| Grand Chess Tour Paris (Rapid) (2018) |
|
Played in Paris, France, 20-22 June 2018 as part of the 2nd leg of the Grand Chess Tour 2018. The ten participants first played nine games of rapid chess (this page) then 18 games of blitz (see Grand Chess Tour Paris (Blitz) (2018)) for a total prize fund of $150,000. Wesley So won the rapid with 6/9. Crosstable: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 Pts
1 So * ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 0 1 1 6 12
=2 Nakamura ½ * ½ ½ ½ 1 1 ½ ½ ½ 5½ 11
=2 Karjakin ½ ½ * ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 5½ 11
=4 Aronian ½ ½ ½ * 0 ½ 0 1 1 ½ 4½ 9
=4 Vachier-Lagrave 0 ½ ½ 1 * ½ ½ 1 0 ½ 4½ 9
=4 Anand ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ * ½ ½ ½ 1 4½ 9
7 Caruana 0 0 ½ 1 ½ ½ * ½ 0 1 4 8
=8 Mamedyarov 1 ½ 0 0 0 ½ ½ * 1 0 3½ 7
=8 Grischuk 0 ½ ½ 0 1 ½ 1 0 * 0 3½ 7
=8 Kramnik 0 ½ 0 ½ ½ 0 0 1 1 * 3½ 7
Combined with the blitz chess (Grand Chess Tour Paris (Blitz) (2018)), the overall event was won by Hikaru Nakamura with 23 points using the scoring system which weighted rapid games twice as much as blitz.Official site: https://grandchesstour.org/2018-gra.... TWIC: http://theweekinchess.com/chessnews.... Chess.com report: https://www.chess.com/news/view/so-...
|
|
| page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 45 |
     |
 |
|
| page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 45 |
|
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Jul-05-18
 | | AylerKupp: <<Sally Simpson> You're right in saying that there isn't enough data (4 games) to say whether Carlsen or So has a better chance at winning a Rapid match. Even if the score had been 4-0 in either player's favor that's still too few games to reliably predict that outcome of such a match. But the Opening Explorer database indicates that Carlsen has played 143 rated Rapid games since 2012 and So has played 67 rated Rapid games since 2012 so that's an adequate sample size to reliably predict that outcome of a match at Rapid time controls on the basis of Rapid ratings if the match consists of a sufficiently large (>/=30) number of games. If that 30-match were held starting tomorrow, with Carlsen's current live Rapid rating of 2880 and So's current live Rapid rating of 2852, Carlsen's 32-point rating advantage indicates that there's a 0.54 probability of Carlsen winning the match and that the most likely score would be 16-14 in Carlsen's favor. Close to be sure, but Carlsen would still win. Of course, if the match were less than 30 games the outcome would be less certain, and it would become less and less certain the more the number of games is reduced. So a 4-game Rapid tiebreaker in a WCC match could go either way without any great surprise (at least not on my part) if any of today's top 10 players were involved in it for exactly the same reason you cited. Experience alone under such conditions is not a good enough indicator of who the winner is likely to be. You may not like the reliability of 4-digit numbers but the reliability of a 1-digit number is much less. |
|
| Jul-05-18 | | tuttifrutty: <Again, your selective comprehension is amazing.> I'm tuttifuitty, the fisherman in the deep blue sea...I call it fisherman's technique...how to catch a fish by its mouth. < Elo ratings are based on player's actual performance relative to their opponents.> Correct...but, the initial rapid ratings were bogus, therefore...everything in the rapid and blitz rating chart are bogus. The point is I never mentioned rapid rating when I proclaimed Wesley is #1. In contrast, you used the bogus rapid elo rating to refute what Wesley fairly earned. Here are the sequence of events... < tuttifrutty: hmmm....I see Wesley topping this portion again. A truly remarkable achievement...#1 in the world in rapid.> Below is the evidence marked number 1...these were your words and not mine. <Jun-30-18
Premium Chessgames Member AylerKupp: <<tuttifrutty> hmmm....I see Wesley topping this portion again. A truly remarkable achievement...#1 in the world in rapid.? Hmmm ... Live Rapid ratings:
Carlsen 2880.0
So 2851.8
Check my math, but I think that a 2880.0 rating is higher than a 2851.8 rating, so I don't think it's even open to question who is the #1 in the world in Rapid . After all, as you have said many times, "A tournament without Carlsen is not a tournament at all."> to be continued... |
|
| Jul-05-18 | | tuttifrutty: Evidence marked number 2...
<<Well, since you asked me, I'm going to tell you. The only thing that has any significance in determining who the best rapid players <currently> are is their latest FIDE rapid ratings, and in the latest FIDE rapid rating list Carlsen is rated at 2880 and So is rated at 2852. Therefore Carlsen is <currently> a better rapid player than So. Period.>> |
|
| Jul-05-18 | | tuttifrutty: <<Do you think all players should have started from the same particular point? You tell me.> OK, I will tell you. Yes, I do.>
Since you agreed with me, I don't even have the need to go on to prove my point. You were misguided by what was misrepresented numbers fed to you courtesy of you know who. Whether the misrepresentation is through negligent, fraudulent, or innocent is out of the question. In fact, I will not call you a FRAUD...coz' it may boomerang back at me. :-) |
|
| Jul-05-18 | | tuttifrutty: Case closed??? You tell me. |
|
| Jul-05-18 | | tuttifrutty: <After all, as you have said many times, "A tournament without Carlsen is not a tournament at all."> Please refrain from sticking words in my mouth...what I said many many times before: <A tourney without Wesley is not a tourney at all.> |
|
Jul-05-18
 | | Sally Simpson: Hi AylerKupp,
As always I look at head to head encounters. 4 games is not enough and I am loathe to use a number that kicked off using classical rating as it's base. Everyone should have started with 2200 and take it from there. If I had to pick one of the two then I'd go on experience and I'd give the nod to Carlsen. He played a rapid play off in a World Championship against a player that was twice rapid world champion. That is experience you cannot buy. |
|
| Jul-06-18 | | kardopov: I'm in favor of changing the Chess Championship rules to be like that of Football World Cup. |
|
Jul-06-18
| | Sally Simpson: So do I with the current world champion dropped into the hat along with everyone else and run along the same lines as the Chess World Cup. But the two finalists then have the 12 game match. The World champion Matches must stay. |
|
Jul-06-18
| | AylerKupp: <<tuttifrutty> Correct...but, the initial rapid ratings were bogus, therefore...everything in the rapid and blitz rating chart are bogus.> And you still don't seem to understand, or refuse to accept, that the rapid ratings or any other Elo ratings are self-correcting on the basis of subsequent performances and that they quickly converge to their proper values. So the initial ratings, bogus or otherwise, are not relevant to the current ratings, unless no games have been played since that time. <In contrast, you used the bogus rapid elo rating to refute what Wesley fairly earned.> What did he earn? The #2 Rapid ranking? If the rapid elo ratings are bogus, then his #2 Rapid ranking is also bogus. Which, BTW, I don't believe it is. <Since you agreed with me, I don't even have the need to go on to prove my point.> Having initial equal ratings when the <computations> are started and having the initial ratings be the result of computations that converge on the actual values is very different than having initial <published> ratings that are the same. The first case (the one that I agreed with) is simply more efficient because the initial ratings published will be closer to the most appropriate ratings and so we don't have to wait until these ratings converge to their proper values. You know better than that. I think. <You were misguided by what was misrepresented numbers fed to you courtesy of you know who.> I have no idea who you mean when you say that someone fed me supposedly misrepresented numbers. <Case closed??? You tell me.> Once again you keep asking me to tell you. Won't you ever learn? The "case" will never be "closed" as long as you keep posting your silly ideas and make silly claims without any facts or logic to substantiate them. <Please refrain from sticking words in my mouth...what I said many many times before: <A tourney without Wesley is not a tourney at all.>> Oh, you said it all right. It's the same principle, only the names of the players are different. What you said means that if a certain player is not participating in a tournament, the efforts of the other players are meaningless, regardless of who the missing player is. That is an insult to the other players and you should be ashamed of yourself. And when you use the fact that a player is missing to claim the tournament standings reflect who the best player is, that's equally silly, particularly when world's the best player is missing from that tournament. At any rate, all that winning a tournament reflects is who the best player was <for that tournament> and <among the players participating in the tournament>. Nothing more. Be careful what you say because it may boomerang back at you. :-) However, as you know, I enjoy your continuous attempts to make a fool of yourself and reinforce that impression. Keep up the good work! |
|
Jul-06-18
| | AylerKupp: <<kardopov> I'm in favor of changing the Chess Championship rules to be like that of Football World Cup.> I agree also, that's the way it's handled in most (not all) sports, or at least the major ones. Having the current champion seeded into the WCC match is not fair, or even meaningful, because "all" the WC proved is that he was the better player <during a match> and <a few years earlier>. Which is (was) a significant accomplishment, of course. But, just because the current WC was the better player a few years earlier doesn't mean that he's the better player now. So I don't think that he deserves special consideration. Being the world champion for several years, benefiting with increased invitations to top tournaments as a result of his high profile, and profiting from the money earned by winning the match should be sufficient compensation. And, if the previous match was of a short duration, then even the WC's victory doesn't necessarily mean that he was the better player then, and that's even more evident if the final match score was close. And to claim that the winner of a match at classic time controls is the result of a winner at rapid or blitz time controls is just absurd; games played at different time controls are effectively different games, just like games played at correspondence time controls, with or without chess engine assistance, are different than games played at classic time controls. |
|
Jul-06-18
| | AylerKupp: <<Sally Simpson> What do you think is a better system, the current one when several players are seeded into a Candidates Tournament based on the results of several different events (runner-up in the previous WCC match, top placing on the World Cup and Grand Prix, top average ratings, and an at-large entry) or the system used between 1963 and 1975 when the challenger was the winner of a series of knockout matches? Note that if the current WC is one of the participants in this knockout match "tournament", then the final knockout match would effectively be the same as the current WCC match. The issue of the proper length of the final match is one that's been under discussion for a while. Some say that 12 games are enough, others claim that you need 24 games like in the good old days, and several numbers in between. As you know, I'm in favor of longer matches, the longer the better, since that reduces the possibility that the final result is due to chance. But I don't think that exactly how long, practical considerations notwithstanding, has ever been determined. FWIW, I'm working on that, and hope to have a mathematically sound answer before the Carlsen vs. Caruana match in November. Of course, that answer might be meaningless because practical considerations will always apply. I don't think that too many people (particularly match sponsors!) would accept the unlimited match length with draws not counting concept because of its indeterminate and possibly great length, even if the expected number of games for a "valid" results is reasonable. So, if the "best" length of a match in order to reasonably conclude that the winner was the better player turns out to be 100 games, that is not likely to happen. |
|
| Jul-06-18 | | nok: <<I'm in favor of changing the Chess Championship rules to be like that of Football World Cup.>
I agree also, that's the way it's handled in most (not all) sports, or at least the major ones.> Totally. It's also the way in chess in other time controls, and the way it was planned in the 19th century – the first international tournaments were devised as WCs – before His Royal Highness Steinitz felt he should be seeded in the final. The next logical step was to challenge God. |
|
| Jul-07-18 | | frogbert: <And you still don't seem to understand, or refuse to accept, that the rapid ratings or any other Elo ratings are self-correcting on the basis of subsequent performances and that they quickly converge to their proper values.> <AK> Just to drive your point home, beyond what any rational, thinking person might object to, I'm tempted to recalculate So's and Carlsen's current rapid ratings based on all rated rapid games both have played after the introduction of FIDE rapid ratings, based on the following: 1) I initially assign Carlsen's rating to 2600
2) I initially assign So's rating to 2800
3) For simplicity, I make the calculations using, for other players, their official FIDE rapid ratings at the time of the games played. In fact, due to the rapid K of 20, one probably needs to do this only for the games played during the past 24 months - starting with assigned ratings mentioned in 1) and 2) - to demonstrate how irrelevant the originally assigned rapid ratings (based on classical ratings) were. I'm currently playing the Norwegian National Championship (not in the championship group, mind you), so I may not get around to doing this for another week or so. If you have any extra time available, then feel free to do it yourself. ;) |
|
| Jul-08-18 | | chessalem: < For simplicity, I make the calculations using, for other players, their official FIDE rapid ratings at the time of the games played.> the ratings of these players suffer the same infirmity afflicting the ratings of Magnus and Wesley to wit: - initial rapid ratings culled out from classical scores- all should have been given the same score to start with. - scores is more of a measure of volume of activity than anything else. I remind you that if you put in garbage, you are bound to get garbage out: https://www.google.com/search?q=gar... |
|
| Jul-08-18 | | chessalem: < in the latest FIDE rapid rating list Carlsen is rated at 2880 and So is rated at 2852. Therefore Carlsen is <currently> a better rapid player than So. Period.> the elo rating system is a poisonous tree...its fruit is rotten and can not be eaten. |
|
| Jul-08-18 | | chessalem: < but the process is self-correcting so in the last 6 years they would have quickly converged to their current values.> Magnus was given a 2,837 headstart. From 2012 to 2018, he was only able to gain 43 more points to up his rating to 2880. 43 earned from hard earned labor- the rest (i.e. 2837) granted him via a donation from FIDE. He was lifted up the pedestal by a forklift https://www.google.com/search?biw=1... and never had to sweat like a cliffhanger https://www.google.com/search?q=cli... How could a regular player not so well gifted make up for the 2,837 points in a lifetime much more in only 6 years...even if he wins all his games. |
|
| Jul-08-18 | | tuttifrutty: <chessalem: < in the latest FIDE rapid rating list Carlsen is rated at 2880 and So is rated at 2852. Therefore Carlsen is <currently> a better rapid player than So. Period.> the elo rating system is a poisonous tree...its fruit is rotten and can not be eaten.> And aylerkupp has indulge in the rotten fruit...so please have mercy on him and find an antidote so he may see the light of day someday. |
|
Jul-08-18
| | AylerKupp: <<frogbert> Just to drive your point home, beyond what any rational, thinking person might object to, I'm tempted to recalculate So's and Carlsen's current rapid ratings based on all rated rapid games both have played after the introduction of FIDE rapid ratings.> That would be an interesting exercise and, if properly automated, one could calculate the results multiple times starting with a random initial rating in the range, say, between 1000 – 2900 and see how long it takes to reach the final number as a function of the starting rating value. It still looks like a lot of work. I think that it would involve finding the results of every rapid game played by every player for any given starting period from 2012 to 2016. Once the information is collected the implementation of the calculations should not be too hard. But it wouldn't make any difference. Those that are "convinced" otherwise will not accept the results, and they wouldn't lift a finger to check the calculations, even if they were capable of doing so, which I doubt. Once your mind is closed, it's closed unless you're willing to open it. That's the main reason why I'm hesitant to spend any time doing it. What would be the point? Good luck in the Norwegian National Championship! |
|
Jul-08-18
| | AylerKupp: <<chessalem> scores is more of a measure of volume of activity than anything else.> And "denial" is more than just a river in Egypt. Scores are 100% a measure of the number of wins, losses, and draws; they have nothing to do with the volume of activity. Whether you play one game or 1000, your score is the combination of the number of your wins, draws, and losses, and nothing more. <I remind you that if you put in garbage, you are bound to get garbage out> No need to remind me. You prove that every time you post. |
|
Jul-08-18
| | AylerKupp: <<chessalem> the elo rating system is a poisonous tree...its fruit is rotten and can not be eaten.> The Elo rating system is not meant to be eaten, it's meant to be used as an approximation for calculating a player's relative playing strength. If you think that it should be eaten then maybe that's your problem. |
|
Jul-08-18
| | AylerKupp: <<chessalem> Magnus was given a 2,837 headstart. From 2012 to 2018, he was only able to gain 43 more points to up his rating to 2880.> In order for Carlsen to be given a 2837 rapid rating headstart all the other players must have initially been given a rating of 0000. And this is impossible since the lowest rated player in the Jan-2012 FIDE Rapid rating list was 1193. Which you would know if you bothered to look at the FIDE rating lists, but that's clearly too much effort for you to make. So the maximum "headstart" that Carlsen could have had is 2837 – 1193 = 1644. But, as <tuttifrutty> said, in 2012 the player's initial Rapid rating was made the same as their Classic rating. That's documented in https://www.fide.com/component/cont.... At least give it a second's thought before you post additional nonsense (see Grand Chess Tour Paris (Rapid) (2018) (kibitz #102)). Yes, Carlsen was "only" able to gain 43 points in his Rapid rating between 2012 and 2018, ranking him #937 along with 12 other players in terms of Rapid rating points gained. So, in contrast, gained "only" 210 rating points and was ranked #220 along with Ivan Krylov in terms of Rapid rating points gained. As I pointed out in Grand Chess Tour Paris (Rapid) (2018) (kibitz #78), the player who gained the most Rapid rating points between 2012 and 2018 was Adam Fawzy whose Rapid rating increased from 1688 to 2401, a whooping 713 Rating point increase. So, using your "logic", Adam Fawzy is the best Rapid player in the world today, and both So and Carlsen would be way down on the list. |
|
Jul-08-18
| | AylerKupp: <<chessalem> How could a regular player not so well gifted make up for the 2,837 points in a lifetime much more in only 6 years...even if he wins all his games.> If you bothered to understand how Elo rating increases are calculated then you would realize that if a player rated 1193 defeated a player rated 2837 he would gain 20 Rapid rating points and his new rating would be 1213. His opponent would have lost 20 Rapid rating points and his new rating would be 2817. Assuming that the Rule of 400 was not used. If the Rule of 400 was used then after the first game Player A would gain 18 Rapid rating points and his new rating would b 1211. Player B would similarly lose 18 rating points and his new rating would be 2819. Now let's say that Player A (initially rated at 1193) played a match with player B (initially rated at 2837) and Player A won all the games. If the Rule of 400 was not used then after 12 games Player A's rating would be 2032 and Player B's rating would be 1998. If they played only 2 Rapid games per day that would take Player A less than one week (assuming no rest days) to have his Rapid rating exceed Player B's. Not that long at all. If the Rule of 400 was used then it would take 13 games for Player A's rating to exceed Player B's rating and, if they played 2 games per day without any rest days, it would take one week for Player A's Rapid rating to exceed Player B's Rapid rating. But let's make it harder on Player A. Suppose he plays in a tournament where each opponent was a different player (so that they don't lose any rating points after their loss to him) and all his opponents were rated 2837 at the time of their game. After 18 games Player A's rating would be 2984, surpassing his opponents' 2837. At 2 rapid games per day it would take Player A only less than 1 ½ weeks (again, assuming no rest days) to have his rating exceed their opponents' rating of 2837. Assuming, once more, that the Rule of 400 was not used. Again, not that long at all. And if the tournament was a double round robin where each player played each opponent twice, once with each color, a tournament with 10 players would be sufficient, not unreasonably large. If the Rule of 400 was used it would take Player A the same 18 games and less than 1 ½ weeks (again, assuming 2 games/day and no rest days) for his Rapid rating (2851) to exceed his opponents' 2837 rating. And, again, only a tournament with 10 players would be required. Of course, I wouldn't call a player that can win all his games against opponents rated 2837 "not so well gifted", but that's how you described him. But since you can't be bothered to learn how the Elo rating system works (preferring to indulge in mumbo jumbo) and are too lazy to do the simple calculations, you have to ask others to do the calculations for you. |
|
Jul-08-18
| | AylerKupp: <<tuttifrutty> And aylerkupp has indulge in the rotten fruit> Better to indulge in rotten fruit than in a rotten mind. My antidote is laughter (the best medicine, according to the Reader's Digest), which I have plenty of each time I read one of you silly posts. Keep up the good work! I'm sure that you won't disappoint me and others. |
|
| Jul-11-18 | | tuttifrutty: <frogbert>> <Just to drive your point home, beyond what any rational, thinking person might object to, I'm tempted to recalculate So's and Carlsen's current rapid ratings based on all rated rapid games both have played after the introduction of FIDE rapid ratings.>> Don't hold your breath... |
|
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
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 2001-2025, Chessgames Services LLC
|
Kibitzing
