Unfortunately in all editions of the Olympic games, there are always situations that seem a little dubious in the judges' decisions. It's always very complicated, in competitions where the winner is based on the score of a set of people. Due to human nature, it can sometimes be difficult to achieve impartiality.
Solutions? I think that in these types of competitions, it will always be very difficult to find ways to prevent these types of situations from happening.
Topic: 💰 Summer Tokyo 2020 💰 Discussion and bet thread 💰 Summer Game - page 2. (Read 6140 times)
I remembered and perhaps add to my impressions of the Olympic Games in Tokyo one more observation.
With all due respect to the gymnast from Israel, who received a gold medal for her performance with a gross mistake (she dropped her sports ribbon during her performance). Never have a gold medal been awarded at the olympiads of the past. This was a precedent.
And, of course, the decision of the judges not to award a gold medal to a very worthy and unmistakable performance of a Russian gymnast is completely wrong. The judges clearly and brazenly offended her. This is some kind of dirty game in the referee environment.
With all due respect to the gymnast from Israel, who received a gold medal for her performance with a gross mistake (she dropped her sports ribbon during her performance). Never have a gold medal been awarded at the olympiads of the past. This was a precedent.
And, of course, the decision of the judges not to award a gold medal to a very worthy and unmistakable performance of a Russian gymnast is completely wrong. The judges clearly and brazenly offended her. This is some kind of dirty game in the referee environment.
The judging in this edition of the Olympics was below average. And as you pointed out, Linoy Ashram's performance in rhythmic gymnastics was not up to the mark, and yet she ended up with the gold. But at the same time, the performance from the Russian gymnasts (Dina Averina/Arina Averina) were also not that great. Linoy Ashram was awarded a very high score of 107.800 despite the drop. And in ribbon, she received 23.300 (second highest). How can the judges give such a high score, despite the mistake?
Here to all this, I would also like to emphasize that there should be more transparency with what happened with the Colombian boxer with the Japanese boxer, practically when the complaint was made before the Olympic committee they dismissed it without further ado, and just seeing the fight shows that The Colombian won the fight, so much so that the Japanese boxer had to go out in a wheelchair, what happens is that the prominence of being the owners of the house makes them have more preference, perhaps in boxing they should do something similar to VAR in football, where the coaches have access to each movement to verify the veracity and transparency of the judges, which for me was deficient, of course it is just a suggestion that occurred to me.
I remembered and perhaps add to my impressions of the Olympic Games in Tokyo one more observation.
With all due respect to the gymnast from Israel, who received a gold medal for her performance with a gross mistake (she dropped her sports ribbon during her performance). Never have a gold medal been awarded at the olympiads of the past. This was a precedent.
And, of course, the decision of the judges not to award a gold medal to a very worthy and unmistakable performance of a Russian gymnast is completely wrong. The judges clearly and brazenly offended her. This is some kind of dirty game in the referee environment.
With all due respect to the gymnast from Israel, who received a gold medal for her performance with a gross mistake (she dropped her sports ribbon during her performance). Never have a gold medal been awarded at the olympiads of the past. This was a precedent.
And, of course, the decision of the judges not to award a gold medal to a very worthy and unmistakable performance of a Russian gymnast is completely wrong. The judges clearly and brazenly offended her. This is some kind of dirty game in the referee environment.
The judging in this edition of the Olympics was below average. And as you pointed out, Linoy Ashram's performance in rhythmic gymnastics was not up to the mark, and yet she ended up with the gold. But at the same time, the performance from the Russian gymnasts (Dina Averina/Arina Averina) were also not that great. Linoy Ashram was awarded a very high score of 107.800 despite the drop. And in ribbon, she received 23.300 (second highest). How can the judges give such a high score, despite the mistake?
I remembered and perhaps add to my impressions of the Olympic Games in Tokyo one more observation.
With all due respect to the gymnast from Israel, who received a gold medal for her performance with a gross mistake (she dropped her sports ribbon during her performance). Never have a gold medal been awarded at the olympiads of the past. This was a precedent.
And, of course, the decision of the judges not to award a gold medal to a very worthy and unmistakable performance of a Russian gymnast is completely wrong. The judges clearly and brazenly offended her. This is some kind of dirty game in the referee environment.
With all due respect to the gymnast from Israel, who received a gold medal for her performance with a gross mistake (she dropped her sports ribbon during her performance). Never have a gold medal been awarded at the olympiads of the past. This was a precedent.
And, of course, the decision of the judges not to award a gold medal to a very worthy and unmistakable performance of a Russian gymnast is completely wrong. The judges clearly and brazenly offended her. This is some kind of dirty game in the referee environment.
Yup, that's basically it. In some sports you need more strength, in some more coordination, in some better reflexes - but all of them come down to physicality (either in terms of speed, strength or endurance).
Some Olympics sports are incredibly boring - at least for me (like wrestling, karate, long distance running, shooting etc), I think chess would get more following than some of these so it's not even the case of 'not interesting enough' - let's be honest, a lot of sports on the Olympics are not really eventful.
For me it's the fact that you don't have to be an 'athlete' in a pure sense of the word to be able to compete in chess - and what I'd like to see is pure athletes (physically) on the Games.
I am really interested to see men vs women in chess and the reasoning behind men's superiority there. I'm sure it has nothing to do with physicality, that's for sure.
Different for me. I was impressed with the archery game by China versus India IIRC. I think I want to try that sport if ever this pandemic lock down will be lifted. I saw one mall that offer services for that kind of game near a bowling arena. I am actually excited to try it already. Some Olympics sports are incredibly boring - at least for me (like wrestling, karate, long distance running, shooting etc), I think chess would get more following than some of these so it's not even the case of 'not interesting enough' - let's be honest, a lot of sports on the Olympics are not really eventful.
For me it's the fact that you don't have to be an 'athlete' in a pure sense of the word to be able to compete in chess - and what I'd like to see is pure athletes (physically) on the Games.
I am really interested to see men vs women in chess and the reasoning behind men's superiority there. I'm sure it has nothing to do with physicality, that's for sure.
I think this will depend on people individually. For me, even if it's the first time I watched a game like that I already fell in love with it. Some would love to see their chess idols compete in the Olympics while others might find it unique and play it too. Ending is, it will still pull audience and if its for world peace then just add it.
No, I'm more of a spectator, I don't play chess as it takes a lot of energy.
So, for you, the main sign of sports is the need for hard physical work, right? (I'm just trying to understand your point of view).
By the way, surprisingly enough, women lose to men as easily in chess as, for example, in running or swimming, maybe physical data does matter in chess after all?
So, for you, the main sign of sports is the need for hard physical work, right? (I'm just trying to understand your point of view).
By the way, surprisingly enough, women lose to men as easily in chess as, for example, in running or swimming, maybe physical data does matter in chess after all?
Yup, that's basically it. In some sports you need more strength, in some more coordination, in some better reflexes - but all of them come down to physicality (either in terms of speed, strength or endurance).
Some Olympics sports are incredibly boring - at least for me (like wrestling, karate, long distance running, shooting etc), I think chess would get more following than some of these so it's not even the case of 'not interesting enough' - let's be honest, a lot of sports on the Olympics are not really eventful.
For me it's the fact that you don't have to be an 'athlete' in a pure sense of the word to be able to compete in chess - and what I'd like to see is pure athletes (physically) on the Games.
I am really interested to see men vs women in chess and the reasoning behind men's superiority there. I'm sure it has nothing to do with physicality, that's for sure.
I think the chess issue is really the lack of spectators. It is rare for there to be a significant number of spectators at chess tournaments.
It is very common to have chess tournaments in high school. But usually only this one notices the players or the most direct friends/family of the players.
It is very common to have chess tournaments in high school. But usually only this one notices the players or the most direct friends/family of the players.
Check the number of viewers on the chess-themed YouTube channels. By the way, even on Twitch, chess broadcasts are always close to the top and overtake many legendary games in terms of the number of viewers.
Yes it can even have a good number of viewers online. And at the viewers of events? Have?
(I'm just trying to understand your point of view).
First of all, I want to say that I'm not against the idea of Chess being part of the Olympic games.
In Greece, ancient origin of the Olympic games, they served for the players to surpass others in physical competitions. They at an intellectual level did not need to resort to that type of games. It was on this basis that the modern Olympic games modern.
And it is on this basis that the new modalities have been approved, the physical overcoming of humans in the face of certain tests.
Not questioning the physical aspect of Chess, it is a modality where the intellectual aspect is what counts and not the physical.
This is an old fight of the international chess federation. But they still haven't managed to convince any organizing country to include them in the games. This is because the inclusion or not of new modalities depends on the organizing country. All sports recognized by the IOC can apply to participate in the games, it is then up to the organization to assess this together and approve or not the sport. That's why there are modalities that some years participate and other years don't.
It's funny that San Marino would have done the best according to the statistics. It is then measured every medialle per 100,000 inhabitants. I read that a number of countries have not won a medal at all. Doesn't China always win the most medals at these kinds of games?
I think the chess issue is really the lack of spectators. It is rare for there to be a significant number of spectators at chess tournaments.
It is very common to have chess tournaments in high school. But usually only this one notices the players or the most direct friends/family of the players.
It is very common to have chess tournaments in high school. But usually only this one notices the players or the most direct friends/family of the players.
Check the number of viewers on the chess-themed YouTube channels. By the way, even on Twitch, chess broadcasts are always close to the top and overtake many legendary games in terms of the number of viewers.
You must be a chess player yourself, right? 
I do not mean to disrespect chess - wasn't my intention at all. I tried using sarcasm to show that chess doesn't require any physical attributes to play.
I played a bit, was really bad though, didn't like it enough to dedicate more time to it - but I do know how to play it and that fast-paced games require a lot of mental stamina. Still - allow me to quote myself again here - Olympic sport for me comes down to this:
Chess is a mental game. It's not a sport because it requires no physical preparation. A 10-year old can become a grandmaster, so can a 70-year old. Women can play at an equal level to men, and should - because there's no physical barrier between them that puts men at an advantage - like in running, jumping, swimming.
By saying chess isn't a sport I'm not trying to bash chess. It is simply different - and there's nothing wrong with that.
I do not mean to disrespect chess - wasn't my intention at all. I tried using sarcasm to show that chess doesn't require any physical attributes to play.
I played a bit, was really bad though, didn't like it enough to dedicate more time to it - but I do know how to play it and that fast-paced games require a lot of mental stamina. Still - allow me to quote myself again here - Olympic sport for me comes down to this:
Professional sport requires physical endurance and mastery unimaginable to ordinary humans
Chess is a mental game. It's not a sport because it requires no physical preparation. A 10-year old can become a grandmaster, so can a 70-year old. Women can play at an equal level to men, and should - because there's no physical barrier between them that puts men at an advantage - like in running, jumping, swimming.
By saying chess isn't a sport I'm not trying to bash chess. It is simply different - and there's nothing wrong with that.
No, I'm more of a spectator, I don't play chess as it takes a lot of energy.
So, for you, the main sign of sports is the need for hard physical work, right? (I'm just trying to understand your point of view).
By the way, surprisingly enough, women lose to men as easily in chess as, for example, in running or swimming, maybe physical data does matter in chess after all?
In all honesty, I'd hate to see chess be part of the Olympic tournament. Chess is more a game than a sport, if we allow chess, what's next? Poker? It is also popular and has a lot of big tournaments but of course it can never be an Olympic sport, so why would chess be one?
Because most of countries accept chess, while poker many countries ban it and illegal. Another thing is poker isn't 100% skills, you need a luck to get the highest combination. Even you already senior of poker, your opponent is very lucky to get royal flush you'll lost. But I heard some rumors said poker may become an Olympic sport, hope it will in the future. Sport has 2 definiton : physical exercise and competitive, at least even chess doesn't have physical interaction, but it's competitive to play.
It's true old people can become a grandmaster on chess, but don't forget it need a lot practice and strategy, not just knowing the basic thing how to move the pawn etc.
If in this topic there is a discussion of the olimpic games themselves and not of chess tournaments, then I will share my impressions of these competitions.
First of all, competitions without spectators, it's sad and boring, but of course it's a damn pandemic ...
I also remember the unsuccessful performance of Simona Biles.
Also the first transgender athlete who lost to the weightlifting champions in weightlifting.
I was also surprised by the number of LGBT athletes who openly declared their orientation.
Well, that's probably all the main thing that I remember about these Olympic Games.
And I must say all this is not particularly pleasant to me.
First of all, competitions without spectators, it's sad and boring, but of course it's a damn pandemic ...
I also remember the unsuccessful performance of Simona Biles.
Also the first transgender athlete who lost to the weightlifting champions in weightlifting.
I was also surprised by the number of LGBT athletes who openly declared their orientation.
Well, that's probably all the main thing that I remember about these Olympic Games.
And I must say all this is not particularly pleasant to me.
What's the connection of chess being lacking spectators? Is that even a criteria?
Chess is really not meant for having a large audience to prevent the distraction of the players. I like chess and already participated in an event way back several years. Our country does have lots of good chess players. They are playing in a silent venue so don't expect a lot of spectators there.
Chess is really not meant for having a large audience to prevent the distraction of the players. I like chess and already participated in an event way back several years. Our country does have lots of good chess players. They are playing in a silent venue so don't expect a lot of spectators there.
I don't mean that this is why the IOC doesn't include this in the games. I just wanted to say that chess is not a popular game, and that it attracts little attention.
Then there are sports that are somehow popular in the country, but that doesn't mean they are in other countries.
There are sports much more popular than surfing for example and they are not Olympic games. But this is often the fault of the people who are in charge of the organizations of these games, who, for not knowing how to organize themselves, cannot do a correct job to make these sports Olympic.
@joker_jouse in my personal opinion it’s way to boring to watch player’s play chess, because they need to think a lot while they make a move and that waiting period is very difficult for me to watch.
Furthermore I have never really met people who say they’re a chess fan, and honestly it’s one sport we rarely see discuss here too so unless demand for it grows I doubt we’ll see Chess in the Olympics.
What's the connection of chess being lacking spectators? Is that even a criteria?
Chess is really not meant for having a large audience to prevent the distraction of the players. I like chess and already participated in an event way back several years. Our country does have lots of good chess players. They are playing in a silent venue so don't expect a lot of spectators there.
Chess is really not meant for having a large audience to prevent the distraction of the players. I like chess and already participated in an event way back several years. Our country does have lots of good chess players. They are playing in a silent venue so don't expect a lot of spectators there.
I don't mean that this is why the IOC doesn't include this in the games. I just wanted to say that chess is not a popular game, and that it attracts little attention.
Then there are sports that are somehow popular in the country, but that doesn't mean they are in other countries.
There are sports much more popular than surfing for example and they are not Olympic games. But this is often the fault of the people who are in charge of the organizations of these games, who, for not knowing how to organize themselves, cannot do a correct job to make these sports Olympic.
Lol what ?! Have you heard about chess from stories a century ago? Chess, like any other competitive sport, is a matter for young people - no smartest and strongest master (even such a legendary one as Garry Kasparov) can fight against age-related changes and fight young chess players. While boxers become champions in boxing at the age of 40 and later in chess this is a long passed stage, the competition is growing all the time and it becomes more and more difficult to be at the top in adulthood.
Top 10 chess players:
1 Carlsen, Magnus 1990
2 Caruana, Fabiano 1992
3 Ding, Liren 1992
4 Nepomniachtchi, Ian 1990
5 Aronian, Levon 1982
6 Mamedyarov, Shakhriyar 1985
7 Grischuk, Alexander 1983
8 Giri, Anish 1994
9 So, Wesley 1993
10 Radjabov, Teimour 1987
https://ratings.fide.com/
It seems that the average age of top chess players is much younger than the average age of top boxers
Top 10 chess players:
1 Carlsen, Magnus 1990
2 Caruana, Fabiano 1992
3 Ding, Liren 1992
4 Nepomniachtchi, Ian 1990
5 Aronian, Levon 1982
6 Mamedyarov, Shakhriyar 1985
7 Grischuk, Alexander 1983
8 Giri, Anish 1994
9 So, Wesley 1993
10 Radjabov, Teimour 1987
https://ratings.fide.com/
It seems that the average age of top chess players is much younger than the average age of top boxers
You must be a chess player yourself, right?
I do not mean to disrespect chess - wasn't my intention at all. I tried using sarcasm to show that chess doesn't require any physical attributes to play.
I played a bit, was really bad though, didn't like it enough to dedicate more time to it - but I do know how to play it and that fast-paced games require a lot of mental stamina. Still - allow me to quote myself again here - Olympic sport for me comes down to this:
Professional sport requires physical endurance and mastery unimaginable to ordinary humans
Chess is a mental game. It's not a sport because it requires no physical preparation. A 10-year old can become a grandmaster, so can a 70-year old. Women can play at an equal level to men, and should - because there's no physical barrier between them that puts men at an advantage - like in running, jumping, swimming.
By saying chess isn't a sport I'm not trying to bash chess. It is simply different - and there's nothing wrong with that.
How do you able to construct that statement where you didn't know in the first how or what chess is all about. 
Sometimes self-opinion doesn't count if lacking support to their claims.
Sometimes self-opinion doesn't count if lacking support to their claims.
I was making a joke. Or well, trying to.
I think the chess issue is really the lack of spectators. It is rare for there to be a significant number of spectators at chess tournaments.
It is very common to have chess tournaments in high school.
It is very common to have chess tournaments in high school.
What's the connection of chess being lacking spectators? Is that even a criteria?
Chess is really not meant for having a large audience to prevent the distraction of the players. I like chess and already participated in an event way back several years. Our country does have lots of good chess players. They are playing in a silent venue so don't expect a lot of spectators there.
Your chess guy went to the gym to get laid, not to practice sitting.
How do you able to construct that statement where you didn't know in the first how or what chess is all about.
Sometimes self-opinion doesn't count if lacking support to their claims.
I think the chess issue is really the lack of spectators. It is rare for there to be a significant number of spectators at chess tournaments.
It is very common to have chess tournaments in high school. But usually only this one notices the players or the most direct friends/family of the players.
It is very common to have chess tournaments in high school. But usually only this one notices the players or the most direct friends/family of the players.
True. Chess is not a spectator sport. Among my friends, I haven't noticed anyone watching live chess matches. It is a nice time pass as long as you are participating in it, but as a spectator chess is not very exciting. And the IOC is considering to drop some of the most populous sports such as wrestling and boxing to make way for these new set of disciplines. If the IOC want to make Olympics more popular, then they should include regional sports such as Sepak takraw, Cricket, Polo, Bandy, Muaythai, Netball, Sumo, Kabaddi, Wushu and Lacrosse.
I think the chess issue is really the lack of spectators. It is rare for there to be a significant number of spectators at chess tournaments.
It is very common to have chess tournaments in high school. But usually only this one notices the players or the most direct friends/family of the players.
It is very common to have chess tournaments in high school. But usually only this one notices the players or the most direct friends/family of the players.
What do you mean by game and sport? In most cases, a game can be a sport, and why is the game of football represented at the Olympics, but not chess? Or table tennis?
If you think that chess requires little physical effort, then you are mistaken, in my youth I knew a man who is now an international grandmaster and he regularly visited the gym because he said that otherwise it would be impossible to spend 7-8 hours a day at the chessboard.
the funny thing is, chess has been recognized by the International Olympic Committee as a sport for a long time. but reading around it seems that the International Olympic Committee still sees a lack of athletism when the sport/game is being played. that being said there is a tournament called Chess Olympiad where countries around the world send chess players to compete which I think is good but a little disappointed that it is not widely known, unlike other sporting events. If you think that chess requires little physical effort, then you are mistaken, in my youth I knew a man who is now an international grandmaster and he regularly visited the gym because he said that otherwise it would be impossible to spend 7-8 hours a day at the chessboard.
What do you mean by game and sport? In most cases, a game can be a sport, and why is the game of football represented at the Olympics, but not chess? Or table tennis?
If you think that chess requires little physical effort, then you are mistaken, in my youth I knew a man who is now an international grandmaster and he regularly visited the gym because he said that otherwise it would be impossible to spend 7-8 hours a day at the chessboard.
If you think that chess requires little physical effort, then you are mistaken, in my youth I knew a man who is now an international grandmaster and he regularly visited the gym because he said that otherwise it would be impossible to spend 7-8 hours a day at the chessboard.
The difference is so clear that I really do not think I need to explain it - but ok, let's try. If you ask your chess grandmasters to climb to the podium, 7 out of 10 would need their walking sticks to do that.
I really don't disrespect chess with this, but an overweight 70-year old grandpa can be a grandmaster. Fair play to him, amazing success, but sitting on a chair and thinking isn't really sport. It's the same as playing poker (or any other card game), GO or doing scrabble. Professional sport requires physical endurance and mastery unimaginable to ordinary humans, saying that a guy goes to the gym so he can sit on a chair is.. well.. really insulting to professional athletes.
Your chess guy went to the gym to get laid, not to practice sitting.
Lol what ?! Have you heard about chess from stories a century ago? Chess, like any other competitive sport, is a matter for young people - no smartest and strongest master (even such a legendary one as Garry Kasparov) can fight against age-related changes and fight young chess players. While boxers become champions in boxing at the age of 40 and later in chess this is a long passed stage, the competition is growing all the time and it becomes more and more difficult to be at the top in adulthood.
Top 10 chess players:
1 Carlsen, Magnus 1990
2 Caruana, Fabiano 1992
3 Ding, Liren 1992
4 Nepomniachtchi, Ian 1990
5 Aronian, Levon 1982
6 Mamedyarov, Shakhriyar 1985
7 Grischuk, Alexander 1983
8 Giri, Anish 1994
9 So, Wesley 1993
10 Radjabov, Teimour 1987
https://ratings.fide.com/
It seems that the average age of top chess players is much younger than the average age of top boxers
What do you mean by game and sport? In most cases, a game can be a sport, and why is the game of football represented at the Olympics, but not chess? Or table tennis?
If you think that chess requires little physical effort, then you are mistaken, in my youth I knew a man who is now an international grandmaster and he regularly visited the gym because he said that otherwise it would be impossible to spend 7-8 hours a day at the chessboard.
If you think that chess requires little physical effort, then you are mistaken, in my youth I knew a man who is now an international grandmaster and he regularly visited the gym because he said that otherwise it would be impossible to spend 7-8 hours a day at the chessboard.
The difference is so clear that I really do not think I need to explain it - but ok, let's try. If you ask your chess grandmasters to climb to the podium, 7 out of 10 would need their walking sticks to do that.
I really don't disrespect chess with this, but an overweight 70-year old grandpa can be a grandmaster. Fair play to him, amazing success, but sitting on a chair and thinking isn't really sport. It's the same as playing poker (or any other card game), GO or doing scrabble. Professional sport requires physical endurance and mastery unimaginable to ordinary humans, saying that a guy goes to the gym so he can sit on a chair is.. well.. really insulting to professional athletes.
Your chess guy went to the gym to get laid, not to practice sitting.
Jump to: