Forums
Most Recent
- points in tactics
- The worst community ever
- Give me any opening and I will play it in blitz.
- Is the Kings Gambit completely refuted?
- easy to hack site
- 5/26/2017 - The Life And Games of Mikhail Tal
- 1.e4 sucks and should not be allowed in OTB chess
- Why no German chess opening?
- cheating
- Is chess a sport? Ending the debate
Forum Legend
- Following
- New Comments
- Locked Topic
- Pinned Topic
IM pfren,
What is your position on my last post? I am certain you have played in such a format before. Don't you feel a bit cheated when say the strongest players get favourable matchups with white...and you may have gotten worst matchups with Black?
If they play a DRR you are talking about 26 games and this would take more than a month most likely . Ofcourse you could have half the # of participants and make it a DRR . Its not an easy solution either way .
Thanks for your feedback NM Reb. Do you have a personal dislike about this? I think I would....and has this "problem" been discussed at your pro level?
I can't comment, as I have never played in a double round robin those 40+ years I am into chess. Single round has always been the norm, and all competitive players are used to it.
I am not a pro .... not even close but thanks ! I would like to see a DRR myself as I agree with you that its not very fair for some to have an extra white game while others have an extra black. One solution would be to make the event 15 players and then everyone could have an equal number of whites and blacks . This would mean though that every player would also have an extra day off , a " bye " .
Maybe it's just one of those situations where pros consider it "par for the course" in chess. I would imagine though, that this must have been tabled as a concern to organisers/governing body.
I would imagine that if having odd number of players would level the playing field, then a "bye" for each player would be welcomed by all. The more I contemplate about this, the more surprised I am that this is not a major issue of contention amongst players, as well as, I am surprised that organisers would not favour say the odd number of players format...to ensure the Tournament is honest. Is FIDE also silent on this?...or maybe this issue is being discussed at that level.
He is much stronger than most yet he draws fairly frequently. I think I read 50% somewhere. He may be relatively happy with a draw
50% draw and 49% win seems legit to me.
It would be a close, tough match, but Carlsen's youthful energy, will to win, and raw talent will outshine Anand's wisdom and experience at the end.
@ jesterville. it's a round robin, why do you think its unfair?
......................................................................................
Because they don't get to play each other with both the Black and White pieces. Half of the participants play an extra game with White...while the other half play an extra game with Black. Clearly, those 7 with the extra White game has an advantage. The luck of the draw decides your fate.
Does white truly have an advantage, or is it just an illusion, a mental block to be overcome? White, being the first to move, also has to reveal his hand sooner.
@ jesterville. it's a round robin, why do you think its unfair?
......................................................................................
Because they don't get to play each other with both the Black and White pieces. Half of the participants play an extra game with White...while the other half play an extra game with Black. Clearly, those 7 with the extra White game has an advantage. The luck of the draw decides your fate.
Does white truly have an advantage, or is it just an illusion, a mental block to be overcome? White, being the first to move, also has to reveal his hand sooner.
It's an interesting one. On one hand, people think that if both play a perfect game it would be a draw. On the other, if you look at the stats, people tend to win a bit more with white.
A quick look reveals-
W L D TOTAL
Carlsen 370 163 404 937
% 40 17 43 100
Anand 616 193 906 1715
% 36 11 53 100
Kramnik 441 120 787 1348
% 33 9 58 100
Aronian 446 167 609 1222
% 36 14 50 100
Carlsen - 2000 to 2013
Anand - 1984 to 2013
Kramnik - 1984 to 2012
Aronian - 1993 to 2013
Of course, the more recent trend would determine how a player is performing currently, as oppose to over his lifetime.
*** Source - Chessgames.com
Everyone wants to see all the best players in every tournament, playing double round robins. But no one wishes to contribute to the cost of doing this! Be happy with what you get for free.
If they reduce the field and play DRR, it actually saves the organizers money - fewer players to accommodate. But also that means none of the players in the next tier get the opportunity to play those few.
Not too many years ago the "Super-GM tournament" was a rare and welcome event, and most tournaments had a mix of a few top players, some from the next tier, and some young players and local entries to round out the field. Also, many of the major tournaments also had "B" tournaments with fields from the next tier of players, and even a few IMs invited, a great opportunity.
Now we get the Super-GM events with 6 or 8 players, and usually no secondary tournament except perhaps an open at a separate venue. These are great to watch, but only a few can play. Cheers to the Tata organizers for keeping the great tradition of Wijk aan Zee events going, giving opportunities for many players to compete at a high level!
One fan says Carlsen saw a doctor today.
Yeah they were talking about that at chessbomb, pfren mentioned it too.
I would imagine that if having odd number of players would level the playing field, then a "bye" for each player would be welcomed by all. The more I contemplate about this, the more surprised I am that this is not a major issue of contention amongst players, as well as, I am surprised that organisers would not favour say the odd number of players format...to ensure the Tournament is honest. Is FIDE also silent on this?...or maybe this issue is being discussed at that level.
... but then we would have to deal with the advantage/disadvantage conferred by the timing of the bye. Each player would get his bye in a different round of the tournament... and there's a big difference between receiving your rest day two-thirds of the way through the tournament, in between playing two very tough opponents, and receiving it in the last round, after all of your games are already finished.
I noticed a strange thing...
On move 20, Carlsen had 1:20, and his time went down all the way to 0:49.
I was wondering why he took such a long time for the move, but as soon as he moved Qxb2, his time went back to 1:19.
Maybe a 'medical' adjournment?
I think this tournament gives you something like 100 minutes with a 30 second increment per move.
I noticed a strange thing...
On move 20, Carlsen had 1:20, and his time went down all the way to 0:49.
I was wondering why he took such a long time for the move, but as soon as he moved Qxb2, his time went back to 1:19.
Maybe a 'medical' adjournment?
I think this tournament gives you something like 100 minutes with a 30 second increment per move.
Correct... it's 40-in-100 (forty moves in 100 minutes) followed by 20-in-50, with a 30-second increment per move.
I think Carlsen's has his nose in front now, with a win against Sokolov. Everybody else on 3½ made draws.