@NatalijaFirenkova said in #7:
> Nice analysis but I don't get the "points of interest" section at all. Seems like a very odd way to structure tournaments designed to optimize this one specific metric.
Why is that so ? It's not about changing *every* tournament, it's about having *any* tournaments with mixing. Representation helps participation which in turns increase representation. It's a positive feedback loop, you really don't need much, but if you do absolutely nothing it very well may wither (it being women chess).
It's not just about women. The current rating system is slightly flawed for big differences, in favour of the weaker player. That plus the mere risk aversion even if the expected gain were correctly null, lead many top players to strongly prefer playing only amongst themselves . Tournament organizer may lean into it, or push back against, with the right incentives. Community isolation (regional, men vs women, strong vs weak, young vs old) is generally bad for rating accuracy, and its meaning across people, and that's one of the lesser downsides.
While balanced pairings over a narrow range are generally interesting, playing against opponents much higher rated than you is an invaluable learning experience for everyone, men and women (as well as a fast track for underrated younglings). Having a few tournaments with a wide, diverse range of profile, some including top players, is a healthy thing.
We need Gibraltar back
you could show this recent Tan game eh
Sonja Graf is missing.
Sonja Graf-Stevenson vs Gideon Stahlberg
La Plata Jockey Club (1944), rd 1
Queen's Indian Defense: Classical. Traditional Variation (E17) · 1-0
Stahlberg was 4-7 in 1944
Due to rating inflation1, I think this post understates the strength of Polgar and possibly also that of older players like Gaprindashvili. Today, there are 31 players with 2700+ ratings. When Polgar hit her peak in 2004, she was one of only 15. At Gaprindashvili's peak in 1987, there were only two (Kasparov and Karpov). I'd like to see what the list looks like if the criterion for "super GM" is changed from "2700+" to "top 30".
1By rating inflation, I mean simply the upward change in the overall distribution of ratings of top players. Note that this is due mainly to top players today being objectively stronger (as evaluated by an engine) than top players of yesteryear, not to any large change how ratings correspond to objective strength.
She made split second descions and destroyed super GMs
@blindzombie said in #24:
> Sonja Graf is missing.
>
> Sonja Graf-Stevenson vs Gideon Stahlberg
> La Plata Jockey Club (1944), rd 1
> Queen's Indian Defense: Classical. Traditional Variation (E17) · 1-0
>
> Stahlberg was 4-7 in 1944
I will add it, thanks!
@dfranke said in #25:
> Due to rating inflation1, I think this post understates the strength of Polgar and possibly also that of older players like Gaprindashvili. Today, there are 31 players with 2700+ ratings. When Polgar hit her peak in 2004, she was one of only 15. At Gaprindashvili's peak in 1987, there were only two (Kasparov and Karpov). I'd like to see what the list looks like if the criterion for "super GM" is changed from "2700+" to "top 30".
>
> 1By rating inflation, I mean simply the upward change in the overall distribution of ratings of top players. Note that this is due mainly to top players today being objectively stronger (as evaluated by an engine) than top players of yesteryear, not to any large change how ratings correspond to objective strength.
The top 30 list is already in the article!
thanks for the article. One thing for me, this meme doesn't make sense to me - the first two doors should say something like, '2500 GM', '2600 GM', and then the third door indicating Super GM hunt is on