Author: mikejfitch
Date: 10:01:02 03/11/05
Go up one level in this thread
On March 11, 2005 at 04:07:21, Gabor Szots wrote: >On March 10, 2005 at 16:45:04, mikejfitch wrote: > >>On March 10, 2005 at 16:25:52, Eduard Nemeth wrote: >> >>>XXII SuperGM 2005 >>> >>>1 Topalov,V 2757 +93 ** ½1 0½ ½½ 1½ ½1 11 8.0/12 43.50 >>>2 Kasparov,G 2804 +38 ½0 ** ½½ ½½ 11 ½1 11 8.0/12 41.50 >>>3 Anand,V 2786 -22 1½ ½½ ** ½½ ½0 ½1 ½½ 6.5/12 >>>4 Leko,P 2749 -7 ½½ ½½ ½½ ** ½½ ½½ ½½ 6.0/12 >>>5 Adams,Mi 2741 -27 0½ 00 ½1 ½½ ** ½½ 1½ 5.5/12 >>>6 Kasimdzhanov,R 2678 -35 ½0 ½0 ½0 ½½ ½½ ** ½0 4.0/12 24.75 >>>7 Vallejo Pons,F 2686 -44 00 00 ½½ ½½ 0½ ½1 ** 4.0/12 21.25 >>> >>>Average elo: 2743 <=> Category: 20 >>>gm = 3.96 m = 1.56 >>> >>> >>>That is real curious that the Nr. 1 in the Ranking, is not the winner! :-)) >>> >>>Anyway my Congrats to Topalov. He played the best Chess + Fightings to end! >> >>I totally agree. >> >>The first tiebreak criterium Linares used ((( SUCKS ))) >>First tiebreak criterium should ALWAYS be personal score, then if still tied, >>how many black wins, etc.etc. >>Topalov got robbed. :-( > >Yes, let's change the rules after the result is known. ROTFLMAO ((( NO ))) See above where i say ALWAYS? Every MAJOR tournament should have the SAME first tiebreak criterium. Why change it from tournament to tournament? That's my complaint. NOW DO YOU UNDERSTAND? Maybe the organizers knew this was Kasparov's last tournament, and maybe they know Kasparov wins just as much with black as he does with white, giving him the advantage in tiebreaks :-)
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.