Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old July 2nd 08, 06:08 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,710
Default 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


  #2   Report Post  
Old July 2nd 08, 06:18 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,710
Default Mangala utilises innovative 3, 1, 0, scoring system


"Chess One" wrote in message
...
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



  #3   Report Post  
Old July 2nd 08, 06:37 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
Rob Rob is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,053
Default Mangala utilises innovative 3, 1, 0, scoring system

On Jul 2, 12:18*pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"Chess One" wrote in message

...

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

seehttp://reports.chessdom.com/mangalia-chess-festival



Phil Innes- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


What would the outcome have been if only the FIDE scoring system had
been used?
  #4   Report Post  
Old July 3rd 08, 12:32 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 9,302
Default Mangala utilises innovative 3, 1, 0, scoring system

On Jul 2, 1:18 pm, "Chess One" 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
  #5   Report Post  
Old July 3rd 08, 04:35 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 9,302
Default Mangala utilises innovative 3, 1, 0, scoring system

On Jul 2, 1:08 pm, "Chess One" 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





  #6   Report Post  
Old July 3rd 08, 02:03 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,710
Default Mangala utilises innovative 3, 1, 0, scoring system


"help bot" wrote in message
...
On Jul 2, 1:18 pm, "Chess One" 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


  #7   Report Post  
Old July 3rd 08, 02:18 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,710
Default Mangala utilises innovative 3, 1, 0, scoring system


"help bot" wrote in message
...
On Jul 2, 1:08 pm, "Chess One" 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





  #8   Report Post  
Old July 3rd 08, 02:19 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
SBD SBD is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,172
Default Mangala utilises innovative 3, 1, 0, scoring system

On Jul 3, 8:03 am, "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.


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.
  #9   Report Post  
Old July 3rd 08, 02:57 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,710
Default Mangala utilises innovative 3, 1, 0, scoring system


"SBD" wrote in message
...
On Jul 3, 8:03 am, "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.


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


  #10   Report Post  
Old July 3rd 08, 04:15 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,073
Default Mangala utilises innovative 3, 1, 0, scoring system

On Jul 3, 8:19 am, SBD wrote:
On Jul 3, 8:03 am, "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.


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.
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Chess Ratings samsloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 7 May 10th 08 07:33 AM
Chess Ratings samsloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 7 May 10th 08 07:33 AM
Chess Ratings samsloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 6 May 10th 08 07:33 AM
First Draft: Blue Book Encyclopedia of Chess samsloan rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 4 February 16th 08 03:46 PM
First Draft: Blue Book Encyclopedia of Chess samsloan rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 4 February 16th 08 03:46 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:26 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017