Well, personally, I was rooting for MVL, lol. I'm in the US, and since Naka bailed out, lol, I had to go with my other favorite. As far as unfair, though, even though I am a supporter of rapid Chess to replace classical time control, I thought it was kind of unfair to expect the players, especially Lagrave to play so many games late on the evening against multiple opponents.
in all honesty do you think its fair magnus won the grand chess tour
Sort:
Of course.
Dec 14, 2015
0
#4
The tiebreak was ridiculous, but as for winning the Grand Tour again it comes down to whether the rules provide a deserving winner or not. It's fair because the points system was made clear at the start of the Tour so saying "but I had +4" or whatever score is largely irrelevant except for looking critically at the system to decide how to score next year's Tour.
I never understood the idea that someone that scored the best result according to the regulations somehow could not be the fair winner.
Absolutely. The tiebreak rules were known from the start and the players involved agreed to those rule when they agreed to participate in the Grand Chess Tour. Now, having said that, I do think the tiebreak round between Magnus and Maxime ought to have been adjourned until the next day, to insure that both players were rested, but I don't go as far as to consider Magnus' win "unfair".
I just had this thought as well. Since Carlsen is world rapid champion, I have to think that these rapid play tie breaks are part of his overall tournament strategy. You can't really fault him for this, though. Just wish there was a better way of determining a winner, seeing as how they spend a week playing classical Chess, just to decide the whole thing on rapid play.
Dec 14, 2015
0
#8
The trouble with some of these rules is that no-one taking part really pays enough attention to all possible scenarios (it's boring for most people to try to consider all of them). It's only when you get there and everyone realises that Maxime, having beaten Anish Giri in he playoff still finishes below him if he loses to Magnus because it reverts back to the mathematical tiebreaks with the playoff only determining the winner that you realise the rules there are moronic.
The system of winning the overall through getting the most Tour points rather than being unbeaten is easily clear to all though upfront
Fiveofswords wrote:
compared to other games they are paid almost nothing
they are all paid way too much to just play a game
Other games have a signifigant risk of bodily injury. with chess whats the worst injury? hemmoroids.
I have the feeling chess fans start talking about fair and unfair things only when Carlsen wins. Sadly, he wins almost all of the time so they talk almost all of the time too. I remember the post-Candidates indignation, poor Kramnik, oh, this, that, bla... the rules were clear, the contracts were signed, what more can you say? Carlsen's bad form = other's form. It's sad, but hey, they've got to show something to take it away from him .
Lasker1900 wrote:
I don't know if you've noticed, but activities with a high risk of death and injury tend to be very badly paid. Investment banking in obscenely lucrative and carries very few physical risks--at least until the revolution!
we are talkign about sports & games. motorcycle racers make a lot more than curlers. of course dangerous jobs get paid crap all over the world i wouldnt want to be a chilean miner
Danger has little to do with how much someone gets paid to do something. Not many people can do what elite sports figures do. sure, anyone can play chess, or baseball or football, but very few can do it at that level. And people are will to pay to see these guys do it, so they make the big money.
Working in a mine, dangerous and labor intensive as it may be, is not particularly skilled work and, honestly, miners are easily replacible.
Fiveofswords wrote:
Darth_Algar wrote:
Danger has little to do with how much someone gets paid to do something. Not many people can do what elite sports figures do. sure, anyone can play chess, or baseball or football, but very few can do it at that level. And people are will to pay to see these guys do it, so they make the big money.
Working in a mine, dangerous and labor intensive as it may be, is not particularly skilled work and, honestly, miners are easily replacible.
working in a mine actually does involve a lot of skill...significantly more than being a ceo at least..
Maybe, but that doesn't chance the fact that miners are not hard to replace. If one quits because he doesn't like his pay there are always plenty more willing do the work for equal or less pay.
Just an observation....the mini rapid match between Naka and Caruana recently, paid almost as high as the top prize for the London Chess Classic, which was a classical match contest.
Dec 14, 2015
0
#17
GalaxKing wrote:
I just had this thought as well. Since Carlsen is world rapid champion, I have to think that these rapid play tie breaks are part of his overall tournament strategy. You can't really fault him for this, though. Just wish there was a better way of determining a winner, seeing as how they spend a week playing classical Chess, just to decide the whole thing on rapid play.
Magnus being world rapid champion does not make his winning on tiebreaks a "fait accompli", any more than his being world "classical" champion makes him winning a tournament a "fait accompli"
Debistro wrote:
Just an observation....the mini rapid match between Naka and Caruana recently, paid almost as high as the top prize for the London Chess Classic, which was a classical match contest.
Not really a surprise. Billionaires don't shy away from spending money on their pet projects. What did kinda surprise me, though, was how much lower the payout was for the Yifan-Negri match.
Lasker1900 wrote:
"honestly, miners are easily replacible."
As miners. As fathers, brothers, husbands, lovers, citizens they are as irreplacable as anyone
Obvious and quite beyond the point.
despite the major backlash agains the tiebreak rules of the GCT
and Giri having a overall better performance than Carlsen throughout the 3 tournaments?