Talk:FIDE Grand Prix 2008–2010

Event results

Under "Event results", why not list their Grand Prix points instead of giving their game points again? Bubba73 (talk), 14:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC) Done that way now. Bubba73 (talk), 17:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

How many tables?

OK, this is partly my fault, because I added a table in the "participants" section. But I think two big tables is too many. I think we just need one table for the GP results, and one crosstable for each tournament.

I liked the idea of putting rankings and qualifying methods in the table, but I decided it made the table too big. So I've gone back to the old method, listing their qualification methods in a few brief lines. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I sort of liked that info, but I see your point. Maybe adding the ratings would be Ok. There is a problem with the table, though - it won't make a whole lot of sense until all six tournaments have been played. At any other point, some players have played in more tournaments than others. So it would take some more information to show who the real leaders are. Bubba73 (talk), 01:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually I thought the world rankings was more important than ratings, because it shows starkly how (1) the world's 1,2,3,4 and 7 are not playing, and (2) a couple of the host city nominees are a long way down in the rankings. But maybe that's my POV. And maybe that can be shown by bracketed numbers in the lists anyway. A table just seems too space-consuming a way to show it. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I am very disappointed that the top four players aren't playing. I thought that it was absurd to let the host cities each got to nominate a player, but one of them tied for the top spot at Baku. Bubba73 (talk), 02:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Ratings (and world rankings) are somewhat fuzzy in such a long series, because they will change a number of times until December 2009. Maybe we should put the ratings in the crosstables for individual tournaments? More to the point, I think that the list of participants looks much better than the table, at the cost of not covering ratings. Conscious (talk) 05:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

article name

I've just noticed that there is already the article Grand Prix chess tournaments which refers to the USCF Grand Prix. Also "Chess Grand Prix" is not what this FIDE series is actually called. According to FIDE is seems to be called "FIDE Grand Prix"[1] or "Grand Prix 2008-2009" or "2008-2009 FIDE Grand Prix" (both in [2]).

So let's get the name right. I suggest "FIDE" needs to be in the name, and that "chess" is redundant (implied by "FIDE" being in the name, not part of the official name, and any non-chess person who stumbles on it will quickly realise it's about chess). Accordingly I think we should call it one of:

• FIDE Grand Prix 2008-2009
• 2008-2009 FIDE Grand Prix

I prefer the former (FIDE Grand Prix 2008-2009) because it is seems to be more common, and fits our style of putting the year at the end of the name in most WP world chess championship articles.

Then we should rename the American one too, from Grand Prix chess tournaments. Since the USCF seems to simply call it "Grand Prix"[3], we should probably call it "USCF Grand Prix".

Or should we put "chess" in the name of both to make it clear:

• FIDE Chess Grand Prix 2008-2009

and

• USCF Chess Grand Prix

Comments? Peter Ballard (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with FIDE Grand Prix 2008-2009. I don't like them sorted by a number, for instance on the list of chess topics. Bubba73 (talk), 03:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

One more little thing about the date, perhaps "FIDE Grand Prix 2008-09". Bubba73 (talk), 03:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Support move to FIDE Grand Prix 2008-2009 (or 2008-09) and USCF Grand Prix. I think they're OK without "Chess" in the title, since FIDE and USCF are unambiguous in this context and the articles make it clear what is being talked about. The ACP Tour is a similar series that we mention only very briefly at Association of Chess Professionals. Quale (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Both renames done - FIDE Grand Prix 2008-2009 and USCF Grand Prix.Peter Ballard (talk) 08:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Play 2 3 or 4 times

"Each player will play each other two, three, or four times over the course of the six tournaments." - I don't know if this is from FIDE publicity, but this sentence doesn't add anything. If each player plays 4 of 6 tournaments, and each tournament is a single round robin, then each player must player each other player 2, 3 or 4 times. No other outcome is mathematically possible. So I'm deleting the sentence as redundant. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

OK to delete it. I added it because it might not be obvious to the reader. Bubba73 (talk), 00:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is easy to see that the possibilities are 2, 3, and 4, but is it obvious that all of those actually occur? For instance, I was wondering if they arranged it so that each pair of players played either 2 or 4 times, to even out the colors. But you can take it out. Bubba73 (talk), 02:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ratings

The article never mentions the Elo ratings of participants. To provide some impression of the players' strength, and taking into account that the ratings will be updated multiple times throughout the Grand Prix, I have added rating charts (rating versus time). There are three of them, because 21 lines on one graph crowd it too much. The graphs begin in January 2007, which is the earliest relevant point for inclusion in the participants list. Conscious (talk) 11:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to pour cold water on your work, but I'm not sure if 3 separate charts is the way to go. More relevant, IMHO, is a display which has both the players' ratings and world rankings, because this at a glance shows the strength of the GP compared to one with the top 21 in the world. If you look at the FIDE spreadsheet, it had the players' ratings and ranks at Jan 2008, but we couldn't agree on a good way to put it in. (See "How many tables?" discussion above). Peter Ballard (talk) 13:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

We could add two columns (rating, rank) to the results table. Conscious (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the charts, and instead placed the January 2008 players rankings in brackets, taken direct from the FIDE press release,[4] This allows the reader to see the rankings of the players. It also subtly draws attention to the fact that the world top 4 are not participating, but 2 are from outside the top 100. My only concern, as expressed above, is that I am doing some subtle POV-pushing, because I've seen complaints about the relative weak players in the GP lineup, and I think it is a valid concern, but I've not seen the complaint from any WP:RS, only in blogs and bulletin boards. Peter Ballard (talk) 05:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, in fact, I've also just done a similar edit, pointing out that 13 of top 20 players are participating. And I think ratings can be displayed in the crosstables, so at the moment the article looks fine. Conscious (talk) 06:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Tiebreaks, exact meaning

The tiebreaks mentioned in the regulations are:

1. 4th result not already taken in the top three results;
2. No. of actual game result points scored in the four tournaments;
3. No. of 1st places [in case of a tie - points given accordingly];
4. No. of 2nd places [in case of a tie - points given accordingly];
5. No. of wins;
6. Drawing of lots

What does this thing in square brackets mean? Suppose two players are tied on GP points and on total match points, and both have one event win. What's compared next? Is it points scored in their respective won tournaments? Is it game points or GP points? I think that the article may not accurately reflect the tiebreaks (it totally ignores this provision). Conscious (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I take it to mean that if there is a tie, it is split. For instance, count one place for each clear first place, 1/2 point for a 2-way-tie, 1/3 for a 3-way tie, etc.

To answer your question, if both players have one clear first place finish, then it goes to the number of second place finishes. The final GP points are the first criteria, then the tiebreakers, if needed. Bubba73 (talk), 19:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

First, total GP points of their best 3 tournaments. If tied, then add the GP of their 4th tournament. If still tied, then actual point scored. If still tied, number of first place finishes, etc. Bubba73 (talk), 19:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Final results?

I'm left with one big question when I read this article. If the last tournament in this GP cycle is cancelled, is these results the final results? In case these are the final results, does that mean Aronian and Radjabov both are qualified for the Candidate matches? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.97.2.35 (talk) 08:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess they were fial then. Although 2nd might go to Grishuk. he has the best 4th (which is 1st tiebreaker, but pointless) and points in best three 22.5 v 22 is in his favor (2nd tiebreaker). We'll see. -92.77.92.84 (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I have updated the article. Conscious (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)