishops are drawn, but some or more drawn than others ... and even if Dominguez did some things wrong, Ivanchuk must have done a few things right. By now, I wonder if Dominguez still has drawing chances - or maybe he is a) too short of time to resign, or b) as frustrated as Ivanchuk was yesterday.
Ivanchuk won. Very nicely played. I hope he's back on track.
"I don't think you add clarity to a situation by popularizing a method or service (i.e. live ratings) that lead people to exactly the wrong conclusions."
Your claim is that live ratings lead people to wrong conclusions, while my claim is that if anything, it simply makes it more evident that people don't understand ratings well enough. :o) The incomplete understanding was clearly present well before live ratings entered the stage.
I gave a number of reasons why I think live ratings shouldn't (and don't) have the effect you claim - maybe you want to comment on one or more of those?
Meanwhile, after I seem to have got the attention of a number of chess fans, I will try to add more stuff to chess.liverating.org in order to hopefully illuminate that the single rating number doesn't say everything - because it doesn't.
I'll try and see if I can add a couple of new features before august this year - but I'm not too optimistic on the time frontier.
And I assume you did notice that I agree with almost all your important points regarding ratings...
" Something must be wrong with Shirov. He can't seem to decide what to do. He's afraid of Carlsen. Fearful players generally don't win."
"Ivanchuk - Dominguez Perez is a dead draw opposite bishop + rook ending. Forget about it; they are just killing time until they can shake hands."
Thats what i meant when i said that i try not to check this site during the games , it is really frustrating to see a person who knows so much about the elite being mocked by those retarded chessplayers.
I am very happy about Alexei , having him at Bilbao will be a delight to our chess senses.Congratulations Shirov !
Manu, it would be nice if you would grow up and quit calling people names. I don't call you names. But, that's all you seem to do. Not just me, you call other people names too. It doesn't make you look very good at all. Think about it. Maybe the next time you look in a mirror ask yourself why you have to call people names. I hope you can get better.
Congratulations to Shirov. He played very well, so did Carlsen and even Ivanchuk in his last game.
No more name-calling Manu. Try it. Good luck.
Don't bother, Manu. Remember that Luke can't help it. At every post he hangs himself afresh. The good news is that sooner or later he'll bleed out and we won't hear from him anymore.
Its a gamble dude, if you do bold analisys and predictions , you need to be able to take the punch when things dont comeout like in your prophecys.
First you need people to accept Chucky ´s stupidity and then you wont accept your own.
Take it like a man.
Actually, this time Manu didn't even call him anything. As for growing up, it is clear from the hormones being displayed that that is precisely what is happening to some other people.
"Actually, this time Manu didn't even call him anything."
Apart from "retarded", of course.
"it is really frustrating to see a person who knows so much about the elite being mocked by those retarded chessplayers."
If you read it properly, you will see that he does not call Luke retarded, but the elite who dare question his judgement. Therein lies the irony and the point of the post.
Actually it is quite funny, I must say Manu has a good turn of phrase from time to time.
You're right. My apologies to you and Manu.
Nae worries.
That's an improvement, Manu. I'm sorry that my predictions upset you. I predicted 3 wins for Black today, but that didn't happen. Sometimes I'm wrong.
As I said earlier today (1:00 PM), "Ivanchuk won. Very nicely played. I hope he's back on track."
¨Sometimes I'm wrong.¨
Take it easy , you are being too hard on yourself , nobody said that , we were just kiddin.
WHEN will you say ANYTHING interesting?
"Topalov missed a simple win with 41.Rg7+ Kf6 42.Rg6+ Kf7 43.Bc3. And then he missed another win by not playing 47.Rxh6. I thought he was stronger than this."
Bob--
Luke came in for some abuse for "interesting" posts such as this. So now he's careful not to post anything that could possibly interest anyone.
"WHEN will you say ANYTHING interesting?" (Bob)
Hi Bob -
Your apparent need to use capital letters is very interesting. Very interesting.
A most judicious use of caps, Bob, we can all learn from you.
Without the caps the post would be expressing quiet desperation.
But capping "WHEN" and "ANYTHING" allows you to scream, "this guy is driving me #&*@%&# nuts; give me a gun so I can blow my brains out!" in six words.
"give me a gun so I can blow my brains out!" (greg koster)
A bb gun should do it.
I visited this page first time to get info on people search and found it Very Good Job of acknowledgment and a marvelous source of info......... Thanks Admin! http://www.reverse-phone-look-up.net