English Chess Forum

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 13, 2018 1:39 pm

Chris Rice wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 13, 2018 12:46 pm

There is still widespread discontent regarding the Olympiad tie-breaks

No one has complained against the pairing method, which use the same formula. So a simple enough solution, keep the pairings as they are, but use game points for the final rankings. Simple to calculate and everyone knows where they will stand.

Also making it a 14 round event again would help.

That would be too expensive I guess

Matt Mackenzie wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 13, 2018 6:09 pm

Also making it a 14 round event again would help.

It felt like forever after 11 rounds! Of course, the professionals may say otherwise.

Not sure work would allow an extra 3/4 days off...

Some funny moments courtesy of Kelvin Daniel of the Barbados Chess Federation.

Alexandra Kosteniuk is at the moment co-commentating with Morozevich on the Ju-Lagno game. During the commentary she referred back to her last round claim for threefold repetition in her match with Ju at Batumi and was embarrassed later to find out that at the time she made the claim the position on the board was the first time it had occurred!

Mick Norris wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 13, 2018 6:40 pm

That would be too expensive I guess

That may be true, but it is certainly not the case that this was the reason why the reduction to eleven rounds was made.

In 2004 there were three venues competing for the 2008 Olympiad which was ( disastrously, as it turned out ) awarded to Dresden. All three bids were for 11 rounds, and the official FIDE line was that this was all they were willing to offer. However, when asked directly about this, all three confirmed independently to me that they had been preparing 14 round bids but had been told to change them.

Do you think this might be revisited, or do you think it is now a settled format?

My guess is that it will stay.

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:35 pm

David Clayton wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:36 pm

For example, players positioning the King Kc3 to Ke4 will often be recorded as a final move, which in fact is just the positioning of the Kings to record the result.

How does the sensory software know that Ke4 has been placed by an arbiter, rather than played? Easy enough if it's not a legal move, but if it is?

Sorry for the late reply, but the arbiter makes an illegal move first, which then stops the recording of the game, then places the kings on the correct squares, which is then not recorded.