European Individual Ch in Croatia

Perhaps not CO, but you know what they say... "May as well tell me now, 'cause I'm gonna find out about it anyway!"

This goes to noyb and several others: Isn't it simple? Kasparov and Carlsen said all they wanted to say in their press release, why should we even expect (let alone insist) that others provide more information and disclose any secrets that might exist?
"Others" could be Mig (close to Kasparov), maybe also frogbert (relatively close to Carlsen - at least closer than most people on this blog).

My preferred speculation is still that it's related to Karpov's bid for FIDE presidency, and Kasparov's "possible" role in the campaign - here Mig gave a hint "without really saying anything". This could also explain the timing of the press release:
- the start of their cooperation was kept secret for several months, and announced just before Nanjing
- they could also keep the end or downscaling of their cooperation secret at least for a while, but put it for rather immediate release ... .

"I think it's odd to compare US and European championships."

Why is a national championship considered more exciting than a contintental championship?

"The very strongest players don't show up"

That happens in many "national" championships too, including the Russian and US ones, even if in a lesser degree. And honestly I don't see why it's a huge problem that the top 20 players in the world aren't (always) playing. But it's not many years since last time Ivanchuk participated, for instance.

"In line with Bartleby, I consider the double role of the European championship problematic."

Well, that point was shared by Mig, too - and I'm not going to argue against it; I agree it's not ideal. But I don't think it should take too much away from the importance of and interest in the event either.

"The European championship could rather be compared to the Pan American championship"

I think only in a very superficial sense, Thomas - as WCC-qualifier and continental championship. The sheer volume of strong players in the European Individual Chess Championship makes it a different kind of event altogether in my opinion.

I pre-emptively told you to shut up! Still you're wasting two sentences!!!

Btw, considering my post "trolling" is telling, noyb. But not surprising.

I don't remember Mig's coverage of earlier US championships, but IMO there were three (maybe 2.5) valid reasons to report on, and be enthusiastic about the last one:
1) the strongest possible field (at least no potential title candidate was missing)
2) well-organized, attractive venue, fine media coverage
3) a certain dose of Nakamura!! Nakamura!! hype - which we both don't share, but other readers of this blog do ... . [I could replace 'hype' by "strongly interested in, closely following, and being very supportive of Nakamura"].

Regarding the European championship, of course the strongest players need not participate - Ivanchuk was an exception, we all know that he plays everywhere AND all the time ... . Absence of the strongest players and World Cup qualification (rather than winning or finishing at the very top) being first priority for some players just means that I cannot really "accept" it as a continental championship - the winner certainly cannot claim to be the strongest European player. So I rather view it as a very strong Open, comparable or probably a bit stronger than Aeroflot in the upper half of the table. It's an important and interesting event, that's for sure ... .

"the winner certainly cannot claim to be the strongest European player"

No, but creating an EVENT where the winner can reasonably claim such is something that simply won't happen - for the strongest European player(s) the goal is to be World Champion, not European Champion. Hence, what we got is the closest there is (and will be), in terms of a tournament. The "title" of strongest European player must be decided by the rating list or some other measure.

Still, neither the purse nor the title is worthless - and it takes a darn strong player (and some luck) to win it this year.

Otherwise, I think your point 3 is the only really significant one. However, the current championship doesn't lack profiles, neither new nor old - for example

Adams
Bacrot
Navara
Caruana
Giri

to mention only a few. Caruana seems to have been in slight trouble for some time in his 2nd round game, but he might wriggle out. Anyway, many interesting games this round - I hope it continues!

Yes, there are a number of strong and interesting players, but is it coincidence that the ELO cutoff is 2720? Higher-rated players have decent chances of World Cup qualification by rating ... and the very top doesn't care about the World Cup.

BTW, most of the strongest players DO participate in team events - not only the Olympiad but also European and World Team championships. Are these financially more attractive ("conditions" have to come from the federations)? Is it a matter of honor to represent one's country?
This year, the very strongest players will play Amber which collides with the European championship - they probably didn't have to think twice to choose between those events. I don't know if there were similar collisions at earlier events, if so: Does FIDE make more of an effort to avoid collisions for team events? Or do private organizers 'respect' team events, but not the individual championship?

oh dear I wasnt referring to DM's analysis I think he is excellent and really understands chess...... the same for his postings......

Frogbert is one of the stars of Migloids blog

Ho ho ho our follically challenged esteemed blogmeister is hardly svelte and in chess terms .....

I agree with the first part of your post: Yes, the elite playing Amber wouldn't play the European championship anyway - the point I wanted to make is merely that this year they couldn't even if they wanted to (noone would understand if a player declined Amber to play in Rijeka). The issue is: Why is a continental championship rather unattractive for the strongest players? Is this also the case in any other sport?
Agreed also that the subtop (what you call low dogs) is mostly interested in the World Cup qualification.

But I disagree with the ranting part of your post, here is a Euro trash person trying to argue with arguments ,:) :

1) team events: I won't argue about the US performances, but it is also an issue of
- putting together the strongest possible team and
- having motivation and team spirit.
Some European teams also overperformed at certain occasions: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Netherlands, Germany (in the first half of the Dresden Olympiad). Overperforming means doing better than the ratings suggest, and the ratings are a function of previous performances (mostly) in individual events.

2) American Swisses: Last year, Van Wely played Foxwoods, Chicago Open and Las Vegas to gain a total of 14 rating points. He might be an exception, but the fact that others don't try need not mean that they are afraid of and/or unfit for the jungle, only that there is enough to do in Europe chesswise.
It's also debatable whether American Swisses are tougher than European ones with European subtoppers - e.g. Tiviakov is another 2600+ Dutchie playing many Swiss events.

3) club competitions: In a way, they are actually similar to Swisses - GMs will also face many weaker players and have to score well to defend, let alone improve their ratings. Moreover, sometimes the team interest has to prevail over their personal interests: conceding draws for the sake of the team, or taking excessive risks in a must-win situation for the team (even when you would accept a safe draw in an individual event). At the very least, there is no guarantee that your (or anyone else's) rating would automatically improve if you decided to or got a chance to play European team events.

[Of course I am just a humble amateur, but regarding team events I am in a similar situation: My rating is around 1950 and I regularly face opponents in the 1600-1800 range]

Taking things from a different angle: If a couple separates, it is also his/her/their choice how much they tell others about why and how this happened. If you were a friend of one or both, would you post inside information on the Internet - knowing that they don't appreciate it? If you were an acquaintance or friend of that friend, would you repeatedly insist that "We [should this be 'I'?] are interested" ... ?

Kasparov and Carlsen didn't have a love affair ,:) but for the rest their situation is as similar or identical as can be !?

The great thing about the land of Migloid is all are welcome trolls, chess wannabes, sad sad patzers neo experts even real live GM's and the like: there is no business, there are virtually no rules and intermittance, incoherence and occasional absurdity of the migloid musing supports this enriching anarchy. Baiting, worshipping and mocking of the migloid are all permitted sports Serious grown up chess comment, although rare, is not specifically forbidden.

"The long winded trolls here need to learn one of the virtues of Strunk & White: Omit needless words."

"I do not appreciate your personal attack frogbert. Please refrain from doing so in the future."

Which "long winded trolls" did you refer to, again? Don't try so hard to make yourself even sillier than your normal self, noyb. If you can't comment without calling people trolls, then prepare to have people tell you to shut up. Geez.

Noyb is not even on the list and is not in your class. It remains to be seen whether you can move up from fourth place to regain the top spot.

http://chessauditor.50webs.com/

"Ratings mean very little unless players mingle together freely and randomly. The US players play Swisses, where one is supposed to try to win every game. They take risks and lose rating points, is that news to you?"

With all due respect (for someone using terms like "Euro trash"), you are the one who believe in myths. I'm the one who checks facts.

I'm pretty darned tired of listening to US players who think that they are underrated and that "European players" wouldn't survive US swisses. What a load of crap!

How can people seriously go around and seemingly believe that

* In swiss events everybody always lose rating
* In team events everybody wins rating (or at least: never drop rating points)

???

Grumpy GMs might know something about playing chess, but they should leave the math and the stats to those who actually bother to do any work in those areas. Being an average GM doesn't make anyone an expert in rating questions or statistics.

First, team events: Statistically stronger players UNDERPERFORM and LOSE rating in team events, since they give up more draws there against weaker opposition than when they are playing as individuals. Their results in team events don't reflect only their playing strength, but also to a notable degree team considerations.

Secondly, swisses: Again, for the hundredth time: The majority of events organized in Europe are swisses, and like in US swisses, people gain and lose EQUAL AMOUNTS of rating in swiss tournaments. If you're underrated you gain points, if you're not, you don't. And NO, people don't need to win every game to win swisses, and NO, most players don't throw every shred of common sense out the window because they play an open event.

2 rounds before the end of the US championship last year (2009), these players were fighting for the title together with Nakamura:

Hess, Onischuk, Kamsky, Akobian, Schulman. (Robson played 3-4th board in round 9)

Now, these players have been visiting Europe in 2010, playing Corus B & C (Akobian and Robson), Aeroflot open, Gibraltar and Reykjavik Open. Did they wash the floor with their opposition, being as "underrated" as the typical US swiss player is? No! Akobian finished dead last in Corus B, dropping lots of points, and Robson underperformed by 70 points in Corus C. All US participants had rating performances lower than their rating in Aeroflot A1. The Russian players however - more than 30 of them - performed on average ca. 30 points ABOVE their average rating! Evidence suggests that Russian players are really the ones who can claim to be internationally underrated with their FIDE ratings - plus young Asian players.

What about team chess? In the Austrian league 2008-2009 (ended in March/April 2009) Nakamura lost 19 rating points in 11 games, with a 2500-ish performance. He regained about the same amount in 8 games in the French league 2009 - but it clearly shows how nonsensical the idea is that team events somehow make one immune against losing rating points.

However, all of the above can be considered anecdotal evidence. Although better than Yermo's completely unsupported claims with nothing to back it up (except his GM title which is useless here), it can't be considered any proof of US players NOT being underrated. But I can do better, and in my next post I'll supply some DATA, based on 700 rated games played by US players in European opens over the last 5-6 years.

Yes, my little friend, we saw your link. I know you've been carefully planning this for weeks, even months, and it has given you something to look forward in your fantasy life to that you can't possibly get in the outside world, due to your dreadful social skills. But dancing around in front of your targets and waving your little red flag doesn't increase the effect of the sophisticated prankster you are trying to achieve; it merely highlights your issues. I know you need, you CRAVE more attention to be paid to you, but really, one link is enough. My conclusions regarding your social life and success with the opposite sex seem to have hit the mark, since I attained the no. 2 spot. I am so proud. I have helped an ailing teen to feel happier. Now is that that enough reaction to meet your needs? I promise I'll try to think about you again later, if I have a minute. You'll be the centre of all our thoughts, won't that be exciting? It'll give you that same faintly erotic feeling you have when you see those unattainable female images, won't that be nice?
Have a nice day and I hope you get lots of other reactions, you deserve them, you clever boy, you.

Unfortunately, you may have spoken too soon. You are now at the bottom of the list with 2700.0, having lost 85 points. You are dangerously close to falling out. Tread carefully.

Live rating list here:

http://chessauditor.50webs.com/

Frogbert:

Never mind all these bogus figures. You will find the most accurate evidence at my live chess rating site, available at the link above.

Chess Auditor

"Anyhow, Mig is American, so he's more interested in American chess events. If Europeans find that fact upsetting"

Not at all! I just didn't buy the REASONS he stated for not caring for the European Individual Championships. I agree with you - I think the main reason is that he's from the United States and not from Europe. Not the stated "faults" of the event. [And btw, it has the best live video ("TV") coverage I've seen ever - better than for instance Bilbao, despite that being a multi-camera production too.]

Mig's blog is trying to pose as an international blog, though - not a US one. If he openly stated that his perspective was inherently US-centric, there would be no problem at all.

I heard you already - I don't need to read things 3 times to get your message ["Look at me, look at me, look at me!!!"]. Neither do I have any intention of following your link. But it's nice that you've got yourself a hobby. Get in touch when you reach 3 million visitors and we can have a little exchange about experiences with running "live lists".

I'm terribly sorry, but my live rating list has now surpassed 10 million users. I wish you a lot of luck on your list, but most readers here know mine is much more credible. Pay special attention to the section on Norway, for example.

"I'm terribly sorry, but my live rating list has now surpassed 10 million users."

Someone DID tell you that there are decent 3rd-parties that measure site-traffic? And hence that I can't simply make up numbers the way you do?

According to available 3rd-party data, you don't exist yet, and hence your site has no traffic either. None at all. :o) I'll look forward to your celebration post when you've tricked 100 people onto your "site". So, I'm expecting to hear from you again in a couple of weeks. Until then, bye-bye.

Yup, the fool is the one providing data and arguments, and the brilliant guys endulge in insults and harassment. Got it.

Despite how honoured I am to be in the company of such brainiacs, I'll now leave the two of you alone and focus on those who actually care for the TOPICS on debate: The European Individual Championship and unfounded claims of US players being underrated. Kiss-kiss.

100% cynicism isn't forbidden either - but a matter of taste
bthw - it tells us much more about the **** mind behind 'andy' than about anything else.

Your absolutely right :)"nariu" I believe thats your real name perhaps I am being too naive :)

How can people seriously go around and seemingly believe that

* In swiss events everybody always lose rating

Look at the US Open where two of the winners GM Jesse Krai and GM Alex Lenderman both LOST 2 rating points for WINNING the event. That is how.

That sounded like a long-winded, whiney cry of "Uncle" toadbert... lol

"Look at the US Open where two of the winners GM Jesse Krai and GM Alex Lenderman both LOST 2 rating points for WINNING the event. That is how. "

There's no rule against losing rating points after winning an event. However, dropping 2 rating points is completely insignificant and essentially means defending your rating - or get as close as you theoretically can get to doing that. In the next event they will win 2 rating points instead. [Btw, did Krai and Lenderman play all their games as classical games in the US Open, or did any of them play some "accelerated" schedule with initial rapid games? And which US Open are you referring to btw - in the 2009 "Annual US Open" Lenderman gained 9 points, see http://ratings.fide.com/individual_calculations.phtml?idnumber=2021285&rating_period=2009-09-01]

If you lose more than a handful rating points by winning an event, it simply means that the event was ridiculously weak for your strength and/or you only did what you needed in order to win the event instead of performing as well as you could/should according to your own rating. And note that players lose rating all the time while being on winning teams - and that it's perfectly possible to win a just slightly uneven round robin event too and still lose rating points. It being a swiss or not is quite besides the point.

Moreover, contrary to popular belief, the surest way of GAINING rating is to play down, not up - unless you are improving very fast, which again simply means that you aren't actually playing up (strengthwise), but simply get credit for your too low rating.

And finally, if US 2500-2600 players lose rating by playing down to US 2200-2400 players, then they're probably underperforming even more than their rating loss suggests - since my hunch after studying more bulks of data is that US players from 2300-ish and down start becoming increasingly "OVERRATED" compared to European players with similar ratings. I haven't reached any "final" verdict on that yet, though.

I think age is just an overused excuse. I am young but experience the same thing: MASSIVE rating point gains in team events. Massive rating drops in swiss. I can identify several reasons.

In team events, the same MUST win attitude is there and even stronger. In a 2-1 match scenario you MUST win to get the team the half point. Its not just for you, its for the team too. In 1.5-1.5 a win for you is a win for the team. Etc.

The reason why I think this is the case is four fold. 1) In team events, the team atmosphere makes playing enjoyable and takes stress off you. In swisses, you are hesitant to mingle too much with "the enemy." 2) The short term aspect of team events FORCES you to focus on the current match up and ignore the future potentials. The small goals keep you oriented. You are always watching your teammates boards to see if a draw is good for the team, if you need to start playing more aggressively etc. You aren't wondering what team you might be paired against next when you still have a current match going. 3) There is almost always something to rejoice in from a team event. If not a great game, a personal win, a team win, a team draw, a teammate's win, a teammates upset. It is very rare to have NOTHING positive to focus on to keep your spirits up. 4) In team events, you are largely paired with people +/- 200 pts of your rating. In swisses, it can be a bouncy ball effect. Playing someone 800 pts below then 600 pts above then 400 pts below then 400 points above. It can be just as annoying to see your pairing as to play the game that was predetermined result before you sat down.

Hmm, but the same aspects or peculiarities of team competitions also apply to your opponents - for them they may also be beneficial, have no effect or turn out to be harmful. I wonder how many people in Swiss events already think about their (unknown!) future opponents while playing the current game. Maybe it plays a role in round robins ("I will play Kramnik tomorrow, so maybe I should go for a quick draw and spend s few more hours preparing for the next game ... or should I try to win today because it will be tough tomorrow?"). And in team events, does it help your own game if you simultaneously watch, and worry about several other ones? Whatever, the total rating change for all players is zero in all events (team competition, Swiss, round robin, WCh matches).

Then it comes down to personal preferences and talents. I would like frogbert to do a "Yermo study" (his view cannot be generalized to all US players), but based on my own research there are simply no data: At least for the last two years, all his rated games are from American events (including one in Canada). So it's purely speculative that he would do better, similar or worse in European team events, Swisses or round robins.

"MASSIVE rating point gains in team events. Massive rating drops in swiss."

So, instead of your and others futile attempts at generalizing about your own subjective impressions about your own experiences, put those completely NON-scientific approaches away for a second and tell me the following:

1) When you gain MASSIVE rating points in team events, what does that imply about your opponents?

2) When you experience MASSIVE rating drops in Swisses, who run away with your lost points?

Except the insignificancies of players with different Ks (which also cancel out in the long run), the rating changes of an event is essentially a zero-sum game. That someone experiences/feels that they are more succesful rating-wise in one type of event than the other says ZILCH about what's really going on in the bigger scheme of things.

I don't understand why "debates" invariably return to people's own experiences even when the subject is of an obvious "statistical nature" and the question is about broad tendencies (or the lack of such). It's like when people discuss the health hazards of smoking:

"My grandfather was a cigarette smoker his entire life and he lived and was healthy way into his 90s ..."

You can find 100s of such single examples - but it doesn't prove the healthiness of smoking. Rather, these types of arguments prove the widespread tendency to ignore statistics and promote anecdotal evidence.

"Shouldn't you also compare how Europeans perform in American Swisses?"

Yes, that would be a useful addition, obviously.

I suspect that there's a higher number of players with non-US citizenship that stay semi-permanently in the US (than US players semi-permanently playing in Europe). Ideally I would like to sample non-US players that are "visiting" for the purpose of playing 1-3 events - while playing most of their chess in Europe (or elsewhere).

Put slightly differently: Players living (semi-)permanently in the US playing basically all their chess there while still representing some European (or Asian) federation don't belong to the group I'd like to sample.

@Bartleby

"What are the data saying? Do players beyond 35 fare better in team events, and worse in Swisses?"

I don't know, and I'm not sure whether I'll try to find out. However it wouldn't be too surprising based on my own experience - I'm turning 38 this year - and I basically only play team games or week-long 1-game-a-day tournaments (like the Norwegian championship) these days. The point isn't swiss or not, but weekend tournaments versus tournaments where my "aging head & body" get enough rest between games. Team/league games typically mean 2-3 games per weekend (1 game per day), and the swiss events I play typically have 9 rounds over 8 or 9 days. I need to spend a week's vacation to do that, but then I get to enjoy the chess games too.

When I was a student, I didn't mind playing weekend swisses (with double and triple rounds) or club tournaments with one game in the evening on tuesdays - spread over 7-9 weeks. Combining little sleep at night due to small children, with 8-10 hours at work, only to sit down for 4-5 hours in the evening to play chess simply invites mediocre play and blunders - and probably rating loss too. Most importantly though: it was only tiresome and little fun that way.

But again - swiss or not swiss isn't the right question. :o)

Frogbert: "When I was a student, I didn't mind playing weekend swisses (with double and triple rounds) or club tournaments with one game in the evening on tuesdays - spread over 7-9 weeks. Combining little sleep at night due to small children, with 8-10 hours at work, only to sit down for 4-5 hours in the evening to play chess simply invites mediocre play and blunders - and probably rating loss too. Most importantly though: it was only tiresome and little fun that way."

Amen to that. I think it is a huge factor in why the USCF can't keep people in the fed once they reach the mainstream populace. I don't know how their recent incentives have worked out, but I doubt they've done much, except add one more tier to the playing-age structure before folks get on with their lives.

The same problem evidently occurs elsewhere, so have other countries found a happy medium between nerdish dedication to chess and responsible dedication to families?

CO

Trollpatrol => King Troll

"stop rewarding people just for having a high rating. We know they are good, but they should have to prove it like everybody else"

They prove they are good by KEEPING their high rating.

Here in Norway we typically refer to pure qualification contests (where one simply disregards every other results a sportsman has had during the year - or knowledge about his general capabilities) as "American qualification". I guess it's due to the (in)famous way for instance track & field athletes in the US have to qualify for the Olympics or the World Championship - by doing well enough in ONE SINGLE qualification event. If you cought the flu or sprained an ankle just prior to the qualification event, then tough luck for you.

Again, this kind of do or die qualification events aren't much used around here - and personally I think that's a GOOD thing. I think it's more important to ensure that the best athletes can be there and compete for the gold when it REALLY matters, than to give all (national) candidates an "equal opportunity" to qualify.

I assume there are "cultural" differences in this regard between FIDE member countries, of course not relying so much on actual culture as on what people simply are used to here and there. I don't think one approach necessarily is better than the other - but it slightly depends on what you want to achieve.

"Make these continental events the only way to get to the world championship and I'm sure I'll pay more attention."

Sure, but you also know darn well that anything like that will never happen. At least not in the foreseeable future.

Somewhat randomly I picked two 9 round events that seem to be reasonably well "visited" by European players that travel to the US to play some chess - while spending most of their active chess life in Europe.

Specifically I've gone through the last 5 editions of the World Open and the Foxwoods Open.

To remove some of the "noise" from rapidly improving players or plain "chess tourists", I limited myself to consider players rated 2400 or above, belonging to federations that can send players to the European championships.

[This year the individual championship includes players from: ARM, AUT, AZE, BIH, BLR, BUL, CRO, CZE, DEN, ENG, ESP, EUR, FIN, FRA, GEO, GER, GRE, HUN, IRL, ISL, ISR, ITA, LTU, LUX, MDA, MKD, MNE, NED, NOR, POL, POR, ROU, RUS, SCO, SLO, SRB, SUI, SVK, SWE, TUR, UKR ]

I also chose to disregard players that seem to have been playing the big majority of their chess in the US in this period. Examples of players that were "eliminated" this way are Leonid Yudasin and Jaan Ehlvest (the latter playing under US flag in later years).

This left me with 66 starts in 10 events over 5 years, and roughly 500 rated games sampled. The average rating of these 66 starts was 2572, ranging from 2405 to 2690, 27 in the 2600s, 26 in the 2500s and 13 in the 2400s.

So, 66 starts, ca. 500 rated games, average rating 2572.

35 starts gained rating
31 starts lost rating

Total rating change: -26,1 points
Average rating change: -0,4 points

---

For reference, here are the results for US players in 5 (6) European opens (but without using the limitation of only considering 2400+ players):

87 starts (players) and nearly 700 games.

42 starts gained rating
45 starts lost rating

Total rating change: -71,4 points
Average rating change: -0,8 points

---

I'll simply repeat my conclusion which I think just has been strengthened: (At least at the 2300-2400+ level) FIDE ratings seem to be VERY SUITABLE for direct comparison between US players and European (and other) players. There is so far absolutely NO EVIDENCE supporting the idea that US players are generally underrated in FIDE.

Hence, a cat. 13 round robin of US players must be assumed to be of essentially the same strength as a cat. 13 round robin of European players (categories based on FIDE ratings, of course). Put differently, if some player faces an average of ca. 2550 in a US event, that's directly comparable to a player facing an average of ca. 2550 in a European event - alas, performances can be directly compared.

Personally I consider the "myth" about the underrated US players to be thoroughly BUSTED. Please remember.

[And the European 2400+ players I sampled over 500 games in the World Open and the Foxwoods Open defended their ratings basically perfectly, with a completely insignificant average delta of 0,4 rating points per player/start.]

"which World Cup player who qualified from a Euro Ch made it the furthest in Khanty-Mansiysk?"

Carlsen qualified to the 2005 WCC via the 2005 European Championship and finished 10th (after beating Malakhov in round 6, mind you), qualifying for the Candidates - where he faced Aronian in 2007.

It did indeed start with the 2005 European Individual Championship, Mig! (and a 2570 rating not resulting in any free lunches... :o)

yeah I owe you one guilty as charged :)

"Make these continental events the only way to get to the world championship"
The good news would be that the strongest players might become interested in continental championships, and the European champion could reasonably claim to be one of the strongest European players.
The bad news would be: the only way into the WCh cycle would be a Swiss followed by a knockout event. Personally I am happy that there are various ways to get into the WCh cycle, only organizer wildcards are questionable IMO (at least at advanced stages).

"which World Cup player who qualified from a Euro Ch made it the furthest in Khanty-Mansiysk?"
I think that's not the point. As yermo pointed out, continental events are World Cup qualifiers essentially for subtop players. They don't expect to get very far, just to play a few rounds and earn significant prize money. The issue is that stronger ("more serious"?) players also have to move past those subtoppers in the World Cup. Just as an example: last year, Svidler was in serious trouble against Naiditsch before losing against Malakhov.

"stop rewarding people just for having a high rating. We know they are good, but they should have to prove it like everybody else, and under the stress and strain of performing for high stakes on demand."
Hmm, at least in some cases you also have to "win on demand" to secure a rating qualifying spot. Kramnik had to win, or at least play well, in three consecutive events (Dortmund, Tal Memorial, London) to attain and keep a high rating. What's the difference with Aronian, who played well in three GP events?

That being said, I share some of your "mixed feelings" about the European championship (see previous posts). However, I don't share the arguments you mentioned to justify your personal opinion. Then again, I agree with you that it doesn't have to be justified in the first place ... .

"I agree with you that it doesn't have to be justified in the first place ..."

I also agree about that, in fact. It was the "fake" justification I questioned. ;o)

[It being "fake" or "imprecise" is obviously my subjective speculation - and even though I've brought forward some arguments, I guess I really didn't have to... :o)]

Top 40? At least three.

Frogbert,

Not sure why you compare the U.S. Championship to an entire European Championship that takes the top players from several countries. These are not comparable. Everyone knows there is a deeper pool or stronger players in Europe.

You can certainly compare the U.S. Championship to the British Championship... or other national championship, but not a larger levels of analysis like the European or Asian Championships.

You gave some interesting analysis, but I do see foreign players having a lot of problems at the American Swisses. I cover these events. It can be for a lot of reasons and of course, we can't control for jet lag, substandard conditions, unfamiliarity with environment, etc.

Not sure why you go to so much effort to prove Americans wrong on every single point about every issue. It's quite peculiar... and amusing at times. Saying that, I sincerely admire your contribution to chess and this blog.

"Our resident statistician here can hand pick the data to support anything. Statisticians are good at that sort of thing. I'll just go with my personal experience."

Since you insist on sticking an "unserious" tag to yourself - for no good reason - there's not really any reason for me neither to read the rest of your post nor to continue any debate with you. Making up phony excuses for disregarding the evidence from 1200 rated chess games in favour of your own subjective, personal "experiences" tells much more about your own ability to address the issue in a serious and responsible way than anything else.

There is nothing "hand-picked" about my data, btw. That insinuation simply shows disrespect for what I'm doing, with noting to back it up - again.

Let's start with the European open events I included:

Aeroflot open (A1 & A2)
Gibraltar
Cappelle la Grande
Reykjavik open
Politiken Cup

Can you personally suggest ANY European opens that regularly have MORE US players participating? The above events were chosen EXACTLY because they typically sport several US players each year, so that there should be as few questions about the data as possible. Cherry-picking single events here and there, with 1 or 2 US participants with "correct" results to prove some point, could've invited claims about making up some numbers to support a claim.

I obviously did no such thing: I took the biggest, most known and best visited big European Opens I know of. You're free to suggest events to add, off course, but do not expect that to change the picture much. Any claims that the 5 events I chose are obscure in any way will be so ridiculous that they need not even be countered.

I'm not that familiar with the many US opens around, but let me just ask one question for all US citizens here: Is it wrong to assume that the World Open and the Foxwoods Open are two of the US opens that draw the most strong foreign/European players?

The best comparison of relative levels are when people at similar levels play each other directly. Hence, 9 round events (or longer) are preferrable to big opens with few rounds where the best players hardly face other top players. In swisses with more rounds, the top players play each other in more games, and thus it increases the quality of the comparison.

I will gladly add other US Opens to my data pool (but only events that have been organized over at least 5 years) - feel free to suggest any you like (without studying the data first). Another requirement I have, is that the events sport at least 4-5 European 2400+ players to REDUCE the chances of cherry-picking.

Finally, note that I looked at data for 5 (five!) years for all the events I considered. So, in summary:

* Big, known opens
* ALL players considered (above 2400+)
* ALL the 5 most recent editions (with data available from FIDE) counted

And lastly:

* I don't at all mind adding more events to this study - please suggest some, Yermo

If you still REALLY think that my data are skewed, hand-picked or anything along those lines, then that's simply a testimony to your own unwillingness towards taking a serious scientific approach.

Unlike the impression I get of you, I'm always interested in finding out how things REALLY are - THAT is why I check facts in the first place. I'm not sure who you're trying to fool when you dismiss clear, reproducable statistical findings with general and vague attacks on statistical approaches in general - or on the "Euro trash" that bothered to do some work.

"Loek van Wely is one of the few who's been here frequently and played well."

Says who? You? You're just making empty claims, based on nothing (or your own fallible memory - but you seem never to have undertaken any research on the matter), so the fact is that you simply don't know. "Doing well" in the context of being over-/underrated doesn't translate to winning events or not - it translates to gaining or losing rating points. And here it translates to a GROUP of players gaining or losing (significant amounts of) rating points.

"If those guys are as good as advertised how come they're not coming to take the money?"

Who said they were any better than US players with the same rating? Which strawman are you fighting here? I said that the statistical evidence suggests that the ratings are COMPARABLE. The rating level is the same.

And btw - the number of Europeans that do play tournaments in the US seems to be MUCH bigger than the number of US players that play tournaments in Europe. Even if the cost of travelling to the US to play tournaments, contrary to what you claim, IS CERTAINLY notable for most European players, even in western Europe.

Anyway, speculations about why people do or don't do this or that don't tell us anything useful here. The simple mathematical exercise I did, however, tells us what we want to know. You're free to believe whatever you like, of course, but you fail to bring forward anything except subjective beliefs, myths, hearsay, and so on.

"most of the big jackpots then were taken by American players."

And even if I chose to trust you on face value on that, the essence of the claim proves absolutely NOTHING about the issue of underratedness or not. If you don't understand that, then there's not much I can do: If you insist on living in denial then fine - I hope it keeps you happy, as it will never make you right.

"You gave some interesting analysis, but I do see foreign players having a lot of problems at the American Swisses. I cover these events."

I'm interested in people's chess results under reasonable circumstances - like in the World Open and the Foxwoods Open. I'm interested in quantifiable data. Have you done any serious analysis of rating gain/loss in the events you cover? I doubt it. When people just "see" things without adding an element of objective method (like I did), people typically see what they want to see.

Which events do EUROPEAN (I'm not interested in "foreign players" atm - the comparison was to European ones) have a lot of trouble in? Mention two based on what you've already "covered" - without checking any data first - and I'll take the trouble of checking the facts.

"Not sure why you go to so much effort to prove Americans wrong on every single point about every issue. It's quite peculiar... and amusing at times."

I don't randomly try to prove Americans wrong on every single point about every issue. There's a common denominator which should be quite easy to spot: ratings and playing strength.

For some reason there does seem to be a slightly higher degree of "confusion" related to chess ratings among audible US chess fans than among other identifiable groups on chess blogs and forums. It's probably not true overall and hence my subjective experience doesn't objectively describe reality.

Anyway, it's not really relevant - as I contest wrong or misguided opinions about rating issues anywhere I run into them. The nationality of those who appear wrongly informed doesn't really matter.

"It can be for a lot of reasons and of course, we can't control for jet lag, substandard conditions, unfamiliarity with environment, etc."

No, but what you CAN do, which I doubt you've done, is to check whether or not foreigners do in fact "have problems" as you claim, and if there's any correlation between WHERE they potentially do worse and the "conditions". If double and triple rounds (of "classical chess") are what you think of as "substandard" conditions, then it can't be excluded as a possible reason for "underperforming" for players that are used to playing 1 game per day mostly.

But ability to adapt (or not) to the requirements of having to play 3 games per day doesn't really say much about relative chess strength - it says something being accustomed to the playing conditions. Who performs relatively better under bad conditions isn't a very useful measure, IMHO. If a group of players had spent time getting used to playing serious chess while hanging upside-down from the ceiling I'm darn sure they would "outperform" a random group of equally rated players that were hung up for the first time right before the clocks were started. The lesson learnt from that? Players used to hanging upside-down while playing chess perform relatively better while hanging upside-down than those not used to it. Very surprising.

But so far it's only a hypothesis that European players somehow struggle in US Swisses. The data from the World Open (last 5 editions) and Foxwoods Open (last 5 editions) suggested no such thing. They did perfectly fine, actually.

Daaim, I repeat the challenge I gave to Yermo: Which are the events where the Europeans struggle? For my comparative analysis, longer events are more meaningful than shorter ones, and there should be 4-5 or more European 2300+ players participating (to reduce chances for hand-picking events). Since you cover so many such events (where Europeans have trouble), it shouldn't take you too long to give me the names of a few such events.

"Frogbert,
Not sure why you compare the U.S. Championship to an entire European Championship ..."
I think that's exactly the point: frogbert found/finds it strange that Mig paid lots of attention to the US Championship, but little (plus some derogatory words) for the European Championship which is stronger, at least on the top boards.

And I don't have the feeling that he tries to prove Americans wrong all the time. In the current thread it was a reaction - maybe an allergic one - first to Mig, then to Yermo making false claims and calling some if not all of us from the other side of the Atlantic "Euro trash". At earlier occasions, he made clear that he doesn't quite share the hype around Nakamura ... .

Again in defense of frogbert: Statistics is in any case preferable to "personal experience" and "I talked to Tkachiev five years ago" - unless it is _demonstrably_ hand-picked and thus flawed, which YOU would have to prove.

Moreover, it is a bit odd that you compare American 2500+ GMs with European IMs of the same rating. Everything else equal, a GM is potentially more dangerous because he demonstrated in the past that he can play at a higher level (two or three >2600 performances to get his norms). Obviously he didn't have many more such results and/or wasn't consistent enough - else his rating would be higher - but in a single game he might be more likely to (over)perform.

As to the significant first prize in US Swisses, you (implicitly) say yourself that only the first prize might be worth the trip!? If several Europeans participate, only one of them can take the jackpot - and granted, American players may have more experience in that type of chess competition (and don't suffer from jetlag). But if they do well in Swisses, particularly those with several rounds in a day, they wouldn't necessarily do as well in team competitions or round-robins which may require a slightly different attitude: playing opponents of similar strength rather than beating (much) weaker ones, finding the right balance between taking risks and "draw safety first" every now and then.

As I said before, maybe European players hardly take part in US events because there is enough to do in Europe where conditions tend to be better. Americans can be jealous, at least one of them (Caruana) moved to Europe for such reasons, but they shouldn't use their (relative) misery to support claims of superiority!? ,:)

"the European Championship which is stronger, at least on the top boards."

From round 6 and onwards, the rating average of the top 10-15 boards (combined) is typically higher than the rating average of the top 3 boards (combined) in ANY round in the US championship.

And for the "non-fighting" chess and draw feast, today's round was evidence to the contrary (even if the rating average was the highest there so far, and the rating difference smaller than in any previous round): On the top 15 boards 9 of the 14 concluded games have been decisive so far. :o)

Admittedly 5 of the top 10 boards were releatively short, uneventful draws - but the remaining 5 were all decisive.

Also, with so many strong players competing, there are lots of interesting, high-quality games on boards 16-30 too. Some examples from today:

16 Volkov Sergey 2612 - Tomashevsky Evgeny RUS 2701
17 Alekseev Evgeny 2700 - Potkin Vladimir 2606
18 Pelletier Yannick 2611 - Akopian Vladimir 2688
19 Volokitin Andrei 2687 - Safarli Eltaj AZE 2606
20 Sjugirov Sanan 2602 - Bologan Viktor 2684
21 Caruana Fabiano 2680 - Salgado Lopez Ivan 2592
22 Fressinet Laurent 2670 - Aleksandrov Aleksej 2601

"only one of them can take the jackpot - and granted, American players may have more experience in that type of chess competition"

Well, even if several strong European players would participate, it wouldn't be strange if I could show that there were still MORE US players participating with sufficiently high ratings to be reasonable pre-tournament candidates for winning - and even more so if the eventual winner plays low-rated players for the majority of the event, so that the lucky winner of the "jackpot" (another word making the event sound more like some kind of gambling instead of something more serious) is decided by who crushed the relative weakies in most rounds.

The prize models seem to be a bit different in the US and in Europe, possibly reflecting the higher number of strong players in Europe - or a different culture where "the (lucky) winner takes it all" isn't so dominating. With 15 "credits" the models can be illustrated like this (exaggerated):

US: 11 - 3 - 1
European: 7 - 4 - 2 - 1 - 1

The latter model can support more strong players, put probably also invites more "sensible" AND conservative play over risky daredevil approaches.

"he doesn't quite share the hype around Nakamura"

Actually, I'm quite positive about Nakamura's future these days: He's made several changes towards becoming a serious elite player over the last 2 years which have made him both a stronger player and a potential future WC contender.

Like pointed out before: in addition to starting to work seriously with his openings, the most important move was starting to play many more strong(er) European events. How big that difference was, in terms of rating, is probably not common knowledge to everyone, but here's some data that I've posted on cg.com previously:

---

** Naka's US events, jan 2007 - july 2008 **

77 games in total
against 2600-opposition:
11 out of 77 games - 14%

avg of 2600-opponents: 2632
average tournament strength: 2465 (~ "cat 9")
average opponent rating: 2473 (~ "cat 9")

Compare this to ...

** Naka's events in Europe, jan 2008 - nov 2009 **

95 games in total
against 2600+ opposition:
49 of 95 games - 52%

avg of 2600+ opponents: 2669
avg of 2700+ opponents: 2726
average tournament strength: 2588 (~ "cat 14")
average opponent rating: 2587 (~ "cat 14")

---

In Europe:

5 categories higher events on average
average event strength: 123 points higher
average opponent rating: 114 points higher
amount against 2600+: 52% versus 14%
That is, 3 times as of many/often.

In naked numbers but slightly longer time span:
35 games w/2600-players vs 11 in the US
14 games w/2700-players vs 0 in the US

---

The stats above cover results up to but not including Nakamura's start in London 2009. In order to get the training necessary to be prepared for tougher events like London and Corus, Nakamura simply had to start playing (much) more of his chess in Europe. And he did. Good for him and good for chess.

"The prize models seem to be a bit different in the US and in Europe ... The latter ["European"] model can support more strong players."

While a quantitative assessment would have to rely on actual figures, I am not that sure ... : Six US events may have six different "lucky winners", each of them might finish in the top10 in a second one, and 22nd-58th in the others. Then the "lucky six" would possibly earn more than a sensible conservative player finishing 10th in all events?

The issue may rather be that Europe can provide
- regular income from one, or often several team competitions, and
- many more events to choose from.
I try to "do a frogbert" ,:) giving some data. For the March 2010 list, the USA had 34 rated events. Germany had 62, France had 123, Spain had 64. Not all events will be equally big and strong and have significant prize money, but the overall picture should be clear (remember that it is as easy or easier to travel from Hamburg to Madrid as from New York to Los Angeles).

About Nakamura, there are of course two reasons for the pattern you describe:
- He picks his European events, selecting only strong ones, often invitational events. He wouldn't catch a Trans-Atlantic flight to play the kind of opens he does, or did play in the USA.
- There are stronger events available in Europe. Hmm, maybe one result of the Nakamura hype could be that Seattle finally gets a Grand Slam event, rather than only talking or spreading rumors about it?!

frogbert,

I'll leave it to you to dig the stats. I applaud you... I'm not sure how you find the time.

You can look at your charts all day. I'm sure you believe you can understand a football match from reading the stats. That's seems to be your approach to chess tournaments... read the stats. Stats only show one aspect of a game.

"Having problems" can mean so many things. You'll have to look at upsets of higher-rated European players (considerable) at pasts World Opens. Many GMs get ELO chunks taken from their backside in these tournaments. That doesn't mean these players are weak and I'm not saying Americans are underrated (as a result). However, it IS a snakepit.

Jackson Brown,

From under which rock did you crawl? Is this you demeaning GMs and calling them refuse. What is your ELO rating? When you say stuff like "Soviet garbage," that crosses the line. Some of your rants (like the last one) are downright childish.

Over 2500? I thought I remembered you saying 2300 before. Must be my bad.

OK, it comes down to "winner takes it all". But isn't there a simple reason why Americans often win American opens? They form at least half of the field, and they know each other (a database search is not the same as several previous games against the same opponent). For similar reasons [and maybe other ones], ex-Soviet players tend to dominate the Aeroflot Open. BTW, I guess Bent Larsen's tournament victories were in stronger events than the typical American Swiss.

@Daaim: I guess there were also American players "struggling" at some American Swisses. But this might not be as newsworthy (to you), and they may drop out rather than playing till the end (and losing even more ELO) despite their bad form in a given event.

Frogbert merely said that Nakamura's European events are generally stronger, giving him the opportunity to play 2650+ and 2700+ opposition more regularly. And maybe this forced him, or at least provided an incentive to change his approach to chess, studying openings more seriously etc. ... .

"He [Nakamura] was already strong enough to do well in Europe as far back as 2005, but didn't get the invites."
Now this American myth (European organizers neglected Nakamura, thus blocking or delaying his career) begs for some fact-checking: In 2005, Naka's rating was around 2660 - which doesn't get you Corus A, Linares or Dortmund invites unless you happen to be Dutch, Spanish or German respectively. It's good enough for Corus B which he declined several times. And he DID play the following European events in 2005:
- Gibraltar (an open, but it seems that some of the participating GMs are invited and get conditions)
- Sigeman [with Timman and Sasikiran]
- Biel [with Volokitin, Gelfand and young Carlsen]
- Lausanne Young Masters

For comparison, Radjabov (also born in 1987 and having a similar or slightly higher rating than Nakamura back in 2005) played one invitational event (Dos Hermanas) in the same period.

"Rating analysis of chess performance made by non-players take it one game at a time, while chessplayers tend to think in terms of tournaments."

I'm not sure why you refer to me as a "non-player". I'm an amateur chess player, with nearly 500 rated chess games played at long time controls (the big majority at 2h/40 moves + additional time after that). In the USCF system I would've probably been an inch from master-level (USCF 2200).

I've got more than a handful IM and GM friends, and I'm a personal friend of the "manager" of the highest rated player in the world; I think I know a thing or two about what "professional chess" is about, even though I'm certainly not a professional player myself.

I think the thing you've got problems with (in addition to your ridiculous arrogance), is the possibility of there being slightly different "chess cultures" in Europe and in the US. Obviously there are also differences in Europe, some along the east-west axis, and some between "big chess countries" and "small chess countries" - Norway being a western, small chess country without much of a chess tradition at all.

But first and foremost it doesn't seem like you understand the concept of chess ratings very well. Something you appear to share with Daaim, based on his latest posts here. Someone's chess rating doesn't tell ANYTHING about how often somebody wins tournaments and quite little about the likeliness that someone will win a future one, given enough opponents of "similar" rating (+/- 100 points) - it tells something about someone's accumulated SINGLE GAME RESULTS.

If you want a system that credits people first and foremost for winning events, ignoring that they might bomb out completely in half their events, then you're not asking for a rating system like we have in chess - you're asking for some (dumber) ranking system that give players ranking points along models like this:

1st place: 10000 ranking points
2nd place: 5000 points
3rd place: 2500 points
...
10th place: 100 points

A system like that would honour your "one tournament at a time" and "only wins count" reasoning.

But you are making claims about our current RATING SYSTEM. And you're doing it as if its purpose was something else than what it is. It's NOT a system who tells you who won this or that tournament. It's NOT a system who credits all-or-nothing approaches over sensible considerations and playing "correct", "quality" chess. Instead, it's a system who describes all your single game results which we typically consider to be a reasonably good estimate of DEMONSTRATED average playing strength.

If you would want a different system, then fine - but you should really take into consideration

* the way you're implying your own chosen set of "chess objectives" (like "winning events is everything")
* the existence of OTHER equally valid "chess cultures" and opinions about the "purpose" of chess
* where your own area of expertise stops and mine begins

Kind regards,
the clueless euro trash non-player

"Repeat, rating doesn't make one great, tournament victories do. You don't understand that - you don't understand neither chess history nor present."

Bla, bla, bla.

You were the one who started to talk about "underrated US players". You didn't start to talk about "what makes players great".

I haven't offered my opinions on what makes players great - it's not the subject of our conversation, and you know nothing about what I think in that regard. Hence, you're in absolutely no position to make claims about what I understand about chess - whether history or the chess world of today.

You, however, planted your big feet deep into my salad bowl - by making statements about something I do understand very well - and which you obviously don't understand too much about: Whether the US players are "correctly" rated or not in the FIDE system.

It's true that theoretically the US could've been a "rating island" that weren't sufficiently "mixed" into the big rating pool, so that US players were systematically lower rated on average - meaning that when paired against FIDE-rated players from other continents they would systematically overperform at amounts that were statistically significant.

In fact, that was were YOU started your argument, by making statements like this:

"90% of 2600+ Europeans would not survive one year of US Swisses without quitting chess for good."

"Ratings mean very little unless players mingle together freely and randomly."

Hence, the question was: Is the US a "rating island" that has been "left behind" and where people's ratings don't give a good idea about how they would do ON AVERAGE against players from Europe - IN TERMS OF RATING changes?

And why would the 90% of the (overrated?) 2600+ Europeans quit chess for good if they played in the US? Because they would have bad results? Is that it? Because they wouldn't be able to make a living ("top" US players wouldn't either, with the current tournament model, if US swisses would've been as well visited by strong players as the top 30 events held in Europe each year are).

Just say the word if you want to discuss what makes a chess player great or other chess issues NOT related to rating questions. But now we were discussing ratings - and you are NOT the expert.

"You can look at your charts all day. I'm sure you believe you can understand a football match from reading the stats."

That's beyond silly, Daaim. If you're simply trying to ridicule me by that nonsense, then it's silly. If you actually believe the stuff you're writing, then it's revealing - to say the least.

""Having problems" can mean so many things. You'll have to look at upsets of higher-rated European players (considerable) at pasts World Opens"

Are you ever going to show us what you're talking about, or is that somehow illegal over there?

Why don't you and Yermo show us the list of successes by US players in Moscow Open and Aeroflot Open A1 in recent years instead? Or in Cappelle la Grande. Unlike the European players who play US swisses, you actually "send" your best players to play these opens in Europe, while it only happens once in a while that a couple top-100 players travel to the US to play the World Open. When was the last time one of the best 30 players in Europe cared to play a US swiss?

The big majority of games played by "European" players in US swisses are actually played by players that either live in the US permanently or who are there semi-permenantly and primarily for other reasons than chess - like studying. Put differently, while it's the BEST US players that go to play events in Europe, it's mostly players that are currently NOT particularly successful in Europe that end up playing most US events.

Admittedly, there are a couple exceptions among the ca. 25 European 2400+ players that each year travel to the US explicitly to play a few events, but the pattern is very, very clear - for those who bother to actually study the numbers [even if troublesome and time-consuming like you correctly pointed out - but useful if you prefer to know instead of always guessing. Wrongly.]

"So American players drop out after they lose enough not to make 6.5/9, when there are still rating points to be picked up."

Heh.

Even in many swisses in Europe it's considered anti-social behaviour to drop out unless you're sick or similar - for various reasons: The most important one is that it might severly hurt other people's norm chances. Telling for the "mind-set" you refer to.

"when there are still rating points to be picked up."

That is particularly hilarious. There aren't any more rating points "to be picked up" than there are rating points to be lost. If you're not having a great tournament, the chances are higher that you REDUCE rating loss by pulling out.

It appears to me that you advocate an attitude towards chess tournaments that encourage people not to play chess. Judging from the stats I quoted about the high number of inactive FMs and IMs in USA it appears to have been embraced by many already.

If you make chess a simple gambling activity to maximize profit short term, I understand very well that people choose to do other stuff with their spare time. There are much easier ways of earning money after all, and if gambling is your thing, then casinos and poker are better bets than chess.

"When you say stuff like "Soviet garbage," that crosses the line. "

I know you're talking to "Jackson Brown" - but I think Yermo opened with "Euro trash" which then was raised to "Soviet garbage". Not by me, of course. :o)

Anyway, I want to see you smack Yermo's fingers. Now!

"You seem to attribute Nakamura's results only to playing in Europe, but of course he has done other things to improve his game as well."

I certainly do not attribute it only to playing in Europe. That was necessary but not sufficient. I've written at lengths about it in other places - and even here I briefly mentioned one other aspect that you seemingly ignored completely.

"everyone saw the depth of his talent when you had clearly underestimated it."

What a load of crap. I've hardly made a negative prediction about Nakamura's future or his limitations EVER. And I've always praised his talent. I only was critical about what he was doing (or not doing) about it for a long time.

Go ahead and show me somewhere I say that "Nakamura will never this - or never that". The fact is that you can't do that. It's not possible.

If you're only going to speak nonsense, then you can just as well keep it shut.

As far as I can remember, yes. This, however, is not to be compared with scoring a whitewash on the "recent posts" list, which others have achieved.

frogbert,

Most of the post to me was a waste of your time. I'm not arguing any of what you listed. You are talking about Americans in Europe. I never entered such arguments.

All I'm saying is that when Europeans play in the U.S., they run into some problems. IMs and FMs get few chances to play for norms in the U.S., so they gear up for the World Open and face unsuspecting foreign GMs. There are lots of upsets as a result.

Since you don't play here, all you have are the stats and I understand that. My point was that there are stories not seen in stats... at least the ones you list. I must admit to you that I don't have the time to go and dig up stats. Again... I applaud your efforts and admire your enthusiasm.

"When was the last time one of the best 30 players in Europe cared to play a US swiss?"

I'm not sure, but there are several who have played in the past. I'm curious... why top 30? I've never heard anyone use 30. Anyway, you may even prove Yermo's point by asking this. They may not play regularly because they realize the risk incurred (i.e., ELO points, expenses). To have top GMs fighting tooth and nail against so many sharks in a Swiss format may be unappealing.

You must know that GMs generally don't get any conditions here. They get entry fee and that's it. You also have to carry your own clock and set. When I interviewed Sandipan Chanda, he made mentioned of this with a bit of humour. There are many things you don't see in the stats. The environment for a professional chess player is very important for his success.

"IMs and FMs get few chances to play for norms in the U.S., so they gear up for the World Open and face unsuspecting foreign GMs. There are lots of upsets as a result."
What you are basically saying is:
- lower-rated and lower-titled players are highly motivated
- they may be stronger (at least in single games or single events) than their current official rating suggests. Else they could merely dream about a GM norm ... .
- the foreign GM may underestimate his opponent.

None of this is specific for American events. Rapidly improving players will always be "underrated", because the official rating cannot quite keep track with the progress they make. And just as an example: this year in Gibraltar, Cheparinov had three consecutive draws against 200-550 points lower-rated players.
Maybe American GMs are less vulnerable to upsets at US events because they won't suffer from jetlag and know whom they are facing: "This kid (e.g. Ray Robson, Robert Hess) is talented and dangerous, I have to watch out ..."

BTW, the Canadian Open repeatedly had strong European players (Ivanchuk, Shirov, Adams). Does it offer conditions while - no offense to any Canadians around - Canada otherwise seems to be a bit of a chess desert?

P.S.: Did you note my post about Nakamura's 3-4 European invitations back in 2005?

HI Thomas,

Yes... I noted that. That fact seems to be overlooked.

You're right. FMs and IMs are a highly motivated bunch here, but the chances for norms are slim. That is why you have so many strong FMs and IMs who are inactive. It's tough so many decided to make "better use" of their time. I've talked to many players who have expressed this. In this type of society, people have to making a living or sleep on the street.

Most U.S. GMs who make a living from chess do it through training and coaching... or writing articles and analysis. You cannot make a living totally on American Swisses. You'll end up living out of your car or sleeping on someone's couch. These Swisses are snake pits. I will not forget the look on Laurent Fressinet's face after he got outplayed by IM Emory Tate... 300 points lower.

If you have to play in a World Open for example... first, you don't get conditions. To get a norm, you'll have to play in the long schedule and conceivably fork over US$1500-2000.00 of your own money for a minuscule chance at winning anything back let alone a norm. If you win as a GM, your entry fee is subtracted from your winnings. These conditions (lambasted by none other than Nick DeFirmian) are not attractive.

Fortunately you have talent like Nakamura, Robson, Hess and also Friedel and Shankland. They have succeeded in spite of these factors. Robson had an additional handicap in that he does not live in one of the most active chess states (Florida). His progress is amazing. Caruana probably would have succeeded, but saw a brighter path by moving to Europe. We all are happy for his success.

"Most U.S. GMs who make a living from chess do it through training and coaching... or writing articles and analysis."
While I don't have first-hand information, I guess it's largely the same in (western) Europe. As I pointed out before, there is regular income from team competitions, which might pay the rent or put food on the table - but probably not both for "average" GMs, even if they play for several teams from different countries (as many do).

Regarding inactive FMs and IMs: Europe also has that type of players - not quite strong enough to earn a living from chess and/or unwilling to face the consequences (e.g. constant travelling). But at least some will keep chess as a hobby, play rated games in team competitions and the occasional open. Two things may be different in the US:
- there are less events to choose from, and some may involve travelling across the country
- people have less vacations in 'regular' jobs. Maybe that's also part of the reason why weekend Swisses are common and popular - a typical European open takes one or two weeks ... .

Yes... Tate has a sense of humour in allowing a nine-move mate, but this has nothing to do with the subject. The point was that American Swisses are indeed filled with ambitious players that result in upsets of higher-rated GMs.

The purpose of your post was...?

Ah, chill out and give it a rest, Daaim.

"FMs and IMs are a highly motivated bunch here, but the chances for norms are slim."

And they become much slimmer by the widespread habit of GMs and IMs dropping out of swisses once they aren't in contention for first prize, as described by Yermo. Has noone really not pointed to how problematic that is for aspiring players?

"So maybe American IMs can be bitten (outplayed)by poisonous European snakes. "

Of course they can - and they are. There aren't any fewer rating upsets when US players play in European opens. But Daaim insists on seeing only at one part of the picture for some odd reason. Well - "odd"... If you're only interested in gettting your prejudice confirmed I guess it's "logical" in a way. But not very fruitful if you want to understand the whole picture.

"IMs and FMs get few chances to play for norms in the U.S., so they gear up for the World Open and face unsuspecting foreign GMs. There are lots of upsets as a result."

No, there really aren't. The European players who come to the US to play the World Open seem to score as expected on average. They do NOT underperform on average.

Hence, what you consider "lots of upsets" is simply what is to be expected from the rating system. There is NOT an unusual number of rating upsets - it's exactly the same when these players play in Europe.

You seem to take what you mistakenly consider to be "unusual" or "surprising" to be proof of US players being stronger than what their ratings suggest (or somehow at a disadvantage the rest of the year), but you quietly ignore (or maybe isn't event aware of) the number of US players that UNDERPERFORM in the World Open. You're blind on one eye, Daaim - that's your problem.

"You're wrong about only the BEST US players playing in Europe."

You're wrong in saying that I claim ONLY the best US players play in Europe. I didn't say that. I said that indeed your BEST players play in European opens. I can document it. The percentage of the upper layer of US players that play in Europe compared to upper layer of European players that play in the US speaks very clearly about this. If you don't understand that it makes a difference and creates assymetry one way when it's (mostly) the most professional players that play abroad in the US, when it's people who have semi-permanently gone abroad for primarily OTHER reasons than chess that mostly (in clearly the highest number of games) represent "Europe" in the US, then it's evident to me that you're missing something.

Like I said, those who come for events like Foxwoods Open and the World Open deliver the goods - on average. There are always some player(s) that underperform or have a bad event - no matter where they play. And there are always "weaker" players that overperform, in any open event anywhere. You and your "journalist" approach seem to misinterprete this. [If we were to believe journalists, married couples do nothing but cheat on or kill each other, too - that's the only thing they appear in the news for.]

"It was out of place and we have not discussed the European Championship since."

It wasn't "out of place" - it started as a comment to Mig's slightly negative angle on the European Championship, something that's perfectly on topic and reasonable. Then Yermo presented the typical US myth about US players being better than everybody else thinks ("underrated") - since I used the ratings of the European players in the Individual Championship as "proof" that it was indeed a strong event.

And yeah, nobody else has commented on the European Championship since then - except me, of course. The rest of you don't seem to care much about it - while I do.

"Do some research and then get back to us."

If anyone had done nearly the amount of "research" I do before I claim something, I would not have needed to listen to all your uninformed opinions based on little but your strong belief that there's something special and unique about US chess. In fact, that's the most special thing I've observed so far - that it's commonplace to think that you're better than anything objective and neutral suggests.

"You're wrong on so many counts but are blinded by your stats and preconceived notions of what American chess players (not a monolithic group) may be thinking. Thus you attacked Mig for no reason other than his opinion about this particular tournament."

Blinded by stats? Blinded by data? Blinded by knowledge that is indeed tangible and researchable and documentable? Get out of here!

And I have preconceived "notions of what American chess players think" and therefore I "attacked Mig for no other reason other than his opinion about this particular tournament"???

That's genuinely silly! What I attacked, was THE REASONING he put forward for his indifferent attitude towards the Euro Champs. I didn't generally attack Mig, and the criticism was directed at the comments about THIS particular event and little else. I'm not surprised or offended by the understandable amount of US bias in his blog - it's natural and to be expected. I just frowned at what I considered a slightly misleading justification for his attitude here.

But Mig isn't a piece of porcelain that breaks due to civil and founded criticism of one of his articles. Unlike yourself who seem unable to digest criticism of anything American without feeling offended on behalf of all US players and everything US, be it tournaments or prize models or whatever.

I'm not being unreasonable or negative here - even if I point out MISTAKES in certain "popular beliefs" among US players and fans, and I give evidence for my claims. I don't see that anyone is served by believing in myths like the "underratedness" of US players. Isn't it better to get the facts on the table, absorb it and move on?

Your talk of me being "so wrong in many accounts" regarding US chess is somewhat silly: For someone not having played chess in the US at all, my knowledge has grown to become pretty good I think. For instance, going through every single US event rated for the 2009 FIDE list gave my a much better picture of the sizes, the strengths and the types of events being organized in the US than I had before.

Previously I've studied the somewhat uncommon (and very different from Norway) tradition of mixed schedules (various combos of rapid and classical), half-point byes, re-entries and many other aspects of US tournaments that I'm not used to from Europe/Norway. I don't mind being informed how things are over there - I'm actually quite eager to learn more. But some types of claims aren't something locals are better equipped to make. Rating issues is one example of an area where stats weigh heavier than mythical beliefs.

"On the other hand you only refer to where you think they are wrong. You don't look at where there is common ground. You don't acknowledge that Yermo's last post was more sensible and balanced than the previous ones."

I could probably improve at pointing out agreement and recognizing common ground. The reason I don't spend much time on that, generally, is that concensus and agreement seldom drive any debate forward - to the contrary, when concensus is reached, it typically ends the debate.

That doesn't mean that I don't silently recognize that there are views and opinions that are shared.

Regarding Yermo's last post I agree that it was more rounded and generally made more sense. However, he didn't exactly invite much reconciiliation when he arrogantly

* refers to me as a clueless non-player
* says I don't understand anything of chess history or present

That kind of ad hominems doesn't go down too well with me - and Yermo started out in his first post by classifying me (Thomas, others?) as "Euro trash" - not a very admirable approach to disagreement about some topic. You can compare it to my criticism of Mig's angle that our dear Daaim thought was so awful. But it's no big deal, I think.

Btw - what are your thoughts about the relatively high amount of inactivity among stronger players in the US? I'm a little puzzled by it: almost none of the many FMs and IMs I know play chess because they intend to live from doing that - they have normal jobs that provide their income. But that doesn't stop them from playing chess as a hobby - I hardly know anyone who's completely stopped playing FIDE-rated events. However, that seems quite common in the US. Why do you think that is? Doesn't anyone offer tournaments/events that are attractive to the (strong) hobby player that wants to enjoy chess, as a hobby, merely for fun? Or what is it?

"frogbert just scored seven posts in a row. Does anyone know if that's a record for the 'dirt?'"

if i drop by once every 3 days, when it's night or very late in the us, i guess the chances increase for that to happen. :o) this was number 6 in the current streak, btw - but i don't intend to reply to more posts now, so it'll end there. no new record. ;o)

"people have less vacations in 'regular' jobs. Maybe that's also part of the reason why weekend Swisses are common and popular - a typical European open takes one or two weeks"

Ok, one more:

This point is probably important, Thomas. At least to explain why many more Europeans/Norwegians seem to be able to keep chess as a hobby, even when it's clear that it'll never be more than that.

In Norway most people have 5 weeks of holidays - that makes it quite more affordable to spend one week to play a chess tournament. My US colleagues typically have 3 weeks of holidays, and even that appears to be higher than the average.

Hence it's understandable that many people have to stop playing when they aren't students anymore - and might feel that weekend swisses are more tiresome than fun when directly succeeding a long week at work - and preceeding another long week at work, with no (physical or mental) rest gained during the weekend.

frogbert,

"If anyone had done nearly the amount of "research" I do before I claim something, I would not have needed to listen to all your uninformed opinions based on little but your strong belief that there's something special and unique about US chess."

Yes... you do a lot of research and are long-winded. However, I never said there was anything unique about U.S. chess. I'm only stating what I've experienced and seen at U.S. tournaments. European players seem to struggle with the conditions and it affects their play. You assume I believe U.S. chess "special" and "unique"? Then you're delusional.

"You seem to take what you mistakenly consider to be "unusual" or "surprising" to be proof of US players being stronger than what their ratings suggest (or somehow at a disadvantage the rest of the year), but you quietly ignore (or maybe isn't event aware of) the number of US players that UNDERPERFORM in the World Open. You're blind on one eye, Daaim - that's your problem."

I never said anything about U.S. players being underrated or stronger than their rating or any of the things you've been talking about. You've posted so many comments that you are now confusing arguments and forgetting who said what.

"It wasn't "out of place" - it started as a comment to Mig's slightly negative angle on the European Championship, something that's perfectly on topic and reasonable. Then Yermo presented the typical US myth about US players being better than everybody else thinks ("underrated") - since I used the ratings of the European players in the Individual Championship as "proof" that it was indeed a strong event."

You're are flopping around like a fish out of water. You now find Mig's angle reasonable? You said, "'What I attacked, was THE REASONING he put forward for his indifferent attitude towards the Euro Champs.'"

Question: What's wrong with being indifferent on a tournament (i.e., World Open, Linares, Asian Championships, Angola BCI)? It may not be a tournament he likes this year. So be it. Do you have to then assume that he is setting the U.S. Championship as a standard by which tournaments are based?

Here is a person (Mig) who runs a blog. He gave a view on what he thought of the European Championship. You immediately started comparing it to the U.S. Championship. Who cares about the U.S. Championship when we are discussing the Euro Championships?? The comment below is really ironic.

"And yeah, nobody else has commented on the European Championship since then - except me, of course. The rest of you don't seem to care much about it - while I do."

Yea right... you hijack this thread (on the Euro Championships) into some U.S.-European comparison and then say we are not interested. What a hypocrite!

Sorry Greg... he got eight, didn't he?

"You're are flopping around like a fish out of water. You now find Mig's angle reasonable? "

Daaim, this is futile as long as you don't demonstrate better reading skills. See what I wrote, one more time:

"It wasn't "out of place" - it started as a comment to Mig's slightly negative angle on the European Championship, something that's perfectly on topic and reasonable."

What do you think I'm referring to, that's "on topic" and "reasonable" here? Mig's slightly negative angle - or my reaction to it? Obviously the latter.

And I didn't "hijack" anything - I used Mig's coverage and enthusiasm about the US Championship as part of my ARGUMENT that his (little) interest in the Euro Championship was biased - since the latter is a much, much stronger competition. Again, a very logical and reasonable argument.

Then Yermo argued that ratings mean nothing when comparing US and European players - listen - YERMO made that claim, saying that US players are UNDERRATED.

Who brought up that topic? Yermo or I? I'm not impressed, Daaim. Try paying attention to what's going on, will you?

Yermo's implicit argument goes like this: The US championship is so strong, also compared to the Euro Champs - because US players are underrated - that there's NO BIAS when Mig is more enthusiastic about the US championship.

In order to prove that "argument" wrong, I showed that US players are NOT underrated, and hence the strength of the US Championship is NOT comparable in any way to the Euro Champs (based on the participants' ratings), and so it follows that Mig pays more attention to a MUCH WEAKER, national championship than to a MUCH STRONGER, continental one. Which I don't mind in itself - but I didn't agree about Mig's "reasoning" about why it is like that.

Let me know next time you need a thorough explanation of something that's obvious to the rest of us, Daaim. Your clueless take on this whole discussion makes it pointless even to read the rest of your "views".

"So, to summarize. European and American FMs and IMs are equally hungry and snake-like."

Actually we haven't really researched that - yet. Just for the heck of it I made some analysis of games in the recently concluded (well, except the tie-break games) Euro Champs (which saw excellent fighting on the last day - 4 of 5 top boards were decisive battles).

Of 1216 or so games played, 297 games were between players rated between 200 and 400 points apart. It turned out that the lower rated players WON a total of 16,8% of these games - that is, 50 of the 297 games.

I also looked at the 2009 World Open, where the total number of games with rating differences between 200 and 400 points was 97. The outsider won (only) 6 of these games - or 6,2%. 1 European "victim" and 5 North Americans (mostly from USA). Compare to the "snakes" in the Euro Champs, that scored a win in 16,8% of their games. [Read: the NUMBER of upsets wasn't even particularly high in the World Open - quite modest, in fact, compared to the Euro Champs.]

Including wins where the winner was at a 100 to 199 points disadvantage in the World Open, gave an additional 12 "smaller upsets". Who were the victims of these in total 18 upsets?

1 from Asia
2 from Europe (same player twice, actually)
2 from South America
13 from North America (USA 10, CAN 3)

(Assumedly in reasonable proportion to the number of participants - but note that only one single European player lost to someone rated 100 or more points below himself. One.)

Of course, with Daaim reporting from the event, the article would've featured this game:

Smith USA 2474 - Potkin RUS 2621 1-0

And it would NOT have mentioned these two games at all:

Schulman USA 2632 - Stopa POL 2471 0-1 (!)
Stopa POL 2471 - Benjamin USA 2583 1-0 (!)

And possibly none of Becerra's (2609) TWO losses to players rated 2494 and 2420 - as that would potentially endanger the myth-maker's agenda. Oh well. Go on and kill the messenger... ;o)

So the comment section of Mig's blog is YOUR house now? Well, I'm not really surprised. I take it that as a GUEST I should've been more "polite" to my hosts.

Daaim claims I'm "delusional". I've got a different view on who's unable to face reality. And yeah, I will quite persistently drive a point home - in particular when people react with denial and insults to informed, fact-oriented posts.

But by all means - if you think the myths about US chess and US swisses and US players you create and maintain are helpful for the state of chess in America, then please disregard every piece of information I've provided in this thread. The loss isn't mine.

*bink*

(the "sound" of a light bulb)

Why so you can jerk off in it to pictures of Ricky Martin??????

Chess is a two-player board game played on a chessboard, a square-checkered board with 64 squares arranged in an eight-by-eight grid. Each player begins the game with sixteen pieces: one king, one queen, two rooks, two knights, two bishops, and eight pawns. The object of the game is to checkmate the opponent's king, whereby the king is under immediate attack (in "check") and there is no way to remove or defend it from attack on the next move. The game's present form emerged in Europe during the second half of the 15th century, an evolution of an older Indian game, Shatranj. Theoreticians have developed extensive chess strategies and tactics since the game's inception. Computers have been used for many years to create chess-playing programs, and their abilities and insights have contributed significantly to modern chess theory. One, Deep Blue, was the first http://www.neeshu.com machine to beat a reigning World Chess Champion when it defeated Garry Kasparov in 1997.