Novak won the 2019 Laureus World Sportsman of the Year!

Sport said:
Sorry, but Djokovic has lost 2 pawns and is about to lose his third one, since it is Becker's turn. And 3 pawns down is a crucial disadvantage, 3 pawns down is the equivalent of being one knight or one bishop down. Djokovic needs a miracle to win that game (even though Becker is not Bobby Fischer precisely).
Click to expand...
yes you are right 3 pawns is equal to knight(bishop) but they are not pro players and chess not so simple as it seems i.e. not only about who has more pawns) so becker also can lose his pawns or big pieces in the middlegame or endgame..we don't know for sure, and white pieces much better in development(they has captured the space) and it's advantage for whites to attack in this position) i've checked it special for you to show how position can be changed in two moves...look by initial position on that image it's really advantage to blacks (-3) super chess engine stockfish 10 showing this... but after modelling up to hypotethical 2 moves from both sides we got this position with same number of pieces on a board (8 black pawns vs 5 white pawns)...engine yet shows (+0,92) advantage for whites
uIX0alq.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mainad said:
I am no chess grandmaster but I would far rather be in Becker's position on that board than Djokovic's. :cool:
Click to expand...
good choice:cool:i would say it's slighty better for blacks 60-40 but it can't be said as aswul)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
alexio88 said:
yes you are right 3 pawns is equal to knight(bishop) but they are not pro players and chess not so simple as it seems i.e. not only about who has more pawns) so becker also can lose his pawns or big pieces in the middlegame or endgame..we don't know for sure, and white pieces much better in development(they has captured the space) and it's advantage for whites to attack in this position) i've checked it special for you to show how position can be changed in two moves...look by initial position on that image it's really advantage to blacks (-3) super chess engine stockfish 10 showing this... but after modelling up to hypotethical 2 moves from both sides we got this position with same number of pieces on a board (8 black pawns vs 5 white pawns)...engine yet shows (+0,92) advantage for whites
uIX0alq.jpg
Click to expand...

First of all, you are being extremelly unobjective here. You are creating a fake position that is not the same as the game which was actually played. For instance, you put a pawn in h2 when it was in h3. Also, you strategically added completely new moves that they didn't make.


Djokovic-becker-partida.jpg


I analyzed the real game in Lichess using the database of Stockfish, the most advanced chess engine in the world only behind AlphaZero.

Stockfish calculates that blacks (Becker) have 3.6 points of advantage, which means decissive advantage for Becker. In other words, Djokovic has the game completely lost and indeed has an awful position.


2u32dt.jpg
 
Last edited:
Sport said:
First of all, you are being extremelly unobjective here. You are creating a fake position that is not the same as the game which was actually played. For instance, you put a pawn in h2 when it was in h3. Also, you strategically added completely new moves that they didn't make.


Djokovic-becker-partida.jpg


I analyzed the real game in Lichess using the database of Stockfish, the most advanced chess engine in the world only behind AlphaZero.

Stockfish calculates that blacks (Becker) have 3.6 points of advantage, which means decissive advantage for Becker. In other words, Djokovic has the game completely lost and indeed has an awful position.


2u32dt.jpg
Click to expand...
nothing what you say contradict my previous post(-3 for blacks yes as i said, read it more closely)...1.it seems to be a delusion to think about only without pawns especially in the beginning of the game game for djoko is completely lost it's utterly nonsense, 2. my point was about to prove to you in my analysis (as it been shown there.) that whites can take an advantage even without these pawns..3. pawn in h2 or h3 it make no sense in this position really, i can give you another analysis with pawn in h3 if you need..4. we don't know also what move becker did after rook in b1, maybe it's queen in a2 or c3, yes c3 is strongest move by stockfish, second best is a2)..stockfish' mark on a position can change abruptly if a player will make a bad or inaccurate move and all his advantage is going to evaporate
Sport said:
Sorry, but Djokovic has lost 2 pawns and is about to lose his third one, since it is Becker's turn. And 3 pawns down is a crucial disadvantage, 3 pawns down is the equivalent of being one knight or one bishop down. Djokovic needs a miracle to win that game
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
hipolymer said:
Well he gave up two pawns for better piece development; probably black is still better but hardly a losing game for Djoker. It's a friendly game with sacrifices; what do you expect?
Click to expand...
yes, i'm trying to say the same)
 
Sport said:
First of all, you are being extremelly unobjective here. You are creating a fake position that is not the same as the game which was actually played. For instance, you put a pawn in h2 when it was in h3. Also, you strategically added completely new moves that they didn't make.


Djokovic-becker-partida.jpg
Click to expand...
it's even better with pawn in h3 for whites.. +1,28
NYLbgox.jpg
 
alexio88 said:
it's not so awful, black pieces lacked in development(it can not be dangerous for whites with only two pieces in play for blacks) it tells becker not a good chess player(or don't know about debut principles), but white pieces did it better, queen side of whites also is much weaker, but white pieces can bring in big problems on a king side.. it's funny how djoko lost these pawns especially considering a fact that becker played only with his queen and a knight), then whites can even make it better position for the win with right moves afterwards, probably it's blacks' turn to make a move..we also don't know about next stages of this game..because it's just the beginning(debut),yes probably after next move queen a2 whites will be without 3 pawns but it's not so crucial if you're not a pro chess player)
Click to expand...
Assuming it's black to move, Becker is definitely winning as things stand. Also being three pawns ahead is a significant advantage unless you're an absolute novice and even then
 
Sport said:
First of all, you are being extremelly unobjective here. You are creating a fake position that is not the same as the game which was actually played. For instance, you put a pawn in h2 when it was in h3. Also, you strategically added completely new moves that they didn't make.


Djokovic-becker-partida.jpg


I analyzed the real game in Lichess using the database of Stockfish, the most advanced chess engine in the world only behind AlphaZero.

Stockfish calculates that blacks (Becker) have 3.6 points of advantage, which means decissive advantage for Becker. In other words, Djokovic has the game completely lost and indeed has an awful position.


2u32dt.jpg
Click to expand...
Yeah Becker's got this. His next move is obvious and he's barely developed anything and already got this far. Judging by Becker's choice of moves he's well aware of his student's level as well
 
@ADuck elo is relative measure in chess, we don't know for sure who is the best player ever like in tennis, but most experts and pro chess players do agree it's big 3(fischer, kasparov, carlsen)..strongest peak is fischer but he was not so long, didn't want to defend his title and then it went to karpov in 3 years..kasparov had domination for 15 years, nowadays computers help so much and it's so boring in matches on the highest level of play, everybody plays very carefully and afraid to make a mistake because computers doing this job for them before the match analysing positions with many moves in advance , chess is not simple game, tennis is much simpler in terms of mind decisions, there are number of possible combinations(games) more than number of atoms in the universe, you can lose a game even with only first move to be played, as you said about cheess it's only make a moves, same can be said about tennis it's just about to hit the ball that's it) ..it's just a matter of levels of play regard of both tennis and chess
 
Last edited by a moderator:
alexio88 said:
@ADuck elo is relative measure in chess, we don't know for sure who is the best player ever like in tennis,
Click to expand...
This is my point. If I'm correct, elo is purely decided by wins and losses. There is no story behind what led to each result, there is only black or white. In a game such as chess that is much easier to analyze than tennis because of the lack of changes to the game, and the fact it is a game made purely on decisions (there's not an added physical aspect to analyze), if we cannot say with absolute certainty who the best player is, then how could we with tennis, when not a single point played is the same as another? Since every single stat in tennis (that Lew uses) is built off only certain patterns/configurations of 0's and 1's (points won/lost) and that is just as relative as chess elo. If you simplify it down, he's only pointing at a cluster of 0's and 1's and saying hey, this cluster is better than that cluster. But there's so many changes in playing field in tennis. Every match played is a different dynamic. Every year there's different matches, different shifts in form from the best players, different things to consider. The landscape is always changing at a far more sporadic rate than in chess and it's hard to keep up with those changes if you're not watching. So to Lew's clusters, they're not meaningless, but they're not a great measuring stick either.
 
I don’t want to sound too critic but I think it is a bit strange that someone wins this award for the whole year 2018 who didn’t do anything significant in the full first half of that year.

Was there no one in 2018 who dominated his sport from start to finish?

By the way, don’t make this a fan war, I would have said exactly the same if it would have been Federer...
 
ADuck said:
This is my point. If I'm correct, elo is purely decided by wins and losses. There is no story behind what led to each result, there is only black or white. In a game such as chess that is much easier to analyze than tennis because of the lack of changes to the game, and the fact it is a game made purely on decisions (there's not an added physical aspect to analyze), if we cannot say with absolute certainty who the best player is, then how could we with tennis, when not a single point played is the same as another? Since every single stat in tennis (that Lew uses) is built off only certain patterns/configurations of 0's and 1's (points won/lost) and that is just as relative as chess elo. If you simplify it down, he's only pointing at a cluster of 0's and 1's and saying hey, this cluster is better than that cluster. But there's so many changes in playing field in tennis. Every match played is a different dynamic. Every year there's different matches, different shifts in form from the best players, different things to consider. The landscape is always changing at a far more sporadic rate than in chess and it's hard to keep up with those changes if you're not watching. So to Lew's clusters, they're not meaningless, but they're not a great measuring stick either.
Click to expand...
i guess it's not the best example to compare chess and tennis by your standards as how you look at it.. chess has one component: intellective and tennis two: int. + physical. chess is also evolves just like any other kind of sports, every gen gives to next gen something new to be studied for and it makes these players better and gives big advantage to them due to new chapters of this chess book that been explored whereas players from the past couldn't have an access to this to be used...agree it's harder to compare the whole history of any game (and choose the best one player because it includes much more differ periods with its nuances that can be added into consideration) than a period with less timeframe. Lew clusters are not meaningless until we continue to play this game choosing who is better than another.
 
alexio88 said:
i guess it's not the best example to compare chess and tennis by your standards as how you look at it.. chess has one component: intellective and tennis two: int. + physical. chess is also evolves just like any other kind of sports, every gen gives to next gen something new to be studied for and it makes these players better and gives big advantage to them due to new chapters of this chess book that been explored whereas players from the past couldn't have an access to this to be used...agree it's harder to compare the whole history of any game (and choose the best one player because it includes much more differ periods with its nuances that can be added into consideration) than a period with less timeframe. Lew clusters are not meaningless until we continue to play this game choosing who is better than another.
Click to expand...
So even in chess (a game that can be played in the second dimension, and a game which can be simplified down to just a limited number of options to take per move) there a still changes that effect each time period it is played in to a different degree making it hard to compare players from this generation to past generations. How could it be possible to do the same thing so accurately in tennis when these same effects across time periods are magnified 100x as much due to the game being played in 3 dimensions and there being an infinite number of different things that can happen every nanosecond? I mean the landscape is far more rigidy and chaotic than chess across points, games, sets, matches, tournaments, let alone each year. And despite there being an infinite different scenarios every point, the only information that is relevant is who won that point and who lost that point. Who won and lost that point is entirely relevant on who you are playing and when you are playing and how each of you are playing, and so many more things that I probably can't imagine. Chess is a much simpler game IN TERMS of comparing players to one another than tennis is. Of course chess is far more complicated in terms of the strategy and that goes without saying, but that is not relevant to what I'm saying.
 
ADuck said:
of comparing players to one another than tennis is. Of course chess is far more complicated in terms of the strategy and that goes without saying, but that is not relevant to what I'm saying.
Click to expand...
yes, there are more different factors(or things) that can influence the outcome in tennis, but why you started this topic in that another thread
 
alexio88 said:
yes, there are more different factors(or things) that can influence the outcome in tennis, but why you started this topic in that another thread
Click to expand...
Well, I originally started in the Lew thread, but then you mentioned me in this thread so I just continued here..
 
ADuck said:
Well, I originally started in the Lew thread, but then you mentioned me in this thread so I just continued here..
Click to expand...
i wanted to reply to you there but that thread doesn't exist anymore
 
alexio88 said:
i wanted to reply to you there but that thread doesn't exist anymore
Click to expand...
Oh, I didn't see. But, you ask why I started in the Lew thread? Well maybe I am just not articulating my thoughts well enough. Lew's stats do not give the clearest picture and I was trying to show that by showing how even in Chess, a game not subject to change in rules, conditions and there is a limited number of options per move, and a game which comparitively to tennis is an easier game to analyze who is playing better, and where elo is decided by who you beat. Even in that game, a guy with 2700 elo one year could be on a completely different skill level to a 2700 elo guy another year. Even in chess, you cannot use wins against "top 10" or "high elo" players in one year to justify them being better than another player in a different time period. So why would it work for tennis?
 
ADuck said:
I was trying to show that by showing how even in Chess, a game not subject to change in rules, conditions and there is a limited number of options per move, and a game which comparitively to tennis is an easier game to analyze who is playing better, and where elo is decided by who you beat. Even in that game, a guy with 2700 elo one year could be on a completely different skill level to a 2700 elo guy another year. Even in chess, you cannot use wins against "top 10" or "high elo" players in one year to justify them being better than another player in a different time period. So why would it work for tennis?
Click to expand...
objectively you are right, it doesn't work for both tennis and chess, but unfortunately you are in the minority who shares your thoughts about this, i.e. most of us wanna believe in goat myth
 
ChrisRF said:
I don’t want to sound too critic but I think it is a bit strange that someone wins this award for the whole year 2018 who didn’t do anything significant in the full first half of that year.

Was there no one in 2018 who dominated his sport from start to finish?

By the way, don’t make this a fan war, I would have said exactly the same if it would have been Federer...
Click to expand...

I would like an intel on his fellow competitors for the award too as i have nothing to compare it with as i don't follow other sports other than tennis, snooker and sometimes cycling...i am a big Nole fan, but i don't want him to gain the reputation of "favorable winner" because of tennis category being more popular, than others...i want him to win, because he was the true sportsman of the year...back in 2011 and 2015 there was no question about it, but i am not so sure about 2014 and 2018 though...
 
Is this award show pretty much the European version of the ESPYs? Cuz I looked at the previous winners of this award and wow tennis players and athletes from individual sports in general have DOMINATED this award.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

5555
Superman Wins 2016 Laureus Sportsman Of The Year Award!
2
Replies
89
Views
8K
nolefam_2024
N
AAAA
Laureus World Sportsman of the Year: Federer 4 - Nadal 0
2
Replies
91
Views
9K
TheTruth
TheTruth
LazyNinja19
Nadal on the cusp of "Laureus World Sports Awards" history!
2
Replies
99
Views
14K
octobrina10
octobrina10
uscwang
Folks, these are all good news for men's tennis.
Replies
9
Views
1K
uscwang
uscwang
3fees
Nadal Wins Laureus World Comeback Of The Year Award
Replies
1
Views
629
Tennis_Hands
T
Back
Top