| |
Main
Date: 02 Jul 2008 13:08:31
From: Chess One
Subject: Mangala utilises innovative 3, 1, 0, scoring system
|
Mangalia Chess Festival With New Scoring System
by Chessdom
European Champion Sergei Tiviakov wins with 23 points from 9 rounds
The 2nd Mangalia International Chess Festival, popular "Neptun", took place
on June 21-29 at the Romanian Black Sea coast. The tournament was
exceptionally strong, with European Champion Sergei Tiviakov as top seeded,
but the first thing that catches the wandering journalist's eye is highly
unusual scoring system.
Here are the tournament rules: each game bears three points instead of the
"normal" one. In case of decisive result, the winner receives three points,
the defeated signs zero. But if the game ends in a draw, each player takes
one point and then they move in to play Armageddon blitz game (5 minutes for
White, 4 for Black + draw odds) for the remaining third point. Thus a game
can give 3-0 or 2-1 score.
However, in regard with FIDE rating calculations, the usual 1; 0.5; 0 system
applies.
This extravagant scoring plan will surely cause lots of discussion,
particularly in combination with the issue of Armageddon games, raised after
the US Women's Championship tiebreak.
Here are the standings and info <snipped >
Chess news from Susan Polgar
Phil Innes
|
|
| |
Date: 03 Jul 2008 17:54:21
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Mangala utilises innovative 3, 1, 0, scoring system
|
On Jul 3, 11:15 am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> > You are no authority, and this sort of worshipping at your feet you
> > want is the exclusive property of Mitchell.
>
> > All you did was cut-and-paste from another website. Some authority.
> At least he didn't make stuff up this time.
You have him there. Suppose for a moment that
the only possibilities were nearly-IMnes lying, or
thieving material and posting it as his own: which
is the lesser evil? In this scenario, I would choose
the latter, for whatever material he might purloin, it
is very likely to be far better than his own stuff.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 03 Jul 2008 17:37:08
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Mangala utilises innovative 3, 1, 0, scoring system
|
On Jul 3, 9:03 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Dear Corn-fed, if you have serious questions I recommend two things - don't
> mock your authorities - okay? You can't have it both ways - you can either
> resent stuff, or learn stuff.
Are you trying to say that in all this time, with
your um, smooching-up to those you believe to
be authorities, you have learned something?
What might that be?
> > in the first post in this thread, you
> > described this tournament as "exceptionally
> > strong". So I am wondering why or how two
> > mere IMs were among the top finishers.
> The other thing is to first try to think for yourself - to wit, does the
> rank or Elo of the top finishers indicate the overall strength of the field,
> especially in an innovative scoring system?
Yes, provided the number of rounds is not
too small.
> Secondly, am I quoting Chessdom,
> or is that my comment?
On Earth, one places quotation marks
around quotations, to indicate that one is
quoting someone else. How do they do
things on your planet, Wackyon?
> I think that should answer your questions - and not that you finish by
> noting the 'popular' Armageddon/Blitz style of finish - to which I reserve a
> comment and a cartoon [!] for this week's column.
>
> I would say a tournament with the 50th ranked player* still being a master
> to be 'strong'!
Your original post was snipped; you in
fact wrote "exceptionally strong", like say,
the old USSR championships or a match
between Robert James and Bobby Fischer.
> 1 Tiviakov, Sergey NED GM 2635
> 2 L'Ami, Erwin NED GM 2600
> 3 Iordachescu, Viorel MDA GM 2584
> 4 Svetushkin, Dmitry MDA GM 2568
> 5 Lupulescu, Constantin ROU GM 2558
> 7 Manolache, Marius ROU GM 2528
> 8 Grigore, George ROU GM 2517
> 9 Szabo, Gergely ROU IM 2516
> 10 Dumitrache Dragos ROU IM 2509
> 11 Mateuta, Gabriel ROU IM 2504
> 12 Le Roux, Jean Pierre FRA IM 2482
> 13 Ardelean, George Catalin ROU IM 2481
> 14 Hoffmann, Michael GER IM 2471
> 15 Filip, Lucian ROU 2459
> 16 Cosma, Ionut ROU IM 2453
> 17 Itkis, Boris ROU IM 2447
> 18 Doncea, Vladimir ROU 2442
> 19 Miron, Lucian ROU FM 2441
> 20 Moldovan, Daniel ROU IM 2436
> 21 Kozhuharov, Spas BUL IM 2433
> 22 Vioreanu, Bogdan Gabriel ROU IM 2430
> 23 Grunberg Mihai Lucian ROU IM 2422
> 24 Peptan, Corina ROU wGM 2415
> 25 Colin, Vincent FRA IM 2408
> 26 Soltanici, Ruslan MDA IM 2395
> 27 Cosma, Elena ROU wGM 2374
> 28 Terrieux, Kevin FRA FM 2372
> 29 Manea, Alexandru ROU IM 2367
> 30 Grigore Nicolae Petre ROU IM 2365
> 31 Schmidt, Raul ROU 2343
> 32 Godard Maxence FRA IM 2335
> 33 Szabo, Attila ROU FM 2307
> 34 Motoc, Alina ROU wGM 2303
> 35 Bonte, Andrei Mihai ROU 2301
> 36 Nevednichy, Boris MDA IM 2293
> 37 Ionica, Iulia Ionela ROU wIM 2278
> 38 Levay, Sorin ROU 2267
> 39 Taras, Dan Gheorghe 2256
> 40 Dragomirescu, Calin ROU FM 2249
> 41 Barzanu, Iulian ROU 2246
> 42 Gheorghe, Corina ROU wIM 2246
> 43 Mosnegutu, Klaus ROU 2245
> 44 Baciu, Stefan ROU FM 2242
> 45 Nemes, Silviu ROU 2241
> 46 Micu, Iulian ROU 2234
> 47 Stolte Alexander GER 2234
> 48 Dragomirescu, Angela ROU wIM 2224
> 49 Dragomirescu, Robin ROU 2213
> 50 Sandor, Petrut ROU 2213
This field reminds me of a mailer I just
received (in the mail, of course), inviting
FIDE-rated players to come to Revere, MA
for the "New England Masters" tourney:
www.newenglandmasters.com
If you hurry, you may still get in-- but as
there are only four places reserved for
unrated bozos like you, I doubt it. The idea
is to afford the "have nots" an opportunity to
**earn** real norms (without them having to
travel all the way to Europe). Earning such
norms may not be something you are very
familiar with, given your strong preference
for lying; nevertheless, you now have an
opportunity to stop /talking about/ your
greatness, and demonstrate it OTB-- right
in your own backyard, so to speak.
Earth over and out.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 04 Jul 2008 08:39:05
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Mangala utilises innovative 3, 1, 0, scoring system
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:35255838-8cd8-42d1-9a1e-7cecc81b4401@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 3, 9:03 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Dear Corn-fed, if you have serious questions I recommend two things -
>> don't
>> mock your authorities - okay? You can't have it both ways - you can
>> either
>> resent stuff, or learn stuff.
>
> Are you trying to say that in all this time, with
> your um, smooching-up to those you believe to
> be authorities, you have learned something?
> What might that be?
as above, you can't mock and seriously ask too, since I don't need it, and
you will always confound in your own mind you think you are doing
be confused on your own time, not mine
pi'
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Jul 2008 02:08:54
From: nobody
Subject: Re: Mangala utilises innovative 3, 1, 0, scoring system
|
Chess One wrote:
.
> >> Dear Corn-fed, if you have serious questions I recommend two things -
> >> don't
> >> mock your authorities - okay? You can't have it both ways - you can
> >> either
> >> resent stuff, or learn stuff.
> >
> > Are you trying to say that in all this time, with
> > your um, smooching-up to those you believe to
> > be authorities, you have learned something?
> > What might that be?
>
> as above, you can't mock and seriously ask too, since I don't need it, and
> you will always confound in your own mind you think you are doing
>
> be confused on your own time, not mine
Well said 'pi''. It would seem our helpnot is desirous of a more
stringent discipline. Something 'ferign' & exotic to stir the young lad
from Indiana's corncob. How about a few swift cuts of the rattan on his
eagerly proffered ass - eh?
But I digress, bot has already pointed out his hero-worship of the
Irish/American chess playing lawyer Paul Morphy & his prim capering &
cavorting around the intimation that Morphy might have been into woman's
shoes & underwear leaves me aghast. So, for the moment, that only leaves
bot's unhealthy obsession with his rybka toy to be dealt with, if in
fact it can be dealt with.
http://www.mcn.org/1/Miracles/Crop2.html Bot's ships after-burner phase
corn induced pattern when he takes off for Whackyno to replenish Innes'
maple home-brew..
|
| | | | |
Date: 04 Jul 2008 13:58:03
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Mangala utilises innovative 3, 1, 0, scoring system
|
"nobody" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Chess One wrote:
> But I digress, bot has already pointed out his hero-worship of the
> Irish/American chess playing lawyer Paul Morphy & his prim capering &
> cavorting around the intimation that Morphy might have been into woman's
> shoes & underwear leaves me aghast. So, for the moment, that only leaves
> bot's unhealthy obsession with his rybka toy to be dealt with, if in
> fact it can be dealt with.
You have to put that aside - I talked with a Morphy family member a few
years ago, and I think even despite his testimony, that these anecdotes are
mistaken representations of the local creole.
> http://www.mcn.org/1/Miracles/Crop2.html Bot's ships after-burner phase
> corn induced pattern when he takes off for Whackyno to replenish Innes'
> maple home-brew..
Bot is one of the most intelligent writers here. He's too emotional of
course, but doesn't know when he is moved by that, so is excessively
rational. But even that is a general bloke thing in the kulcha.
Roger G said we were always good for 1.5 points in any match and we kept the
team together, and winning. Man! Instead I always remembered him as the
point of strength - but I suppose our wickedness paid off.
I mentioned a few Cornish people to Mickey Adams recently, your name
included, and asked how he survived us - he replied that it doesn't seem to
have done him much harm, and maybe some good.
July 4th here - American Independence day. They'll all be drunk by 5, and
full of hamburger, a child's food comprising ground cow skulls and 25% added
fat from the [once] Amazon basin wrapped in a bready sponge-cake they call
'buns', then everything is drenched in a tomato and sugar mixture. You can
eat your dinner in 20 seconds.
Take necessary precautions, and try to stay on topic, or even venture that
way. 3, 1, 0, innit.
Cordially, Phil
|
| |
Date: 03 Jul 2008 08:15:32
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Mangala utilises innovative 3, 1, 0, scoring system
|
On Jul 3, 8:19 am, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jul 3, 8:03 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Dear Corn-fed, if you have serious questions I recommend two things - don't
> > mock your authorities - okay? You can't have it both ways - you can either
> > resent stuff, or learn stuff.
>
> You are no authority, and this sort of worshipping at your feet you
> want is the exclusive property of Mitchell.
>
> All you did was cut-and-paste from another website. Some authority.
At least he didn't make stuff up this time.
|
| |
Date: 03 Jul 2008 06:19:36
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Mangala utilises innovative 3, 1, 0, scoring system
|
On Jul 3, 8:03 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Dear Corn-fed, if you have serious questions I recommend two things - don't
> mock your authorities - okay? You can't have it both ways - you can either
> resent stuff, or learn stuff.
You are no authority, and this sort of worshipping at your feet you
want is the exclusive property of Mitchell.
All you did was cut-and-paste from another website. Some authority.
|
| | |
Date: 03 Jul 2008 09:57:25
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Mangala utilises innovative 3, 1, 0, scoring system
|
"SBD" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Jul 3, 8:03 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Dear Corn-fed, if you have serious questions I recommend two things -
>> don't
>> mock your authorities - okay? You can't have it both ways - you can
>> either
>> resent stuff, or learn stuff.
>
> You are no authority, and this sort of worshipping at your feet you
> want is the exclusive property of Mitchell.
>
> All you did was cut-and-paste from another website. Some authority.
I believe I have made comments elsewhere that if the topic is completely
ignored, then the commentator has no business determining anything to do
with the topic, including repressing others who do attempt a comment,
however well they do so.
It is merely ironical that in this instance help-bot was a little critical
of 'my' comment, whereas it came from chessdom, and Dr Rynd is a little
critical of me /because/ the comment came from chessdom.
--
Now, to progress any conversation about chess I suggest that the topic
itself is more important than the commentator at least to the extent that
the topic can't be eliminated entirely [lol] - and was pleasantly surprised
to see that help-bot had written a subsidiary exploration of various scoring
modes, and indeed, dilated on the subject in an intelligent way.
This is quite a big subject, and IMO, deserves more attention by everyone. I
have a few other comments [reserved for the moment] on the type of chess
being played here, eg, the quality of the games versus perhaps the drama of
the games played for a win.
Anyway, I hope any one else will chip in, especially if they know some data
from results of these experiments, or have even played in a tournament run
this way?
Did anyone even try it at club level?
Cordially, Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 02 Jul 2008 20:35:51
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Mangala utilises innovative 3, 1, 0, scoring system
|
On Jul 2, 1:08 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Here are the tournament rules: each game bears three points instead of the
> "normal" one. In case of decisive result, the winner receives three points,
> the defeated signs zero. But if the game ends in a draw, each player takes
> one point and then they move in to play Armageddon blitz game (5 minutes for
> White, 4 for Black + draw odds) for the remaining third point. Thus a game
> can give 3-0 or 2-1 score.
I think I see the problem: above, where it states
that a game can give a 3-0 or 2-1 score, it might
be added that it can *only* give one of those two
scores, and this may be what led to the three-
way tie for 3rd--5th places. But what if there
were more than just two possible scores?
An obvious flaw is the fact that if White wins,
he gets 3 points, whereas if Black wins he gets
3 points; we know that it's harder to win as
Black than as White, yet nothing is done here
to reflect that fact-- at least not until the blitz
portion. Supposing people don't want ties, we
might construct a simple, modified version of
this scoring system, as follows:
White wins: 5 - 1
Black wins: 6 - 0
---------------------------
draw:
White 2, Black 3
Blitz game nets 1 additional point to the winner.
------------------------
------------------------
The net result is that there are many possible
outcomes--
6-0, 5-1, 4-2, 3-3
...which should lead to far fewer ties.
However, doing well as Black might be more
important in this system than doing well as
White-- a significant flaw. It also fails to work
fairly if the players do not all get the same
number of Whites and Blacks, such as in a
5-round Swiss system tourney. But then, I
just came up with this off the top of my head;
no doubt there is some system which is not
as simplistic as the one which resulted in
the big tie at nineteen, but which is better
than my off-the-cuff solution.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 03 Jul 2008 09:18:21
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Mangala utilises innovative 3, 1, 0, scoring system
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Jul 2, 1:08 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Here are the tournament rules: each game bears three points instead of
>> the
>> "normal" one. In case of decisive result, the winner receives three
>> points,
>> the defeated signs zero. But if the game ends in a draw, each player
>> takes
>> one point and then they move in to play Armageddon blitz game (5 minutes
>> for
>> White, 4 for Black + draw odds) for the remaining third point. Thus a
>> game
>> can give 3-0 or 2-1 score.
>
>
> I think I see the problem: above, where it states
> that a game can give a 3-0 or 2-1 score, it might
> be added that it can *only* give one of those two
> scores,
?
> and this may be what led to the three-
> way tie for 3rd--5th places. But what if there
> were more than just two possible scores?
>
> An obvious flaw is the fact that if White wins,
> he gets 3 points, whereas if Black wins he gets
> 3 points; we know that it's harder to win as
> Black than as White, yet nothing is done here
> to reflect that fact--
Not so - the players alternate colors from one game to another.
In terms of the above scoring system, I would have been happier if the draw
scoring was not modulated; ie, any draw has a total of 2 points, 1 to each
player.
> at least not until the blitz
> portion. Supposing people don't want ties, we
> might construct a simple, modified version of
> this scoring system, as follows:
>
> White wins: 5 - 1
>
> Black wins: 6 - 0
>
> ---------------------------
>
> draw:
>
> White 2, Black 3
>
> Blitz game nets 1 additional point to the winner.
I have seen other proposals for this using similar if not the same math. The
goal is slightly different - rather than award wins to greater degree than 2
draws, it seeks to optimise black's attempts to win. While this is
interesting to discuss, it is something of a refinement to the base idea of
awarding a win more than 2 draws.
> ------------------------
> ------------------------
>
> The net result is that there are many possible
> outcomes--
>
> 6-0, 5-1, 4-2, 3-3
>
> ...which should lead to far fewer ties.
>
> However, doing well as Black might be more
> important in this system than doing well as
> White-- a significant flaw. It also fails to work
> fairly if the players do not all get the same
> number of Whites and Blacks, such as in a
> 5-round Swiss system tourney.
Quite. And especially in a Swiss since your might get 2 whites and 3 blacks,
and one of the white games is in the first round, and is something of a
waste, since your opponent could be significantly lower rated than you.
> But then, I
> just came up with this off the top of my head;
> no doubt there is some system which is not
> as simplistic as the one which resulted in
> the big tie at nineteen, but which is better
> than my off-the-cuff solution.
I think experiments with these systems are good - but declaring results are
difficult because there is insufficient data. In the USA I think its
Washington State [?] who employ a similar 3, 1, 0 scoring system - but I
lack any data to illustrate any benefit of one thing over another. Maybe
someone else here knows more?
Cordially, Phil Innes
>
> -- help bot
>
>
>
|
| | | |
Date: 03 Jul 2008 08:21:25
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Mangala utilises innovative 3, 1, 0, scoring system
|
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 09:18:21 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>I think experiments with these systems are good - but declaring results are
>difficult because there is insufficient data. In the USA I think its
>Washington State [?] who employ a similar 3, 1, 0 scoring system - but I
>lack any data to illustrate any benefit of one thing over another. Maybe
>someone else here knows more?
Clint Ballard, in Washington State, sponsored some "Slugfest"
tournaments in which he applied his own BAP scoring system.. Here's
a link from one of your favorite sources:
http://main.uschess.org/content/view/6741/341
Here's another link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki?title=Talk:Draw_(chess)
|
| | | | |
Date: 03 Jul 2008 11:57:27
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Mangala utilises innovative 3, 1, 0, scoring system
|
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 09:18:21 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>I think experiments with these systems are good - but declaring results
>>are
>>difficult because there is insufficient data. In the USA I think its
>>Washington State [?] who employ a similar 3, 1, 0 scoring system - but I
>>lack any data to illustrate any benefit of one thing over another. Maybe
>>someone else here knows more?
>
> Clint Ballard, in Washington State, sponsored some "Slugfest"
> tournaments in which he applied his own BAP scoring system.. Here's
> a link from one of your favorite sources:
Hi Mike - yeah, I reported it too.
> http://main.uschess.org/content/view/6741/341
>
> Here's another link:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki?title=Talk:Draw_(chess)
But seems we are no more progressed in appreciating this scoring since they
are not very extensive to measure in an objective way, neither has anyone a
subjective experience of them to report on.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 02 Jul 2008 16:32:30
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Mangala utilises innovative 3, 1, 0, scoring system
|
On Jul 2, 1:18 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Final standings:
> 1. GM Sergei Tiviakov (NED 2635) - 23 points (5 wins)
> 2. IM Jean-Pierre Le Roux (FRA 2482) - 20 (6)
> 3-6. GM Erwin L'Ami (NED 2600), GM Viorel Iordachescu (MDA 2584), GM Dmitry
> Svetushkin (MDA 2568) and IM Gergely Szabo (ROU 2516) - 19 etc
Dr. IMnes: in the first post in this thread, you
described this tournament as "exceptionally
strong". So I am wondering why or how two
mere IMs were among the top finishers.
Here in America, an "exceptionally strong"
tournament is normally dominated by those
heinous creatures, the GMs. In fact, they so
despise merely-IMs to the extent that I have
personally witnesses a pact between two
GMs to keep an IM from sharing in what they
seemed to consider "theirs" by natural law
(i.e. the prize money). This collusion among
GMs, directed against their vast inferiors (no
offense, Sir IMnes), seems to warrant further
examination of claims of "extraordinarily
strong" tourneys in which merely-IMs are
among the winners, IMO. Of course, if this
is just another instance of your lies and
fabrications passing themselves off as mere
"hyperbole", then please disregard my
inquiry.
Perhaps what was intended, was to convey
that an unusual scoring system was tested
and among the participants were several
titled players? In any case, I see "issues"
with the party line regarding the so-called
dumbing down of chess, since blitz games
are used to decide the outcome; and not
merely 5/5 blitz, but an accelerated form, at
that. Pity the old-timers. Down with slow,
deep-thinkers; up with the quick draws, the
shallow tricksters! (I used to be one of
those, when I was a much younger bot).
At any rate, the top two places were not
ties, which is good. There was however, a
tie from three to six. Luck-- or a fly in the
ointment? Perhaps a small modification to
the blitz portion could alleviate this tying of
scores at the nineteen level.
-- hell bot
|
| | |
Date: 03 Jul 2008 09:03:30
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Mangala utilises innovative 3, 1, 0, scoring system
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:ecd89a37-f456-42b0-80cb-f4fa8b7b7892@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 2, 1:18 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Final standings:
>> 1. GM Sergei Tiviakov (NED 2635) - 23 points (5 wins)
>> 2. IM Jean-Pierre Le Roux (FRA 2482) - 20 (6)
>> 3-6. GM Erwin L'Ami (NED 2600), GM Viorel Iordachescu (MDA 2584), GM
>> Dmitry
>> Svetushkin (MDA 2568) and IM Gergely Szabo (ROU 2516) - 19 etc
>
>
> Dr. IMnes:
Dear Corn-fed, if you have serious questions I recommend two things - don't
mock your authorities - okay? You can't have it both ways - you can either
resent stuff, or learn stuff.
> in the first post in this thread, you
> described this tournament as "exceptionally
> strong". So I am wondering why or how two
> mere IMs were among the top finishers.
The other thing is to first try to think for yourself - to wit, does the
rank or Elo of the top finishers indicate the overall strength of the field,
especially in an innovative scoring system? Secondly, am I quoting Chessdom,
or is that my comment?
I think that should answer your questions - and not that you finish by
noting the 'popular' Armageddon/Blitz style of finish - to which I reserve a
comment and a cartoon [!] for this week's column.
I would say a tournament with the 50th ranked player* still being a master
to be 'strong'!
Phil Innes
*player list at end
> Here in America, an "exceptionally strong"
> tournament is normally dominated by those
> heinous creatures, the GMs. In fact, they so
> despise merely-IMs to the extent that I have
> personally witnesses a pact between two
> GMs to keep an IM from sharing in what they
> seemed to consider "theirs" by natural law
> (i.e. the prize money). This collusion among
> GMs, directed against their vast inferiors (no
> offense, Sir IMnes), seems to warrant further
> examination of claims of "extraordinarily
> strong" tourneys in which merely-IMs are
> among the winners, IMO. Of course, if this
> is just another instance of your lies and
> fabrications passing themselves off as mere
> "hyperbole", then please disregard my
> inquiry.
>
> Perhaps what was intended, was to convey
> that an unusual scoring system was tested
> and among the participants were several
> titled players? In any case, I see "issues"
> with the party line regarding the so-called
> dumbing down of chess, since blitz games
> are used to decide the outcome; and not
> merely 5/5 blitz, but an accelerated form, at
> that. Pity the old-timers. Down with slow,
> deep-thinkers; up with the quick draws, the
> shallow tricksters! (I used to be one of
> those, when I was a much younger bot).
>
> At any rate, the top two places were not
> ties, which is good. There was however, a
> tie from three to six. Luck-- or a fly in the
> ointment? Perhaps a small modification to
> the blitz portion could alleviate this tying of
> scores at the nineteen level.
>
>
> -- hell bot
1 Tiviakov, Sergey NED GM 2635
2 L'Ami, Erwin NED GM 2600
3 Iordachescu, Viorel MDA GM 2584
4 Svetushkin, Dmitry MDA GM 2568
5 Lupulescu, Constantin ROU GM 2558
7 Manolache, Marius ROU GM 2528
8 Grigore, George ROU GM 2517
9 Szabo, Gergely ROU IM 2516
10 Dumitrache Dragos ROU IM 2509
11 Mateuta, Gabriel ROU IM 2504
12 Le Roux, Jean Pierre FRA IM 2482
13 Ardelean, George Catalin ROU IM 2481
14 Hoffmann, Michael GER IM 2471
15 Filip, Lucian ROU 2459
16 Cosma, Ionut ROU IM 2453
17 Itkis, Boris ROU IM 2447
18 Doncea, Vladimir ROU 2442
19 Miron, Lucian ROU FM 2441
20 Moldovan, Daniel ROU IM 2436
21 Kozhuharov, Spas BUL IM 2433
22 Vioreanu, Bogdan Gabriel ROU IM 2430
23 Grunberg Mihai Lucian ROU IM 2422
24 Peptan, Corina ROU wGM 2415
25 Colin, Vincent FRA IM 2408
26 Soltanici, Ruslan MDA IM 2395
27 Cosma, Elena ROU wGM 2374
28 Terrieux, Kevin FRA FM 2372
29 Manea, Alexandru ROU IM 2367
30 Grigore Nicolae Petre ROU IM 2365
31 Schmidt, Raul ROU 2343
32 Godard Maxence FRA IM 2335
33 Szabo, Attila ROU FM 2307
34 Motoc, Alina ROU wGM 2303
35 Bonte, Andrei Mihai ROU 2301
36 Nevednichy, Boris MDA IM 2293
37 Ionica, Iulia Ionela ROU wIM 2278
38 Levay, Sorin ROU 2267
39 Taras, Dan Gheorghe 2256
40 Dragomirescu, Calin ROU FM 2249
41 Barzanu, Iulian ROU 2246
42 Gheorghe, Corina ROU wIM 2246
43 Mosnegutu, Klaus ROU 2245
44 Baciu, Stefan ROU FM 2242
45 Nemes, Silviu ROU 2241
46 Micu, Iulian ROU 2234
47 Stolte Alexander GER 2234
48 Dragomirescu, Angela ROU wIM 2224
49 Dragomirescu, Robin ROU 2213
50 Sandor, Petrut ROU 2213
|
| |
Date: 02 Jul 2008 13:18:17
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Mangala utilises innovative 3, 1, 0, scoring system
|
"Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mangalia Chess Festival With New Scoring System
> by Chessdom
> Here are the standings and info <snipped>
Final standings:
1. GM Sergei Tiviakov (NED 2635) - 23 points (5 wins)
2. IM Jean-Pierre Le Roux (FRA 2482) - 20 (6)
3-6. GM Erwin L'Ami (NED 2600), GM Viorel Iordachescu (MDA 2584), GM Dmitry
Svetushkin (MDA 2568) and IM Gergely Szabo (ROU 2516) - 19 etc
see http://reports.chessdom.com/mangalia-chess-festival
> Phil Innes
>
|
|
