The independent home for discussions on the English Chess scene.
https://www.ecforum.org.uk/
Mig commented that his invitation was a little late here:John Saunders wrote:Hikaru Nakamura's 3-1 blitz victory over Magnus Carlsen in the BNbank Blitz tournament in Oslo (28 Nov) has had the effect of retrospectively devaluing the recent World Blitz Championship held in Moscow. Why didn't Hikaru play in Moscow? Anyone happen to know?
We shall find out soon in London won't we!John Saunders wrote:Nakamura's Oslo success against Carlsen is a refutation of the notion I've seen bandied about on the web (not here) that he is only any good at online blitz and finds fast chess on a three-dimensional board more of a problem.
In practice in these small events with players of near equal ability, the 3 1 0 system just acts as a tie-breaker. With 7 games, +3 =4 is probably first place but would lose out on tie break to +4 -1 =2. As regards stopping draws, it would be an incentive to draw that if you couldn't expect to score 3 points yourself, you could at least stop your rival doing so.Carl Hibbard wrote:
The three points for a win should make quite a difference in that one I think
I was only talking about the difference between HN playing fast (i.e. blitz or bullet) chess on a conventional board compared to online. The London tournament is standard-play and there is all the difference in the world. Hikaru has knocked on the head the notion that he only wins online because he is the fastest mouse in the West.Carl Hibbard wrote:We shall find out soon in London won't we!John Saunders wrote:Nakamura's Oslo success against Carlsen is a refutation of the notion I've seen bandied about on the web (not here) that he is only any good at online blitz and finds fast chess on a three-dimensional board more of a problem.
The three points for a win should make quite a difference in that one I think
Ah I see, sorry - too many active windows and not enough thought applied at this endJohn Saunders wrote:I was only talking about the difference between HN playing fast (i.e. blitz or bullet) chess on a conventional board compared to online. The London tournament is standard-play and there is all the difference in the world. Hikaru has knocked on the head the notion that he only wins online because he is the fastest mouse in the West.
I don't think there's any doubt whatsoever that Nakamura is one of the worlds best blitz players, online and offline. It's a great shame he couldn't take part in the World Blitz Champs; most likely he would have finished top five, perhaps even have won it. Considering his Elo rating plus his well-known ability at blitz and quicker forms of chess, it must be inferred that either everyone was invited equally late, or, that he initially and unexplicably was overlooked.John Saunders wrote:Thanks, Carl, that's very useful. EC Forum is getting almost too good. I don't need to google any more - just ask a question here and one of you guys shoots back an answer!
Nakamura's Oslo success against Carlsen is a refutation of the notion I've seen bandied about on the web (not here) that he is only any good at online blitz and finds fast chess on a three-dimensional board more of a problem.
I agree. I think it was Stuart Reuben that suggested a small modification that gives one point to white for a draw, but two points to black. I quite like that suggestion. I think it was even implemented in some tournament somewhere, but not sure where.Roger de Coverly wrote:Over an odd number of games, the 3 1 0 system seems to favour the players with more whites.
A tad understated there, I feel - it was, without any exaggeration whatever, a position from which Magnus would have won 999 times out of every 1,000. Small wonder he went on to lose the match, really..........Eoin Devane wrote:Understandable given that he was much better earlier in the game
It devalues it, not because Nakamura has "proved" he is better than Carlsen (because he hasn't) but because Nakamura has proved he should have been in the line-up in Moscow, given that it was billed as the 'world blitz championship'. He should have been a contender!Matt Mackenzie wrote:A tad understated there, I feel - it was, without any exaggeration whatever, a position from which Magnus would have won 999 times out of every 1,000. Small wonder he went on to lose the match, really..........Eoin Devane wrote:Understandable given that he was much better earlier in the game
And I am frankly surprised at JS's suggestion that this result "devalues" Carlsen's fabulous win in the World Blitz tourney. IMO it does absolutely nothing of the sort
His latest blog comments that he did not receive an invite??John Saunders wrote:It devalues it, not because Nakamura has "proved" he is better than Carlsen (because he hasn't) but because Nakamura has proved he should have been in the line-up in Moscow, given that it was billed as the 'world blitz championship'. He should have been a contender!