Tie-break system decides Olympiad

Advertising

Books, boards, sets: Chess Niggemann

Johannes Fischer Johannes Fischer was born in 1963 in Hamburg and studied English and German literature in Frankfurt. He now lives as a writer and translator in Nürnberg. He is a FIDE-Master and regularly writes for KARL, a German chess magazine focusing on the links between culture and chess. On his own blog he regularly publishes notes on "Film, Literature and Chess".

Discuss

Rules for reader comments

LearnZ 9/22/2016 01:31

@malfa

Regarding (1) I tried to find in the rule that if a team won in a match by forfeit, they only get 1 match point instead of 2. I can't find such rule.

Also why in chess-results.com, the MP of Ireland is 11 and not 10?

Another issue, according to chess-results.com:
"Tie Break2: Olympiad-Sonneborn-Berger-Tie-Break without lowest result (Khanty-Mansiysk)"

That wording is wrong as according to FIDE it should be the following.
" a) the sum of Sonneborn-Berger points, which are calculated as follows:
match points of each opponent, excluding the opponent who scored the lowest number of match points, multiplied by the number of game points achieved against this opponent;"

LaskerPillsbury 9/21/2016 06:19

@malfa (and @weerogue, @LearnZ)
I'm probably being extremely obtuse here, but 'In the present case, what is to be discarded is the worst between the (opponent's MPs)*(GPs scored against opponent) products in your TB2, so if two or more of these products have the value of "opponent's MPs" as common factor, you logically discard the one which has the worst second factor.' doesn't make any sense at all. That's even more illogical than splitting a tie-break on MPs (when calculating your own team's TB2) by resorting to the TB3 of the teams involved (instead of the TB2). We're still talking about inconsistent use of criteria for the breaking of ties. Your assumption for TB2 calculation, 1) discard the worst placed opponent, based on MP, 2) in the event of an MP tie between two or more teams for the worst placed opponent, discard your own team's worst result (opponent's MP * your GP score against them), seems utterly implausible.

If, as you say, it's similar to the Buchholz Cut 1 system where you discard your own worst result (the lowest Buchholz score of your opponents - regardless of whether you scored 1, ½ or 0 against him/her), you would still discard Ukraine v Jordan over Ukraine v Germany, because that would be the worst result of all of your opponents (because Germany would have outscored Jordan on TB2 if tied on MPs, unless one illogically applies TB3 where Jordan would have bested Germany by 0.5 GP in the event of 2-2 in Germany v Estonia).

Furthermore, if it was a case of disregarding your own worst result in terms of [Opponent's MP * Your team's GP score against them], then it would have been Ukraine v USA which would have been disregarded (20 * 1.5 = 30), not Ukraine v Germany (regardless of the result in their match against Estonia), while Ukraine v Jordan (12 * 4 = 48) would have been their best result!

malfa 9/21/2016 02:13

@weerogue, @LearnZ

With hindsight I think that our discussion complicated the matter unnecessarily, though understandably, since the FIDE rules lack of clarity and this article is highly misleading whenever it refers to the "worst result" in TB2: in the definition "Olympiad-Sonneborn-Berger-Tie-Break without lowest result", in fact, the latter should be intended from the point of view of the team whose TB2 is being calculated, not from the one of its opponents! I think that most of us, me included, were reasoning instead in terms of the latter, but if you think over it, it is the same which normally happens with Buchholz Cut 1 systems in the typical individual Swiss tournaments, when you discard *your own* worst result, not the worst ranked among your opponents!

In the present case, what is to be discarded is the worst between the (opponent's MPs)*(GPs scored against opponent) products in your TB2, so if two or more of these products have the value of "opponent's MPs" as common factor, you logically discard the one which has the worst second factor.

Grasped this way, it all looks obvious and also ensures that the columnist was absolutely correct when stating that a draw by Germany against Estonia would have given the gold medal to Ukraine: also in this case, in fact, the result of the Ukrainians against Germany would have been discarded from their TB2 in favour of the one against Jordan, thus guaranteeing them no less than 420 TB2 points, as LearnZ already calculated in the case of a last round loss by Germany, more than enough against the 413,5 of the USA.

weerogue 9/21/2016 01:12

@LearnZ, @malfa: Just checking back in on this - wonderful diligence and detective skills shown here - I believe you have reached the correct conclusion, which is that the following criteria were used when deciding which teams to exclude from your S-B calculation:
1. Team with lowest Match Points
2. (If required) Team with lowest Board Points

It's confusing why FIDE would use this method of ranking teams when calculating S-B tiebreaks when it is already using the '1. Match-Points, 2. S-B Ties, 3. Board Points' criteria to rank teams in the first place - why not just use the same method?
Also - this is not documented in the rules as published by FIDE (D.II.02) and so I feel that the US (in this example) would have had an absolutely legitimate claim to be considered champions had Germany drawn with Estonia.

malfa 9/20/2016 04:54

@LearnZ,
thanks again for your feedback. I have not been so diligent to examine the whole data, however the confusion may somehow be settled as follows:

1. The discrepancies you point out in the calculation of TB2, at least in the cases you name, may be explained by taking into account that individual points gained by forfait count as a draw, so for example Ireland's MPs, for this purpose only, are not 11, but only 10, since they won 4-0 by forfait in the first round, so their contribution as opponent nr. 81 to France's TB2 is not 38.5, but 10*3,5= 35.

2. Apparently, the discard criterion between "equally worst" opponents was not their TB2, nor their GP, nor in short their relative placement in the final rankings, but only the number of GPs made against them.

Both of these observations explain Iraq's published data: firstly, they met Ireland and Finland, each of which got a 4-0 forfait score in the first round, and secondly Guatemala was selected as their discarded opponent over Malaysia because Iraq scored 4.0 points against the latter and only 3.5 against the former.

If the above is right I am confident to explain also the result you mentioned for Lithuania, though I did not make the relevant calculation yet. Indeed, it is a very weird system, which apparently is documented nowhere in the FIDE regulations, and I wonder if a different "approved-by-FIDE" program would have produced the same results as Swiss Manager.

LearnZ 9/20/2016 10:03

@malfa
I calculated all the tb2 excluding the low rated opp of all teams and compare it with the tb2 published in chess-results.com.
You are correct, for same match point of top 2 lower ranked team, the system in chess-results.com generally apply the max tb2 of the two. There is only one team I find that this was not applied, it is IRAQ.

Rank 93 opp records:
[rank, mp, score, tb2]
[144, 8, 3.5, 28.0]
[134, 8, 4.0, 32.0]
[130, 9, 3.0, 27.0]
[120, 9, 2.5, 22.5]
[118, 9, 2.5, 22.5]
[85, 11, 2.0, 22.0]
[81, 11, 0.5, 5.5]
[61, 12, 1.0, 12.0]
[55, 13, 1.5, 19.5]
[41, 13, 0.0, 0.0]
[7, 16, 0.0, 0.0]
r: 93, FED: Iraq, tb2_orig: 161.0, tb2_lowrank_excluded: 163.0, top2lowrank: same mp

mp = match point
tb2_orig = 161, is difficult to establish

try using rank 144 as lower ranked
tb2 = 0+0+19.5+12+5.5+22+22.5+22.5+27+32 = 163

try using rank 134 as lower ranked
tb2 = 0+0+19.5+12+5.5+22+22.5+22.5+27+28 = 159

So the published tb2 161, is dubious. But overall it shows that for same match point, the system selected the max of the two.

Some errors in the published tb2 calculation:

Example 1, the top 2 low (144 and 140) opp of ranked 8 France have same tb2 (32), but tb2_orig and tb2_lowrank_excluded are not the same.
I hope someone will verify this, as France could have a higher TB2.

Rank 8 opp records:
[rank, mp, score, tb2]
[144, 8, 4.0, 32.0]
[140, 8, 4.0, 32.0]
[81, 11, 3.5, 38.5]
[43, 13, 2.0, 26.0]
[37, 13, 3.0, 39.0]
[31, 14, 2.0, 28.0]
[30, 14, 3.0, 42.0]
[29, 14, 3.0, 42.0]
[19, 15, 1.5, 22.5]
[18, 15, 2.0, 30.0]
[14, 15, 2.0, 30.0]
r: 8, FED: France, tb2_orig: 326.5, tb2_lowrank_excluded: 330.0, top2lowrank: same mp

Example 2,

Rank 65 opp records:
[rank, mp, score, tb2]
[140, 8, 4.0, 32.0]
[139, 8, 4.0, 32.0]
[136, 8, 4.0, 32.0]
[69, 12, 2.5, 30.0]
[56, 13, 2.5, 32.5]
[47, 13, 3.0, 39.0]
[34, 14, 1.5, 21.0]
[28, 14, 1.5, 21.0]
[26, 14, 0.5, 7.0]
[19, 15, 1.0, 15.0]
[6, 16, 1.0, 16.0]
r: 65, FED: Lithuania, tb2_orig: 243.0, tb2_lowrank_excluded: 245.5, top2lowrank: same mp

There are others with inconsistent TB2 calculation in the published results, but will not post it. It seems to me there are problems in chess-results.com calculation of TB2, and one of that perhaps is the calculation of max tb2 when match point is the same for lower ranked opponent.

malfa 9/19/2016 03:08

@LearnZ,
what logic suggests apparently was *not* applied, actually: for example, if you look at the statistics for Russia, their two worst-ranked opponents, namely Nigeria and Egypt, scored the same match points, but my computations show that the excluded result from Russia's TB2 was the one of Egypt, though they had both the higher TB2 and more individual points more than Nigeria! The only explaination I can find is that the product (opponent's match points) * (individual points scored against him) is higher in RUS-NGR than in RUS-EGY, but according to FIDE rules this is *not* the parameter to be taken as "worst result"... :-/

malfa 9/17/2016 12:19

@tlago,
actually you did: you claimed that in your opinion the adopted TB2 was fair, I objected on this and explained why.
Previously I took position in favour of the head-to-head result, you objected on this, so overall my last message was perfectly in topic. What counts for more is that all if us be aware that the perfect TB does not exist.

LearnZ 9/17/2016 08:08

@vlad88

Yes a draw in that match and USA would still get the gold.
In that r11 game the Estonian player actually tries to draw, but could not.
GER is expected to win that match by just looking at seed numbers, 13 for GER and 67 for EST.
But EST fought well.

vlad88 9/16/2016 09:45

@LearnZ

Thanks for confirming! I agree that had Germany lost UKR would have won. But it seems like a draw in the Estonia match would have still resulted in the Jordan score being cut and USA being champs, so the article is wrong (it is over-dramatizing the situation, since it is unlikely the Germans would lose that game). No?

tlago 9/16/2016 06:16

hi malfa,
the exclusion-rule is surely debatable, but i havent talked about this.

malfa 9/16/2016 03:19

@tlago,
whatever TB is chosen, there are pros and cons: the TB2 as it was in Baku lends itself to criticism insofar it excludes the contribution of the opponent with the worst result. In fact, on average the opponents of Ukraine scored both more match points and more individual points than the ones of the USA, therefore the latter were unfairly favoured by the discarding mechanism. It must be pointed out, however, that according to my calculations they would have won even without the discarding rule, albeit only by a single point.

LearnZ 9/16/2016 02:37

@malfa

In my previous post I already showed the so so fide olympiad rule. Let me post it again.

"@LaskerPillsbury

The rule mentions that the lowest team to be excluded in the calculation of TB2 is the one with lowest match points.

It can be implied (this was not explicitly mentioned in the rule) that if TB1 is the same as in the case when Germany gets 2-2 in r11, Germany TB1=12 and Jordan TB1=12 too, it would follow that the lowest team will now be based on who gets the lower TB2. If TB2 is still tied then TB3 would come in then TB4. The TB2 of Germany is high, so Jordan will be considered as the team with lowest match point with respect to Ukraine.

That rule in FIDE in this case needs more polishing."

weerogue 9/16/2016 09:53

@LaskerPillsbury, LearnZ: Thank you both for your comments and contribution - it's nice to know I'm not the only one who was troubled by this!

I originally made a post on the Rd.11 Report article and the two points I made are obviously concerns that you also share:

1. Main one: who would have won if Germany had drawn Estonia? MASSIVE QUESTION - very nearly happened, could have been hugely embarrassing for chess (not to mention FIDE) if so.

2. It seems like it is being asserted that UKraine would have won the Olympiad if Germany had drawn against Estonia - I can't see from the tiebreak criteria how this can be known and it irks a little that this is being used to insert manufactured drama in to an already dramatic, but also potentially calamitous scenario. Let's use the ineptitude of FIDE's tiebreak criteria to point out how bad this could have been and advocate positive change (as, I suppose, is the intention of this article - it could certainly strengthen the argument here!), rather than to marvel, with the security of hindsight, at just how incredible, cinematic, "against all the odds" etc. the US' victory was.

malfa 9/16/2016 08:46

@LearnZ,
there is only one detail left out of your very clear explaination: apparently the FIDE rules do not specify which result should have been picked up for Ukraine's TB2 in case Germany had drawn its last match, thus obtaining the same match points of Jordan. To me it looks obvious what also your considerations suggest, i.e. that the one with the best TB2 between Germany and Jordan should have been chosen, but AFAIK this is not clearly stated in the rules. One thing is clear: it is totally counterintuitive that the worse one of your opponents scores in the last round, the best is for your final placement!

tlago 9/16/2016 08:44

i do not see this Head-to-head- or unfefeated-argument.

if you end up tied with a team you have beaten in the direct encounter, it just means you where better in one aspect (Head-to-head) but you were worse in the other aspect (all other encounters). the same goes for undefeated/defeated.

why should the first aspect count for more than the second? i simply can see no reason for that.

the tiebreak as it was, seems fair to me. Germany was finally the better team than Jordan, and consequently Ukraine got their point from them. hadnt Germany won this one game, Jordan would have been the better team (thats just the way it is, in the end you count the points) and the 4-0-wipping of this, now better, team would have been decisive.

just fair.

LearnZ 9/16/2016 06:54

@vlad88

Couple of definitions:
TB1 = match point in the table in this article
TB2 = Sonneborn-Berger tie break system as defined by FIDE

The ranking is based on match point, in fact match point should not be TB1, because match point is not a tie-breaker, it is the point that the team will get by winning (+2) or drawing (+1) in a team match. If a team loses to a match it will not get a match point. When a team is ahead in match point overall, that team will be the first, there is no need for the TB's.

If Germany got 2-2 in r11, their match point is 12 overall. They would tie with Jordan. But Germany would still be ahead with Jordan thru TB2. If this happens the UKR will get 2.5 x 12 = 30, worth of TB2 points from Germany alone.

If Gernamy loses in r11, their match point would be 11, and this would consider them as the lowest opponent of UKR, thereby the new overall TB2 of UKR would be higher and that may exceed the overall TB2 of USA.

According to the table in this article and the actual result:
USA TB2 = 413.5
UKR TB2 = 404.5
GER TB1 = 13
JOR TB1 = 12

Game score of UKR vs GER = 2.5
UKR TB2 from GER = 2.5 x 13 = 32.5

When Germany Loses in r11
GER TB1 = 11

Use Jordan match point because Jordan's match point or TB1 is higher than that of GER.

Game score of UKR vs JOR = 4.0
UKR TB2 from JOR = 4 x 12 = 48
Overall TB2 of UKR when GER loses in r11 = 404.5 - 32.5 + 48 = 420

Comparison of TB2 when GER loses in r11:
USA TB2 = 413.5
UKR TB2 = 420

UKR would have won the gold, if GER loses in last round.

LaskerPillsbury 9/15/2016 10:07

@LearnZ
Exactly what I thought, too. Although nothing is stated explicitly, it would be exceedingly odd not to use TB1, TB2, TB3, TB4 in that order throughout.

@vlad88 Had Germany drawn their final round match with Estonia, they would have been the second worst placed opponent of the Ukraine (Albania 13 mp, and Germany and Jordan 12 mp each).

vlad88 9/15/2016 09:25

I am confused with this article: First a correction, Germany was the third weakest opponent of Ukraine (Albania was second-worst), but Germany was the second-lowest score counting towards Sonnenborn-berger. If they had tied, they would still have been ahead of Jordan in the table. Also the Ukrainians would have scored 2.5*11=27.5 against them as opposed to 2.5*12=30, but both of those are less than the score against Jordan: 4*11=44. Or am I using the wrong formula for the Sonnenborn-Berger?

LearnZ 9/15/2016 08:29

@LaskerPillsbury

The rule mentions that the lowest team to be excluded in the calculation of TB2 is the one with lowest match points.

It can be implied (this was not explicitly mentioned in the rule) that if TB1 is the same as in the case when Germany gets 2-2 in r11, Germany TB1=12 and Jordan TB1=12 too, it would follow that the lowest team will now be based on who gets the lower TB2. If TB2 is still tied then TB3 would come in then TB4. The TB2 of Germany is high, so Jordan will be considered as the team with lowest match point with respect to Ukraine.

That rule in FIDE in this case needs more polishing.

LaskerPillsbury 9/15/2016 06:38

Is this story factually correct? weerogue and I have been struck by exactly the same thought, i.e. that in the article above TB3 has been used to separate out the result for elimination with regards to the all-important TB2 when breaking the tie between the US and the Ukraine for the gold medals. If this is indeed correct, surely the real anomaly lies there and nowhere else? In the final table Germany's TB2 is 80 points higher than Jordan's, so even in the event of Germany dropping a 2-2 draw with Estonia in the last round, surely their TB2 tiebreak would still have put them way ahead of Jordan, and the Ukraine v Jordan 4-0 result would still have been disregarded?

kassy 9/15/2016 05:11

Chvsanchez,

Head to head only comes in play for a tie. It would be the 2nd(or 3rd) tiebreaker.
You can have a moral victory if you want, but the team with more match points gets the medal.

Chvsanchez 9/15/2016 04:41

Head-to-head is nonsense (but I admit simple enough). So if I finish last in a tournament but beat the winner, am I the moral winner?

notyetagm 9/15/2016 04:22

@chessdrummer: I believe that the complaints about China winning Silver in 2006 was based on them having lost several matches (3?) to the top teams but they still won Silver because they annihilated weak team 4-0 and 3.5-0.5.

gmwdim 9/15/2016 04:21

Congratulations to USA, but I think this situation shows that a more reasonable tiebreak system should be used. It's ridiculous that the gold medal should be decided by a game on much lower boards between two players with almost nothing at stake.

notyetagm 9/15/2016 04:05

So the USA beat Ukraine 2 1/2 to 1 1/2 in their match, had more board points (31.5 to 31) to boot, but would have lost the tiebreak and Gold medal to Ukraine if Bluebaum had not won his 11th round game against Estonia!?!?!?!?!?!

THAT. IS. INSANE.

weerogue 9/15/2016 02:47

@prince_james: the Olympiad was held in Baku, Azerbaijan; there is long-standing 'political tension', to put it mildly, between the nations of Azerbaijan and Armenia.
If memory serves me well, I believe Armenia originally contested the appointment of Azerbaijan as the host nation and then, after this was unsuccessful, opted not to enter a team.

weerogue 9/15/2016 02:41

Thanks for this article, but I have a question (as per post on last round report): where in the rules does it say that if two teams are tied on match points, then it goes to board points to determine which team should be excluded from a S-B tiebreak calculation?

prince_james 9/15/2016 10:33

Armenia is missing in BAKU,,, any reasons?

LearnZ 9/15/2016 09:51

The TB2 is interesting, it emphasizes the ability of the team to score well against stronger opponents across the whole 11 - 1 rounds or 10 rounds (opponent with lowest rank excluded). Every game points counts not just the match point. Every team should always maximize their game points, be it against lower rated opponents or not, relaxing a bit because you won the match is a no no.

TB2 = game_pts_1 x match_pts_opp1 + game_pts_2 x match_pts_opp2, and so on till opp10

The interesting part is that the final match_point of the opponent can only be known after all the 11 rounds are played.

But one criteria that stood out to have a good estimate of the gold winner is the team that has more leads (top 1 in ranks) starting at round 6.

malfa 9/15/2016 08:47

I definitely agree that head-to-head result should be the first tie-breaker. Just a couple of notes:
1. Board points as TB are prone to last round prearrangements
2. The absurdity of the case in Baku, where Ukraine had the maximum interest that one of their opponents scored as badly as possible, is due to the exclusion of the worst result from the TB.

X iLeon aka DMG 9/15/2016 05:04

I think tiebreakers should be decided with a round of Russian roulette

Peter B 9/15/2016 03:40

I agree with most others that this tie break system is crazy, and somewhat arbitrary. Head-to-head should be first. I'm not so sure about game points as 2nd TB because that could reward a team which played weaker opposition in the swiss system. Perhaps "sum of progress scores" as a 2nd TB. Like SB, it penalises teams which have an early loss and face weaker opposition; but unlike SB it has the advantage that you're not dependent on 3rd party results.

koko48 9/15/2016 02:56

@aighearach My point exactly

The US had more game points and defeated Ukraine head-to-head...but could have lost the Gold due to an obscure result of a game on a much lower table?

I apologize for the blunt tone, but that is nothing short of preposterous

Otherwise I would like to thank the fine people and chessplayers of Azerbaijan for putting on a wonderful and spellbinding event...The live stream and commentary was also excellent....But I really hope that in any important tournament in the future (Candidates Tournaments, Olympiads, etc.) SB tiebreaks are used in their proper place....As a last resort! After the more sensible and interesting tiebreak methods have been exhausted

Aighearach 9/15/2016 01:30

@chessdrummer:
Sorry, but no, people saying it should be head-to-head aren't complaining about which team won, because the USA would still have won, having beat Ukraine 2.5-1.5.

People are saying head-to-head because they don't want to resort to any sort of "arcane" system until all the traditional more direct tie-breaks have been exhausted. Then eventually you use some arcane formula that is guaranteed to produce a winner. That's what the little guy will continue agitating for, because it is normal in sport.

I don't care if board points should come before or after head-to-head, but they both should obviously come before Something-Something-Somebody-Something-Somebody-with-modifications.

kassy 9/14/2016 06:35

You could argue for flipping my #2 and #3 as winning more games if you played more low teams may not actually demonstrate superiority

kassy 9/14/2016 06:34

1) Match points-you won more matches
2) Game points-you won more games
3) Head to head-you beat your immediate competition
4) whatever arcane method to break the very rare remaining ties

GregEs 9/14/2016 05:23

I agree with the comments. Head-to-head result should be TB2, and Sonnen-Berger a TB3.

koko48 9/14/2016 03:39

Head-to-Head should be the second tiebreaker, after game points....Then if the head-to-head result is a draw, you go to the arcane SB tiebreaks

The question organizers should always be asking themselves is: Which is more easily understandable, and more fan-friendly?

This reminds me of the recently concluded Challenger's Tournament, where the WC challenger to Magnus Carlsen was to be determined by SB tiebreaks in the result of a tie, rather than tiebreaking rapid matches

There are too many blind traditionalists who are too stuck in the old ways in chess - which frankly, never got chess anywhere or made the game more popular....A niggling, overly obscure and mathematical tiebreak system (which you often need a computer or heavy calculations to decipher) does not make the game attractive to casual followers (or even to devoted chess players and followers). On the contrary, it's a turn-off to the casual viewers chess would like to attract more of

SB tiebreaks is not nearly as interesting and fan friendly, as deciding the result based on head-to-head result (or a tiebreak match)....This also serves the purpose of making the head-to-head matches between the leaders, much more weighty and dramatic....Because a key tiebreaker is also at stake

chessdrummer 9/14/2016 02:31

I believe the chess community has to make up its mind. When China got silver in 2006 there was a complaint because there medal was decided on board points and not match points. So they changed to match points. Now even match points are debated because there are inevitably going to be ties. You can't start arguing tiebreak systems because the desired team doesn't win. The USA beat the Ukraine was undefeated and the Ukraine had a more board losses. The U.S. deserved to win. If the Ukraine won the gold how would it be that they would win gold after having lost to the U.S. (who went undefeated)? Wouldn't make any sense.

News

Rk.	SNo	Team	Team	Games	+	=	-	TB1	TB2	TB3	TB4
1	2	United States of America	USA	11	9	2	0	20	413,5	31,5	152,00
2	5	Ukraine	UKR	11	10	0	1	20	404,5	31,0	153,00
3	1	Russia	RUS	11	8	2	1	18	419,0	32,0	151,00
4	9	India	IND	11	7	2	2	16	350,5	27,5	158,00
5	12	Norway	NOR	11	7	2	2	16	344,5	26,5	147,00
6	19	Turkey	TUR	11	7	2	2	16	341,5	30,0	135,00
7	7	Poland	POL	11	7	2	2	16	331,0	29,5	132,00
8	8	France	FRA	11	6	4	1	16	326,5	30,0	131,00
9	6	England	ENG	11	7	2	2	16	323,0	26,5	144,00
10	34	Peru	PER	11	7	2	2	16	306,0	26,5	139,00
11	25	Canada	CAN	11	7	1	3	15	368,5	30,5	148,00
12	4	Azerbaijan 1	AZE	11	7	1	3	15	352,0	28,5	149,00
13	3	China	CHN	11	7	1	3	15	348,0	29,0	146,00
14	23	Belarus	BLR	11	6	3	2	15	332,0	27,5	142,00
15	10	Hungary	HUN	11	7	1	3	15	329,0	29,0	136,00
16	46	Iran	IRI	11	6	3	2	15	318,0	28,0	138,00
17	21	Latvia	LAT	11	7	1	3	15	316,0	26,5	140,00
18	27	Greece	GRE	11	4	7	0	15	309,5	25,5	142,00
19	39	Paraguay	PAR	11	7	1	3	15	298,5	26,5	135,00
20	29	Slovenia	SLO	11	6	3	2	15	294,0	27,0	137,00
21	18	Croatia	CRO	11	7	1	3	15	292,0	26,0	132,00
22	36	Italy	ITA	11	6	3	2	15	284,5	26,0	135,00
23	33	Brazil	BRA	11	7	1	3	15	266,5	26,0	126,00
24	20	Georgia	GEO	11	6	2	3	14	332,5	26,5	152,00
25	15	Cuba	CUB	11	6	2	3	14	314,0	27,5	135,00
26	28	Azerbaijan 2	AZE2	11	6	2	3	14	313,0	28,5	129,00
27	16	Israel	ISR	11	6	2	3	14	312,5	28,5	129,00
28	37	Kazakhstan	KAZ	11	6	2	3	14	308,0	29,0	127,00
29	17	Czech Republic	CZE	11	6	2	3	14	305,5	24,0	157,00
30	45	Australia	AUS	11	7	0	4	14	291,0	26,0	139,00
31	14	Spain	ESP	11	6	2	3	14	288,5	24,0	142,00
32	26	Argentina	ARG	11	6	2	3	14	287,0	25,0	139,00
33	30	Romania	ROU	11	6	2	3	14	279,5	25,0	137,00
34	41	Bosnia & Herzegovina	BIH	11	7	0	4	14	273,0	28,0	116,00
35	35	Moldova	MDA	11	6	1	4	13	326,0	27,5	139,00
36	11	Netherlands	NED	11	6	1	4	13	313,5	26,5	142,00
37	13	Germany	GER	11	6	1	4	13	292,5	25,0	144,00
38	24	Serbia	SRB	11	5	3	3	13	289,0	25,0	139,00
39	31	Uzbekistan	UZB	11	6	1	4	13	286,0	29,5	122,00
40	48	Switzerland	SUI	11	6	1	4	13	282,0	27,0	128,00
41	60	Portugal	POR	11	5	3	3	13	277,0	26,5	127,00
42	32	Vietnam	VIE	11	6	1	4	13	271,0	25,0	133,00
43	40	Austria	AUT	11	6	1	4	13	266,5	27,5	121,00
44	47	Chile	CHI	11	6	1	4	13	266,0	27,0	128,00
45	42	Denmark	DEN	11	6	1	4	13	262,0	26,0	127,00
46	56	Venezuela	VEN	11	6	1	4	13	261,0	27,0	118,00
47	50	Montenegro	MNE	11	5	3	3	13	247,5	22,5	131,00
48	55	Qatar	QAT	11	5	3	3	13	245,5	24,5	119,00
49	76	Azerbaijan 3	AZE3	11	6	1	4	13	241,5	27,5	111,00
50	62	Turkmenistan	TKM	11	6	1	4	13	237,5	23,0	135,00
51	57	Mongolia	MGL	11	6	1	4	13	236,0	22,0	132,00
52	67	Indonesia	INA	11	6	1	4	13	234,5	27,5	112,00
53	64	Belgium	BEL	11	5	3	3	13	234,0	25,0	120,00
54	82	Ecuador	ECU	11	6	1	4	13	232,0	26,5	109,00
55	54	Finland	FIN	11	6	1	4	13	227,0	24,0	115,00
56	70	Costa Rica	CRC	11	6	1	4	13	223,0	25,0	113,00
57	66	Albania	ALB	11	5	3	3	13	219,5	25,0	118,00
58	53	Philippines	PHI	11	5	2	4	12	308,0	28,0	134,00
59	38	Sweden	SWE	11	6	0	5	12	266,5	27,0	125,00
60	44	Iceland	ISL	11	5	2	4	12	266,0	25,5	130,00
61	49	Slovakia	SVK	11	5	2	4	12	263,5	27,0	121,00
62	43	Egypt	EGY	11	6	0	5	12	260,5	28,5	117,00
63	59	Singapore	SIN	11	6	0	5	12	253,5	25,5	125,00
64	83	Zambia	ZAM	11	5	2	4	12	243,0	26,5	107,00
65	51	Lithuania	LTU	11	6	0	5	12	243,0	25,5	126,00
66	22	Bulgaria	BUL	11	5	2	4	12	235,0	21,5	130,00
67	65	FYROM	MKD	11	5	2	4	12	215,0	24,5	117,00
68	97	Japan	JPN	11	5	2	4	12	212,5	22,5	110,00
69	63	Scotland	SCO	11	6	0	5	12	212,0	24,0	123,00
70	91	Jordan	JOR	11	6	0	5	12	211,5	25,0	115,00

SHOP

SHOP

Tie-break system decides Olympiad

ONLINE SHOP

Mastering Chess Strategy Vol.2 - Take your piece play to the next level!

Final standings

Links

Discuss

ChessBase 18 Premium-Package

ChessBase Magazine 225

Master Class Vol. 18: Max Euwe

Master the Pirc Defence! - A strategic and dynamic approach

Pirc Defence Powerbase 2025

Pirc Defence Powerbook 2025

The Classical Sicilian - A Timeless Counterattacking Weapon

ChessBase Mobile

Pop-up for detailed settings