Author: Gabor Szots
Date: 14:39:36 03/11/05
Go up one level in this thread
On March 11, 2005 at 13:01:02, mikejfitch wrote: >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? Yes, I do. But to say that Topalov got robbed would only be true if the tie-break rules had been changed after he defeated Kasparov.
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.