| Gibraltar Masters (2017) |
|
The 15th Gibraltar Masters was held in Caleta Hotel, La Caleta, Gibraltar from 24 January to 2 February 2017, as part of the Tradewise Gibraltar Chess Festival. The 10-round, 255-player open Swiss saw Top 10 stars Nakamura, Caruana and Vachier-Lagrave compete for a GBP 23.000 first prize, while the women's top prize of GBP 15.000 attracted Women's World Champion Yifan Hou and many of the world's best female players. The players received 100 minutes for the first 40 moves followed by 50 more minutes for the next 20 moves, then 15 more minutes until the end of the game, with 30 seconds added per move from move 1. A tie for first place to be settled in a playoff. The festival also featured four amateur tournaments. Tournament director: Stuart C Conquest. Chief arbiter: Laurent Freyd. Number of games played: 1214 + 6 = 1220. Hikaru Nakamura won a third successive Gibraltar victory, his fourth in total, after overcoming Yu Yangyi and Guijarro in the Gibraltar Masters (Tiebreaks) (2017) on 2 February. Official site: https://web.archive.org/web/2017020...
Chess-Results: http://www.chess-results.com/tnr257...
Chess.com: https://www.chess.com/news/view/nak...
ChessBase: https://en.chessbase.com/post/gibra...
BritBase: https://www.saund.co.uk/britbase/pg...
chess24: https://chess24.com/en/watch/live-t...
TWIC: https://theweekinchess.com/chessnew...
FIDE: https://ratings.fide.com/tournament... Previous: Gibraltar Masters (2016). Next: Gibraltar Masters (2018)
|
|
| page 1 of 43; games 1-25 of 1,063 |
     |
 |
|
| page 1 of 43; games 1-25 of 1,063 |
|
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 20 OF 20 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Feb-18-17 | | fisayo123: Well she's been granted an undeserved spot in the Grand Prix so I'm sure she's gotten over whatever alleged rigging took place with the pairings. |
|
| Feb-18-17 | | Riverbeast: <fisayo123>
Why so you feel it was undeserved? Because of her rating? She's the strongest woman player in the world, and a great draw. She brings attention and prestige to a tournament when she participates Most fields in every sport have 'wild card' entries, automatic entries for hosts, automatic entries for women's champions, junior champions, regional champions etc. It adds to the diversity and appeal of the tournament....Fields are not always chosen just by world ranking |
|
Feb-18-17
 | | Sally Simpson: Here...at last....is the full prize winners list from the tournament. http://www.gibraltarchesscongress.c... |
|
| Feb-19-17 | | zanzibar: Equal pay for equal work?
TPR of ~2730 by Ju (£15,000) vs. Howell (£576.92), with both scoring 7 points. Hmmm. |
|
Feb-19-17
| | Sally Simpson: Ju Wenjun also picked up the £3,000 rating prize for players banded between 2550-2649. |
|
| Feb-20-17 | | Tiggler: <Sally Simpson: Somebody must have liked Donald Trump because he was voted in.......apparently by the silent majority.> I voted for him, and all the pissed off liberals having tantrums are how I know he is keeping his promises. |
|
Feb-20-17
| | Sally Simpson: Hi Tiggler,
I was just talking about him in one of my very rare visits to the Rogoff page. He's different, I'll give him that. Quite entertaining and who knows, it is early days yet. He may be just what America needs. He will also be a hard act to follow. |
|
| Feb-21-17 | | Sokrates: Trump here, there and everywhere. Can't we at least make CG a Trump-free zone, please? |
|
Feb-21-17
 | | moronovich: MCGGA ! |
|
| Feb-21-17 | | Mr. President: Believe me. You'll never get bored with winning. You'll never get bored! |
|
| Feb-21-17 | | Mr. President: <Trumpwise Gibraltar 2018> |
|
| Feb-22-17 | | Absentee: <Riverbeast: <Absentee> No inconsistencies there...I believed the pairings were rigged, and still have not seen proof they weren't...One person who did manual pairings said most of Hou's pairings were correct, but one round was not.> Then you have a lot of catching up to do. "One person said"? What is that, a joke? You can check the pairings yourself. It's not rocket science. It's pretty straightforward, actually. And they're correct.
The rest is all moot. |
|
| Feb-22-17 | | donjova: <Riverbeast: ...I don't understand why this is so difficult to understand...The Fridman-Zatonskih pairing should not have been allowed to stand, with so much money at stake. THAT pairing was unfair to all the players (particularly the women competing with Zatonskih for the 10,000 pound woman prize). That pairing not only encourages game fixing, but even if Fridman loses the game legitimately it carries the air of fixing...It casts a pall on the integrity and objectivity of the tournament> I find this reasoning odd, especially since you are among the people who "believe" Hou's pairings were fixed. How many times have we heard the sentence "rules were known in advance, so you can't complain now". To allow the certain pairing by the rules and than change it after the drawing is the textbook example of unfairness. If you are afraid of the last round fixing, then, before the tournament, you write the rule saying that spouses, siblings, parents and children, lovers, neighbours and whoever, can't meet in the last round. You can make a rule that states player A and B can't meet in the final round, but you have to do it beforehand. (If two players fall in love or discover they're twins separated at birth during the tournament, tough luck.) <Pairings are changed or re-done all the time and there's nothing wrong with that, as long as they are done in the spirit of fairness.> This is exactly the problem: who is the arbiter of fairness here? <That's why I said if they were not manipulated before, they should have been manipulated after...To get a different result> So, basically, if you don't like the pairings, you will repeat the process until you get the pairings you like. Can it be more arbitrary than this? And so we come to Hou. She didn't like the pairings because she got to play against the women all the time. Next time she could complain because she got to play blonde people all the time. Or ugly people. Or beautiful people, it can be a distraction. Or, perhaps, people who play Nimzo-Larsen attack, she might find it unconvenient. I admit that your opinion regarding the need to change pairings in a particular situation has some logic, although I totally oppose that. But you also claimed pairings were rigged, i.e. manipulated before publishing. Now, I understand why would someone want to rig the pairings to avoid the Fridman-Zatonskih game in the last round, for example - you stated some good reasons, the appropriate rules weren't written in advance, and someone has secretly decided to take the matter into his own hands for the sake of all. But, why on Earth would someone want to fix the pairings so that Hou plays women only? What is to be gained by that? Is it some fetish, perhaps? I can't fathom the reasoning. |
|
| Feb-22-17 | | Riverbeast: <you write the rule saying that spouses, siblings, parents and children, lovers, neighbours and whoever, can't meet in the last round.> With money at stake? When there are alternate pairings possible? Yes, and that rule shouldn't need to be written. That's common sense. In the interest of fairness, changing the Fridman-Zatonskih pairing should have been the arbiters' first instinct, as soon as they saw it. I can't believe I need to spell this out, and explain the reasoning for this, to some of you people. If you change the pairings to avoid conflicts of interest, that is fair to all the players. If you let stand a pairing that has a clear conflict of interest, that is not fair to all the players. |
|
| Feb-23-17 | | donjova: Riverbeast, you say:
<Yes, and that rule shouldn't need to be written. That's common sense.> and then:
<I can't believe I need to spell this out, and explain the reasoning for this, to some of you people.> It obviously isn't as common sense as you think it is. Besides, philosophically speaking, common sense is a pretty low form of reasoning. :) Your opinion on this stance is problematic because it goes down to "I don't care what do the rules known to everyone say, the decisions should be made based on what I think is right in any given situation, and also what I think is right equals common sense because I say so". Then you can also apply some Fischer type of common sense. Why not change the pairings every time two ex-Soviet players can decide the prize money division? Russian have fixed the world chess, it is the ABC of chess. Totally common sense. And when your arbitrary application of common sense results in some guy having to play Caruana as black in the final round instead of Shankland as white, then the statement <If you change the pairings to avoid conflicts of interest, that is fair to all the players> can't be true. So, big no to <that rule shouldn't need to be written> from me. |
|
| Feb-23-17 | | Riverbeast: <donjova> Common sense is not a "low form of reasoning", just because it's common...It's common because it's something every human being (and every arbiter who wishes to protect the appearance and integrity of their tournament) should know, without being told I'm not interested in arguing with you for the sake of arguing. And again, I'm not going to spell out the reasons why the Fridman-Zatonskih pairings should have been changed, because I don't feel I should have to. This is not "arbitrary" or what "I" think is right...This is what's right. Do you understand the difference? If you don't agree, then we'll leave it at that. But don't say changing the Fridman-Zatonskih pairing <"..is the textbook example of unfairness"> I would define that reasoning as not low, but warped...you are basically saying that a pairing with a clear conflict of interest should stand in the name of "fairness", because it "fairly" came out of a machine and to change it is "unfair" Left is right...Up is down...Let's just say we can agree to disagree on this one as well, because I'm not going to go around in circles with you. |
|
| Feb-23-17 | | Olavi: Perhaps the case of Manila Interzonal 1990, a swiss, interests you gentlemen. Ljubojevic asked at the opening ceremony whether it was possible for two players from the same country to meet in the last round while they have different scores. He was told that it was indeed possible. That is, even if the one with half a point less has no theoretical chance of qualifying to the candidates. |
|
| Feb-23-17 | | Riverbeast: <Ljubojevic asked at the opening ceremony whether it was possible for two players from the same country to meet in the last round while they have different scores. He was told that it was indeed possible. That is, even if the one with half a point less has no theoretical chance of qualifying to the candidates.> I do find that example interesting. And related. Thank you for bringing it up. So, we know now that it's possible for two players from the same country to meet in the last round of the interzonal, a half point apart, with the lower score unable to qualify for the candidates, and the higher score able to qualify with a win. A lot of things are "possible"...But if there is an alternate pairing possible, should that pairing be allowed to stand? Is it 'fair' to let that pairing stand, because it "came out of a machine"? I'll let each of you answer that question for yourself...I think you know what my stance is The arbiter's first job is to protect the appearance of the tournament. In this case, 'the 'appearance' or 'possibility' of fixing is as bad as any actual fixing itself...We don't know if Fridman would throw that game to his wife, or if the lower rated player in the interzonal would throw the game to his compatriot so they can qualify....But the possibility should not even be allowed to exist...There should not even be the SUGGESTION or APPEARANCE of fixing....And I think that was the point of Hou's protest |
|
| Feb-23-17 | | Olavi: In fact it so happened that Ljubo himself played a countryman in the last round, but they had the same score. A bloodthirsty draw: Damljanovic vs Ljubojevic, 1990 eliminating them both. Either one would have qualified with a win. Now why wasn't there a late blunder? |
|
| Feb-23-17 | | donjova: Riverbeast, I'm also not interested in arguing for the sake of arguing, but I admit that I find this discussion interesting. :) So let me write one more (quite lengthy) post to see whether there is some common ground and where we are actually differing. <I would define that reasoning as not low, but warped...you are basically saying that a pairing with a clear conflict of interest should stand in the name of "fairness", because it "fairly" came out of a machine and to change it is "unfair"> I think we have a slight misunderstanding here. First of all, I'd say that the "machine", i.e the pairing algorithm can't be "unfair", it simply operates on the well known rules, witout any bias regarding the persons who are paired. Now, in our example, we have Fridman and Zatonskih who are "not unfairly" matched in the last round. It's actually Fridman and Zatonskih who can be unfair here; if they fix the game, they will do the morally wrong thing. Our goal here is to prevent the conflict of interest, i.e. to make a system which will prevent putting these two people in a situation where they're tempted to do the immoral thing. To do that, we need to have a method for overwriting the unbiased machine pairing. We actually agree that the method should exist. I also think that having Fridman and Zatonskih as the last round pair is problematic. We also both want that method to be fair. We differ in what we percieve as fair. In may book, the fair method requires the set of rules defined beforehand, which lists pairings that can't stand in the last round. Earlier I said "written rules", but the point is actually in their strictness. The definition of "fair" is simple here: to be fair, the method has to be in accordance with the set rules known to everybody. In your book, the fairness resides on the integrity of the tournament director/arbiter. He relies on his common sense of right and wrong to decide which pairings will be allowed to stand. He has the flexibility, enabling him to react on a cases which weren't previously defined. His goal is to ensure this: <There should not even be the SUGGESTION or APPEARANCE of fixing> In Ljubojević example given by Olavi, we also percieve fairness differently. When Ljubo asked if there is a possibility of a last round countrymen pairing, he didn't ask about the theoretical possibility in the pairing algorithm - of course that thing is possible. He asked whether the arbiter will overwrite such pairing, and the arbiter replied that he will not (thus setting the rule). In my view, the fairness is only a matter of whether arbiter will do what he told to Ljubo (whatever he told), while in your view, the main point is that the arbiter should overrule any problematic pairing (set rules are irrelevant here). I'll continue below. |
|
| Feb-23-17 | | donjova: Of course, you may argue that the flexibility of arbiter is important, and that, since in Gibraltar there were no set rules which would bound arbiter, he is actually free to apply his own sense of right and wrong to ensure the best outcome. Which is is actually what he did. :) So that won't work. He is free to apply Riverbeast's sense of right and wrong... no wait, he is free to do the right thing. So we come to the point which actually sparked the whole discussion. :) This one: <This is not "arbitrary" or what "I" think is right...This is what's right. Do you understand the difference?> I must admit it is hard for me to argue against this reasoning. :) I can admit that in Fridman case, at least your heart is in the right place. But I get the impression that in Hou's case your sympathy for her totally clouds not only your judgement, but also your sence of what is right. Which is why you wrote this: <There should not even be the SUGGESTION or APPEARANCE of fixing....And I think that was the point of Hou's protest> I'm curious what would you do if you were the arbiter in Gibraltar in some hypothetical situations, given your perfect understanding of what is right. Fridman and Zatonskih get paired in the last round, and of course, you change the pairings. Now the third player comes and says: "In the original pairing, I was to play a player whose style suits me perfectly and I have a lifetime score against him which is comparable to Kasparov-Shirov matchup. Now you have changed that, and I suspect you manipulate the pairings because you hate me. Return the original pairings or there will be the suggestion or appearance of fixing". Ok, you say, this one is easy, the guy is obviously mad man. So let's try a case of a mad woman. A player named Hou Yifan comes and says: "This is the seventh round I am paired against a woman, which I don't like, and that is too much to be a coincidence. I suspect you manipulate the pairings because you hate me. Change the pairing, or there will be the suggestion or appearance of fixing." You appease Hou, which is completely in line with your sense of right and wrong. Also, by fixing the pairings, you claim to have prevented the suggestion or appearance of fixing although it is unclear what conflict of interest or moral doubt you have prevented. Several other players get more difficult pairings because of your decision, but that is still totally fair to them. Now another player, named Aryan White, comes and says: "This is the seventh round I am paired against a person of color, which I don't like, and that is too much to be a coincidence. I suspect you manipulate the pairings because you hate me. Change the pairing, or there will be the suggestion or appearance of fixing." What to do now, which principle should you break? Or are there any principles at all? And so on, I can imagine more possible scenarios, but this post is already way too long. :) Should we agree that we disagree? |
|
| Feb-23-17 | | Riverbeast: <In fact it so happened that Ljubo himself played a countryman in the last round, but they had the same score. A bloodthirsty draw: Damljanovic vs Ljubojevic, 1990 eliminating them both. Either one would have qualified with a win. Now why wasn't there a late blunder?> Totally different situation though, because they had the same score. They both played for a win because neither player had any motivation to do anything different. And also probably of course, because they were fighting, honest players with integrity (as most chess players are)...But that's kind of beside the point, because nobody knows what's in another person's heart at every given moment The original scenario was one interzonalist half point behind and nothing to play for, versus a compatriot (and possible teammate, and possible friend...) who can qualify to the biggest stage of his life - The Candidates - with a win A much different dynamic, and one where there is much more motivation to throw a game...Fridman also had little or nothing to play for in the last round at Gibraltar...The most money he could make for his family, was by losing the game! To his credit, he didn't....But what if he had lost, and lost legitimately?...wouldn't it still smell to many people like a fix? And I would bet that if you ask Fridman or Zatonskih, they would say that pairing was not fair to either of them either...It put them both under a microscope, it probably increased suspicion among the women competing for the money with Zatonskih, and it put Fridman in literally a no-win situation I would love to hear Fridman and Zatonskih's opinion of that pairing, and if they thought it should have been changed |
|
| Mar-06-17 | | ColeTrane: <Tiggler> we shouldn't jump to conclusions about him keeping promises just yet, just because some people are "pissed off".... Wait till he gets that wall built to stake such a claim. |
|
Aug-02-17
 | | Tabanus: http://www.chess-results.com/tnr257..., I updated the standings according to it for the 46 players (of which 29 are shown) with 6,5 points or more. What do we have editors for. But check it out: Naiditsch has only 9 games, Edouard has 9, Anna Muzychuk has 9 and Lahno has 8 games. |
|
| Aug-23-18 | | Everett: <Feb-17-17 Shams: <Absentee> did write that comment. Nobody asked him about it. At the time I guessed he was coming from the left when he said that and was contemplating some sort of trotskyite galvanization of the global non-elites as a response to Trump.> Shams last post, it seems |
|
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 20 OF 20 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
NOTE: Create an account today
to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users.
Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username,
then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.
|
Please observe our posting guidelines:
- No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
- No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
- No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
- Nothing in violation of United States law.
- No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
- No trolling.
- The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.
- Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.
Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.
NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic.
This forum is for this specific tournament only. To discuss chess or this site in general,
visit the Kibitzer's Café.
|
Messages posted by Chessgames members
do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration. |
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!
Copyright 2001-2023, Chessgames Services LLC
|
Kibitzing
