Resolves yes if Hans places third or better at the end of the tournament.
Resolves no if he gets disqualified before the end of the tournament or places below the top 3.
Resolves N/A if the tournament doesn't finish.
If there's a tie in the final round he's treated as though he's the highest placement, this market doesn't bother with tiebreakers it simply gives the benefit of the doubt.
Hans wins market for true believers
Results used for resolution will be the standings as they're shown in the official recaps:
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Trader | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ379 | |
| 2 | Ṁ313 | |
| 3 | Ṁ262 | |
| 4 | Ṁ213 | |
| 5 | Ṁ161 |
People are also trading
@GregoryGandy Just to be clear, TIED for 3rd is enough for this to resolve Yes. So a win over Dominguez and any result that leaves just one of So or Mishra at 6.0 or lower would resolve Yes.
@GregoryGandy From description:
If there's a tie in the final round he's treated as though he's the highest placement, this market doesn't bother with tiebreakers it simply gives the benefit of the doubt.
Eliza is right.
@Eliza Thanks for the info.
If there's a tie in the final round he's treated as though he's the highest placement, this market doesn't bother with tiebreakers it simply gives the benefit of the doubt.
That's what I meant by "top 3 without tiebreakers". I should have said "top 3 without bothering with tiebreakers" to be more clear.
YES is not impossible but So unlikely. Niemann probably needs at least 1.5 points in the last two rounds to have a chance of finishing in the top 3 since he is 1 point behind the three players tied for second. His two opponents, So and Dominguez Perez, have the 2nd and 3rd highest US FIDE ratings after Caruana of the participants in this tournament. So almost never loses (see graph below). Dominguez Perez has the white pieces against Niemann. My prediction is that Niemann gets 0.5 or 1 more points from the last two rounds given the strength of these players.
Niemann's point performance looked impressive (up until his loss to Ray Robson) if you ignored that he still had to play the three strongest players in the last three rounds.
@GregoryGandy Thank you for the detailed comment! This is along the lines of the reason I bought No when the market was at around 70%. Having the hardest three opponents last was going to be tough no matter what.
@Eliza Brutal. This almost resolves the Niemann win market too since Niemann lost the direct encounter and he mathematically can’t catch up even if he wins both and Fabi loses both.
Only way that market resolves yes is if another player is in the tiebreak for first and an Armageddon playoff ensues, which would be funny. I’m not quite sure how that happens though since a lot of the key players need to play against each other, it may already be impossible.
Guess we’ll find out after Hans v So if I have a hope of getting my mana back here!
@c0m If you are interested in hedging a little bit, I would create a limit order to sell you 100 shares of No at the current market price.
@Eliza I’m ride or die, even if the market seems to slightly overvalue Hans’ chances currently. But thanks for the offer.
@c0m I think there is actually still a way for a 5 way tie for first:
Caruana loses both games (puts So and Mishra at 6.5)
So loses to Neimann (Niemann to 5.5)
Dominguez Perez loses to Niemann (Niemann to 6.5) and beats Robson (Dominguez Perez to 6.5)
Mishra loses to Aronian
I think that puts everyone who can possibly still reach 6.5 at 6.5, but I have no idea from reading the rules if they try to do tiebreaks via opponent record first or if they skip straight to games for first place ties.
He's currently in a 4-way tie for 2nd with 3 matches to go. All three remaining opponents have a higher rating than him and are also equal or higher on points in the current ranking. He'll probably need to get one win to secure a top-3. A loss will be dire.
I believe his chances of finishing in the top 3 are around 65 to 75%. This considering his performance in similar competitions, his current form and the competitor's strength. Furthermore, his type of rapid play is well-suited for the US Championship. Lastly, when doing some analysis on his ACPL and STPCPL we can conclude that he is a better player than his ranking shows.
Market for true believers
https://manifold.markets/c0m/will-hans-niemann-win-the-us-chess?r=YzBt
@DanielTilkin The event itself has rules:
The following tie-breaks will be used if needed to break any other tie: 1. Direct Encounter, 2. Most Blacks, 3. Koya System, 4. Sonneborn Berger, 5. Won Games. An Armageddon Game is defined as follows: White shall start with 5 minutes and black shall start with 4 minutes, with a 2-second increment from move 61. Black shall be declared the winner if the game ends in a draw.
@c0m Hang on nvm this is just for first.
If he’s tied he’ll be treated as the higher rank.
@c0m Yeah, normally in chess ties aren't broken unless there's a reason to. e.g. to determine a champion, or allocation other indivisible prizes (trophies, qualification to another tournament). Cash prizes are just pooled and split.
@c0m Those tiebreakers are NOT for first:
From the official regulations:
> The following tie-breaks will be used for the purposes of the crosstable and any special prizes or trophies: 1. Direct Encounter, 2. Most Blacks, 3. Koya System, 4. Sonneborn Berger, 5. Won Games.
They are for EVERYTHING. Just because players split prize money, does not mean they are 'tied'. They can still get a trophy or other award depending on exactly what position they finish in.
I propose you only abide by the official ranking produced by the event.
@Eliza At this stage there are 20 market participants with most of them starting betting after these comments were made. I even brought further attention to this comment when I updated the description to include it (and you bet after both of these!), and in that time several more yes voters entered. They may have gotten in to positions based on this information and it seems unfair to change those rules retroactively. I also waited a day after I made this comment for objections to the rule before I started participating in the market more.
>for the purposes of the crosstable and any special prizes or trophies
This phrasing doesn’t imply that the results are the results as they are after these are applied. I think it’s pretty clear: for the purposes of the crosstable i.e. the crosstable is not THE definitive result (and we’re not betting on crosstable position here). The recap articles (example) do benefit of the doubt based on points. They also show that the prize money is split along these lines with no TB as the other commenter said (example). This is the official ranking produced by the event, and I’ve explained what would happen for the situation where Hans is tied for third as it applies to this market clearly set out before you started betting.
I believe I am abiding by the official ranking produced by the event with clear tiebreaker criteria set out by me.
@c0m Fine, you can run it that way if you insist. I need to share my perspective on your comment, though:
> (and you bet after both of these!)
I read the description before I bet and it did not include anything about a tiebreaker. You added that 8 hours after I bet No. When I found the market it was quite clear, you linked to an external website for results "Results here" and that website does NOT 'share' ties. It tends to show an ordering without ties. It seemed quite clear to me that you were using that as the authoritative source for the results.
You can't expect every participant to read the entire comment thread. If you are going to put important info in the comments, make a note of it. If that important info contradicts the sources you already list for results.....then you should find a different source for your results that matches.
Linking to the source you will use for the results is great, but doing it in a misleading way is not great.
> At this stage there are 20 market participants with most of them starting betting after these comments were made.
Only 4 participants made their first bet after you updated the description. The rest started before.
> I bet while reading the description and it did not include anything about a tiebreaker. You added that 8 hours after I bet No.
The information was in the comments, which is clearer for resolution criteria than most questions. You also bet 12 hours after the description was updated and should have got a notification.
>> At this stage there are 20 market participants with most of them starting betting after these comments were made.
> Only 4 participants made their first bet after you updated the description. The rest started before
These don’t contradict each other. The information was out there in the comments plain to see.
I wanted to update the description since I realised later on that it might have been prudent.
You are totally right about the results page though. I think I should commit to this though.
Sorry about this, I’ll run better questions in future since more chess markets would be fun.
@c0m
> You also bet 12 hours after the description was updated and should have got a notification.
Yeah, that's what got me to come back and comment, but *I still bet more No* even though I didn't necessarily agree with the way you were doing it.
> Sorry about this, I’ll run better questions in future since more chess markets would be fun.
You're doing fine!
The information was out there in the comments plain to see.
The main part that tripped me up was the description seemed pretty unambiguous -- when you link to a source in the description, that is usually the resolution source. I knew instantly that this site does not share ties in the ranking so I didn't need to look for clarifications below. Whether everyone else was smarter than me and read the comments, I can't say.
I wanted to update the description since I realised later on that it might have been prudent.
Yes, this is good!
You are totally right about the results page
Change the link to a different source or have no link and describe where people could find the results in the way you want to see them (like the official website, etc.).
@c0m I'm still laughing about the criteria for if he gets disqualified. Keep making markets!