Round 5 on 2008/11/17 at 15:00 | ||||||||
Bo. | 11 | Germany 1 (GER1) | Rtg | – | 1 | Russia (RUS) | Rtg | 2 : 2 |
1.1 | GM | Naiditsch Arkadij | 2678 | – | GM | Kramnik Vladimir | 2772 | ½ – ½ |
1.2 | GM | Khenkin Igor | 2647 | – | GM | Grischuk Alexander | 2719 | ½ – ½ |
1.3 | GM | Gustafsson Jan | 2634 | – | GM | Morozevich Alexander | 2787 | ½ – ½ |
1.4 | GM | Fridman Daniel | 2630 | – | GM | Jakovenko Dmitry | 2737 | ½ – ½ |
Bo. | 9 | Armenia (ARM) | Rtg | – | 20 | Netherlands (NED) | Rtg | 2½:1½ |
2.1 | GM | Aronian Levon | 2757 | – | GM | Van Wely Loek | 2618 | ½ – ½ |
2.2 | GM | Akopian Vladimir | 2679 | – | GM | Smeets Jan | 2604 | ½ – ½ |
2.3 | GM | Sargissian Gabriel | 2642 | – | GM | Stellwagen Daniel | 2605 | 1 – 0 |
2.4 | GM | Petrosian Tigran L | 2629 | – | GM | L’Ami Erwin | 2610 | ½ – ½ |
Bo. | 5 | Hungary (HUN) | Rtg | – | 2 | Ukraine (UKR) | Rtg | 1½:2½ |
3.1 | GM | Leko Peter | 2747 | – | GM | Ivanchuk Vassily | 2786 | 0 – 1 |
3.2 | GM | Polgar Judit | 2711 | – | GM | Karjakin Sergey | 2730 | 0 – 1 |
3.3 | GM | Almasi Zoltan | 2663 | – | GM | Eljanov Pavel | 2720 | 1 – 0 |
3.4 | GM | Balogh Csaba | 2616 | – | GM | Volokitin Andrei | 2659 | ½ – ½ |
Bo. | 19 | Norway (NOR) | Rtg | – | 4 | Azerbaijan (AZE) | Rtg | 1 : 3 |
4.1 | GM | Carlsen Magnus | 2786 | – | GM | Mamedyarov Shakhriyar | 2731 | ½ – ½ |
4.2 | GM | Agdestein Simen | 2588 | – | GM | Gashimov Vugar | 2703 | 0 – 1 |
4.3 | GM | Lie Kjetil A | 2526 | – | GM | Huseynov Gadir | 2650 | ½ – ½ |
4.4 | IM | Hammer Jon Ludvig | 2522 | – | GM | Mammadov Rauf | 2631 | 0 – 1 |
Bo. | 15 | England (ENG) | Rtg | – | 44 | Italy (ITA) | Rtg | 2½:1½ |
5.1 | GM | Adams Michael | 2734 | – | GM | Caruana Fabiano | 2640 | 0 – 1 |
5.2 | GM | Short Nigel D | 2642 | – | GM | Godena Michele | 2517 | 1 – 0 |
5.3 | GM | Howell David W L | 2593 | – | IM | Shytaj Luca | 2472 | 1 – 0 |
5.4 | GM | Jones Gawain C B | 2548 | – | IM | Brunello Sabino | 2455 | ½ – ½ |
Bo. | 13 | India (IND) | Rtg | – | 54 | Austria (AUT) | Rtg | 3 : 1 |
6.1 | GM | Sasikiran Krishnan | 2694 | – | GM | Ragger Markus | 2518 | ½ – ½ |
6.2 | GM | Harikrishna P | 2659 | – | GM | Kindermann Stefan | 2517 | 1 – 0 |
6.3 | GM | Ganguly Surya Shekhar | 2603 | – | IM | Atlas Valery | 2465 | 1 – 0 |
6.4 | GM | Geetha Narayanan Gopal | 2548 | – | IM | Neubauer Martin | 2422 | ½ – ½ |
Bo. | 21 | Poland (POL) | Rtg | – | 66 | Costa Rica (CRC) | Rtg | 3½: ½ |
7.1 | GM | Socko Bartosz | 2631 | – | GM | Ramirez Alejandro | 2533 | 1 – 0 |
7.2 | GM | Miton Kamil | 2604 | – | IM | Gonzalez Bernal | 2432 | ½ – ½ |
7.3 | GM | Wojtaszek Radoslaw | 2599 | – | IM | Valdes Leonardo | 2401 | 1 – 0 |
7.4 | GM | Bartel Mateusz | 2602 | – | IM | Hernandez Basante Francisco | 2247 | 1 – 0 |
Bo. | 3 | China (CHN) | Rtg | – | 46 | Scotland (SCO) | Rtg | 2½:1½ |
8.1 | GM | Wang Yue | 2736 | – | GM | Rowson Jonathan | 2596 | ½ – ½ |
8.2 | GM | Bu Xiangzhi | 2714 | – | GM | Aagaard Jacob | 2528 | ½ – ½ |
8.3 | GM | Wang Hao | 2696 | – | GM | Shaw John | 2469 | 1 – 0 |
8.4 | GM | Li Chao B | 2622 | – | GM | McNab Colin A | 2455 | ½ – ½ |
Bo. | 37 | Vietnam (VIE) | Rtg | – | 16 | Cuba (CUB) | Rtg | 2 : 2 |
9.1 | GM | Nguyen Ngoc Truong Son | 2567 | – | GM | Dominguez Perez Leinier | 2719 | ½ – ½ |
9.2 | GM | Le Quang Liem | 2583 | – | GM | Bruzon Batista Lazaro | 2623 | ½ – ½ |
9.3 | GM | Dao Thien Hai | 2510 | – | GM | Quezada Perez Yuniesky | 2580 | ½ – ½ |
9.4 | CM | Nguyen Van Huy | 2422 | – | GM | Hernandez Carmenates Holden | 2580 | ½ – ½ |
Bo. | 32 | Denmark (DEN) | Rtg | – | 8 | Israel (ISR) | Rtg | ½ :3½ |
10.1 | GM | Hansen Lars Bo | 2570 | – | GM | Gelfand Boris | 2719 | 0 – 1 |
10.2 | GM | Nielsen Peter Heine | 2662 | – | GM | Avrukh Boris | 2657 | ½ – ½ |
10.3 | IM | Rasmussen Allan Stig | 2513 | – | GM | Postny Evgeny | 2674 | 0 – 1 |
10.4 | IM | Glud Jakob Vang | 2444 | – | GM | Rodshtein Maxim | 2609 | 0 – 1 |
Bo. | 12 | Spain (ESP) | Rtg | – | 23 | Belarus (BLR) | Rtg | 2 : 2 |
11.1 | GM | Vallejo Pons Francisco | 2664 | – | GM | Azarov Sergei | 2613 | 1 – 0 |
11.2 | GM | Illescas Cordoba Miguel | 2604 | – | GM | Zhigalko Sergei | 2592 | 0 – 1 |
11.3 | GM | Khamrakulov Ibragim S | 2580 | – | GM | Aleksandrov Aleksej | 2617 | ½ – ½ |
11.4 | GM | San Segundo Carrillo Pablo | 2564 | – | GM | Fedorov Alexei | 2584 | ½ – ½ |
Bo. | 28 | Slovenia (SLO) | Rtg | – | 6 | Bulgaria (BUL) | Rtg | ½ :3½ |
12.1 | GM | Beliavsky Alexander G | 2619 | – | GM | Topalov Veselin | 2791 | ½ – ½ |
12.2 | GM | Pavasovic Dusko | 2597 | – | GM | Cheparinov Ivan | 2696 | 0 – 1 |
12.3 | GM | Lenic Luka | 2569 | – | GM | Delchev Aleksander | 2632 | 0 – 1 |
12.4 | IM | Borisek Jure | 2548 | – | GM | Iotov Valentin | 2532 | 0 – 1 |
Bo. | 35 | Lithuania (LTU) | Rtg | – | 14 | Romania (ROU) | Rtg | ½ :3½ |
13.1 | GM | Kveinys Aloyzas | 2533 | – | GM | Nisipeanu Liviu-Dieter | 2684 | 0 – 1 |
13.2 | GM | Rozentalis Eduardas | 2577 | – | GM | Istratescu Andrei | 2633 | ½ – ½ |
13.3 | GM | Sulskis Sarunas | 2572 | – | GM | Lupulescu Constantin | 2594 | 0 – 1 |
13.4 | IM | Zagorskis Darius | 2509 | – | GM | Vajda Levente | 2582 | 0 – 1 |
Bo. | 22 | Serbia (SRB) | Rtg | – | 7 | France (FRA) | Rtg | 1½:2½ |
14.1 | GM | Ivanisevic Ivan | 2658 | – | GM | Bacrot Etienne | 2705 | ½ – ½ |
14.2 | GM | Solak Dragan | 2595 | – | GM | Vachier-Lagrave Maxime | 2716 | ½ – ½ |
14.3 | GM | Perunovic Milos | 2580 | – | GM | Fressinet Laurent | 2676 | ½ – ½ |
14.4 | GM | Vuckovic Bojan | 2561 | – | GM | Tkachiev Vladislav | 2664 | 0 – 1 |
Bo. | 24 | Croatia (CRO) | Rtg | – | 30 | Sweden (SWE) | Rtg | 1 : 3 |
15.1 | GM | Palac Mladen | 2583 | – | GM | Agrest Evgenij | 2574 | 0 – 1 |
15.2 | GM | Kozul Zdenko | 2593 | – | GM | Hillarp Persson Tiger | 2543 | 0 – 1 |
15.3 | GM | Zelcic Robert | 2589 | – | GM | Cicak Slavko | 2564 | ½ – ½ |
15.4 | GM | Stevic Hrvoje | 2588 | – | GM | Carlsson Pontus | 2515 | ½ – ½ |
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
moro was a pawn up getting into the endgame. did he miss a win? could make a good ‘find the right continuation for black’ question..
Just what sort of crazy tie braks are they using after match points? Game points are only the fourth tie break? Is this some joke of a scoring system? Game points should always be the 2nd tie break if it is not the primary scoring option.
Agree to Anon @ 3:13 – game points should be ranked second after team points. Do not quite understand that either. By the way: great effort by the German team, holding Russia to a draw. Yippie!
Agree entirely.
Game points should be the primary scoring option. This match points system is ridiculous, eg India get nothing for a good 1.5 out of 4 showing against Russia – they might as well have been whitewashed 4-0, makes almost no difference under this system!
And to not have game points as the primary tie-break under this match points system certainly is a joke!!
As usual, Ilyumzhinov and his mates screw everything up. They’ve ruined the World Championship system, but hey, that’s not enough, they’ve got to set about ruining the Olympiads as well.
Sorry, but I disagree with the game points over team points approach – in my view the team effort should prevail, simply as opponents such as the Seychelles will get whitewashed 4:0. These teams are just too weak but yet you would rank a 4:0 over such a team higher as e.g. the 1.5 points India scored against Russia. That would not be fair either. It is not easy to find an ideal solution but given that this is the TEAM olympics nothing but favoring TEAM points would make sense, really. You could debate the subsequent ratings but this first one is a given.
Actually, under the new system, India does get quite a bit of a benefit by losing to Russia by just 1.5-2.5. The first tie breaker is the sum over the number of team points of your opponents multiplied by the number of game points achieved against them (weakest opponent is not included). Thus, if Russia ends up with, say, 20 team points, this contributes 30 points for India’s first tie breaker, while a team that loses to Russia by 0-4 would get nothing.
Since they chose team points over game points, I do think this order of tie breaks is more fair as it does reward a strong showing against a strong opponent in particular. Of course it is also much more difficult to understand and if it comes to a photo finish, no one will understand who is actually ahead, because it might depend on how Nigeria is playing against New Zealand.
the first few anons criticizing the system are stupid. common sense prevails once again.
first three anons criticizing the system are stupid. they have got it right this time. it’s team v team in olympiads and only team score should matter. you don’t get an extra point for fighting hard but still losing against brazil in football. and the new system actually helps teams like india as explained..
Why are you even bothering with all those ignorants?
You know why they don’t like the system?
1) It is new.
2) It takes some knowledge to understand it.
3) They are too dumb to understand it. Adding up all points is the most they are capable of. Multiplying is already way above their heads.
Where are the details on how the tiebreaks work? First one is match points, last game points- how are the middle 2 worked out? It doesn’t even explain it on the website. Game points should be atleast 2nd tiebreak after being demoted from primary importance- Russia should not be first on tiebreak with their relatively low gamepoints.
Interestingly- Russia also leads on the second and 3rd tiebreaks which basically enforce whoever started better to lead much more than any points cored- the 4th tiebreak where points matter can only come about in a 1 in a million scenario.
In other words forget points- (i) do the best in match win/draw, (ii) if tied – do the best in match accumulative score, basically. The main criteria then is luck of the draw how your opponents do (Russia moved to 1st, Germany 1 went 1st to 3rd, despite just drawing each other due to this.)
I couldn’t find the regulations on the Olympiad webpage either. If you google “new rules for the chess olympiad”, the first result will be it.