If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
The Knockout lottery system comes up a big winner!!
ELIMINATED:
Hou Yifan ( China ), sitting women's World Champion and # 3 woman in the world,
Humpy Koneru ( India ), # 2 woman in the world, and
Anna Muzychuk ( Slovenia ), # 4 woman in the world
( Judit Polgar( Hungary ), # 1 woman in the world, did not play - she probaly would have been thrown out too!! )
Way to go FIDE! Great system you've given the women! There are just 3 of the top 8 left.
Do you think the women's system is " broken "??
Bob A
I'm not so sure that I'd dump on the format of the tournament. In some ways the tournament is of a similar format to March Madness in men's NCAA basketball. For those of you who don't pay any attention to college basketball, each year the top 68 college basketball teams play in a tournament to determine the best team.
The NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship (a.k.a. March Madness) is a huge event with quite a lot of prestige attached to it. There's always speculation about who will make up the Sweet Sixteen and even more interest in the Final Four. The makeup of the Final Four is never easy to guess before the tournament. And did I mention gambling... a lot of dollars exchange hands because of who wins and who doesn't along the way to the NCAA championship.
No one would say that March Madness is broken! If only chess had that sort of following.
Re: Women's World Chess Championship - A Lottery System
Hi Steve:
You are right in one respect - it is not so much the Knockout format that is the problem.
The real problem is the 2-game match. In chess, as opposed to basketball, this introduces much too much " chance " into a sport that should be decided by skill ( hence the " lottery " charge ). And this is especially so for a system determining a Women's World Champion ( it might not be quite as bad, if the system was just determining a " Challenger " for a match with the sitting Women's World Champion, but even then it would still be bad. Note that in the World Championship, the World Cup knockout has been much diminished in effect, where it now just determines 2 of 8 Candidates, in the Candidates Tournament, that determines the " Challenger " for the title )
You are right in one respect - it is not so much the Knockout format that is the problem.
The real problem is the 2-game match. In chess, as opposed to basketball, this introduces much too much " chance " into a sport that should be decided by skill ( hence the " lottery " charge ). And this is especially so for a system determining a Women's World Champion ( it might not be quite as bad, if the system was just determining a " Challenger " for a match with the sitting Women's World Champion, but even then it would still be bad. Note that in the World Championship, the World Cup knockout has been much diminished in effect, where it now just determines 2 of 8 Candidates, in the Candidates Tournament, that determines the " Challenger " for the title )
Bob
Do you really think of chess as that much of a game of chance? How many games do you think they should play against each opponent? 2 or 3 or 4 or 5? How long should this tournament go on for? I think you might have an argument for 3 games but I still think you are quibbling about the format even in that case. Chess is just not that much of a game of chance.
I would actually think that basketball is much more of a game of chance. Think about it. How many times has a basketball game been decided with the very last shot? That is so much so that it is a Hollywood movie ending cliche. If the game was just 1 minute longer the other side might have won. Even football and hockey. How many football games are decided on that last field goal and how many hockey games on that last minute shot? Like Paul Henderson against the Soviets. A funny bounce by the puck, the goalies vision blocked for a split second, a player not hearing another over the noise of the crowd...
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Friday, 16th November, 2012, 08:01 PM.
My database has 229 (!) identical games up to 9....Bd6. 4 were agreed drawn at this point. 222 games continued with 10. Nxd3 and were agreed drawn as late as move 16.
However - 3 games continued with 10. Nxg4. 2 of these were drawn - but the 3rd one was lost - by Montreal IM Camille Coudari against "Kaidor" in a "Brooklyn Rapid" in 1968.
Here are some noted players who played this game (Gufeld mastered the game from both sides :-) ):
This tournament really hilites the difference between the Men's and Women's World Championships.
The Men's (Open, Absolute whatever) Champ waits for a match challenger every two years. The Women's Champ defends her title every year, including this knockout style event every other year.
Maybe lessons from one system will influence the other. It seems that one is too easy, the other too tough!
For those who complain that the favourites win too often at chess, or that it takes too long for a player to get a crack at the world championship title, maybe there is something to be said for the Women's World Chess Championship format. The quick knockout element certainly makes for less certainty, if not excitement. Isn't that what the Poker special interest crowd on chesstalk have wanted for chess in the past?
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
Do you really think of chess as that much of a game of chance? How many games do you think they should play against each opponent? 2 or 3 or 4 or 5? How long should this tournament go on for? I think you might have an argument for 3 games but I still think you are quibbling about the format even in that case. Chess is just not that much of a game of chance.
I would actually think that basketball is much more of a game of chance. Think about it. How many times has a basketball game been decided with the very last shot? That is so much so that it is a Hollywood movie ending cliche. If the game was just 1 minute longer the other side might have won. Even football and hockey. How many football games are decided on that last field goal and how many hockey games on that last minute shot? Like Paul Henderson against the Soviets. A funny bounce by the puck, the goalies vision blocked for a split second, a player not hearing another over the noise of the crowd...
Make a basketball game twice as long and, maybe, the favourite team will come out on top more often. Or at least the one with greater stamina. Which is perhaps the case with longer chess matches as well.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
Make a basketball game twice as long and, maybe, the favourite team will come out on top more often. Or at least the one with greater stamina. Which is perhaps the case with longer chess matches as well.
In earlier times human vs. computer matches were limited to six games by convention, after it was found that even a top human player was too exhausted by having to continually concentrate with all his might in order to try to avoid making a mistake on any given turn, given that it would be too costly against a computer.
Now that computers are even stronger, perhaps any future serious human vs. computer matches could be limited to just two games as well(?!)
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
The number of top players being upset at stage two is truly astonishing.
GM Humpy Koneru's mistake in the late middlegame was perhaps the most surprising, as pointed out on chessbase.com, where the key position was explained in some depth. She had been one of the favourites to win it all.
I see two separate factors at work here:
1) the talent pool at the top in women's chess (other than GM Judit Polgar, who doesn't play in women's-only events, and is much stronger than anyone else) is getting deeper, with many players rated over 2400, and capable of taking out players 100-200 points higher-rated on any given day;
2) the shortness of the matches, only two regular-timed games, does make it more of a lottery, as many others on this board have noted. If a top player has a bad day, or runs into an unfamiliar variation, or an in-form opponent, or an awkward rival, and loses, then she has to win the next game to stay alive, and that is a lot of pressure.
Anyone out there care to hazard a guess as to the overall winner this time!? :)
I'm picking Zhukova of Ukraine. She has had an achievement-filled career without winning anything really big, so motivation will be high, and I think she has the experience to match anyone still alive, in pressure situations.
I'm picking Zhukova of Ukraine. She has had an achievement-filled career without winning anything really big, so motivation will be high, and I think she has the experience to match anyone still alive, in pressure situations.
Currently #39 in FIDE's November ranking for women and married to the men's #9, Alexander Grischuk. I believe her image has previously found its way to this board.
My database has 229 (!) identical games up to 9....Bd6. 4 were agreed drawn at this point. 222 games continued with 10. Nxd3 and were agreed drawn as late as move 16.
However - 3 games continued with 10. Nxg4. 2 of these were drawn - but the 3rd one was lost - by Montreal IM Camille Coudari against "Kaidor" in a "Brooklyn Rapid" in 1968.
Here are some noted players who played this game (Gufeld mastered the game from both sides :-) ):
Tweet
Comment