Blitz performance compared to ELO rating in Tal memorial

... and don't run away from what you said please like a little girl...

I have two little girls, and they do not exhibit this behavior, and it is not generally behavior I associate with little girls. 😉

It's nice to have passion about chess, but the answer to this debate won't cure cancer or bring about world peace either way.

My admittedly unscientific club experience is:

1) The players at the bottom tend to stay at the bottom regardless of format;
2) The highest-rated players and the mid-range players sometimes "switch places" in strength when going from OTB to blitz; and
3) Age plays a big role. I live in Florida where we have a large number of retired people (I know, that's like saying Alaska has ice...), and they play strong games at tournament time controls, but they fall apart at blitz. It's the opposite for the younger guys.

It may well be hard to draw any clear conclusions without accounting for other factors such as age, etc. IMHO!

Paul

Originally posted by Tryfon Gavriel
you want to lose face now for the ridiculosus crap you posted earlier?!
Don't run away from what you said please like a little girl, do you have the balls...

Hello Tryfon. My pleasure to meet you.

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.

Have you heard about Valentin Arbakov and Genrikh Chepukaitis ?

Originally posted by Tryfon Gavriel
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 want to lose face now for the ridiculosus crap you posted earlier?!

i.e. this is what you claimed - and don't run away from what you said please like a little girl:

"there are also many IM ding the ICC - like what GM's apart from Nakumara would have done well in this tournamernt?!

what are you suddenly so mad about?? and as you probably have dyslexia or something, I'll try to reiterate in simpler terms what I've already said quite clearly.

there are IMs and FMs right on the top of the ICC blitz rankings. far above dozens and hundreds of GMs. I've said nothing of any of them taking part into 'world blitz championships' except for 2 people, nakamura and jorge sammour-hasbun. the rest is all in your head.

even in your beloved 'qualifier' there's an IM right in #8, beating super GMs svidler & jakovenko by 40-50 places. did he get invited to the 'world blitz championships'? no he didn't, but svidler and jakovenko did. that makes the 'qualifier' a total sham.

Originally posted by wormwood
what are you suddenly so mad about?? and as you probably have dyslexia or something, I'll try to reiterate in simpler terms what I've already said quite clearly.

there are IMs and FMs right on the top of the ICC blitz rankings. far above dozens and hundreds of GMs. I've said nothing of any of them taking part into 'world blitz championships' except for 2 he didn't, but svidler and jakovenko did. that makes the 'qualifier' a total sham.

Hi there

I can't actually peg you to any particular claim. Can I assume you made this claim:

"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.
"

I hope so. You will stand by this claim of very little correlation between the top players and their blitz strength?!

I say, there is a strong correlation and it was demonstrated yet again by the world championship tournament. We can agree to disagree if you want.

The format was more easily moderated (against engine usage), and also the 2 second increment meant that there were less games purely won on time - i.e. more games won on position, than if it was just a standard 5 minute game with no increment.

Originally posted by Cimon
Have you heard about Valentin Arbakov and Genrikh Chepukaitis ?

arbakov is new to me, but wasn't chepukaitis the old geezer who dominated russian GMs in blitz?

Originally posted by wormwood
wasn't chepukaitis the old geezer who dominated russian GMs in blitz?

Yes. Have you ever seen this before?
http://www.gmchess.com/gmschool/lecture/chepuk1.html
An outrageous mate!

Originally posted by Tryfon Gavriel
I say, there is a strong correlation and it was demonstrated yet again by the world championship tournament. We can agree to disagree if you want.

I think I made a pretty strong case about the correlation already. when almost half of a random sample of the very top of the pool active blitzers argue against high correlation, I don't see much room for the counter argument.

and as for cheating being the explanation, oh please. even if there were some incidents, all of the titled players on ICC are known titled players. it's not like a random kid could go there with his rybka and say "I'm an IM, tag my handle with it."

Originally posted by Fat Lady
Yes. Have you ever seen this before?
http://www.gmchess.com/gmschool/lecture/chepuk1.html
An outrageous mate!

wow, that's just sick. I bet greenpawn is creaming his pants right about now.

Originally posted by wormwood
I think I made a pretty strong case about the correlation already. when almost half of a random sample of the very top of the pool active blitzers argue against high correlation, I don't see much room for the counter argument.

and as for cheating being the explanation, oh please. even if there were some incidents, all of the titled players on ICC like a random kid could go there with his rybka and say "I'm an IM, tag my handle with it."

There are a lot of games on the ICC won on time or through more expert use of the pre-move facility. It is true that a lot of FM's have done better than IM's and GM's. Also a lot of FIDE rated players like myself below 2300 are often beating FM's IM's and even GMs.

In Blitz chess, age comes as a factor as another poster previously mentioned - although someone like GM Ulf Anderssen is still pretty good even at bullet chess on the ICC. I think Korchnoi is also pretty good at blitz chess still. But as far as generalisations, I agree with the age factor to an extent.

I would suggest checking out the following video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6378985927858479238&ei=ytcGS8K_CtPA-AbszZWQCg&q=my+brilliant+brain&hl=en#

This explains in an intuitive manner why stronger players have a faster intuition gained from experience. And it can lead to a greater understanding why the likes of Anand and Carlsen would still come out on top in such a format as the "World blitz chess championship" had.

Originally posted by Tryfon Gavriel
There are a lot of games on the ICC won on time or through more expert use of the pre-move facility. It is true that a lot of FM's have done better than IM's and GM's. Also a lot of FIDE rated players like myself below 2300 are often beating FM's IM's and even GMs.

In Blitz chess, age comes as a factor as another poster previously mentioned - alth ...[text shortened]... would still come out on top in such a format as the "World blitz chess championship" had.

I agree on all of that.

Originally posted by wormwood
arbakov is new to me, but wasn't chepukaitis the old geezer who dominated russian GMs in blitz?

Chepukaitis is a chess artist god made manifest on earth. Here is a SWEET Hippo game given by Tiger Hillarp Persson in his "Tiger's Modern", a book which I highly recommend. Chepukaitis is black, and I recommend inverting the board.

Paul

Originally posted by Fat Lady
Yes. Have you ever seen this before?
http://www.gmchess.com/gmschool/lecture/chepuk1.html
An outrageous mate!

Awesome link! Thanks!

Originally posted by wormwood
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 [i]weren't calculated from scratch for the 22 player pool, and hence do not tell anything about the relative strength of sai ...[text shortened]... arly visible that there was much correlation.

and yeah, I checked the standings.

very strong correlation is the rating performance...
you can see only 3 guys fitting the description ? hahaha, you do not check the exact place in a tournament compared with the seed from before the tournament, you just check the performances...you can easily notice the the top players are in the top, the mid players are in the mid, the buttom players are in the buttom, this is what you should see 🙂
open your eyes...the truth is out there ready to reveal...follow the white rabbit

Originally posted by vipiu
very strong correlation is the rating performance...
you can see only 3 guys fitting the description ? hahaha, you do not check the exact place in a tournament compared with the seed from before the tournament, you just check the performances...you can easily notice the the top players are in the top, the mid players are in the mid, the buttom players are in ...[text shortened]... hould see 🙂
open your eyes...the truth is out there ready to reveal...follow the white rabbit

Do you want to state that Ivanchuk, Jakovenko and Gelfand is in one level with Karpov today? Are they worse than Dominguez (winner of previous World Blitz championship) and Bareev? "Very strong" correlation indeed.

And the same question (which Tryfon Gavriel did not respond) also for you: Have you heard about Valentin Arbakov and Genrikh Chepukaitis ? Arbakov was average GM and Chepukaitis wasn't even that, but both of them have beaten top GM's (including good blitzers like Tal) in blitz on a regular basis.