Did the structure of the World Open hand a clear advantage to Nakamura this year?
By playing in the 3-day schedule (five rapid games) and taking 2 half-point byes on the last day, he was able to take advantage of his strengths (fast play), while avoiding most of his competition.
Compare his pairings with those of GM Najer, who tied with him for first with 7-2: Nakamura / Najer
W-2402 / W-2472
D-2630 / W-1937
W-2403 / D-2673
W-2222 / D-2556
W-2330 / W-2595
D-2740 / W-2654
W-2714 / L-2773
H-bye / W-2624
H-bye / W-2691
GM Opponents: Naka = 3, Najer = 7
Opponents over 2410: Naka = 3, Najer = 8 (would have been 9 except for fluke rd 2 pairing against a 1900-player).
I’m not saying Nakamura did anything wrong. I’m saying the structure of the event seems too imbalanced if this can happen… because the 3-day schedule had weaker players (only two GMs in it) he received much easier pairings. With the final day byes he only had to play two regular chess games to win the World Open! Most of the competitors only saw Nakamura on one day!
The problem here is the COMBINATION of these two features. It seems to me that (1) the 3-day schedule doesn’t have near the same strength as the other schedules, and (2) allowing two half-point byes on the final day may be dubious (even if committed well in advance). But the COMBINATION of these two features magnifies them both and clearly gives a fast player like Nakamura a pairing advantage. He should do this every year!
Perhaps players in the 3-day schedule shouldn’t be allowed half-point byes on the weekend, forcing them to at least play four rounds with the rest of the players. Or perhaps the 3-day schedule itself should be discontinued (not well enough attended, and possibly unfair).
Tom - I remember World Open 3-days in the past where the Open was absolutely brutal, with GM-GM pairings in Rd 1 and it being a decided disadvantage having chosen that section. The fluke/randomness is who decides to enter what schedule and structures probably shouldn’t change because of 1-year randomness. Nakamura could only play who he was paired against.
Here are a couple more sections from 2003 and 2006, with 11 GMs in 2006 and 12 in 2003.
2006 3-Day Open
GM Smirin, Ilya (2800
IM Iskakov, Albek (2511
IM Scekic, Milos (2446
GM Moiseenko, Alexander (2705
GM Miton, Kamil (2683
Shivaji, Shivkumar (2296
FM Salimbagat USCF?, Rico (2291
GM Izoria, Zviad (2679
GM Yudasin, Leonid G (2676
Boekhoff, Andrew (2287
Kiewra, Keaton F (2284
GM Shulman, Yury (2660
GM Stocek, Jiri (2651
Gulamali, Kazim (2276
GM Fishbein, Alexander (2603
IM Pleshkov, Mihail (2205
Shen, Victor C (2155 :
IM Sevillano, Enrico (2567
GM Blatny, Pavel (2525
Smith, Erickson (1874
Avi, Yacov (2319
GM Garcia, Gildardo J (2521
GM Sekhar, Surya S (2629
Barnett, Alexander (2265
2003 Open 3-day
IM Adrian Negulescu (2421)
GM Ilya Smirin (2815
GM Alexand Onischuk (2714)
Charles D Adelman (2388)
IM Anthony F Saidy (2379)
GM Igor Novikov (2700)
GM Leonid G Yudasin (2692)
Anton P Del Mundo (2329)
Zasilow R Pasiuk (2324)
GM Alexander Goldin (2674)
GM John P Fedorowicz (2602)
Giedrius Sulskis (2312)
GM Arthur B Bisguier (2304)
GM Nikola Mitkov (2588)
GM Walter S Browne (2556)
Felix Barrios Movilla (2301)
Erez N Klein (2285)
GM Dmitry Gurevich (2552)
IM Boris Kreiman (2537)
Lorand B Kis (2259)
Stanley W Fink (2219)
GM Dimitri Tyomkin (2527)
GM Michael A Rohde (2498)
Omar Rivera (2200)
Peter Chubinsky (2113)
IM Luis R Chiong (2455)
Zeev Dub (2453)
Anna V Levina (2102)
Zuzana Kovacova (2043)
FM Emory A Tate (2437)
IM Mark Ginsburg (2432)
Iryna Zenyuk (1939)
I agree that this year’s 3-day was strange. Usually the 3-day tends to be quite competitive. All of the draws and upsets end up hurting all but the top 1 or 2 people in the schedule.
Let me guess: Since it was common knowledge that Nakamura was going to play in the 3-day schedule, could it be that other Grandmasters chose to play 4-day or 5-day just to have a better chance at getting the desired 4.0 after 5 rounds?
While the playing strength differential may be substantial there is one other factor that is not obvious to everyone reading this. Nakamura had to deal with the onslaught of casual observers (up to 20 at times) hovering over his board on the 5-round day one of the 3-day option. I cannot tell you the number of times he was obviously annoyed by them. I was nearby when a very young observer’s cell phone went off forcing Carol J. to charge forward and usher him out of the room. She nearly knocked me over in the process, but as you all know, observers have no rights. I believe it takes great mental fortitude to withstand the playing conditions out in the “regular” playing area of the ballroom and I applaud Mr. Nakamura for handling the additional pressure and distractions.
Given that Najer had to go 2-0 in his last two rounds just to tie Nakamura (who would almost certainly have scored more than the single point he got from two byes), I don’t see that this is a problem worth making more rules about.
Or…here is another way to look at it – In the past four FIDE rated events (Phase 2 & 3 in France, US Champs, and World Open), Nakamura has increased his “live” rating from 2676 to 2713.5! That is an increase of 37.5 points! At the 2700 level, that is a tremendous performance. There is no denying that he is playing really well. If GM Najer had played him, either in the 3-Day Schedule or in the last two rounds, perhaps Hikaru would have been the clear winner. Who knows… We do know, however, that Hikaru is higher rated and is playing really well…
Mike,
Okay, so you are right that this 3-day was much weaker than others in the past. But still, even in the examples of tougher 3-day sections in the past the pairings I see there seem to be not as tough as what is normal for the main section … i.e., in 2005 the top finisher in the 3-day played only 2 GM-level players in those 5 rounds. In the main event the GMs pretty much start playing other GMs as early as round 2 or 3 (as did Kamsky for example this year, playing 8 GMs in a row). If there were cases in the past where a 3-day player got significantly tougher pairings than he would have in the main section, that is not good either. Surely it isn’t ideal to allow so much variation.
I imagine you and Bill G. have experience that convinces you that the 3-day is worthwhile, perhaps accommodating some more players that couldn’t play otherwise. But it seems to me it is worth considering some tweaks of the format rules to try to prevent opportunities for players who like rapid chess to exploit the format in their favor. (i.e., maybe 3-day players get only 1 bye in the last 4 rounds?)
Otherwise the World Open is essentially a Rapid Chess tournament, with five of your seven games at G/45, and only two full games. (You only have to be there for two days, just like a weekend Swiss!) That must be an edge for a player like Nakamura, who should use this strategy every year.
This is a formal logical fallacy. The required, but unstated, conclusion is:
“The World Open needs those extra schedules.”
But of course just because a business needs to make $$$, and extra schedules make $$$, it doesn’t follow that the business needs the extra schedules, since extra schedules are merely SUFFICIENT for making $$$ but not NECESSARY. So extra schedules are a WAY of making money, but not THE ONLY WAY.
Aristotle called this the fallacy of the undistributed middle.
I’m not enthusiastic about those multiple schedules either, but the bottom line is that no one has to play. If you don’t like Bill’s format, vote with your wallet. If you want to play in the tournament, live with it.
Okay, I hate to snipe, but the value of some extra EFs many not be worth it if the event as a whole loses prestige and respect due to a perception that its format is wildly inconsistent and perhaps even unfair to some players.
For example, consider this quote from the very widely-read international chess news website THE WEEK IN CHESS today, commenting on the event during its report:
"I’ve always found the World Open a bit odd. Multiple schedules, re-entries allowed and so forth. So what to make of Hikaru Nakamura’s tournament? Turns up one day plays 5 g/45 minute games to get in contention, plays two proper games the following day (quick draw and a win), then takes two half point byes in the final two rounds to share first place and is already flying to Donostia before the tournament ends. I guess my main reaction is "What kind of tournament is this?"
It’s not a healthy thing for an important American event to be acquiring this kind of reputation around the world. This situation revealed a defect in the event’s format, IMO, and all I’m saying is that it be recognized for what it is. Perhaps refinements of the format should be considered.
Najer played Nakamura in rd 7 and lost. To take 2 byes in Rds 8-9 is a serious handicap at this level. You have to play harder to get a lead and hope someone doesn’t catch you. Your fate is not in your hands in the final 2 rounds
Tom - Tim described it perfectly, the World Open is a business, it is not a national championship. The EF was lower this year to reflect the economy, the prizes were lower, but all Guaranteed so you knew exactly what you were fighting for.
The quote from TWIC is a quote from someone who doesn’t understand the tournament and chooses not to play. If you looked at the different people who came from all over the world, over 25% of the Open had foreign status, it is a truly international event.
I played for the first time since 1993-1994 and loved the 3-day. If someone doesn’t like the format, don’t play. When I played in the mid-80’s, there was only one schedule - 8 rounds over 4 days. As computer pairing programs started handling multiple playing schedules and multiple merges, it allowed players more choices. But, in the end, the largest World Open of all time, if my memory holds true was slightly more than 1500 in 1986, a year of one schedule!
I can tell you it was much more relaxing playing than directing
Good point! I should have checked before I wrote! So I guess that answers that. Again, all the players have the same opportunities to play the 3-Day Schedule. If that is what Hikaru elects, so be it. No matter who the opponents were, it looks like he was the best player and, based on recent events, he would have been hard to beat, in the 7-Day Schedule or the shorter ones…
The guy is one of the world’s premier players, moving up to #27 on the world live ratings list. That he picks up a win at the World Open is really only news because of the two rounds of byes - which was more of a gamble for him, although he had no choice if he was going to compete in Spain.
The multiple schedules are to allow the maximum number of participants, and also to encourage re-entries. Although this certainly helps Goichberg as the organizer, it is ridiculous to pretend it ONLY helps him. The extra entries help keep that huge prize fund up there, and of course those players who prefer or need to have the shorter schedules benefit, too.
While this year’s 3-day event roster wasn’t as strong as usual, remember Nakamura had announced his intentions before the tournament, and the contending GMs often play little strategical games with which schedule they enter. As one earlier post suggested, Nakamura may have scared off the competition!
American chessplayers should be celebrating that our top two players - and so many of our other GMs - turned out to play in our biggest open tournament. My chances to play Nakamura or Kamsky a serious game are pretty much limited to simuls - but if I’d been at the World Open this year, I might have had the opportunity. That’s the big story here, and what we should be toasting, not roasting.
So, what exactly are we saying here? That it is somehow unfair or unseemly for the highest-rated player in the country and the tournament to win a large open because he didn’t have to play the weaker players who avoided playing him? Kamsky fans belittling Nakamura’s achievement? Or just another way to nitpick at Bill Goichberg?
I agree! Of course, if anyone else wants to organize an event of this magnitude, then they can have whatever rules they think are best…
Yes, Naka is moving up. After the World Open (two FIDE-rated games) and the first round of San Sebastian today, his live FIDE rating is 2717.6! He is now in the top 20 in the world! Keep it up, Hikaru.
When you pour water into one end of a bathtub, the water quickly reaches the other end as well.
If one schedule is significantly weaker than another one year, and if a lot of strong players flock to it next year as a result, then the weak schedule won’t be weak much longer.
I believe it takes great mental fortitude to withstand the playing conditions out in the “regular” playing area of the ballroom and I applaud Mr. Nakamura for handling the additional pressure and distractions.
TOM