|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 11 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Feb-02-25 | | Lambda: Just pretend tie break games in round robin tournaments never happened. Unless it's something like Candidates where you need to decide on a single winner, everyone on the highest score after all the normal games is a shared winner. |
|
| Feb-02-25 | | jphamlore: <Olavi: This is completely silly, to decide a great tournament with 3+3 blitz games... actually it's a shame. What on earth is wrong with a shared win.> Because the alternative is Carlsen and Kramnik after Candidates 2013? And look at both players' results the final round. |
|
Feb-02-25
 | | Sally Simpson: <Tiggler: Next WC match: two Indians?> Well one of them is already there, at the current rate the Indian kids are improving there is a chance that at this moment in time we will have never heard of his challenger. |
|
| Feb-02-25 | | EvanTheTerrible: It's a shame that Gukesh didn't just offer to be co-champions. |
|
| Feb-02-25 | | Tiggler: https://2700chess.com/live |
|
| Feb-02-25 | | Atking: <keypusher: <What on earth is wrong with a shared win.>
Absolutely nothing! Congratulations to them both.> Totally agree! |
|
Feb-02-25
 | | PawnSac: < EvanTheTerrible: It's a shame that Gukesh didn't just offer to be co-champions. > Aren't the playoffs required? |
|
| Feb-03-25 | | EvanTheTerrible: <PawnSac>, I was poking fun at Carlsen/Nepomniachtchi for simply deciding that they are both world champions now instead of finishing their tiebreaker in the World Rapid Championship. I'm quite glad the kids showed more fighting spirit. |
|
| Feb-03-25 | | Olavi: A World Championship and a Candidates needs a clear winner. Naturally a private tournament can stipulate they play bullet games, or tic-tac-toe, to decide the tournament winner. |
|
| Feb-03-25 | | John Abraham: well done Arjun for beating Gukesh and Abdusattorov in the final 2 rounds!! |
|
Feb-03-25
| | Sally Simpson: <Pawnsac - Aren't the playoffs required?> They use to share the title and it has been shared a number of times in the past. They brought in tie breaks in 2018 when Carlsen beat Giri in the play-off. Giri did not give an interview instead he tweeted: <Anish Giri: Congratulations to @MagnusCarlsen who shared first place with me at #TataSteelChess then went on to beat me in a playoff and afterwards tried compensating for it by playing a mr.Nice Guy for the camera. Pure evil. Congrats!! #HatersGonnaHate> He did add smiley emoticons to indicate it was a joke but he was slightly peed off. The wiki page list single winners but scroll down and see the players who shared the title; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tata_... |
|
Feb-03-25
 | | Open Defence: Congratulations Praggnanandhaa he played some superb chess! Gukesh will be disappointed but his run was impressive as well. I think Caruana will be disappointed with his performance +1 -2 =8 Wei Yi was solid but I think in today's scene you need to take risks to win |
|
Feb-03-25
 | | Teyss: Agree with <Olavi> and others: (a) We don't need a single winner in that type of tournament. (Side note: this longing to have a sole leader in many domains says something about our psyche and societies, but that would be off-topic and too long to develop.) Now, there is the issue about the FIDE Circuit for which Wijk aan Zee applies and only one player is eligible. For info the Challengers section, also valid for FIDE Circuit, does not have playoffs but a final ranking based on direct encounter and then SB: it could also be used for the Masters. (b) If we really want a single winner, notably for FIDE Circuit, let's at least do it properly with rapid games and only afterwards blitz instead of going for super-fast blitz straight away. And then decent blitz of 5 minutes + 5 second increments instead of this format which is close to bullet. IMHO of course. |
|
| Feb-03-25 | | metatron2: That was an epic finish for this exciting tournament: The 3 young talents fighting for the first place, with the two leaders crack under the pressure and lose, while the 4th young talent making an amazing come back in the last two rounds, after having the worst tournament of his life, and beat 2 out of the 3 leaders, messing things up and make them more exciting.. I personally like blitz/rapid tie breaks. It maybe problematic for crowning the classical world champion, but for tourney like Tata its just fun to watch, and its not like 'Tata 25 winner' is such an important title, so no harm done. And finally, Naka & Carlsen proved once again, that the best strategy for leading chess players over 30 yo, to keep their rank and even (significantly) increase their gap from others, is simply not to play .. |
|
Feb-03-25
| | Sally Simpson: <Hi Teyss>
That is point I think Pawnsac was making and I should have elaborated on, The Tata Steele Masters and Challengers are both on the FIDE circuit. However it does mention that a tie break for an outright winner is not required. "If no tie-break rule is applied, basic points are 100% shared equally among all tied players." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_... |
|
Feb-03-25
| | Teyss: Hi Geoff,
Didn't see this post about FIDE Circuit, must be on another thread. <PawnSac> apologies if I stole your idea without knowing it, mitigating circumstances. Wasn't aware of this provision regarding the potential absence of tie-break rules, but then it reinforces our point: it's fairer to stage no playoffs and have Pragg and Gukesh both win 7 points for the Circuit, than Pragg 14 and Gukesh 0 just based on a single 3+2 blitz. BTW this should also apply in the Challengers section where Thai Dai Van Nguyen won the SB only by 0.75 point over Aydin Suleymanli, especially since SB is something a player cannot control. |
|
Feb-03-25
 | | HeMateMe: I think best is to have a final tie, reflecting classical chess rules but have rapid tie breaks for the prize money division. |
|
Feb-03-25
 | | MissScarlett: Play-off games: Tata Steel Masters tiebreak (2025) |
|
Feb-03-25
 | | keithbc: I agree that having rapid and blitz to decide a tie break is far from ideal but a tournament is 'only' a tournament. It should never be used as a format to decide something as huge as the word championship. Play on until someone wins a game. As I thought, Caruana is not the strength he once was and (I know he's a candidate) I do not see him qualifying ever again. |
|
| Feb-03-25 | | fabelhaft: Caruana had a really bad result, but he did have six top two finishes in a row before that, and fourteen in a row with a plus score: https://www.chessfocus.com/tourname... |
|
Feb-03-25
 | | Williebob: Thank you, <fabelhaft>, for the firm corrective to <keithbc>'s ridiculous and pompous naysaying.
<As I thought..>, Lord that boils my blood. What do you know about anything, keith? If Caruana desires the title of World Champion enough, then he has as good a shot as any player alive. |
|
Feb-03-25
 | | perfidious: <Teyss....BTW this should also apply in the Challengers section where Thai Dai Van Nguyen won the SB only by 0.75 point over Aydin Suleymanli, especially since SB is something a player cannot control.> Sure they can: lose to a lower-scoring player and beat those who fare better. |
|
Feb-03-25
| | Teyss: Hi perfidious,
Of course, how didn't I think about this before? What an easy way to cook the numbers. Hi fabelhaft,
Thanks for the info, we indeed cannot draw conclusions based on a single tournament. The same applies to Erigaisi. |
|
Feb-03-25
 | | chrisowen: Pragg the raspberry mess :) |
|
Feb-03-25
 | | eternaloptimist: Pragg the raspberry mess❓❓🤷♂️🤔 |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 11 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
