Candidates tournament round 14

WannaPlayLot

Today Carl Magnusen is playing Svid Petler with white and Kramnimir Vladnik is playing Ivan Vassilchuk with black. Who do you think has more chances to win the tournament?

Rasparovov

Magnus.

repossession

Aronon Levian 

WannaPlayLot
Rasparovov wrote:

Magnus.

Sorry?

Rasparovov
WannaPlayLot wrote:
Rasparovov wrote:

Magnus.

Sorry?

Oh I didn't read carefully. Ofc I meant Megsen Carlnus.

MSC157

Haha, good one. I hope Vladisovič Borimir wins.

GenghisCant

It has to be Cagnus Marlsen.

Basically, Kramnik needs a better result than Magnus. If they both win, lose or draw, Carlsen wins.

Svidler is no walk over but, with the white pieces, Magnus has better winning or drawing chanches against him than Kramnik does against Ivanchuk with black.

Provided Ivanchuk remembers that the clocks went forward here over the weekend that is.

repossession

If it was still round 1 I would have opted for Radjamour Teibov

WannaPlayLot
repossession wrote:

If it was still round 1 I would have opted for Radjamour Teibov

Well, he did very badly for his rating. He was actually no. 4 in the world at the time. But I must say Gelfis Borand did quite ok, despite being the lowest rated player.

waffllemaster
WannaPlayLot wrote:

Today Carl Magnusen is playing Svid Petler with white and Kramnimir Vladnik is playing Ivan Vassilchuk with black. Who do you think has more chances to win the tournament?

Don't you mean Kram Vladimirnik?

Lateriflora

The tournament is over.  Both Kramnik AND Carlsen lost so Carlsen won on the elaborate tie-breaking system.  It's already written about on chessbase.

ViktorHNielsen

It's fantastic. The 2 best players in the tournament had to win, but both lost. 

Lateriflora

Pretty sad when the co-"champions" BOTH lose on the final day.  The 8.5/14 result of the winner vividly illustrates that their are no Morphys, Fischers, or even Kasparovs in chess today ... regardless of what the putative "ratings" are supposed to indicate.

The whole ELO system should be remade.  I do not go along with the argument that guys rated 30th in the world today are better players than Karpov, Alekhine, Tal, and so on.  You give Karpov, Tal, etc. the fact base plus computer simulations that players have today and I think those guys would KILL these guys.  

GenghisCant

I've seen other people saying similar things about the tie breaking system being elaborate but it seems very straightforward (unless I'm missing something which, let's face it, is entirely possible)

1. Games against each other

2. Total wins

3. Neustadtl score

It's about as straight forward as it gets.

In the World Cup (football) there are 7 criteria for determining the winner in a tied group, the last of which being drawn lots by FIFA.

Scottrf
Scutellaria wrote:

Pretty sad when the co-"champions" BOTH lose on the final day.  The 8.5/14 result of the winner vividly illustrates that their are no Morphys, Fischers, or even Kasparovs in chess today ... regardless of what the putative "ratings" are supposed to indicate.

The whole ELO system should be remade.  I do not go along with the argument that guys rated 30th in the world today are better players than Karpov, Alekhine, Tal, and so on.  You give Karpov, Tal, etc. the fact base plus computer simulations that players have today and I think those guys would KILL these guys.  

Because nobody over 1200 defends like Morphy's opponents.

TitanCG

There were a couple of high rated NNs here and there.

Abhishek2
Genghiskhant wrote:

Cagnus Marlsen

 

 

 

lol

GenghisCant
Scutellaria wrote:

Pretty sad when the co-"champions" BOTH lose on the final day.  The 8.5/14 result of the winner vividly illustrates that their are no Morphys, Fischers, or even Kasparovs in chess today ... regardless of what the putative "ratings" are supposed to indicate.

The whole ELO system should be remade.  I do not go along with the argument that guys rated 30th in the world today are better players than Karpov, Alekhine, Tal, and so on.  You give Karpov, Tal, etc. the fact base plus computer simulations that players have today and I think those guys would KILL these guys.  

...or, it could mean that the top flight are all just stronger these days, making the 6-0 results Fischer pulled off 50 years ago all the more difficult.

MSC157

What a round! Woow! No words!

PIRATCH
Genghiskhant wrote:
Scutellaria wrote:

Pretty sad when the co-"champions" BOTH lose on the final day.  The 8.5/14 result of the winner vividly illustrates that their are no Morphys, Fischers, or even Kasparovs in chess today ... regardless of what the putative "ratings" are supposed to indicate.

The whole ELO system should be remade.  I do not go along with the argument that guys rated 30th in the world today are better players than Karpov, Alekhine, Tal, and so on.  You give Karpov, Tal, etc. the fact base plus computer simulations that players have today and I think those guys would KILL these guys.  

...or, it could mean that the top flight are all just stronger these days, making the 6-0 results Fischer pulled off 50 years ago all the more difficult.

1970 is only 43 years ago! *lol*