Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 19 Nov '09 07:26
    Hi,

    I just saw the blitz players' performance as the games would have been standard games from Tal memorial, and I could not believe how close they were to real ELO ratings...
    You can see it in this link:
    http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5923

    biggest plus carlsen(who is also doing like this in standard games, only +93)
    biggest minus -76 Jakovenko...
    most of the players are like +/- 20 around their real ELO after something like 42 games...


    So maybe the players that are claiming they are 3000 here but they are only 1000 on some online blitz side or in real life OTB, should just stop cheating .
  2. 19 Nov '09 07:30 / 2 edits
    I kinda agree with everyone even those who disagree partially since folks who say ratings aren`t similar are just generalizing and the opposite folks who say ratings are similar are also generalizing so everyone is correct.
    Now that all the chessplayers are friends maybe we should meet Greenpawn at the pub.
    To bad Heinzkat isn`t apparently buying a round of pints for us.
    Probably that`s because he doesn`t want our score against him to get any worse than it already is.
  3. Standard member wormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    19 Nov '09 16:22 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by vipiu
    Hi,

    I just saw the blitz players' performance as the games would have been standard games from Tal memorial, and I could not believe how close they were to real ELO ratings...
    You can see it in this link:
    http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5923

    biggest plus carlsen(who is also doing like this in standard games, only +93)
    biggest minus -76 ...[text shortened]... hey are only 1000 on some online blitz side or in real life OTB, should just stop cheating .
    eh? if the player average was 2700+, it would've been extremely difficult to get a sub 2000 rating. maybe not even possible? the performance ratings mean nothing outside the 22 players.

    edit: oh, I mixed things up a bit. those weren't performance ratings, nor blitz ratings, but their current classical FIDE ratings. well okay. -but the standings still land karpov above gelfand and jakovenko etc... karjakin is also way up as is grischuk. in fact, the only players fitting to theory seem to be carlsen, anand & kramnik. all of which we already knew to be strongest blitz players.

    that f12 multiboard feature looks very nice. I'd love to get something like that for dasher, it's always such a pain to manually fit all boards onto the screen to watch a tournament.
  4. 20 Nov '09 08:21
    Originally posted by wormwood
    eh? if the player average was 2700+, it would've been extremely difficult to get a sub 2000 rating. maybe not even possible? the performance ratings mean nothing outside the 22 players.

    edit: oh, I mixed things up a bit. those weren't performance ratings, nor blitz ratings, but their current classical FIDE ratings. well okay. -but the standings still lan ...[text shortened]... r, it's always such a pain to manually fit all boards onto the screen to watch a tournament.
    "the standings still land karpov above gelfand and jakovenko etc... karjakin is also way up as is grischuk"

    even if they play standard chess the performance varies from a tournament to another, so these small standing changes are all the time present...
    by the way, you are saying way up, but you can notice that the biggest plus is still in Magnus performance(+90) which is pretty closed to his long OTB performance recently
  5. 20 Nov '09 10:30
    Originally posted by vipiu
    So maybe the players that are claiming they are 3000 here but they are only 1000 on some online blitz side or in real life OTB, should just stop cheating
    Why the "cheat!" sneer? Is this the reason you opened the thread?
  6. 20 Nov '09 12:12
    Originally posted by heinzkat
    Why the "cheat!" sneer? Is this the reason you opened the thread?
    no, it is just a hint for the admins
  7. Standard member wormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    20 Nov '09 13:13
    Originally posted by vipiu
    "the standings still land karpov above gelfand and jakovenko etc... karjakin is also way up as is grischuk"

    even if they play standard chess the performance varies from a tournament to another, so these small standing changes are all the time present...
    by the way, you are saying way up, but you can notice that the biggest plus is still in Magnus performance(+90) which is pretty closed to his long OTB performance recently
    like I said, magnus, kramnik & anand are pretty much the only players who fit your theory of classical strength equaling blitz strength, and all three were known to be good blitzers to begin with.

    more interestingly, ivanchuk who is also a blitz world champion from 2007, was the 15th out of only 22 players. which means he couldn't even hold his own against his super GM peers.

    if anything, the final standings seem to point pretty much to the exact opposite of your theory. I think you're seeing something because you want to see it.
  8. 20 Nov '09 14:45
    Originally posted by wormwood
    like I said, magnus, kramnik & anand are pretty much the only players who fit your theory of classical strength equaling blitz strength, and all three were known to be good blitzers to begin with.

    more interestingly, ivanchuk who is also a blitz world champion from 2007, was the 15th out of only 22 players. which means he couldn't even hold his own again ...[text shortened]... ct opposite of your theory. I think you're seeing something because you want to see it.
    No I think he has it right. It has been proven over and over again for at least the last 25 years. Think about Fischer - he was also a champion at Blitz chess. Also Botvinnik. It seems a lot of the greatest players including former World Champions are good at blitz chess. I think the Grandmasters strengths like:

    -Massive opening theory
    -Fast positional intuition
    -Fast calculating ability
    -Great endgame technique and knowledge

    All come into blitz chess. So I think personally there is some correlation between blitz chess ability and longer time controls. Much more so, than for example correspondence chess anyway.

    Kasparov was also very good at blitz chess and also 30 minute chess. The 30 minute match against Nigel Short which was televised a few years back was very interesting.

    GM Michael Adams is absolutely stunning at 5 minute chess. I remember as a junior he was completely crushing the likes of Ward, Summerscale and others who are now GM's in an effortless positional manner which to my point of view is echoed strongly in his longer games - he positionall crushes his Grandmaster peers in the UK at least. And his 5 minute game and 30 minute game is also exceptionally powerful.
  9. Standard member wormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    20 Nov '09 15:25
    Originally posted by Tryfon Gavriel
    No I think he has it right. It has been proven over and over again for at least the last 25 years. Think about Fischer - he was also a champion at Blitz chess. Also Botvinnik. It seems a lot of the greatest players including former World Champions are good at blitz chess. I think the Grandmasters strengths like:

    -Massive opening theory
    -Fast posit ...[text shortened]... rs in the UK at least. And his 5 minute game and 30 minute game is also exceptionally powerful.
    I'd love to see people like nakamura or jorge sammour-hasbun blitz against kramnik, anand and carlsen. in classical chess they're in a totally different class, but in blitz it's all different. I think nakamura won something like 18/20 games against grischuk (#5 in this blitz tournament) a couple of years ago for example, and very few GMs have been able to even touch jorge (who's still untitled I think?) never mind beating him.

    if naka and jorge would finish among the last in a 'super GM blitz tournament', maybe then there could be some point in speculating about the 'equal strength theory'. but I doubt it would happen, and frankly I can't see it in the numbers.

    there are also many IMs and FMs who absolutely kill most of the GM opponents in blitz regularly.

    here's a list of players logged on ICC currently by their titles for example:

    1.IM
    2.gm
    3.gm
    4.FM
    5.gm
    6.gm
    7.gm
    8.IM
    9.IM
    10.gm

    now, there's quite a lot of IMs and even an FM right there already. and from practice I know this is quite representative sample of how things are.
  10. 20 Nov '09 15:50 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by wormwood
    I'd love to see people like nakamura or jorge sammour-hasbun blitz against kramnik, anand and carlsen. in classical chess they're in a totally different class, but in blitz it's all different. I think nakamura won something like 18/20 games against grischuk (#5 in this blitz tournament) a couple of years ago for example, and very few GMs have been able to e eady. and from practice I know this is quite representative sample of how things are.
    Coincidentally, I have posted with similar incorrect assumptions to you (overhyping the ICC blitz players) just yesterday to a forum at Chessgames.com (check page 48 onwards: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?tid=70133&kpage=48 ).

    I would suggest the following facts would alter your assumptions about the strength of ICC players and how well they would do in this :

    Nakumara was invited but he turned the invitation down. Let's ignore him for the moment.

    In the pre-qualifier, GM GM Van Wely, Loek came 20th!. The Pre-qualifier is a fairly amazing tournament to check the crosstable for. I think Van Wely's performance was the best that the top ICC blitz players did (excluding Nakumara):

    Crosstable for Pre-qualifier event:

    (Be prepared for the most amazingly strong crosstable pre-blitz qualifier crosstable you may have seen for some time!)

    http://www.aeroflotchess.com/blitz/2009/tournament_table_acc_places.html

    Where do you think the top ICC players came in this?!

    What ICC Grandmasters apart from Nakumara do you think were missing from the prequalifier or the event?!
  11. 20 Nov '09 16:15 / 1 edit
    Originally post act opposite of your theory. I think you're seeing something because you [i]want to see it.[/b]
    usually in OTB tournaments you see differences of 100+ performance versus real ELO, but in this tournament with 42 rounds!!(means a lot of rounds) the biggest performance difference is 90(which is magnus and which is similar to his latest performances in his OTB ...
    how can you say it is exactly the opposite ???(did you really open that link and checked the standing table? )
  12. Standard member wormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    20 Nov '09 16:34 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Tryfon Gavriel
    Coincidentally, I have posted with similar incorrect assumptions to you (overhyping the ICC blitz players) just yesterday to a forum at Chessgames.com (check page 48 onwards: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?tid=70133&kpage=48 ).

    I would suggest the following facts would alter your assumptions about the strength of ICC players and how well randmasters apart from Nakumara do you think were missing from the prequalifier or the event?!
    interesting. well, lets see how the finalists did in the qualifiers. I'll write down the final standings, and put their qualifier result in parentheses. I'll check only first 100 of the qualifiers, so in case they did worse I'll write 'xxxx'.

    1. (xxxx) carlsen
    2. (xxxx) anand
    3. (#1) karjakin
    4. (xxxx) kramnik
    5. (xxxx) grischuk
    6. (#47) svidler
    7. (#18) ponomariov
    8. (xxxx) leko
    9. (#3) mamedjarov
    10. (xxxx) morozevich
    11. (#2) gashimov
    12. (xxxx) aronian
    13. (xxxx) dominguez


    well, I don't think I need to check further to make my point. the 'qualifier' had no correlation to who got invited into the finals. and furthermore, the results for the very few players present in both tournaments had almost no correlation whatsoever. regarding them it looks more like a result of random lottery than comparable performance. svidler #47? jakovenko #55?

    and for the record, my previous point wasn't that ICC had all the strongest players, but that the classical strength (roughly measured by their titles) of the top players there at any given moment, has very little correlation with their blitz strength.
  13. 20 Nov '09 17:00 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by wormwood
    interesting. well, lets see how the finalists did in the qualifiers. I'll write down the final standings, and put their qualifier result in parentheses. I'll check only first 100 of the qualifiers, so in case they did worse I'll write 'xxxx'.

    1. (xxxx) carlsen
    2. (xxxx) anand
    3. (#1) karjakin
    4. (xxxx) kramnik
    5. (xxxx) grischuk
    6. (#47) svidler
    7. ayers there at any given moment, has very little correlation with their blitz strength.
    Please - look back at what you posted earlier for the record about even FMs or IMs killing people in this tournament. When i post the prequalifier earlier you seem to want to distance yourself now from what you previously posted i.e.:

    "there are also many IMs and FMs who absolutely kill most of the GM opponents in blitz regularly. "

    Restating the question to you: what GM's apart from Nakumara would have done well in this tournament?! Nakumara btw does have a 2700+ OTB rating nowadays.
  14. Standard member wormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    20 Nov '09 17:05
    Originally posted by vipiu
    usually in OTB tournaments you see differences of 100+ performance versus real ELO, but in this tournament with 42 rounds!!(means a lot of rounds) the biggest performance difference is 90(which is magnus and which is similar to his latest performances in his OTB ...
    how can you say it is exactly the opposite ???(did you really open that link and checked the standing table? )
    a 100 point difference doesn't mean anything unless you consider what it's calculated against. even though just copying ratings over from classical make them 'seem' like 'reasonable' because it makes carlsen 2800 and karpov 2600, they weren't calculated from scratch for the 22 player pool, and hence do not tell anything about the relative strength of said players in the pool. it's just like thinking nakamura's rating should be 2700 on icc, rhp and playchess all alike. but ratings simply don't work that way.

    a 100pts difference in a 22 player pool means 'more than zero', nothing more.

    now, the other thing, what I said about being opposite: I simply meant that where as you saw all 22 players following neatly their classical ratings, I can see only 3 guys fitting that description. 3 out of 22 seems to point to the opposite of your high correlation theory. at minimum it's in no way clearly visible that there was much correlation.

    and yeah, I checked the standings.
  15. 20 Nov '09 17:08
    Originally posted by wormwood
    interesting. well, lets see how the finalists did in the qualifiers. I'll write down the final standings, and put their qualifier result in parentheses. I'll check only first 100 of the qualifiers, so in case they did worse I'll write 'xxxx'.

    1. (xxxx) carlsen
    2. (xxxx) anand
    3. (#1) karjakin
    4. (xxxx) kramnik
    5. (xxxx) grischuk
    6. (#47) svidler
    7. ...[text shortened]... ayers there at any given moment, has very little correlation with their blitz strength.
    If you are bothered to do any research at all into the Tal memorial tournament which was the event held there before the blitz, it is not just the qualifier but:

    "World Blitz Championship

    This event is being held on November 16, 17 and 18 in the showroom of the Red Square mall GUM. Time controls are three minutes for the whole game + two seconds increment per move.

    The event is a 22-player double round-robin, i.e. it has a total of 42 rounds, which are played on three days. The participants include the players from the Tal Memorial, plus twelve invitees:"

    I hope this explains the "mystery" you cast on the relationship between the qualifier event and who eventually played in the final. I.e. players from the Tal Memorial + 12 invitees.

    Now, coming back to your ridiculous assertions regarding ICC FM's and IM's (which btw can cheat online, and also may not be playing with 2 second increment so don't get to use their endgame technique) : What players from the ICC did well in the quaifiier?! I chose for you Van Wely - but he came just 20th.