Do you know anything about Capablanca?

He didn't train hard even by the standards of his own contemporaries...

For the scoring system, the axiom wich could be associated with the "the sum of the angles of a triangle = 180°" axiom is "1 win + 1 loss = 2 draws".

It can also be seen as the scoring system version of dx²+d y² = dy²

So the 1-1/2-0 is our euclidian system, notice that they both came as the most natural and was seen as the only valuable.

The elliptic one would be the scoring wich use the "1 win + 1 loss > 2 draws" axiom as for example, 3-2-0 system (you love solidity, and any lost is seen as a shameful failure).

And the hyperbolic one would be the one wich use the "2 draws > 1 win + 1 loss" (our "beloved" 3-1-0 ;-)).

But there is a point wich i would be more serious:

I don't think it's relevant to say "the 3-1-0 system is bad because with this system, +4;=1;-5 is better than +1;=9".

In fact, "1 win + 1 loss > 2 draws" and "+4;=1;-5 is better than +1;=9" are "equivalent" (the number of losses allowed has to be define).

It's just like saying "this geometry sucks because the pythagorean theorem does not hold in it!".

So i think that the only debate is wether the "1 win + 1 loss > 2 draws" axiom is better than the "1 win + 1 loss > 2 draws" one or than the "1 win + 1 loss = 2 draws".

1. The standings kind of look the same as they would have been if the traditional scoring system was used.>

True, as of now. However, it could be different, and if we continue these tournamnets, inevitably we will get a tournament wherein the 3 - 1 - 0 scoring will yield a standing different than the traditional one.

If the 3 - 1 - 0 scoring is used to determine the apportioning of prize money in traditional scoring system context, then I have no objection.

<2. Ivanchuk gets in to time trouble in every game and plays some of the best chess here. Just goes to show that there are more important things to be considered here, such as consistency, form, preparation etc...>

Right again. However, it's not true with all players. We have already seen Anand playing weakly around move 40 and after.

What I mean is that in general, with the given time control and no increment after move 40, players would tend to commit more errors around move 40 and after.

Game Collection: Vienna 1882

Game Collection: Linares 1993

Game Collection: WCC Index [Zurich 1953] Game Collection: Karlsbad 1929

Game Collection: San Sebastian 1911

Game Collection: Las Palmas 1996

Also

Game Collection: St. Petersburg 1895-96

Game Collection: St Petersburg 1914

Nice joke. Women were Capa's weakness. Capa was also women's weakness. He was like the Rudolf Valentino of chess. My uncle who was a a child in the 30s still remembers stories about Capa, and this chess genius was also monstrously handsome and attractive. When he walked into a roomful of people, everyone would soon be looking at him, even not knowing him. Ladies would swoon over him and flocked to see him playing in tournaments.

I have stated this belief already. Capablanca in 1919 was playing nearly errorless chess (except for one gross oversight, in a game he still won). He won all of his classical games except for one. He had not yet tasted what it felt like to be World Champion and was hungrily trying to win every game he ever played to prove to the world he deserved a Title shot. This 1919 Capa updated in opening theory IMO would have beaten just about anybody in a match, with the possible exception of the 1971 version of Fischer.

I think this was actually money odds: you win $5, I win $1. Nowhere did he specifically mention time odds.>

Thanks for the correction. In any case, Capa all throughout his career was the only player who ALWAYS won all blitz and rapid competitions he entered. Blitz is blitz, but if you play a thousand blitz games, and still win most of them convincingly, the statistics of such s feat would show that you are indeed a very strong chess player. Did Capa ever lose a single blitz game in his life anyway?

Moreover, in blitz opening prep practically becomes useless. The players play largely according to their natural abilities. Even a Capa who was not updated in opening theory but instantaneously saw most possibilities even in complex middlegames and could spot a winning maneuver in almost any endgame where one existed would probably smash everyone in a blitz tournament today.