01 Oct 07
Originally posted by KorchI gave it several times, but you don't pay any attention. That's your problem.
Until someone will not give valid reason why double round-robin tournaments cant be used to find out who is stronger I will think that Anand is champion.
You could not give it.
If you want to find out who is the better player between A and B, you play a match.
So go ahead and stupidly say "you can't prove it".
01 Oct 07
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderI will quote post of wormwood which you did ignore:
I gave it several times, but you don't pay any attention. That's your problem.
If you want to find out who is the better player between A and B, you play a match.
So go ahead and stupidly say "you can't prove it".
'player A scoring more points in a match than player B'
'player A scoring more points in a tournament than player B'
I don't see much difference. both of them play against exactly the same opponents in the tournament, so it's not like one of them could have easier opposition.
and in fact, the opposition being a group of players with different styles will measure the overall strength of the player. where as a match against a single opponent will measure only his strength against that single style of that specific opponent.
in theory, in match play we could have a situation where a 'kramnik killer style' would do very well against him, but the same player would do very poorly against everybody else.
You still did not explain why player who scored more points in double round-robin tournament can`t be called better player.
01 Oct 07
Originally posted by WulebgrI don't think it's possible for FIDE to deprive the World Championship of meaning; I refuse to give those clowns such power. If Anand wanted to be considered Champion he would have to go outside the auspices of FIDE and play Kramnik anyway. And no matter what tournament FIDE arranged, I'd say the winner of that match was World Champion.
I would say that the World Championship has lost its meaning thanks to FIDE
01 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by KorchActually I did back on page 7! How many times do I have to repeat things?
[b/]I will quote post of wormwood which you did ignore:
'player A scoring more points in a match than player B'
'player A scoring more points in a tournament than player B'
I don't see much difference. both of them play against exactly the same opponents in the tournament, so it's not like one of them could have easier opposition.
and in fact, the r who scored more points in double round-robin tournament can`t be called better player.
no1: And Kramnik proved at Dortmund 3 months ago he was a better player than Anand. That's the problem with tournament based arguments; the results in tournaments are variable. You might as well say the winner of Corus or Linares or MTel etc. etc. etc. is "playing the best" at the time and therefore should be considered World Champion.
01 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI will quote myself
Actually I did back on page 7! How many times do I have to repeat things?
no1: And Kramnik proved at Dortmund 3 months ago he was a better player than Anand. That's the problem with tournament based arguments; the results in tournaments are variable. You might as well say the winner of Corus or Linares or MTel etc. etc. etc. is "playing the best" at the time and therefore should be considered World Champion.
"Comparing unofficial tournaments (where organizers can invitee what they want) with official competition (in which participants have been selected in previous competitions) is not serious. Also in official competition players are much more motivated to play the best as they can. And you did "forgot" that Mexico have much stronger and equal participants than tournaments you did number. "
P.S. If you will repeat your inclusive arguments I will quote myself too. So better find new arguments.
01 Oct 07
Originally posted by KorchI don't think it's unreasonable to use a strong round robin, but I think it's a slightly inferior method for a couple of reasons.
[b]I think the truest comparison of two chess players is over an extended match
OK. Its your opinion which I do respect. But I` cant understand whats wrong with strong round-robin tournament like Mexico?[/b]
Firstly, the winner can be significantly affected by someone that is out of the running playing a particularly good game against one of the leaders, but not the other. The best example of this would be if someone had a well researched opening novelty. Who they decided to use it against might be very important to the final winner.
Obviously in match play, the timing of the novelty may matter, but the opponent will always be the same.
Secondly, I feel as though a longer series of games will lead to a better comparison of two players. Two games isn't enough to reliably discern the difference between two top players. Over a 12 game match though you feel as though the superior player has the better chances of winning.
I also like the dynamic of a long series between two players, with each trying to get the upper edge mentally.
Finally, I tend to like tradition and like the idea of a continuous (in theory!) line of champions.
01 Oct 07
Originally posted by KorchYour idea that some FIDE tournaments are "official" and some are "unofficial" is simply untrue. If you think I need better arguments to refute falsehoods, that is again, your problem.
I will quote myself
"Comparing unofficial tournaments (where organizers can invitee what they want) with official competition (in which participants have been selected in previous competitions) is not serious. Also in official competition players are much more motivated to play the best as they can. And you did "forgot" that Mexico have much stronger and eq ...[text shortened]... will repeat your inclusive arguments I will quote myself too. So better find new arguments.
Corus had a stronger field than Mexico City including the three top players in the world. And the competition there was fierce. But no one would assert that the winner of Corus was World Champion.
01 Oct 07
Originally posted by mikenayAlso matches have their drawbacks:
I don't think it's unreasonable to use a strong round robin, but I think it's a slightly inferior method for a couple of reasons.
Firstly, the winner can be significantly affected by someone that is out of the running playing a particularly good game against one of the leaders, but not the other. The best example of this would be if someone had a well re ...[text shortened]... , I tend to like tradition and like the idea of a continuous (in theory!) line of champions.
1) Much more psychological tension which leads to lower quality games - its well known that in world championship matches when players nerves are in tension they tend to make more stupid mistakes.
3) As did wormwood mention "in fact, the opposition being a group of players with different styles will measure the overall strength of the player. where as a match against a single opponent will measure only his strength against that single style of that specific opponent. "
01 Oct 07
Originally posted by wormwoodThey are obviously. Kramnik and Anand both played at Dortmund in June; Kramnik finished first. Three months later, Anand finishes a point ahead of Kramnik in a different tournament and he is "World Champion"?
I don't understand: how exactly are tournament results more variable than match results?