Easy work! Mariya Muzychuk from Ukraine destroyed russian Natalia Pogonina and become a new World Champion.
1st game
A draw in a quiet position:
http://en.lichess.org/07qDVlta2nd game
Mariya crushed her opponent in Ruy Lopez, Breyer Defense:
http://en.lichess.org/1SA3OAn03rd game
Lucky draw for Pogonina in Semi-Slav Defense:
http://en.lichess.org/n37hWAHo4th game
Amazing piece sacrifice in endgame brings Mariya Muzychuk a Title:
http://en.lichess.org/A7CPgnZOUkrainian beauty will defend her Title against Hou Yifan from China at the end of 2015.
I am all for attractive female chessplayers winning tournaments. The guys can get as ugly as they want.
A four game match? That's all?
#3
From 2010 FIDE changed format of Women's World Chess Championship. In even years a 64-player knockout system is used, in the odd years a classical match featuring only two players is held.
These four games was a final of 2-months competition of best players (knockout system).
what a stupid system to choose a champ (in comparison to the men qualification system ) and btw , the last match should have been between Humpy and Xau, but again in a stupid system no wonder to see some lucky girls at the final...
Lucky girls in the world championship final? Funny joke, izzat.
There is no luck at that level. Only the best can survive through all stages from 64 players to final stage.
To win one hundred victories is not the acme of luck. It is the acme of skill.
In a two games match between two almost equal rated players there is a lot of luck!
You just have to look in the books. Remeber 1987? After two games Karpov was +1, not Kasparov.
Or go back to 1935. Aljechin had a 3:1 lead after 4 games, but Euwe won 15,5 : 14,5 after 30 games.
good to know in that case =>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbersI don't remember 1987, and do not remember 1935, I am not that old. But it is not hard for me to understand, why those matches was started that way. Let me help solve this puzzle for you too.
We are talking abut 30-game match, right? It have nothing to do with law of large numbers that you mentioned. You must look to this from different angle to see bigger picture:
Ultimate excellence lies not in winning every battle, but in defeating the enemy in a whole war.
Supreme chess master can sacrifice game or two, just to weaken his opponent, exhaust him like fisherman exhaust the fish, and take him later, in deep rounds, after breaking his resistance. You can call this mental enslavement. Here the truth - heavyweight fighter never lost one calorie. If he determine the opponent's disposition of forces while have no perceptible form, he can concentrate his forces while the opponent is fragmented.
This concrete championship - some different from tactical point of view, because of another form of competition, but there is no luck factor in it either, as the best always win. And there is only one best at a time.
#9
> but there is no luck factor in it either, as the best always win.
lol.