They don't like it when their first round opponent was rated 1300. Of course there are ways to adjust for that, but then you're heading down the rabbit hole.Alex Holowczak wrote: Rightly or wrongly, strong players do seem to like TPR, and when I asked them, there seemed to be confidence in TPR.
2017 European Ind Ch 29 May - 11 June (Minsk)
-
- Posts: 8453
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Re: 2017 European Ind Ch 29 May - 11 June (Minsk)
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.
-
- Posts: 526
- Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 11:23 pm
Re: 2017 European Ind Ch 29 May - 11 June (Minsk)
Given the build-up I thought the facebook post was pretty reasonable. Congrtulated winners and organisers. Made the case for Europe getting more WorldCup spots, with a dig at FIDE shenanigans in passing. Pointed-out issues with running a qualification tournament as a large swiss, including players that have already qualified and the inevitable tiebreak issues. We may or may not agree on the tie-breaks point, but most of it seemed ok
Paul
Paul
-
- Posts: 8453
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Re: 2017 European Ind Ch 29 May - 11 June (Minsk)
That's a bit unfair. He doesn't mention that one of the ten wild cards is an ACP perk. Four go to the organisers, which I don't think is unreasonable when they are putting on a very expensive event.Paul Dargan wrote:with a dig at FIDE shenanigans in passing.
That leaves five for the FIDE President. One goes to Hou Yifan, again not unreasonable as she is the world's strongest female player. One goes to the European small nations champion, perhaps a bit dubious but it does at least boost the European contingent. Others may go to players whom everyone wants to see there but have somehow missed out.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.
-
- Posts: 1394
- Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 pm
- Location: Oldham
Re: 2017 European Ind Ch 29 May - 11 June (Minsk)
On the wildcard element; the ACP one isn't really a wildcard as it is given as part of a Grand Prix system, nobody actually chooses the playerNickFaulks wrote:That's a bit unfair. He doesn't mention that one of the ten wild cards is an ACP perk. Four go to the organisers, which I don't think is unreasonable when they are putting on a very expensive event.Paul Dargan wrote:with a dig at FIDE shenanigans in passing.
That leaves five for the FIDE President. One goes to Hou Yifan, again not unreasonable as she is the world's strongest female player. One goes to the European small nations champion, perhaps a bit dubious but it does at least boost the European contingent. Others may go to players whom everyone wants to see there but have somehow missed out.
Hou Yifan has decided to abstain from the Women World Championship cycle, so really she has to qualify like all other male players and giving a wildcard on the basis of strongest female is a bit hypocritical
Other wildcards should really have a minimum rating floor attached to them, personally I would use 2500 as the lower level; but I suspect the majority will be above this
This is a very prestigous event and you want the vast majority to have qualified through playing (Europeans have to cover expenses at the recent qualifiers) not receiving a "mates" invite
-
- Posts: 8453
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Re: 2017 European Ind Ch 29 May - 11 June (Minsk)
Sutovsky evidently disagrees with you, since he is complaining that there are ten. Anyway, you can't get the place without joining the ACP, so it is certainly a perk.Alan Walton wrote:On the wildcard element; the ACP one isn't really a wildcard
I certainly see your point, and my own opinion of her fell after the nonsense in Gibraltar, but I think a lot of people would consider the event diminished without her. That's what wild cards are for.Hou Yifan has decided to abstain from the Women World Championship cycle, so really she has to qualify like all other male players and giving a wildcard on the basis of strongest female is a bit hypocritical
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.
-
- Posts: 4542
- Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
- Location: writer
Re: 2017 European Ind Ch 29 May - 11 June (Minsk)
Returning to tiebreaks.
Nothing wrong with more Blacks. That is objective.
Ra rather than TPR. The latter is better for deciding rating prizes where, sombody with a lower score, may get a higher TPR. Thus Rating Average is better. it also copes with a player who does not play a game for whatever reason.
BUT. That disadvantages the highest rated player as he cannot play himself. If you eliminated all games played between the players involved in the tiebreak, that would make a mess.
There is also the problm of playing a much lower rated opponent, particularly in the first round. That can be coped with in a manner similar to the Rating Floor for GM norms, which is 2200 for one opponent.
Upthread somebody said since TPR is flawed for qualifiers, it must also be flawed for title norms. Not necessarily. To get a GM norm, you need a TPR of 2600. The stronger the field you meet, the lower score you require. There is a small flaw, particularly for a WIM norm. If a woman meets an opponent rated much above 2650, she may have to score less than zero in that game. I don't know whether such an encounter has ever happened.
In 1998 I was in charge of the revision of the number of qualifiers for the World Championship Knockout as it was then. There were no shenigans, nor did politics enter into the equation. I doubt they do today. A number of players do qualify from the less active continents. That is done for understandable reasons and can be challenged at the FIDE GA. It is done similarly for the British Chess Championships. The ECU gave up on zonals some years ago, because they couldn't find organisers. In some ways that is a pity. Similarly there used to be a British Championship Qualifying Competition and that was abandoned for similar reasons, but including the fact that people didn't want to play.
Nothing wrong with more Blacks. That is objective.
Ra rather than TPR. The latter is better for deciding rating prizes where, sombody with a lower score, may get a higher TPR. Thus Rating Average is better. it also copes with a player who does not play a game for whatever reason.
BUT. That disadvantages the highest rated player as he cannot play himself. If you eliminated all games played between the players involved in the tiebreak, that would make a mess.
There is also the problm of playing a much lower rated opponent, particularly in the first round. That can be coped with in a manner similar to the Rating Floor for GM norms, which is 2200 for one opponent.
Upthread somebody said since TPR is flawed for qualifiers, it must also be flawed for title norms. Not necessarily. To get a GM norm, you need a TPR of 2600. The stronger the field you meet, the lower score you require. There is a small flaw, particularly for a WIM norm. If a woman meets an opponent rated much above 2650, she may have to score less than zero in that game. I don't know whether such an encounter has ever happened.
In 1998 I was in charge of the revision of the number of qualifiers for the World Championship Knockout as it was then. There were no shenigans, nor did politics enter into the equation. I doubt they do today. A number of players do qualify from the less active continents. That is done for understandable reasons and can be challenged at the FIDE GA. It is done similarly for the British Chess Championships. The ECU gave up on zonals some years ago, because they couldn't find organisers. In some ways that is a pity. Similarly there used to be a British Championship Qualifying Competition and that was abandoned for similar reasons, but including the fact that people didn't want to play.