Talk:Sinquefield Cup

Sinquefield Cup 2015 Discusion

Thanks to everyone contributing so far! For the score table, please note that ties are broken in descending priority: 1 #wins, 2 head-to-head, 3 SB, 4 Extended Koya System.

• [1] Sinquefield Tie Break Rules

Also I vote to remove the red highlights on mathematically eliminated players. Yeti007 (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The crosstables for 2014 and 2015 aren't right. Normally the columns in a chess crosstable for a round robin even represent the opponent, not the round, so there will be the same number of columns as players in the tournament. So for example, the current 2014 crosstable is

	Player	FIDE rating	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Points (Score)	Wins	SB
1	Fabiano Caruana (Italy)	2801	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	½	½	½	8.5	7	11.75
2	Magnus Carlsen (Norway)	2877	½	½	0	½	1	½	1	½	½	½	5.5	2	8.25
3	Veselin Topalov (Bulgaria)	2772	0	0	1	½	1	0	½	1	½	½	5.0	3	4.75
4	Maxime Vachier-Lagrave (France)	2768	½	0	1	½	0	½	0	½	½	½	4.0	1	3.5
5	Levon Aronian (Armenia)	2804	½	1	0	0	0	½	½	½	½	½	4.0	1	3.25
6	Hikaru Nakamura (United States)	2787	½	½	0	½	0	½	0	0	½	½	3.0	0	3.0

Row 1 column 1 suggests that player 1 scored 1 against player 1 (himself), row 2 column 2 suggests that player 2 scored 1/2 against himself, etc., which doesn't make sense. In fact from this crosstable you can't tell who Caruana beat and who he drew with. The usual way to write the crosstable can be found in many spots including http://www.chess-results.com/tnr143628.aspx?lan=1&art=4&wi=821:

	Player	FIDE rating	1	2	3	4	5	6	Points (Score)	Wins	SB
1	Fabiano Caruana (Italy)	2801	XXX	1 ½	1 1	1 1	1 ½	1 ½	8.5	7	11.75
2	Magnus Carlsen (Norway)	2877	0 ½	XXX	½ ½	½ ½	1 ½	½ 1	5.5	2	8.25
3	Veselin Topalov (Bulgaria)	2772	0 0	½ ½	XXX	1 ½	0 ½	1 1	5.0	3	4.75
4	Maxime Vachier-Lagrave (France)	2768	0 0	½ ½	0 ½	XXX	1 ½	½ ½	4.0	1	3.5
5	Levon Aronian (Armenia)	2804	0 ½	0 ½	1 ½	0 ½	XXX	½ ½	4.0	1	3.25
6	Hikaru Nakamura (United States)	2787	0 ½	½ 0	0 0	½ ½	½ ½	XXX	3.0	0	3.0

Here we can see that Caruana beat Carlsen in the first game they played and drew the second (row 1 column 2), swept Topalov and Vachier-Lagrave (row 1 column 3 and column 4), etc.

The correct way to render the 2015 crosstable after round 8 can be found near the end of the chessbase article Sinquefield 08: Carlsen forgives Nakamura.

It's true that the usual format for the crosstable does not show which rounds the player scored in, but generally that's considered less important than the head-to-head results. (I should note that crosstables for large Swiss events are most often given by round, not opponent, as it's impractical to use 50 columns for a 7-round 50 player Swiss. There they usually also indicate who the opponent was in the cell rather than leaving it implicit in the column number.) It's also true that this style of crosstable is highly redundant, as the results reflected across the diagonal are the inverse. Every combination of opponents except each player against himself is represented twice, so row A column B and row B column A should always have inverse results. A strictly upper or lower triangular matrix would be sufficient to unambiguously convey the same information.

One article that does give per-round scores is Piatigorsky Cup. I used the usual style of crosstable, but also included a table of cumulative scores by round. That was for a specific purpose, as the article text discusses the course of the tournament with mention of the players' relative positions in particular rounds. Quale (talk) 04:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Quale. Crosstables are the most common style when reporting chess tournament results and I am in favor of using them on this article. I imagine that the round table for Sinquefield Cup 2014 was used to accentuate Caruana's seven game winning streak. I favor leaving 2014 for now if we can expand a little on Caruana's winning streak and list the players he beat twice.

Here is the crosstable for the 2015 results. I want to wait until the article traffic dies down, but I will replace it on Friday unless we have any objections.

	Player	FIDE rating	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Points	Wins	SB	Tour Points
1	Levon Aronian (Armenia)	2765	X	½	1	½	½	½	½	1	½	1	6	3	22.25	13
2	Magnus Carlsen (Norway)	2853	½	X	½	1	½	0	0	1	½	1	5	3	21.25	10
3	Hikaru Nakamura (United States)	2814	0	½	X	½	½	1	0	½	1	1	5	3	20.25	8
4	Maxime Vachier-Lagrave (France)	2731	½	0	½	X	½	½	1	½	½	1	5	2	21.25	7
5	Anish Giri (Netherlands)	2793	½	½	½	½	X	1	½	½	½	½	5	1	22.25	6
6	Alexander Grischuk (Russia)	2771	½	1	0	½	0	X	½	1	1	0	4.5	3	19.75	5
7	Veselin Topalov (Bulgaria)	2816	½	1	1	0	½	½	X	0	½	½	4.5	2	21	4
8	Fabiano Caruana (United States)	2808	0	0	½	½	½	0	1	X	½	½	3.5	1	15.25	3
9	Viswanathan Anand (India)	2816	½	½	0	½	½	0	½	½	X	½	3.5	0	16	2
10	Wesley So (United States)	2779	0	0	0	0	½	1	½	½	½	X	3	1	12.75	1

Yeti007 (talk) 02:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Flags and text?

Any objections to removing the text listing of the country after each player? There is already a country flag, so this is superfluous. Greenman (talk) 10:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I object. Quale (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Any reason? Greenman (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Sure. Flags add color and visual interest to the crosstables, but they are a poor indicator of country. Many flags are very similar making them difficult to distinguish, especially at small icon sizes. Many (probably most) readers won't be familiar with all the national flags they might encounter in a chess crosstable. If I can ask you a question, what problem would be solved by removing the country name? Quale (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I have no strong objection, but the main reasons are consistency and the way it reads. Consistency because most other articles I am familiar use either the flag or flagicon templates, for example:

flag template

	Player	Country	Rating	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Points	Wins	SB	TPR	Tour Points
1	Maxime Vachier-Lagrave	France	2789	*	1	½	½	½	½	½	½	1	1	6	3		2907	13

or flagicon template:

	Player	Rating	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Points	Wins	SB	TPR	Tour Points
1	Maxime Vachier-Lagrave	2789	*	1	½	½	½	½	½	½	1	1	6	3		2907	13

To me both of these are preferable because the current table I read as "France Maxime Vachier-Lagrave (France)" which reads oddly. In the former template there would need to be a country column but the country is written in text to everyone unfamiliar, as at present. In the latter, the country is indicated by hovering over the flag, which is sufficient for me. Examples: The_Championships,_Wimbledon#Champions and World_Chess_Championship#FIDE_world_champions_.281993.E2.80.932006.29. Do you see either of these as improvements? Greenman (talk) 18:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that's interesting. It wouldn't have occurred to me to "read" the flag, but I can imagine it. I like mouse hover, but it doesn't work well for touch devices such as most tablets and phones so I consider it a bonus rather than something that can be relied upon to make pages usable or understandable. You might look at the example of {{flagathlete}} which uses a flag and a country abbreviation. When space is at a premium the country abbreviations are helpful, but I prefer longer more easily understandable names when possible. A separate column for country can be helpful in large tables if it might be desired to sort it, but I don't favor it as much in small tables such as the crosstables in this article. Still, it's OK to put the country in a separate column if you prefer it. Quale (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, so we're down to two choices - as it is currently, or with a country column (flag and full name). Let's see if anyone else has a preference, otherwise will just leave as is. Greenman (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)