FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
The Monster has me blocked
Is he right?
About the tournament being a joke to him? It's his opinion. I find it highly entertaining, myself. An 1800 played Yifan Hou in the first round, but that's because they limited the number of women from strong chess playing countries like China and Russia in order to be more globally represented.
I'm not excited about the format of the tournament. Too much randomness because of the short matches. Why do they make the gals play this way?
... or maybe I'm just p*ssed because I was rooting for Lahno
One of the commentators at the WWCC website, Alexandr Khalifman, actually won the world chess championship in 1999 using the same format(w/ more players). He was quoted at the time: "Rating systems work perfectly for players who play only in round robin closed events. I think most of them are overrated. Organizers invite same people over and over because they have the same rating and their rating stays high".
The Khalifman quote is here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Khalifman
where is the monster?
I guess FIDE never learns. There was a World Championship for men with a similar format, and the results were equally random.
If the goal is to create a different champion every cycle, this is a good way to achieve that goal.
I always thought the goal of a world championship is to crown the best player. This system doesn't do that.
Why does it work with tennis but not chess? Is it simply the number of games per round?
In tennis, there is no single world champion. There are Grand Slam events, and a highest rated player, but not a world championship the way there is in chess.
I'm comparing this tournament with a single major.
There is nothing fundamental about an elimination tournament that makes it random.
This is what Jeff Sonas, the statistician, wrote:
Well, what's wrong with the knockout format? Easy: with so many participants, and so little time, there is just not enough room to identify the single strongest player in the field. It is very easy for the strongest player to falter in one game and suddenly become eliminated. We expect that an effective championship cycle will allow the strongest player (whoever that might be) a real chance to demonstrate their superiority by winning the cycle, and this clearly isn't the case when a minus-one score over a stretch of two games can eliminate you from the whole cycle, however much success you had in the previous games during the tournament. Thus a knockout tournament should not be the final championship event, merely a preliminary qualifying event. ...
The difference with tennis is that the best players have a much higher winning percentage.
there aren't many draws in tennis
I believe it was Monster with no name.
you shouldn't really take seriously what is written by a monster that hasn't got a name, checkmating skills, logic, plus way too many other things to list.
Hello, everyone I want to thank everyone who has contributed to this thread thus far! It's much more fun reading y'all than reading myself
The Kosintseva sisters did not play all the way to the "armageddon game". In fact there were three victories between them once the tie-breaks began. Below is the game which won it for Nadezhda: