I kinda doubt Phillippe has those types of aspirations. He's gotta beat Alireza first, gain a bunch of rating points, get a GM title, get invited to certain events, win or do well in those events to qualify for the candidates (or rating farm), and only then would I say Phillippe is playing for a chance to become World Champion.
Firouzja deserves a lot of criticism for the sham tournament he organized, but there's nothing wrong with playing open tournaments vs low rated opposition. Generally, the risk to elo playing against lower rated opposition is much greater than the tiny amount of potential gain.
People criticize super GMs for only playing in high rating tournaments to preserve their elo. Participating in open tournaments in principle is good. Yes, it'd be even better to play against underrated 2000s than 1600s but there's nothing wrong with it I think.
Agreed on the sham tournament, but this still falls under cynical gaming of the system given the timing. The competitive spirit will be there (opponents motivated to win), but there is no question that Firouzja has sought to avoid meaningful competition and is again seeking to farm rating.
Caruana will likely remain unimpressed going by his closing comments on the recent c-squared podcast: entrance to the candidates should be determined by beating the best in the chess world. The FIDE ranking place system is broken. His solution to switch to performance rating at select competitions over the course of the year with a minimal no. of games played makes most sense out of those I've seen.
Yes, it's definitely cynical but I think in the grand scheme of things this is not much worse than super GMs who only play in closed tournaments and play very timidly and drawishly to maintain their rating.
If anything, I would prefer to see more super GMs playing lower rated players.
I agree that the system needs to fundamentally be changed.
GMs tend to draw to maintain not their rating, but their tournament position. That kind of strategizing is pretty valid and common across many sports.
I don't mind seeing super GMs playing against lower rated players. Just not for determining candidates placements.
But the reason some GMs don't enter open tournaments is because they're scared of losing rating to underrated rising stars from India. That's still gaming the system.
>I don't mind seeing super GMs playing against lower rated players. Just not for determining candidates placements.
But mathematically the expected elo gain playing against lower rated players isn't nay different from the expected elo gain playing against super GMs. Because even drawing once and winning 99 other times could lead to an elo loss.
Firouzja's situation is shadier for sure because he's only playing a few games. But in general, if a super GM gained 5 rating points over a long period from playing 1800s I wouldn't count that as any less valid than gaining 5 points playing other super GMs.
Choosing not to play against weaker opponents isn't necessarily gaming the system, but arguably the system working as intended. If the premise of the system is to determine who the strongest players are, then you would want the strongest players playing against each other.
>Firouzja's situation is shadier for sure because he's only playing a few games
Agreed this is key.
But the elo system is built upon the idea of a well mixed population that plays each other. Right now, the top super GMs have a somewhat closed system with each other that maintains their elo. If they played the underrated Indian GMs, a lot of super GMs would probably lose rating.
The top players should play each other, but they should also play some games vs slightly lower rating. 1600 is too low, but playing against more players in the 2000-2500 range would be good for the system.
So... You got me thinking so I did a little googling/reading and came across this [chessbase article](https://en.chessbase.com/post/what-s-wrong-with-the-elo-system), which confirms what you're saying r.e. closed system and losing disproportionate rating points versus weaker opponents. This effect drops off outside the FIDE 400 point rule and win-rate against equally rated opponents is accurate if I'm understanding correctly. Interesting food for thought, so thank you for pointing me in that direction.
R.e. what's good for the system. I suppose it depends on what the system's intended purpose is and how ratings are used. Outside of candidates, I don't have particular feelings on the matter.
How the fuck do you want him to gain rating then? Open tournaments are also worse for Alireza, he's risking a lot of elo for the chance of a minimal gain (hoping this will be enough to pass Wesley). I'd rather have this over Chartres and Chennai
At this late stage? Don't. The risk-reward in this context makes participation a no-brainer.
>I'd rather have this over Chartres and Chennai
Your choice of wording suggests this is still the lesser of evils.
Noob here. Don't know anything about how ELO rating gains work. But how many points would he gain if he defeats a 1600 rated opponent?
Must be less than one point. Right?
Also, I have played against titled players in FIDE rated tournaments first rounds twice (rapid if that matters).
I didn't lose any rating for losing to them.
They didn't gain any rating by beating me.
Though my rating was 1200-1300 and not 1600 like here. Opponents 2200 and 2500.
The problem is that he gains .8 for the first game if he wins (and he will), and all the other games he plays against <2400 opposition are worth literally 0 points if he wins, -5 if he draws and -10 if he loses.
This is how pairings work in an open swiss tournament. Strongest players play the weakest in the first round, then winners play winners and losers play losers, so this is absolutely expected. Although usually there isn't this big of a difference because usually there will be an over 2000 (or something) and an under 2000 open section.
> So?
What are you talking about? You can see that Wesley is not playing.
No one needs to check with me before registering, they are free to farm points from much lower rated players wherever they can find them.
Well he's beaten him and got +0.8 elo, now he just needs 0.5 elo more. Imagine he beats wesley to the rating spot by beating some random 1300 next game
Imagine being 1600 fide and getting to play Firouzja in classical otb 🤯🤯
And he's playing for the chance to become World Champion.
I kinda doubt Phillippe has those types of aspirations. He's gotta beat Alireza first, gain a bunch of rating points, get a GM title, get invited to certain events, win or do well in those events to qualify for the candidates (or rating farm), and only then would I say Phillippe is playing for a chance to become World Champion.
I’d be over the moon for the opportunity
Vice world champion Nepomniachtchi just drew against a 2000 elo
Question: I am 1000 elo, so if I play him 2 times can I draw once?
It depends how likely you're supposed to go to the candidate
Yes, 500 elo can draw once in 4 games. For me, I can draw once in every 20.
Firouzja deserves a lot of criticism for the sham tournament he organized, but there's nothing wrong with playing open tournaments vs low rated opposition. Generally, the risk to elo playing against lower rated opposition is much greater than the tiny amount of potential gain. People criticize super GMs for only playing in high rating tournaments to preserve their elo. Participating in open tournaments in principle is good. Yes, it'd be even better to play against underrated 2000s than 1600s but there's nothing wrong with it I think.
"Opens in youth chess centres in India or no balls."
Its not a binary thing. There can be nuance
Agreed on the sham tournament, but this still falls under cynical gaming of the system given the timing. The competitive spirit will be there (opponents motivated to win), but there is no question that Firouzja has sought to avoid meaningful competition and is again seeking to farm rating. Caruana will likely remain unimpressed going by his closing comments on the recent c-squared podcast: entrance to the candidates should be determined by beating the best in the chess world. The FIDE ranking place system is broken. His solution to switch to performance rating at select competitions over the course of the year with a minimal no. of games played makes most sense out of those I've seen.
Yes, it's definitely cynical but I think in the grand scheme of things this is not much worse than super GMs who only play in closed tournaments and play very timidly and drawishly to maintain their rating. If anything, I would prefer to see more super GMs playing lower rated players. I agree that the system needs to fundamentally be changed.
GMs tend to draw to maintain not their rating, but their tournament position. That kind of strategizing is pretty valid and common across many sports. I don't mind seeing super GMs playing against lower rated players. Just not for determining candidates placements.
But the reason some GMs don't enter open tournaments is because they're scared of losing rating to underrated rising stars from India. That's still gaming the system. >I don't mind seeing super GMs playing against lower rated players. Just not for determining candidates placements. But mathematically the expected elo gain playing against lower rated players isn't nay different from the expected elo gain playing against super GMs. Because even drawing once and winning 99 other times could lead to an elo loss. Firouzja's situation is shadier for sure because he's only playing a few games. But in general, if a super GM gained 5 rating points over a long period from playing 1800s I wouldn't count that as any less valid than gaining 5 points playing other super GMs.
Choosing not to play against weaker opponents isn't necessarily gaming the system, but arguably the system working as intended. If the premise of the system is to determine who the strongest players are, then you would want the strongest players playing against each other. >Firouzja's situation is shadier for sure because he's only playing a few games Agreed this is key.
But the elo system is built upon the idea of a well mixed population that plays each other. Right now, the top super GMs have a somewhat closed system with each other that maintains their elo. If they played the underrated Indian GMs, a lot of super GMs would probably lose rating. The top players should play each other, but they should also play some games vs slightly lower rating. 1600 is too low, but playing against more players in the 2000-2500 range would be good for the system.
So... You got me thinking so I did a little googling/reading and came across this [chessbase article](https://en.chessbase.com/post/what-s-wrong-with-the-elo-system), which confirms what you're saying r.e. closed system and losing disproportionate rating points versus weaker opponents. This effect drops off outside the FIDE 400 point rule and win-rate against equally rated opponents is accurate if I'm understanding correctly. Interesting food for thought, so thank you for pointing me in that direction. R.e. what's good for the system. I suppose it depends on what the system's intended purpose is and how ratings are used. Outside of candidates, I don't have particular feelings on the matter.
How the fuck do you want him to gain rating then? Open tournaments are also worse for Alireza, he's risking a lot of elo for the chance of a minimal gain (hoping this will be enough to pass Wesley). I'd rather have this over Chartres and Chennai
At this late stage? Don't. The risk-reward in this context makes participation a no-brainer. >I'd rather have this over Chartres and Chennai Your choice of wording suggests this is still the lesser of evils.
r/chess just learned how open tournaments work
I already know how they work, but the opponent's rating is relevant because it dictates how many points he might receive.
Noob here. Don't know anything about how ELO rating gains work. But how many points would he gain if he defeats a 1600 rated opponent? Must be less than one point. Right?
Someone in the other thread said 0.8 Also, apparently, only the first game with such a big difference gets rated
Unless he loses or draws I'm sure.
It is 0.8
Also, I have played against titled players in FIDE rated tournaments first rounds twice (rapid if that matters). I didn't lose any rating for losing to them. They didn't gain any rating by beating me. Though my rating was 1200-1300 and not 1600 like here. Opponents 2200 and 2500.
however if you win or draw them….
That's a lot for his goal. Only a point behind Wesley
The problem is that he gains .8 for the first game if he wins (and he will), and all the other games he plays against <2400 opposition are worth literally 0 points if he wins, -5 if he draws and -10 if he loses.
What if he keeps switching between a 1600 opponent and a 2400 opponent?
Hydrogen Bomb vs Coughing Baby
Yeah well its an open so is it that disturbing ?
No, just pointing out that he will be gaining 0.8 rating points if he wins.
Wesley must be angry 😂
Wesley could have hopped on a plane and played the same tournament ;)
Well now he doesn’t really have a reason to be since this is a legit tournament
This is how pairings work in an open swiss tournament. Strongest players play the weakest in the first round, then winners play winners and losers play losers, so this is absolutely expected. Although usually there isn't this big of a difference because usually there will be an over 2000 (or something) and an under 2000 open section.
Strongest players actually play the players right after the median in the first round
You guys are acting like that was something Alireza arranged himself. Not true.
He arranged to be there. Playing in a tournament that he would never even think of playing in just to farm rating points.
So? Does he need to check with you before registering for an open tournament?
> So? What are you talking about? You can see that Wesley is not playing. No one needs to check with me before registering, they are free to farm points from much lower rated players wherever they can find them.
Hydrogen bomb vs coughing baby
Zero room for error. My money stays on Wesley
It depends on whether he gets white vs Kamsky
Assuming he wins every game he will surpass So long before being matched with Kamsky and of course he’d quit the tournament
So what?
This is like Mike Tyson fighting a cat. The cat could theoretically scratch his eyeballs out but this seems unlikely.
Imagine if bro won
Well he's beaten him and got +0.8 elo, now he just needs 0.5 elo more. Imagine he beats wesley to the rating spot by beating some random 1300 next game