Tata Steel Chess - Games and results

Jacob woge, the truth is pulling you back in. Sorry.

"Just when I thought I was out ... they pull me back in"

This thread has been a delight to my eyes. I hope you enjoyed this whole thread as much as I did. A lot of fun conversation. Thumbs up!

What should we do Dubov`s disrespectful covid result? Should we throw him in jail and remove his ELO -number from the statistics? Who steals points and from whom? Maybe organizer should have considered this scenario in case the test result looks negative? Isn't athletics doping testing done at least twice, I wonder why on earth?

Frits Fritschy "Rules? If anybody calls anyone names, the discerning part of the public will know what to think of it. The rest is not worthy of any attention."

You make the rules. If it's ok for you then it's ok for me.

Masquer 9 hours ago
"@arzi. Let's get one thing straight, was Dubov even sick? He tested both negative and positive..."

As you can see from my note below how the Dutch health authorities act when a person has received both a positive and negative result in testing of covid. People have to settle for that solution, no problem. Dubov can now go to Berlin (or what ever) to play a new tournament with his negative covid result.

Frits: "The same with discerning facts from nonsense. When all arguments have been given, people can make up their own minds."

Why an earth somebody would like to spread false information? Believing is not the same thing as the truth. It is only an opinion that can be true or false. Tossing a coin.

@arzi. Let's get one thing straight, was Dubov even sick? He tested both negative and positive...

@guest1227491 You're such an expert, God forbid a false positive could ever happen. It would be against your religion!

This was my last comment on this subject.

Rules?
If anybody calls anyone names, the discerning part of the public will know what to think of it. The rest is not worthy of any attention.
The same with discerning facts from nonsense. When all arguments have been given, people can make up their own minds.

I agree you, Frits, but there also should be some rules about calling names and talking nonsense before you have facts right.

Come on guys, can't we just stop this? Everything has been written, nobody is going to change his opinion anymore. Just agree to disagree.

Chessbase: "The organizers shared the following message on Twitter:

Daniil Dubov tested positive for COVID-19 on Thursday. A second test requested by Dubov himself showed a negative result. The Dutch health authorities stipulate that in these circumstances the positive test result stands and supersedes the negative outcome."

Who wrote something like this? "I wish Dubov a quick recovery, but, to be honest, I'm not surprised that he has contracted the disease. Irresponsible "principles" lead to bad results. This is the moral of the story"

Hah, hah, haa, a very disrespectful statement! Where is the moral of this story? Do not say anything disrespectful which you will later regret.

@Leavenfish "In THIS situation, however, Dubov was not even allowed to play"

Rightly so. The organizer is first of all responsible for the health and safety of the players. And this has a priority over the smoothness of the tournament.

@Masquer

A negative test does not necessarily mean that you are not infected. It greatly reduces its probability, but a positive result is much more important, because it means that there is almost 100% chance that the individual is infected and, as a result, the individual could infect others. Responsible organizers do not allow infected people to play other people, especially during a pandemic.

@Leavenfish

"I may have a blind spot but have yet to hear a more 'fair' argument than setting aside the offenders games for placing/final prize payout. The 50%+ played = let everyone else have a full free point argument, is demonstrably less fair in any scenario. "

You surely have one. If someone withdraws from a tournament, there are two main possible approaches to the problem. The first is to acknowledge this fact and since he does not face his latter opponents, due to the standard rules they win. The second is to ignore all his results. Now, if we take the first approach, then we are unfair to those who did not win against this player, as you have pointed out. If we take the second approach, then we are unfair to those who have earned a win. So, while you are right that the current situation is unfair, your proposed solution would be unfair as well. And there are several additional problems with your proposed solution:

1. I do not see the logic as of why should we ignore the existence of a game in this situation, while I perfectly see the logic of giving free points to the players whose opponent does not show up
2. As Adbennett has pointed out, a tailender can change the results of a tournament if he wants to help someone who would have no chance to win the tournament by withdrawing.
3. It would be extremely difficult to explain to the chess audience that after someone is mathematically sure to win the tournament, suddenly ends up on second place, because his win is ignored.

"So, I grant you that adbennets argument 'could' play out once in a blue moon."

Are you serious? In the 20th century the Soviets did everything they could in order to ensure that a Soviet wins. So, if a tailender wants someone to win, due to nationalistic or other criteria, then he will withdraw and that could decide the matter.

@Masquer
It is natural to be confused when ideological blinders prevent you from seeing the obvious. Covid PCR tests can give false negatives due to mistakes in the collection procedure. (I myself got a false negative, sandwiched between two positive tests, because the nurse did not properly swab my throat.) But positive tests are quite reliable, and should prevail over a negative test in such situations.

Yes - gifting and robbing points are mathematically equivalent methods, both of which botch the result of a number of games.

Tournament practice is to minimize that number.

@Leavenfish. You write "The policy of gifting free points to a few who did not play him, helped them and hurt others as regards final standings and possibly prize pay outs". That's certainly true, at least in this situation.
But I could write "The policy of taking out full points from a few who defeated him, damaged them and favoured others as regards final standings and possibly prize pay outs."
So I hope you see there's not an optimal solution, one way or another, nor there are blue moons. You have to go for minimal damage, and choose one of the two accordingly. You can't do better than that.

Of course anything is possible - we can come up with different scenarios to justify different policies. Tail-enders could even throw their final game(s) to help other players in contention. Fischer thought the Soviets did this. So, I grant you that adbennets argument 'could' play out once in a blue moon.

In THIS situation, however, Dubov was not even allowed to play so the argument against setting his games aside for the reasons adbennet suggest, fly out the window. Nothing nefarious happened on Dubov's part to help anyone.

The policy of gifting free points to a few who did not play him, helped them and hurt others as regards final standings and possibly prize pay outs. If I haven't convinced anyone of this by now with simple math...I never will. But I tried. Thanks and...Out!

@Leavenfish: adbennet has posted a crystal clear example that demonstrates why your rule, if 50%+ games have been played, is indeed unfair. Everyone agrees it is fair instead when 50%- games have been plaied.
It's not adbennet or anyone else's fault if you don't understand their arguments.

@Jacob woge - I may have a blind spot but have yet to hear a more 'fair' argument than setting aside the offenders games for placing/final prize payout. The 50%+ played = let everyone else have a full free point argument, is demonstrably less fair in any scenario.

And a just because something is tradition argument, does not hold water. I mean...a certain tournament just overturned their long standing criteria for 'playoffs' when more than 2 people tie, didn't they? I am not even talking about 'this specific' situation, but one that could arrives in the next tourney...or the next...and with muliple players.

I certainly agree this is a "miserable situation"...but one the organizers should have anticipated as likely with the world as it currently is.

That’s right, with less than 50% completed a withdrawing (or expelled) player’s results are scratched (but still rated) - and with at least 50% completed results stand.

This seems like the best approach in a miserable situation, for reasons indicated by several .

And ignored by some, without any resemblance of counter-argument.

This practice has been used since the dawn of tournament chess. If players were unhappy about, surely we would have seen complaints by now. After all, they, not the spectators, are the ones directly affected.

Well done, Magnus and Arjun...

Thanks for the discussion and good points by some!
In the end, what you want is to the lessen the effects on the final point standings and prize payout when any player is unable to finish his games. To remove from the equation their played and 'un-played' results keeps all things 'equal' and effectively makes it a 12 round tourney instead of 13. Mathematically and logically, this just seems to make the most sense and can be done regardless of the number of games (and specific individuals) he played or did not play or when he might test positive.
Contestants play all the time 'under the weather' - this particular situation though was unusual. In these strange days, the organizers should have foreseen the possibility of 'positive test/asymptomatic transmissions' over 2 weeks and planned accordingly. Even having 'offenders' play from another room via the internet when they still feel fine would have been a more reasonable option than the circus we now see.
As I initially said: last year 'controversy', this year 'controversy'...it need not have been this way.

Tutti, o quasi, focalizzano su Dubov, invece io metto anche l'accento sugli orgaznizzatori del TATA STEEL, i quali han dovuto abbozzare un ritiro per RIFIUTO d'indossare la mascherina. Questo sarebbe già sufficiente, secondo me, a chiudere il dibattito, ma poi, evidentemente per amor del vero, si è anche saputo della positività di Dubov.
Ma è evidente che in un torneo d'elite, insieme ai giocatori più forti ( e rappresentativi ) del mondo non si può essere ELASTICI più di tanto. NON vuoi la mascherina? Allora non giochi-punto-questo è quanto.

If you take Dubov and his games out of the tournament, you get almost the same standings

@Keshava
Now he's tested negative again, but he still can't play !?! Which one is it, is he negative, positive, I'm very confused!
How can he spread if he's negative?? Anyone else who can see how farcical this has become?

I think there is a much simpler reason for the present rule (which is, I repeat, used in every serious tournament): the majority should count. If real results are in the majority, the final result is closest by what could have be expected by counting the played games. The less real results you have, the farther away you get from what was to be expected. Drawing the line in the middle (less than half played -> all zeroes, more than half played -> only unplayed games a zero) is the least arbitrary.

The important point is if a player cannot finish a tournament, the player's *choice* between (a) withdrawing from the tournament and (b) resigning the remaining games should not affect the final standings. Here is a hypothetical crosstable before the final round:

x A B C D E F
A x = = 1 1 ?
B = x ? 1 1 0
C = ? x = = 1
D 0 0 = x ? 1
E 0 0 = ? x 1
F ? 1 0 0 0 x

Current standings are A has 3 points, B has 2.5 points. Suppose Leavenfish's rule is in effect, and further suppose F does not want to play the last round game. In scenario (a) (withdraw), A finishes with 3 points, and, depending on the final game against C, B can finish with 3.5 points and win the tournament, 3 points and tie for first, or 2.5 points and finish second. In scenario (b) (resign), A finishes with 4 points, and the best B can do is still 3.5 points, thus second.

So the "Leavenfish rule" means that player F, with no impact to themselves, can *choose* with high probability whether player A or player B wins the tournament. Whereas under the current rules, withdrawing and resigning have the same result for the final standings, so player F cannot make this choice. All the talk about fairness and unfairness vis-a-vis individual results doesn't matter, because there will be unfairness however you do it. What matters is you cannot give a tail-ender the power to decide the order of finish.

@Leavenfish: of course, you're right in claiming it is also unfair the system in use. Problem is: both solutions are unfair. The system in use means Carlsen gets a full point against Dubov, and doesn't even have to play him, while others have played him and drawn, even lost (not here, but could have been). He gets an unfair advantage, so unfair he will almost surely win the tournament with a minimal effort (a quick draw against Caruana will do). Also, Rapport will likely come second for the same reason, while Mamedyarov, Caruana and Karjakin (drew) won't be able to catch neither of them.
But your solution is equally unfair, for the opposite reason: you would take away a full point from players who defeated Dubov, nothing from players who lost to him. These players would get an equally unfair advantage.
So, there is no good solution: if a player forfeits half way it's a mess, no matter what you try to do afterwards.

@Leavenfish The points received due to the fact that Dubov does not play are logical. What if you had to play me and I do not show up? Do you get a win? No? What if I do not show up because I do not want you to earn a point? Should you still not get that point? As about erasing the games Dubov has played, it would be extremely unjust if your suggestion would be taken seriously. Some players spent hours on playing with Dubov and earned a win the hard way. And now that Dubov has withdrawn, you suggest that the fruit of their hard work should be erased. And what about those who have made a draw with him? Was their performance against Dubov the same as of those who earned a win against him? To put it frankly, your idea does not make sense. I understand your frustration though, Rapport for instance won without playing a move. But is it his fault? No. So we should not punish him for the fact that Dubov did not show up. And what about Grandelius? He has earned a win against Dubov. In fact that was his only win. He should definitely not be punished for the fact that after his hard earned win Dubov had to withdraw from the tournament. Yes, Rapport's win was not earned while Grandelius's win was earned, so this is unfair. but life is not fair. We need to get used to it.

@Masquer, if a person is positive then they can spread the virus even though they don't feel sick. This is known as asymptomatic spread.

So Dubov tested "positive", and so he must be really sick and a threat to others, right?
But is he really sick? Has anybody been sick, or are they just "positive"?
Just wondering.

Sorry, I can't see what you think I am missing.

It is an 'all play all' tourney - a closed system. To gift 3 people full points toward the prize payout while 7 get only half (those that actually played and drew Dubov...could have been 0 points had anyone lost to Dubov) is unfair. Those who get the free points could end up slotting higher into the prize money due to those 'free points' they didn't even have to work for.

If fairness is important...it seems you have to either give others who had to play Dubov the full point...or, more simply, ignore Dubov's results when calculating the final standings.

@Leavenfish: no, adbennet is right. Let's make an example: let's say that in the current situation Carlsen and Mamedyarov had drawn their game (forget the other players). So, both would stand at 7 points, 2 games to go. Also, let's say that Mamedyarov had beaten Dubov, and drawn Duda instead.
In the current situation Carlsen would have to play Caruana + Dubov, while Mamedyarov Caruana + Vidit. Given that Vidit and Dubov's elo is almost the same, it's likely Carlsen and Mamedyarov would perform equally and finish the tournament with the same score, maybe 8 or 8.5 points.
Now, Dubov forfeits, and you say: "his games do not count". That would mean Carlsen still gets 7 points, and only has to play Caruana. Mamedyarov goes back to 6 points, with 2 games to play, Caruana and Vidit. With a performance for both players, until today, of 63% (7/11), it's unlikely Mamedyarov could catch Carlsen, despite the extra game. Not impossibile, but unlikely.
I hope you understand now what adbennet meant.

Apart from that, the rule is to be found in the FIDE Handbook, Recommendations for top tournaments. So it shouldn't come as a surprise for any of the players.

Oh sorry Nils, for you as well.

Would be a bit sad for Vidit, wouldn't it?

@adbennet. No, you are getting it wrong. How would someone withdrawing in your (or any) scenario be 'unfair' to the final standings if the result of their played games do not count toward anyones total points? It would be the same as if they never played in the tournament if you do not count any of their games towards the final standings.

What IS unfair is that their draws and wins take 1/2 or full points away from opponents (whom they did play) final totals...and THE CONTESTANTS WHO DID NOT HAVE TO PLAY HIM GET A "FREE 1 POINT" toward their totals. THAT is what is not fair.

@Leavenfish - Your idea that none of Dubov's games should count towards the final standings is unworkable. Think! If the rule were like that, then a player in the bottom half could completely change the winners by withdrawing before the end. Not in every tournament, but often enough. Whether the games count or don't count, there will always be some sort of injustice. But the current rule (which has been in effect since before FIDE even existed) seems the best way to handle it.