Here are the final standings at Bilbao Grand Slam Final using the traditional scoring system:
1. Topalov, Veselin g BUL 2777 6½ (+3)
2. Aronian, Levon g ARM 2737 5 (Even)
3. Ivanchuk, Vassily g UKR 2781 5 (Even)
4. Carlsen, Magnus g NOR 2775 5 (Even)
5. Radjabov, Teimour g AZE 2744 4½ (-1)
6. Anand, Viswanathan g IND 2798 4 (-2)
Official website: http://www.bilbaofinalmasters.com/
What were the top 3 biggest surprises in this tournament?
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
You commentating in Spanish, and not saying beforehand that this was what you were doing.
anand anand and anand – wonder what to expect against Kramnik ?
I bet that the forthcoming Anand-Kramnik match will be one of the best battle ever.
Don’t expect this from Anand next month. He obviously was holding back in the openings and you can’t expect to do well with this line-up while holding back anything. I’m sure it was disappointing to lose an endgame in which he was better against Aronian but I don’t believe he had the right mindset. There are several top players who could lay claim to being number one and this unfortunately weakens the title of world champion.
The Bilbao Grand Slam tournament did not use the traditional scoring shown. Instead it used 3/1/0 for win/draw/loss: call it “Bilbao” scoring.
Many people see Bilbao scoring as unfair for the simple reason that winning is not three times as deserving as drawing, in terms of skills demonstrated.
The entire justification for Bilbao scoring was to reduce the high draw rate that plagues elite grandmaster chess.
Data from the past few years showed Bilbao has had either no success or very tiny success at reducing the draw rate.
This year confirms past years: this 2008 tournament had a draw rate of 57%, only trivially less than the 60% figure seen in tournaments that use regular chess scoring.
Conclusion:
If Bilbao is reducing the draw rate at all, it is by too tiny an amount to justify the cost of unfairness.
The experiment was worthwhile, but the data is in now, and the data does not justify continued use of Bilbao scoring in chess.
Harmless = Ineffective?
However, the data also show that the standings have emerged as nearly identical regardless of whether traditional or Bilbao scoring is used. Can a justification for continuing Bilbao scoring be derived from saying…
“Bilbao scoring has no differential effect, so it is harmless, so we should continue to use it.”?
LINK: Draw issues in chess
– – – – –
BTWay, I like this “Grand Slam” coordination among tournaments. Credit goes to Danailov I believe.
– – – – –
The nearly completed Women’s World Chess Championship knockout tournament in Nalchik Russia had a 46% draw rate in rounds 2-5. I exclude round 1 because it had several Elo mismatches, of course a 2300 will beat a 1900.
Topa did well. He listened to me attentively.
I agree with genem: “This year confirms past years: this 2008 tournament had a draw rate of 57%, only trivially less than the 60% figure seen in tournaments that use regular chess scoring.
Conclusion:
If Bilbao is reducing the draw rate at all, it is by too tiny an amount to justify the cost of unfairness.”
I fairness I think winning is worth 3 times a draw. If you see some of the draws I think it’s far more difficult and energy taking to actually win. Look at some of the big battles where the one on top just couldn’t win and compare these with the draws of e.g. Anand where he exchange every piece in sight. He goes home in half an hour and Chucky plays on for hours and hours.
Why should the counting system be unfair? It’s the same for all players isn’t it?
If you win a game it is because your opponent made a mistake.
Think about how much skill it takes to maneuver into one of those threefold repetitions. For one thing, you are giving up a tempo to get into it. What if rather than repeating positions, your opponent takes that tempo and tries to win?
“If you win a game it is because your opponent made a mistake.
“
That is right, but not every mistake is a loss. 😉
At top level an inaccuracy already is a mistake. So it leads to a little disballance. This is where the hard work begins to work that into a win. This is the hardest part, as we can see from the examples where one fails in the end.
You can’t say a mistake immediately leads to a loss, that’s only the case when it’s a blunder and these are rare!
So, now everyone is silent about who is the current #1 in the World?
I expected nothing else from the Carlsen-only obsessed people.
Carlsen came out better on the 3-1-0 Bilbao scoring than on the 2-1-0 scoring.
Is there evidence here that he really went for the wins – more than the others?
Rybka buttplug said…
Topa did well. He listened to me attentively.
Sunday, September 14, 2008 12:49:00 PM CDT
………………..
Poor, idiot! You read a lot of materials from Russian medias, forums and chessbase too!
I’m sorry for yours washed brain.